I'm consistently surprised by HN's lack of vision in this area. The idea of a Network State / Internet-native economy is a cyberpunk dream, and crypto enables that. The constant doubt, rejection, and preference for SV-startup solutions is the opposite of what I would expect from a "Hacker Community" but I suppose HN is literally full of VCs (particularly FinTech) that don't want the competition from open crypto solutions.
Meanwhile, devs in crypto are able to build without limits and are having an absolute blast larping as anime cats on Twitter while cranking on bleeding edge ZK tech and other exciting projects.
> I'm consistently surprised by HN's lack of vision in this area. The idea of a Network State / Internet-native economy is a cyberpunk dream, and crypto enables that.
> Cyberpunk is a subgenre of science fiction in a dystopian futuristic setting that tends to focus on a "combination of lowlife and high tech",[1] featuring futuristic technological and scientific achievements, such as artificial intelligence and cybernetics, juxtaposed with societal collapse or decay.
It's the kind of world that's better to look at than actually inhabit.
"our community" is one that wouldn't know how to get to the bowling lanes if Uber went down. Hell, half of us probably wouldn't know how to get work done if Slack or Github has an afternoon outage. There's not a person on this site that would last in a cyberpunk distopia, putting the average HN user in the middle of an unmoderated forum would be like the end of Logan's Run. We'd all be standing around, stupefied by a world we don't understand.
I'm being facetious, but it's true. The average person is a weenie, and we rely on a great deal of well-maintained, centralized infrastructure to keep us going. There's a reason why people here fight to keep Fortnite off their iPhone and tries to bite the hand of anyone peddling crypto: deep down, we're all scared! We need corporations to coddle and exploit us, just like they need our money. HN, and the world at large, wouldn't want crypto even if it was "the right thing" to do.
Not exactly. Lightning means they receiver gets 100% what I send. This is particularly interesting for micropayments. I can tip someone 1 cent, or less with no middle man.
What's the incentive for anybody to open a lightning channel, providing connetivity etc. without compensation?
And even if all of this was indeed done for free (sustainably, not as a loss leader): Dispute resolution and fraud costs money. Free leaves zero margin for either, and I wouldn't use a payment service not providing both.
The parent here is exaggerating. It's not free, just very very very cheap. Nodes with channels can set fees and get paid when they a transaction is routed through them.
There is work being done on non-custodial escrow services for LN. Here's one: https://lightningescrow.io
What prevents a node connecting many consumer wallets from raising rates for "out-of-network" wallets, especially smaller ones, or independent nodes?
Think of any network: Economic forces usually drive it towards centralization if not outright monopolization, especially if interfacing with end users (e.g. banks, electricity providers, ISPs, messengers...) unless there are (effective) laws in place prohibiting it.
> There is work being done on non-custodial escrow services for LN.
I'm very curious about efforts like that. Dispute resolution is extremely difficult to do in a way that is cost-effective, yet fair enough to not drive away either buyers or sellers.
Not sure what you mean by your question. Payers choose the channel they want to send the payment over. If somebody sets a large fee, the payers will simply choose a different channel.
By that logic, if customers would see how large interchange fees can be, they would choose different payment methods than the most expensive credit cards.
The opposite is the case: Merchants almost always prefer not losing the purchase over a few bips saved on interchange and cardholders continue using their high-fee cards because issuers pay them kickbacks from that interchange in the form of rewards.
The exact same thing could happen with a dominant Lightning wallet provider (supporting channels only to their own nodes in exchange for a better user experience, incentives etc.) and merchants accepting Lightning.
Monopolization almost seems impossible to prevent at a technical level in networks due to the network effect (quadratic utility) and customers being relatively slow to change providers and easy to sway with one-time incentives. Credit cards have just had a few decades of a headstart over Lightning in that regard.
The difference between Lightning channels and credit cards, is it's much harder to create a competing credit card company than it is to spin up a new Lightning channel. And it's also more difficult for customers to get new credit cards vs switch payment channels. So, if a bank or credit card company wanted to extort certain merchants, eg saying "pay me a big fee or I will reject all payments to you", they can do so, since they know many customers are tied to their card and the merchant risks losing those customers. On the other hand if some lightning channel tried to extort merchants, both the merchant and the customer can easily switch channels to dodge fees.
This is one of the main goals of crypto. By drastically lowering the barrier to entry, competition is higher and fees are lower. This is what filecoin is doing to AWS [1], what NFT tickets are doing to Ticketmaster [2], and what Lightning is doing to credit card companies.
> As long you have some channels open and I have some channels open, the network will route my payment to you.
Just like the internet. And just like on the internet, extortion by incumbents along that route can happen, and likely will once there is an encumbent Lightning wallet provider that is too large to ignore for merchants. (All assuming Lightning or something like it is successful in the first place, of course.)
> As sender, I am responsible for any potential routing fees. You as the payee are not.
In a typical online payment scenario, the customer is the sender. Of course large wallets could strike deals with merchants to let them cover fees for their users to make this less apparent...
> If we were to transact with each other often, it could be worth opening a dedicated channel to enhance privacy and avoid routing fees.
Sure – just like you could open a tab at your favorite bar, or you could get a store credit card at your favorite retailer.
> Just like the internet. And just like on the internet, extortion by incumbents along that route can happen, and likely will once there is an encumbent Lightning wallet provider that is too large to ignore for merchants. (All assuming Lightning or something like it is successful in the first place, of course.)
This is plausible. Lightning Wallets are harder to run in a self custodial way rather than classic Bitcoin on-chain transaction.
> In a typical online payment scenario, the customer is the sender. Of course large wallets could strike deals with merchants to let them cover fees for their users to make this less apparent...
Wallet providers could turn in payment processors as well for merchants.
> Sure – just like you could open a tab at your favorite bar, or you could get a store credit card at your favorite retailer.
Not familiar with this concept, I know that it exists. Though the cost of establishing that system is mountains more than establishing a channel to your favourite bar. But it is a micro optimisation.
