I said like PoS, definitely not PoS indeed.

The mining algo will remain a PoW algo for sure, but the way the architecture is displayed for a LN, there would be a utility function for users within the system to act as ''liquidity providers'' and earn a fee this way. Now, as you can see, this starts to resemble the same economical realities as a PoS system. If you provide a lot of liquidity (ie Bitcoin) you can earn fees by allowing users to hop through your channel using your Bitcoin.

Now as you can see, it would be profitable to be the largest one of these hubs as soon as possible, since there is very strong network effect (easier and fastest to reach people in the largest network) and first mover advantage (most retailers users will start using you and will not stop using you without a good reason to do so).

This naturally leads to my question: why not make a fund, supported by and funded by the community to provide this liquidity and earn the fees. This would be better than some whales earning all of the fees because they have the most liquidity in my opinion but that is just my personal opinion. There is no practical difference for the user.

Kind regards and thanks for reading and commenting :-)

There may be characteristics like PoS but the Lightning Network is not PoS. If you want a closer comparison with PoS, try analyzing how the masternodes function. Its really becoming more and more popular now with some cryptocurrencies starting to adopt it as a marketing tool.

I do not want to sound like the newbie I am, but have you read what I meant with the PoS comment? I just put it in the title because anything that doesn't immediatly trigger people to comment is gone in about 10 minutes. The formula ''like X in certain aspects'' exists in this world.

Call it a liquidity rewards principle, call it a hubfee, call it floogacooga for all I care the point is that large BTC whales will be able to provide the best, most well connected and most liquid hubs.

@krishnapramod, I get that you would say that BTC whales deserve to be the ones to receive benefits from the system (I think your other argument of everyone being able to run a LN is really quite naive. You are able to run a search engine, think people are going to use you over Google?). However, it at least begs SOME discussion on why no one sees these economic realities as a problem in the cryptosphere. The only criticism that is allowed is about technical aspects. What about the economy? What about the rest of reality? I am seeing a lot of echo chamber behaviour in the cryptosphere and it's making me really cynical about the prospects of this whole ecosystem.

Thanks for reading.

No need to. Your analogy is correct. LN will allow a "PoS staking alike" of sorts. It will be a cool way to get your BTC to work for you, so yes, I can see whales making a decent amount by using their funds to stablish hubs. Im not sure how it exactly works, but even Andreas used the PoS analogy to refer to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOYP4O4yetQ

And I recommend this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF_ZQ_eijPs

For a speedy PoS we need blockchain NG feature.
We will started to test Blockchain NG with waves in few weeks. Then get ready for PoS services

Thanks for your reply!

I was not really talking from a purely monetary economical standpoint, but just for myself to put things to paper as well:

My problem was with the power this gives to probably a couple of LNs that might not have the bitcoin networks best interest at heart. We could build a LN with a limited buy in per person, no whales and try to go for as many people as possible. We could go for the many, many holders of a couple of coins max. But my main point for this would be that we would settle against the blockchain. Even though this is the moment when you pay the mainchain fees, I think it is required to keep miners motivated and the whole ecosystem converging. If a group of powerfull people try to maximise their profit in a LN and have no other interest in mind, it just sounds like an elaborate way to get rid of bitcoin altogether. My explanation and thinking are probably equally flawed and I feel comforted by the fact that there are at least many more coins, many more experiments :-)

Thanks for reading