Not yet out of beta, hundreds of developers around the world are already experimenting with Bitcoin‘s newest technology – the Lightning Network – donating time and resources to help lay the groundwork for a more scalable version of the oldest and largest cryptocurrency yet created.
So great has been the effort that there are now more than 1,000 lightning nodes estimated to be running the software on live computers, largely at a loss, but motivated by the greater gain of making the Bitcoin network more accessible and affordable. Still, with the network entering its bootstrapping phase, some are beginning to question when the economics of scale may begin to bring new pressures.
As the Bitcoin community saw with the rise of cryptocurrency mining, in which at-home mining via PCs was quickly outpaced by industrial operations, profits attract corporate interests. And experts admit, it’s entirely possible that companies could make money by offering easy access to quick cryptocurrency payments.
“If an entity is going to put a lot of value into payment channels and operate the node for generating profit,” BitGo engineer Jameson Lopp said. “Then it’s probably going to be similar to mining.”
Lopp’s argument is that all networks, no matter how grassroots at the start, eventually give way to specialists who are simply better at offering a more reliable services at a more affordable cost. In the case of Lightning, almost anyone with the technical skills and a little cryptocurrency can run Lightning channels, but offering a service in the future might be different.
For example, users of the network might not always be able to rely on the availability of others they’re sending money to, meaning intermediaries could emerge that offer services with better liquidity and payment routing.
“The [Lightning Network] will effectively centralize Bitcoin with ‘channels’ and ‘hubs’ on the sidechains. These hubs will essentially function as banks,” a Twitter user going under the handle @marcotweetss said.
In many critics’ minds, institutions might offer so many of the biggest payment channels that they would essentially coalesce into “hubs.” That’s what Forbes and CoinDesk contributor Frances Coppola pointed out when she tweeted: “Lightning nodes are full-reserve banks, and the network is essentially a correspondent banking scheme.”
Beyond rogue volunteers, there’s also the involvement of companies such as Blockstream, ACINQ, and Lightning Labs, which have done a lot of the heavy-lifting related to the open-source Lightning Network software, and who, in the minds of critics, might be apt to play these roles.
These companies currently offer their services for free, even though they are venture-backed – Lightning Labs recently secured $2.5 million and Blockstream has raised $80 million so far – and as such, it’s believed they’ll eventually need to find a way to generate profits.
This business opportunity worries some cryptocurrency enthusiasts. After all, Silicon Valley startups from Facebook to Twitter have long perfected the model of getting users hooked on a free service, only to later embrace practices at scale that may not have the best interests of users in mind.
Yet, there are several reasons that, for the time being, there’s little need to worry.
For one, cheap access is emerging as a crucial difference between Bitcoin‘s blockchain and the Lightning Network.
In this way, MIT researcher Thaddeus Dryja, co-author of the original Lightning Network white paper and the former CTO of Lightning Labs, believes the network will avoid corporate centralization overall because of its design, which doesn’t require expensive or specialized hardware.
According to Dryja, users will be able to freely abandon institutional players that try to exert too much influence over individuals.
“Let’s say everyone is using Amazon, for example, and Amazon says we’ll also route payments between users,” Dryja said. “If that node starts doing things people don’t like, it’s very cheap to close it. They never have your money.”
Along those lines, Lightning app developer Elaine Ou, argues that the barrier to entry for providing the default software is low, meaning should one company embrace poor practices, alternatives could quickly arise.
“There are two other Lightning implementations in use already, so I’m not too worried about centralization. The specs are open and updated through an open process,” she said.
None of this is to say the Lightning Network is infallibly egalitarian. The system still favors players with technical and financial resources, since channels need to have money in order to facilitate transactions. Parties with a large amount of capital could offer network nodes with more liquidity.
Dryja told CoinDesk that institutional players will probably factor into this growing network, saying:
“Having more large nodes is more efficient. I think it will be exchanges becoming the dominant players, at…