/biz/ - Business & Finance

Lightning network whitepaper says it will need 133mb blocks
The core dilema
>increase the blocksize to allow lightning to work
>remove any reason to us it

>>10657129
so is this bullish or bearish

>>10657138
That's what I've been trying to explain to everyone for the past year, it's all BS.

>>10657140
It means that last year's BTC fork was an unnecessary event and the solution was to simply get rid of LN all along.

>>10657129
>Everyone in the world needs to be able to transact at the same time on x-coin otherwise it's shit that will never receive adoption
>whatisacreditcard com

I agree that LN is trash but this meme needs to die.

>>10657146
The idea that core has any power over bitcoin is manufactured. Bitcoin is proof of work not proof of github
Bch flipping btc is meant to be a hard lesson

You misunderstand their actual plan. It's a pretty devious one but it makes total sense when you think about who is behind AXA which is behind blockstream.

Relying on lightning for BTC to scale will deter adoption of BTC as a blockchain secured currency. Paying first 100-1000USD to send USD to your wallet, then the same amount again to open a payment channel to a big hub that can at some point suddenly deny you service so you have to open another channel.
Third worlders can't afford and won't adopt this. First worlder normies who aren't very well-off won't prioritize this.
They'll end up buying "bitcoin credits" from a LN hub that also acts as a bank, and then we have something like the current system all over again, including fractional reserve, except the rich can semi-opt-out this time.
There's also the risk of governments disallowing hubs to be connected to hubs they don't like and specific wallets/people and demand KYC, which is likely considering current payment processor and banking laws. This can split the network and leave people or countries stranded.
Small blocks + LN is a betrayal of the economic liberty and decentralized security that bitcoin promised to the world. Bitcoin Core has pretty much betrayed humanity. A few of the devs are too stupid to realize it, some of them might be threatened by (((them))), but many of them are scum that know exactly what they're doing and deserve to be killed as the traitors to humanity that they are imo.

Pic related. Hal Finney's vision.

tl;dr: they never intend for people to own their own wallets or set up their own channels in the first place. they never intend for people to have sovereignty over their own "bitcoin"

>>10657189
This Anon actually gets it. I've been trying to point this out for over a year.

>>10657129
Silly cashies. Users won't need to open lightning channels. They'll just open accounts with major LN hubs and transact on those systems without touching the blockchain at all. The hubs will act as trusted and regulated service providers (crypto custodial services, cheap transfers, think Paypal 2.0). The user experience would be so smooth that normies won't even know they're using Bitcoin, it just works unlike Bcash

>>10657189
*Paying first 100-1000USD to send BTC to you wallet. fuck. whatever. you get what I'm trying to say

>>10657129
If you think about it a little bit more, then you'd realize that during those 124 years the chain will be full with those channel opening tx's. This means that in this scenario, no one could close a channel and no one could make a transaction on chain during those 124 years.

>>10657217
>trusting LN hubs

Fucking lmao

>>10657129
>bcashies pretending to be smart

Core has already suggested 2mb soon you absolute fucking tards. And the blocks are not even full right now. BTC will scale to 7 billion people regardless of your stupid conspiracy theories.

>>10657237
They could bid over. Setting higher gas/fee.
>>10657217
This is nice pasta. Al dente.

>>10657217
>>10657216
>>10657189

Its called winning anons. This means BTC will be valued insanely high.

>>10657248

>trusting two chinks and roger ver instead to promise to keep BCash decentralised between the three of them for you.

This is wonderful. Anyway, enjoy being poor.

>>10657263
Bch will moon for the same reasons btc did since 2009
Btc has become a ponzi scheme for satoshi to dump when the establishment tries to pump it

>>10657129
Fuck off Craig.

>>10657271
>bitcoin cash and bitcoin are the only future money alternatives that exist
they're not
>>10657263
Sad but potentially true. I'd rather get rich on low mcap bleeding edge fintech blockchain projects than help (((them))) make this happen though.

>>10657261
> They could bid over. Setting higher gas/fee.
Yes, indeed. But that would however in turn make it harder to open channels and the hypothetical 124 years would be even longer.

>>10657260
Pity core cant actually decide anything.
Think jihan will mine 2mb on btc?

>>10657260

Lmao no. They will never do it or they would have followed through with segshit2x last year and Bitcoin (BCH) wouldn't have forked/upgraded.

Nice try, kike.

>>10657189
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/59408/with-100-segwit-transactions-what-would-be-the-max-number-of-transaction-confi
Your math is inccorrect because the max number of segwit transactions possible is 12195 per block
TX-Per-Day = 12195 * 6 * 24
TX-Per-Day = 1756080
people / channels-per-day
7600000000 / 1756080
4327.8 days or 11.8 years

You know what, there's nothing wrong with a bitcoin bank if and only if they are cryptographically linked to the main chain through lightning or some other payment network. We actually do need a banking system for the retarded normies who don't want to take the responsibility to store their life savings. Plenty of normies would gladly pay a bank to keep their funds safe. Not everyone wants to take the time or effort to learn about wallets and private keys. You overestimate how retarded the general populous is.

If we had a bitcoin banking system that was enforced by cryptography, we would essentially have a system like the gold standard and the federal reserve node. The federal reserve note represented the an oz of gold because gold was too cumbersome to transact with. So similarly, if bitcoin gets too cumbersome to transact with, people will use payment networks, which is fine because these payment networks can still be set up to be p2p, and all the transactions are literally just regular bitcoin transactions, so you can broadcast them to the network anytime you feel. They are literally just as good as bitcoins, because the transactions you exchange on lightning are the same protocol as bitcoin transactions.

They cannot implement fractional reserve banking on lightning.
When you send transactions back and forth, each party must verify they are valid bitcoin transactions. That's the reason your node has to be on the whole time. Your making sure the cunt your transacting with isn't bullshitting you.

>>10657487
Once again
Lightning requires 133mb to work
>increase the blocksize so lightning can work
>remove any reason to use lightning

>>10657529
Why? I'm just using the same logic as OP. Please explain to me in detail why it wont work.

>>10657197
Do you really think a sub 80 iq nigger is going to want to take the time to understand what a private key is? Doubt it. Fact is, some people would rather willingly pay for a service to deal with their security.
It doesn't stop you from taking action to secure your wallet. You can still download the full block chain and open up your own lightning node.

0xBTC is better than both of these old pieces of shit

>>10657487
>They cannot implement fractional reserve banking on lightning.
They don't need to. You're envisioning that they hold 1 BTC for every BTC users of the bank have credited on their "accounts". There is no mechanism by which this is enforced or necessary. If you consider the current banking system and how settlements work, you realize that the same is possible so long as there is no specific wallet owned by each user. Only settlements between custody services (like banks) will be required. Just like with banks today, the amount sent back and forth between banks is minimal compared to the total "deposited" fiat owned by the users of the banks. Thus fractional reserve works just fine so long as the end user never touches the blockchain (neither base layer nor second layer) and essentially only has an IOU.
Compare this system with what is currently possible on ethereum with multisig smart contract wallets.

You can have a "bank" hold 1/5 keys, one tx security firm hold 1 key, two third party custody services hold 1 key each, and the customer hold 1 key. 3 Signatures being enough to trigger a tx from the smart contract wallet.

Normally these 3 are the bank, the tx security firm and the end customer. In the case 2 of these points fail or a key is known to be compromised or lost, a 3/5 vote can kick out 1 key and assign another in it's place.

This is analogous to getting another one of those little 2FA bricks that banks give out. One can also have 2 keys have a shared 1 vote, that is, for example, you can have 1 2FA brick (something similar to nano s ledger) and 1 key on your phone, and 2 of these signing 1tx never counts as more than 1 vote.

This is just as easy as the current bank account access system and just as hard, if not harder, to break security wise. Variants of this solution can be made to put more of security (but thus responsibility) in the hands of the user if wanted.

>>10657167
>>Everyone in the world needs to be able to transact at the same time on x-coin otherwise it's shit that will never receive adoption
>>whatisacreditcard com

ah yes. bitcoin, the great deflationary credit industry killer, must resort to credit cards to scale.

You're all clueless.

>>10657217
Great example of Poe's Law right here. Part of my brain desperately wants to reject the reality that someone could be this stupid, but given how desperately retarded BTC maximalists have become, it's really hard to say.
>>10657271
>Pareto distribution of wealth is the same as systemic centralization
Neck yourself, brainlet trash.
>>10657401
No. He will do nothing that might make BTC more valuable long term. He has divested and the dumb as rocks core fanboys actually think that's a good thing for their coin.
Jihan is shrewdly playing his hand by extracting value from dumb money propping up the BTC chain and converting to the real Bitcoin (BCH). A slow controlled demolition is in progress and when it is time, the plug will be pulled in full.
>>10657487
>It's not hundreds of years, only a decade
CORE COPE
>>10657759
>t. moron who doesn't understand how money becomes money.
>>10657760
Welcome to /biz/

>>10657129
but.... but... BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH

> desperate bcash morons fighting every possible way to have a purpose by attempting to slander Bitcoin with misinformation.
lightning network does NOT need 133mb.

you are a typical bcash moron who thinks the entire world population will use lightning network.

if you even had a brain, you would know increasing the blocksize is NOT a permanent scaling solution either, Roger Ver the faggot CEO of Bcash even said this himself. if the entire worlds population was to use the centralized bcash shit, it would NOT scale. not even visa or mastercard can scale the entire population's transactions.

stay a moron and please buy bcash, i beg you. i just want to see you morons burn whilst the centralized shitcoin sinks.

How long are you going to ignore the elephant in the room, shitcoiners? NANO will replace both Bitchcoin and BCash.

>>10657657
If banks use the lightning network, and they decide to create fraudulent transactions, their transactions are not going to be accepted. Same as if I were to submit a transaction the mainchain giving myself 1000 bitcoin. The only difference is, on the mainchain, the transaction is rejected by miners, whereas on a lightning channel, the transaction is going to be rejected by the peer you're connected to. You could make it valid if you could somehow convince him to install software on his computer that makes your fraudulent transactions validated, but that would only scam him. If he tried to spend money with his fraudulent transactions to someone else, he would be rejected. So there is a mechanism in place to validate transactions.

Now if a bank wanted to issue credit, they would have to do so on another layer (layer 3). Lightning is incapable of processing credit because all lightning transaction have to be valid bitcoin transactions, and therefore lightning is not the problem. Allowing banks to build layer 3 is what you should be worrying about. Not layer 2.

Bitcoin banks that have the ability to create credit on layer 3 , which will end up creating a fractional reserve system. Credit is the problem. Lightning is not a credit network. Even if the network turns into a centralized mess like bcash users say it will, the payment processors still would not be able to issue credit, which makes it better than the current fiat system.

We need mass adoption of lightning, so the bitcoin banks in the future (or really exchanges of today), don't start issuing credit. If everyone is using lightning, then there will be no need for the development of layer 3.

>>10657799

money becomes money when people decide to use it as a medium to transfer wealth. gas yourself you fucking kike.

>>10657913
Meant to respond to the guy you were responding to. You're right of course. I will gas myself now.

>>10657799
>>It's not hundreds of years, only a decade
>CORE COPE
That's the best refutation you could come up with? It took about a decade for anyone to give a shit about bitcoin in the first place. Besides, the system is supposed to last 120+ years anyway. 10 years is nothing, to get every person in the world on the network. Not that that will realistically happen. Not even visa, or paypal has achieved this, and their network is centralized.

>>10657959
Your 10+ years assumes nothing but constant onboarding and doesn't account for other transactions in the meantime. Realistically you're still talking about decades to onboard people which is still completely unacceptable.
"Hey exposure to that sludge only has a 6% change of killing you rather than a 60% chance of killing you" is what you're basically saying here. Irrelevant COPE

>>10657129

I like how /biz know only how to multiply in their equiations

>>10658048
I never said it was a good calculation. I only corrected OP's calculation which didn't account for segwit transactions. You're right in saying not everyone is going to be on boarding into bitcoin. You realize there are only 27 million wallets that were ever generated, right? Most of which have overlap because most people use multiple addresses. Expecting the whole world to show up overnight is a bit unrealistic. Things happen gradually. And yeah I don't know if you know math, but 6% is a lot better than 60%.

>>10657911
You're still assuming they need to keep 1:1 bitcoin. They don't. They only need to send 1:1 bitcoin. And only between each other and again when it comes to each other, only destinations they don't have special settlement agreements with.

Think about it mechanically. Ask yourself what is stopping them from lending out the majority of bitcoin that is deposited with them. There is nothing that would prevent them from doing that in layer 1. The end customers of the banks don't own wallets. They own an IOU for the bank to send bitcoin from the bank's wallet to somewhere else up to a certain amount. A bank can easily fulfill this obligation without having 1:1.

>>10657854
the lack of self awareness of these bcore fags is astounding. you fucks are the leftist scum of crypto living in your own self-contradictory fantasy world.

>>10658417
The parallels between the cult of core and the cult of cultural marxism are hard to miss. They both depend on censorship and they both survive by appealing to the lowest common denominator and while claiming to "empower" irrelevant, non-productive agents (non-mining nodes) at the expense of productive agents (mining nodes, or what Satoshi just called "nodes")
Pic related is the final stage of the insanity that we currently see in the cult of core. The outpouring of butthurt when their house of cards finally comes down and reality slaps them in the face is going to give the pink pussy hat-wearing freaks a run for their money.

>>10658461
>>10658417
bcash retards

>>10658278
>You're still assuming they need to keep 1:1 bitcoin. They don't. They only need to send 1:1 bitcoin
Ok, I see what you're saying. You probably have a point. But like you said, this affects the main chain as well. What stops an exchange from lending out more bitcoins than they have? Why is lightning the villain here, if it is a voluntary payment network? I mean you don't have to route your coins through the main hubs. You can open up a direct payment channel with your local coffee shop, or whatever. If your coffee shop is connected to your barber shop, you can also pay for your barbershop too. You do not need to go through the bad actors.

>>10658474
good one. you sure showed us.

>>10658461
I don't see BCH getting CBOE Futures, ETF or a listing on the NYSE.

>>10658479
>you don't have to route your coins through the main hubs
Yes you do if you want any liquidity. Just look at the current topology of the network. more than 90% of liquidity is provided by just a handful of hubs that are connected to every single other node. What do you think happens when the government or even a malicious private entity wants to monitor or shut down your transactions? Kiss your anti-fragility goodbye.

>>10658519
>Muh ETF
>Implying that the SEC will for some unknown reason only authorize ETFs for BTC
The levels of COPE are just off the charts, folks.

>>10657129
fake=gay

you're still not using segwit numbers
you're still discounting further improvements
kys retard

>>10658479
>Ok, I see what you're saying. You probably have a point. But like you said, this affects the main chain as well. What stops an exchange from lending out more bitcoins than they have? Why is lightning the villain here, if it is a voluntary payment network?
I'm glad you asked. The villain here is that there is no feasible system possible with high layer 1 tx fees where normal people can have some sovereignty or at least oversight of their own funds.
Read
>>10657657
To see what's possible on smart contract blockchains whose base layer isn't bottlenecked by extreme tx fees.

>You can open up a direct payment channel with your local coffee shop, or whatever. If your coffee shop is connected to your barber shop, you can also pay for your barbershop too. You do not need to go through the bad actors.
If BTC is adopted, the scenario you describe with opening a specific LN channel to pay your coffee shop could run in the hundreds of dollars if not more. It's not feasible. Every individual channel you set up requires its own main chain TX.

>>10658417
>>10658461
Miners are important, but so are the actual users. That's why they act as a check and balance to each-other. If the miners decided collude and collectively change consensus (for instance they decided to change the blockreward from 12.5 to 1,000,000,000), the rest of the users on the network (the nonmining nodes), would reject their blocks because they do not follow consensus rules, and thus the miners would isolate their userbase. Similarly, if the users colluded and decided to change consensus rules, then they would not have a functioning network.

Both the miners and the users have to agree on consensus or, the system will not function. There's a reason why its all full nodes who vote for BIPS and hardforks, and not just mining only full nodes. Its also a lot easier for miners to collude, since there's really only 21 or so miners. If you mine in a pool, you are not running a full node. You are connecting to another persons full node who manages consensus for you. If we had a system where only full mining nodes could manage consensus, then we would end up with a system where there are only 21 or so nodes verifying the validity of the network, which makes it more prone to attack.

>>10657129
If it's mathematically provable then why are you worried? Just load up on bcash and put your money where your mouth is kek.
Idiot.

>>10658644
What you're talking about is economically significant non-mining nodes versus mining nodes, and I don't disagree. Obviously economically significant users have to be on board any rule fork and that is an important part of bitcoin's checks and balances. It is clear that non-mining but economically significant nodes do have some power to resist changes "imposed" by the miners, but to what this means in practice is complicated and not really well-understood.
What I was talking about above is the core propaganda narrative about 0.05 BTC-owning Greasy McNeckbeard's RasPi node actually playing a critical role in bitcoin's security, which is pure "muh people power"-tier bullshit

BCH lastest blocksize: 48kb of 32000 kb

Also BCH: "We need to raise the blocklimit size or else humanity is doomed because our central planner said so."

>>10658579
I agree that blocksize is an issue when the network gets congested, and bitcoin core will eventually need to raise it. But raising it now, is unnecessary, because segwit has already increased the blockweight.
You have to understand that raising the block size should be a gradual process reflective of user support and adoption. It should be planned way ahead of time, and be for when it is absolutely needed. At least 90% of the network needs to upgrade, or the network risks being split into two.
Imagine how much worse bitcoin would be if segwit2x went through, and we were left with 3 versions of bitcoin. Bitcoin cash, bitcoin core, bitcoin core2x.

In my opinion turning complete smart contracts are unnecessary. Bitcoin already has turning incomplete smartcontracts. It does not need colored coins or whatever fancy ethereum gimics bcash is trying to offer. Turning complete smartcontracts can be implemented on a sidechain if absolutely necessary. They should not bloat the blockchain with unnecessary information.

Yeah. As long as people gradually set up lightning channels, similar to the rate at which new bitcoin wallets are being created, then the system should function fine for the foreseeable future.

>>10658743
>Cherrypicking data.
>Boiling the entire expansive 3-year scaling debate down to a "central planner"
They're not sending their best, folks.

Anybody who actually thinks either bitcoin or bitcoin cash will ever see any actual adoption are fucking retarded. LN is a joke and BCH swill never amount to anything. When BTC ETF opens it will be treated like a new digital gold, not a currency. The only currency that will see mass adoption is a government-backed stablecoin that hasn’t been released yet. And maybe Ethereum because smart contracts and sidechains will take it places in Web 3.0. Everything else is a scam (yes, including all bitcoin forks).

>>10658736
>Greasy McNeckbeard's RasPi
kek

Yeah I get what you're saying. If you just run a full node on a raspi and you don't use it to transact with (or run an electrum server on top of it), your're wasting your time. I think a lot of the nonmining economically significant nodes, voted against raising the block limit because it does affect them. The block chain is very big, and it does take time to sync. Hell, I shut my node of for like 3 weeks, turned it back on and had to wait like 10 hours just to sync 3 weeks worth of blocks! It wasn't because I didn't have the storage space, or bandwidth. It was because it takes time to verify blocks. And the truth is, the larger the blocks, the longer it takes to verify.

In the end, both bitcoin core and cash are just trying to find the most optimal configuration of blocksize, which results in a trade off between tps and decentralization.

>>10657129
>implying the 3.5 billion niggers that don't even have internet yet will need to open fucking lightning channels any time this century
>>10657529
it doesn't make ln pointless, you can send 1 satoshi instantly for sub satoshi fees
doing that on chain is not even possible right now, and even if it was, it would take at least 230 bytes on chain for every single tx.
why do you need every single tiny tx on chain forever?
it will also be possible to do atomic swaps between other coins using ln.

>>10658769
Bitcoin script is a joke. MAST is the only hope for bitcoin smart contracts on-chain, but even then the target blocktime is too slow. A sidechain like RSK could work though.

>>10657146
>>10657138
The Whitepaper does not consider new technologies like channel factories. You cashies only hear what you want to hear. :D

imagine still wasting your time discussing this. it literally doesn't matter, bcash already lost, it's never coming back. it had it's chance, it blew it, hard, and now its up to bitcoin to scale, on, or off chain, or it will remain as it is forever.

bet on ethereum, or some other alt if you want, but bcash is no longer a contender.

>>10657129
>BTC is shit becaise it can't handle 7.6 billion transactions per day
>7.6 billion
>BILLION

>>10658962
I think script is fine for what it is. I think if you want more complex smart contracts you should use RSK. It's better to add functionality that may compromise security on a sidechain, so that if there is a problem, it only affects the sidechain. We don't need cryptokitties bogging down the network.

>I'm in it for the tech

>>10657129
This is why Skycoin will replace Bitcoin, DYOR.

>>10658816
>When BTC ETF opens it will be treated like a new digital gold, not a currency.
>digital gold
>gold
And you're calling others retarded like shorting won't kill the price not to mention like there's any value to a digital chain anyone could create at the click of a button.

>>10659022
channel factories give 75% savings but open a multitude of other problems.
When you have 6 people in one channel, if ANY one person decides to close it everyone's channel gets REKT.

>>10657282
this.

>toddlers and senile old people needs to open a channel