/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>14947936
Your smugness was p convincing t b h, just bought some commie eth

>>14947936
poor summer child

>>14947936
if you really believe this lol you need to research better

>>14948482
>>14948493
Thank you for joining me here, Coretards. I have some questions that no one is answering.
Why is there practically zero LN adoption and even that is stalling after 18 months of being online? When is "the real, finished LN" ready? What is plan B? When is it accepted as a failed project, like RSK?

You better answer fast. I have been waiting for a few days now.

chico is based, he and that asian crypto chick is the reason I found link

>>14948538
Using bitcoin is bad for bitcoin you silly shitcoiner

>>14948538
>thinks lightning network adoption being shit has anything whatsoever to do with ETH
DUMBFUCK.GIF

>>14948553
checked, nice Fud ID

>asian crypto chick
I have no idea who that is. Give me a channel name.

>>14948538
>Why is there practically zero LN adoption and even that is stalling after 18 months of being online?
what adoption bitcoin had after 18 months? i think there was like 20 nodes tops. half of them ran by devs.

>>14948586
So, you are saying we are going to have to wait years more until there is any significant LN activity? People were saying that LN will solve scaling immediately. What will happen to the mempool the next 4 years then until LN is used?

>>14948538
>What is plan B?
now this is an interesting question. because ln works pretty damn well (directly or with 1-2 hops max) it's only issue is routing on a large flat graph. what shape ln network take, and what can be used to substitute the routing if it proves to be too difficult is the thing i'm most interested in.
1) large degree of centralization makes routing a moot issue the ln network is still trustless but not so permissionless anymore base layer remains so.
2) a trustful 3rd layer with negative balance can do settlement between hubs (endpoints still use the network trustless the "banks" have to enter a legal relationship)
3) a solution similar to shielded pools in privacy coins can remove a large chunk or redundancy in connections and locked in btc.
those are the outcomes i'm considering.

>>14948608
>People were saying that LN will solve scaling immediately.
must have been retards. ln is not really a scaling solution. as it is it's a micropayment and retail solution for bitcoin. it takes dirt transactions off the network and that helps with scaling indirectly.

>>14947936
there will never be another alt season, eth is going to 0.
from now on only BTC gains

>>14948608
if you want an analogy bitcoin network is international bank wires and ln is debit cards. only you can't pay your friends via debit cards and the fees are lower.

ln can't scale for shit as is because it would take a 100mb block to fit monthly channels funding and settlement at visa level transaction throughput.

>>14947936
>Ethereum is going to flip BTC in 2020.
>I'll cut my dick off if BTC isn't worth $1MM by 2020
Put your cock on the line, love to see 2 dicks lose their cock

>>14948631
nice, an actual insight
1) this seems to be the case I am seeing it go right now. LN will be mostly centralized with large hubs, but this indeed would provide minimum hops
2) this seems an unnecessary complexity/obfuscation. If anything like that would be implemented, it could be done directly as a 2nd layer on top of the chain and not a 3rd layer on top of LN. I am not sure, but I think this is something how Liquid is supposed to work.
3) havent heard about this being worked on

I dont see progress with anything yet. LN adoption was picking up speed, but has stalled literally when blocks on chain got near full again. This should have accelerated LN adoption.

>>14948792
it's only number 2 that scales infinitely tho
number 1 is like a bad compromise we can live with for a while until it gets abused and number 3 is well something that should be possible but i don't know if anyone is working on it either. it sort of a second layer solution that works side by side with ln and probably requires a base protocol extension soft fork.

There's a new ICO frenzy in the he making and it's going to be lead by SEC approved token sales.

>>14948863
oh and 2 does not scale infinitely in tx count only in tx volume throughput the rest have limitations there too.

>>14948872
You think this will lead to ETH pumping again?

>>14948569
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0ad_GGvo5o

>tfw a qt azn made me rich

>>14948933
Yes. The economic incentive for ICOs is too strong.

>>14948553
Im the anon who shilled LINK on all of chico's videos. Sure enough he came around.

>>14948586
Because only devs knew about buttcorn.
Now everyone knows about buttcorn and nobody is setting LN nodes up and nobody is buying except for Bitfinex with their fake tethers.
>t. cashed out 30% at 14k

>>14948779
>ln can't scale for shit as is because it would take a 100mb block to fit monthly channels funding and settlement at visa level transaction throughput.
Source: your ass.
As for actual scaling and transaction finality science:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SJm2ep3X_M

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

>>14948995
well there is more than 20 ln node doesn't it? in fact a hell of a lot more. that doesn't change th fact that this is open beta and still in it's infancy.

>>14949028
>Source: your ass.
just do some basic math... the only thing that can change this to say 50mb or slightly less is permanent channels that get re-balanced with a single transaction periodically.

>>14949028
also go away cashie scum! you can't do ln without fixing malleability then why ever the fuck did you create your scam fork if you gonna fix it anyways?

>>14949046
You threw an exception, NPC.
Your learnt by heart phrases don't work here.
I gave you actual science proving that bitcoin CAN scale and CAN have instant finality.
Core has never relied on science. All you have is a less retarded version of CSW's technobabble, hoping that people will believe that you have actual technical expertise.

>>14949072
yo you can't fucking read that's your problem...
>ln can't scale for shit as is because it would take a 100mb block to fit monthly channels funding and settlement at visa level transaction throughput.
>ln can't scale for shit as is
>as is
>it would take a 100mb block to fit
also bch is not bitcoin and never will be sorry
and whenever btc increases the block size it becomes ultimately meaningless as an experiment if btc does not increase block size however it hits a scaling limit hard with or without ln.

>>14947936
Highly unlikely IMO

But if you are confident about it..
What are you waiting for to get some cheao calls.

I cant wait until BTC is finally abandoned so this space can evolve.

As always, LINK is the ultimate hedge against the failed currency market of crypto.

Actually, LINK is a hedge against all markets. This is now a Stink Maximalist thread.

>>14949121
>I cant wait until BTC is finally abandoned so this space can evolve.
that's like saying i can't wait until humans finally stop breathing air so this species can finally evolve.

>>14949106
For those not into options, I'll translate the return % for the 240$ options @ 50 bucks.

Prospected ETH price by EOY / rough % return

500$ / 500%
1000$ / 1500%
5000$ / 9500%
10250 $ (effective flip of BTC price) / 20fukken000%

IOTA is going to flip Ethereum again by 2025.

>>14949136
>conflates BTC with blockchain technology itself
Hello, my retarded fren
DAILY REMINDER:
>BTC is not the end all be all of distributed ledger technology. Its just a single, replaceable currency application.

>>14947936
You realize ETH was $1 a few years ago, right? Kek. Enjoy buying whales tops' instead of joining Asia's new global elite with TRV.

>>14949094
>yo you can't fucking read that's your problem...
I can, though. Your reading comprehension is abysmal.
>IT CAN'T SCALE
No, retard, I gave you links to scientific research proving that it can. You're just replying with statements instead of countering the science.
I'm sorry if you're having an emotional episode while your beliefs are being torn apart by reserach that you have no arguments against.
>also bch is not bitcoin and never will be sorry
You're telling me I'm not reading, yet I can't see anyone stating that BCH is BTC anywhere. Putting words in my mouth that you can counter is easier than fighting actual research though. Low move, indicative of a brainlet.
>whenever btc increases the block size
Discussions around changing the block size in BTC revolve around LOWERING the block size, I wish you luck with that.
>if btc does not increase block size however it hits a scaling limit hard with or without ln
Of course it does. It doesn't need to accept infinite transactions, just those of every willing participant around the world. The tech is ready for global adoption in a world of 7 billion, I couldn't care less that it probably cannot support 7 trillion people.

COTI AND FANTOM WILL BEAT ETH YOU WAIT

YEAH I HAVE A LOTTTTTTTTT OF ETH