/biz/ - Business & Finance

bump

>>4822711
they solved the routing problem?

>>4822711
Awesome! Can't wait for it to hit the main net.

read it, what does it mean?`

Is dis real

>>4822761
After watching the video, I decided to buy more Bitcoin tomorrow. This is huge and much faster than expected.

>>4822752
Chainlight

>>4822711
>>4822758
>>4822911
Have you actually used lightning network
on testnet? I did. It's a meme.

Get rekt altcoiners.

>>4822711
God by alt coins, it was nice seeing you.

You didnt...honestly think...you could defeat the king did you?

>>4822973
Explain

>>4822973
Cashie status = rekt

this is fucking HUGE. you guys do realize if they implement this any time soon, anywhere CLOSE to CME futures and shit, bitcoin is going to literally go to the oort cloud, right? it will suck alts completely dry.

all that will be left then is the privacy section that needs to be buffed with extra software. MAST is doing just that, research it.

Can they get a better UI? Only the most autistic autists can use it right now.

>>4823163
Looks pretty sexy desu, only needs to be a bit simpler for normies.

>"muh decentralized bitcoin"
>relying on a centralized, big-bank (((lightning network)))
Faggots actually support this?

>>4823109
>all that will be left then is the privacy section that needs to be buffed with extra software. MAST is doing just that, research it.

I agree but don't forget that lightning network is already increasing privacy. That said, there are also other privacy improvements beside MAST if I understood the latest developments correctly.

>>4823183
Yes, we need wallets that can do all the channel stuff behind the scenes.

>>4823216
>Cashies = buttblasted

When will be practically in use? It's a soft fork I presume?

>>4823216
BCashies getting desperate ayyyyy

Praise KEK, King Bitcoin is gonna stomp you out of your pitiful existence you miserable dungheap.

And yes, nobody cares about using a preloaded centralized service for buying coffee, it's pretty great.

Only idiots like you think a normal person would put their whole net worth on a mobile coffee-buying wallet

>>4823109
how new are you

>>4823216
>relying on a centralized, big-bank (((lightning network)))
LN is run by validating node (reminder, everybody can run a node and collect fees). for now bitcoin is run by 3 mining farms (reminder, not everybody can run a farm or buy shitton of ant miners to jihan)

>>4823335
It's not even that from what I understand, it's like a franken-wallet-app that has its own network for bundling transactions together and then putting them on the BTC blockchain as a single transaction.

>>4823269
>>4823349
>"centralization of a decentralized block-chain currency is fine"

>>4823022
Shitcoiners are coping that even their grandma is going to finally be able to use BTC to buy their fucking coffee.

>>4823469
go tell your decentralised daddy

>>4823428
This is pretty much correct as far as I understand.

>muh vapourware btfo
>muh 8mb blocks btfo
>muh 'true bitcoin' btfo

Eat a dick bcash cucks. Take your centralised garbage coin/network attack and fuck off.

>>4823469
>>"centralization of a decentralized block-chain currency is fine"
Continue gobbling up everything BCash promoters are telling you. Continue following Roger Bomberman Ver, Fake Satoshi, Pedo Pirate, Jihad Wu. You will make it.

>>4823469
>muh attack the feelsies attack isn't working, imma double down hurr durrr

It's still way more open than any other payment service on the PLANET, dumbo, and you have already worn the ass outta these two pathetic excuses of a FUD that you just spewed.

Wait, why am I arguing with a pay-for-clicker from a sweatshop in China?

Shoo idiot

We'll probably get schnorr in a few months. I think they have a paper that still needs to get peer-reviewed.

>>4823569
>>4823561
>>4823554
go easy on him, he's gonna tell his daddy

>>4823335
Lightning Network uses the smart contract capabilities of the Bitcoin Network. The actual transactions are signed and when applied to the smart contract it settles the balances on the Bitcoin Chain.

The technical details are not important for the enduser, important is that it's safe and does not pollute the main net with micro transactions.

>>4823405
>(reminder, everybody can run a node and collect fees)
Not in practice, no.
https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800
Quote:
Imagine Alice wants to send 1 BTC to Carol through Bob like so: Alice->Bob->Carol

In order to route the money, Bob has to have at least 1 BTC in his “balance” in the channel with Carol. Essentially, Alice is borrowing from Bob to pay Carol.

Bob transfers his 1 BTC to Carol in the [Bob->Carol] channel, and Alice transfers 1 BTC to Bob in the [Alice->Bob] channel. That’s how it works—Alice cannot “give” the 1 BTC to Bob to then pass along to Carol.

It really is a loan because the network uses timelocks to eliminate custodial risk: Alice can’t repay Bob safely until she’s sure Bob has paid Carol.

In fact, EVERY hop en route to a destination must have the funds available for each transaction. So, the more hops that are used, the more this lending burden is multiplied.

It's hilarious that BTC shills go "muh african 4 year old smartphones need to run nodes so we need to limit blocks to 1mb" yet are entirely fine with LN being pretty much shoved down everyone's through true forcing the main chain to be useless with the 1mb cap.

>>4823183
>>4823232
Check this out:
>>4823502
See you at $1,000,000

>>4823660
>The technical details are not important for the enduser

>>4823664
I do agree something needs to be done about the scaling issues but I do not think this is the right way to go about it. Perhaps faster block times like MONA, VERT, LTC is the answer

>>4823664
not everyone can run a bitcoin node, according to anon bcash supporter
ok, he sure has a point

>>4823632
BTW anyone else think Ver's daddy may be the clowns in america?

He does fit the profile, became rich for doing illegal shit, should have gotten assblasted by the law, instead got left free to roam and magically made it through asset forfeiture without a fucking scratch.

Clowns or feds got him to sell them explosives (entrapment as they usually do these days), then got him on it and told him "we gonna let you go, but from now on you work for us".

And tadah he's the biggest supporter of bitcoin centralization in the world, even though that makes him lose money... And he's doing it because he "cares" about satoshi's vision?

Which story makes more sense?

>>4822758
It IS on mainnet

>>4823738
>all supporters of bitcoin cash are per definition wrong
How brilliant, that means you are right in every argument by default without having to even make a case. Wonderful.

>>4823664
>jonaldfyookball
Classic Mike Hearn tier losser.

>>4823675
I already knew (and downloaded) this video. The new one is even better.

>>4823738
The argument of BCash supporters is that it is of no relevance that people can use their own nodes.

>LN is conveniently working just now, guys!
>meanwhile in the real world, 90k+ unconfirmed transactions
I don't even hold bch, just tired of your bullshit you goddamn btc retards

>>4823675
Jihan will be trillionaire.

>>4823806
>I don't even hold bch, just tired of your bullshit you goddamn btc retards
And the Ethereum network has like 45k+ unconfirmed transactions because of fucking cats. Now kindly fuck off, retard.

>>4823216
This

LN forces users through channels and liquidity is limited by what current capital on the channel, channels are censurable. You faggots are destroying blockchain.

>>4823664
So it adds simplified proof of stake capabilities for BTC (The KING) as well??? Gee, this LN sounds even cooler by the minute!

So basically, if I have 500 african eurodollars worth of BTC I can set up a node that routes transactions for 100 coffes a day... Sounds like a great deal, honestly!

You just set up a node that will connect to local services (for one it will be faster) and the amounts that get routed are closer to that of your wallet balance.

>mfw I just bought .4BTC

>>4823806
The first LN transaction ever on mainnet was made today.

How autistic are you?

>>4823894
? And what does ether has to do with anything you stupid idiot? Do you even reading compehension?

>>4823660
>The technical details are not important
Seriously the audacity of these kikes...

>>4823765
just have a look at his article, then watch the pic you posted. also your post is a copy pasta, already seen that shit 3 times.
no argument, vaguely makes you think that LN = IOU and running node is pointless and for big business and banksters.

>It's hilarious that BTC shills go "muh african 4 year old smartphones need to run nodes so we need to limit blocks to 1mb" yet are entirely fine with LN being pretty much shoved down everyone's through true forcing the main chain to be useless with the 1mb cap.

that's literally bcash argument, bringing bitcoin to everyone as a humanitarian shit.

BCH will adopt this too

>>4823738
Its easier and cheaper to run a node on bcash than it is to support payment channels on LN. LN channels WILL resemble legacy banking institutions. LN is completely unnecessary and the antithesis to blockchain. If you want to do transactions off chain, use Coinbase or something like it.

>>4823954
The point is that Ethereum has much bigger block capacity in terms of throughput which proves that bigger blocks don't work as a scaling solution.

Join Bitcoin, or stay irrelevant forever.

>>4823979
>more nodes
A corporation running 1000000000 nodes is less secure than 5000 nodes ran by separate entities on their basement.

>>4823979
i'm sure they will, i wonder how they will explain it tho

Why the fuck use bitcoin if you're forced to use LN for it to be usable when you can just use stellar instead.

BTC shills are a special kind of retarded.

More of this is what BTC is in store for.
https://medium.com/@SatoshiPay/satoshipay-partners-with-stellar-org-4288ae0baa72

It will be left behind and LN is a retarded scaling solution that makes it (hypothetically) mildly usable of one trade (tx) and in return becomes shit at everything else.

does this mean LTC will moon soon

>>4824049
Why would it do that

>>4824009
>the end of blockchain
will happen when literally one man bank owns the code, the dev, the network (via mining operation) and the mind of its users (social media).

>>4824022
Why do we want to use Stellar, if we can use actual Bitcoin instead?

>>4824022
What specifically makes XLM faster? I'm guessing it's just that it's got no users currently.

>>4823901
Which channels will be censured? Those that fund terrorism, drugs, pedos, etc?

I'm ok with this. LN brings speed and legitimacy to the network.

The btc network can still be used without LN afaik, so you'll still be able to buy your cp, don't worry. Honestly though, you should probably use xmr for that anyway.

>>4824015
>corporation running 1000000000 nodes
yes like they would fuck up the money printing machine how restarted are you

>>4824107
It's not the actual bitcoin if the only usable mode of transfer is de facto both centralized and censurable.

>>4823901
Then fuck bitcoin, Going 100% xmr now

>>4822711
They solved the pending transaction problem?

So, I took a quick look at the Stellar Lumens page, and found this:

The Stellar servers communicate and sync with each other to ensure that transactions are valid and get applied successfully to the global ledger.

>For example, if you want to send $5 to a friend on the network, a list of trusted servers will begin a process to agree on the validity of your $5 payment to your friend. The majority of these servers will have to agree that you do in fact own $5 worth of credit on the network before they will mark the transaction as valid.

This is literally a centralized shitcoin. Have fun.

>>4824221
>censurable
How can it be censured when the intermediary node does not even know the endpoints? You have actually no clue how lightning works, right?

>>4824117
XLM has much more usage than BTC currently. You must be living under a rock. It's one of the few cryptocurrencies that are actually in meaningful use, whereas bitcoin transactions is largely just in and out of exchanges and to pay for weed.

>>4824221
lies.

>>4823743
This. This is the correct timeline.
>ULTIMATEKEKS

>>4824221
Learn how LN works you autist. You can open your own channel by paying an on chain transaction ONCE, so it's like loading a pocket wallet.

You put like 500 bucks on your own LN channel and then you can do micro super tiny transactions out of these 500 bucks out of that you autistic demon.

>>4824264
It makes sense for the centralised shitcoins to be mooning.

Old hands in the payment space like visa/mastercard have no way to compete with a decentralised network (Their revenue model just wont allow it).

So the only way they can fight back is by making faux decentralised coins that they can still control because of the CEO mentality.

Of course they will pump and dump their own coin

>>4824128
>The btc network can still be used without LN
>blocks remain at 1MB
>hardly usable in its current state, nevermind millions more users and the price of a bitcoin is 100k making the fees about 60 bucks a pop
>ahh goy you don't have to use our network that we stole from you and now we control information flow on

Its easy to talk about "muh criminal transactions" and pretend you have an argument. If they can censor those transactions they can censor yours for any fucking reason they like! You probably think that freedom of speech end where your feelings begin as well and that the shit you say today surely won't be illegal tomorrow!

Crypto was not ready for normalfags who don't understand bitcoin's true implications. Blockstream pulled a Kansas City Shuffle, now everyone believes second layer scaling is necessary. Worse yet they don't understand the massive compromises in security and decentralization that come along with it.

>>4824264
Intermediary nodes know the end point.
Seems like you don't know how lightning network works.

Is it just me or does it sound like they are basically reimplementing DNS for bitcoin?

This is great. I still think in the end something will still one day dethrone BTC (not BCH, fuck you cashies) due to the shitshow that happens from actually trying to make significant changes to BTC. It will never move off of PoW nicely

>>4824022
same copypasta bullshit >>4823664
LN uses bitcoin's scripting language (written by satoshi, yet he couldn't implement it), it's not a fucking proof of stake IOU bullshit, now get your fucking piece of shit articles written by ver's pal to /r/btc the real /r/eddit of the real bitcoin

>>4824592
They may as well be. Instead of broadcasting to miners/node operators your transactions over a distributed network, you'll be instead sending your transactions through payment channels with centralized hubs. Clearly there is no point of failure here.

>>4824552
>Intermediary nodes know the end point.
They only know the next hop, you irredeemable faggot.

>>4824462
What the hell are you talking about?

You can still pay a fee and make the transaction on chain. The fee should be much cheaper due to the majority of transactions occuring off chain.

I really don't give a shit if a 'central' LN node is needed for off chain transactions to buy coffee or McDonald's.

Most people don't run a full node as it is.

As I said before, you can still buy your cp and weed lmao on chain...

>>4824322
>Learn how LN works you autist. You can open your own channel by paying an on chain transaction ONCE, so it's like loading a pocket wallet.
>You put like 500 bucks on your own LN channel and then you can do micro super tiny transactions out of these 500 bucks out of that you autistic demon.

No, you learn how it fucking works. You pay to open channels to a specific other LN user. You aren't instantly connected to the entire LN by "setting up a channel". This is why people will spend money to open up channels to only one or a few other LN users, who will be the massive hubs that everyone uses. And you can only use the money tied to each user independently via each user you have a channel to as you pay through them to other people who are connected to them directly or indirectly.

>>4822973
>1 post by this ID

>>4824728
No numbnuts the whole purpose of Segwit and LN is to restrict on chain transactions, doing so is massively cost prohibitive. The blocks stay the same size but the fees grow exponentially over time. Meaning getting your bitcoin spent via a non approved method "LN" will cost you so goddamn much that you won't transact in anyway that isn't LN. Which is controlled centrally, which can be censored, which can trap your capital.

I shouldn't have to explain this to people in crypto ffs.

I can guarantee you once lightning gains traction BTC will go straight to $100k.

>>4824680
>>4824462
>>4824009
>>4823958
>>4823901
>the absolute state of nocoiners and bcashers
how do you not understand what LN does? lmaoooooo

It's far from done.

>>4824698
Tor-like capability is hypothetical and in development, not an effective reality. It also relies on more decentralization in hubs than is unlikely to happen given the mechanics of LN and user incentives.

>>4824128
>arbitrary censorship
>I'm ok with this
holy fuck
people who agree with speech laws are now killing bitcoin

>>4824903
*than is likely to happen.

>>4824851
Yet to be seen how the fees pan out, that's pure speculation, and will be based on supply/demand/network capacity.

>>4825008
The fees on chain aren't speculation. If blocksizes remain the same size, the only thing you can be sure of is higher fees. LN fees are something else entirely.

>>4824912
This is like complaining that gay people can't marry in a Catholic church... if you don't want to use LN, just transact on chain.

>>4825096
yes, goyim, 1MB blocks make sense, bitcoin needs additional layers for performance heh heh heh...

>>4825096
You'll be economically priced out of using on chain transactions.

>>4825048
Pure speculation. What if blocks are only half full because 99% of transactions take place off chain? That is a possibility.

If LN is a centralised as the big blockers would have us believe, then the number of on chain transactions should be extremely low.

>>4825182
Daily reminder, in order to scale to VISA level, 99.99% of tx MUST be off chain.

Visa scale node on chain would be $16 million in hard drive space today.

Even with moores law that won't go down significantly in 30 years.

>>4823664
mmmmhhh KYC to use the biggest bitcoin ln in europe or you cant buy anything. what you voted for that one party? sorry to tell you but you cant use our payment channel. do onchain transactions in 2020? oh thanks sir thats 80 dollars for transacting just wait for 3 confirmations in 72 hours.

fucking bullshit. i mean on the other hand ln will remove a lot of btc from the market which (((they))) have in their ligthning channels to provide liquidity. pathetic that people will want some kind of banking mechanism in bitcoin... not holding any bcash right now but i see what roger wants to keep. the true form of bitcoin how it is ALREADY working now. if we would let it just scale with the blocksize. (i understant that it might not be the ultimate solution to this problem)

>>4825166
If this eventuates, and btc becomes the modern form of banking, with centralised LN nodes filling each block and paying super high fees, I'll just use something else like xmr for on chain transactions.

>>4825096
>haha yeah bro just wait months for your transaction and pay hundreds in fee, the currency works fine!

>>4823022
I'm back, sorry.
LN requires you to constantly close and open channels over the Bitcoin Blockchain.
Not that great at ~$5 per tx. Now imagine this without about a few thousand times more users, it just doesn't work.

LN + on-chain scaling = great idea
LN + no on-chain scaling = shit

>>4823058
>everyone who doesn't suck blockstreams dick is a cashie

>>4825274
I agree 100%
This is why off chain is the best answer right now.
8mb blocks are a joke, it's just kicking the can down the road, and it leads to true centralisation, where storing the chain itself becomes expensive.

>>4825277
>muh roger

>>4825399

The only people who really need to store the chain are those making money with BTC to begin with.

>>4825385
>LN + on-chain scaling = great idea
Show me someone who said that we can go Visa level and beyond without on-chain scaling. That's just a strawman.

>>4825385
>>4825399
ehhh this is confusing me. I wasn't expecting lightning to come out RIGHT NOW

I think the market will see a bull run, until they see the first pains of getting lightning to work. once the channels are set up it'll work amazing.

But I don't know if its reallistic. Who is going to want to pay $5 (conservatively, it will only get worse) to open up 10 channels? Or maybe youll just open up a few?

ther'es no working solution for this yet, maybe exchanges will set up nodes and be the "central" provider.

>>4825277
You understand that big blocks mean fewer full nodes and more centralisation? Big blocks make the network more vulnerable.

>>4824117
Cryptos like XLM use a DPOS confirmation system, meaning that only a few (50, or 100, or even 200) nodes have to confirm the transactions.
Users vote for these delegate nodes with their own balance. It's basically like staking but you don't have to run your own node. Nodes which don't comply
with the network lose votes and thus can't confirm transactions anymore.

Since only a few nodes have to confirm the transactions, tx sizes of up to 100,000 transactions per second can be achived on current computer technology.

>>4823979
>coping this hard

>>4825505
>

You know how you get more nodes? pay people for running them.

Seriously why is it miners get all the loot yet people are expected to keep their computer on 24/7 and run BTC nodes out of the goodness of their hearts? It is BS. The fact Core won't even talk of such a proposal which can help increase decentralization proves they have ulterior agendas.

>>4825499
>Show me someone who said that we can go Visa level and beyond without on-chain scaling. That's just a strawman.

>>4823349
How can one person be so stupid? You literally just typed out several sentences of nonsense.

>>4822711
Vert to the moon

>>4824265
Xlm is centralized and owned and distributed by one company

>>4825503
Optimally, the ln topology is that of a mesh and you only need one channel. Actually, there is a huge incentive for LN participants to only have one connected net since otherwise you are incentivized to open a channel to both nets and collect fees for transferring bitcoins between both nets. And if nobody else want's to do that, I will do it.

>>4825593
Thank you, I didn't expect anything else.

>>4825503
I suspect it will be organisations that will run large central channels, where the economies of scale make it workable.

I expect a bull run when LN is implemented.

The libertarian FUD won't mean shit to 99.999% of people. Users just want something that works well.

This takes Bitcoin mainstream. The money laundering/criminal currency will be btfo when Stacey and Chad are buying burgers and train tickets with btc using their iPhones.

>>4825551
Ignore what i just said, XLM apparently doesn't use DPOS. It uses SCP which has a centralized server.

>>4825551
Thanks for the spoonfeed mate. Here I've been not doing my research and thinking XLM is just another BTC copy being memed because of its partnerships. After doing some research it's clear that the coin itself is solid as well.

>>4823502

>>4824222
John McAfeeVerified account @officialmcafee
Nov 29

When I predicted Bitcoin at $500,000 by the end of 2020, it used a model that predicted $5,000 at the end of 2017. BTC has accelerated much faster than my model assumptions. I now predict Bitcoin at $1 million by the end of 2020. I will still eat my dick if wrong

>>4825719
>>4825713
>>4825611
Well, nice. Guess I'll have to start actual whitepaper reading to get this

>>4825573
>Pay them

How? Hybrid pos/pow?

Oh man... Crypto is complex... My brain hurts...

>>4825505
in theory, but in reality the amount of money needed to run a node is so low that network rule verification and confirmations and stuff is a non-issue, especially if there's rewards. I'd say it becomes an issue around 1gb blocks, if graphene compression is successful we may never have to see that.

>>4825783

A POS model ideally, i'm not saying they deserve alot of money or anything but enough to make it worthwhile and pay for your electric bill and then some.

>>4824128
>I'm okay with censoring bad guys
holy fuck

>>4825665
i don't know if you understand LN channels.
if A wants to connect to Z, but doesn't have a direct channel, A needs a channel with B who has a channel with C who has a channel with Z.
Unless there is a central node N who has connections with the entire network, you must open more than one channel.
That means a minimum of N channels must be opened where N = 6 billion participants.
6 billion tx is 3 TB of capacity. It's doable, I guess.
But it's more likely users will have to open 5 channels for redundancy.

That's $25 and 15 TB.
>>4825914
I'm sure banks already do this. Go buy monero if you want to fund terrorism and CP.

>>4825981
>terrorism and CP

t. I love government and other institutions knowing everything about me, all my transnational history and the ability to take it away on a whim

So should I sell my LTC bags?

>>4825981
Where did you say anything that contradicts what I said? Honest question, I'm confused.

>>4826077
i misread your comment
>>4826045
That's a good point actually. with banks they have to subpoena records currently.
but monero can't scale

>>4825274
average transaction size is 450bytes now, could be made lower with graphene compression. visa's record for transactions/s is 11.000, usually operating much lower, but let's see. with 3gb blocks/10 minutes, that's 6.666.666 transactions per block, so 11.000/s, visa's absolute peak usage level and can be 300mb block size with graphene compression. so how much is 3gb blocks/10 mins, 150tb/year. right now, you can get a 4tb hard drive for like 100$ and this will scale with moore's law, which puts this at about 4000$/year for space to host a node. consider moore's law, graphene compression, and that 11.000tx/s will likely never be necessary, and this number is probably like 500$ max. how is that 16$million?

>>4826374
>could be made lower with graphene compression
Does not work because the graphene developers did not consider a special case and it's unclear at the moment whether their construction can be fixed. The compression does not work if there are two transactions of the form A -> B and B -> C. Especially with Gigabyte blocks this will happen all the time.

>>4826374
The total sum of all visa transactions they've processed is $16 mill worth.
BTC wouldn't get there overnight but it'd need to be able to if its stored on chain.

Kryder rate ( moores law for hard drives) actually only performs at 15% per year. It's not nearly as fast as CPU growth rate. That means in 30 years storage space would only grow by 66x

>>4826585
>It's not nearly as fast as CPU growth rate.
CPU growth stopped years ago

>>4826585
>15% per year
definitely worth considering since we won't need 11.000tx/s any time soon, and still not sure where this 16$million number is from since 11.000tx/s is 150tb/year.

>>4826604
which we'll probably see with hard drives too. so relying on it for a solution is bad.

>>4826656
it's not even needed for a solution since 150tb is almost nothing in costs, especially to a server

>>4822711
Great, now I will be able to buy my coffee that costs 3.50 and pay a 5 dollar transaction fee for it faster.

>>4826675
you realise your quote from satoshi advocates for LN right?

>>4826656
Blockchains will drive storage development. Up until bitcoin storage wasn't (and really still isn't) because its overall effect on computing isn't as profound as CPUs. So with bigger blocks become the norm, demand will drive more innovation in harddrives, imo.

>>4826775
It's weird right? Like he wanted onchain + offchain solutions.

>>4826775
Cashies use this quote out of context all the time, it's hilarious.

>>4826794
.... we're already fighting the laws of physics with 6nm transistors.
There are fundamental limits to how far we can go. That's why we've seen such a big slowdown in growth. not demand reduction.

>>4826775
>>4826814
do you even know what the snack machine payment processor is? the processor is to avoid double payments and has nothing to do with LN, it's just a connection to many nodes to see which spending gets propagated.

BIG IF TRUE
THANKS IN FOR 100k

>>4826857
I'm pretty sure the demand and limitations in storage isn't the same as the demand in processing power.

>>4826794
yeah but this is just double downing on a gamble. you hope somehow a technological advancement will fix your problems sometime down the road before it blows up.

it's like smoking now and saying it'll advance cancer research so by the time i get cancer there will be cure. so why stop smoking?

>>4826807
snack machine payment processing has nothing to do with offchain scaling

>>4826929
>>4826675
it's not needed for any "problems" as it's not a problem

>>4826929
Not bothering to read this entire conversation. But it doesn't sound like you discussed how bitcoin only utilizes a single core and you can get to worldwide adaption levels easily with old technology.

>>4826775
>>4826807
>>4826814
Satoshi is talking about merchants using listener nodes to verify transactions without waiting for conformation you fucking illiterates.

Link to the Snake Machine problem:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819

>>4826942
Shouldn't matter. I would still want offchains on something like bitcoin cash minus segshit.

>>4827017
If you want off chain solutions, whats wrong with using Bitpay or Coinbase? Why hijack the entire network and force people into protocols they want nothing to do with?

>>4826863
>do you even know what the snack machine payment processor is? the processor is to avoid double payments and has nothing to do with LN, it's just a connection to many nodes to see which spending gets propagated.

>Re: Scalability and transaction rate
yeah right

>>4827056
I'm assuming there's another less intrusive way to go about this that is purely and opt in.

>>4824312
"the correct timeline"
">ULTUMATEKEKS"

No one talks like this. Fucking blockstream shills, it's obvious as fuck. I could easily do your job better than you.
1. just line up a bunch memes/ 4chan speak. It doesn't even have to make sense.
2. agree with obvious propaganda to create a false sense of consensus for people to source their opinions from.

How do you even get paid anymore? The transaction fee is probably bigger than the micro-payment of 0.000069 btc you get for your shitty shill post. Go fuck fuck yourself.

>>4826992
I only said it's used out of context, nothing more. Why are you so angry?

>>4827066
not offchain scaling you retard, it's a solution for fast verification of transaction by listening to nodes as they propagate transactions on the block

>>4824128
>>4824912
>>4825914
node providers can choose
route your lolis through me, no disgusting 3D though

>>4826992
this is from the actual board (not your memory of your Ver's shill book) ok?

>Scalability and transaction rate
>I'm curious about the developers feelings on scalability. For example, could the system handle a million users, doing say 5 transactions each per day. 5 million transactions per day is roughly 35,000 transactions per 10 minute period?

>Is there a bottle neck in propagating 35,000 transactions to a million nodes for block generation? Or has that issue been designed for?

from the OP

>>4827099
it's not used out of context, he clearly says it doesn't matter if everyone with a raspberry pi runs a node for the network rules to be verified

>>4827066
He's right, you're wrong. See >>4826992

>>4827081
Hardforking bitcoin would have been the purely opt in method. Instead they did a contentious Segwit fork which hijacked the chain. The only way to remove Segwit is with a hardfork.

>>4827099
IT ISN'T USED OUT OF CONTEXT KYS

>>4823960
A globally accessable system of money/payment was literally the original goal, and a large part of the value proposition of btc, retard. Fees of even 5usd worth of btc are prohibitive for most of the globe. Trying to enable a Global economy" isn't a fucking excersize in charity.

So ethercucks gonna be crying soon? I don't see how that shit ever made it past even $5

>>4827140
>>4827162
fine...

>>4827135
>linking questions from the OP that I already linked were answered by Satoshi

What the fuck are you trying to prove exactly?

>>4827162
>>4827175
god i just quoted the topic he was proudly displaying, and you echo chamber the same bullshit about the snack machine problem.

wtf dude

>>4823664
>jonaldcuckball

>>4827162
Anyone way to have sidechains without segwit?

>>4827242
omfg you are a piece of work aren't you.

>>4827268
you would probably need a completely separate payment system since you can't get witness data offchain

>>4827268
For starters Segwit isn't a "sidechain" its a secondary layer. Nothing to do with blockchain. If sidechains are something that interest you, look into ARK.

>>4827301
sure

Ln won't save bitcoin from congestion, 1mb is too little even with ln.

Graphene + 8mb + ln sounds way better.

>>4826675
so you never explained, were exactly in your screencap he talks about big blocks?
this is completely irrelevant to your point lmao.

and when i'm trying to point that out i got the bcash legion up my ass wtf m8

>>4827371
the screencap isn't about big blocks, it's about nodes being mainly hosted by server farms. it's completely relevant since 150tb/year is nothing for a server farm and you don't need africans running them.

>>4827343
>For starters Segwit isn't a "sidechain" its a secondary layer.
What the fuck am I reading? Segwit per se has nothing to do with Sidechains or Layer 2. It's just the change of the transaction format, nothing more.

>>4827441
It is secondary layering though. Without it LN won't happen. It also alters the protocol in a way that isn't beneficial to security or scale when all of that can be done by increasing block size anyway.

>>4822761
Means near zero tx fees and instant transactions.

>muh iota

Fuck that shit, 1 sat = 1 USD cap this

>>4827614
Segwit only changes the transaction format, and doesn't make it less secure. Stop believing every shit you read on bitcoin.com.

The change in the transaction format makes second layer solutions much easier, but it's not a necessity.

>>4823664
nigger bitches got it wrong, it's usually alice who wants to talk to bob not alice to "carol"

>>4828212
Changes the format for "anyone can spend" which allows for cartel 51% attacks.

>inb4 cashie fud

Its the same as a 51% attack on a non-segwit chain, but the game theory is different on a segwit chain as the prize for pulling it off is much greater than the ability to double spend from your keys. So it incentives miners, governments, banks, or whoever to run a cartel and capture the pot or just to destroy the network.

>>4828944
>>4828944
>Its the same as a 51% attack on a non-segwit chain, but the game theory is different on a segwit chain as the prize for pulling it off is much greater than the ability to double spend from your keys. So it incentives miners, governments, banks, or whoever to run a cartel and capture the pot or just to destroy the network.

Such an attack only splits the network into a valid and into an invalid one, the coins on the invalid network being worthless. NEXT.

>>4829241
>invalid network being worthless
51% of the hash is 51% of the hash my dude.

>>4829373
Full nodes are rejecting invalid blocks, it does not matter how much hashrate you use to compute invalid blocks.

In a regular 51% attack, the computed blocks are valid. Your comparison is flawed.