/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.11951441]

>Lighting Network will never wor-

[Anonymous No.11951459]

>>11951441
>Satoshi’s vision

[Anonymous No.11951464]

so skywire has twice as many nodes as LN? lmao what a shitcoin

[Anonymous No.11951793]

>>11951441
> bragging about total capacity less than 500btc.
> the absolute state

[Anonymous No.11951805]

>>11951793
>this plant is growing but it’s still small
>this plant SUCKS

[Anonymous No.11951809]

>>11951441
>use lightning node to move 600btc
>only 300 btc shows up
>the rest is used to maintain capacity in the network
>devs tell me i must not really care about bitcoin if i dont understand why they kept half my money

[Anonymous No.11951826]

>>11951441
This is magnitudes worse than BSV's terabyte meme blocks

[Anonymous No.11951841]

>>11951805
> like it hasn’t been literally years to get to this point

[Anonymous No.11951861]

Can this shit die already. Such a shit idea

[Anonymous No.11951870]

looks pretty centralized

[Anonymous No.11951871]

>>11951805
>take 4 years to get to 500 btc
kek

[Anonymous No.11951873]

>>11951464
Underrated post

[Anonymous No.11952253]

Do any of you fags realize that lightning is TCP/IP for bitcoin?

I mean it obviously isn’t TCP/IP literally, but it is very similar. If you guys think lightning is a meme, then you should really take a step back and look how the internet was actually created.

Lighting is the next step, and will be the reason bitcoin actually becomes a global currency. It will be the first currency to connect billions of people on a decentralized way.

Yes lighting is decentralized! Anyone can create a lightning node and connect to whoever they please. Just like anyone can buy a router and connect to whoever they please. You are free to create your own lightning network if you wanted to, just like you can create your own private network. That is decentralization. There is no central authority. There is no coordinating node. You are free to create routes as you please.

[Anonymous No.11952401]

>>11952253
And for people who don’t know what I mean, TCP/IP is the protocol responsible for routing internet packets over a set of computer connected together in a network. Lighting is literally the same concept, but instead of routing internet packets, you’re routing payments.

Why not just use the current blockchain system?

It’s not scalable. Right now only 30 million bitcoin wallets have been generated, with estimates showing that only roughly 5 million are individual users.

Imagine if 5 billion people were using crypto, there could be potentially 30 billion wallets generated, each on average taking up 225 bytes, could take up 6.5 TB of storage per day. It make much more sense to implement a routing protocol to route transactions cryptographically linked to the main chain.

[Anonymous No.11952459]

>>11952401
Thanks for clearing that up Adam. Still, nobody is ever going to use it.

[Anonymous No.11952500]

>>11952253
I see no difference between using ln and jumping back and forth between BTC and fiat using traditional exchanges. Big nodes are essentially just banks so everything will naturally gravitate towards them because liquidity has value on its own. In the end ln is like a shitty barely functional retarded bank, nothing else.

Cryptos are all about private transactions, that's it.

You don't need to scale cryptos, that's a made up problem, you just need strong privacy standards and sufficient liquidity.

[Anonymous No.11952796]

>>11952401
The first rule in software development is: "don't reinvent the wheel".

Who the fuck needs an alternative to TCP/IP when it's not the problem.
By the time LN takes off (and imo it never will because the whole concept of locking your funds is clunky as fuck, normalfags often can't even deal with bitcoin wallets so let alone managing their funds, but let's pretend it does) let's say minimum 5 years, we will have 50TB HAMRs for 250 bucks, enough to host a node for 10 years with 100MB block for every single crypto out there which isn't ruled by Blockstream.

[Anonymous No.11952844]

>>11952459
Nobody will every use crypto. It will never scale to the global population in its current form. Makes me sad to see people rejecting valid computer science principles.

>>11952500
Lightning is more private than bitcoin. Bitcoin is a public ledger. Everyone can trace every transaction you make with bitcoin. Lightning is different because the only thing visible on the ledger are the people you’ve opened a channel with. Similar to how tor works, you can route payments through the people you’re connect to, and nobody knows who the originator of the payment is. It’s a connected graph where people can route payments through each other, not just a single channel.

[Anonymous No.11952872]

>>11952401
>payments are not „internet packets“
K then

[Anonymous No.11952899]

>>11951441
bump.

[Anonymous No.11952916]

Daily reminder that with ETH staking, we will have 5x the nodes on launch day alone.

[Anonymous No.11952927]

>>11952796
First of all, Moore’s law is dead. Good luck with those 50 tb hdd. Even if there hypothetically were 50 tb hdds, it would be nowhere near enough to support the entire planet.

Please tell me how it is efficient to broadcast everyone’s morning cup of coffee to everyone else on the planet.
Pro tip it isn’t. That’s why you cryptographically link to the main chain and verify the integrity of payments using game theory principles with the people you open channels with.

Second, it’s not literally TCP/IP. It is analogous.
If bitcoin is analogous to the transport later of the internet (single links like Ethernet or WiFi routers) then lightning is analogous to TCP/IP (global links, packet routing).

>>11952872
Yeah they’re not the same thing, but they use similar data structures. Just like how databases and compilers aren’t the same thing, yet they both use trees to parse human language.

[Anonymous No.11952944]

>>11951441
If I am going offchain and paying routing fees I would rather use paypal tbqh

[Anonymous No.11952948]

>>11952401
>could take up 6.5 TB of storage per day
What's the problem with that?
>inb4 oh no then I can't min on my rasberry3.14

[Anonymous No.11952959]

>>11951841
>Hes never heard about bamboo plants

[Anonymous No.11952966]

>>11952927
Also, the main issue isn't disk space, it's upload/dl speed. When you increase the blocksize it becomes difficult for many nodes to dl/ul new blocks in a ten minute avg. window. And ul/dl speed is tied to ISP's which basically offloads the network's robustness onto the decisions of an oligopoly. It's retarded which is why pretty much everyone who matters said fuck that and sided with Core.

[Anonymous No.11952976]

>>11951441
Is there any exchange supporting lightning deposit?

[Anonymous No.11952997]

>>11952948
Because Moore’s law is dead and nobody has 50 exabyte hdds.

Have you ever heard the phrase work smarter not harder?

Lightning is the intelligent approach to scaling.

Block size is the brute force ineffective way to scale. When dealing with the population of the planet it is an inferior way.

Think of a linear search vs a binary search.

Linear searches work just fine if you only have a few items in an array. At most it takes O(n) to complete. So if there are only 40 item, at most it will take you 40 items to search through until you find the thing you’re looking for.

If you have a million items, you better use a binary search which takes o(log(n)) items to search through.

So rather than searching through 1,000,000 items, it only takes about 20.

Lightning may contain some restraints (like requiring a node to check against theft), but it allows us to scale for billions of people efficiently.

[Anonymous No.11953016]

>>11952966
Yeah correct. It isn’t just disk space. It’s also bandwidth.

Also to add on my post above,
Scaling bitcoin by increasing the block size only works linearly, where as lightning allows for exponential scaling. That is why computer scientists are siding with it.

[Anonymous No.11953086]

>>11952997
Unfortunately, most of the idiots on this board are too retarded to grasp what you're trying to get them to understand. This board is 60% retard, and 38% greedy shill. There's only a few that actually have IQs above double digits

[Anonymous No.11953152]

>>11953086
I mean, I think that plenty of people can grasp what I’m saying. Lightning isn’t really a complicated idea in itself, it’s just more complicated than scaling by raising the blocksize.

There was a time when bitcoin was for nerds. In 2017 that changed, but thank god it’s back to nerds again. Obviously that will change when lightning merchant adoption increases exponentially, but for now it’s refreshing.

Although bitcoin uses some economic theories like game theory, I still view it primarily as a computer science innovation, not an economic one. Many people myopically look at economics while ignoring the facts that most of what defines bitcoin is computer science.

[Anonymous No.11953181]

>>11951441
a HURR DURR BUT BCHSVABCDERF iS SatOSHI REEL VISHIN MUH CoRE CuCKS HURRRR

[Anonymous No.11954019]

>>11951441
> dem central hubs.
"work" was never the barrier. PayPal works, too. Congratulations on proving BCH right all along. Also congratulations getting rid of the faction on their side that wants the same shit in a different form courtesy of your attempt to damage it.
Coretards got any more own goals to score?

[Anonymous No.11955045]

>>11954019
"dem central hubs" what about them? lightning networks operation does not depend on them. there will be other "central hubs". some will go offline. LN will continue to work

[Anonymous No.11955112]

>>11952927
So basically you're building the stellar consensus protocol on top of bitcoin

[Anonymous No.11955140]

>>11952796
>>11952927
>>11954019

Who would this guy side with bud?

[Anonymous No.11955167]

a living organism with three chromosomes 21

[Anonymous No.11955345]

>>11955045
> lightning networks operation does not depend on them.
that's wrong tho, stop being a topology nigger. get woke.
cashies are unironically correct desu

[Anonymous No.11955427]

>>11952916
daily reminder ETH doesn't have current statistics on validating nodes because the blockchain is too big, can't scale, and isn't sustainable

[Anonymous No.11955454]

>>11955427
https://ethernodes.org/network/1

[Anonymous No.11955487]

>>11953152
>that most of what defines bitcoin is computer science
I really fucking hate these LN shills more than anything. Fuck you, not the white paper.

[Anonymous No.11955516]

>>11955487
But anon...

[Anonymous No.11955528]

>>11955516
kek, this is LN shills desu

[Anonymous No.11955533]

>>11955454
those are not validating nodes
eth kids repeat this false information repeatedly

tell me what is the size of the ETH blockchain?
and why do miners get to set the gas limits?

[Anonymous No.11955572]

>>11955533
> muh validating nodes are magical
just lol
> muh btc elitism
you... you realise everyone thinks you're a pathetic laughing stock, and when you act like you're elite it just makes it more hilarious?
> tell me what is the size of the ETH blockchain?
What is the size of any continuously growing ledger? You'd need to give a timestamp first.
> and why do miners get to set the gas limits?
So they don't get as fucked in the ass as you did by their own shitty developers?

[Anonymous No.11955700]

>>11955572
>not being able to verify the network is hilarious
Tell me how big ETH's blockchain is, any time in the past couple days should do

miners setting the gas limit gives them control over node requirements
it centralizes the entire system, how do you not understand that?

[Anonymous No.11955763]

>>11955700
About 667.10GB
> miners setting the gas limit gives them control over node requirements
Shock, horror! The people responsible for actually providing the chain are also responsible for setting the requirements for participating in providing the chain! This is surely inferior to the model of six neckbeards declaring what those requirements are by fiat. YOU HAVE DEFEATED US! BASK IN YOUR EUPHORIA!

[Anonymous No.11955787]

>>11955763
>About 667.10GB
it broke 1tb over 6 months ago
you don't see the the largest mining cartels having control over who can verify the chain a problem?

[Anonymous No.11955832]

>>11955787
> it broke 1tb over 6 months ago
That's wrong. https://bitinfocharts.com/ethereum/
> you don't see the the largest mining cartels having control over who can verify the chain a problem?
Somebody has to set the requirements for who can run nodes. And I see "all miners who actually mine the chain, who acting in concert would be able to modify the chain as they see fit regardless" as inestimably superior to "a council of six neckbeards, significant fractions of whom have a vested business interest in a venture that directly benefits from keeping the on chain capacity as low as possible, and are also proven to be compromised by various intelligence services around the world, who also would like to keep the chain as low capacity as possible" but maybe I'm just crazy like that.
Except of course, basically every other significant blockchain in existence uses that model or similar to set the node requirements, and --only-- shitcoin core actually sets them by fiat based on compromised and vested interest declarations from a central political council.

[BSV will win No.11955849]

>>11951441
it STILL doesn't work

of course it "works" when only 1 guy is using it at the same time in the world. it doesn't scale, which means its purpose isn't met

[Anonymous No.11955853]

>>11955832
> declarations from a central political council.
Don't call it central, then it will still be decentralised.

[BSV will win No.11955878]

Why lightning network is a bad idea even if all its issues were solved:

1. you have to set up your payment channel with on-chain transaction. if you have to deal with on-chain transactions anyway you might as well just scale up on-chain instead. if i go to a coffee shop that only have depleted lightning channels i have to make an on-chain transaction. a depleted customer channel will be that way forever unless the store decides to pay someone else through a customer's channel.

2. if someone else use your payment channel they can deplete your funds to a merchant. if there are no other channels, which is likely since otherwise your channel wouldn't be depleted, you now need another on-chain transaction to make a new channel or refund your old one. if you think this is wrong, check: https://youtu.be/pOZaLbUUZUs

3. if you have 1 BTC and open up four channels with 0.25 BTC on each channel it's impossible to send more than the unspent amount of BTC on that channel even though you own more than 0.25. likewise nobody can receive more BTC than the sum of all their channels (assuming all channels could find a path to the sender and that the right amount of BTC is available at the correct end of each channel).

4. the network will inevitably develop backbone nodes that nearly all transactions pass through (most likely just trusting each other to have the required funds to save time). this "solves" the routing problem but makes the whole thing completely centralized, just like internet is today with master backbone nodes.

5. once you put your crypto into a channel you're basically trapped in the system. it's designed so that you would never want to take it out. eventually there would be almost no in/out on the bitcoin blockchain and at that point bitcoin is essentially dead and you can be sure that there will be talks to just drop it completely in favor of some kind of issued lightning network token.

[Anonymous No.11955891]

>>11955832
>That's wrong.
you're wrong that site isn't accurate

[BSV will win No.11955894]

>>11955878
6. it's possible to make solutions for micropayment channels on-chain instead. someone just needs to figure out a way for the sender to be able to construct a transaction but he cannot broadcast it, the reciver on the other hand can't change the transaction but he is allowed to broadcast it. the payment channel is then either closed by the receiver with the latest state or it is closed by a timeout with a full refund to the sender.

7. bitcoin (cash) works for payments of all sizes today. there's no reason to reinvent the wheel. we don't live forever and every year we delay crypto adaption is another year the banks will adapt to instant online global payments. you think it's hard to on-board people with crypto today? good luck if banks offer the exact same user experience as crypto. when that happens the only perk crypto has is censorship resistance and most people just don't care if banks are convenient enough.

TL;DR i wouldn't want to use lightning even if it already worked flawlessly with BCH, BTC, ETH, LTC and whatever else.

[Anonymous No.11955899]

>>11952401
>>11952253
someone's been watching their andreas antaneaopoulous videos

[Anonymous No.11955904]

>>11955894
>>11955878
>BSV will win

opinion discarded lol

[Anonymous No.11955915]

>>11955891
Bitch I'm running an ETH node right here and that's the space it's taking... I think you might be wrong.

[BSV will win No.11955918]

>>11955904
suit yourself. doesn't help lightning network to function.

[Anonymous No.11955935]

>>11955904
> muh BCH is BSV
opinion discarded

[Anonymous No.11955942]

Increasing block size is like adding more lanes into a highway

Lightning network is like adding 3d roads vertically up on each other

kinda

[Anonymous No.11955948]

>>11955915
oh so the size has been the same since june?
https://web.archive.org/web/20180626012141/https://bitinfocharts.com/ethereum/

fucking delusional eth kids

[Anonymous No.11955956]

>>11955935
I dont support BCH either.

[Anonymous No.11955961]

>>11952927
Lightning is only like TCP in that you're routing data between peers. Otherwise its not similar at all. It'd be like TCP if you had to trust a peer with your money for 30 days after connecting to it. Lighting network is not trustless, yes anybody can run a node but that doesn't provide trust between you and the peer. Youre trusting any node that you create a channel between with your money, and that node has to basically create a loan for you to send your transaction, and it isn't actually settled on-chain for 30 days. Its retarded and it's not like the internet at all.

[Anonymous No.11955977]

>>11955956
Who cares? Your opinion is invalid, you fell for LN. That you describe it as a "THREE DEE HIGHWAY TOPKEK" is hilarious in light of >>11955345

[Anonymous No.11956178]

nobody even knows how big the ETH blockchain is unless you're operating a mining pool or something lol
wow so decentralized

[Anonymous No.11956226]

>>11955961
>lightning isn’t “trustless”, but it heavily incentivized you to play fair. If you don’t play fair, then the other person gets to keep your funds. Again using economic incentives to keep bad actors from doing malicious activities. Also the whole point of lightning is that you’re routing payments between peers, just like how you route packets between peers with the internet. Also the funds are settled as soon as you close the channel. It only takes 30 days if someone tries to cheat.

[Anonymous No.11956666]

>>11952253
This shit is retarded. Both users have to have lightning network to transact. Literally useless.

>Hey anon, set up this network so we can transact together!
>Why

[Anonymous No.11956703]

>>11952944
This. It's way too much hassle unless you are moving at a bare minimum $1000s a day across international borders. Literally smallest use case.

[Anonymous No.11956740]

>>11951809
>use lightning node to move 600btc
LN isnt for 600btc transfers, retard.

[Anonymous No.11956750]

>>11952253
>>11952401
SIEG HEIL

[Anonymous No.11956810]

>>11956740
LN isnt suited for anything really. Huge pain for cup of coffee

[Anonymous No.11956853]

>>11952997

Bitcoin is a small world graph. It is a dense hairball of interconnectivity where miners compete and users achieve what they want by just being users. Nobody needs to run a node, and your stupid Andreas-tier analogies are tiring. Everything can happen on chain.

[Anonymous No.11956876]

>>11956853
>Everything can happen on chain
>Programmers can implement everything using IP, we don't need any of these TCP or UDP or HTTP or SMTP or BitTorrent or Tor protocols

[Anonymous No.11956923]

>>11956876
Everything is an ethernet packet at the end of the day.

[Anonymous No.11956930]

>>11956923

[Anonymous No.11956941]

>>11956923
>Everything is a CPU instruction at the end of the day, let's just use machine code. We can add new CPU instructions if we need more functionality, and all we'll need is a hex editor. We can get really big monitors to look at lots of hex code at once. We don't need assembly languages, low level programming languages, high level programming languages, or even libraries, they're a failed idea and we can just use machine code, I bought 7 new monitors so that means I can program 8x as fast now

[Anonymous No.11956945]

how do you use it. is there like a simple wallet

[Anonymous No.11956987]

XLM/Stellar launching on Saturday.

[Anonymous No.11956997]

>>11951441
LTC doesn't need such nonsense

[Anonymous No.11957013]

>>11956876

These analogies mean nothing. If that's all you got here... Then godspeed. But I'm telling you, you're daft.

[Anonymous No.11957028]

>>11956876
Techfags like yourself really need to pick up a basic economics book.

[Anonymous No.11957032]

>>11957013
>These analogies mean nothing
Refute them brainlet are you even a library maintainer?

[Anonymous No.11957051]

>>11957032

You're too high on your mediocre knowledge of basic internet protocols to bother. It's all economics. That's why LN fails.

[Anonymous No.11957063]

>>11957051
>Algorithmic complexity analysis doesn't matter, only economics
>Let's scale our distributed network protocol using O(n) algorithms like block size increases
oof

[Anonymous No.11957169]

>>11956666
yeah, satan, its retarded. just like both users have to have bcash addresses. paypal accounts or bank accounts to transact together. i guess every fucking payment system besides cash is fucking retarded, and even then both parties need to have currency to transact

[Anonymous No.11957181]

>>11957169
recked so hard holy shit

[Anonymous No.11957205]

HOW DO I USE THIS SHIT W/O BEING A COMPUTER ENGINGEER

[Anonymous No.11957234]

>>11952253
>Do any of you fags realize that lightning is TCP/IP for bitcoin?

Not even a logical comparison. TCP/IP is a solution for a real world problem. The Lightning network is a solution to a made-up problem. It's like digging a hole and putting a bridge across the hole.

[Anonymous No.11957239]

>>11957205
When the internet first came out, it was difficult to understand and granny wasn't sending emails. It was an obscure tool invented by scientists, for scientists. Cryptocurrencies are similar, but they get better and better each year. At first things were mainly command line, now we have pretty GUI wallets and validations and safety guards to make it so even Aunt May and Uncle Dick can learn to run Bitcoin full nodes and transact with cryptocurrencies if they really want to

Lightning Network is still in its infancy, for that reason it may be hard to grasp at first. Don't worry. I'd suggest all of Andreas Antonopoulos's books, including the technical one "Mastering Bitcoin: Programming the Open Blockchain" most importantly

Being a "computer engineer" myself I'm probably biased and think it's easier than it really is, but I think if you study enough you can figure out what's going on here

[Anonymous No.11957253]

>>11957234
Lightning Network is a solution to the Bitcoin scaling problem (in reality the PoW cryptocurrency scaling problem - no other cryptos have the scale Bitcoin does and as such they don't have these problems yet, but they will or would)

It's a method to scale without increasing block size which helps maintain decentralization

Anti-LN people can never make up their mind. On one hand, Bitcoin has massive scaling problems and therefore we need big blocks. On the other hand, Bitcoin has no problems therefore we don't need LN and big blocks are fine

Which is it?

[Anonymous No.11957398]

why is everybody acting like this version of LN is set to stone?

there will be other versions with better routing, remember when network engineers found out that TCP/IP was dogshit and there were better ways of putting this thing into work
Also the LN developers said that its still not ready, its barely in beta development

[Anonymous No.11957433]

>>11957239
>now we have pretty GUI wallets and validations and safety guards
we have literally windows 3.1 ASCII interfaces, they havent migrated from the 2012 paradigm of SEND COINS TO ALICE, BOB etc etc
real "pretty" GUI wallets would utilize the other options the bitcoin OP_CODES and give them the flexibility of a technical person while remaining a mouth breather

[Anonymous No.11957510]

>>11957169
But that's the point retard. We already have all those things and they work perfectly fine. LN is literally a joke.

[Anonymous No.11957523]

>>11957510
"You can already send bytes using IP so TCP is literally a joke, don't even get me started on BitTorrent"

[Anonymous No.11957528]

>>11955961
you seem to not understand the main point of ln you dont trust anyone with your coins you got full custody

its not like paypal or an other online wallet

[Anonymous No.11957536]

>>11956810
$300 coffee?

[Anonymous No.11957539]

>>11956941
i love this post

[Anonymous No.11957546]

>>11957253

There is no scaling problem. There never was. Scale has only become a problem when retard devs get involved and alter the protocol.

You got fed a lie by Gordon Maxwell and all the other cops working for Fedstream.

[Anonymous No.11957550]

>>11952844
It's funny because you're describing the XRP ledger

[Anonymous No.11957561]

>>11957253

Also, you don't understand the difference between centralization and centrality.

Bitcoin is a tightly wound ball, with lots of edges and outliers communicating with a dense central ball of industrial scale miners. This is how it was always meant to work.

Mesh = weakness and vulnerability on top of a broken fractional economic system

Centrality with a small world near complete graph = hard money

[Anonymous No.11957564]

>>11957546
>You got fed a lie by Gordon Maxwell and all the other cops working for Fedstream.
These are the types of ideas you think in terms of because you don't understand anything about computer science let alone distributed network protocol design and scaling

Who the fuck is Gordon Maxwell and what the fuck is Fedstream?

You think Bitcoin can scale by merely increasing the block size? We have to DOUBLE the size of the blockchain if we want to double capacity. We have to 100x the size of the blockchain if we want to 100x the capacity

Let's say we want to scale to the whole population of the world, and an orders-of-magnitude larger population of IOT devices and autonomous servers accepting and making transactions. You think we can just keep increasing the block size?

You're fucking clueless, I can't even convey to you how clueless you are because you don't even understand the words required to make the point. Have you ever done something as trivial as passed a single CS interview you utter fucking waste of space? Let alone actually read the source code or tried to understand the protocol and future scaling roadmaps

You're useless and holding back humanity with your retard shit faggot, get off this board and stop shilling bullshit

[Anonymous No.11957569]

>>11957528
also when amazon and walmart set up ln nodes and you can set up a direct channel to them with zero fee transactions you will understand where the current banking system failed you.

worst case basically it be like enter the shop click a barcode set a limit while you shop your channel confirms on the blockchain go to the cashier pay with uour smartphone by clicking the transaction anc authotizing it and the channel gets settled by the time you go home.

[Anonymous No.11957573]

>>11957561
>Also, you don't understand the difference between centralization and centrality.
Edges and outliers communicating with a dense central ball of industrial scale miners? It's clear you have not even an elementary understanding of graph theory and are just repeating bullshit you heard on a Craig Wright video.

[Anonymous No.11957575]

>>11951809
>use lightning node to move 600btc

[Anonymous No.11957581]

>>11957561
>Mesh = weakness and vulnerability on top of a broken fractional economic system
biggest bullshit ever p2p mesh is much more resilient than centralised service

[Anonymous No.11957588]

>>11956810
>being this retarded

[Anonymous No.11957592]

>>11957564

>Let's say we want to scale to the whole population of the world, and an orders-of-magnitude larger population of IOT devices and autonomous servers accepting and making transactions. You think we can just keep increasing the block size?

Yes. Moore's law, you mong. It's that simple.

Everything we have now was said to be impossible ten years ago. It's called capitalism.

>>11957573

I'm not wasting my time on you. You're the very definition of a blowhard know it all with no skin in the game. Read a basic econ book, seriously. You just don't get it, at all.

>>11957581

You don't know what centralized means.

[Anonymous No.11957599]

>>11957592

>Who the fuck is Gordon Maxwell and what the fuck is Fedstream?

As fucking if

[Anonymous No.11957602]

>>11957564
we gonna have to increase block size for adoption anyhow ln channels are created and settled on chain its a bulk settlement for micro transactions

[Anonymous No.11957615]

>>11957592
>You don't know what centralized means.
no of course how would i know about such a mystical esotheric arcane fringe science concept

[Anonymous No.11957616]

>>11957602

Indeed, the co writer of the LN paper himself said that blocks need to be 100mb in the future or it will fail.

Pic related is very important to understanding the actual mechanism of Bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.11957617]

>>11957592
>Yes. Moore's law, you mong. It's that simple
Moore's Law is breaking down you absolute fucktard

>>11957592
>I'm not wasting my time on you. You're the very definition of a blowhard know it all with no skin in the game. Read a basic econ book, seriously. You just don't get it, at all.
Go get a CS degree, study algorithmic complexity analysis and network protocol design, get some job experience working on high performance distributed systems, otherwise shut the fuck up you retard. "Read a basic econ book" you think "econ" applies to network protocol design you fucking imbecile? This is math and programming, this is engineering, not fucking economics

I'm done talking to you because you're a fucking brainlet econ major, it's a shame that crypto is mostly discussed in /biz/ since it attracts morons like you, it belongs on /sci/

If you want to talk about network protocol design you better have at least a CS bachelor's or be a Vitalik level self learner you fucktard, you're clearly neither

Kill yourself for spreading bullshit, knowingly or unknowingly

[Anonymous No.11957628]

>>11957616
Blocks need to be 100mb in the future? Great, then in the future we'll make them 100mb. BCash can never implement LN anyway since it lacks segwit because it's a shitcoin created by Jihan Wu to avoid covert ASICBoost becoming obsolete

Why am I here wasting time talking to a sub-100 IQ retard again, bye

[Anonymous No.11957636]

>>11957617
>Moore's Law is breaking down you absolute fucktard
we are hitting a hard cap with silicium semiconductor technology but... there are alternatives like sapphire dont bury moore yet

[Anonymous No.11957640]

>start with true p2p currency
>force all 99% of the transactions in the long term into channels
>coincidentally the state has omniscient view of the metadata of almost all telecommunication
>now your magical unstopable internet money is still owned by you and unstopable but you don't have privacy which makes the whole thing pointless from a liberty perspective
Oh gee, I wonder who's behind this!

[Anonymous No.11957644]

We have all 3 coins now. Just chill out and let the market determine the winner.

[Anonymous No.11957648]

>>11957592
Can you implement a TCP stack from scratch in C? Can you create a Bitcoin scrypt interpreter from scratch in C? I bet you don't even know what that means, yet you're still trying to sit here and discuss the pros and cons of various network protocol implementation details on fucking /biz/ of all boards because you don't even know what any of these implementation details mean except within the frame of reference of the businessman scammers whose lectures you listen to

Explain how a linearly scaling algorithm, block size increases, can scale with exponential adoption brainlet

[Anonymous No.11957659]

>>11957615

In everyday talk about Bitcoin, most people say “decentralized” to mean what is technically a “distributed topology”.

Conversely, a network with centralized hubs can technically be called “decentralized” if it doesn’t have a singular center.

>>11957617

>you think "econ" applies to network protocol design you fucking imbecile? This is math and programming, this is engineering, not fucking economics

Lmao, okay, keep telling yourself that, you fucking spectator. I've been mining since 2011. I know how this shit works because my bottom line depends on it.

Get fucked.

[Anonymous No.11957661]

>>11957640
LN is p2p fucktard

>>11957636
There will probably be alternatives to silicon in the future, but for all intents and purposes right now it's starting to break down. CPU manufacturers are starting to focus on parallelism instead of block speed increases, notice how we're been stuck at the 3-4GHz clock range for years and instead they're focusing on SIMD acceleration

We can't rely on Moore's Law and future non-silicon innovation as a scaling plan

[Anonymous No.11957663]

>>11957640
yeh you got so much privacy with credit cards and paypal this can never work

[Anonymous No.11957670]

Network distribution. You're all wrong. Giant node versus outlying wallet. These [points to slide] are connectivity graphs. What we have in Bitcoin is, as we get more and more connectivity, we get more and more reachability. This is how it actually works. What we have in Bitcoin is not all these other things where people are talking about "power-law", "scale free", et cetra. They are not Bitcoin because Bitcoin was always economic.

Any node gets more connectivity over time. That is part of the protocol. The bigger your node is, the bigger the number of connection pools. If you run a Raspberry Pi, you are cutting yourself off from most of the network. In graph theory, it is not how many vertices, it is the edges that matter. It is the connectivity between the graph that matters. So, you're all getting it wrong.

[Anonymous No.11957672]

>>11957253
>in reality the PoW cryptocurrency scaling problem

It's a blockchain-based cryptocurrency scaling problem. It's obvious on the get-go that Bitcoin scales poorly because it needs to pass this ledger around the network that only grows larger over time. Cryptocurrency like Ripple won't have this problem because it doesn't need to do this stupid merry-go-round shit.

[Anonymous No.11957673]

Very simple: you don't do node count. Node count is shit. It has zero relevance. Read the mathematics. Zero.

That [points to slide labeled "semi-complete ring"] is Bitcoin. That is the actual model of Bitcoin. Those gray areas in the middle, that is the connectivity between the main nodes. It is that dense. There's a distance in bitcoin of d = 1.32.

Later this year, I'm not sure how we're going to do it, but we're going to start releasing data. I'm not sure how because we have petabytes.

[Points to another slide with same title] That is also part of it. It is bigger than a small world model. It is not anything that people are talking about. It is not a mesh. You send one transaction in 2.3 seconds, once it hits the network, 99.98% of the hash power has your transaction.

It can take 25 seconds to get to 99% of the network, but it's the hash power that matters. Who gives a rat if your little Raspberry Pi gets it late? You're not going to put it in a block any way. If you don't have it in a block, it isn't part of Bitcoin. That's drilling into that network.

This is what people think it is. This is what Lightning is. It's a mesh. Lots of little hops, central nodes, et cetra.

[Anonymous No.11957674]

>>11952927
>Please tell me how it is efficient to broadcast everyone’s morning cup of coffee to everyone else on the planet.


"Muh coffee fallacy".
Who gives a shit if it's broadcasted to the entire planet? It's how it remain decentralized and secure, the fact it's saved on every node on the planet doesn't fucking matter unless you have autism.

The pic related is redundantly saved on thousands of servers with and private computers around the globe and uploaded again likely a hundred times a day, this piece of shit is minimum 16 000 bytes to host while a BTC transaction is 250 bytes, noone gives a shit about this cat photo being inefficiently hosted fucking everywhere because it's autism.

But somewhat when it comes to something actual useful like financial transactions we should go through crazy hoops to minimize the bandwith and storage footprint AT ALL cost for some reasons while the current scaling system would work perfectly fine for more than a decade, it simply is not rational.

[Anonymous No.11957681]

Red balloons in Bitcoin: a group of Microsoft mathematicians went over and did the mathematics behind sybilling and other things. Any network with a distance of three plus can always be sybilled. Mathematically proven: always. Every time you do it.

That---Lightning---can have eighty hops. Not eight, eighty. That means it is always vulnerable to attacks. Not sometimes. Always. It is mathematically proven. Read the paper; read their results.

Bitcoin doesn't get sybills because it has a distance under three. What we end up, with this, Bitcoin... the problem, people don't get the difference in words. Bitcoin is "highly centralized" because it has "high centrality". That Lightning mesh is more of what we are arguing is centralized. In mathematical terms is more distributed than any network globally has ever been. It has less chance of ever being hijacked than anything that has ever been created.

[Anonymous No.11957683]

>>11957661
for a while you can double the cpu gpu cores each year but yeah

[Anonymous No.11957690]

There's a recent paper on routing in Bitcoin. It's wrong. Not because you can't hijack ASNs but because there are so many links. You can knock a node off and attack an individual, but you don't need to take over an ASN to do that. Now, what they also failed to say is, if you did that attack, you would take over 99% of commercial Internet providers. You would take over every military network on Earth. You would take over all of the telecomms' links. And do you think attacking all these core routers and doing that will be allowable just because it's Bitcoin?

I mean, honestly forks, to attack these routers and take over the core BGP systems. Well, not going to happen. Yes, ISPs can make you part of the... they can prune you. Uses your phone, use 3G. Whatever. Multi-home.

So, it is a semi-complete ring. It is actually bigger than a small-world network. These transaction graphs people keep doing are not Bitcoin. They are how economics works. When you have a transaction graph of transactions going from party A to B to C to D, that's how people spend money, not how nodes connect. Have we not thought about that? You can't model Bitcoin looking at how transactions flow between addresses. You look at the connectivity from the nodes.

[Anonymous No.11957697]

Many in the Bitcoin community mistakenly assumed or were led to believe that the Lightning Network (LN) would be a distributed peer-to-peer network.

However, this is infeasible. In fact, even using a generous set of assumptions, we will prove it is mathematically impossible.

We will divide this document into sections. Part one will be a brief general overview of the LN. Part two will explain in simple terms why it cannot provide decentralized scaling. Part three will be a more rigorous mathematical proof.

[Anonymous No.11957701]

Bitcoin was originally designed as peer to peer cash that would scale with simple blocksize increases. However, the discussion over how to scale the network has become a lot more complicated and controversial.

57 Bitcoin “Core” developers have signed their support to an official Capacity Increase Roadmap that advocates the Lightning Network as a “non-bandwidth scaling mechanism” that may provide “very high decentralization”.

We disagree and will prove it does not. After reading and understanding the information here, we recommend you draw your own conclusions.

Lightning Network (LN) is a protocol allowing for a series of off-chain bidirectional payment channels. Here is an excellent 3 part series by Aaron van Wirdum, if you would like to understand the technicalities.

“Bidirectional” simply means two directions, so Alice and Bob could open up a private channel and send bitcoins back and forth (outside of the blockchain):

In order to open the channel, one or both parties have to deposit bitcoins into a special Bitcoin address.1 After that, they can do as many transactions as they want inside the channel, until either of them decide to close it, which settles (pays out the appropriate final balances) on the main Bitcoin blockchain.

[Anonymous No.11957708]

>>11957681
nigga sybill attack doesnt mean what you think it means it applies more to facebook than ln.

[Anonymous No.11957710]

Going one step farther, if Alice had a channel with Bob, and Bob also had a channel with Carol, then Alice could indirectly send money to Carol: Bob would first pay Carol, and then Alice would reimburse Bob.


The Envisioned Network
LN evangelists promote the idea that if Alice can pay Carol through Bob, we should be able to keep extending this idea to build an entire network of payment channels, thus allowing a large percentage of transactions to occur off-chain.

However, this cannot be realistically accomplished as a peer-to-peer network, at least not one of any significant size.

[Anonymous No.11957721]

>>11957710

I’ll make this explanation as short as I can.

First, you must understand that the Lightning Network is not like other networks in that you cannot simply connect to another user whenever you want.

To send or receive bitcoins, you need either a payment channel with that specific user, or a linked series of payment channels (a “route”).

It’s pointless to create a payment channel for the sole purpose of sending an off-chain transaction, since it requires an on-chain transaction to open the channel (and another one to close). You might as well just send an on-chain transaction instead; you don’t need the LN.

The idea is that you’re supposed to be able to route your payment to any destination through a series of connections. From the viewpoint of a user, the potential path to anyone else looks like a tree structure:

[Anonymous No.11957725]

>>11957721

It Starts Off Like a Basic Math Problem
We’re going to assume the goal is to scale to one million users.

Let’s think about this: If you have a tree with 10 branches, and each of those branches has 10 leaves, you can reach 100 leaves.

And if you have a tree with 10 branches, and each has 10 sub-branches, and each of those in turn has 10 sub-branches , etc… you can go 6 levels “deep” and get: 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10, or simply: 106, which equals one million.

Since you have to hop from branch to branch 6 times to reach the leaf, we can say we have “6 hops”. So that’s 10 branches with 6 hops, or in our case: 10 channels with 6 hops.

So, what’s the challenge?

Your Money Can’t Be In Two Places At the Same Time
If we assume we need 10 payment channels to reach the entire network in 6 hops, that means you’d have to divide up your bitcoins into 10 parts.

But, probably only one of these channels will reach the intended recipient at any given time. That means you’ll only be able to send part of your money, for example 10%.

Could we get around this by just having 2 channels and, say 20 hops? We’ll come back to this question. First, let’s understand another important fact:

Everyone is Lending to Everyone Else
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.

[Anonymous No.11957728]

>>11957725

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.

Why is this a big deal?

It Means a Large Number of Hops is a Deal-Breaker
Let’s say that everyone was using routes with 20 hops, and most users spent about $1000/month. If everyone did their fair share to help route payments, each user would need to route $20,000/month.

Would that even be possible?

It depends on many factors including: the amount of time required for a route and the number of transactions.

Even if we make a (possibly generous) assumption that a user can route 20 times his normal transaction load and only suffer a reduction of 50% in the availability of his channels, then he would need double the number of channels he normally would have.

[Anonymous No.11957730]

>>11957672
cryptos that dont have scaling problems are not trustless decentralized unauthorized systems. this so far is a fact of life.

[Anonymous No.11957734]

>>11957728

In Reality, It’s Even Worse
There’s at least 5 additional problems which worsen the situation.

Even the basic math we started with: 106=1,000,000 isn’t quite applicable. If we assume peers form mostly random connections without a central authority to plan routes, then there’s a certain probability of success. A one-in-a-million chance, repeated a million times, only produces a 63% success rate. Choosing 2 million times improves this to 84%, which would mean increasing the number of channels.3
As users spend their income, available routes degrade, until the time that more funds are deposited. In other words, when a person receives a salary payment and deposits funds in the network, their channels are at a maximum, with full routing power. But as their money is spent, this power drops toward zero. Averaged out, this pattern cuts the routing power by about half, requiring double the number of channels.
Routing funds for others disrupts an otherwise even distribution of funds, which also diminishes the number of usable channels.
There is a large wealth disparity in any population. Therefore, the number of users that can route funds for any other random user is only a fraction of the network. And this problem is magnified exponentially with an increasing number of hops.
There always exists a risk of a routing channel becoming unresponsive (either intentionally or unintentionally). This risk also grows exponentially with an increasing number of hops.
The “TLDR” Summary
To reach anyone in a big network with a series of branching channel connections, you either need a large number of channels, or a large number of hops.

Both are a huge problem. A large number of channels means users have to divide up their funds and can’t do anything except tiny purchases. And a large number of hops means everyone’s money will be tied up routing everybody else’s money.

[Anonymous No.11957741]

>>11957734

Conclusion: A Completely Unworkable System
As the network reaches a million users, it seems there will be no realistic way to avoid these problems. Dividing funds into many channels and continually loaning out money both make the network unusable.

The only conceivable visions are either A) everyone deposits MUCH much more than they need to transact with, or B) the system depends on large centralized hubs.

Neither is a decentralized scaling solution, or even a major part of one.

[Anonymous No.11957743]

the madman posts the entire article instead of a link...

[Anonymous No.11957746]

>>11957743

We are not called autists for nothing!

With all this said, by the way, I do plan on spinning up a LN node. I think it's a pretty neat experiment. It just isn't the solution for scaling Bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.11957749]

>>11956226
>lightning isn’t “trustless”, but it heavily incentivized you to play fair. If you don’t play fair, then the other person gets to keep your funds.

mean this, what did he?

[Anonymous No.11957758]

>>11957749

And remember, the only real function of a non-validating node is to validate your OWN transactions. So this means you are taking all the steps to be paranoid towards YOURSELF, and as far as other people go? Well, they are heavily incentivized, right guys?

[Anonymous No.11957773]

>>11957741
huge hubs are a given but the network can be decentralized as hubs can come and go can be localized but interconnected which means you are not stuck wigh a shitty provider like with a physical link and most of your purchase can go through a single regional hub or two at most. mosy people spend money and not receive it only the merchants need the hub to lock in funds however this doesnt mean the channels have to be huge and inflexible. you can have multiple channels and close the ones that got filled.

[Anonymous No.11957789]

>>11957758
stop posting faketoshi man im getting sick of his bullshit

[Anonymous No.11957801]

>>11957773
> can't allow more than 7tx/sec because it would result in huge nodes
> huge hubs are a given.
imagine that. it's not like anybody fucking warned everyone about this for fucking years or anything.

[Anonymous No.11957824]

>>11957730
BCH is already at paypal scale, clocked at 32mb blocks, 1gb blocks in testnet.
There are scaling issues with blockchains, but they are much, much higher up than Blockstream / core would have us believe. And when they are hit, what actually happens? Well, fees increase, which in turn incentivises what? Market based solutions to the problem.
Maybe that's second layer solutions that don't suck as hard as lightnin
Maybe that's sharded blockchain layers
Maybe it's something else completely different.
Whatever it will be, it won't be a second layer that barely functions, must be centralised by topology, and was jammed down the throats of the entire ecosystem by a pack of fuckheads who did it because it was in their business interests, and because they were subverted by the state and central banks.

[Anonymous No.11957854]

>>11957801
it can still be miles better than the current banking system and credit cards, so i fail to see your problem.

> can't allow more than 7tx/sec because it would result in huge nodes
> huge hubs are a given.
huge in that holding a lot of bitcoins. you need highly solvent hubs for ln to be practical for general commerce. that was known since the concept was conceived. however there will be more competition than with card providers and banks i can just about guarantee that. you want to keep the routing under 3 hops. if not for anything else than fees. and it would be pretty bad in general with a fully interconnected graph of hundreds of hubs. however you forget that most people do commerce regionally or with large online sellers like amazon. which means in practice this can work out very well. and with a bit of forethought you can even set up direct payment channels to sellers.

[Anonymous No.11957867]

>>11955787
>>11955787
Ethereum blockchain is <60GB, last time I checked was at the end of July when it was 47GB.
https://etherscan.io/chart/blocksize
https://etherscan.io/chart/blocks
Yesterday there were 6121 blocks with the average size of 17814 bytes.
Given the graph for past sizes and counts, it's obvious claims of 1TB+ blockchain are lies. The blockchain is much smaller than in bitcoin.
>>11955915
>Bitch I'm running an ETH node right here
Use parity, geth wastes disk space

[Anonymous No.11957869]

>>11957758
Don't embarrass yourself with BSV, it literally is exactly everything coretards accused BCH of being. "Network will be fine if there's only three nodes in the world all operating in data centers owned by nChain" "All miners must go through AMLKYC" "Permissionless as long as you have nChain's permission.
And that's not even counting the fact that they flat out cannot keep their systems running, are mining blocks too big for their own isolated networks to handle, and just generally reek of a scammy incompetent operation.

[Anonymous No.11957870]

>>11957801
>7tx/sec
btw that will obviously not work.

[Anonymous No.11957884]

>>11957661
>LN is p2p fucktard
IT'S COMPLETELY THE OPPOSITE WAY OF WHAT P2P SHOULD BE.
you want to send someone a payment on the blockchain? You don't need any middleman, you can broadcast to any node in the network one-time without having any links to any other activity.
You want to send a tx in the LN? You need MIDDLEMEN.
Kapish?

[Anonymous No.11957890]

>>11957854
> it can still be miles better than the current banking system and credit cards, so i fail to see your problem.
Miles --worse--. It is exactly like the current system, subject to the exact same flaws and parasitism, except this time they have full spectrum visibility into every single action anyone anywhere does, and they also get to shut down Bitcoin as a network by supply manipulation and all their classical tricks on other layers. Really read and understand >>11955345 to grasp just how fucked things will be in a lightning world.
> huge in that holding a lot of bitcoins.
And acting as routing hubs for the network, and obvious places to impose regulation, AMLKYC requirements, surveillance, and whatever other pet project du jour states and central banks are interested in pushing on the entirety of civilisation. No thanks.

[Anonymous No.11957892]

Why the fuck would anyone use LN over visa.

[Anonymous No.11957895]

>>11957884
>MIDDLEMEN
No you don't, you can send directly to their LN node with no middlemen

[Anonymous No.11957904]

>>11957870
I don't really get what you mean by "obviously will not work" I believe the segwit+base transaction throughput speed on the coretard chain is 7tx/sec. Not that it matters, that being a wholly inadequate number for fucking anything at all anyway.

[Anonymous No.11957909]

>>11957892
https://www.cardfellow.com/blog/credit-card-processing-fees/
>For example, 1.51% plus $0.10 is the current Visa interchange fee for a swiped consumer credit card.

They skim money off the world economy for providing an inferior technology fraught with fraudulent chargebacks

[Anonymous No.11957911]

>>11957895
Not at scale you can't, because routing.

[Anonymous No.11957918]

>>11951464

[Anonymous No.11957920]

>>11957663
So the LN is good because PayPal sucks?

[Anonymous No.11957929]

Here is the final summary of all of this;
Lightning, Liquid, Bakkt, and every other obvious glownigger parasite project on BTC is doomed to abject failure, because those who actually understand Bitcoin as it was meant to be will simply keep their huge hordes of coin on chain sans segwit and transact without segwit. At worst, they will suffer some degree of parasitism from whatever fractional reserve scam the upper layers manage to run in their kiked castles, but as long as the bulk of the supply stays off segwit and outside the reaches of these upper layers, they will not be able to significantly degrade the currency regardless.
That's it, that's all there is to it. And in the meantime, all these other cryptocurrencies are experimenting with various approaches to scale that aren't kiked all to fuck and back, and if they ever actually deliver, well we just sell all our BTC and move over to their once it's proven to work, and who gives a fuck what happens to the plebs left on BTC.

[Anonymous No.11957951]

>>11957929
yep. Also Bitcoin-NG, look it up brainlets. There's a working implementation right now

[Anonymous No.11957960]

>>11957929
based up until you start saying
>we just sell all
>we
nigger kike

[Anonymous No.11958012]

>>11957895
>No you don't, you can send directly to their LN node with no middlemen
But that requires an on-chain tx, which makes the LN pointless, unless you're going to send many tx's to them, which is a niche usecase.

[Anonymous No.11958028]

>>11957895

I didn't think you could get any less credible, but you've outdone yourself here bud.

Was it easy to buy on Coinbase last December?

[Anonymous No.11958036]

>>11951441
It doesn't work in a decentralized manner. Right now LN is collapsing.
The channels/node metric continuously goes up, which means as network gets bigger scalability becomes worse.
The only reason for anyone to open a new channel is if payments don't work using existing channels. Any payment past 1 hop is a hail mary.
LN would be scalable if it somehow worked with 1-2 channels per node. For every channel opened and closed, ~6 transactions are needed to save on-chain space compared to the on-chain alternative, the whole point of LN. That means 84 transactions per current node with 14 average channels.

That's not a realistic number, which leads to the conclusion: LN as it stands wastes on-chain space.

https://bitcoinvisuals.com/ln-nodes
There are only 1830 nodes. Why are there 4230 nodes on your image? Because that's the count of all nodes that ever existed, even if they didn't have any channels. There are 1830 live nodes. It's dishonest stat pumping to quote the 4230 number. Dishonest statistics are very common with the btc crowd.
The funniest shit is that LN fanatics are happy and thing the current growth is positive, while LN developers are sweating bullets.

There are only two possible futures:
- LN centralizes into few mega-hubs and sort-of works for unidirectional payments (users->shops).
- channels per node start to grow quadratically until even biggest fanatics realize that something isn't functioning as it should.
LN is useful for very few use cases: it requires frequent payments back and forth on the same path to scale. This works for transfers between exchanges, but doesn't work for transfers for other users.

[Anonymous No.11958037]

>>11952927
The comparison between the base layer and ethernet and WiFi is spot on.
The blockchain broadcasts everything.

Big blocks, applied to networking, would be equivalent to asking for a global WiFi using Tesla Death Rays.

Lightning is great and very clever. It is more complicated for sure but I think usability will be worked out.

[Anonymous No.11958060]

>>11958036
>thing the current growth is positive
think*

[Anonymous No.11958061]

>>11958036
yeah ln works for interhub settlement if the traffic is balanced it works for the end users if they only buy or sell on a channel.

so just about everything we truly need it to work for because it doesn't fucking work on chain.

[Anonymous No.11958180]

the alternative to ln is pretty fucking sad tho.
it's basically banks where you either deposit btc and they can do the transaction for you and they use sql databases to keep track of off-chain balances. or you deposit a certain amount into escrow and that is your authorized 0conf limit. which means you pay directly to services with 0conf transactions but if you try to scam them with a double spend they can easily prove it to the escrow service by presenting the two transactions and just about automatically get their btc. obviously once your transactions confirm your spending limit is restored. that's so much worse than ln but it also solves shopping with an extra trustful centralized service layer which itself is infinitely saleable.

but we are getting to the point where either ln works or we need trust and authority to scale. people don't realize how important this fact is. every fucking coin that scales up to demand is trustful, proof of authority based for validation.

i have no idea if the blocksize increase can truly scale up to the transaction flow in practice but without a centralized escrow service it's deluded to assume 0conf can work.

[Anonymous No.11958214]

>>11951441
Chainlink will make all of this a hilarious and obsolete shitshow.

[Anonymous No.11958223]

>>11958214
poa crap also

[Anonymous No.11958224]

>>11958180
Lies.
There's sharding.
ETH and BCH are working on it.

[Anonymous No.11958248]

>>11958224
>sharding
>pos
>designated nodes for validation
poa crap

[Anonymous No.11958272]

Anyway even if LN worked in a decentralized way (again, it doesn't) there are two unsolvable problems: both sides need to be online, and to receive bitcoins both sides must lock some.
The need to be online is a problem for any company selling something, because it requires storing the private key on a server. This makes the model of a cheap vps impossible due to insecurity. Right now only the public key has to be stored on vps to monitor, but not spend, payments from customers.

The second is a problem because right now every new channel has btc on only one side, so to be able to receive and spend 1BTC, you must first open a channel with 2BTC, then spend 1BTC to yourself on-chain through your channel.
The assumption that everyone has enough money for that to work is false.

Even _if_ LN scaled, these two properties make it a usability nightmare.

[Anonymous No.11958278]

>>11958180
Wrong, look up ZCF Zeroconf Forfeit in BCH using OP_DSV.
If you're ever thinking "this sucks in BTC" chances are it's either fixed or much better in BCH.

[Anonymous No.11958331]

>>11958223
Nope - you have absolutely 0 idea what you're talking about. Go play with the other children please.

[Anonymous No.11958332]

>>11957588
Right. So 0.042 BTC = $168.
When you stake $168 into the network, you will have massive trouble sending $2.

[Anonymous No.11958366]

>>11952966
You have no single idea how BTC was designed to work. Users are not supposed to run a node. There's no such thing at all as "non-mining verifying full node" in the whitepaper, it was a PR stunt Blockstream pulled out of their ass as an excuse for moving to a 2nd layer.

[Anonymous No.11958611]

>>11952253
>>11952401
Wont bandwidth eventually catch up?

[Anonymous No.11958776]

>>11952899
I’ve been around long enough (like 6 months) to know how those Austrian economics/Ancap “theories” actually play out.

[Anonymous No.11958779]

> Anyone can create a lightning node and connect to whoever they please. Just like anyone can buy a router and connect to whoever they please.


Except poor people in impoverished govt controlled countries who need bitcoin the most. Remember banking the unbanked and connecting he world economy, yeah we gave up on that sorry lads

[Anonymous No.11958862]

>>11951464
we want to see skycoin without the backend edition , if big datacenters wont mine the aws will go((( down ))) and you can say bye bye to the 50%of the nodes
>more nodes delusion

[Anonymous No.11958872]

>>11952796

Saying LN routing is like TCP/IP is just a metaphor, it isn't literally the same thing dumb ass.

[Anonymous No.11958889]

>>11958278
big if true i'm reading into it, if you remove the need for centralized escrow service from zero conf transactions that's a game changer. it could also allow for bulk transaction booking in theory.

[Anonymous No.11958897]

>>11958331
chainlink is poa crap sorry. it's also unnecessary.

[Anonymous No.11958912]

>>11956923
>Ethernet
>Packets
Ethernet doesn't use packets, anon.
Also, outside of LANs, Ethernet is generally not used.

[Anonymous No.11958969]

>>11958889
okay two issues i have with it
1) the merchant still gets fucked only the miner is happy with a double spend the customer can fuck a business by basically burning his money after he payed with it. altho this probably requires mental illness or strong resentment.
2) if anyone ever reuses a public key with a transaction like this unintentionally a miner can fuck them both.

[Anonymous No.11958981]

its embarrassing watching people try and pretend to be smart enough to argue whether lighting can work or not, all because they missed out on bitcoin and think some chink airdrop token that's called itself bitcoin is going to make them rich.

you had 10 years of bitcoin to make it, face it, you wasted that decade and you're never getting it back

[Anonymous No.11959050]

>>11958981
>you had 10 years of bitcoin to make it, face it, you wasted that decade and you're never getting it back
bitcoins current adoption rate: 0.053%
bitcoins possible adoption rate in the next decade: 10%

[Anonymous No.11959079]

>>11958981
I was in long before you even heard about it and I sold that crap a long time ago.

[Anonymous No.11959407]

>>11958981
almost as embarrassing as people with an inflated self opinion thinking they can ignore technical reality because they are so blessed.
Doesn't work like that chump.

[Anonymous No.11959448]

>>11958969
> altho this probably requires mental illness or strong resentment.
Right, so they'd have to go to a lot of effort, for no benefit, Meaning it probably isn't a big deal. They're also working on a ZCF that forfeits to target instead of miner.

[Anonymous No.11959602]

>>11958897
You don't even know what poa is do you? It's just an acronym you throw around because you've seen it in other threads and think it'll make you look clever. No wonder your contributions are so... intelligent and well thought-out.

[Anonymous No.11959722]

What are people even using LN for at the moment?

[Anonymous No.11959729]

>>11959722
to scam idiots

[Anonymous No.11959747]

>>11958037
>Big blocks, applied to networking, would be equivalent to asking for a global WiFi using Tesla Death Rays

What are 5G networks? You retards keep coming with more and more stupid comparaisons that don't even make sense.

[Anonymous No.11959765]

>>11958331
Shut the fuck up idiot, noone gives a shit about your subway token.

[Anonymous No.11959774]

>>11959602
no actually it was my invention originally

[Anonymous No.11959788]

This thread is incredibly stupid. Just use Nano.

[Anonymous No.11959798]

>>11959448
>forfeits to target instead of miner.
i see some problems with the incentives there. or you meant both?

[Anonymous No.11959998]

ALL IN ON RDN MOTHERFUCKERS

Atomic swaps are on the brink of existing right fucking now, do the needfull you pajeet bastards and buy my fucking bags

State channels are the future of crypto, get smart

[Anonymous No.11960015]

>>11959788
Do you have ZK-proofs in Nano?..

[Anonymous No.11960061]

>>11957063
>Let's scale our distributed network protocol using O(n) algorithms like block size increases
Yeah, instead let's just cap it far below what current tech can handle. We need to bring every data centre down to a toaster.