Lightning Network

[Anonymous No.9348831]

People in the core camp, please give me one logical reasoning as to how the Lightning Network won't eventually destroy all of the hash power on BTC as more halvenings happen over the next 10-20 years (since LN takes most of the miner fees off-chain now).

The only thing I can think of is that the fees per on-chain transaction to open/close your LN node will have to be incredibly high assuming you keep the blocks at 1MB.

BTC price will have to double before each halvening just to maintain the current hashpower. What happens when the block rewards are less than 1 BTC or eventually zero? How do you have enough hash power to protect your network worth trillions of dollars from a 51% attack if the miners aren't collecting fees?

Logical arguments only please.

[Anonymous No.9348952]

>>9348831
good point. I guess the hope would be that over time bitcoin will be much more valuable then bitcoin cash, thereby incentivizing miners to stay on the BTC chain. BTC probably we has 12 years to outlast bitcoin cash in this respect. so by then, the hope would be to break bitcoin cash somehow, or render it illegitimate.

admittedly, bitcoin cash has a powerful ally. bitmain.

so bitcoin may need to fork to another algorithm, which at the same time would be quantum resistant as an excuse. two birds one stone.

[Anonymous No.9348979]

>>9348952
If they changed algorithms then all of the ASICS immediately switch to BCH. That would be suicide no?

[Anonymous No.9349049]

Ask a simple technical question. Get no responses. Makes ya think, doesn’t it?

[Anonymous No.9349064]

>>9348979
not really. those asics wouldnt be able to double spend. so now BCH has all the hashes in the world, but they dont work on BTC chain.

BYC chain now has an updated quantum resistant mining algorithim, so quantum computer cant hack it. but they can hack BCH. and the mining game resets, so everyone can participate again with GPU's at first, then asics. hopefully by then, there will be more asic players then bitmain.

[Anonymous No.9349127]

>>9349064
BYC = BTC my bad

[Anonymous No.9349153]

>>9349049

Only a shill or technologically illiterate investor would continue to support bitcoin. None of them understand the technology they're pouring thousands into. Of course, they'll defend their terrible decisions till the end because the thought of being wrong is too difficult

[Anonymous No.9349155]

>>9348831
First of all, if you're a genuine cashie you are by definition a brainlet. If you're just pumping your bags then fair enough.
>since LN takes most of the miner fees off-chain now
Source for this? Hold on, stop typing. Not your opinion. SOURCE ie. a simulated model or something along those lines.
>What happens when the block rewards are less than 1 BTC or eventually zero?
IDK nigga ask Satoshi
>How do you have enough hash power to protect your network
The BTC network is the most powerful supercomputer in human history, the top thousand other supercomputers in the world wouldn't even dent the hashrate. It's insanely overpowered as it is. Losing hashrate is just not a concern for the foreseeable future.

[Anonymous No.9349175]

>>9349155
You really need a source post to understand that the entire point of the LN is to move most transactions off-chain which the miners collect no fees on? And then you call someone else a brainlet? Oh the irony.

[Anonymous No.9349182]

>>9349153
>>9349049
I addressed your question...wtf

[Anonymous No.9349215]

>>9349064
Do you think BCH is going to switch algos at the same time because a quantum computer in the future might crack a wallet? I think it’s more likely they just take all of the hash power.

[Anonymous No.9349218]

>>9349182

Your answer makes no sense. It's drivel. Forking to another algorithm would be suicide for bitcoin. I wouldn't put it beyond their stupidity though. They're killing bitcoin right now

[Anonymous No.9349282]

>>9349215
quantum computers are coming. SHA256 is not quantum resistant. All us core cucks need to do is rent the quantum computer for an hour, hack roger vers public keys into private, and voila. no more BCH. So once quantum computers become reality, everyone's going to have to upgrade the mining algorithms. not just BCH. everyone.

[Anonymous No.9349290]

>>9349064
Goddamn good answer Anon

[Anonymous No.9349296]

A board full of people holding BTC that can’t come up with a decent argument as to how mining will work long term with LN. oh boy.

[Anonymous No.9349307]

>>9349218
but here's the genius behind it. quantum computers are coming. everyone needs to fork their algorithm to be quantum resistant.

so the question then becomes. can bitcoin cash crush bitcoin by the time quantum computer become a reality...we'll see.

[Anonymous No.9349335]

>>9349307
because if bitcoin cash isn't just king, but has crushed, demolished absolutely ruined BTC to 1$, by the time quantum computers come out, well shit. you don't win, because the mining game resets.

[Anonymous No.9349338]

>>9349282
Do you know how many things in the world use SHA256 for security? You really think you are just going to wake up one day and boom SHA256 is cracked with no warning. Sorry everyone who had their bank accounts hacked! They won’t release quantum computers to the public for years until every company has time to change their security.

[Anonymous No.9349347]

>>9349155
What a brianlet, no value shitpost

[Anonymous No.9349350]

>>9349296
read my answers anon. dont be a shilldrone. think game theory.

[Anonymous No.9349373]

>>9349338
NIST is working on this actively. see>>9349282


EVERYONE WILL HAVE TO UPGRADE, NOT JUST CRYPTO.

[Anonymous No.9349380]

>>9349175
>You really need a source post to understand that...
I dont need anything. Id just like everyone reading this thread to know where you get your incorrect ideas from. Now they know; your ass.
Thanks for confirming.

[Anonymous No.9349383]

>>9349350
Check this
>>9349338

[Anonymous No.9349397]

>>9349380
It’s incorrect? So you are saying that BTC miners collect fees on lightning network transactions?

[Anonymous No.9349415]

>>9349383
read>>9349373

sha256 is not unhackable. it is quantum vulnerable. everyone will have to upgrade. even banks. NIST is working on this closely: https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/Post-Quantum-Cryptography

[Anonymous No.9349435]

>>9349415
I’m not saying it is unhackable I’m saying they won’t release quantum computers to the public until there has been plenty of time for everyone to upgrade their security.

[Anonymous No.9349441]

>>9349350
Dont waste your time
>>9349347
irony

[Anonymous No.9349466]

>>9349397
Shockingly, anon, sentences dont exist in isolation. Sometimes when you put a bunch of them together, they even affect each other! Amazing right!?

[Anonymous No.9349472]

>>9349441
You come into the thread adding no logic to any argument, make crazy random statements and then say it’s not worth your time to debate. Fucking top kek. Exactly what I expected.

[Anonymous No.9349490]

>>9349466
I can’t tell if you are trolling or actually a brainlet. Enjoy losing everything. Buy some strong rope before it goes to 0.

[Anonymous No.9349506]

>>9349435
which include bitcoin cash...so we're on the same page then.

so we're agreed everyone will eventually need to abandon sha256. bitcoin cash needs to absolutely destroy bitcoin before this switch happens. otherwise, the mining game resets to a quantum resistant one, and that's very different from the current landscape, as many coins are already being deployed for just this purpose.

so then the question is, who is going to build the first quantum asic miner, and do they back bitcoin, or bitcoin cash?

by then bitmain may have more competition...

[Anonymous No.9349530]

>>9349506
also, there's too many god damn variables at the micro level. this is just a high level discussion of one factor (the quatom computer singularity).

who the fuck knows what happens next. it fucking crypto baby.

[Anonymous No.9349542]

>>9349472
>>9349490
Its literally not worth anyones time to "debate" you, you barely understand the topic. Id tell you to google it, but by the time you get your head around it LN will already have won and you wont have to worry anout it any more.

[Anonymous No.9349547]

>>9349506
The game theory is interesting for sure. Wonder how long until it has to happen.

[Anonymous No.9349562]

>>9349506
SHA256 is not vulnerable to quantum computing.

[Anonymous No.9349565]

>>9349542
How about you post your “source” on how miners somehow get fees on LN transactions. I won’t hold my breath.

How much does blockstream pay you per hour?

[Anonymous No.9349580]

>>9349547
who knows. my thoughts on the bitcoin vs bitcoin cash debate is to seek greener pastures and safe havens. those titans are going to eat each others gains.

I seek safe harbor in xmr personally, and decred.

[Anonymous No.9349599]

>>9349296
you're asking what kind of technology will secure BTC after current one will probably become obsolete in 20 years?

[Anonymous No.9349619]

>>9349565
t. teen 105er

[Anonymous No.9349642]

>>9349619
I imagine you are about 300lbs, acne ridden 32 year old in your moms basement, HHKV who gets his jollies making random shit posts on 4chan. How close am I?

[Anonymous No.9349669]

>>9349562
buddy....https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Quantum_computing_and_Bitcoin

Timeline / plausibility

"Creating a quantum computer is a massive scientific and engineering challenge. As of 2016, the largest general-purpose quantum computers have fewer than 10 qubits. Attacking Bitcoin keys would require around 1500 qubits. Humanity currently does not have the technology necessary to create a quantum computer large enough to attack Bitcoin keys. It is not known how quickly this technology will advance; however, cryptography standards such as ECRYPT II tend to say that Bitcoin's 256-bit ECDSA keys are secure until at least 2030-2040.

There is a company called D-Wave which claims to produce quantum computers with over 1000 qubits. However, this claim has not been universally accepted, and even if it is true, this is a special-purpose quantum computer incapable of attacking crypto. "


so humanity has 10 qubits ability at present. to get to the required 1500 qubits, we can apply moore's law and get to 1500 qubits in eight years. but who knows if that'll happen. moores law is based on processing chips doubling in power every year. that may not apply to quantom computing.

[Anonymous No.9349681]

>>9349642
lmao so much for your technical thread. By the time youre finished high school LN will be the undisputed daddy. Dont put your allowence anywhere else.

[Anonymous No.9349694]

>>9349669
Dude stop just google sha256 and quantum and read any random result. You'll sleep easier :)

[Anonymous No.9349827]

>>9348831
i tried to raise this point a few months ago, but even though i asked multiple times for an explanation, all i got were people who called me a retard while posting pictures of brainlets
absolutely stellar show of intellect from the core group

them moving miner transactions off-chain will literally make bitcoin completely 100% unprofitable and pointless to mine one day, and will thus make it totally worthless
it is destined to collapse completely when the supply runs out, and is no longer a safe means of storing money
it doesn't even matter if bitcoin cash is a "chinese scamcoin" (even though it's not)—it actually has intrinsic value, and there are no plans from the devs to sabotage that

[Anonymous No.9349841]

>>9348831
Start with learning to spell. It will help you a lot.

[Anonymous No.9349845]

Bitcoin doesn't need to "scale", because those who cannot afford transactions are by definition irrelevant within what Bitcoin has to offer.

Some niggers playing in the mud in Africa don't need army grade encryption. This applies to first world average joes too. Most people don't have any money, which is why it's funny seeing idiots worring about "mainstream adoption" because they think that's how Bitcoin reaches the so called Moon, in Reddit terms.

Bitcoin is a monolith in which the deprecation of all fiatings are mesured upon.
The world adapts to Bitcoin, not otherwise.

If you accept the mainstream derping about "banking the unbanked" (which itself is just a PR ruse of the USG's to get their fingers into the blockchain), you'll find yourself wanting to do something stupid about minimum transaction values in the Bitcoin network. Once you reduce the minimum fee for broadcasting, a whole slew of smaller transactions will want into each block. That demand will put upward pressure on the price each transaction must pay for inclusion into each 1MB block, pressure that can only be alleviated by increasing the maximum block size. So there you have it: the USG is once again exploiting your kindhearted desire to make the world a better place for someone to whom you're entirely unrelated to fuck up the blockchain.

[Anonymous No.9349856]

>>9349845
>Bitcoin doesn't need to "scale", because those who cannot afford transactions are by definition irrelevant within what Bitcoin has to offer.

god coretards are going to be eating their words in a few months

[Anonymous No.9349870]

Bitcoin doesn't need to "scale", because those who cannot afford transactions are by definition irrelevant within what Bitcoin has to offer.

Some niggers playing in the mud in Africa don't need army grade encryption. This applies to first world average joes too. Most people don't have any money, which is why it's funny seeing idiots worring about "mainstream adoption" because they think that's how Bitcoin reaches the so called Moon, in Reddit terms.

Bitcoin is a monolith in which the deprecation of all fiatings are measured upon.
The world adapts to Bitcoin, not otherwise.

If you accept the mainstream derping about "banking the unbanked" (which itself is just a PR ruse of the USG's to get their fingers into the blockchain), you'll find yourself wanting to do something stupid about minimum transaction values in the Bitcoin network. Once you reduce the minimum fee for broadcasting, a whole slew of smaller transactions will want into each block. That demand will put upward pressure on the price each transaction must pay for inclusion into each 1MB block, pressure that can only be alleviated by increasing the maximum block size. So there you have it: the USG is once again exploiting your kindhearted desire to make the world a better place for someone to whom you're entirely unrelated to fuck up the blockchain.

[Anonymous No.9349880]

>>9349870
>bitcoin doesn't need to "scale", because those who cannot afford transactions are by definition irrelevant within what Bitcoin has to offer.

COREKEKS ARE GOING TO BE HOLDING SOME HEAVY BAGS IN A FEW MONTHS

[Anonymous No.9349948]

>>9349397
LN transactions are settled on-chain on actual blocks you complete doofus, so thinks will go on as usual, miners mine blocks as usual.
Not that LN matters. Anyone with enough money to matter will keep transacting on-chain.

[Anonymous No.9349980]

>>9349155
>calls others brainlets
>literally has no idea how LN works

[Anonymous No.9350009]

LN transactions are eventually settled on-chain on actual blocks you complete doofus, so things will go on as usual, miners mine blocks which will contain transactions as usual, they will just have batches of LN transactions as well, nothing changes.
Not that LN matters. Anyone with enough money to matter will keep transacting on-chain. The rest can either use LN, or any centralized altcoin of choice if you sleep better at night transacting on-chain in nigger blockchains.

[Anonymous No.9350011]

>>9349980
Ride that fork pump, cashies. Dont get dumped on!

[Anonymous No.9350015]

>>9349282
Quantum computing is a meme and even if it wasn't it wouldn't be able to break SHA256 immediately. Also if it ever becomes not a meme quantum hashing would follow and chains would upgrade in kind

[Anonymous No.9350046]

>>9350015
LMAO pretend experts itt. Congrats youre almost correct, even if by accident.

[Anonymous No.9350115]

>>9348952
>>9349064
>>9349155
See attached niggas.

[Anonymous No.9350147]

>>9349282
CSW has two of them.

Looks like it might be the other way around, anon.

Do your research.

[Anonymous No.9350157]

>>9350115
>Ver paid him $100k to shill his shitcoin

[Anonymous No.9350181]

>>9350157
The tweet was back in July.

I suppose ver also paid 80% of the miners who were signaling Bitcoin Cash?

BTC bags heavy?

[Anonymous No.9350264]

>>9350181
Where is that 80% hashrate at?

Looks like miners dumped your shitcoin for more Bitcoin and went back to mining Bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.9350284]

CSfag here. Did master’s thesis on quantum algorithm design.

Quantum computers - real, practical, workable ones - will absolutely fuck most cryptos up. And pretty much most encrypted internet traffic too. The difficulty involved in keeping large numbers of qubits entangled is high enough that only governmental entities probably have the resources to attempt it, and when they do succeed they’re sure as shit not gonna tell anyone. They’re gonna snoop worldwide internet traffic, confiscate crypto from “criminals” or enemies of the state, etc.

DWave is a cool company but their computer is an annealer - basically a highly specialized QC that solves maximization/minimization problems through quantum tunneling. Useless for cracking cryptographic keys.

Basically all of modern cryptography is secure because factoring big numbers is hard. This hardness is described mathematically by the notion of complexity classes - basically it’s suspected that there is some fundamental asymmetry in the universe that means problems can be harder to solve than to verify. If you’ve heard of P vs. NP, that’s the ballpark. QCs introduce a new complexity class, BQP, which is somehow related to the existing classes - likely a superset of P with some NP overlap. Anything in BQP is crackable with a general purpose QC.

For Bitcoin to survive in the quantum era it will have to change its algorithm to one outside BQP and likely still within NP. This will likely involve lots of drama like the blocksize thing, but no one will give a fuck because everyone with a brain will be using Nano.

[Anonymous No.9350316]

>>9350264
>I dont understand profitability the post

[Anonymous No.9350368]

>>9350284
The problem with a lot of CS majors. You understand the tech very well but fail to understand the economics behind cryptocurrencies which is actually even more important.

[Anonymous No.9350392]

>>9350368
Economies and how crypto functions economically wasnt really what the scope of his post was.

[Anonymous No.9350426]

>>9350392
He ended his post that Nano will win in the end. Hence my post.

[Anonymous No.9350432]

>>9350264
Oh, anon.

It's all part of the plan.

What's better than making money by mining a chain for every last drop, until the great coming happens.

I'd do the same.

[Anonymous No.9350509]

>>9350426
Fair enough. Now that you mention it, Nano is for faggots as are all DAGs.

[Anonymous No.9350512]

>>9350426
Something which has a stronger network effect could beat Nano. I just don’t see how anyone with a brain could think that the crypto which is easiest to use wouldn’t win. Easier to use = faster marginal adoption rate = highest growth rate of network value. Exponential terms always dominate in the long run. If the “fundamental value” of crypto is some combination of economic stability, network value, and security, network value will dominate as it grows proportional to the square of the number of users (per Metcalfe).

Lolbertarian economic fantasies may have taken crypto to its current point, but good ol’ economies of scale will win the day in the end. Like always, for literally every other major human invention ever.

[Anonymous No.9351239]

>>9348831
Because core won't last that long to begin with due to chain freeze.