Bitcoin Forum

Ok I understand that inside LN we can send cheap transactions instantly, but assume we have global adoption, so BTC price is then very very high, it is obvious that happen due to full deflation nature of Bitcoin. So we need pay for create/close/deposit channel on-chain in BTC, with 1MB block size fees will be very high, several dozen or even several hundred $ per transaction, so to be worth do something we need send a lot of money to channel, or buy for cash from someone face2face/online that send as directly through LN.

Next problem is that LN need use large HUBs to works most efficient, so owners of that HUBs probably will be exchange, financial institutes, just guys with a lot of money, is that not short way to KYC by this HUBs?

LN does not help. It harms original Bitcoin

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5080565.msg48966290#msg48966290

imagine it this way.
im not going to talk about 7billion users..
ill just talk about 189million americans.. why.. well im just going to use the 189m americans that use VISAUSA.. yep im not going unrealistic with big numbers of 900million VISAGLOBAL. im just using realistic numbers

189m people. imagine they all want to deposit and vault up funds.

lets take the average transactions per block
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/n-transactions
~250k a day
it would take 756days to just get 189m users into LN
and thats before counting all the users that want to get out move funds, refresh channels.

people within LN will not want to exit LN back to bitcoin in such a situation. they would end up atomic swapping to other payments and exiting to liteoin and other coins that have more scope.

this is why bitcoin needs to expand bitcoin and not just push people into LN as a way to avoid expanding bitcoin. because once on LN people wont want to return to bitcoin

Truely, I think there is nobody who knows what to do with Lighting. Nowadays, when decentral and open source technologies are widespread, Lighting developers are moving completely in a non-transparent manner.

Is there any working prototype for atomic swap as at now? Is it possible for me to transfer from one blockchain to another?

Also what do you propose that can expand the Bitcoin network now to accommodate more transactions and increase the scalability beyond the current BIPs?

because LN is not involved with blockchains for the actual LN payments. its pretty much just human agreement.
humans can agree on receiving coin A for coin B. by just signing LN payments of such.

infact you can do that now without LN. without vaulting up coins

heres the funny part. some say bitcoin has issues and needs LN because bitcoin full nodes dont like the blockchain..
but guess what. LN will start having fullnodes (for factories) that monitor multiple coins. its funny because if a node is supposedly unable to handle 1 chain, but suddenly able to handle 2-4 chains... then obviously the argument against the 1 chain is an empty argument

its not about jumping blocksize from small to large over night.
its not about taking a decade to convince a dev to implement just a small teaser amount
its about progressive growth over time without needing devs to decide when
EG the block mining difficulty shifts depending on block events. without needing devs to decide what the difficulty should shift to

also leaning transactions down. some devs want to blot up transactions with lots of features and even have it where a block can be allowed to be filled with just 5 bloated transactions. bitcoin should be made more simplified.
if users want complicated privacy contract stuff, then they can use other networks but if bitcoin wants to be a straight forward digital cash, then keep it as simple as digital cash

LN wont help that much to allow using bitcoin as normal currency. But we have at liest 1000 coins made only for transactions. For sure there are dozen with code that is scalable enough. Will that destroy oryginal bitcoin?
well we can use this coin for everyday usage and bitcoin as store of value (like gold) and main crypto exchange coin that every other coin is pared with.

actually
maximum weight is 4mb but there is a secondary limit of maximum weight / witness scalefactor(4)
meaning there is a limit within the code of 1mb

this 1mb limit is a pre-requisite for transactions
it is where legacy transactions have been restricted to only be within.
and segwit transactions are semi restricted to being within.

segwit transactions do not get full free reign of 4mb. part of a segwit transaction is restricted to the 1mb limit
its only the signatures of a segwit transaction that get to sit outside the 1mb limit
so an average segwit transaction where signatures = half the data of a transaction would result in ~2mb blocks
but this is in a usecase of if every transaction in the 1mb base limit was segwit and where half the transaction data was its signature
EG
if the majority of transactions were legacy then only a few segwits would have their signatures outside the 1mb area
meaning expect less than 2x

so dont expect transactions to fill up the 4mb weight as a 'norm' .. as the 1mb area is still a pre-requisite and restricts full utility.

Lightning network will help to increase transaction speeds.

I think it does. Though i havent tried and saw only in theory it can be possible to be more scalable than the current or applied system. Ofcourse this has to be tested more often and in many scenario. Its still better than to stick to the slower ones.

of a pegged token thats 12 decimals, on a different network, that can take over a year to get just america to vault up, to then get into ln
oh and by the way, america will want to get out, move things around. and shake things up.

so before over selling LN realise its limitations.
here are the devs themselves talk about its issues
https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=570

and dont even try to say its a bitcoin transaction.. thats soo 2016
latest concepts of 2018 are factories. and channels using 12 decimal unconfirmed, non blockchain contracts that can cycle around without needing to broadcast back to the blockchain.

to use LN is atleast 1 deposit to vault funds up on the bitcoin network before even getting to play with LN and atleast one to unvault funds when finished playing around on LN(vaulting up with a factory to let the factory then handle the channel open/close management)
if you only plan on budgeting your money for 2 payments then its not worth it.

if you plan to avoid factories. you will end up needing to spread funds over multiple channels manually yourself. this can end up being more than 2 transactions onchain (atleast one(with multiple outputs) to vault up.. or.. multiple transactions of single outputs if opening channels at different times) and then multiple transactions to unvault the funds.

they say average users end up needing atleast 5 channels that have their funds spread out to atleast have a relatively good chance to spend some of the funds when needed) so thats like a minimum of 6 transactions onchain.

so if you are only budgeting to use LN for 6 payments.. its not worth it.

VISAUSA statistics have people that only use visa cards ~42 times a month (~1.5 tx a day) but bitcoin is not as widly available as visa. so people wont be spending as often. so lets say only 2 times a week.
so unless your planning ahead your spending habits for the next 3 weeks. again not worth it

LN's niche are for the spammers (day traders, mixers and those who do make regular payments to certain recipients)
it wont really have good utility for those that only want to buy groceries once a week or pay a monthly bill.. (unless they plan to vault up enough funds for 2-6months..

but as my previous posts suggest unless bitcoins network expands the transactions per day restrictions. expect to have to preplan funding a LN deposit for upto a years worth, once things get busier (which not many would want to do)

..
as for saying its instant..
thats if:
1. everyone on the route is online to agree
2. everyone on the route is funded enough
3. others havnt raided your channel of said route before you got to spend it yourself

People put too much emphasis on commitment/settlement/funding transactions. The point is that you can make one on-chain transaction that enables you to make many LN transactions. That's what scalability is about -- improving throughput capacity without sacrificing performance. It's not perfect and it doesn't allow endless transactions at no cost. Decentralized systems that don't require trust cannot possibly offer that.

One way LN can be leveraged cheaply is for merchants to automatically open LN channels with customers who send Bitcoin transactions from LN-compatible wallets. Thereafter, the customer can use cheap and instant LN transactions. And since the merchant is likely to have channel liquidity with major hubs, the customer can then use that channel to pay wherever LN is accepted.

im not the one who shouts out LN can handle visa global levels.
i actually downplayed the numbers to be just visa USA as a more plausable usecase for if its popular


so you have to start playing the numbers that if in lets say 5 years there becomes 189m(not drastic numbers) that before that 5th year we need to have progressed step by step up to that number. which means not waiting for 5 years and then suddenly reacting. (so far devs have made us wait 3 year and tx counts are not much better than 3 years ago (200k a day december 2015))

but one thing to take into account is that even if you think next month only 100,000 vault up. then the following month 200,000 vault up, you actually find out 100,000 from first month are unvaulting and revaulting. so thats 400,000 at month 2
then at third month 300,000 new users.. along with the 300.000 of previous months unvaulting and revaulting.. is 600.000
and so on.
its either going to hit a snag of bottleneck delays if things dont start progressing on the bitcoin main net. or people just dont bother with bitcoin because others might progress because bitcoin devs prefer slowing down bitcoin mainnet utility while raising cost

any to answer thee other point
also im not the one that shouts "gigabytes by midnight" in regards to bitcoins utility.


i am the on that is actually saying lets grow the onchain transaction count limitation progressively.. but the thing that infuriates many people is that a certain dev team want to be a decision maker of when and how..
it could be done so easily (like how difficulty adjusts based on certain parameters of blocks automatically, without needing dev intervention/delay/stall tactics
the network could grow more naturally and automatically without the "dev control" frustration

What's the incentive for folks to run LN nodes? Lock up their BTC in exchange for what? Is it worth it?

Lightning Network Compared to any Exchange that allows offchain Swaps

LN                                                                Exchange
Time Delay on Withdrawal to blockchain          FAST Withdrawal to blockchain
Requires Complex LN setups                           No additional setup required
Price increases per hop                                   Low Price if any
Multiple LN hubs needed                                 No additional exchanges required
Only works with Segwit coins                          Works with Any Coin on Exchange
Limited Transaction Amounts                          Unlimited Transaction Amounts
Must use LN hubs                                           Can be used by any exchange user

LN network was never needed as it is nothing more than a 3rd party service, that works with multiple segwit coins.
The nonsense that increasing blocksize or a faster block speed would not increase scaling , is a myth used to pacify fools.  :-*
In any event , exchanges can outperform LN offchain processing and do it cheaper than LN weak design requiring multiple hops.


 8) 

What choice do we have? The math has shown that Block size upgrades are surely not the solution for the scaling problems, when Bitcoin goes mainstream. The LN is surely a better off-chain second layer solution for all these micro transactions that are clogging the Blockchain.  ::)

The on-chain solutions will be a good temporary solution, but once this goes mainstream, it will all fall apart. We saw this happening in 2017 and we were not even close to mainstream adoption then.  ::)

Sure. This is due to the poor change and expectation management done in core that just does not fit to global fin tech standards and only loves the store of value / speculation feature left.

People had unrealistic expectations about "cheap/free and instant transactions." I really wish that narrative -- spread by companies like Blockchain and Coinbase -- had never caught on. It was never part of the design. Low fees just implies low transaction demand.

It's not that the store-of-value aspect is all that matters. It's that perpetually increasing block size drives fee revenues down, which threatens the mining incentive as the block reward gets lower and lower. That's a threat to the entire security model of Bitcoin.

LN isn't perfect but it's the best candidate we have to get the best of both worlds -- scalability and cheap/instant transactions.

to answer this question you have to go ahead and start using lightning network yourself and see how it is doing considering scaling. just ignore the hardness of using it for the first time since it is new and you will get your answer.

i have a feeling that it is the same as when we all heard about bitcoin. at first there were two groups, one hyping it up a lot saying it will replace fiat and another group saying it is a scam pyramid scheme. as soon as we started opening up our own eyes and seeing facts we saw how awesome bitcoin is and saw what it offers and what it doesn't offer.

None of the networks based on technology are perfect, there will be a gap and definitely leave doubt. However, the network will produce a transaction record, logically the technology in bitcoin will broadcast a transaction record. Even though LN is not part of bitcoin but LN is certain to record the transaction, it's just that time to broadcast notes on the blockchain takes time. logically if a transaction record will accumulate it will cause problems in the future. If you are a bitcoiner, I recommend using genuine bitcoin to make transactions and avoid transacting using LN unless you want to pay for coffee.

scalability OF ANOTHER NETWORK
subtly saying bitcoin cant scale is subtly saying to future other network people, that want to exit the other network.. that its best not to return to bitcoins network

see the problem with that subtlety ?? banks done the same with gold in the 18th century.

thunderdome 2 may enter 1 may leave
banks gold and silver may enter silver may leave
LN bitcoin and litecoin may enter litecoin may leave

why do you think there are subtle word play terms going on, such calling data "weight"

funny part is near on 10 years of bitcoins "weight" is only the size of a fingernail bit of plastic (256gb microsd) yet the subtle wording the roadmap wants to imply to cause people to not want bitcoin NETWORK growth is that bitcoin network is heavy and expensive.

again even you are implying that cheap fee's = low demand. when infact there are many ways on the bitcoin network to have cheaper fee's than today by just having better fee control... compared to the foolish desire that people want fee's to go up rather than let scaling on network go up to cover costs at lower fees

EG instead of EVERYONE having to pay more PER TRANACTION when blocks are full.. the people with bloated transactions that spend too often to cause those fills can pay more, and those that dont have bloated transactions and only spend now and again can pay less PER TRANSACTION
todays (lack of) fee control. means if one person spams blocks.. everyone else ends up paying more

I dont know the depth story about Ligthning network harming original bitcoin but I do know that lightning network is a solution to the scalability and high cost of crypto transaction and bitcoin not to be the only crypto to make use of it.  The question is how would it hurt bitcoin cause the project was implemented to help crypto currency transactions.

it vaults up coins and then gives people non-blockchained non audited 12 decimal 'payments' to play with.
think about gold and bankers of 18th century vaulting up the gold and handing out promissory notes that were supposedly meant to be just as equal to gold but easier to manage. think how that played out

though squatter is trying to play the utopian fluffy positive card promoting this alternative network for the benefit of custodians(eltoo factories),,,trying to oversell why its convenient.
he is atleast starting to show he know the actual workings (finally). why subtly hinting at the flaws of the whole 'trust'/co-signed permissioned stuff

yep deposit funds into a vault belonging to an exchange. and then let the exchange(factory) hand out unconfirmed offchain promissory notes to users for the users to then have non-blockchained payments as the initial state for opening and closing channels.
where close channels are not broadcastable transactions but LN internal 12 decimal payments that need to be sent back to the factory(exchange/custodian) for the factory to choose to hand out fresh payments to users. or if the customer pays a substantial fee, broadcast back to the bitcoin network

open:
onchain                  |      offchain
userA->exchange    |                                        /> hub(regional bank) A -> user A  \
userB->exchange    |      exchange(12 decimal)  -> hub(regional bank) B                   > channel AC
userC->exchange    |                                        \> hub(regional bank) C -> user C  /

---

close:
off chain                                                                            |      on chain
                     / user A -> hub A -\                                      |    exchange -> userA
channel AC  <                  hub B -> exchange(12 decimal)    |    exchange -> userB                                     
                     \ user C -> hub C -/                                      |    exchange -> userC

---

OR
closer re-open
off chain                                                                         
                     / user A -> hub A -\                                      /> hub(regional bank) A -> user A  \     > channel AB
channel AC  <                  hub B -> exchange(12 decimal)    -> hub(regional bank) B -> user B  /                     
                     \ user C -> hub C -/                                      \> hub(regional bank) C -> user C

requiring the exchanges to have management of funds and decide on things.
each -> is one step AWAY from holding a actual bitcoin network held UTXO, whereby users are trusting the unconfirmed
taint of transactions back to the exchange

all to reduce trying to let users broadcast back to the network as much...

The size of Lighting Netowork is very small now, and many people around me are still using traditional trading methods when transferring money on exchanges and trading on our P2P.
But it's impossible to deny that Lighting Netowork will be very promising and popular in the future, and I believe there may be more rapid technology than Lighting Netowork will be born.

Whose Math?

Fact  is, BTC should have moved to a true 4 mb block size without the segwit weighted block bullshit which actually is lower than a normal 4 mb block size.
* Had the devs done so, the BTC community would not have fractured into the BTC/BCH/BSV nonsense that exists today, with none of the communities as strong as the original prefork version.*

BTC does not need to match visa, it only needed to handle it's own volume.

Offchain solutions offer unlimited potential ,
but the pitfalls are: you are placing control of your money back in the hands of 3rd parties.
* One of the main benefits of crypto tossed aside. No Banks needed! *

Moving to offchain when 8 gig and higher blocks were no issue ,  was pure manipulation by those with darker intentions.

FYI:
One confusion by the unknowing is thinking every block will be the max block size, it is not , the blocks only increase to needed requirement to hold the transactions. So a Network with 4 mb max block size , would still have only 1 or 2 MB blocks the majority of the time, except during time of congestion.

The imminent security for Bitcoin is based on a healthy proof of work economical based network built by honest miners ( defined by the original white paper).  PoW is the new thing, that makes it all work and safe (10y proven), compared to hashcash or other earlier tries for a P2P electronic cash. 

LN will not incentify miners, since it steals txs. These txs also have not the same security and legal (registered payment processor) model than pure on chain txs.

Extrem situation might be that no onchain settlement will be done, and LN is paypal...  why doing / pushing it at all?

We don't need to be subtle: Blockchains don't scale well and transaction size can only be optimized so much. Blockchains can't give us exponentially increased throughput without serious security and performance trade-offs. I'm okay offloading much of that throughput off-chain if we can do so in a secure way, without third party trust. What's the problem with multiple interoperable protocols working together?

1. you assume that offloading alot of bitcoin utility onto the separate network will happen.
got any stats to back that up??
here goes:
take visa stats in a world of fiat, people only use visa ~42 times a month. thats only once or twice a day. in bitcoin world with less merchants, people do not transact daily.
so real life users that do real life bitcoin transactions dont use crypto 20-100 times a month
the reality is that people do maybe transactions of lets say 5-20 a MONTH.(many do only a few a year)

2. take LN as the 2016 concept 2nd party control (without custodial factory3rd party(goldfortknox analogy)), whereby to have reliant connections. you are going to need 5 channels with different people. and your counterpart will need 5 channels. (incase people are offline, incase people raid funds of one channel, blah blah blah)

the amount of data onchain per user per month(because most wont want to put life savings in and locked up for life, they will in reality only budget 2-4 weeks) means about 10-20 transactions a month onchain just to get in and out of LN

reality is if they would usually spend 5-20 times normally.. but need 10-20 transactions to vault and unvault from LN there wont be much 'offloading' utility gained via LN anyway.

3. plus those who want to retain 100% control. and dont want to have to split funds, pre-plan spending habits, dont want to worry about route raids, dont want to have to worry about whos online, etc.. will have many people not using LN at all
after all LN for "convenience" ends up becoming exactly like fiat. so those loving crypto because its nothing like fiat will not want to go back to fiatesq payments.. they will just say whats the point of crypto if the only way to use it is to do the same thing as fiat

2. under the factory concept of LN (fortknoxbank business model) 3rd party trying to keep people away from returning to bitcoin.. (yea i know you will plaster all the positives.) but you said it yourself third party control=bad

under old non factory LN concept is 2party control. which is not 1st party control. especially when that second party. and any party along the route. and even the destination will all need to be online and accept the payments. makes what was a idea of no party, no permission system(bitcoin network) has people promoting the future of crypto is only viable via 2party/3party control on a different network
all because of the EMPTY fear of scaling bitcoin

4. i say its an empty fear. because if you feel that being a masternode of multiple coin networks is not a fear.. then default logic is that being a node of 1 chain is less of a fear. so saying LN wil be great because nodes can be master nodes. defeats the argument that bitcoin only nodes should be feared

5. the last 3 years of delays and excuses have been that bitcoin cant scale.. that LN will be this thing that will take away a majority of utility away from bitcoin so bitcoin wont need to scale.
but the realistic thing is that just to get people into LN will bottleneck bitcoin if bitcoin continues to be delayed in scaling. if LN takes off.. or if it doesnt.
as i also said LN wont offset much utility. hardly anyone does 10-20 transactions on bitcoin each month to require a non factory concept of LN. but without scaling bitcoin. people will not want to return to bitcoin

6. dont get me wrong i understand the NICHE for certain usecases.. but the bitcoin network CAN scale, and SHOULD scale whether LN takes off or not.
because LN is not the solution that will help much in the end. its just a way to lock coins up. keep bitcoin innovation down and try getting users to give up on bitcoin so that custodians can grab bitcoin while letting users end up thinking returning to bitcoin network(100% control of funds) is not worth the effort.

7. and as for your failing of using the violin playing/harp string plucking that bitcoin needs high onchain fee's to pay pools...
i laugh at you.
a. because having 16,000 tx onchain paying 25cents is the same as having 4000 tx onchain paying $1.. you dont need to force fee's up. and force transaction scale down to "help miners"
instead having the blockchain scale and allow more transactions onchain means more total combined fee, without needing individuals to pay more. makes people LOVE bitcoin MORE
b. making individuals pay more will make then LOVE bitcoin LESS
c. i know you hope you get to be a factory and hope you will earn some millisats by promoting LN... but you wont. it will be coinbase, circle and other custodians that will get that honour. so take away your personal goals of getting rich via LN and start actually thinking about the bitcoin network

8. think outside your personal greed and desire of hopes of being a factory.
imagine millions of people that get paid 5cents an hour. they wont want to have to spend multiple hours of labour onchain to lock funds up or use bitcoin (your mindset that bitcoin SHOULDNT SCALE and SHOULD raise fees)
they wont want to then find out they need someone else to not only be online but agree, sign for their payments.

9. and if the only thing you learned from this is that LN wont offload much transactions.. do not do the foolish thing of trying to twist it into, 'then ln is no harm'.. transactions count offloading is not the same as removing VALUE. remember the greed mindset. move people away from blockchains, remove value away from blockchains increase costs of blockchains by persuading/presuming/promoting that custodial/co-signed accounts are the future

LN is not the same 100% self control ethos as bitcoin.
LN is not the same network as bitcoin
LN is not the same push funds without permission as bitcoin
LN is not the same 24/7 always open network as bitcoin

These kinds of threads are interesting because they always bring out two contingencies of posters:

1. Those who are actively interested in ways to improve bitcoin's level of adoption.
2. Those who get angry at new technology.

The latter tend to forget there was specific rationale in keeping the block size limited.

a. no one rationally is saying bitcoin needs to grow by "gigabytes by midnight" (thats the distraction of  empty fear argument)
b. 256gb is the size of a fingernail. not a server. and 256gb is 9 years of block data, not one day
c. a 4tb hard drive costs 1 week groceries but copes with 16mb blocks for 5 years (usual average time people upgrade hardware)
d. telling people to get off the bitcoin network, bitcoin network needs expensive transactions is not "helping bitcoin adoption"
e. using a non-blockchain network requiring to wait for co-signer to be available just to transact is NOT "new technology"
f. the 1mb base block was a temporary restriction which was even mentioned by bitcoins creator to remove it by 2011
g. right now removing the witness scale factor to allow true utility of 4mb can be done without controversial forks
h. scaling bitcoin blocks can be done progressively without years of dev decisions, but automatically adjusts like difficulty adjusts
i. by saying non-blockchain payments are as secure as blockchain payments. is basically saying blockchains are not needed

the echo chamber of LN promoters. do not understand the issue of LN. many dont even look at stats, dont run scenarios. and dont speak to average joe, many have not ven used LN under critical mindsets
all they see is the selfish hope of greed, and emphasis HOPE that the promoters will get rich being hubs/factories

but in the end if LN becomes popular. LN causes bitcoin network to NEED scaling to reduce on/off ramp bottlenecks of LN
but in the end if LN doesnt become popular. bitcoin network to NEED scaling just to stop bottlenecks

what people promoting non-blockchain networks are forgetting is the whole point of blockchains.

Its twice the size of my hard drive. We already have a bigger block experiment underway (2 actually). Their blocks never come close to getting filled.


Have you transacted in BTC lately? The median fee is around 8 cents. Not exactly "expensive."


The way that they interact with blockchains most certainly is a new technology. I just don't understand your constant anger at LN. If you don't like it, don't use it. Nobody is forcing you to do anything.

its the same business idea of the 18th century

and its not about hating or loving LN
LN is a different network.
its about actually taking away the fluffy cloud utopian dream of LN. and actually thinking about the bitcoin network and how LN promoters are saying the bitcoin networks fee's need to go up, bitcoin networks transaction per day throughput needs to not increase. all so the promoters can HOPE for income streams on another network

i am wondering what YOU think the method for scaling bitcoin should be? so far all i have seen is you over criticizing the scaling solutions that have been adopted both on-chain and as second layer, even to a point where it becomes wrong.

Subscribed. Lets go Frank.

https://www.blockchain.com/charts/transaction-fees-usd?timespan=30days
$48,000 - $125,000 a day
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/n-transactions?timespan=30days
226,000 - 300,000 a day
=21cents - 41cents a transaction

as for "not exactly expensive". im guessing your ignorant to the part of the planet where under 20cents is an hours labour
think rationally.
if people have to pay an hours labour just in fees. they wont see an advantage of it compared to mpesa and other things.
if it costs more an hours labour just to vault up crypto old bankerer-esq co-sign business models.. why bother


by you calling it that. just shows how little you have learned in the last 2 years+ of chances to research the reality.
so i doubt pointing you in the direction of
  multiple ways to scale BITCOIN(not other networks)
  showing you LN's flaws
would convince you..
seems too many people are stuck just wanting LN positive promotional material to be spread about

i have travelled the world, and instead of carrying around a tin can of pink paint to draw fluffy clouds. i actually listen to normal peoples real thinking of stuff.(aswell as tenical people.. but the main thing is listening to people that LN wants to adopt)
you would be surprised at how many people and businesses i have got to adopt BITCOIN(not other networks) by revealing the negatives and positives of both bitcoin and other networks.

those who only spew out the HOPES of positives, are the ones that end up just sounding like snake oil salesmen

i also do my own research away from the fluffy cloud promotional material of buzzwords and actually look behind the curtain and look under the rug to see whats hiding and not being said..
i think critically about the realistic stuff. not just hopes and prayers and dreams of the over promised promotional material.

but if you read my last posts 4tb hard drives are not millions of dollars. nodes wont/dont have to be servers
99.9% of LN users are and never were even going to be fullnode users. so dont even attempt to play the fullnode card.
bitcoin doesnt need 99.9% of users being fullnodes either

but bitcoin does let users have 100% control to spend funds to any address without worry of:
if others will route raid their funds
is the destination online at same time as the route at the same time as the co-signer.
amungst other issues LN will always have

to all those who still have all hopes on LN
here is chrisdecker. one of the lead LN developers himself saying this
https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=540

..
as for SCALING bitcoin. there are many many ways that wont cause fee increases nor the empty argument of "gigabytes by midnight"

funny part segwit is not a scaling thing.
you cant re-segwit a segwit.
segwit is not better at byte per tx compared to pre sgwit.
segwit has not and wont get passed a 600k a day transaction count,(numbers known about since 2010)
segwits real purpose was to have a tx format to be a gateway that makes bitcoin able to vault funds up so that the separate network called LN can peg 12 decimal payment tokens to. (litecoin, vertcoin and others done so too. so LN is not a "bitcoin" sole feature/layer) its a separate network for multiple coins

none of the things you just said have anything to do with the question that i asked. you just focused on one "word" and repeated everything  you have been saying again!

scaling was one of the things that SegWit did. and the scaling doesn't stop there either. it will continue with the additional technology implementation/additions in the future that the script versioning inside of it offers.
it offers things like the ability to reduce the transaction size, for example this tx that you loved last time (bb7f7a0988e96f9939d0a39effc969ff5c1c18be9fe667ddde65c290dd8ae2d0) would become something around 20 kB instead of the current 65 kB

i am still curious to know what your "better" solution for scaling bitcoin is though...

OK first of all you're doing some mass averaging here. Thats NOT the same thing as a median! Here's a more accurate portrayal of fees (https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/) for you:

The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 4 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 257 bytes, this results in a fee of 1,028 satoshis.

1,028 satoshis = slightly less than four cents!

If somebody wants to pay a $1 fee on a $1,000 transaction, that's their business and it beats out most fiat payment processors.


I live in the Philippines where 50 cents an hour is a decent salary so you're pretty much dead wrong. People who make 20 cents an hour simply don't have the time or the resources to screw around with bitcoin. They probably don't have access to steady internet or phones capable of supporting a bitcoin wallet. The average world salary is roughly $9 an hour.


Again your conflating averages with medians. It's a specious argument made to further your weird narrative about bitcoin being bad.

Isn't Bitcoin's Proof of Work based on Hashcash? It was something developed as an anti-spam measure for email.

I do not know what you are trying to make it look there.


Steal? I believe that's not the correct word to use. No one "stole" any fee from any miner.


Lightning is Paypal? Explain how.

your using median.. thats so much fail on you
4,4,5,8,16
your median is 5
average is 7.4
so your under estimating.. (your pink fluffy clouding numbers)
EG
if there was only 5 seats on a bus and the bus had a 'bid for seat' system where by 10people offered
4,4,4,5,5,5,5,5,8,16

these people will get to sit down
5,5,5,8,16
these wont
4,4,4,5,5
so if you looked at a median and seen so far median is 5 and you paid 5. you would have been at the back of the queue of the people that paid 5 so you as an 11th person would be part of the 4,4,4,5,5,5 lot that wont get a seat
where as by going for average 7.4 i would have jumped the queue your stuck in and i would have got a seat
5,5,7.4,8,16
leaving you and another 5 payer waiting for the next bus, HOPING to get on
4,4,4,5,5,5,5

then 10 further fresh people see the average is now 8.28
4,4,4,5,5,5,5 + 8,8,8,9,9,9,9,9,16,16,32,32
guess what
9,16,16,32,32
get on the bus... and your still waiting

secondly, LACK of a fee priority mechanism* , causes EVERYONE to pay more
(that is designed to cost an individual more if they spam tx's)
thirdly having to rely on a website to tell you what the best estimate of fee should be
and having and a node that doesnt easily tell people the bytes of a transaction to even use the estimate is not good practice.

EG if everyone sees 1028sats as the suggestion. not everyone will get in a block because everyones just sheep following a estimate. as shown in example above

the "free market" of a fee market is not helpful. its actually harmful
a proper fee formulae needs to come back in play that actually treats people individually based on their circumstances...
and here is a thing that LN greed lovers will love. a proper fee formulae IN BITCOIN will help those that dont need LN(non spammers have cheap fee ONCHAIN) but also really push those that would fit the LN NICHE to use LN(EXPENSIVE FEE onchain)..
the ridiculousness of a spammer pushing up fee's for everyone is not logical, ethical, economical.. its just greed to persuade people to not enjoy using bitcoin

if everyone paid 4cents everyone wont get "fast" transacting

plus your using the same lame argument that it can cost you as little as 10cents to make a cup of coffee at home. so expect to pay that for all coffee no matter where you go


are you watching too many of them 1980's oxfam videos with specifically chosen background music to play on harp strings
you do know that things are not like the 1980's
yea no one is going to spend $600 on an iphone.. but there are cheaper smartphones people have. oh and as for no access to internet/cellular service.. maybe you need to research Mpesa. and countries which skipped passed landlines and decades of 54k, 0.5mb-5mb broadband, fibre..  yep skipped all that and moved straight to 4g/5g

and as for your mindset that bitcoin should only be for developed countries and rich people.. thats putting up barriers of entry and excluding people.
those that would actually benefit from bitcoin the most are the unbanked.
oh and please dont rebutt that they should lock value up and use multisig factories(LN). as thats just the same to them as opening a bank account (once you wash away the pink fluffy buzzwords)

P.S i am a whit brit with hoards of btc. but even i can be open to those not in my situation. just a shame you cant.


again median LOL.. you have no clue..


im not the one saying bitcoin is bad. but those saying
bitcoin cant scale
bitcoin wont work for X,Y,Z.
need to push people off bitcoins network
need to innovate other networks as there is no point innovating bitcoin network

are the ones saying bitcoin is bad.
...
lets get to the point. i understand that you thinking 20cents is reasonable, because your greed is HOPING that if you get LUCKY to be a factory you can charge upto 19cents and still be seen as cheaper..
but pushing bitcoin networks to a "its ok to be expensive for millions of people" is not open barrierless mindset. thats just selfish hope of greed

having the mindset of LN promoters who want
bitcoin fee's to go up
to want people to move off the bitcoin network
users to not have 100% control but have to rely on co-signers being online
users to have to close out to a factory(not self broadcast back to bitcoin)
where the factory is incentivised to keep people in LN

is not having a positive bitcoin mindset

This makes little to no sense. "Median" the most commonly used tx fee, aka 4 cents.


You're right; I've been paying 8 cents. Not exactly a deal-breaker.


And what's your alternative?


Uh, right, I also mentioned people that pay a $1.00 fee to transact $10,000 worth of BTC. What's the holdup?


Nobody said that they will.


You've gone beyond reaching into delusion.



People do spend actually $900 on an iPhone... And a $40 smart phone isn't necessarily "cheap" to a lot of people BTW. All you're doing is highlighting how out of touch with the world you are.


Show me where in the white paper it says bitcoin was supposed to be used by absolutely everybody on planet earth.


you are actually. you tear down bitcoin at every turn and offer no viable alternatives. feel free to fork a "Frank Coin" and lets see how far you get with it. Please -- instead of commenting on this forum, that's really where your time would best be served.


What a weird argument. Four cents Franky. The magic number is four cents.


Frank. The world is a big place. Obviously bitcoin can't be viable for all of them. We're sorry to let you down.

A. median is not the most commonly used number!!
1,1,1,1,1,5,11,11,11,11,11   median =5 but is used only once
plus on a 5seat bus wont get you a seat...
by using average 5.9 would be a case that i get ahead of you in the queue

median is not a middle "value" of a bunch of numbers.. median doesnt even count the values
its just the middle position.
you cant use position metric to work out a best value..

B. no one said everyone.. but it shouldnt exclude a certain class of people.
i guess your greed of wanting bitcoin only for the privileged out weighs the old ethos of open borderless unbanked..
anyway
show me how LN fits the concept of bitcoin
"   A  purely   peer-to-peer   version   of   electronic   cash   would   allow   online
payments   to   be   sent   directly   from   one   party   to   another   without   going   through   a
financial institution.   Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending"

1. directly from one party to another = no routing, no hubs, no custodians, no factories
2. without going through a financial institution = no hubs/custodians/factories
3. benefit lost if a trusted third party is still required = no factories/custodians/hubs

and dont get me started on the "control of ownership".. you wont win

C. an example of a fee formula thats not just network broad "everyone pays more so everyone should use LN" u ask.. well:

No. You obviously don't have any either since they would be future projections based on no historical data. Any data from the present won't account for either Lightning's nor Bitcoin's network effect.

We don't need stats to know what people will do if the incentives exist for people to use Lightning. Nearly free and instant transactions is quite a strong incentive.


That analogy is absurd, as I've told you before. Stop being so dishonest. There is no third party custody whatsoever.

You don't need five channels with different people if you have one channel open with a well-connected node/hub. You're also completely exaggerating regarding the number of on-chain transactions required. You're entire post is built on these false premises for which you have no evidence.

ok under your mindset
instant........
........ IF you have one channel open with a well connected node/hub (custodian)
...... IF said node is online
.....IF the other conncted routes are online
...IF the destination is online
.IF said nodes has value available to route for you

actually USE LN
actually listen to LN devs
actually see its not a simple one channel open everything is fluffy cloud perfect

........ IF you have one channel open with a well connected node/hub (custodian)
...... IF said node is online
.....IF the other conncted routes are online
...IF the destination is online
.IF said nodes has value available to route for you

actually USE LN
actually listen to LN devs
actually see its not a simple one channel open everything is fluffy cloud perfect

and to any one thats actually open minded
squatter is saying he visions LN where people are vaulting up with centralised hubs

There is third party control, so Boom Baby , your mind is blown.

Want Proof , rebroadcast an old LN transaction that has newer transaction after it.
That third party control you don't believe in , will confiscate your entire LN amount.

Go ahead, I double dog you.  :D


 8)

If only a small number of nodes exist, those nodes would effectively become the new financial institutions that users on the network are forced to rely on.  Using Bitcoin isn't just about the cost of transactions, it's about the cost of being able to run a full node if you want to.  Obviously we know which of those qualities you're willing to throw under the bus to get what you want.  Just because you might be able to afford a high-bandwidth internet package with generous usage limits, it doesn't mean those in other parts of the world can.  Why do you want to exclude the non-wealthy from being able to run a node?  

dont worry about squatter...
.. squatter is only just getting to grips with 2nd party concept of LN 2016 (channel co-signing)
.. ill say it will be another 6 months-2 years before he catches up 3rd party concept of LN 2018 (factories)

running a node is cheap
im not the one saying its expensive. i am not the one throwing the empty fears ..
you truly failed at trying to flip the argument.. but have a nice day

your the one that wants people to f**k off the network and use other networks
your the one that claims people wont be able to run full nodes..

funny part is LN is going to do what your flip flopping about
LN masternodes monitoring multiple chains so that atomic swaps can happen makes a node have more challenges than just a bitcoin node.
so using LN and being a msternode for LN is not a solution but the comedy that if LN masternodes wont be a problem, then logic is a node for one coin is less of a problem.. thus by you promoting LN means you subtly admit that blockchains are not a problem

but putting aside the comedy of "nodes monitoring 3-5 coins is ok but monitoring one coin is costly"

the real concern people have is they dont want to have to put funds into a vaulted lockup and then only transact when another party is online to agree on moving funds. if they have available funds to move in their channels on your behalf..

in bitcoin
you dont need to be a full node. you dont need to wait for a particular node to be online to transact. you dont have to hope the other person has balance to be part of your payment route...

in LN
to avoid factories. you do need to be a master node. you do have to wait for particular nodes to be online, you do have to hope the other person has balance to be part of your payment route

but have a nice day. oh and please do your research

How about you just let people use it and make up their own minds, like you keep pretending you want them to?  

But, of course, that doesn't suit your goals, so you have to keep telling people how terrible Lightning is, because if you can scare them into not using it, they'll never be able to form their own opinion.  How convenient.   ::)



Your "other networks" catchphrase isn't going to cut it anymore (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4638321.msg48997244#msg48997244).  



You seem to have a short memory.  Here is a recent topic where someone was concerned about the overall size of the blockchain (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5086745.0).  You had the first response and literally told them to use SPV because they weren't a business:


As usual, your position is completely untenable.    

my points is not that LN should not be used. but that its not:
bitcoins solution to scaling
a bitcoin feature
going to met peoples expectations
promoted honestly

trying to keep bitcoins scaling limited, just to push people into LN is bad.
bitcoins network needs to scale whether LN becoms a thing or not.

so having silly people like yourself promoting that bitcoin shouldnt scale because LN solves all the issues is your failing

CAN vs NEED
eg to avoid third party factories in LN your will NEED to be a master node of LN
but you CAN just be a phone app spv user.

CAN vs NEED
eg to avoid third party services in  bitcoin your CAN do so still without the NEED to be a full node of bitcoin
but you CAN just be a full node user.
but you CAN just be a phone app spv user.

because you dont NEED to monitor the blockchain to send a payment on bitcoin if your just a single users the NEED for everyone to be a full node is less required, even to avoid third party services you do not NEED to run a full node

its the same thing as also mentioned in other topics. if bandwidth is limited its better if you can reduce the node connections to reduce your bandwdith usage as slow internet users dont NEED to have 100 connections to other nodes on the bitcoin network. and infact having 100 connections to other nodes on the bitcoin network is not helping bitcoin propogation/latency but actually hurting it.

The ship has sailed.

The scaling needs to be done on EVERY part that Bitcoin uses, and most will finally get it, that this is possible industrial style - multi industrial, not only Blockstream...


Also legal factors will be a thing to be considered properly so honest mining is crucial imo.

But it helps.  It's just one of the things being worked on.  And if it doesn't work, I'm sure we'll try other things you'll probably hate just as much because you can't be enthusiastic about anything other than your own preconceived ideas.  You can't stop people being excited by the potential of new technologies.  If you see anything that's factually incorrect, call it out.  But so far, the largest quantity of factually incorrect information has come directly from you.  Maybe try showing just a hint of optimism for the future?  Go with the flow and see how it turns out, perhaps?



Not solely.  No one is claiming Bitcoin is the only blockchain that wants to take advantage of LN.  The very fact that more than one chain wants to implement it should clue you in to the fact that it's clearly desirable to have.  



Pretending you speak for everyone again?  
Pretending everyone is too stupid to comprehend what's being said about LN?
Pretending that people running full nodes are too dumb to know what roadmap they're supporting when they decided not to switch to another client, despite having ample opportunity to do so?

It's your expectations that need adjusting.  We're not doing what you want right now.  Your proposals don't have adequate support.  



As if you even know the meaning of the world "honest".  And oh, what's on that very next line of your post, I wonder?



That's a lie right there.  Didn't take you long.  No one is trying to limit scaling.  Your interpretation of the word "scaling" is just different to what other users running full nodes understand it to be.  No amount of telling people to "research" (because we all know that's coming next) will make people think that "scaling" means what you think it means.  When there's consensus for a larger blockweight, it will happen.  Until then, try to recognise that lone users with fringe ideals are wholly impotent in a system that uses consensus.  And you are way out there on the fringes, buddy.



Oh marvellous, you've taken the time to survey everyone on Earth to find out exactly what they NEED, have you?  That's right, everyone, franky1 knows beyond all doubt that you don't need to run a full node.  It's all been decided for you.  He's not being a presumptuous fuckwit at all.   ::)

Do you even read what you write before posting it?  Christ.

I think that Lighting Network will help improve Bitcoin's scalability and at the moment this is a real improvement, but in the future I think it will be necessary to come up with an improvement that will further increase Bitcoin's scalability.

there is TOO much optimism from you pink fluffy cloud unicorn snake oil sales men

some people want to know the negatives
i know you love the echo chamber of over promises and under commitments. but others dont.
have you even used LN yourself yet??

calling it a "bitcoin scaling solution"
calling it a "bitcoin layer"

you your fluffy cloud crew trying to say its something only for bitcoin..

atleast be clear that its a separate network (emphases is clear in the N of LN)
be clear that LN's purpose is to take transaction utility away from the bitcoin blockchain.

and as for your other offtopic ramblings. yes you have many times on many topics rambled about how you prefer people to F**K off rather than mention/discuss things that are opposing to the roadmap.

you have no clue
scaling ONCHAIN can happen in many ways.
      ... its you thats stuck in the echochamber that if people are not fluffy clouding LN then they must be big blockers
      ... i have mentions many different ways.
      ... pushing people off to another network is not scaling the network. its de-populating the network

get out of your echo chamber. the rhetoric of LN or bigblocks is not the only option. but your stuck in that mindset as your only argument/rebuttal. and yes do some research


like the 35% for segwit1x...... which would have just died.. but didnt because of the august 1st controversy
(again dont try denying it didnt happen even your kings admit it did, they even admit they instigated it)

i even said. if your kings went with segwit2x(segwit2mb variant) back in 2016 there would have been no controversy
i even said. if your kings went with segwit2x(NYA agreement) in 2017 there would have been no controversy

but nah. 35% was not good enough so (ADMITTED BY THE DEVS) august 1st did push it through and without people needing to upgrade as it was a 'mandatory inflight upgrade(your kings words) bilateral fork(your kings words) or as you prefer "compatible"
all meaning non consensus needed as no opt-in was required(no upgrade needed)

franky1, if your data doesn't have any outliers, then by any means, use the average. But in reality, there are outliers. It does not always come out in the set of numbers that you posted.

4, 4, 5, 8, 500 can happen too. Would you say that the average of that would be right at the estimated middle?

Franky is (w)right

https://www.ccn.com/shots-fired-craig-wright-calls-bitcoin-evangelist-andreas-antonopoulos-shtcoin-expert/

 ;D