Bitcoin Forum

Hello, I'm new here. And I want to learn more about bitcoins, so I have some questions.

1: What are the advantages and disadvantages of BTC/LN and BSV?

2: Do you think BTC/LN and BSV can both survive in the long run, or only one can survive or none of them?

3: What is the goal of BTC in the long future?

4: Is massive adoption a goal for BTC in the long future?

Thanks

LN is a separate network that does not even use blockchains.
it goes against all the principles of the whole innovation of blockchains. so much so even the devs have lost funds using it.

bsv is not a btc blockchain but its own altcoin.

in both cases the only thing that 'adoption' matters is how many real world merchants. and i mean real world merchants, not community fangirls playing with each other sending each other virtual gifts in exchange for payments. i mean real actual real life usage.

btc has the most adoption of this real life merchant use   .. and LN / bsv are no where close.
however developers are letting btc stagnate and trying to push people onto other networks. which i find foolish

But how can we get more and more real world merchants accept BTC with a transaction speed of 3~7 per second?

We can't.Bitcoin will remain as a "digital gold"-store of value.
No cryptocurrency will become widely adopted by the merchants anytime soon.

The Lightning Network (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Network) is a "Layer 2" payment protocol that operates on top of a blockchain-based cryptocurrency (like Bitcoin). It enables fast transactions between participating nodes and has been touted as a solution to the Bitcoin scalability problem. I do not know what is happening but there seems to be many problems associated with LN though many are still looking at this infrastructure as a way to help Bitcoin's scalability problem.

BSV is Bitcoin Satoshi Vision which is now very much associated with Craig S. Wright the man considered to be a top personality that the Bitcoin community really disliked. Bitcoin SV (Satoshi Vision)  (https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv)is the original Bitcoin. It restores the original Bitcoin protocol, will keep it stable, and allow it to massively scale. Bitcoin SV will maintain the vision set out by Satoshi Nakamoto's white paper in 2008. As claimed by people who are promoting BSV, this is the real deal and the Bitcoin that we know is now worthless.



There is a big chance that both networks and platforms will survive as the cryptocurrency industry can still accommodate more players. Both the real BTC and BSC have their own set of loyal users and fans. And yes, admittedly, many of those holding BTC are also into BSV, this is all a matter of money to them and nothing is personal.


The goal of Bitcoin especially in the future is to be the best cryptocurrency that the world over can use in transacting business from buying a cup of coffee to purchasing a condominiums and cars. And this is where most of the developments should be taking place. Aside from this, BTC should become the premiere store of value where investors can buy and hold expecting a good return of investment most of the time.
 

Yes. And I don't have to tell the reasons why.

Massive adoption goal of Bitcoin in the future or long term is already given on it. I believe that as time goes by adoption is into Bitcoin, year by year there are new people starting to use Bitcoin since it was started.
Another goal of Bitcoin for me is the freedom or decentralization of payment, opposite of banks. As you can see in some banks, they are the one who decide where you can only use your money. But in Bitcoin, you should use it anywhere, something like that.

1. Advantages of LN is purely the fast transactions. Disadvantage? The whole thing being off-chain which tends to add some costs up in the long run. BSV, well, it's its own altcoin and I don't think I know it so well to discuss the pros and cons.

2. BTC/LN will probably get a chance to have its say on the whole bitcoin economy while BSV will just get pumped and dumped every now and then without much use-case.

3. Providing cost-effective and fast transactions, together with giving the masses a chance to be their own banks, of course. Always has, always will be--though of course there are some people who deviated from this thought and have used bitcoin as a primary source of income, but that's their individual goal.

4. Yes. Just imagine the applications it might see.

BSV is a centralized altcoin that was created by copying the copy of bitcoin's source code and blockchain. there is no advantage in such a copy coin ever so your question is moot.

this is wrong.
there is no such thing as "original bitcoin protocol". there is only one bitcoin protocol that bitcoin uses and all its copies have copied. BSV also has changed a TON of things about transaction signing which they copied from SegWit. so no, there is nothing original about it.
the only thing they have done, which they use in their advertisement as "Satoshi Vision" is increasing the block size to dangerous and unreasonable levels.

The main difference between the two is security.  In BTC/LN you have more freedom in how you choose to transact.  If you need to move a sizeable sum of wealth and security is paramount, it's best to do it on-chain.  If you need to make a small payment, where speed is a higher priority than security, you can transact off-chain.

SV takes a 'one-size-fits-all' approach and forces you to compromise.  There is only one way to transact and it's generally considered less secure than BTC's blockchain due to the vastly lower hashrate (https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/hashrate-btc-bsv.html#3m). 

Advantage of investing bitcoin for long term will increase bitcoin to higher price, Investor always take benefit with bitcoin and altcoin investing for long term with increase of bitcoin price more than tenfold from how much money to invest with bitcoin, increase price of bitcoin depend with situation at the future and get many respond from companies make bitcoin will be higher price.

Thanks for your answers.

I asked the question "Is massive adoption a goal for BTC in the long future?" in Reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/dqt23q/is_massive_adoption_a_goal_for_btc_in_the_long/

But most people said No.

But I get Yes here. I'm confused.

LN wont work like that
EG if A wnats to send 10btc to G via LN
a(10:0)b(10:0)c(10:0)d(10:0)e(10:0)f(10:0)g would work.. because it would end up as
a(0:10)b(0:10)c(0:10)d(0:10)e(0:10)f(0:10)g.. however now
           b has nothing himself if he wanted to spend with c,d,e,f
                      c has nothing himself if wanting to spend with d,e,f
                                d has nothing if he wanted to spend with e,f
                                           e has nothing if spending with f

also in a case of
a(10:0)b(10:0)c(1:0)d(0:2)e(0:0)f(10:0)g
a cant spend anything with e f g due to d having no funding
a cant spend more than 1 to d

so LN has flaws in its utility generally, irrespective of the flaws of not being a secure blockchain that solves many things

lastly some will just say set up a channel with G
well if you didnt know you wanted to pay G 10 until today you need to set up a channel, which involves an onchain transaction so you might aswell just send him the 10
LN's utility model is more complex than any payment system i know. it involves preplanning spending habits for even a chance of saving on fee's

Does this mean LN doomed to fail?

Lightning network is internal network that holds bitcoin and transfers value. I love to compare it with BEP2, the bitcoin pegged token of binance. They aims to do mostly the same thing.
BSV is an altcoin, a fork of Bitcoincash, it has nothing to do with bitcoin except it shares an early branch of bitcoin.

Both are trying to solve the Bitcoin Scalability problem in the first place, means the number of transactions that Bitcoin can manage within a block. the Lightning Network is an attempt to solve this problem by putting a lot of the data off-chain using payment channels, and forming an "off-chain" peer-to-peer network. the opposite side (On-chain Camp) was an attempt to solve the Scalability problem by enlarging the block size.

Bitcoin SV forked off of Bitcoin Cash, and they were forked from a parent chain, but BSV has a larger max block size, and higher transaction throughput in comparison to Bitcoin Cash, and BSV has old "OP codes" re-enabled that allowing for simple scripting functionality which can be built upon. for the bitcoin protocol version used on BSV, you can be sure that applications and services you build today will run forever.

Off-chains sometimes called sidechains, are for processing of chain things like computing logic or processing smart-contracts and things of that nature. things the blockchain does not do, and then use the blockchain for what it does do. It is for adding to the blockchain without hindering it. also the blocksize increase really has nothing to do with sidechain technology with the exception of technology supported that would benefit from "higher speeds".

1. BTC/LN is fast cheap and awesome. SV is trying to replicate btc but would definitely fail.
2. No only one would survive and btc/ln has much higher chances of survival.
3. Goal of BTC in future is a wider adoption as well as adaption. LN is a way towards such adaption
4. Yes definitely some people argue this with replacing fiat but I don't think that could happen.

1. the purpose of LN is routing. EG instead of breaking up 0.1btc into 20 different channels to have 'giftcards' with your landlord, grocery store, amazon, starbucks, etc etc. you are far more likely to want to 'gc' your funds with som big hub service (imagine paypal) and then paypal then pay starbucks.. or in the case of routing paypal buys a amazon card which then buys a apple card so you can buy music on itunes. all without having to separate your funds bcause you just use paypal as your main channel hub

again like i said in other post if people were to break it up into 20 channels and have to preplan spending habits for 1-3 months it becomes impractical. hense the routing scenario of only having 1-5 channels and borrow thir funds with their partner channels to route payments.

2. the 'not exactly true' statement about LN using blockchain.
no LN has no blockchain. all LN has is unconfirmed channel transactions that are measured in millisats.. a completly different unit of measure(12 decimals) than btc(8 decimals)
the close analogy is like your presuming bitfinex's market exchange system is blockchain because the deposits and withdrawals are viewed on blockchain.. but the reality is the bitfinex market exchange is mysql database not blockchain

   Normal "Bitcoin" (BTC) wasn't scalable and was handling 7 transactions per second with around roughly 10 minutes per transaction confirmation. "Bitcoin" (BTC) itself can't be used as a medium of exchange because it was slow and very expensive for small payments. The "Lighting Network" is a set of rules built on top of "Bitcoin" Blockchain and was first introduced in 2015. It's designed to handle micro transactions. "Bitcoin" is considered a layer 1 protocol and "Bitcoin LN" (lighting Network) is considered a layer 2 protocol. The premise is small transaction needn't be recorded on "Bitcoin's" Blockchain, instead off chain. Bitcoin LN uses payment channels for off chain transactions

   "Bitcoin Cash" is a "hard-fork" of "Bitcoin". A "Fork" is an alternative version of a coin resulting from a split in the network. A "soft-fork" is compatible with the original version of the coin, while a "hard-fork" is incompatible with the original version. "Bitcoin Cash" has bigger block sizes (32mb), and has an adjusted mining difficulty and doesn't support Segwit or Lighting Network.
 
 "Bitcoin SV" stands for "Satoshi's Vision", and is a hard-fork of "Bitcoin Cash".    "Bitcoin Cash" (BCH) & "Bitcoin SV" (BSV) or (BCHABC) & (BCHSV) are the exact same thing (just abbreviation changes).

nope
LN is a complete separate network which any coin can use if they have the right coin locking mechanisms.
you are playing with unblockchained tokens called millisats that are tokenised as payments within LN in replacement of playing with real coins on the blockchain.
real bitcoin does not leave the blockchain. it cant. thats the point of blockchain

people foolishly conceive that the tokens on LN are the same as the real coin because what they locked up is pegged to what is played with within ln. emphesis on pegged
BTC does not have 12 decimals...
LN's minisat based token does have 12 decimals

the analogy is like someone foolishly thinking a 1920's PAPER bank note is gold
no its paper. but can be redeemed for gold. there is a difference

the whole talk of 'layers' is to make it sound bitcoin/blockchain conjoined.. but they are not siamese twins in anyway.
LN is a separate network utilised for MULTIPLE currencies and not a pure bitcoin thing

remember when playing with LN your not playing with ''gold' your playing with 'paper'. once you understand the risks and implications you will not try to pretend they are the same thing but use each wisely for different purposes and use each for their intended purpose

bank notes are banknotes gold is gold. bank notes were never a 'layer 2 of gold' as some bank notes were also silver sterling pegged

The major disadvantage is no system that could actually protect them from the governmental laws and such and also volatility.

I think only Bitcoins will survive in the long run and also at the same time it would actually undergo some advancements to make the money payment instantly.

The mass adoption is gonna help everyone and it's quite near in the future

No it won't die out .. it's too intricate network to be actually cut off.

Actually there is only a small subset of merchants that need this "3 secs transaction". Many things can be bought with a day long transaction just fine, its just the typical coffee thing. In general, anything bought online can wait a day or so perfectly fine.

Gold is actually more cumbersome, if there was a merchant willing to take it directly, you would need to take it there which is risky, and the merchant would have check it to see if its not fake or low quality, weight etc..

In "good" days bitcoin transactions confirm in under 1 hour, which is fine for most things. In "bad" days it may take a day or so. I haven't seen the early 2018 mess repeat again.

Offchain "micro" transactions should also help reduce traffic somewhat for onchain transactions. Its not perfect, but it does fit that need. Yes i know LN transactions eventually get consolidated onchain. Perhaps there was a better way to design this.

Beyond legal/accounting reasons, i don't see why most merchants don't just adopt Bitcoin, and some other altcoins to look "trendy/fashionable".

The way i see it, once the major wallets adopt LN, it will "just happen". But we will see how this gets implemented and if it is user friendly enough. To me, LN transactions should be exceptional, not default.

Just because it can be built on top of multiple blockchains, it doesn't suddenly mean what chaoscoinz posted is wrong.

It is a set of rules built on Bitcoin, but it's also a set of rules built on Litecoin, which is easily distinguishable (https://1ml.com/litecoin/) from Bitcoin.  If they're not real bitcoins or litecoins as you claim, and are instead some new and separate thing, it wouldn't be so easy to tell the difference between BTC and LTC transactions in Lightning.  It's also a set of rules built on BTC testnet (https://1ml.com/testnet/), but again, those millisats aren't going to be confused with mainnet ones.

So yes, the Lighting Network absolutely is a set of rules built on top of Bitcoin's blockchain AND Litecoin's blockchain AND Vertcoin's blockchain, etc.

Bitcoin isn't a company and it doesn't have centralized leadership, so it's hard to talk about its goals. I think generally people who contribute to Bitcoin software don't worry too much about adoption, they just want to keep improving the software, and if it will be good enough, adoption will come on its own.
What we know for sure is that Bitcoin devs will never trade off security and decentralization for additional scalability and higher adoption. Bitcoin is only valuable because it gives people full control over their money.

bitcoin is the first crypto launched even though bitcoin is having problems with scalability and transaction costs to swell but bitcoin is still the king of cryptocurrency, while LN solves the problem of scalability and high transaction costs operating on the bitcoin blockchain, i think bitcoin will survive in the future while my LN does not can guarantee to advance, because bitcoin is now more and more people want to adopt it.

it is not separate in the way that you think it is. lightning network is completely tied with bitcoin network and relies completely on it. without bitcoin, there is no LN.

and if we start calling anything that altcoins copy a "separate thing" then almost everything that bitcoin has ever done doesn't belong to bitcoin and is separate since they have copied everything!

but you and your chums love to define it as a purely bitcoin feature and a layer of bitcoin. rather than a separate network used for multiple cryptos

the differnce in the wording is about how much hype and stuff..
EG people think it will add more utility to bitcoin alone which other coins wont get.. bu the truth is other coins can too.
also its not based on bitcoins rules
bitcoin is based on blockchain rules. LN has no blockchain
LN is different
by trying to make it sound like LN is "bitcoin" is like making it sound like peoples funds are by defacto just as safe as blockchain funds.. but they are not.

people need to know the realities of it. just like id never call bitfinex a 'bitcoin layer'

LN would exist.. even fanboy doomad proved that by saying how it works with testnets litecoin and other coins too. LN does not require bitcoin to function...

The reason people primarily talk about it as a Bitcoin feature is due to network effects.  In the past, you've made repeated comments about Lightning's success being dependent on actually being able to route a payment.  If you now want to undermine that argument by claiming that you can get exactly the same benefit using LN on Vertcoin where there's comparatively a pittance of channels to route through, then go right ahead.  But I think even a diehard detractor like you would be forced to admit it's going to be easier to route a payment on Bitcoin's LN network than it is on Vertcoin's.

LN on Bitcoin is the one most people are using.