Bitcoin Forum

I already posted a comment on the  The Lightning Network FAQ (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5158920.msg53743750#msg53743750) thread but I don't really want to derail it. Anyway I didn't find any other thread regarding this announcement  (https://medium.com/@JimmyMow/announcing-strike-by-zap-4f578c7c8984)from yesterday and decided that this news deserves its own thread.

So Zap - a popular Lightning Network wallet platform came with announcement of their project called Strike.
What you do with Strike is you use your Credit or Debit cards (fiat) to send BTC in the Lightning network in matter of seconds.
This is another good step ahead for adopting BTC for day life off-chain payments.


The future plans :


Source of the quotes: https://medium.com/@JimmyMow/announcing-strike-by-zap-4f578c7c8984

sorry not seconds..
sorry not btc either.(bitcoin has no millisats)
btc has a blockchain and units of measure in 8 decimals...
.. LN does not
LN is a separate network not a btc layer. LN is used for multiple currencies.

this announcement is just promoting zap. not the btc network
..moving on

i dare anyone to take the time to type in card details and a true btc blockchain address and time how long it takes to see confirmed btc on a btc explorer.. it aint seconds

The announcement touts the tax advantages, but isn't quite clear on how that part works.  I'm assuming it's not a taxable event because of instant conversion, so there's no potential to make a gain/loss on the market rate?

---

And what straws would you be desperately clutching at if they had made LN with just 8 decimal places?

As always, I'm terribly sorry that people in the real world want to develop LN.  It's an awful shame that no one else is living in your fantasy dream world who even wants to attempt to implement any of the ideas you think are so great.

Actually, that's a lie.  I'm not sorry and it's not a shame at all.

I were in sweden and found some money left in my bank account, I entered safello (even if normaly use localbitcoins and lbc vendors accept swish too) and proceeded "swished" the money to them, literaly in the same second i sent the "swish" i heard ding in my bitcoin wallet, without the need for LN.

swish is a easy way to send and recieve money from people on your phone number linked to bank.

What's going to be the deal with this and compliance? Is the person proposing it operating a company that'll run it? It is effectively an exchange in itself.

I can imagine banks spraying out an army of kittens at the idea of this.

Transactions are seen within seconds. Confirmation of the transaction in a block is what takes 10 minutes (more or less).

Then it also said "off chain" = those will not appear in any block explorer until much later, and you probably will not see it as an individual transaction, but the combination of all the transactions that are committed since that time.

If it's eventually settled on the first layer, on the BTC blockchain, then it must still be BTC right? Or tell me why not?

It's still BTC, the millisats are just rounded off at the moment.  It could be other coins too, technically, and then the transaction settled on the first layer would be on that coin's chain.  But since the announcement makes no reference to Litecoin, it's fair to assume they're only talking about Bitcoin for this app.  The two trolls in the topic are just taking potshots because one is bitter about scaling, while the other is constantly trying (and failing) to convince people that Proof-of-Stake is better.  Pay them no mind.

Derivatives make the world go round. No one trades gold or dollars, but it's considered as dollars when you use your credit card, even though it can be reversed half a year later. Eventually the entire bitcoin ecosystem, including LN will have all these mechanisms in place, that merchants will accept your payment as good as bitcoin, and not mind paying a very small percentage as fees to the aggregators and miners and whatever else needs to get paid.

You need a new catchphrase, this one is getting pretty old and predictable.  It's also a myth that has been thoroughly debunked:


Meaning, even if your prognostication (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3378014.msg40143522#msg40143522) of Lightning becoming centralised did come true (and there's no sign yet that it will become centralised (https://1ml.com/)), it would still offer you greater control over your wealth than a bank does.  If you can't grasp this incredibly simple concept, you are not qualified to comment further (but I suspect you'll keep babbling nonsense regardless).

So if you're quite finished attempting to derail the topic, let's get back to the part where the developers of Strike chose Bitcoin and Lightning for their app.  Notice how they didn't choose any of the crapcoins you repeatedly claim are "better".  That's because, here in the real world, people care about the strength and integrity of the network.  They don't want to place their wealth on weak and insecure chains.  They don't want to use coins that no merchants will accept as payment because they're nothing more than a novelty or gimmick.  They don't want to use networks where there's only one or two developers who might get bored and leave the project in limbo.  And these are only some of the reasons why Bitcoin and Lightning are the preferred platform for so many projects.  And when people develop utilities like this, it helps Bitcoin and Lightning grow larger still.  The momentum will continue to build and nothing (least of all a pathetic troll like you) can stop it.

Thanks for playing!

From the problem that Jack solved using this app, it proves useful from a pro-BTC merchant's point of view than the customer's. A pro-BTC customer would probably already have an LN wallet with funds on it to make an LN payment. The app becomes useful if the merchant has an LN setup like his parent's shop while the customers don't care how they pay. The shop asks them to install the app and then use it for payments.

Why would a customer prefer the app over making a Debit card payment on a swipe machine/ PoS? Apps like Strike simplify the mechanics to use BTC provided the motivation to use is already there.

interesting question. at first glance, it seems more like a payment processor (like bitpay in reverse) than an exchange. but it's actually a lot more versatile, since invoices can be effectively used as buys and sells:


i really don't understand how it works under the hood. where is the BTC to fulfill invoices being sourced from? it seems like there must be a centralized market making mechanism to be able to instantly fulfill the requests.

Don't do that, that just means you're trying to break the system, and the other LN can confiscate your entire amount as deterrent from someone trying to cheat the system.

Know what you're doing, in other words. It has happened to a few other users but it's all their fault really.

And if LN had been designed without revocations in place, the detractors and trolls would have a really easy job, because then all you would need to do is always spend from an outdated commitment and easily defraud people.  The current implementation of Lightning would not be possible without revocations.  So it only makes the trolls look even more ridiculous and ill-informed when they claim that the very part that makes it secure is somehow a bad thing for users.

We'll also have to see what happens with Eltoo (https://www.rene-pickhardt.de/index.html%3Fp=2116.html), since there may be an alternative way to handle maintaining channel states.  I look forward to the trolls' feeble attempts to undermine that one as well.  

---

I can see how that would be a tricky one from a business perspective.  On the one hand, they want to assure people it's a legitimate business model, but on the other hand, they probably can't give away the finer details until they're a little more established, in order to avoid another company playing copycat and ripping off their business model.  They'll naturally want to make the most of first-mover advantage.

Based off this argument, since I hold my own money and my own bitcoin(none-custodial), then holy crap so it means I'm a bank too!?

Also, whatever your opinions are concerning LN(or Liquid, or future layer2's), you're never forced to use it. No one is!

It depends how much incentive (i.e. discount) the merchant can give. In Jack Mallers' post, he gave the example of merchants in the cannabis industry:


That implies that merchants already have the margins to give customers 5%-15% discounts if their processing costs could be brought close to 0%. It's a big enough discount to get people to start using the app, since it leverages a payment rail they were planning on using anyway -- their debit card:


It's pretty cool, but the model probably won't work for lower margin businesses that don't have the same payment processing problems.

Yes indubitably you are your own bank. Each of us have to be our own banks. What banks mean in short is "a financial establishment that uses money deposited for making investments, currency exchange, etc." We being with bitcoins, have the ability to make investments and also to exchange our currency into a number of coins/currencies, etc and even we might even provide loans to some people so why could we not call ourselves as bank? We do are banks but on a small scale.

We do not care about other's money but we do take maximum care about our money. Negative impacts from any people might never affect the use cases of LN as it completely depends on us whether we want ourselves to gain benefits from this or we just want to skip them.

In Lightning, franky1.


It's Bitcoin.

Bitcoin's Layer 2, AKA the Lightning Network, has payment channels with real Bitcoins locked in them, that can be settled in the Bitcoin blockchain anytime.


Nit-picking are we?


It's about Lightning payments, franky1, not Bitcoin blockchain payments.

No matter what arguments you have against it, seems like more and more people adopting off-chain payments as a solution for quick and cheep transactions. This can be only positive thing for bitcoin in general, which can lead to a bit more mass adoption. It promise to solves the big taxation problem for countries like USA, this will be a big advantage and hopefully more merchants can start adopting crypto as alternative payment.

Lightening networks are really giving a boost to the bitcoin transactions. Even sending bitcoins is getting a few clicks away kind of thing which might surely make a lot of people start adopting bitcoins. This "strike" might even be more profitable for a lot of people who would like to spend their FIAT in buying bitcoins. They could actually buy bitcoins in just few seconds after their card performs the transaction.

This would also be a good start in order to start regulating bitcoins into centralized local jobs which are mostly related to fiat but now, bitcoins could be turned in into such kind of job roles. Payment via bitcoin can also be started to the employers which might even directly load their bank accounts for receiving bitcoins.

It boils down to the choices you make. You can use these third party services or not. On the other hand, they will try to entice you to use their services by offering discounts or promotions, and of course, they have to remain profitable otherwise no business will survive long term if it does not have any source of revenue or profits.

You'll want to use them when a lot of people are using them. But you still have the choice not to use them and use your own off-chain solution or someone else's. Or just stick to on chain.

Not exactly. It solves the tax problem for a very specific use case -- where people link their debit card or bank account to Strike and pay merchant invoices in full. For people who never want to hold bitcoins or directly interact with Bitcoin, that works.

If you ever want to maintain funds on LN or hold bitcoins for any period of time longer than seconds, you will trigger taxable events under the US tax code once you liquidate. For instance:

https://i.imgur.com/2j5O5pa.png

Buying and selling bitcoins like this is undoubtedly taxable under the US tax code.

I'm nit-picking, but some merchants won't, some merchants will. It will always depend on their business model. BUT, there are merchants today that already use BitPay. It will be the same scenario, but faster/instant in Lightning.


I can be any payment service business. If banks use it, it's a success for the app.

To get the right context, I was supposed to type "it", not I. Plus "not to nit-pick", but there will be Bitcoin start ups, current Bitcoin payment services, besides the banks, if they choose, that would provide the service. 

Can you?  The same rules would apply to your favourite crapcoin and every other cryptocurrency if we're warping the definition of "money transmitter" to mean what you're claiming it means.  Or you could just be sensible and stop trying (and failing} to scaremonger because you have no coherent arguments to raise.

Why don't you fight against exchanges and other custodial wallets as much as you fight against LN (which isn't custodial)?  What's the agenda here?  Are you butthurt over scaling like franky1?  Or do you have some other motivation for being a compulsive liar?

When there are as many LN nodes or hubs as bitcoin full nodes (and they typically go hand in hand) you can't classify them all as money transmitters just because some entity says so. It's technology that runs on it's own. No one is transmitting any money.

They'd have to define what money is first. If they include bitcoin, then it must be made public that the government acknowledges bitcoin as money. They can't classify it as something else.

I believe, right now, it's considered maybe a commodity or an asset.. so commodity transmitter? asset transmitter? Do those have licenses? Gov needs to keep up with the times or know when to just give up.

decentralized protocols like LN do not require custodial intermediaries. transaction routing by LN nodes does not constitute money transmission in any way, shape, or form. see section 5 of FINCEN's recent guidance: (https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/FinCEN%20Guidance%20CVC%20FINAL%20508.pdf)

you might be able to apply the "money transmitter" label to specific custodial setups like bluewallet/LndHub, but the same theory applies to all on-chain custodial services too. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5173370.0


similar to LN nodes, bitcoin nodes can also propagate transactions to other nodes. that doesn't make them money transmitters. they are propagating/routing data to the p2p network, not transmitting money.

Khoas77, the technology will change/IS changing the "rule book". You don't like it, contact the FBI/SEC/FINCEN, and shout at them that there are 11,000 money-transmitters operating illegally, https://1ml.com/statistics

How do you arrest someone when they are outside your jurisdiction, (or if you don't know where they are) ... ip addresses don't easily give a specific location either. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

I guess it becomes a federal matter for them then. Or bump it up to interpol level or something. Or they'd have to get evidence and prove it in court before a judge first or something.

I think more likely the rules will change. It's not easy trying to arrest 11,000 computers.

He made a mistake and was not able to hide all his tracks. He had an account registered with his real email address on this very forum asking about "the silk road" ... so there's that. (and a bunch of other seemingly smaller mistakes like using the wifi from the coffee shop in the same city he's always been) Otherwise he'd probably not get caught.

Yes, they will probably start with the biggest players. It would be a precedent if it can hold up in court or actually processed. The biggest players will resist on all available legal grounds, so it's going to be a fight we should be watching. If it ever happens.

No, they won't, but go, report them to the FBI/SEC/FINCEN. Haha.


 ::)


Banks started buying Bitcoin, and staked/locked them in Lightning channels to provide liquidity, wouldn't that be a success?


It's misinforming trolls like you that make this forum a bad place to learn.

ha ha ha. so much fail in one post

you say "in lightning" ... "its bitcoin" .. wait you were saying they the same thing..

first he says LN is bitcoin..
then ends with 'its about lightning not bitcoin...

which is it??
(rhetorical question only you need to answer for yourself.. i already know.. and deep down you kinda know they separate. but afraid to admit it publicly)

..
anyway the other points.
LN channels are just pegged 12 decimal tokens that are linked to bitcoin locked transactions. LN are also channels that are not linked directly to bitcoin transactions.
you might want to (dare i say it once more) do some friggin research!!
check out how the 'factory concept works

hint. the factory (custodian) has the pegged tokens that sign transactions.. and what they then hand out to users is OFF CHAIN transactions that dont identify as reminiscent to the onchain transactions.. this allow users to play around with, to their hearts content and pleasure and can be consolidated and re-issued without needing bitcoins blockchain..

lastly..
you keep thinking lightning is bitcoins layer..
ITS NOT

lightning is a separate network for multiple coins.. fully independent of bitcoins network.
it was actually bitcoin that had to change to be compatible to LN to actually do things for LN..
wake up and take our nose out of certain peoples back side and try to read something independent.
heck even some LN devs themselves are honest enough to admit LN's issues..
but if you only want to stick with a certain camps thoughts. then you are very one sided and not willing to learn. you just want to fanboy
beut please do some friggin research... its been a few years yet you still seem stuck back in the old age myths.. and its becoming very very strange for someone to be promting someone and yet years later not any better knowledged on the subject.

very very very very last hint.
learn the friggen difference between millisats and sats and why millisats are not compatible with bitcoin.
try to actually learn some basics and not some fanboy tactics

..
point is..
if you saying moving iat using bitcoin
the whole typing in debit card details takes more than a few seconds
getting the bitcoin takes minute. putting bitcoin into a channel takes time.. moving millisats(notbtc) takes seconds. then getting the actual BTC at the end takes minutes(sometimes weeks depending on lock
.. please understand difference between the tx of few seconds of millsat based tokens. is not bitcoin
this might aswell be saying kraken makes bitcoin fast because XRP is fast..
(you know XRP is not bitcoin)

ask anyone what bitcoin is
if one person describes blockchains and 8 decimals and confirmation and mining.. they are correct

if one person describes channels and 12 decimals and just countersigning they are incorrect.
someone has really duped you into thinking bitcoin is not bitcoin and LN is

screw it.. for future reference and a reminder.. ill make a short quote by your own words too.. just as a reminder

That wasn't a fix. It's a quoted post edited to reflect something false. But hey, trolls will be trolls.

I don't know about the others, but I'm fine thinking on my own. Has nothing to do with whatever the core devs say. I do see a few hundred contributors, I don't know any of them, not really.