Diversification is protection against ignorance. It makes little sense if you know what you are doing. although i am not a big fan of warren buffet, i agree with him on this one. if you really get what bitcoin is, i don't think you should diversify in anything else. and i am not only talking about other "cryptocurrencies", also about other "investments". imo everything else goes to zero compared to bitcoin over a long enough period of time |
|
|
|
thanks everyone for jumping in and sharing your thoughts That's fair, but it's more likely some of them will have understanding problems about bitcoin/LN that's make the project harder.
i agree with you, that lightning atm is not that user friendly, although i think it is getting better. and that is what i think will happen in the future with lightning even more. email was also a mess in the beginning, but you got used to it and the apps/software got better/more user friendly maybe this is what acinq is doing or bluewallet with their lndhub?
LNDHub would allow your family members to use your node's channels for all of their transactions. They wouldn't need to open any channels. Instead, they would need to deposit coins to an address generated by your node. Then, they would be able to spend exactly the amount they deposited. They could also receive coins without depositing anything. ... The biggest disadvantage is that they would be limited by the liquidity in the channel between you and them. alright, this sounds interesting and i see now, that opening channels to every family member or friend is probably not the best solution (see your comment about the liquidity)In such cases, channel becomes inactive. Closing means settling the balance on-chain. It wouldn't make much sense to close the channel only because the other party went offline for a short period of time. Still, it is not possible to create a channel that cannot be closed.
yes, i meant that the channel doesn't get closed for some weird reasons, only when both or one side wants to close it, but i think that is already the case and some closes happen sometimes for some technical bugs or when there is no unanimity with closing fees for example (still figuring this out)Maybe LNbits https://lnbits.org/ Not sure what exactly it does, also never used it, but it claims to be an accounting system. thanks for bringing lnbits up - it also works for c-lightning. will dig into this too |
|
|
|
Nur als Tipp, wenn Du irgendwann einmal selbst versuchen solltest einen Full-Node aufzusetzen, überlasse den Download und die Verifizierung der Blockchain etwas potenterem als z.B. einem Raspi 4  Die ersten Blöcke gehen noch sehr schnell, aber die komplette Blockchain könnte ansonsten locker 4 Wochen dauern. danke für den tipp, ich habe bereits zwei full nodes am laufen  |
|
|
|
since some days/weeks now i am diving into the lightning network. i opened my first channel with rath (we did it with the experimental dual-funding option in c-lightning, which worked flawlessly), consuming a lot of information around the topic, it feels like falling down the rabbit hole once again (after falling down the bitcoin rabbit hole). i am running a mailserver for my family and friends since some years now and would like to provide the same in the future with my bitcoin lightning node (a mostly independent way to transfer value). i assume that most people won't run a lightning node, you may see the parallel to running your own mailserver, most people don't and they use microsoft or google for that today i had this idea how i could give access to friends and family to my node. what if they install the latest new shiny lightning app on their smartphones (with the ability to open channels - not acinq/bluewallet and the others) and then open private channels to my node. that would mean they can profit from my "position" in the network, but don't need to be online. then setting the fees for the private channels to zero (or one could charge for the service, by setting fees on these private channels). maybe this is what acinq is doing or bluewallet with their lndhub? some things i am thinking about: 1. how can i make sure that these channels never get closed? is there something to "lock" channels, something like: never close this 2. maybe there is a better solution, cause with this setup, every person would still need to do one transaction on the base layer (which isn't that bad - i don't have that many friends and family members anyway  )3. is this even something that i need to solve or is there a solution in front of my nose i didn't think about? what are your thoughts? this is just something that came up today and i wanted to share it, maybe it is stupid, i am happy to discuss it keep in mind i am running c-lightning, lndhub is for lnd only i think, that is why i didn't look deeper into it - but maybe i can take some concepts form them |
|
|
|
the economic rule is limited satoshi supply and breaking up satoshis into even more units that can be shared. is making it less scarce. because more people get a slice
i probably shouldn't engage with you, but what you say here is wrong. you mean it gets more accessible, but it doesn't get less scarce |
|
|
|
both have been ruled out as viable options due to the scarcity promise of limited supply Where's the scarcity promise? Would you mind sharing a link? I know that whether we had 8 or 18 digits, we'd still never exceed the 21,000,000 BTC; isn't that what matters? Even if it can be divided, how would that affect the Bitcoin or the people's wealths? I think that Satoshi made it pretty clear that we could extend its decimal places in the future. There's no reason, at the moment, though. You can't send less than 547 sats, so it'd be ironic to upgrade to 12 places. franky1 is a "troll" and has a hard time to provide anything of substance (see for example here). i agree with you, that adding more digits is not a technical obstacle and also would not change the scarcity of bitcoin |
|
|
|
- There were few parts that I felt you were reading from a note of some sort, so I'd suggest describing stuff naturally as opposed to perfectly formulated sentences.
that was also my impression, i even think he is reading everything...  |
|
|
|
Well, it looks good.... and having the source code out there.... help to give it more credibility. (I hate these wallets with proprietary source code) it is also listed on walletscrutiny, cause just having the source code in the open doesn't mean anything. you can't be sure that what you download from the app store is actually what you find in the source code posted in the open. (i have no affiliation with walletscrutiny and never used unstoppable wallet) |
|
|
|
I don't know if it's always been there and I never saw it or if it's something new, but mempool.space now shows how much people overpaid on fees if you click on the transaction.  i am running my own lightning node since some days/weeks and i closed one channel (first to practice, but also for other reasons) and the mutual closing transaction looked a lot like the screenshot posted above. well i paid not that much, but it also stated "overpaid by 20x". i need to figure out how to get the "starting fee" the other node will propose as soon as the two nodes enter the "negotiation phase". sorry this is a lightning network question and a little bit offtopic. but i think the theory about lightning node useres paying too much to close channels might be right, it happend to me now at least once  and binance deserves to earn a profit on services it offers
i wouldn't call getting access to bitcoin you bought a service, okay it is a service, but not a service about which you can say: look at me, i allow withdrawals of bitcoin you bought which aren't yours if you dont withdraw them - they earn probably most of their revenue with trading fees - imo it is "bad business" wanting to earn a profit with withrawal fees (not sure they do or want to do that - i am just replying to the quoted statement |
|
|
|
welcome maxine In terms of my practice. The first coin I bought is sushi and I earned some money from it. Then its price plunged so I sold most of them for the purchase of other mainstream coins, such as ETH, ETC, LTC. Of course, I bought Bitcoin as well. I read some articles saying HODL is very hard to do, besides, I believe all coins I bought are of value. So even though I lost money, I hadn't sold any of them, I bought some a little Bitcoin at $30k. I don't regret for what I've done. I believe in these coins, esp, Bitcoin.
care to elaborate what your thinking was behind buying sushi? why did you buy it? and why did you buy the other "shitcoins"? i don't want to sound rude, but when i read your post, i saw you mentioning "believing" multiple times. in bitcoin there is the saying "don't trust, verify". in my opinion that is the opposite of believe. i can't quite understand why people buy things (also bitcoin - not only "shitcoins"), is it because they read something or it feels right? |
|
|
|
core has no power.
Hmm, you must have been sleeping sure attack me personally but don't provide anything with substance... a threat and a proposition is nothing real (i wouldn't take anything from bitcoin[dot]com seriously)do you think, i believe.... again - no substance. and no, core can't force changes on to the users!! The btc users would have loved being able to mine btc on their home PCs again, but as it was just a blackmail threat to get their way on segwit,
do they? who are "the btc users"? i don't want to mine on my home pc again, but i guess i don't count as "a btc user" then... after all. if paypal offered payments for micropennies but said it will charge $80 per deposit and $80 per withdrawal.
people will just use vinmo
are you comparing bitcoin with paypal and venmo? i edited it to clear up any misunderstanding im comparing bitcoin to dollars.. and paypal to sidechains/[bb]altnets like LN[/b] im comparing altcoin to euro.. and venmo to an altcoin sidechain/altnet Did you just call the Lightning Network an “altcoin network”? Because that’s a misinformed way to describe it. It needs an onchain transaction to open, and fund a channel in Lightning. In actuality those transactions in Lightning are Bitcoin transactions that have not been broadcasted in the Bitcoin network yet. i think it is a good idea to ignore franky1 on anything he says about the lightning network |
|
|
|
Though I could also point out that the original decision was 32MB per block, not 1MB or 4MB. Yes, but 1 MB is what most of the nodes accepted. It is mainly about backward-compatibility. ... No, it is simply that core is completely against it, they prefer to use the fake excuse of never doing a hard fork. Heck I've asked such questions of them back in 2011 - and got nowhere with it. e.g. one of a number I've done: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51504.0When core wanted to force miners to use Segwit, there was also BIP100 that got greater than 70% block coinbase approval with the mining community. Alas core didn't want it and that was the end of it. core has no power - the users have - don't spread lies! Users had nothing to do with segwit being implemented at all. The pools agreed to it on the basis of also adding more changes later. Alas core didn't do the later changes. again: core has no power. same goes for the pools. users run the software, if you don't agree with the software/rules, don't run it. btw. core developers are also users of the software they are developing. but i guess we are getting off topic here |
|
|
|
I don't think it's meant as a way of stopping the "Mallory closed with an old state and DDOSed my connection all over the world until her old-state channel-close reached timeout" attack, which is what you seem to be thinking
The scenario I have in mind is the following: Many LN users will not be 24/7 online, but let's say a few hours per day, to be able to react to any malicious channel close. The attacker could speculate that at least a certain percentage of this "retail LN user group" could not use watchtowers or similar mechanisms, and thus wait for a moment in the week where the transaction fee level is relatively high (often Wednesday/Thursday) and close channels massively just before the predicted start of the "high fee cycle" in the early morning in Europe, which is often the moment with the lowest fees. all the lightning stuff is pretty new to me, please excuse me if what i am about to say is wrong - learning daily. i stumbled upon the watchtime-blocks setting in c-lightning here. setting this to the maximum of 2016 would mean, that users who are not 24/7 online, would need to be online once every two weeks, to check for a malicious channel close. which would make your proposed attack scenario more unlikely or harder to execute. this is possible now and should be possible with eltoo enabled, if i understand the setting correctly and what it is supposed to do. as i said - correct me if i am wrong here. nice discussion btw. |
|
|
|
deutschsprachige neulige verweise ich meistens auf die mediathek-seite von aprycot (der verlag der den bitcoin-standard von saifedean auf deutsch rausgebracht hat): https://aprycot.media/thek/ |
|
|
|
While many like to say that increasing the block size or decreasing the time between blocks isn't a long term solution, it is indeed obvious that with increased world bandwidth and increased average storage, block size increases and time reductions can be handled incrementally.
They are not long term solutions that much is clear and Bitcoin relying on the progression of other technology which may or may not be suitable is not the best way to develop a currency which we want to be used for mainstream transactions. Bitcoin has to come up with a solution without relying on other technology because its not guaranteed that it will forever scale. Anyway Bitcoin should be looking to be as efficient and accessible as possible currently that is not the case. i agree with you that increasing the blocksize or decreasing the time blocks are found is not a solution. would you elaborate why you think that bitcoin is not efficient or not accessible? |
|
|
|
.. ich würde niemals bitcoin auf einer software laufen lassen die seit 2017 keine updates gesehen hat
Wenn auf dem Node tatsächlich Geld verwaltet wird, ist das natürlich richtig so, ist das nicht der Fall, sehe ich da aber keinen echten Bedarf an ständigen Updates. Mein Pi-Node läuft nur, damit ich a.) immer ne aktuelle Kopie der Blockchain zur Hand habe und b.) um das Netzwerk mit Block- und Tx-Broadcasts zu unterstützen. Geklaut werden kann da nix und wenn im worst-case was "kaputt" geht/gemacht wird, setz ich halt nen neuen Node auf. Ich wollt erst schreiben, ich hätte nichmal bitcoin-core seit 2017 geupdatet, hab grad mal nachgesehen (hier im Thread), stimmt nich, war Sept.2018 seitdem läuft der Pi durch, ohne Pause! verstehe, da gebe ich dir natürlich recht, dachte da läuft sowas wie mynode oder in der richtung etwas wo gerade bei lightning schon geld verwaltet wird, aber wenn es "nur" für den von dir beschriebenen zweck ist, absolut alles in ordnung und das ist ja auch das schöne, dass eine alte bitcoin version immer noch kompatibel mit neueren versionen bleibt ich persönlich update lieber trotzdem sofort, aber das ist geschmacksache perfekt, danke. hast mir etwas suche erspart Auch was die Hardware in meinem Fall angeht bin ich im Moment noch unsicher, ob ich weiter auf die Banane setzen werde.
Das Teil ist ja mittlerweile auch leicht in die Jahre gekommen und ich habe hier noch 2 Raspberry P4 mit jeweils 4GB RAM liegen, die zur Zeit beide nichts zu tun haben.
raspberry p4s sind voll im trend für bitcoin nodes - hab aber selbst keine erfahrung damit |
|
|
|
Noch reicht die schwache Hardware, nur die Blockchain sollte man sich anderweitig besorgen.
das betriebssystem ist software und ich würde niemals bitcoin auf einer software laufen lassen die seit 2017 keine updates gesehen hat Vom Grundgedanken hast Du vollkommen Recht. Bitcoin läuft hier aber auch "nur" als Node, da ist keine Wallet mit Coins enthalten ah entschuldige - mein fehler, zu viel angenommen  auf deren seite steht ziemlich klar, dass es mit bananian nicht weitergeht, würde mir da also nicht allzu viel erhoffen Damit meinte ich auch nicht, dass ich weiter auf Bananian setzen möchte Da wird es dann eine neuere light Distri, aber noch kein Plan welche. Es wäre cool wenn lassdass dann ebenfalls dabei wäre und seine Statspage wieder mit einbaut (winke winke zu lassdas  ) hast mich neugierig gemacht - schaue mir die statspage mal an und viel erfolg, falls hier wieder neues leben reinkommt, werde das ganze verfolgen |
|
|
|
Though I could also point out that the original decision was 32MB per block, not 1MB or 4MB. Yes, but 1 MB is what most of the nodes accepted. It is mainly about backward-compatibility. ... No, it is simply that core is completely against it, they prefer to use the fake excuse of never doing a hard fork. Heck I've asked such questions of them back in 2011 - and got nowhere with it. e.g. one of a number I've done: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51504.0When core wanted to force miners to use Segwit, there was also BIP100 that got greater than 70% block coinbase approval with the mining community. Alas core didn't want it and that was the end of it. core has no power - the users have - don't spread lies! |
|
|
|
Noch reicht die schwache Hardware, nur die Blockchain sollte man sich anderweitig besorgen.
das betriebssystem ist software und ich würde niemals bitcoin auf einer software laufen lassen die seit 2017 keine updates gesehen hat Mal sehen, ob hier im Herbst wieder etwas Leben in den Thread kommt, dann sollte man ein komplettes Update als Rundumschlag angehen.
auf deren seite steht ziemlich klar, dass es mit bananian nicht weitergeht, würde mir da also nicht allzu viel erhoffen |
|
|
|
Address: 1FTB1sLHK8LGLsZVFhn7WDjV7YEDMnf5Qr
Message: i'm ndalliard, it's 2021-07-16 and i can sign a message.
Signature: H+khpP+eZbC5c4kL7O0OGe6gMSGINDJje52xRe2ftleRESjfYRLEXXvZ77majeTLIm4McGWWHHJ+e/k3jGuPu1U=
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
