even as far back as 2010. they calculated using bitcoin as a cash payment meaning lean 1 in 2 out (1 out for destination, 1 out for change) would allow 7tx/s

this 7tx/s has been a known number for 9 years. it equates to 600k tx a day

even with all the "scaling" blah that devs pretend to have done over the last 9 years.. i dont think 285k tx a day is something to be excited about, especially 9 years later

bitcoin is 10 years old and still only 3.5tx/s

not allowing legacy transactions to surpass 1mb
hiding segwit data outside the 1mb to pretend byte per tx is lower when its just miscounted by wishy washy code and witness scale factor bull crap
and all the new features bloating the average tx size from ~250bytes to now being around 500bytes has not allowed more utility but less.
and whats coming next, deburden bitcoin of more utility so that people transact on other networks, thus less tx per day. thus ofcourse with pools eventually in years wanting more fee's will find they will charge users more per transaction.. further impeding bitcoin utility in favour of deburdening people away from bitcoin and instead populate and promoting other networks

actually mr domad flip flopper
the point was that certain group over the last few years were/are saying BITCOIN is bad, bitcoin is broke because the hardware costs are so high that bitcoin needs to turn into 'server' only system just to be a node
so yea, i mentioned oh look only $200 to be a node.(guess i was being too subtle)

many people from a certain group love to over promote bitcoin as bad and LN as great, by wanting to keep the myth alive that node costs are now and will be massive.

again nope.. just $200 does the job..

the certain group yammer on that if the bitcoin networks blocks are only moved up incrementally over time because 8mb is bad and such
(dont even bother with the gigabyte by midnight rhetoric, thats so fake news 2015)
that no one can be a full node.
i then pointed out that terrabyt hard drives are cheap and the guy who said $200 initially was running more than just bitcoin node on his raspbi, thus again no big deal...

....
as for your then flip flop meander into the recouping the cost using LN.
just a couple days ago you were flopping in another topic that LN is not about getting fee's from being in LN
yet this topic today your now saying people using LN can get good income

it was actually me in that topic that was showing how average joe wont get much chance to recoup much as it would require 100,000 transactions to make 4cents at the current 1millisat fee(12th decimal). and most average joe wont have $300k to cover 100k of $3 coffee. i said that because a certain group was over promoting that LN is great for getting an income from it and people were wondering about getting income. you then flip flopped that no one is asking about LN income.. in the very topic where the op himself was mentioning about LN income


i was the one that said LN is designed for the big corporations to set up the factories, watchtowrs and hubs to maximise their income(return on investment) via LN and they already have strategies to maximise fee income without it appearing as high fee per hop. by them owning multiple hops around a service to multiply their income without having to increase price per hop
(something only the big corps can manage)

so please mr social drama flip flop. do your research think of a narrative you want to stick to and decide to stick to it.
as you seem very happy to not see coffee purchases on the bitcoin network and would find $1 a tx acceptable and only allowing 600k tx a day bitcoin network utility a good thing.

yes people like you seem very happy with a bitcoin fee war to push up bitcoin fee's
yet you rant about some small 1.5%+10p fee for fiat as being huge..

again realise the point of the post i made which was that $200 is not "bitcoin needs servers" cost just to be a node. im guessing i didnt write subtle sarcasm in a neon sign and explain the point as if you were a 5yo

again i find it soo overwhelmingly strange that you keep saying fee wars and small blocks that help push bitcoin fee's ar great and how LN, with its less secure non sovereign model is the solution to a problem caused by devs who want the commercial LN populated. rather than trying to care about the bitcoin network utility and sovereign model populated
again you want bitcoins network de-burdened of utility via high fee, low utility and the pretense of high hardware cost.
which shows you seem to not care about bitcoin at all. but seem very very very excited about a commercial non sovereign network designed purely for commercial gain

doomad
take your insults and go play around on some social drama forum

point being
10p and small % a certain group says is bad per tx

yet think $1-$20 per bitcoin tx is good
many are saying leave bitcoin at the 1mb base = ~2000tx a block
meaning requiring $20 to match a $40k blockreward in a scenario of there not being a block reward

if the only point you can knit pick is my not mentioning a small % number of visa... then your missing the point

so here is another point.. without being 'conservative' like i was before to just simplify things
would you use the Pound if it cost you £1-£20 per payment
would you use a paypal pound if it cost you £10-£200 a fortnight to set-up 5 accounts to make it effective to use.

if you want to be one of the guys that think making bitcoin $1+ per tx is a good thing then maybe you should aim your insults at yourself

BITCOIN
means you can just get a keypair and display it on paper.

you dont NEED a full node.(advantageous but not essential) but even if you did, its only a few hundred dollars.
the issue is devs are pushing for BITCOIN to be FEE priced more than visa for transaction fee's to attempt to get people to use another network that is not community audited, doesnt solve byzantine generals. has no guarentee of settlement, requires people to have co-signers and require co signers to be online, funded and linked to possible destinations for it to work
basically LN is not the open borderless sovereign system that made bitcoin popular a decade ago

LN is not even a feature unique and solely functional to give bitcoin an advantage.

but hey the promotional material is supposedly all for a current convenience of low fee. which as we all have seen wont stay low
think about all the 'min dust relay' stuff implemented in bitcoin so that nodes dont get hit by loads of transactions.

the foolishness is to raise the BITCOIN FEE by saying there is a option of LN for those who dont like the fee war instigated by the devs. but then LN is doing/pretending to do things some users dont want thus causing a loss in the whole ethos of what originally made bitcoin popular.

remember if you only have $60 in a channel your not gonna want 60 users routing through you to buy a $1 product or 20 people buying a $3 coffee routing through you as you will get your funds raided before you can spend it yourself.

even the LN devs have been saying they have noticed LN nodes already upping their fee's to prevent this stuff.
even companies offering services/goods via LN are admitting LN payments are having a 10% success rate

but hey those thinking visa $0.10 bad or paypal $0.20 bad.. but bitcoin $1 fee good. are obviously either sniffing glue or dont want people using true bitcoin

winkle have over 200k coins = over $700,000,000

even if they day traded for one day and made 0.01% profit
they would make $70k

why are they wasting more time for just $15k

he also clearly emphasised the cost of a a full node..

the whole size weight significant increase is the bull crap myth.
no one is saying gigabytes by midnight.

the main proposals was 2mb which would have been at most 104gb a year meaning 3 years of using the raspbi before needing to upgrade the hard drive,

$200 for 3 years(200gb for 10 years historic, and 300gb for ATLEAST 3 years future) is cheaper than many computers and game console systems which people upgrade in the same time frame. which means the excuse of price is like saying
"online gaming cant work"
"dont do online gaming" because internet speeds and console costs


but with that said the point being is LN requires MORE than bitcoin
but LN offers LESS security
but LN offers LESS payment success guarantee
but LN offers LESS convenience

too many people that advocate for LN dont use it.
those that do, get too optimistic and only explain the most perfect usecase and call it 'flawless' but too afraid to admit the flaws. which when funds ar involved. people actually want to know the flaws/risks too

do you know the real funny part though.
the devs that suggsted not to scale bitcoin ntwork but concentrate on a separate network for multicoins. are the guys happy with fee's being 'higher than 3rd/developing countries can afford'.

meaning even if 3rd/developing countries decided to go for lite wallets. as full nodes are not essential, its still expensive to use bitcoin.

but lets also think about LN
imagine it this way.
$1 fee, channel lock length 2 weeks = $2 a fortnight
=$52 a year JUST TO open/close a channel periodically
=$156 for 3 years

and thats just 1 channel. average experience is 5 channels to have reliable service. so yea expect more costs just to set up reliable channel routes even via just a phone app

and if wondering why i say $1 onchain fee.. well those loving LN and think that onchain fee's will replace rewards and blockchain needs to stay where it is to cause a fee war to pay pools. doing the math of 12.5*$3500+= >$40k
that $40k is for ~2000 TX meaning each tx in the future may need to be $20.. so i was bing very "conservative" by just using $1 with 1 channel as oppose to $20x5 channel
but even with low "conservative" numbers below the expectactions of the group that love the "conservative" buzzword, still adds up to a significant amount that doesnt help 3rd/developing countries.

oh and by the way. a 1TB hard is cheaper then you think

wait... so for 4 years people been screaming that bitcoin is broke and cant scale because its too complicated and expensive to run 1 program on a pc

but now there is a solution involving running 3 programs.. but funnily one of which is the one that was supposedly too big to run.
and it just costs $200

OMG shocking.

"something"
lol

mind blowing knowledge of economics "something"

...
so you obviously accept fiat is just digits in a database. thus you have moved away from the database debate.

so you now want to debate the rules/reason/utility for the creation.
fiat is contract rules that are flimsy, uncontrolled and can cause distress for those involved. bitcoin is consensus rules of happy agreement without threat or flimsy rationale..

....
fiat is based on debt. where it costs NOTHING to create fiat debt. but leaves the recipient being informed that they must do things after receiving it 'or else'. though the threat is only feared by those that dont know better about ways to avoid/evade the threat.

however bitcoin has a creation cost. and it does not demand the recipient to do things after receipt 'or else'. it offers freedom and oppertunity

meaning people that desire an economy without threat/slavery/servitude can give goods and services to bitcoin knowing once they have bitcoin they have freedom...

or they can be given fiat requiring headaches to get it, and then threats after getting it.

...
but with that said. to simplify it the consensus rules of creating bitcoin and the rules of creating fiat. are rules. but bitcoins rules and method and results are better than fiat

fiat money is as you said in previous posts. just an entry in a database.
the contract terms are not saved to that bank database. fiat money is just digits in a database

the rules of granting a loan are the rules of decision of those maintaining the databas. much like the bitcoins consensus protocol decides which block is acceptable

what happens with the units of account of a database are not shown in the database. again the consensus of a bank. the consensus protocol of bitcoin and the humans involved decide the value and reason to move the unit of account from one entity to another

bitcoin however is actually better than the banks fiat database because bitcoin can define rules in code rather than relying on paper/human thought. EG smart contracts can set utility/function to the units of account. even the very simple things such as a block reward remains locked(maturing) for 100 further blocks ahead of it before being spendable. thus making bitcoins unit of account more than just an entry in a database. but something of function/utility.

bitcoin too can do all the function of fiat. it can be transfered, the reason for the transfer can be for the same human decision as fiat, for being sold against products and services, inheritance. and yes even used to pay for a house. it can be escrowed and contracts set up that people then need to pay with other financial sources to repay the bitcoin payment of the house. just like mortgages


loan agreements are just protocol rules. much like bitcoin consensus rules. but its funny how your now diverting away from talking about the fiat itself and now talking about rules of human decision outside the context of the unit of account database

no they are not forced to use it until all their debt is paid off
if i have british debt. i can simply get on a plane. go to america and use dollars and just leave the british debt.simple choose never to touch a pound ever again
debts can be written off
i can live on bitcoin, euro or any other currency. i can even live like a hermit and forrage for food. or do manual labour in exchang for barter for food/lodgings and avoid all fiat currency all together
this is because the fiat database unit of account is as you say just numbers on a database

a blockreward is just an entry in a database. but the bitcoin consensus rules are the rights and obligations that make that blockreward 'granted' to exist. learn about consensus rules and orphans/rejects. it might surprise you
EG a block reward may only exist if it shows it has performed a minimum task and met rules. only blocks meting thos obligations get the right to have a blockrward granted to exist.

same as fiat is just an entry in a database. but the banker rules are the rights and obligations that make that fiat 'granted' to exist

atleast grasp the basics of economy

samson mow also said segwit is great. he was even selling hats to promote his controversial method to force segwit into activation..
but once activated, samson mows then company BTCC were not using segwit addresses for their coin rewards. which just goes to show they didnt really trust segwit tx formats for their own income

technically. from a network data view. everyone with an asic is solo mining.
there can only be one asic with the ultimate block solution to a block at any one time.

..
its later when the reward gets spent by the winner(human decision), how they decide to spend it. EG if they had help from multiple people in a syndicate(pool) or if they had thousands of asics themselves.. is up to them how they spend/split the reward.

but as i said from the network view there can only be one correct block solution for a particular block that gets accepted into the networks chain. thus only one ASIC ultimately won it.

i see a 'calve' run... (temporary young bull).
but not a trigger for a long term bull run
but now we are just speculating. which is just drama.

if the calve run spikes too quick. expect a cub run (young bear) correction

im british..
stronger pound, weaker pound, we will survive

if £1 buys E1.17 today... but only gets E1 next month.
then it will cost us more to buy euro goods....... flip side we start manufacturing our own
which europeans will then buy because its cheaper for them

EG imagine a punnet of fruit. costs E1.17 (£1)
if we started growing our own for £1 we are not having to buy euro fruit at £1.17(e1.17)
europeans can then buy english fruit for E1 instead of buying euro fruit at E1.17

if the forex went the other way wher £1 moved to e1.30. we can buy euro fruit at e1.17(£0.83)

...
as for the fear of no trade.. thats just foolish media scare.
america, russia, india, asia are not euro. but they trade with euro fine.. so ofcourse the UK will trade with europe. we dont need to be euro to trade with them. we just do things how america/asia do it.

there was some speculative drama mid 2016. but not anything sustainable/impactful
so always expect speculative drama, but never expect to know how much, how long it will be.

seeing a price change historically (in hindsight) is meaningless.. its just a line on a chart.
so unless your online and ready to trade and made the right judgement call at the right time (gamble) you might make some
short quick profit. or you might make a mistake and end up on the bad side.

most of the time the speculative drama is over before people are even ready to benefit from it. so most dont even try no more.

so no guarantee either way.
most smart people prefer to take 1% steadily each day (365% a year) instead of hoard and hope for the one day they time a one time gamble perfectly that might gain them 2%-200% in on go

you say FIAT is real because its something.. you say its something because a bank grants a loan to exist.
then by saying such, your also saying bitcoin is real because its something. the blockchain and people validating it say its something because they grant the block reward to exist

EG
a orphaned block/rejected block is not something. the community reject such blocks. and so orphaned blocks are not something.
the same as rejected loan agreements is not something

you yourself then countered yourself by saying fiat is not something by initially saying
bank loans are exactly the same. changing entries in a database. thas all a bank loan is....
granting a bank loan is based on meeting a rule threshold for acceptance

so if you think bank fiatloans are something. then bitcoin rewards are something too. as those that grant/accept a block, agree it is acceptable and meets the accepted threshold to allowed to be created


the payment is not simply changing a entry. its having the entry which can only be changed by a certain entity giving permission for another entity to have it. this is about ownership, permission, and change of controller/ownership/permission

..
now you understand that FIAT and bitcoin in respect of data is the same. what you have to realise is the VALUE of that data is decided by those that have control/permission to change the data from one entity to another.

take for instance, bitcoin. people know the bottomline value of bitcoin (the lowest value they would dare swap the control/permission of the entry) is based on the creation/acquisition cost of that. so if it costs $43k of electric and ASIC hardware to create a block with a reward entry of 12.5. then those with permission to change who gets to has control/permission of the 12.5 entry wont swap such permission below cost.
the receiver wont accept the 12.5 entry for $43k if they did not think it was worth that much effort/cost

this is where the markets develop. where people start to display their thinking of what the value should be for the entries they want to send and receive.
and this is where bitcoin has more benefits than FIAT.
because there is an underlying cost for its creation/acquisition (asic mining)

yes there is speculation. which is where ABOVE the underlying value(bottomline cost) that people speculate that future or utility  premium to add on to the value. but the underlying cost/value still has relevance.
people get to a point where they would see that bitcoin wont just disappear instantly. thus there is no point selling right down to zero as they can see it will still function the next day. so people instead set a bottom limit to how low they will refuse to sell below. which is mainly their acquisition/creation cost(buying/mining cost)

FIAT has a more flimsier less set in stone underlying value. U.S government for instance try to form a underlying value of things such as $7.50 is the minimum value for an hour of sweat labour (minimum wage laws)

lol, that bank of dave guy
i remember watching tv shows with him in years ago and was like, his credit union was an ok business model but the guy.. well he wasnt going far enough into the opportunities around him.

i a few years back was thinking of getting involved and expanding his credit union into many towns. but just felt he wasnt quite hitting the mark. but glad to see he is evolving

good to see he is expanding, but feel he is more of an average joe that just happen to have grasped a good business model. rather than a well prepped decision making guy thats well researched to have a structure of a great business model

the main thing that makes blockchain a working success is a good consensus protocol
it doesnt matter if the ledger is decentralised or distributed. its the security of the data from manipulation that counts, which is about the consensus integrity mechanism

having a good consensus protocol means the ledger can be distributed publicly or privately without need of trust.
the better the consensus model the more the ledger can be distributed without a controller deciding. thus distribution becomes decentralisation (2 things mean different things dependant on the consensus mechanism)

as for 'cash unit' well thats just a incentive to make those involved get financial gain for working collectively and in harmony like a symbiotic relationship of independence. that way they can then spend value as the gift for such.. but its not essential to have a cash unit as part of a blockchain.

many businesses think just having access to data is an incentive. so by not playing by the symbiotic relationship of consensus. they can be thrown out of having access.

FIAT will not dissapear.
governments will change how their FIAT bank databases store their units of account(balance) but governments will still want a currency they will control. there will be laws such as tax, minimum wage, court fines, debt and treasure laws to keep their currency relevant.

accountants LOVE new currencies. as it means average joe has to do
maths of converting value between currencies for tax calculations, rightoffs etc
understanding which currency laws apply to which currency/jurisdiction
meaning most average joe employ an accountant to do that.

there has been an increasing need for accountants proficient in knowing about crypto.

what crypto will decrease is auditors and IT security personnel. as there wont be as much need to maintain a database as it is self maintaining and the auditors wont be needed. EG less need to care about if someone is 'creating' bank balance illegally, as crypto wont allow it by default. less need to audit the ledger to ensure a CEO isnt syphoning funds as it will be clear where funds are going

there has been less need of auditors proficient in knowing about crypto. simply because companys can just display their public keys to show their holdings

LIGHTNING is NOT bitcoin based

lightning is a separate network.
lightning did not change to become bitcoin compatible.
in fact bitcoin had to change to become lightning compatible

lightning is not even a system that is tethered/locked to only bitcoin. it offers nothing unique to only bitcoin. lightning allows other coins to use it.

the only purpose to continue promote lightning as a 'bitcoin' experiment is to give corporate guys some 'bitcoin buzzword fame' by linking the separate non blockchain network to a flimsy reason to use the word "bitcoin" as much as possible in the hopes of promoting it

bitcoin gets locked on the bitcoin network.
after that people are then playing with 12 decimal PEGGED tokens, which due to lack of confirmation when payment is made end up being IOU's until the hope that finally th pegged token is then aggregated and used to crate a bitcoin broadcasted transaction that actually gets into a block(if you write a cheque. is the IOU paid at the signing, or when the cheque clears and the account is settled)

emphasis:
works flawlessly when already having a channel between client and store node is funded and both online.

however many stores/merchants wont want to have a permanent open direct always online connections with millions of users
(DDos risk, hacking, other funding issues on store/merchants side(EG paying all close channel fee's for millions of users))

so then routing/hubs/hops becomes a concept. which is less than flawless.
recently fold done a 'pizza for LN' and showed only a 10% success rate. (1500 transactions, only 150 successes)[/list]