You have to have a Salvadoran passport or DUI (Documento Único de Identidad) to register, and use it.

(Not ignoring your other thoughtful post.. just too late to respond)

The frustrating and sad part is he might still be right about ETH in the short term.

This is a particularly interesting moment in the evolution of Bitcoin.  Either the LN and other layer 2 systems solve the base scaling problem.  Or?  They don't.  And it's still a question on which bets can be placed.

I believe the VERY FIRST response on the punks mailing list to Satoshi's announcement was "It does not scale".  And theat person was effing smart.  Because they could see far enough down the road to realize that the architecture of bitcoin was flawed if it was to keep all of it's important attributes.  I have assumed that person was someone familiar with networks.  And saw that bitcoin was a "broadcast network".  I am not math nerd.  But I get why continuing as a broadcast network is not really possible without centralization.

Imagine if cell phones worked this way.  When you were talking:  Every cell tower on the entire network would be transmitting your conversation.  As well as every other conversation.  This cannot work.  Not yet.  Possibly not ever.

The issue is not can hard drive get big enough to store the blockchain, but can the network itself sustain the amount of traffic produced when every person on the planet is using it.

That guy back in 2009 was right.  It does not scale.  Not that way.

So how will it?

I believe we are seeing the answer to that question being decided in real time in the arena of production software.  It really is quite exciting, isn't it?

I think what we are watching is tech finding it's way.  It always does.  

The fact is Bitcoin encompasses the EXACTLY CORRECT mix of attributes to have been what was inside pandora's box.  I am not saying it's perfect.  I am saying it is more than perfect enough.  What I mean is it's limitations are not big enough to stop it, and tech will find the ways around those limitations.  It's amazing to me that Mike Hearn could not see this.  Because it is the fallacy of a beginning coder.  It goes like this:

1.  Make new software.
2.  Discover limitations and mistakes in the code or archetecture.
3.  Succumb to the temptation to tear it all up and start over.

Even with a project that does NOT need the "immaculate conception" that bitcoin had this rookie mistake is too costly to do much of the time.  Other important protocols, and software all have faced this moment, usually multiple times.  TCP/IP, Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox, Windows, Debain etc.  Those are all protocols and projects that reached breaking points and in ALL cases there was always a contingent of the choir saying that the solution is to just start from scratch.  And sometimes that does work.  OSX.  Chrome...  But Firefox has survived and overcome it's many gangly limitations over the years in spite of being the first mover and having to learn a lot of the hard lessons for the competitors to got to avoid "for free".  And in some ways BECAUSE of that.  It was the first mover.  I still use it.

But Bitcoin has a unique property.  It is a kind of software that we cannot really just "do over".  TCP/IP is the closest in that list, and it is no coincidence that it is a protocol, rather than an application, so to speak.  Because Bitcoin is arguably also more a protocol than an application.  And there are two reasons we have to "live with it" in spite of the issues that exist.

1.  It is "in production".  The train is moving and individuals, and companies have parked BILLIONS of USD worth of value in it.  It is in use.  Well over a decade of use at this point.  And value is flowing into it at an increasing pace.  The question of whether it has become too big to stop yet is being argued still.  But I think the argument is starting to become very hollow.  Roger Ver tried to stop it 4-5 years ago, and it crushed him.  He may not be ready to admit it yet, but he has lost at LEAST hudreds of millions of USD in value by betting that an "improved" version of Bitcoin would be able to overtake the production network.  Too late.  Too late 4 years ago.  Too late now.

2.  It is becoming money.  AND it is doing so as a decentralized (unto distributed) network that no single player fully controls.  Not even the developers.  (BCH proves that as well.)  And because of this if we try to start over it will be inferior in this most important ways EVERY TIME.  Pre-mined, gamed, centralized etc.  And the world is waking up to this.  The smartest folks can see at least intuitively why Bitcoin is unique.

So... The lightning network?  And all it's problems?  I will not go through the argument here... but the need for on chain transactions is one.  I believe this will be what it will be.  Bitcoin will become much more expensive to use as it is used more and more, and the users will figure out all kinds of novel ways to optimize this without tearing down the protocol.  Lightning is one.  One clue to this actually working is El Salvador.  For them bitcoin is simply what is inside Chivo, or WoS, or Muun or whatever.  They don't care about "on chain" or "base layer".  They have not only MOVED past that argument... they STARTED past it.  And they are using the Bitcoin network nearly for free.  I can imagine there will be people who NEVER DO a base layer transaction in their lives, and yet will live on Bitcoin.  AND it is possible for them to do so in a self-custodial manner.Yet not required.

What about the difficulties of running a lightning node.  I am not sure how long I have been running a node... But the current one is about 2 years old. and the other one was something like #197 on the network.  So three years?  I have worried about channel balancing, and I have not.  I have added and subtracted channels along the way.

Crazy thing is along the way it is getting easier and easier to use.  Some of my channel partners keep their channels meticulously balanced.  Personally?  I do not see the benefit in this.  It really only matters if you have a very small number of baldy connected channels.  If you have several well connected channels then you can make and receive payments all over the place.  And your NODE stays balanced even if your channels do not.  I assume if I were living out of it I would have to continue to inject value into the outgoing liquidity side to keep the system working, but that is now easily done using all KINDS of tricks.  Opening and closing a channel, yes, but also looping in and out, leasing liquidity etc.

I believe as the LN evolves we will see it begin to manage itself as far as balancing goes.  MPP for example will make stagnant small channels useful, and I think as pathfinding evolves nodes can be smart enough to manage their fees in a way to drive traffic into and out of the channels that need a little push.  Software can do ALL OF THIS.

I will leave you with one prediction...

Some minders, in the future, will monetize their businesses, not only by SELLING the bitcoin they mine, but also by locking it into the LN (and other layer two) as they competitively become the new payment network of the world.  Why would they SELL it all?  The only reason now is they need it for OpEx.  Well, there is another way coming that lets them HOLD it, and make money as well.

Mike Hearn is undoubtedly a smart dude.  But he was wrong.  Very, very wrong.

Ha!  It makes me super happy to see this.

Man... in a few days our channels have routed over 3kUSD (7.5mm S).  "My" Channel side has moved the entire 5mm sats to your side.

This is very interesting... I truly do not think this is just people "playing".

Those scam threads are always a good read... "You will now discover me when pissed off".  Yes.  That's exactly what Satoshi sounded like in his posts.  Lol.  (Actually there are a few people who are smart enough to be him that are involved with crypto that DO sound like him but CSW is NOT one of them lol)

But there was a Phinnaeus Gage post in there.

That gave me a sad.

Wrong thread Eddie.  But it's an interesting bet for several reasons I am sure us degens on the Monero threads would go over with you if you like.

People forget that Cobra supported the forks early on.  I do not think what is happening to him is just, but I also feel like he brought it on himself somewhat.

Take the fraud away from the BSV project and I consider it one of the most interesting to watch, and at the same time the most ill fated.  I am interested in it the same way George Gilder is (I assume).  As internet 2.0.  The problem is it is a foolish way to use data, and will centralize into complete control by powerful elite.

But if it (or anything like it including ETH) is successful then the world we live in will be horrible as we will have created the monetary system that makes the current surveillance system look like tinker toys.

On the other hand if you take the fraud away BSV crumbles because I really think Ayre is basically funding all of it.

I have my minimum set to 1mm sats.  But I am not making any new channels under 2mm for sure.  You can also set your minimum if you like.

As I have thought about this I have considered that MPP may make "smaller" channels much more useful as pathfinding improves and use goes up.  Also as fees go down.  Lightning's revenue model is SO DIFFERENT from bitcoin's in every way.  There is an argument for smaller more agile channels.  But we will see if it plays out.  If it does it will also render channel management moot as a little channel is just going to be swept back and forth constantly.  Since I have actively chosen to support routing to ES I am seeing this on my node (at least that is what I *think* is happening, lightning privacy is good).

Now, very LARGE channels also will play a role in that they can handle lots of payments in one direction or BIG payments.  And they can charge a premium for liquidity because of that.  And possibly should since channel management will continue to be a thing for them.  Which means settling in the main chain, or lots of fees to other channels.

Glad to see you back in the pool.

So Bitcoin is only going to be used by those who are worthy to use it?

I seriously doubt that.

I am all for it.  My approach is a little more conservative lol.  But I agree!

Most of what you are seeing is a camera lens distortion.  Watch when he turns it over how the bow goes the same way. (!)

Some observations:

-Transaction volume is spiking.
-The last time we saw a spike like this was between the 18th and the 23rd of July


-Price (in BTC) and trading volume around that time was not significantly changing
-Price in USD was dropping into this rise in volume because Bitcoin was also dropping


-BTC price is acting somewhat similarly now.
-This activity in July occurred at a local BTC bottom.

I am not rally drawing any conclusions about this. And we have yet to see if the spike continues or is an anomaly.  

But it is all interesting.

Um Wow.  Gemblips actually posted something of substance.

And if this is true... umm...  the way things are going in the world right now?  Such a good chance it was not an accident either.

By the way...  Satoshi may have successfully decentralized MONEY.  But the exchange of it?

That is an attack vector for the powers that be.

I expect to see more of this.

https://twitter.com/i/events/1439675314217517057

Yall using your BIP39 passphrase, right?  RIGHT?



(also I suggest backing up your keys with PGP (GPG) encryption and a strong password somewhere else as well.  USB drive... archival CDR... *cough* cloud *cough*)

Lightning is a GREAT protocol, and does much for privacy, but I do not believe it quite reaches monero level privacy. 

I have no idea what this means, but I merit it.

Very few people see it yet, but we are gearing up for the big one in my humble opinion.  France pulled their ambassadors from the US as we sent nuke subs to Australia?  Lines being drawn between the sides.  And the regular people like us will pay the price.

It hurts me to see the dude bearish.