I've always naturally assumed that bits will eventually become prevalent, since those who are only familiar with fiat are accustomed to having two decimal places.  But, since there's always the potential to add more decimal places if a hardfork ever takes place, I suppose it's only sensible to wait and see what emerges naturally.

Making it truly decentralised does still feel like a bit of a holy grail.  I used to think someone would solve it pretty quickly, but I'm slowly learning to temper those expectations.  It's not easy to combine the part where you want to have a peer-to-peer market where you can be paired with someone to actually make the swap with, plus the part where you want have it resistant to regulatory shutdown.  

So far, most people have tried to tackle the problem by developing a service, but the solution ideally needs to take the form of a protocol.  Not a simple conundrum to solve.

Someone said Paxos do (the ones who hold the coins for PayPal), but didn't cite a source, so I'm still not certain about that.  As far as I know, PayPal merely has the New York Bitlicence.

Yes, for once I'm actually inclined to agree with something you've said.  

I hope everyone reading this understands the importance that you read genuine issues from real people, rather than franky1's ridiculous made-up campfire stories.  The simple fact is, most losses on LN come from user error.  So do make sure you fully understand what you're doing before you use it.  But it avoids the situation where you're likely to suffer a total wipeout because of something someone else did, as is the case with custodians.  The responsibility is yours.  Then, once people have gained a decent understanding, they'll know that, while it's not a perfect solution, it's still by far the most viable option for those who want to use Bitcoin as a currency and spend it regularly.  Naturally, for those who are more of an accumulator/hodler, then it won't be particularly useful to them.

As always, franky1 believes me to be a blind fanatic, but this is not so.  I'm fully aware that Lightning has issues.  But sane and logical people will recognise that every shortcoming in the Lightning Network is a weakness that hasn't been introduced to the base protocol.  Whereas franky1's desired direction is to inject every possible compromise directly into Bitcoin and weaken it.  He's clearly a moron.  Pay him no mind.



I'm not a bodyguard.  Merely a fact-checker.  Dispelling abject lies is not "hyping up" Lightning.  I just call out the bullshit where I see it.  I'm not making any unrealistic claims.  

I'll state categorically that each user will have a different experience with routing transactions, as it will largely depend on how many people they know and how many they are likely to transact with.  If you know a whole bunch of people who use LN regularly, you're probably going to find it easier to avoid relying on any large "hubs".  But for people like franky1 (who probably has no friends because no one could spend more than half a minute in a room with him without feeling the urge to punch him square in the face due to him being inherently unlikable), they might struggle to route transactions.

Is that why you hate LN, franky1?  Does it do a great job of highlighting the issue where you're a repulsive waste of oxygen that people go out of their way to avoid?  Does it constantly remind you that you have no friends because you drove them all away by being so unbelievably obnoxious?

But anyway, the point is, some people will rely on larger hubs until there are more users.  But even having several large hubs is still an improvement over Bitcoin's early history.  Back in 2012/2013, a huge number of people primarily used the Mt.Gox exchange.  Some of us saw the warning signs and tried to warn people, but many just didn't listen.  The collapse of that one website caused absolute devastation to thousands of people.  And because it was fully custodial and centralised, the vast majority of the victims are still waiting for recompense all these years later.  Imagine how many affected users, due to that experience, vowed to never use Bitcoin again.  It was a major catastrophe that highlighted the issues with centralised fully-custodial services.  Some would argue we still haven't learned the lessons it should have taught us.  So... even -IF- the Lightning Network was as bad as franky1 claims it is, it still couldn't possibly be as bad as Gox or any of the present day exchanges or webwallets.  I don't believe Lightning will ever become fully custodial and I don't believe it would ever centralise into one giant hub that could fail.  So again, the responsibility is yours to use it wisely.  As such, I'm satisfied that it should continue to be developed and given space to grow and evolve.

It's not just a question of whether it would be "better" or not, they don't really have a choice:


The link must go in the signature area, not within the body of the post.  Otherwise it's a rule violation and suddenly everyone will start thinking it's okay to do that.

I think at this stage, it's the Trump supporters who are desperate for their fantasy to become real.  It'll take time, but eventually you'll come to terms with the fact that he lost.

My views are summed up in these two topics:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3202211.msg33233707#msg33233707
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1881199.msg18693313#msg18693313

It's basically just ~20 billion empty promises.  Avoid.

Just look at their legal page:




Translation:  When they run into a problem, it becomes your problem.

Maybe take this topic as a wake up call that you are doing something wrong.  People are lining up to tell you that you post too many topics and most of them sound like absolute nonsense.  Perhaps you should work on that?

Newbies, save yourselves a tremendous amount of grief and put the above user on ignore.  They're either a troll or an imbecile.  Most of their posts are misinformed gibberish.

The consequence being that if we don't class this as plagiarism, we then open the floodgates to dozens of accounts copy/pasting single lines of text, then citing this example as precedent as to why low effort posts are permissable.  It doesn't matter if it's common knowledge, it has been copied verbatim without accompanying independent thought or comment.  

I'm convinced you'd have more luck taking your request direct to the campaign you'd like to join.  Granted, it's rare for the applicant to dictate terms to the potential employer.  As an analogy, if you work certain places at an entry-level position, maybe you're required to wear the company uniform.  If you think you're good enough that you can ask them to make an exception and still get the job, give it a try.  But you better be confident you've got something to offer above and beyond what others are able to contribute.  Otherwise they might just give the job to someone who doesn't complain.  This forum isn't exactly short on available workforce.  It's up to you whether to risk it or not.

Still, I think your chances are better with that approach, rather than trying to change forum rules.

Also, consider the remote possibility that you were successful in getting the rules changed and what that might mean for all the campaign managers who would have to suddenly change their practices.  If you effectively force their hand, some of them might not take kindly to that.  It's conceivable that it might even harm your chances of getting accepted to a campaign if they believe you've brought any financial harm to their business model by bringing about the forum equivalent of regulatory hurdles and red tape.  Careful what you wish for and such.

It's not quite how any of us envisioned adoption would look, but hey, baby steps.  At the very least this legitimises crypto to the point where no one can call it a ponzi anymore without looking like a complete fool.  That's something, I guess.

So, as always, you don't bat an eyelid about centralised exchanges, PayPal, or any other fully-custodial services, where users will undeniably have far less choice about how much control they want to keep over their funds.  Instead, you take aim at the open-source code that provides people with more choice.  Not to mention taking yet another topic that had nothing to do with Lightning and turning it into yet another lie-fest about a system you're totally obsessed with.

Just because people could eventually have an option to use services that work with channel factories, they will still have the choice to open their own channels if they choose to.  Stop pretending that factories would be compulsory, you lying shitweasel.  I know you hate freedom, being the fascist little Nazi that you are, but none of your tiresome fear-mongering is going to stop users enjoying the freedoms off-chain transactions offer them.  You can't put a dent in progress because you are a meaningless speck of excrement.  I can't remember the last time I saw anyone take you seriously.  You're a joke.  Why don't you go back to loitering in the Politics and Society board?  Your caveman mindset appears to be tolerated there.  You're too ignorant and too heavily discredited to be in any position to lecture people about Bitcoin anymore.  You pathetic, worthless troll.

---

To everyone else, I'll point you to this factual topic about Lightning, where the above troll is banned from posting, because the moderators got tired of his constant dishonesty.

I don't exactly feel sorry for the hedge fund crowd.  Beyond that I'm honestly not sure how to feel about it.  Is it maybe a good that they're on such a secure financial footing with a lucrative business model if they're holding vast sums of BTC?  I certainly don't think it would be beneficial to see headlines about them having money troubles if they're so closely associated with Bitcoin now.  If it's inevitable that institutional investors are going to get involved, arguably it's better if the ringleaders of the circus aren't taking any adverse risks?  Or have I got this all wrong and maybe they're using that extra premium to continually eat the green candles?  Are they taking a big risk in buying so aggressively?

And this topic is the best you could do?  If this is what 12 years of knowledge and understanding looks like, we're all going to be long dead before you get your coin off the drawing board.  Be honest, you clearly haven't been following Bitcoin for that long.  You'd be better informed than this.



I'm just injecting a healthy dose of realism into the discussion.  The conversation may have gone better if you had come to us with an actual solution rather than just vague, idealistic wishful thinking.  You've made it clear what you think is wrong, but you have absolutely no idea how to do it right.  Everything you want to change has consequences. You appear to be completely oblivious to that fact.

It's definitely possible to have a coin with a fair distribution, but if you focus on that one aspect to the exclusion of all else, it's going to be a shitcoin.  I've witnessed a thousand of them and I don't see anything different about you that convinces me you can do any better.

Sorry.  You're just not that persuasive.

Then first show us how you're going to secure it without mining.  It all sounds very noble, but it's also a fantasy.  If it was as easy as you make it sound, someone smart would have done it already.  There are some extraordinary intellects in the crypto community, who after more than a decade still haven't found a way to make a rival cryptocurrency which people desire more than Bitcoin.  There are obstacles you haven't recognised yet that are barriers to your success.  Those of us who have been around a while have seen it all before.  Everyone wants to believe they can do better, but they don't understand how it even works yet.  I can't help but say what you're proposing sounds a little naive.

1.  That's not what "premine" means.  That's just ordinary, regular mining.  Ironically, many of the altcoins that have tried to emulate your "equal distribution" ideals actually employed a developer premine so that they could allocate funds as they saw fit.

2.  So, your coin wouldn't be able to have a fixed supply if you want equal distribution.  You would have to create more coins forever to take into account every new person that is born.  The supply would expand forever, diminishing the value of every coin that existed before.  Many consider a limited supply advantageous.  Scarcity helps value, etc.

3.  Good luck with that.  I'd recommend learning about the alignment of incentives before you get started, though.  Mining isn't just the method by which emission occurs, it's also what secures the system.  If everyone is equal in your system, there will be no advantage to being a miner.  With no incentive to secure the chain, this will likely result in a weak and centralised system, prone to attack.

It's difficult to keep up with the OP, since each and every new brainfart seems to result in yet another barely comprehensible topic.  They started this thread where they suggested stablecoins could be a "plan B", but now realises they're pretty terrible after some more experienced users put them straight.

---

And if the global economy continues to worsen, negative interest rates may become common and you won't see a return at all.  You'll have to pay money just to keep your account open.

I'd still prefer if we could move away from the name "51% attack".  It's a misnomer that leads to new users going away with the wrong impression.  Hashrate attacks can be performed with less than 51% of the hashpower.  So just call them "hashrate attacks".

To expand on this point, the developers are often looking for ways to improve privacy within the base protocol.  Dandelion was implemented some time ago now, which helps in preventing "supernodes" mapping where transactions originate from.  Taproot is currently in the early stages of activation, which should also improve privacy with certain transaction types.  I'm sure there are other examples besides those, too.  Be sure to use the right software if privacy is important to you.