I sometimes worry that all media is effectively predestined to reach a stage where the money becomes more important than the journalistic integrity.  Almost all of the other cryptomedia sites are absolute trash because of this.  I hope this one doesn't follow suit, but my experience seems to suggest otherwise.  Fingers crossed, I guess.  I'll give 'em the benefit of the doubt for now.

And using corporate software is no guarantee that the interface is going to be any good either.  Just today, as an example, I was looking for the volume settings in Microsoft Teams to make that stupid notification noise a little quieter.  Abysmal design.  

It's a difficult balancing act.  DaveF raises a fair point.  Ease of use is an important aspect of any software.  But I see the sense in what Carlton is saying as well.  No putting the cart before the horse, essentially.  While Lightning is still relatively new in the grand scheme of things, an under-developed UI is forgivable.  The target audience is primarily still tech-savvy power users.  But over time, probably fairly soon, in fact, it will need to be improved as it begins to attract a larger number of casual users.  It's not the top priority, by any means, but still a crucial consideration moving forwards.  I'm not convinced the problem stems from being open-source, though.

No, the idea is that no one can "make sure" of anything.  The moment anyone had enough influence to do what you're suggesting, the whole thing would blow up in your face.  Allow the system to regulate itself.

Also, what you're suggesting sounds wrong anyway.  But the first point is the important one.

If Bitcoin is still popular in 50 years and we've moved on to pricing things in μBTC, I suspect people at the time will find it amusing that anyone thought BTC0.01 was a small amount.  It's possible the average person, whether they're hoarders or spenders, will likely have far fewer than that as scarcity increases.

That's a fair point.  What more can we do to encourage people to use the clients doing a better job in that regard?  And is there a constructive manner in which we can pressure the clients that currently lack in that area to improve in future?

That's likely too simplistic an overview.  If BTC couldn't be used as a payment method, would that have a negative impact on the value?  If a 2.5g gold bar could be spent as a currency at your local supermarket, would gold then potentially have a greater value as a commodity?  Until we know the answers to those questions (and we likely never will), then it's potentially wrong to assume that Bitcoin doesn't need to scale to remain a store of value.

Okay, but if the "shitty sites" are popular, whose fault is that?  Surely at some point, users need to take some responsibility for what they're doing.  I don't see how you can create a world where sub-par services like the ones you describe don't exist.  People just need to learn how to find the good ones and use those. 

It's not rocket science, no.  But if it were that easy to solve, would it even be a problem to begin with?  Clearly there are improvements that could be made, but people have an innate talent to flock to what they already know.  You could get the most talented coder in the world to write a new fee estimation algorithm which is superior in every way and yet some people would still be lazy/stupid and use a crap one instead.

Indeed.  While we're at it, let's write some software that tells you exactly how much you need to bid to win an auction before the auction has taken place, you have no idea who the other bidders are, or what their bids will be.  Easy, right?   

Okay, but what does that actually mean in practice?  I sincerely doubt there's a specific amount of scaling which can please everyone.  Someone is always going to moan that the balance is wrong somehow.  People talk about it like it's the simplest thing in the world, but it's actually a really complex issue.

Arguably, the larger companies batching their transactions does benefit everyone, because it potentially frees up space for other transactions.  If an exchange had 100 separate transactions in a single block, it would take up more space than one singular batched transaction to 100 different recipients.  The more efficiently the available space is utilised, the lower the fees will theoretically be to get your transaction included in that block.

I've often suspected that any attempt to define the value through a single aspect is going to land wide of the mark.  It seems more like a combination of factors that result in the value.  Also missing from that linked post is the production cost of mining and probably a few more facets besides those that I haven't yet considered.

Thank you.  You've just proven once again that you can read something and come away with entirely the wrong impression.  The point I was making by using the word "gospel" is that you are so caught up in your own fairytales that you are the one who has lost all track of the facts.



Maybe if you tried talking less.  I'll explain it again.  The more you add your own spin on Ira's words, the less they become Ira's words.  How is this so difficult a concept for you to grasp?  Just accept that we don't see it the way you do.

I'll be unfollowing this topic now.  You're free to tell whatever stories you want.  Go nuts.

Said the person who doesn't even have a circle because no one wants to listen to him.   

You're totally on your own.  How about, instead of talking to us mindless sheep, you find some people who understand your unrivalled genius and you can go preach your franky1 gospel at them?

Exactly.  There are several varieties.  It's difficult to ascertain whether the OP was referring to all, or only some, of these:

• A decent amount of scaling can come from optimisations and efficiency savings - squeezing a larger quantity of transactions into the space we currently have available.  This is generally considered to be the least contentious option.  We'll hopefully see a few of these in the not-too-distant future.
  
  
• Willing users can opt to send smaller transactions off-chain, sacrificing some security for speed and cost-effectiveness - leaving more space in blocks for significant sums that require the greater security provided by on-chain transactions.  Contentious to some, but it's a moot point.  Still in a fairly early developmental stage.  Currently more suitable for the tech-savvy "power users", rather than less experienced ones.  If successful, it could have the largest impact of all.
  
  
• We can increase blockweight if absolutely necessary - a potential sacrifice to the decentralisation of the network in order to achieve greater throughput.  Highly contentious to many.  Difficult to achieve consensus on.  Generally considered a last resort.
  
  

Consider what it is you're asking here.  You want to provide your whackjob spin on what Ira's words mean, then tell us to remove you from the equation.  I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

I have read Ira's words without your loony interpretation attempting to warp it.  Ira's words on their own do not indicate collusion with faketoshi.  YOUR words are the ones suggesting collusion.  If you then want me to consider your insane fairytale about what Ira's words mean, YOU then become the source, because these then become YOUR words, NOT Ira's.  Reading Ira's words as many times as you'd like me to will not add any legitimacy to YOUR perspective.  You don't get to speculate about someone else's motives and then demand everyone has to take your guesswork as some sort of gospel truth. 

Same goes for every other topic you have ever participated in where you tell someone they need to read more to understand your unique take on things.  Take the damn hint.  No one ever sees it the way you do.  You are a fruitcake and normal people clearly process the available information differently to you.  We can't see your conspiratorial intrigue here.  It's all in your head.  I could read Ira's words another thousand times and still not see any evidence of collusion with faketoshi.  So just do what you normally do, call us all sheep and move on to the next topic where you totally fail to convince us of anything.

The answer people provide to that question is going to depend primarily on their personal perspective.  Those who want to see Bitcoin closely resemble digital cash are likely going to lean more towards 'Yes'.  Those who use it as more of an asset class may naturally lean more towards 'No'.  In practice, there isn't a right or wrong answer.  Only an answer that will suit any given individual's preferences.

My thinking is, whether anyone thinks it needs to scale or not, those who believe Bitcoin does need to scale will focus their efforts on developing towards that goal.  So, given the nature of permissionless development, they are the ones with the impetus behind them.  I don't really see how anyone could develop towards the goal of preventing scaling, given that there are many ways to achieve it which don't necessarily require full consensus.

Essentially, the picture points to scaling happening regardless.

But if we're talking exclusively about the speculators who want to see Bitcoin as an "optimized HODL asset", I'd say there's too much of a dichotomy in Bitcoin for that to ever be practical.  You can certainly use Bitcoin in that manner if you wish, but I doubt that's ever going to be the only way it's used.  So it will never be "optimised" in that regard.  You're always going to have those people sharing this network with you who want to spend their BTC like a currency.

I'm finding this topic quite depressing.  It's making me wonder whether human beings are, generally, ever going to be smart enough for any decentralised system to truly function as envisioned.  The very thought of "mass adoption" seems somewhat ludicrous now.  Given that, even at the decidedly niche present day adoption adoption levels, 1000 dipshits needed a third party service to babysit them.  And countless more actually managed to send money to the scammers in such an obvious ruse.  How many millions of people would it have been if in some alternate bizzarro-timeline we had already achieved mass adoption?  We could spend the next 50 years improving and refining code and it wouldn't change a thing, since the user is always going to be the weak link.

I get the sense it's always going to be a two-tier system.  Only intelligent and careful people will be capable of having the benefits of decentralisation.  Everyone else either gets a padded play area or robbed blind.  I don't see a great deal of hope for humanity, even in the long run.  People are actually getting dumber, somehow.  Like, a genuine evolution-in-reverse kinda deal.  Devolving back into pond scum or something.  It's nuts.

You can colour code it any way you like, that still doesn't make it equivalent to an IOU or a banknote.  If you think it does, then, as usual, if you are making the claim, the onus is on YOU to prove it.  The evidence you have provided does not convince me that HTLCs are in any way similar to IOUs.  You are merely contorting facts to suit your misleading claims.

Just because Bitcoin functions well and serves a purpose, doesn't mean you get to draw a line in the sand, say it's finished and then spend the rest of time decrying all future development.  You're welcome to do it, but no one is going to take you seriously.  

You can also make up the narrative that I'm "pushing the narrative that Bitcoin will fail", because I know fully well that you lack the credibity for anyone to believe you.

LN is happening, people are going to play with it.  It will evolve and grow.  You can't stop it with fear mongering.




Please stop projecting your traumatic childhood onto everyone and everything else.  

No wait, let me guess, we just have to keep reading and researching until we form the same conclusion you did, right?   

Just dox yourself so we can call some mental health professionals and get you the help you so clearly need.