It looks like neutrino is already a part of LND. Running it doesn't require much setup.


Keep in mind that the node you want to use has to support BIP 157 and BIP 158.

They did create "money out of thin air for EVERY bitcoin holder" by taking an advantage of a group which has a different vision of Bitcoin in terms of scaling. Most Bitcoin hardforks are completely useless and fail after a few months (e.g. Bitcoin Gold - premine, successful 51% attack).

They managed to pump and dump BCH a few times. Even Bitmain lost a lot of money on Bitcoin Cash and they are still trying to convince people that it is "the real" Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash supporters are hyped about their big blocks and cheap payments while their network processes less transactions than Dogecoin. "Adoption takes some time" - I could say exactly the same about the Lightning Network.

Two factor authentication offered by many websites is insecure. Many believe that SMS codes can protect one from password breaches. As we have seen, it's still possible to get control over one's phone number. Offline software wallet would be much wiser choice these days since it can't be hacked without a direct access.

You don't have to wait to enjoy unfairly cheap transactions! Just grab your phone and install Eclair wallet (Android). Funding a channel is quite easy, you don't even need a tutorial on that. I am eager to help you with that!

What about adding some information about the Lightning Network to your bumps? There are still many people who don't know much about it.

Keep in mind that the Lightning Network makes new type of payments cost-effective. We would never see so many micro-payments on-chain. Miners in fact benefit from this by confirming transactions which open and close channels. Lightning Network implementations are going to get better and better. Autopilot is not perfect and it can't take care of channel balancing which is important long-term. It should change in the next few years.

How does your transaction history look like? There must be some trace left after your bitcoins. Even if your TREZOR somehow managed to wipe and initialize itself (it sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?), you would have noticed that (no PIN and labels). Storing $100k worth of crypto on a single device is not a wise idea. I would use a multi-signature setup in such case.

You can access specific accounts by modifying the derivation path while importing your seed to Electrum. You don't have to buy a new device.


There is a slight chance that something goes wrong. One of my seeds was determined as invalid by the same TREZOR which generated it. OP claims that he had tested it.

Electrum gives you a full control of your bitcoins. Ask your friend to send the bitcoins to the address generated by Electrum. After that you will have to look for an exchange which suits your needs. Most of them require their users to pass through KYC so it might take you some time. Once you decide which exchange to use, you will have to send your bitcoins from Electrum to the address generated by the exchange. I have written a tutorial on using Electrum for beginners, you might find it useful.

$2000 dollars in BTC is quite a lot. Wait for a few confirmations once you get your coins.

The cost of transaction depends on the number of transactions in the mempool (unconfirmed transactions) and its size. People who want to have their transaction confirmed in the next block usually pay higher fee than average which slowly leads to growing fees. The number of transactions per block is limited by the block weight which is about 4 MB thanks to SegWit. Keep in mind that some transactions are still made between legacy type of addresses and because of that we won't use the maximum capacity anytime soon. As another user mentioned above, second-layer solutions like the Lightning Network can help but they won't replace on-chain transactions. The Lightning Network is great for micro-payments since its transactions are instant and cheap.

I don't think if setting up Lightning Nodes will be profitable for them. Lightning Network earnings are quite small and might not be worth the hassle of balancing thousands of channels. If some miners decided to stop mining due to low profitability then the difficulty would drop resulting in higher profit for those who continued to mine. None second-layer solution will replace on-chain transactions. Miners will continue to earn from on-chain fees. What is more profitable for an average miner? Small blocks and spikes in transaction fees or big blocks and small fees?

It will take years before renewable energy becomes widely available and efficient enough to cover electricity needs in areas where weather is not suitable for this kind of investment. Recently, a New York firm started using an old dam as a place for mining Bitcoin. Cheap, renewable energy and there should not be any problems with cooling. That investment should pay off quite fast.

The problem here is that most holders treat Bitcoin only as a long-term investment or store of value. I am not denying that they are right but they forget that Bitcoin can be used as a currency. Many merchants stopped accepting Bitcoin because of high transaction fees. The transactions fees are now low (1 sat/vbyte) and they might become even lower in the future (Bitcoin Core 0.18 -> 0.2 sat/vbyte) so there is no reason why holders would not spend at least some of their coins. The more people spend their coins, the more merchants decide to accept Bitcoin.

The initial synchronization usually takes about 3 days. It depends on the number of connections to other nodes and your computer processing power (each block must be verified). Bitcoin Core is a software wallet which is a great choice if you don't want to buy a hardware wallet or use a paper wallet which is less convenient. Electrum is a popular alternative since you don't have to synchronize with the whole network. However, you have to depend on an external server in that case.

The Lightning Network makes Bitcoin micro-payments cost-effective. No one would pay a few cents or dollars for sending a few satoshis. Keep in mind that these transactions are nearly instant - it's something that won't be achieved on-chain. I guess that we won't bring zero confirmation transactions back.


That's true. However, there are still many solutions which can increase the number of transactions per block (Schnorr signatures, MAST) without having to increase the block weight. Have you heard of channel factories? I have explained them here.

The anti-cryptocurrency campaign organized by the Polish government was ridiculous. Some Polish YouTubers were paid quite a lot of money for discouraging young people from investing in cryptocurrencies. They were obviously laughed at. Here you can watch a video titled "Who will you be when the bubble pops?" - disabled comments and thousands of dislikes.

The Prime Minister of Poland once said during the interview that they were going to either ban Bitcoin or regulate it. It looks like the government realized that it is not possible to get rid of cryptocurrencies completely.

It would be great if you gave more detailed information. Online wallets will never be as secure as other cold storage solutions. Choosing and promoting BTC.com is not a good idea since they label BCH as Bitcoin and BTC as Bitcoin Core. This might be confusing for new users and many of them have actually bought Bitcoin Cash because of that. Many web wallets don't support features like coin control, multi-signature addresses and multiple transaction outputs - the last one is really useful especially if you want to save a bit on transaction fees.

Don't forget that Bitcoin Gold wasn't backed by people with vast influence. Many people got hyped because of GPU mining being brought back. And yet, as we have seen, it suffered from 51% attack and no one really cares about it anymore. I use Twitter only to follow people related to cryptocurrencies. I am surprised that there are still many "discussions" which are mostly focused on blaming the other side for the low price and adoption of the Bitcoin fork they support. Can't we just focus on introducing new improvements? I guess that Bitcoin Cash supporters are really bored since they can only see increasing blocksize while we are playing around with the Lightning Network.


Recently, a long discussion on this topic occurred. You can read it on Bitcoin.org github.

I don't think if there are any good books yet, but I have written two threads which you might find helpful (Basics of the Lightning Network and Lightning Network FAQ). Feel free to ask us any questions in any of these threads.


Yes, there is (Lightning Network Specifications). Lightning Network can be easily implemented in every Bitcoin hardfork which supports SegWit. There have been a few tests on Litecoin and everything was working fine. You might ask if there is any point in implementing LN in any other cryptocurrency. Yes, atomic swaps require at least one altcoin to work with the Lightning Network and they are very likely to replace escrow in some cases.

Did you consider trying out Wirex? Usually, this kind of services will force you to pass through KYC verification due to local law. It's quite popular so you shouldn't have any problems. Keep in mind that Bitcoin is pseudo-anonymous and you won't be completely untraceable if you don't use some sort of mixing service. There is also Cryptopay but I have never heard any opinions on it.

You probably have heard of their "professional" paid API. The price tag might scare you off ($79-$699 per month!) but it won't replace the current API. For example, the most expensive plan extends the available historical data. I don't think that you need any of these features. The target audience are mostly developers and large funds.

Yes, it does. Even "Merit Received" stat is correct (240). It looks as if the system added 14 default merit instead of 10. As I mentioned in my previous posts, it doesn't happen when I request an update manually.