|
Having a queue is a feature, not a fault. There's no way of setting prices if there's no queue.
If you want "scaling" (which has successfully had is meaning completely changed to "increase resource usage", which is the opposite of scaling), use a cryptocurrency that takes that design approach. It will run into the problems everyone sensible predicts (the Bitcoin network won't be run by regular people anymore).
People (almost entirely a small, politically motivated faction) have been complaining about "queues" for years now, and they've been given the opportunity now to switch to other cryptocurrencies that take a shortcut to eliminating the queues. And no-one's using those coins, for some reason, they still want to change Bitcoin's design philosophy to taking the centralising shortcuts! What do these people want, exactly?
|
|
|
|
More than 400 world-class professionals and 30 international organisations responsible for the blockchain regulation in Europe, the North America, the Near East, Africa and Asia are joining the crowd at #WBCSummit, including the most influential speakers of all time
Sounds interesting, go on... like Llew Claasen (Bitcoin Foundation), Kristof Van de Reck (NEM Foundation), Peter Sin Guili (ACCESS), Juwan Lee (NexChange), Sohail Munir (Smart City Enablement Services, Smart Dubai Governmen), Evgeny Gordeev (De Center), Alexander Ivanov (Waves Platform), Sergey Polikanov (Sberbank CIB), Elina Sidorenko (MGIMO), top managers of the Central Bank of Russia and Gazprombank Digital Who the &*#% are all these people? Been following Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies for over 5 years, has anyone else heard of these nobodies? |
|
|
|
If nothing is done, it is possible that in the next few months, maybe weeks, BTC will be surpassed by XRP and a bunch of other coins and drops to under 10% market cap
XRP is not blockchain tech, it's centralised and hence censorable. Any gains in value are temporary, and besides, Bitcoin circumvents the Ripple use case anyway. I will stop posting here, just one last post.
Thank god for that |
|
|
|
Users will have to periodically close/settle LN channels for a variety of reasons even if fees are high. If participants of LN channels start to act maliciously, channels will be forced to close, when channels have nearly all of the balances on one side, the other side will want to close the channel to reduce risk, channels will be opened and closed as users start/stop using bitcoin, businesses will close channels as they accumulate large amounts of bitcoin so they can move coins to cold storage, etc.
I made a basic supply and demand argument. Lightning channels adds several orders of magnitude more transaction capacity for sending BTC between users. A list of conditions under which channels close is not very meaningful as a response. Although philosophical, it doesn't feel right.
Philosophy involves reasoning. Feelings do not. |
|
|
|
Can you even call it Bitcoin if they never go on-chain?
Why not? |
|
|
|
if Lightning is successful enough then 500 bits could be economic to send on-chain again. I highly doubt that. If 10 million people make only one on-chain transaction per month, 1 MB blocks are full already. Your math is right. Your figures are wrong: 1MB is not the blocksize any longer. And your logic is wrong too. When millions of transactions per day are being made over Lightning, the price users are willing to pay on-chain is going to be less. Why wait minutes or hours when most transactions can be made in less than a second? Why pay 100,000 times the fees? Demand will follow supply, and fees will adjust commensurately. |
|
|
|
if that's right, many users will keep their payments offline forever: if you only receive 0.00005BTC through LN, it's not even enough to pay for a Bitcoin fee, so all Bitcoin dust stays off-chain.
Yep, that's the idea. But not really for 500 bits (as in your example), if Lightning is successful enough then 500 bits could be economic to send on-chain again. Lighting really unlocks amounts less than that, 100's of satoshi, or even less than 1 satoshi (i.e. milli-satoshis. Lightning expresses BTC amounts in millisatoshis I believe) |
|
|
|
There have been a lot of regulations by the government bodies and banks to regulate Bitcoins power. But its also sad to see Bitcoin becoming a store of value instead of digital cash. Hope the future will be bright and it sticks to Satoshi's vision. Happy Birthday to Bitcoin and to where it all started!
Becoming emotional won't help you. Understanding the system will help. It's impossible to stick to Satoshi's (i.e. cypherpunk inspired) vision if we sacrifice the regular users power. Unfortunately, that means setting limits: blocksize must be limited so that as many as possible can access the blockchain directly. Limits are important, Bitcoin is self-regulating and regulations imply limits and boundaries. We'll eventually see people using economic (and emotional) arguments to change the 21 million BTC limit. I hope then too, that common sense will prevail. Please understand the engineering challenges instead of using emotional appeals. Bitcoin can be a better payment technology, but this takes time to design & test. And most crucially, users must educate themselves to understand what blockchains cannot do, as well as what they can. If we are to keep users in charge, with ultimate power over Bitcoin, this is essential. There is no cypherpunk Bitcoin if the users are not in control, and that means we must understand how we control the system now: we determine what Bitcoin is because we run the network. Any change that stops us running the network means we are not in control of Bitcoin's direction any more. |
|
|
|
Thus conflicting one the foundations of Bitcoin, decentalisation? After 10 years, we've reinvented the Bank.  Nope. Alot of people make this mistake. There won't be much incentive to attempt to make hubs of payment channels. The resources needed to run a Lightning node are little more than running a regular Bitcoin node, i.e. not much. So the routing algorithms can use as many node hops as they like, as charging a discernible fee will only hurt how well your node is connected within the Lightning network. No-one's going to choose to pay high fees with this model, as it's going to be far too easy to find a cheaper alternative. Making a business out of that is going to be tough, it's real race-to-the-bottom economics. |
|
|
|
Anyway, the most important thing here is that there is a reduction from the highly ridiculous transaction fees which is a kind of an insult to Bitcoin and its supporters actually (especially the small holders). Who's insulting who? Answer: other users. Other users are choosing to pay higher fees, which pushes fees higher for everyone. The way you're explaining it is very, very confusing. Because you're making it seem like 1 person is choosing high fees for everyone else, when in fact, it's the users who are choosing to pay high fees. |
|
|
|
3. is good to know. I thought that once the BTC got liquidated from a channel (balance 0) the channel would automatically close. This will save a lot of fees when you are dealing with usual clients or friends then. But don't you need to make an on-chain transaction to refill your channel anyway?
Someone else on Lightning can send you money to refill the channel. |
|
|
|
|
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes and yes
|
|
|
|
To celebrate the New Year, I have the gift of a hidden unstable, unsupported feature for you .onion-lovers. Here is the address of Wikileaks ( http://wlupld3ptjvsgwqw.onion/) encoded as an 8-word mnemonic phrase in 8 languages or writing systems: | English | real element glow tennis pluck museum hair shuffle | | Chinese (Simplified) | 洁 爱 唱 仰 泪 吴 乎 怒 | | Chinese (Traditional) | 潔 愛 唱 仰 淚 吳 乎 怒 | | French | parole distance fautif sombre notoire loyal flairer ratisser | | Italian | retina erba idillio suonare potassio opposto india scuderia | | Japanese | にもつ けろけろ しちりん ほめる とかす たんまつ しゃうん はんしゃ | | Korean | 잠자리 반죽 상품 큰딸 이불 열차 선풍기 중반 | | Spanish | pie dulce gimnasio tabla oscuro molde guerra repetir |
What's the purpose of this feature? It seems (superficially) that there's no real-world use case. |
|
|
|
Is it possible for the community to do another version of the USAF by declaring that their nodes will stop accepting legacy blocks at a certain date?
Maybe this should happen and put Bitcoin's "oligarchy" on high alert to start using Segwit.
No, it's impossible to soft fork by changing pre-existing consensus rules. Refusing to accept blocks with non-witness transaction could only be a hard fork, and would need very high (90-95%) user support. Hard forks so far (Bcash and S2X) have shown that hashrate follows userbase, not the other way around. But it's not impossible to have a cryptocurrency with little discernible userbase (and hence no real economy), Bcash and Ripple being the most significant examples. For the above reason though, it's possible to use flag-day activation for forks that are soft-forks. This is how many soft-forks were activated in the past, and also how Segwit was activated using BIP91 (non-supporting blocks were orphaned, and so miners had to upgrade to continue getting their blocks accepted). |
|
|
|
tax evasion is still tax evasion. regardless of how the IRS classifies it, there are surely taxable events taking place (merchant transactions, trading). exchanges and large payment processors like bitpay and coinbase are surely keeping extensive databases on us should the time come where their balls are squeezed into giving it up. the IRS coming after coinbase was the first taste.
i hear it, but when i see bills like SB 1241 (which would make it illegal to misrepresent your identity to virtually any business interfacing with BTC, which many of us presently do), i'm not sure how to feel. on one hand, the IRS is surely overstretched and behind on the learning curve with cryptocurrencies. on the other hand, i'm scared of how sophisticated the blockchain analysis companies are now. bitcoin's lack of privacy protocols doesn't help.
That sounds scary. But the reality is less so. The IRS can't collect taxes from more than 50% of taxable transactions now. Once Bitcoin becomes more dominant in business, that figure will go down not up, the simple fact is that Bitcoin still makes the IRS's job so much harder. Bitcoin is the beginning of the post-tax world, it's that simple. Bittorrent destroyed copyright (which was dying already), and Bitcoin will eventually destroy the concept of taxes altogether. This isn't such a great problem: we'll just have to pay for services directly instead of how it works now. |
|
|
|
The truth is no one can classify what bitcoin really is. Yes they can. Of course they can. They can classify it whatever they want really, but that doesn't neccesarily imply they've got it right. For the majority of people bitcoin is a currency and if that's how they want to classify bitcoin then so be it. You still don't understand There is no "getting it right" when it comes to money. - Some ancient civilizations used salt as money
- A small group of Pacific islanders once used small boulders as money
- Caribbeans once used dolphins teeth as money
- American natives in the north east once used crustacean shells as money
Money is a token of value. And there's no such thing as a real token of value, therefore anything can be used. There is no right and wrong, all that's needed is a minimum of 2 people agreeing on what the token is. |
|
|
|
Why not make new laws and classify bitcoin as a new class of asset?
Shall we make a law that forces water to be wet? Those disobedient drops of H2O better get their act together, the law is coming for them! |
|
|
|
Firstly, here's the link to the article which was neglected: https://cointelegraph.com/news/hard-fork-take-two-segwit2x-will-return-dec-28-says-founderSecondly, Jaap Terlouw is not the " founder" of SegWit2x, he's merely the common thief that stole its name for his own worthless and unrelated shitcoin. Thirdly, the article is dangerously misleading because it's not even remotely the same project and the article attempts to disguise this fact. Some random people just decided to steal a name people would recognise for their own completely unrelated fork. While it's true that the original SegWit2x was divisive to put it mildly, this completely different fork, with an entirely new dev team, should at least allow the community to come together in unanimous derision of what is clearly an awful concept. Not only is it a quadrupling of the blockweight potentially up to 16MB, but also a quadrupling of the speed at which blocks are found, ~2.5 minutes. Not only is calling it SegWit2x and act of theft, it's also entirely disingenuous in terms of the speed it could potentially bloat the chain. They also opted for adjusting difficulty every block, so clearly they don't believe they're going to attract any kind of significant hashpower for their shitcoin and had to take precautions. And as contentious as the original SegWit2x was, they definitely weren't proposing stealing coins from keys that don't belong to them on the new chain. One of the fundamental principles of Bitcoin is that only the owner of the private keys can move the coins. If they advocate theft in this manner, anyone who would willingly still invest in this needs to get their head checked, as it might well be your coins they decide to steal next. If you support setting the precedent that theft is okay, you deserve to lose everything you have. I would strongly recommend everyone contacts their preferred exchange(s) and ask them to not list this shameless doppelganger, which could well be a complete scam. No-one needs your help, this fork was dead on arrival. The real story here is you DooMAD: a massive hypocrite When the "real" Segwit2X fork was planned to happen, anyone who pointed out any problems got an ear full of "hey man, can't you just let people decide on their own, like, it's a free market duuuuude" from you, DooMAD  But now it's suddenly ok for you to disparage this scam-fork too? You constantly made as subtle an argument as possible in favour of Segwit2x (the "real" one, lol), and now you're all "they're steeeeeeeeeeeealing the naaaaaaaaaame :*( "  |
|
|
|
Whatever they said, it's not so important as most people consider bitcoin as an alternative currency, but currently being used as the speculative object of investment.
IRS has stated virtual currency as property for the US Federal tax itsoses What the IRS or any other government agency do or say isn't relevant any more. If someone chooses not to cooperate with them, there's nothing any so-called authority can do. That's what's so incredible about Bitcoin, and hence why the deposed authorities (like these Massachussetts regulators for example) are trying so desperately to fight it: the power that was taken from the people has been returned to the people. We are all monetary authorities now. |
|
|
|
The truth is no one can classify what bitcoin really is. Yes they can. At least a few million people classify it as money. You're labouring under the misunderstanding that all questions have a single answer, and yet simultaneously accept that this is only one man's opinion. Bitcoin, like all money, is merely a token of value. That means that opinion matters a great deal when determining it's definition or acceptance, because the value is notional. Although people's opinions are, of course, subject to change. I treat Bitcoin as money. Others don't. Not everyone accepts Euros either. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
