Did my comment the other day start all this mempool talk I have been seeing lately? I don't remember anyone replying to it so I thought it had no impact but I also don't remember people talking about the mempool so much before it so maybe it had more impact than I thought.

---

Holy wow. When they ban someone for life they REALLY ban them. Every thing he ever posted and even posts that were a reply to him; vanished.

Wooow, super slick, I love the interface. Main page is depressing on a bear day though, so much color red.

That usually means you didn't take enough profit in the good times. I felt really bad about the bitcoin that I sold at 1000 when this thing was 20,000 but at times like these I feel so much better having taken some good profit at 15,000. I know I'm a terrible hodler but taking profit at the tops makes it so that I'm not really stressed at all at the bottoms. It's probably worth it to be stress free.

Also, to anyone who is feeling down in the dumps about the current price action, I recommend downloading the Bitcoin Lightning Network app on your android phone and playing with it. Doing this has made me very excited about the future of bitcoin and reaffirmed my long term bull expectation. Paying a penny for something and having it be super easy and super fast and unbelievably cheap transaction fee is just fun to do.

He disappears from time to time but always pops back in when things get exciting.

Can you give us at least a flavor of how you propose to achieve on chain scalability?

Well I hope you do solve "the big enchalada". While you work on that though the rest of us can be doing lightning payments that are super cheap super fast and don't really negatively impact the bitcoin that we already had in any way.

Powerful stuff! I hope it's true.

What is your actual position anunymint? Are you a bcash troll? Just anti crypto currency? Pro fiat fractional reserve banking? Pro gold and silver bullion? I have a taste of some of the things you stand against but no idea what you sand for.

---

Interesting perspective. +Merit

This guys content is amazing! I wonder why he has so few views. THIS IS HUGE

Also who remembers this gem from 2013? Nobody Understands Bitcoins

I think the only solution here is to have the LN be similarly easy to use as those centralized services. That way people don't need to necessarily understand all of the differences, they can just understand that people who know more than they do are telling them that this is the better way to do it and since both options are similarly simple to use they will take the word of the people who know more than they do.

It may not end up playing out that way. Bitcoin could become centralized like gold did in the past for exactly the reasons you and aununy are talking about. But if it does there will still always be cooler more underground projects to get interested in. Do you suppose the type of people who are using monero are the type of people who would hand over their private keys to a bank? I don't thinks so

---

Once LN is chugging along nicely we will just increase the block size. The only reason that people like me were resistant to block size increases is that people were pretending like it was a solution that it wasn't and planning on using it as a crutch to avoid actually addressing the real problem. Once the resistance to bigger blocks put the fire under everyone's ass that they needed to actually develop a REAL solution, and they actually rolled out that solution, there is no reason at all why we can not go back and re explore the idea of increasing the block size. That was always the position of people on my side of the argument. It was never some fanatical opposition to bigger blocks on principle. It was just a statement to all of the people who thought we were going to solve the scaling problem by just increasing block size as big as was necessary, that they could piss off, which they did, over to btrash, and good riddance.

I think the way that you have to think about this problem is from the other direction. You have to think in terms of need and what is required to serve that need. So kinda like this: Lets say everyone on the planet wants to use LN. That's 7 billion people. I'm going to make a wild stab and say that they may need 3 on chain transactions per year each. I think that is a pretty generous assumption. 1 every 10 years could be enough. The average transaction is about 250 bytes but lets double that to 500 because transactions to open a payment channel are probably bigger I'm sure. Lets also assume that on chain scaling measures only decrease the total size of transactions by half though between now and this nebulous point in the future. Ok so that comes out to 100mb per block being required. So with those assumptions if the block size was significantly less than 100mb your claim would probably be true and if it was 100mb or higher it would probably be false. The specific values aren't important, you can plug in your own, just wanted to point out the different way of thinking about the problem.

---

Sure, sure, I only put 20 dollars on there myself. If I lose it I've had more than 20 dollars worth of fun with it already.

Filecoin is about the only real plausible proposal to solve that centralization you are talking about and it's proposal would still require hosts to be online to serve content.

How does anyone survive in this age of barbarism? +merit for the lols

https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/fee-calculator/ Mempool seems to contradict that theory (it was way more congested earlier but still relatively congested even now). A couple of whales wouldn't fill up the mempool. Only weak hands would do that.

Wait for the day you see a price crash and the mempool doesn't fill up. That will be true bottom for sure.

So... each time the time locked contract is renegotiated (a transaction is executed) the duration of the time lock is reduced right? Does this put a functional limit on how many times a channel can be used? If so what sort of limits are we looking at?

---

Oh holy Jesus that wall of text. Bro, your writings are too long. I highly doubt that this is because you are just so packed to the brim with deep insights and wisdom that it can't possibly be contained in anything less than an 8000 word essay. Learn how to say what you are trying to say concisely.

You should try this app that I'm using if you haven't (Bitcoin Lightning Wallet). So far its worked like a dream. I would say that it isn't very polished and it requires user interaction that will ideally be done away with in future projects, but as long as you understand the basics of what is going on it works perfectly, nary a hiccup. If the first day of playing with it is representative of what I am going to continue to experience with it in the future, I would say that it is ready for me personally to start using in my day to day life.

I just paid a penny to see a meme and 4/10ths of a penny to leave a comment about the meme. Dumb I know but it's fun because you can see the humble beginnings of so much potential.

Bitcoin Lightning Wallet I believe it is called. I chose it over eclair because it has a "channel recovery tool".

Sounds like a truly enthralling sport!

I think though there is a reasonable case to be made that lightning network obligations are not bitcoin because one can not send those obligations to a bitcoin address. That which can be sent to a bitcoin address is not an unreasonable definition for the world bitcoin bitcoin, I think.

I suppose a good analogy is checkbook money. Technically not the same thing as cash or base money but people chose not to differentiate. They just call the checkbook money they have on balance "dollars" even though they obviously are not literally dollars.



Ah yea I get it. It's because the entity that I am opening my channel with has the opposite balance with respect to me that I have with respect to him. We don't both have positive balances to each other. Haha. Dumb.

The android wallet that I'm using doesn't seem to have the functionality to open a channel where I am the creditor and my partner is the debtor. In other words a channel that I can receive funds on without having spent down first. But just because this wallet lacks that functionality doesn't mean the network lacks that functionality. Tell me if I got something wrong here.

I made a Lightning Network Discussion Thread. Seems like it was needed. Couldn't find anything like it already in existence.

I made this because I couldn't find anything like it already in existence. If a thread like this already exists and I just missed it feel free to close this down mods but point me in the right direction too please. I found this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2834043 but it's more of someone asking a (very vague) question about it not a general discussion thread. Anyway, I'll kick it off with a question.

There seems to be a chicken and egg problem with lightning. When I make a new channel it says I can only receive the amount on a channel that I have spent down. So how did the first address get spent down enough to receive the first lightning tokens?

Also writing that previous sentence made me wonder, for that matter, what is the correct terminology for these things? If we are just going to call them bitcoins like there is no distinction between the bitcoins on the main net and these frequently renegotiated contractual obligations on the lightning network? Is that reasonable? If not are they lightning tokens? They aren't really tokens the way ERC20 tokens are tokens, are they?