BitPay does not support Lightning Network payments and probably they won't implement them anytime soon. As far as I remember, their receiving addresses are legacy but you can send your coins from both nested and native SegWit address without any problems. If anyone here is looking for a decent payment gateway then I would recommend BTCPayServer. It supports SegWit and Lightning Network payments.

Yeah, 5 million dollars, it’s up there with YoBit.

BSV is ready for global scale adoption here and now.

Listo amigo

While the SEC's international reach is questionable to begin with, it doesn't care when no US citizens are involved. Financial regulation within the EU is vastly different from financial regulation in the US. Financial services that may be available to US citizens may be illegal to EU citizens and vice versa. Regulation in China, India, Russia and other nations of the world is different still. Financial regulations are just as fragmented as the rest of the law.



There simply is no global consensus on what is "honest" or even "legal".

Which law?

US federal Law? US state law? EU Law? German Law? Canadian Law?

Civil law? Criminal law? Contract law?

There's no global legislature and most likely there won't be within our lifetime. Most international agreements are just guidelines without repercussions. International trade, tax as well as diplomatic agreements vary vastly between the involved nations.

The legal system is incredibly fragmented, always changing and full of edge cases. It's the opposite of what a static protocol can handle, and far from simple. Additionally not everything that's legal is exactly ethical and not everything that's ethical is legal -- with the question of ethics being subjective to boot.

While humans are fallible there's a reason that most nations depend on a hierarchical court systems to tend to those laws. Maybe one day we'll have a benevolent AI acting as judge, jury and executioner (if one deems this a desirable scenario), until then legality is an issue that needs to be handled on a social level, not a technical level.

This social level is a separate protocol level of its own, if you will. As such that's where you want to keep the responsibility for legal concerns. What your post is suggesting is a mixing of protocol layers and responsibilities. I'm fairly certain that most people with a bit of a background in computer science, telecommunications and / or software engineering will agree that that's rarely a good idea.

More misinformed nonsense. The bitcoin white paper is just that: a white paper. Nothing else. It is an outline for an idea.

I must admit I have not fully read the satoshi white  paper so will not be able to answer your question . As I said before I don't do religion

That was the "original vision", but the reality of ASICs, and that big blocks do not scale has caused us to have "the Bitcoin" that we have today. Many people in the community are not happy, but I believe it's still good enough as a secure, censorship-resistant, permissionless, and sovereign cryptocurrency.

Some developers needed to be creative to scale it in some other way, but without altering the consensus layer. That's not a problem to me, is it a problem to you?

By introducing permissioned components as suggested in your post above.

Once you allow for measures against permissionlessness on the protocol level you're back at the restrictions of centralized services. While regulation on a legislative level is more or less unavoidable and to some extend desirable (eg. clear taxation laws on cryptocurrency income, clear legal frameworks to allow for legitimate exchanges to operate in), the technological foundation needs to be non-partisan and permissionless to allow for a meaningful improvement on existing systems.

I might be misunderstanding what you are suggesting though.



Simplicity does not necessarily equate openness and scalability. Also in the case of cryptocurrencies openness and scalability account for nothing if security and integrity are neglected.

There are many centralized alts that can serve as a permissioned cryptocurrency if you so wish. I'd rather not have Bitcoin regress to the control levels of PayPal and credit cards, thank you very much.

Make sure you exit the scam coin before it starts dumping again and you're good to go.

Then explain how you can scale a network like Ethereum while maintaining decentralization.


I define "scaling the network while maintaining decentralization" as making it bigger by increasing the node count as more users use Bitcoin.


If you believe centralization is one of the answers to scale Bitcoin to millions of people, then I would have to agree. But that's not why we are here, are we?

Guess we should just completely abandon all work being done on Lightning then.

I filled an invoice out just to see what it looked like. It was a very experimental and novel process, I think there was probably a lot of people like me that just wanted to see what all the fuss was about.

But since you're not happy, I guess all progress should probably be stopped. And we should just return to using bitcoin on-chain, which by all estimates given by you, is also broken beyond repair.

Let's all just cry about it and hope things improve that way.

That was the goal, but the reality of blockchains and increasing transaction throughput through a simple block size increase, while maintaining decentralization is not possible.

Blockchains don't scale.


Plus their experiment should be encouraged. It's the best way to learn.

I have one question, do all in Bitcoin Cash SV believe Craig Wright = Satoshi? I'm asking out of curiousity, nothing else.

no
until its CONFIRMED its meaningless
its the whole point of blockchains..
anyone can write a tx and sign it. but unless its confirmed on a blockchain. you have not been paid

what you have been taught by others seems to be that blockchains are boring/broke/meaningless because countersigned accounts(channels) are as secure.(facepalm) seems your being told to not care about blockchains revolutionary decentralised concepts and being told that the old fiat banking system of dual authorised payments are the real technology


broadcasting is meaningless. tx's can drop out of mempool. have insufficient fee. have people slip in CPFP or RBF to get a similar tx in before your "broadcast" gets a chance


funds in channel are not bitcoins. learn millisats.
please please please stop spending months pretending you have the answers. and do one thing.. JUST GO USE LN an research it. this is getting repetitive.
until you use and research something. dont even dare pretend to know about it. just the fact that you cant even understand millisats is making you trip over yourself at the first step of understanding


no they are not
LN is not a community audit of funds. the channel is not open only when a community have accounted the channels and all agreed. instead its just a 2 party agreement on whatever greed decision they want.
its just a handshake between 2 people.
so if you gave me $100 and i said ill open a channel with you and give you 1000000000000ms (pegged 1btc).. you would be orgasming at the great deal of getting to play with what you beleive is 1btc for only $100 cost so you would accept the channel


oopsy.. u just admitted to yourself the whole thing ur trying to deny
the difference between the off chain transactions made in lightning, vs what the bitcoin blockchain see's

dang you dug yourself such a big hole pretending to just be naive. but they tripped up and fell in, burying yourself by admitting you actually know theres a difference between the in channel and bitcoin network transaction formats/units of measure
you just pretty much admitted to yourself that you know there are 2 formats/differences.
thank you for your self defeat. now may you take a break and spend time learning
..
as for the watchtower/factory stuff
there is no bigworld wide community that sanction off/ drop from relay/ delete channels if the 12 decimal tokens dont tally against a blockchain when opening a channel.
the only parties that handshake to a channel opening are the 2 people in the channel.
again if you paid bitrefil a small amount and they will give you a channel containing a big amount. you can personally refuse it. but then your greed will more than likely accept it.
after all in your mind your not at risk. you got nothing to lose and everything to gain.
again there is no community audit protecting you/preventing you from opening channels. its a private aggrement between 2 people

things like factories are like bitrefil where they give you lots of balance that does not tally against a blockchain. but knowing the channel tx wont ever broadcast. after the 30 days. they just reopen a channel to refresh the balance, without touching the blockchain
obviously if you demand bitrefil to as the watchtower/factory to broadcast a real bitcoin transaction. there would be a penalty/price they would charge

(its much like exchanges play around with THEIR orderbooks as much as you like but when you want to withdraw, you then have to hop they have the coldstore and they dont charge you huge withdrawal fee's or even hop they dont just scam you with the "we been hacked" stuff)

..
but now before you continue.. can you please try to use LN to get a grasp of it. otherwise if you kep refusing to use it but then keep on pretending you know whats happening. im just going to treat you as no longer naive. but just a person thats more interested in causing social drama