Say you and the legion of new accounts who can't possibly have been around long enough to qualify for such a statement. Do you really not know the news source you have is anti-Bitcoin, btw? Miami conference haha. Even the weekly coffee meetings in a city near me are still taking Bitcoin.
Eh ? You obviously don't even know what you're talking about, this is a huge conference: https://btcmiami.com/And a coffeemaker accepting bitcoins, so you pay $35 fees for your cup of coffee ?  |
|
|
|
|
I think you actually are right, the BTC crash is really coming soon now, 1-2 days I think
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think we'll see 1:1 soon. But I do think we'll go below $3000 in the next month. BTC failed as a payment system, everybody knows it and Lightning network is delayed for 18 more months and it's extremely flawed anyway so it won't even matter. The big guys (smart money) know it and are building up their short positions, while the little guys are going to get killed on their longs: wsj.com/articles/little-guys-and-big-trading-firms-square-off-in-bitcoin-futures-arena-1515326400
Be smart, follow the big guys and short BTC, that's where the money is to be made.
|
|
|
|
There is one major bullish strong point to look forward to, and honestly speaking, it's the only thing that matters here, and that's lightning network.
LN is a joke. People can only be part of a payment route when they're online. The guy with the least amount of money in the route determines how much you can even pay. You have ZERO guarantee you can actually pay someone with whom you don't have a direct route. Payments into/out of the channel are still on-chain so still huge fees. Users in a channel can defraud each other. Huge amounts of data traffic is needed because the network needs to be aware of EVERYBODY's payment channel's status, otherwise it can't discover routes. Man it's doomed to fail. The big guys are short and the little guy is long, just like in the article. The little guy buys because 'bitcoin always goes up!!', the big guy uses his brains, sees that BTC failed as a payment system and shorts the crap out of this joke. Really, that's all there is to it, the article explains it very well. |
|
|
|
You are trying to find reasons that why it'd fail so you are under-estimating the capabilities of a complex network, when fully deployed.
Well LN is much better suited for microtransactions, I agree with that point. If it was really meant to cover microtransactions (anything below $5) then maybe it might work (although my other concerns remain). But how does a user process 'regular' transactions then, like $25, $50 or $100 or even $1000 transactions? Pretty much NOBODY in the world has been using BTC, compared to regular payment systems, and already fees shot over $65. How do you see that then ? |
|
|
|
The medium article has been refuted quite a few times in the comments section. I wouldn't read much into the article because of the assumptions made there. The writer has changed his position in subsequent comments to "It won't work because the central entities would be too large". This is again a big assumption. Any type of payment channels can be established between parties depending on the amount of funds they move. Some will be large, some will be small.
They make some excellent points. In short, I see LN fail because it's a really dumb system. Users have to be online 24/7 to form part of a payment route, the user with the lowest amount of money determines how much you can pay in that route (big LOL!), extreme data transfers are needed because the network needs to know the state of everybody's payment channel all of the time in order to discover routes, wiring BTC into/out of your payment channel still is an on-chain transaction, users can defraud each other in a payment channel, no guarantee you can pay the person you'd like to pay etc etc etc |
|
|
|
I speculate BTC to crash because: * It failed as a payment system. The most ironic recent example is a bitcoin conference where they banned bitcoin payments due to the high fees: https://news.bitcoin.com/miami-bitcoin-conference-stops-accepting-bitcoin-due-to-fees-and-congestion/ LOL, a bitcoin conference that bans bitcoin payments, that's just too funny! * Lightning network will not work because it's a really dumb system. Users have to be online 24/7 to form part of a payment route, the user with the lowest amount of money determines how much you can pay in that route (big LOL!), extreme data transfers are needed because the network needs to know the state of everybody's payment channel all of the time in order to discover routes, wiring BTC into/out of your payment channel still is an on-chain transaction, users can defraud each other in a payment channel, no guarantee you can pay the person you'd like to pay etc etc etc * Countries are actively cracking down on BTC, no country likes losing control/power so they fight it and ban it. Every week there's a new country cracking down it seems. * Extreme electricy costs that just keep rising and rising will cause a lot of resistence All in all I'm 100% sure BTC will fail. |
|
|
|
Also make sure to read this: https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800The main reason is FUD because it is reported that South Korea will ban Cryptos, there's a lot of panic and price crashes. How does the price recover? The panic subsides as the smart people hold and the smarter people purchases more coins from the weak hands until there are no panickers left.
Until it doesn't recover anymore and the 'smart people' have lost everything. I don't know if this will happen anytime soon (nobody knows) but I'm confident it WILL happen one day. I do see that more and more people start to realize that BTC failed as payment system and LN won't be a real solution. And then countries like China and Korea banning BTC alltogether ... The future looks pretty bleak for BTC. |
|
|
|
So? That is the great use case for LN that whole world can use without loading blockchain. Problem solved. 7 tx/sec won't be enough, but if LN flies - it won't be a big deal to increase block size. Ok and now you want to pay your rent, your utility bills, your dentist, you car insurance etc etc etc. How do you do that with LN in a decentralized situation ? Or do you really think there are routes with for example 15 people and each can cough up your $1500 rent ? Note that I'm theorizing here. From the top of my head each full node can have snapshot/map of nearest channels. If full map consists of N overlapping pieces those maps this will be maximum number of hops needed to reach destination. Also if you think about it how much nodes there will be really? Will this map be that large?
And how old are these 'snapshots'? If somebody just made a payment that 'snapshot' is worthless. No, this only works when there's a complete map of the network where the network is continually aware of the balance in EVERYBODY's payment channel. Which seems like an extreme data traffic situation. |
|
|
|
Also, remember - LN is not designed to send millions - for this you will still have your conventional on-chain transactions. Who is talking about millions ? I'm talking about monthly payments, energy bills, rent, things like that already are impossible in a decentralized version of LN. And sure, I can go onchain but look at the extreme costs, even with only VERY few people using it, it got at $60. Now imagine the whole world using BTC to pay for their monthly bills, transaction costs would run thousands of dollars per transaction ! It really changes when you trying to think what word "Centralization" really means, and what scares you in it. Bitcoin was made to fight control imposed by banking, not single point of interaction. If central hubs are trustless, incentivised and have no real control over my funds, I'd say it's not that same centralization Bitcoin was born to fight with. After all you may say Mining pools are "centralizing" bitcoin, when they don't, because even though they can have big share, they don't have real control. It's just funny, bitcoin was supposed to be an alternate system and now it's really inevitable that it's going to be a banking system in the end. It's a joke because you have ZERO guarantee you can pay the person you would like to pay, even if both have open channels and you're a billionaire. What? There has to be an actual route from person A to person B, consisting of people who are A) online, B) connected between you and the person you want to pay and C) EVERYBODY in that route has to have at least the amount that you want to pay, freely available. That's just not a very realistic situation. Only option then is going on chain but then you'll pay hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars, if bitcoin is ever to become big. Pretty much nobody is using it at the moment (compared to fiat) and costs already went over $60. That can easily go 10x, maybe 100x. No. There a ways of routing on the "fly". Most efficient would be to use shared map, but blind routing is possible. How do you think TOR work? Eh? How is that even supposed to work, 'on the fly' ? The network needs to know which user in a route can pay how much, otherwise the transaction can't go through. |
|
|
|
First item. No, bitcoin is not a joke at 7x/sec. Why? Because really, it's about 3/sec and with that lame number, bitcoin is about the 20th largest currency (check M1 numbers) in the world.
You do realize you want me to compare a max number of transactions per second with a money supply (M1) ? Well, maybe that is a joke. It's actually rather funny, isn't it? Or maybe the OTHER FIAT currencies are the joke. What do you think? Must be something going on right there. Nah, at least with most fiat I know what I can pay for the next year and I can actually pay somebody when I want and with less costs. |
|
|
|
that's kind of an elegant way to express acceptance, that (n)etiquette can be ignored. Maybe no, or not in my humble opinion.... I'd rather see newbies to introduce, observe, understand (! - and show, that an effort was made to understand!), then comment (open questions), discuss, and then (if progress in knowledge is proven) allow to critisize. And of course don't insist others have to prove, how far they are wrong.
I think I am looking more at reputation not privacy.
On the technology: bitcoins must not be the only ramp on/off to the lightning network. Once I have coins in lightning, there is no reason to close the channel after every transaction. Au contraire, I could develop new business models around "my" coins in the channel. Last recently I discussed the value of having coins in the channel, while someone else needs to quickly send funds, but current congestion and fees prevent him to do so... And looking at the fees that large exchanges pay as per today, I guess they would be the first candidates to think about lightning channels (or cost reduction). Also bitcoin faucets, marketing hubs and regular payment services come to mind. I consider this to be the mesh network, which is clearly decentralized. Only commies would want to have lightning centralized:-)
Whereas I can't predict the future, I would think that reducing tx costs is a driver for moving to technology, in this case to Lightning.
I called it a joke because 7 transactions world wide per second is not even NEARLY enough, even with LN. Heck it's not even enough for a small country. It's a joke because people have to be online 24/7 to be part of a payment route: if one user is offline, he breaks a certain route. It's a joke because the maximum amount you can send is determined by the guy who has the least money in his channel. It's a joke since it will only work centralized and that's going against everything that bitcoin was meant to be (or do you really envision a chain of 30 people processing a $2000 payment, meaning everybody has to have $2000 freely available). It's a joke because you have ZERO guarantee you can pay the person you would like to pay, even if both have open channels and you're a billionaire. It's a joke since the WHOLE network has to be aware of the exact state of EVERYBODY's channels ALL OF THE TIME, otherwise routes can't be discovered. Imagine the amount of data if you want to do that decentralized! And it's a joke because fraud is possible between 2 users, you continually have to check if people aren't screwing you over. |
|
|
|
Exactly. Even with LN, the current 7 transactions/sec world wide is a joke, not even close enough to make this a viable solution. It's doomed to fail, unless they improve the onchain throughput rate. But if they do that, why do they need LN in the first place ?
calling this a joke as a newbie here in the forum will not gain you friends. Too many newbies have come here and repeated the "flaws" of Bitcoin design. Looking at your posts seem to show a misunderstanding of how Bitcoin AND LN can work in the future together. You are looking with limitation glasses (the fees), instead of the options glasses. Your calcs are based on wrong assumptions (well, very limited assumptions to make it appear worse). It might even be that you do it with intention: to show that big blocks are better/faster/lower fees ... this is lame, and there is other forum pages. Especially as there isn't in any visible real value in these big block coins (yet). So be happy in your big block coins, and hope for the future. Those, who know better, stay with bitcoin, segwit, LN and more to come. Maybe you might want to re-phrase into open questions, so the community can discuss/answer properly, and it helps the community to get along. Without separating between one or the other. If you continue this way, your comments cannot be taken seriously, and as such don't provide any value. It's ok to have criticism at anyone's post but at least tell me what's wrong with my 'assumptions' so that we can discuss it. Your post is rather useless as it is now, you're only saying that I'm wrong and need to rephrase things. It makes for a better discussion if you mention what you think is wrong. Thanks. |
|
|
|
1. You post funding transaction on block chain (that locks up your money for the channel lifetime)
2. During channel lifetime (it can be a day, a month or even a year) you are free to exchange off-chain transactions with other LN users. Those TX are same BTC TX messages, however they never got posted to blockchain unless dispute occurs (in case of dispute, person who initiates premature channel closure gets punished) or channel naturally expires.
3. After channel closes - second - settlement transaction being posted to blockchain.
I think it's important to note that once the money is depleted in your channel, you will need to refund, which is another on-chain transaction (including the really steep on-chain fees). Every transaction into and out of the payment channel = on chain = huge fees.
One seemingly inescapable effect of the LN is an increased demand for bitcoin. This is because the LN network is essentially a huge distributed "HODLer."
If there are 16 million bitcoins and over six months LN absorbs 2 million, more price and fee increases, hello.
Exactly. Even with LN, the current 7 transactions/sec world wide is a joke, not even close enough to make this a viable solution. It's doomed to fail, unless they improve the onchain throughput rate. But if they do that, why do they need LN in the first place ? |
|
|
|
more and more places accept bitcoin and other crypto.
Do you have proof of that? It's quite the contrary, last year you could pay in 3 of the top 500 ecommerce stores, this year it went down to just 1. No retailer likes this kind of volatility, the costs and the slowness. And how do you even accept a payment in a physical store if you have to wait hours to see if it even really went through ? Do you prohibit your client to walk out the stores for 5 hours ? LOL Also experiments like the one in Arnhem, The Netherlands, where 110 retailers accepted bitcoin payments have failed because of slowness and extreme costs and the stores are now not accepting bitcoin anymore. None of them. Bitcoin in its current state is a joke, not suitable for payment at all. And lightning network is even a bigger joke, the guy who invented that must have been really high on some good marihuana. |
|
|
|
|
I love bitcorn too. Especially when you put it on the bbq and add a little butter, it's delicious!
|
|
|
|
|
So I've skimmed through about 15 pages and found only ONE guy who said he actually got rich (didnt mention a number so who knows). That's pretty sad actually even more so because there are quite a few older accounts.
|
|
|
|
Ask yourself: how many bitcoin payments are being done daily ? Where can I pay with bitcoin ? Just today in my country (netherlands) a big bitcoin test has been stopped. In the city of Arnhem more than 100 shops had joined to accept bitcoin payments but only a few thousand EUR in BTC *per month* was paid by clients (nobody uses it). Besides that the transaction costs had become so extremely steep that they had to stop the test and the shops are now no longer offering BTC payments: https://nos.nl/artikel/2210648-arnhem-even-geen-bitcoinstad-meer-transacties-zijn-te-duur.html That's how well BTC works. "But but Lightning network will save us", yeah right a system that only processes a route when users are online, where maximum payment in a route is determined by the smallest account in the route, where you still need to pay very high fees to open/close a payment channel and when you want to re-wire BTC into the channel, where fraud among 2 users in the same channel is possible and which will take 12-18 months anyway to complete, yeah that sounds like a great system, LOL. And I'm not even talking about the insane amount of energy that's needed to keep the network up and that more and more countries are now actively fighting and banishing BTC. So of course this is a $294 billion bubble which is going to pop. The million dollar question is not IF, but WHEN. For all I know it's going to hit $50.000 first or even more. But if you can't even see that this IS a bubble, I'd advise you to do something else with your money, because you'll lose it all one day. fiat is by no means better or safer.
LOL this is just crazy. If you have USD you're pretty sure you can buy an apple for roughly the same amount of USD next year as this year. You also know you can pay for that apple at any grocery (even international with your chip card). With BTC you just don't know, could be you could buy 1 apple, maybe 10 or maybe no apple at all and 99.9% of the grocery stores won't even accept BTC payment anyway. |
|
|
|
I guess I have come to accept that a bitcoin crash is not just going to come by itself without a trigger such as a failing major exchange or another government action.
That's my conclusion too. I did underestimate the power of the "bitcoin will ALWAYS go up" newbies. It was exactly the same in the dotcom crisis though, a lot of people saw it was overpriced but shorting man you'd get killed the next day already. The dotcom bubble did burst without a real trigger, though I remember some of the big IPO's pretty much failed at the top like "world online" in the Netherlands (where I'm from). But I think we indeed need a trigger this time. Then again, one of the other coins passing BTC in marketcap would probably mean the end of BTC too. We'll see, right not it doesn't look bearish at all so I doubt it will happen anytime soon but nobody knows ... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
