|
People don't use their brains. I mean, come on, btc failed as a payment system, it doesn't scale, LN is a joke, that will never work, less and less shops are offering it, transactions are still declining, social media platforms are banning it and quite a few countries banned it already and it's doing a HORRIBLE job as a 'store of value'. I mean what's there to like? Why would anyone want to buy this crap? All those idiots here who are long 'because bitcoin always goes up' are getting KILLED.
I'm short at $18.000 and am going to ride this crap to <$2500. It's not too late, you can still short it here and make good money. In fact, chances are it's going even way lower than $2500.
|
|
|
|
I think it's a fine time to invest in Bitcoin.
You, sir, gave one of the worst advices ever! |
|
|
|
|
Since you bought 3 btc at 19k and you didnt sell anything, because all those idiots here told you to HODL, and it's now trading at $6800 you now have lost $36.600. That's a lot of money. Since you borrowed it, you need to make that back.
Ok, do this: sell your bitcoin, buy some sexy clothes and start selling your ass on the streetcorner. If you give intercourse experiences for $50 to gay people, you only need to bend over 732 times and then you've made all your money back. It's probably the fastest way: if you have sex with 4 gays per day, you will have your money back in just a half year!. You could also rob a bank but you might end up in prison or get shot. If you decide to go for the ass-selling route, then at least do use condoms though, you don't want to get any diseases. Good luck! Oh and don't forget to thank everybody here in this thread for their HODL advice, it's because of their advice that you now have to sell your ass on the streets.
|
|
|
|
I think everyone in this forum is looking forward to btc's technological advance, which currently going on is the lightning network.
Things are really sad when your hope is a dumb, doomed to fail, system like LN. |
|
|
|
|
Ok, so you can't use it to pay, almost no shops accept it. In fact the number of shops accepting it has been declining. It's pretty shitty too as a way to retain wealth (seeing it's dropping so hard). So how is this not a bubble exactly?
|
|
|
|
|
So you were sick in January, how do you feel now? Just wondering
|
|
|
|
|
Go to the casino and play roulette and put $1000 on 1 number. If you win you can pay your debt!
|
|
|
|
rather there are good news coming of adoption of technology everyday.
Hmm, can you link a few of such examples please? AFAIK adaptation is fading every day. Less and less shops offer bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Of all the questions this is the really easy one. In 5 years it will be gone. No frikkin' way it will be worth more than $1.
|
|
|
|
The standard configuration for most non-technically-savvy users would be only one channel: most likely with an exchange that acts as my hub and connects to other sub-hubs, acting also as my "recharging station". This centralized idea of LN makes at least much more sense than the decentralized version, to that much I agree. But people wanted bitcoin because of decentralization. If we go back to the model where big centralized banks are key in the whole system, will people still like bitcoin? Doesn't this go against the very core of what people look for in bitcoin? But even in that version, everytime you 'recharge' your 'bank' you still would need to pay the huge on-chain fee. |
|
|
|
|
If you look at the chart, then it's easy to see that the price target is the june/july level from last year, so about $2500
|
|
|
|
It's obvious that if you "recharge" your channel with lower amounts, you'll do it within LN itself. You would be connected via LN to your exchange, or if you're a merchant, to most of your clients. Eh? If you have a channel with A and a channel with B and can simply fund B from A, then why have 2 channels in the first place? This makes no sense! So I don't think the average fee to open a channel would be higher than $50. I guess it will be much lower. It's likely that we'll never see again the extreme congestion in December as the reasons were spam attacks, a strong bubble, and Christmas.
You're a dreamer. Just like all the other LN adapts. |
|
|
|
I'm honestly not sure at this stage if the OP genuinely believes it will fail, or if it's more along the lines of them wanting it to fail for reasons they've yet to disclose. Hate to disappoint you, but talking it down won't kill it. Enough people are on board with the idea that they're willing to commit time and effort to improving it. It's only going to get bigger.
Well I'd love to have a decentralized coin with which I could pay everywhere in an instant, that would be awesome. But at this point in time that's just not possible due to the current state of technology. Maybe some day in a future someone will invent a better blockchain algo. But what I know for sure is that LN is not the solution, it's a dumb idea and I really don't understand why people think this will work. If you'd design a system from the ground up, you'd NEVER come up with LN. The only reason it exists is that this was the only thing possible within the bitcoin network without having to change anything in the network itself: someone thought "oh let's use the fact that people can have a shared wallet and change the ratio of ownership without having to do an on chain transaction" and that's how it was born. And then people started figuring out "hey that way we can also route from wallet to wallet". So it's a 'solution' given certain constraints. But again, if you'd were to build a system from the ground up, you'd NEVER come up with LN. |
|
|
|
1. Credit cards do charge fees, and not only that: their merchant fees increase the final price of the products you buy with them. Sure. The fees are just WAY lower than with bitcoin/LN. With LN, you would have to pay a fee once, and probably never again, if everything works as expected. You can open the channel when you want, probably in a "low-fee timeframe", like weekends. Nonsense. Any time you need to 'recharge' your channel you'll pay the on-chain fee. And again, this will be very steep if bitcoin would ever become popular. With only 450k transactions/day in December it already was more than $50. Sure it can handle now twice that due to segwit but that's still only 900k/day, for the whole frikkin' world. For some perspective, VISA currently does more than 150 MILLION transactions PER DAY. Remember that the max bitcoin can handle on chain anyway is only 1.2million per day! 2. There will be, very likely, providers that open the channel for you for no cost just to ensure you use their LN node as a gateway. I expect this behaviour from exchanges and online wallet providers. Obviously, they want you to pay their (trading) fees, but let's be honest, most Bitcoin users do that anyway, and trading fees are usually low.
Nonsense, nobody is going to pay for such steep costs. |
|
|
|
You've effectively countered your own point. The sense in people paying the fee to open a channel rather than just making an on-chain transaction, is that it provides that Visa level of scaling. I don't need to pay, say, $50 to 'open a channel' when I want to buy something with VISA from whatever shop. THAT is the whole point, I'm not sure why you fail to understand such a simple point. |
|
|
|
The more you use Lightning and the more channels you have open, the greater the potential savings on fees. Each time you can avoid making on-chain transactions, that's one less mining fee to pay. Financial incentive will be the driving force for having multiple channels open. Incentive itself will provide the liquidity. But each time you open a channel you pay the on-chain fee, which would be very steep if bitcoin would ever become popular. So I just don't see people opening tons of channels and put a lot of money in each and every channel. That just makes no sense. Lightning opens up two new choices for how to transact. Opening a new channel, or routing through one of your existing open channels. If this scenario of no sufficiently funded channels occurs, you might not be able to route through an existing channel, true enough. So you open a new channel. Or you send a regular on-chain transaction. Not exactly rocket science. Plus, that's still more options overall than you previously had, so if one of the two new choices isn't available, that doesn't constitute a failure. I'd rather not repeat myself, but, "the only "problem" it creates is that you now have a choice which you didn't have before. There will be times where you might use Lightning because it's cheaper, more convenient, or both. There will be other times where it won't be those things and you can transact as you always have done". How can something that gives you more freedom and choice than you previously had possibly be a bad thing? I can see how it might look bad if you haven't taken the time to comprehend how it works, but that means the failure is on your part and not Lightning's. The thing is, you compare it to the on-chain form of bitcoin. But that makes no sense, that's a failure already. You need to compare it to VISA for example. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the post as it really cleared my mind on situation. I also think that bitcoin will be increadibly useful in 2 years when lightning network installed, many people selling their btc to btc cash is really weird, hard for me to understand.
LOL |
|
|
|
|
What they really are saying is that they don't believe crypto's will become big. But if for some reason they will become big, they're going to step in and make sure it doesn't grow bigger.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
