I get paid in £-Notes and we measure data in megabytes not bytes these days so dress it up what ever way
you like but the fees are high

See https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html
Says the fees are $12.56 for just storing 256 bytes of data and it's not my fault that 20,000 fulls nodes
repeat the same work because I did not ask for them all to be here and 1000 would do the trick

Yes and the connections become end to end like a TCP/IP circuit which works so long as you
have big network hubs that have 2000 RJ45's but you cannot wire the world up if
the biggest hubs that you could buy only had four sockets each like we have at
home.

Too many hops so replace ISP's with banking hubs and I am sure lightning network will work
but if one ISP/Bank goes down and everyone broadcasts to get their money out
of the bank all at once and then you have some major backlog of work on the Bitcoin
block-chain so it's like trying to backup a 100A fuse with a 1 amp fuse

Flash crashes like this will result in millions being made by miners in Tx fees, rinse and repeat

Limiting the max number of channels banking hubs could use is not the answer
because the miners who will be running the banking hubs would just
chain the hubs, tweak the routeing tables so you then have ten large hubs
going down instead of a one big hub.

oh yes you need consensus if you send a single transactions across 20,000 nodes because they are not received in order by each node
so a kind of vote takes place to decide the winning combination

Question
Does having more nodes increase the overall speed of the network or reduce the speed !

We are being told that wallets can become hubs so if you only open a channel to my wallet/hub and I go off line then as
far as your concerned the network has become centralized and your out of luck even if you can broadcast a message on
the BTC block-chain to get the money back that I owe you.

if big banking hubs cannot charge fees to interconnect the banking hubs then we don't have a network unless
everyone agrees to open three channels each, finance them and keep them open and we can get transactions to
work across routes with 100 nodes or more

The people trying to defend LN won't even accept that it must contain major banking hubs for it to work
so they must be miners hoping to run these banks

No because some of the cash will be spent in the private ledger so you would never be in a position
to simply copy the main block-chain but other systems like NEO that keeps everything on the block
prevents copies being take by shunting down nodes if anyone attempts this.

One of the few good things I've seen about Lighting Network so far

Scaling of the block-chain should had been in from day one never-mind later using this
as an excuse to pump up mining fees.

Global money ! You must be joking unless you think that trying to read, decode 200gb
block-chain on a Intel I3 has the processing power of a AS-400 machine

it's like trying to get Microsoft Access using Local MDB files to feed the world without linked tables!

 

The argument about the free market did not stop BTC fees hitting the roof so who's going to
ensure we don't get more of the same.

I don't think LN has gone live and was expecting a wait of 9 months to a year so do you have a
link please or are you talking about testnet

Transactions per second
BTC =7
ETH -15
IOTA =10
Ripple =25,000
NEO =75,000
HashGraph (Soom even bigger number)

I think anyone that is not drunk can see where that is going

Yes I know Bitcoin mining fees will save us 

Coinbase are scammers and didn't pay me my $10 joining bonus so good luck trusting them with your
millions because somehow I cannot see that in the long run working out

Hey Coinbase just what button do I press to see the Bitcoin gold that belongs to me you thieves because it might
just cover some of my losses in fees that miners here have robbed me for when moving Bitcoins

No fucking way would i go near google or fake-book or even Microsoft
but the sad thing is people will but Ripple i can just about live with for now
given that the miners here are even worse than bankers.

Just where and who does double agent S-M work for since he created
CPU-Wars and called it mining or do the miners out numbers the gamblers
here.

Yes i understand this is "Hate Speech" so report me if your a Nazi and see if I care !

Bitcoin being tested yet again and it keeps failing these tests so I guess you
can call it evolution but I cannot be bothered to go into detail here because
slot machine players see this one as jesus, he made me rich if only greed was
not keeping me in church.

The second part, I am not a slot machine player and Bitcoin with it's magical block chain won't scale
and will be replaced with a block chain that will scale instead of budging it with something like Lightning Network
and trust me you don't want that because it is full of banking hubs

CPU-Wars between miners is a joke and is not need and other coins (Not ETH) can manage without it and they
scale but they implement BC using another number of methods but keep playing the slot machine, never sell and just buy
if you cannot reach a obvious conclusion here.

The banking hubs coming with Lightning Network are not really decentralized and become a single point of failure
anyway if you only open one channel and personally I can accept a cluster of specialized nodes inside the bitcoin
network and it does not mean that Alan Greenspan owns it but he might like to own some of the banking nodes we
have coming.

NEO has some interesting concepts and they have separated the network from the currency and Ripple
has done the same with PoW being dropped by everyone as far as I know in the newer systems or 3rd generation
as they call it.

Mining using CPU-Wars was and is a total joke and others have proved it and transactions on other coins like ETH don't cost
a tenth of what we are forced to pay today and competition is good but not good by the time you have 20,000 and if you plot the
fees against the mempool then before now when it was at 130,000 we have paid fees of $40 and now we are down to about $15

Clearly something does not add up and something is very wrong if more than 1,000 miners are needed for Bitcoin when it's not
even hosting "Smart Contracts" for other coins and they also say "Lightning Network" bring smart contracts to Bitcoin so where
do I publish my scripts to then if this is indeed the case

They can steel the code, patch it up but Bitcoin code won't scale because unlike new systems it is data replication
and in the case of Bitcoin and parasite miners we have 20,000 full nodes just doing seven transactions per
second and the best they will speed it up to is fifteen TPS.

Distributed Network Architecture (DNA) is nothing new but they forgot to use it with Bitcoin and now they are
saying that off-block is fantastic, it's not

Well Lightning is a system of banks which they are trying to keep quite about and they have been working on it for about two years
and estimates say it is still 6-8 months away and then more time waiting for wallets to be developed


They "lock up a fixed amount of funds in a multisignature wallet" is only half the story and balances are kept in the private ledger
and the total will always remain the same as when the channel was created so it becomes a buffer as such and the
killer as I understand it is that money can move backwards and forwards in the ledger but you cannot move money from
one ledger to another one

Here is the white-paper Lightning https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

it's not like liquid money moved across the route and is more like snooker balls that knock into each other
but if inter bank buffers are low in one direction then they might offer to pay a negative fee (Interest) to
fill it back up but at other times they are charging fees for effectively lending you your own money


Miners have the hardware, network and BTC to run banking hubs, you and me don't

Are fees below $1 yet like most other coins because it has been fees that has killed Bitcoin

Segwit will have to wait for me until Jaxx or Exodus Eden implement it because I don't want too
many wallets and the small one that don't have ShapeShift are a turn off for me.

Has to be big because it stores lots of data compression is double edged because it takes time to decompress
not that this is a magical cure for Bitcoin and the solution is to break the chain up into smaller chunks 


I like the full history on the block chain but maybe could live with roll up's from time to time but all the archive data
should be available

Yes Lightning Network make out that Alice and Bob want to play ping-pong for the night and then says
look how much money they say, it only cost the $25 to close the channel

They won't even except here in many cases that hubs are in fact banks that charge fees or the network
won't work without them.

Bit like we can only make a crypto currency if we have CPU-Wars between miners because other coins
have managed and they all work faster than Bitcoin and will scale

Thanks for the tip