People should realize Bitcoin has become a First name to ~17 coins, so asking the last part of the name is crucial to buying the right coin.List of Coins with the name Bitcoin  Bitcoin 21 Bitcoin Atom Bitcoin Core Bitcoin Cash Bitcoin Dark Bitcoin Diamond Bitcoin Fast Bitcoin God Bitcoin Gold Bitcoin Green Bitcoin Interest Bitcoin Planet Bitcoin Plus Bitcoin Private Bitcoin Scrypt Bitcoin X Bitcoin Z Scam Lawsuit got canceled. https://twitter.com/moneytrigz?lang=enMoneyTrigz@moneytrigz
11 hours ago
We appreciate the 31 people that donated to the initiative
But $3700 wont be enough to do much, so we decided to cancel the initiative and refund the 31 transactions (total 0.39btc)
im happy were able to atleast get bitcoincom make 90% changes on its fraude and dis-information  *I looked at Bitcoin.com before the scam lawsuit and just now, Looks exactly the same! *  *MoneyTrigz seems like a confused soul, you donators might want to check and make sure he does not keep your donations.*
|
|
|
|
ZEIThttps://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/zeitcoin/#chartsIf you purchased $100 bucks of zeitcoin on Jan 1st,2017 at .000007 US$ , You received 14285714.28571429 coins On Jan 1st,2018 those coins were worth .000260 US$ $ 3714.29But if you had sold on the peak on Jan 9th, 2018 , those coins were worth .000674 US$ $ 9628.57
|
|
|
|
It does seem like satoshi has envisioned second layer technology for scaling. He also does mention Bigger blocks, but I don't think satoshi forsaw the centralization of mining like it is today. So the Bigger blocks would have further increased centralization and Satoshi may not have realized that at the time. Thanks for sharing this, definitely does seem like he was talking about a second layer in that email correspondence.
The Bigger Block increasing centralization is a myth, LN Hubs will cause a greater centralization than anything on the onchain network. If you want a better understanding read the following: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3378014.msg36005734#msg36005734 That's because the volume of Bitcoin Cash transactions are small. Smaller than Dogecoin's transaction volume. Hahaha. Plus if that's your reasoning on why you say bigger blocks increasing centralization is a "just a myth" then I would say that it is very weak. I believe the critics already did the math behind it. To rub some salt in it, there are now more Lightning nodes than Bitcoin Cash nodes.  You missed the point all together, the point is there is NOT an UNLIMITED Amount of Transactions taking place on btc, so even if they all rolled over to Bitcoin Cash then it takes the exact same amount of space not more.Because the coins only use the block size needed to carry the current transactions, No one will create a 32mb block if there is only 1 mb of transaction data. Even at today average low internet speed, 32mb is no real strain on infrastructure. Which 32mb may not be needed for 15 years or longer. Storage Requirements will grow at the rate of Actual Transaction Growth , not at the Maximum Potential block transaction size. Because block size will only grow to what is necessary, and currently 2mb is more than adequate. So the critics math skills are sorely lacking if they used the Max Potential in their calculations. |
|
|
|
In my understanding ,
Time Locking means the asset is frozen and may not be move for a set amount of time.
Is Yours any different?
it is not time lock it is Hashed Timelock Contracts. practically it gives the receiver a time frame in which they can either acknowledge they have received the funds or return it automatically to sender. you are not locking any funds or freezing anything as long as you have it in your LN wallet. but HTLC is used when sending funds to another person. but before that you can close the channel and cash out anytime you want. You would use an exchange Offchain transactions
1. You need the speed for a retail transaction
2. You don't want to have to keep blockchains synced or maintain your own backups or coin security.
3. You want to avoid the Onchain fees for small transactions
4. You want the transaction not to be recorded onchain in a public ledger
wrong. you would only use an exchange if you want to lose money aka get scammed by the exchange. I think you are confused about with LN you fund your channel and you will remain in full control of all your funds. you make the payment anytime you want to one or 1000 others as long as you have even 1 satoshi left and close the channel anytime you want. all the while your funds are secure and in your own control. The LN Hub is the one in control, it makes sure the rules are followed and if you break the rules, ie: try to broadcast an old transmission, the LN Hub will confiscate your funds. Now you may run your own LN hub, but a simple ddos attack during a time lock expiration would mean one of the other parties could steal funds by broadcasting an older transaction. you run an LN node when you want to join Lightning Network and use it. you and the receiver are the ones that can take the funds not other LN nodes. they are just there to relay the transactions, they can't "confiscate" anything. as for DDoS, the timeout period can be changed, it is 1 day by default if i am not mistaken. and your scenario doesn't even make sense! imagine you want to buy a T shirt from a shop, you make the payment through LN then DDoS the shop's node so they don't receive the payment! what will happen now is that they won't send you your T shirt  Some of the top LN devs have said LN is not ready for Public usage except for amounts you are willing to lose.
Pardon me if I am not willing to risk throwing money away for someone else's need to show their LN network works.
i don't know what this has to do with anything! nobody is forcing you to use LN now or even in the future. if you don't like it then don't use it. if you don't like bitcoin then don't use bitcoin either. go stick to your ZEITCOIN We can conclude our conversation, with an agree to disagree. And I will stick to using my zeitcoins onchain and using exchanges offchain when I need them. Enjoy your LN, if they ever get it working safely. |
|
|
|
For people wanting fast affordable offchain transactions, Exchanges outperform LN Hubs[/b].[/color] then you will be using some numbers on a centralized database, you are not using bitcoin! if that database were to disappear some day, your money will disappear with it also. and every couple of months we are seeing at least one exchange be hacked... Exchanges don't require time locking, meaning you can make your transactions and move your funds out immediately decreasing any centralization risk. i don't think you know what time lock means! and if you want to "moving your funds out immediately" then why in the world would you want to use an exchange for that? you deposit on an exchange then transfer funds to someone else then withdraw?!!!! why not directly pay that person. with LN you fund your channel and you will remain in full control of all your funds. you make the payment anytime you want to one or 1000 others as long as you have even 1 satoshi left and close the channel anytime you want. all the while your funds are secure and in your own control. Exchanges are working right now, LN is not!
just because you have not yet used LN doesn't mean it is not working! go check it out. In my understanding , Time Locking means the asset is frozen and may not be move for a set amount of time. Is Yours any different? You would use an exchange Offchain transactions 1. You need the speed for a retail transaction 2. You don't want to have to keep blockchains synced or maintain your own backups or coin security. 3. You want to avoid the Onchain fees for transactions 4. You want the transaction not to be recorded onchain in a public ledger I think you are confused about with LN you fund your channel and you will remain in full control of all your funds. you make the payment anytime you want to one or 1000 others as long as you have even 1 satoshi left and close the channel anytime you want. all the while your funds are secure and in your own control. The LN Hub is the one in control, it makes sure the rules are followed and if you break the rules, ie: try to broadcast an old transmission, the LN Hub will confiscate your funds. Now you may run your own LN hub, but a simple ddos attack during a time lock expiration would mean one of the other parties could steal funds by broadcasting an older transaction. (Exchange have none of these limitations, as their offchain transactions are Instant and immediately available for withdraw.
If you can't see why this is superior to LN, then the nicest thing I can say is you are partisan to LN where it clouds reason.)Some of the top LN devs have said LN is not ready for Public usage except for amounts you are willing to lose. Pardon me if I am not willing to risk throwing money away for someone else's need to show their LN network works. What would be interesting is if say 10 people here that actually need some offchain transactions for speed would volunteer, all ten people use LN for 1 week and then use an Exchange's like Cryptopia or Trade Satoshi Offchain Transactions for 1 week, and then report back here which performed better for their needs. But they actually have to use both , so a fair assessment can be presented to all.
* I can tell you from personal experience , using an Exchange Offchain Transactions does not require you to study a bunch of the alice & bob scenarios like LN does. * |
|
|
|
For people wanting fast affordable offchain transactions, Exchanges outperform LN Hubs. then you will be using some numbers on a centralized database, you are not using bitcoin! if that database were to disappear some day, your money will disappear with it also. and every couple of months we are seeing at least one exchange be hacked... Exchanges don't require time locking, meaning you can make your transactions and move your funds out immediately decreasing any centralization risk. You only need to move in funds for a specific payment, where as with LN you will need to Time Lock a Larger Portion of your funds. Exchanges are working right now, LN is not! If you use LN Notes , you are not really using Bitcoin either.(Notes are a promise the asset (bitcoin) will be delivered at the end of the contract/channel closing.)Will you even know which LN Hub you are using and if the LN Hub crashes before a channel closes, what is to stop one of the other parties from stealing the others funds. LN will centralize control to a few Major hubs, an Exchange does the same No real difference, but is more open and honest about the fact. I think if people ever start using LN, it limitations will far outstrip any supposed benefits, but time will tell. |
|
|
|
It does seem like satoshi has envisioned second layer technology for scaling. He also does mention Bigger blocks, but I don't think satoshi forsaw the centralization of mining like it is today. So the Bigger blocks would have further increased centralization and Satoshi may not have realized that at the time. Thanks for sharing this, definitely does seem like he was talking about a second layer in that email correspondence.
The Bigger Block increasing centralization is a myth, LN Hubs will cause a greater centralization than anything on the onchain network. If you want a better understanding read the following: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3378014.msg36005734#msg36005734What would be interesting is when/if LN is ever safe to use, and actually has people making thousands of transactions per minute, why does everyone act like the Hub Database and memory requirements are not going to grow exponentially. Has anyone actually calculated at what rate LN Hub Data requirements will increase per transaction. Also any LN HUBs that transact in the US will be required to hold all data for 5 years past where a person no longer used that hub. So if the LN hubs think they can just delete a channel records after closing , they are going to be in for a rude awaking. This is interesting, I was under the impression that Bigger blocks require more specialized hardware and bandwidth requirements. While I do agree that LN Increases centralization, I don't think that is a problem, as long as the base layer is still decentralized. You wouldn't necessarily need a decentralized network to pay for coffee, although it would be nice, but blockchains inherently do not scale. As you can see the Bitcoin Core Blockchain is ~33GB bigger now than the Bitcoin Cash Blockchain. Bitcoin Cash just raised the upper limit possible so they have no fear of transactions congestion for years to come. Bitcoin Core was congested for many months with insanely high fees, Bitcoin Cash will not have to worry about it. As you can see here : https://www.blocktrail.com/BCCBitcoin Cash is using on average less than 100kb per block, so the fact it is taking less resources to run than Bitcoin Core. So the worry that Bitcoin Cash will be more expensive to run is a pure Myth at the present time. This part is what I'm confused about. Isn't BTCs blockchain growing more than BCHs because on Bitcoins blockchain there are significantly more transactions taking place? Theoretically, if everyone were to suddenly stop using BTC and start using BCH, and it had say 5 million transactions per day on chain, wouldn't the blockchain be growing faster than BTCs ever has? Making the bandwidth and resource requirements very very high making full nodes limited to centralized server farms? I admit I have a limited understanding of how the blocks and transactions propagate through the network, so if you could clarify this for me I would appreciate it! Thanks! BTC blockchain is growing faster than BCH's due to more transactions being stored on it, However if all BTC transactions moved to BCH, it would grow at the exact same rate, not an inflated rate. The only difference is BCH would not have the inflated onchain fees because they are backlogged. Plus Offchain scaling with any coin can be done much cheaper and easier using an exchange instead of LN beta code. What is funny is people act like transaction data , won't take up resources if used in an LN hub, when nothing can be further from the truth. They claim it will have thousands of transactions per second , so it's database should grow faster than either onchain version. The true issue here is that if you want random people to maintain full onchain nodes , there needs to a compensation to cover their costs , like what Dash pays there masternodes. Thinking anyone besides those heavy invested are going to maintain any nodes for free is naive fantasy which is the premise for the myth that larger blocks will make it unreasonable for casual users to run a node. In other words if either network , cut the full nodes a % of the transaction fees, you see more than enough nodes from random people to satisfy everyone. |
|
|
|
Monero records all transactions in a public record , thinking it will stay hidden forever is naive. http://monerolink.com/Most Monero transactions made prior to February 2017 are traceable.
MoneroLink is a complementary block explorer that reveals the hidden linkages between Monero transactions. |
|
|
|
It does seem like satoshi has envisioned second layer technology for scaling. He also does mention Bigger blocks, but I don't think satoshi forsaw the centralization of mining like it is today. So the Bigger blocks would have further increased centralization and Satoshi may not have realized that at the time. Thanks for sharing this, definitely does seem like he was talking about a second layer in that email correspondence.
The Bigger Block increasing centralization is a myth, LN Hubs will cause a greater centralization than anything on the onchain network. If you want a better understanding read the following: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3378014.msg36005734#msg36005734What would be interesting is when/if LN is ever safe to use, and actually has people making thousands of transactions per minute, why does everyone act like the Hub Database and memory requirements are not going to grow exponentially. Has anyone actually calculated at what rate LN Hub Data requirements will increase per transaction. Also any LN HUBs that transact in the US will be required to hold all data for 5 years past where a person no longer used that hub. So if the LN hubs think they can just delete a channel records after closing , they are going to be in for a rude awaking. |
|
|
|
i feel that this is just trying to make LN seem like it was always part of bitcoin. even though the concept is actually
part of blockstreams 'liquid' concept 2013+.
EG multisig was not part of bitcoin in 2009-2011
EG CLTV /CSV was not part of bitcoin in 2009-2011 No this is not about the Lightning Network, but the concept of offchain transactions. Blockstream did not say anything about the concept back in those days. Was Blockstream already alive during that time? It was Satoshi who said it and clearly expressed that the blockchain can become a "settlement layer". "Only the final outcome gets recorded by the network". Said Satoshi. but lets be devils advocate
the 2009-2011 nlocktime would be used by people (real world analogy) in a poker game, players writing their own cheques to 'the house' dated 10 days in the future,
(the house does not counter sign nor has a joint bank account with the poker player)
while the poker game is in play, the house never hands th cheques to the bank to clear/settle.
then if the player needed to buy more poker chips. the player would write out a new cheque dated in 9 days. and the old cheque gets destroyed as its now useless. because the house would obviously prefer to cash a cheque that is dated sooner and for a larger amount
there was no revocation keys. no house having a joint bank account with the poker player to hand funds back inhouse
it would be just a one way payment system.. like a bartab..
satoshi envisioned a small private bartab concept for a small group of people that knew each other.. not a full pupulation co-signing offchain bank branch concept
in no way was it mentioning a single offchain NETWORK for everyone to use because bitcoins blockchain is limited and not able to scale. it was a concept of small parties (friends/family in a room) signing away from the payment system so they can (play poker for instance) without waiting for confirmed funds to get their poker chips
so trying to say satoshi/hearne invented LN or said LN is the acceptable/endorsed as a sole solution is really trying too hard to hide that LN is actually a 2013+ concept by blockstream(liquid)
LN is by magnitudes meandered away from private small group concept
LN is by magnitudes meandered away from the whole purpose of blockchain peer community validation
LN is by magnitudes over promoting but under delivering promises of limitless trustless fast payments.
i have used offline signing concepts and even multisigs between me and family/friends/business partners. i have seen the flaws and limitations
i have run scenarios about the funding of multisigs and replenishing funds and how often it would be required to do so.
i have run scenarios about how centralised the offchain network would need to become to be reliable and well funded and not an obstacle to average joe.
so far all LN devs have done is ensure node A connects to node B to connect to node C to ensure payment gets from a-c.
they have not yet done the long term multiple spending scenarios to see A raids B's holdings when routing a-c and/or B closes the route causing issues between a-c.
EG to use LN you need to have a certain amount just to be an acceptable channel partner, cover punishments and other fee's and then reserve part of that for use of routing. and splitting those funds over a couple 'accounts' just to be a reliable route.
meaning forget a third world user having just $2 and having all the utopian promises so he can buy 20 loaves of bread for the next month+ without hassle.
the devs have not seen that LN is not a scaling solution for everyone. because there are limitations. they have over promised, over promoted and under delivered.
and so there is a requirement to expand the blockchain scaling. NOT stiffling onchain scaling to force people into using limited use LN because of fee wars caused by stiffling onchain scaling.
But Satoshi did say that offchain transactions is one of the ways to help scale the network, did he not? I am not talking entirely about the implementation of the Lightning Network, but the concept behind offchain transactions. Some Exchanges such as Cryptopia & Trade Satoshi can do Offchain Scaling with Any amount & any crypto on their site Right Now.An Exchange Offchain Transactions are not limited and are not time locked for extended times. Basically an Exchange can provide everything LN promised (but has yet to fulfill) without the dangers or limitations of LN. Since an exchange is only transferring the actual virtual coins and not creating a separate payment (Bank Notes Style) System , the exchanges are not going to be required to get a banking license like an LN Hub will be required too. Exchange can also process these offchain transactions at a much cheaper fee structure than LN Hubs. Comparisons Exchanges Offchain Transactions Verses LN Offchain Transactions No Amount Limit verses Amount Limits No Time Locking verses Time Locking Easy to use, send to user name verses Extremely Complicated Lower Fee Structure verses Higher Fee Structure (due to needing multiple hubs to complete channels)Centralized to that exchange verses Centralized to the # of hubs needed to complete the channel Received Onchain Payment Faster verses Slower receipt of Onchain Payments due to waiting for the time locks to expire Better Support Structure verses No Real Support Structure For people wanting fast affordable offchain transactions, Exchanges outperform LN Hubs. |
|
|
|
That's certainly true, mate. Bitcoin Cash will become extremely centralized as it increases its block size to 32mb on May 15th. This will allow less nodes to become available on the network, as storage and bandwidth costs will increase. The blockchain will increase up to 32x than Bitcoin Core. Therefore, people would prefer to run Lightning nodes and Core nodes as costs will be cheaper in the long run. Before we know it, nobody would want to run a Bitcoin Cash node as it'll be very expensive to do so. On the other hand, Bitcoin Core and Lightning nodes will be highly accessible allowing anyone to join the network without spending a lot of money. In the end, Bitcoin with its Lightning Network scalability solution, would prevail over most cryptocurrencies we know and love today. There seems to be some confusion about their block size increase. They are increasing the Potential of a block to be 32mb, not that every block will always be 32 MB. In Fact, they have only rarely used the 8mb blocks since they began, only when someone tried to spam transaction them , and they wipe it out in 1 block. https://cash.coin.dance/blocksThe Bitcoin (BTC) chain has grown 32.77GB more than the Bitcoin Cash blockchain.
It is currently 6.7% more profitable to mine on the Bitcoin (BTC) chain.?
It is currently 21.52x more expensive to transact on the Bitcoin (BTC) network in USD. As you can see the Bitcoin Core Blockchain is ~33GB bigger now than the Bitcoin Cash Blockchain. Bitcoin Cash just raised the upper limit possible so they have no fear of transactions congestion for years to come. Bitcoin Core was congested for many months with insanely high fees, Bitcoin Cash will not have to worry about it. As you can see here : https://www.blocktrail.com/BCCBitcoin Cash is using on average less than 100kb per block, so the fact it is taking less resources to run than Bitcoin Core. So the worry that Bitcoin Cash will be more expensive to run is a pure Myth at the present time. Considering a Bitcoin Cash node only has to run a full node to help the network , and that a Bitcoin Core Node and a LN Hub would be required for a stable LN network, it may turn out core full node and LN hub data & definitely bandwidth requirements would exceed anything needed by just running a simple Bitcoin Cash Node.  But Time will tell on that speculation. * The Bandwidth requirements will be much greater for Bitcoin Core's LN Hubs, the reason is if you ddos LN hubs at the time channels are scheduled to be closed,
it opens the possibility of one of the parties stealing the others coins, this attack vector is not possible on Bitcoin Cash Full Nodes so they will need less ddos protections.*The average U.S. fixed broadband download speed was 64.17 Mbps (15th in the world) in the first half of 2017,
while the average upload speed was 22.79 Mbps (24th in the world), according to data released today from internet speed test company Ookla.Sep 7, 2017 Taking the lowest average upload speed of 22.79 Mbps / 8 = 2.85 MB per second So a 32MB file would be Relayed / Transferred in less than 12 seconds 0 Block Generated -1 Node 12 seconds - 2 Nodes 24 seconds - 4 Nodes 36 seconds - 8 Nodes 48 seconds - 16 Nodes 60 seconds - 32 Nodes 72 seconds - 64 Nodes 84 seconds - 128 Nodes 96 seconds - 256 Nodes 108 seconds - 512 Nodes 120 seconds - 1024 Nodes 132 seconds - 2048 Nodes 144 seconds - 4096 Nodes 156 seconds - 8192 Nodes 168 seconds - 16384 Nodes 180 seconds - 32768 Nodes * All of this happens within 3 minutes, the fact is some will be running 1 gigabit or higher bandwidth nodes and they will increase the propagation at a much faster rate than above. * * Essentially the 32MB blocks are no big deal even at today's average internet speeds.* |
|
|
|
I have no idea whether a lawsuit could be won against him, but I would certainly welcome it How does he have the audacity to call that trash Bitcoin fork the real Bitcoin. Imagine that newbies send their freshly bought Bitcoins to a BCH address by mistake. Could definitely see some of those mistakes happen due to newbies getting confused by false statements like that. But what if Roger Ver wins the lawsuit, would that give him a precedent to counter sue and use the win as a legal advantage to force the exchanges to use the "BTC" ticker for Bitcoin Cash? Plus would the win, if he wins, mean that "Bitcoin Cash" and "Bitcoin Core" are both "BTC" and both have the right to use the ticker? Roger Ver will win the lawsuit and I will tell you why. When you click on Buy Bitcoins on his site, it takes you to an EXCHANGE. Once on the exchange the person picks the coin they want to buy. It is on the exchange the actual purchase of coins take place not Roger Ver 's website. If a person did not bother to read the symbol of the coin they were buying, that is literally that person's fault and no one else. Plus there was nothing stopping them from immediately selling one or the other and then buying the one they wanted. As far as the ticker goes, I doubt he could care less. But his counter suit for deflation and lawyer fees will just go to his pocket so he can buy more bitcoin cash. Odds are these people raising money to file a supposed lawsuit are probably scammers taking advantages of (mainline bitcore supporters) need to want to hate Roger Ver because he switched to supporting BCH. They will probably just pocket the donations and make up some lame excuse why the lawsuit did not happen, but they will keep the bitcoins donated by the clueless. Easy Money. |
|
|
|
All Lightning nodes in the US will be forced to register as banks, thinking that they will be allowed to run a private bank without adhering to the AML ,
shows either a innocence or a stupidity on how things in the US work.
that seems doubtful. routing transactions doesn't equate to being a party to them. LN pre-images are just bitcoin transactions that aren't published to the blockchain. you realize that bitcoin nodes propagate many thousands of transactions across the network every day, right? if bitcoin nodes aren't financial institutions, how are LN nodes? People that run Bitcoin Nodes are routing transactions , they are not creating their own separate note for the transactions. However people that run LN Hubs are holding/locking bitcoins and using their own hub created LN Notes to make transactions. In the old days Banks hold your gold (now worthless fiat) , and use their own created Bank notes (Checks) to make transactions. Both hold something of value and then make their own notes to make transactions. LN Hub is by definition a bank as it was designed to be. no, that's inaccurate. intermediaries on LN are not creating new transactions. they are not issuing "notes" or "checks" or anything like that. they are only routing transactions, like bitcoin nodes. the only difference is they are routing transactions via their established channels rather than propagating them to any and all connected nodes. It is a Promise to Pay , It is the Same, No matter what your wishes.Banks & LN
Create their own notes for transactions
Both Charge Fees & Penalties
Both can seize control over the held asset under certain conditions
Both can refuse payment to 3rd parties if they so choose. as pointed out, there are no "bank notes" in LN. there is no trust involved. miners charge fees on the bitcoin network too. so what? the only "penalties" are if you're dishonest and try to broadcast a stale channel state to the blockchain. if someone can prove that you just tried to steal their coins, yes you can be penalized. no one can seize control over the collateral unless: - your private keys get compromised (same as bitcoin)
- you don't monitor channel states and thus permit others to steal your coins
- you broadcast a stale channel state attempting to steal others coins
how will LN intermediaries know which transactions to censor? and you know bitcoin miners can censor transactions too, right?
They will receive a ban list, which can include IPs or address or specific LN Hubs.
Bitcoin Miners can only block transactions from being included in the blockchain and that takes collusion of over 51%, they can not charge penalties and they can not seize the asset like a Bank/LN can. It only takes a few LN hubs to censor the entire LN Network since it is many times more Centralized than the BTC Network. ** LN Hub transactions are nothing more than a promise by the hub that ownership of the underlying asset (BTC) will be granted to the payee upon request.** no. all LN collateral is cryptographically secured. a channel participant can close the channel and broadcast the last state to the blockchain. as long as bitcoin miners will confirm the resulting transaction, the funds will be released. if you are saying bitcoin miners won't confirm the transaction, your gripe is with bitcoin, not LN.
Now you're just being foolish, when a person requests a channel to be closed, that is equal to the underlying asset (BTC) will be granted to the payee upon request .
You can say no , all you want the fact is the US Gov has LN hubs by the banking license balls whenever they feel like it.
Ignore this at your own risk of jail time.Tell you what ,
you start an LN Hub and post your IP , I will forward that info on to https://www2.occ.gov/ (Comptroller of the Currency US Treasury Department)
Then we can all see if you get away with it or get sent to jail for it. |
|
|
|
ZEITCOIN https://walletinvestor.com/forecast/zeitcoin-predictionAccording to our Forecast System, ZEIT is an awesome long-term (1-year) investment*. Zeitcoin price equal to 0.000094 USD at 2018-04-28. If you buy Zeitcoin for 100 dollars today, you will get a total of 1063830 ZEIT.
Based on our forecasts, a long-term increase is expected, the price prognosis for 2023-04-21 is 0.000234 US Dollars.
With a 5-year investment, the revenue is expected to be around +148.83%.
Your current $100 investment may be up to $248.83 in 2023 Is it profitable to invest in Zeitcoin?
Yes.
The long-term earning potential is +71.60% in one year. Recording wallet investor predictions, My bet is ZEITCOIN Exceeds their Expectations . |
|
|
|
in my opinion the key is in "who can run a lightning node/hub?" as long as it is anybody who wants (which is the case and now there is incentive to run a node) then i don't see any kind of centralization in this. what's the incentive? how much can you expect to make in fees? i guess it matters how well-connected your node is. you have to weigh that incentive against the risk of keeping your private keys online too. for years people have been running bitcoin nodes but some of them have been complaining that there should be an incentive for it. the fees can be that incentive they were looking for. they may not be a lot but it is still viable. the thing is people have never been getting paid before and they were running nodes but now they have that perk. yeah i get that. i'm just wondering if the fee incentive to run LN nodes is substantial enough to encourage a widely distributed network (as opposed to hub-and-spoke). this question is sort of analogous to that of base layer node centralization. except i've always felt that trustlessly validating payments was incentive enough to run a bitcoin full node. here, the question is more about whether people will bother becoming highly interconnected vs. just opening a channel with major nodes like exchanges or bitpay. Some say that the Lightning Network is centralized, but from my point of view, it's still a decentralized solution to scale Bitcoin as anyone would be able to run a Lightning node at will. The huge advantages that it provides for Bitcoin such as dirt-cheap fees, and instant transactions would be too hard to ignore to implement in the future. However, if the Lightning Network turns out to become a centralized solution for Bitcoin (like many claims it will), then it would be doomed as only those with a lot of wealth and power would be able to participate in this ecosystem. What are your thoughts about this? Is Lightning really centralized? Or Decentralized?  The Lightning Network will probably have top-notch privacy features. It will be much more anonymous than ordinary Bitcoin transactions. Some businesses will run cheap Lightning Nodes to collect and sell data. Lightning users can either use these low-cost lightning nodes,or, use higher-cost, more privacy oriented payment channels.If the network is built by an organisation my take is it will be centralised All Lightning nodes in the US will be forced to register as banks, thinking that they will be allowed to run a private bank without adhering to the AML , shows either a innocence or a stupidity on how things in the US work. that seems doubtful. routing transactions doesn't equate to being a party to them. LN pre-images are just bitcoin transactions that aren't published to the blockchain. you realize that bitcoin nodes propagate many thousands of transactions across the network every day, right? if bitcoin nodes aren't financial institutions, how are LN nodes? People that run Bitcoin Nodes are routing transactions , they are not creating their own separate note for the transactions. However people that run LN Hubs are holding/locking bitcoins and using their own hub created LN Notes to make transactions. In the old days Banks hold your gold (now worthless fiat) , and use their own created Bank notes (Checks) to make transactions. Both hold something of value and then make their own notes to make transactions. LN Hub is by definition a bank as it was designed to be. Banks & LN Create their own notes for transactions Both Charge Fees & Penalties Both can seize control over the held asset under certain conditions Both can refuse payment to 3rd parties if they so choose. Bitcoin Full Nodes Do not create their own notes Can Not Charge Fees or Penalties Can Not seize control over any assets Can Not refuse payment to 3rd parties for any reason.
See the Difference. ** Bank Checks/Notes are nothing more than a promise by a bank that ownership of the underlying asset (Fiat) will be granted to the payee upon request. ** ** LN Hub transactions are nothing more than a promise by the hub that ownership of the underlying asset (BTC) will be granted to the payee upon request.** LN =Banks |
|
|
|
Ya know it looking more and more like nobody is interested in buying Zeit coin Sad right now mostly burning up electricity.... give it till tomorrow to show some sign of life then I'm done. Many better paying coins out there.
Volume (24h) $8,622 USD * Someone is buying *
ZEIT is like Gold or Silver, if you want to sell , then sell. You want to buy a coin with hyper inflation like sprouts , please feel free to waste your money as it value per coin plummets.
ZEIT was between ~3 & 6 Million MK for the last few months and has been very stable. Stability happens in the real world before price increases, but from the sound of it , you are just looking for a pump and dump. You will be making the classic mistake, of following the bigger interest rate of a declining asset. It is human nature to think higher interest rates will bring more reward , but the fact is when the underlying value of a item continues decreasing because of oversupply, your overall value continues to decrease (ie: you lose money). Suckers fall for this everyday. Good Luck in your Trading and no crying because you missed out later. |
|
|
|
Some say that the Lightning Network is centralized, but from my point of view, it's still a decentralized solution to scale Bitcoin as anyone would be able to run a Lightning node at will. The huge advantages that it provides for Bitcoin such as dirt-cheap fees, and instant transactions would be too hard to ignore to implement in the future. However, if the Lightning Network turns out to become a centralized solution for Bitcoin (like many claims it will), then it would be doomed as only those with a lot of wealth and power would be able to participate in this ecosystem. What are your thoughts about this? Is Lightning really centralized? Or Decentralized? The Lightning Network will probably have top-notch privacy features. It will be much more anonymous than ordinary Bitcoin transactions. Some businesses will run cheap Lightning Nodes to collect and sell data. Lightning users can either use these low-cost lightning nodes,or, use higher-cost, more privacy oriented payment channels.If the network is built by an organisation my take is it will be centralised All Lightning nodes in the US will be forced to register as banks, thinking that they will be allowed to run a private bank without adhering to the AML , shows either a innocence or a stupidity on how things in the US work. The US already forces compliance from foreign banks , expect the same to happen to any node that allows a US IP to connect. LN records will be made available to all governments that request it or they will be shut down and their operators in jail. And the reason only the rich will be able to run LN hubs is they will be the only ones able to afford a banking license. Time to grow up people, the Bankers are taking over Bitcoin/LN and you can't run it out of your Mom's basement anymore. You want decentralization & freedom of a coin not controlled by a banking cartel, you better start looking into alts. |
|
|
|
Comment from Kiklo in the Slack Forum. FYI: New Windows Users Please open your windows FireWall to allow ZEITCOIN.
We are seeing alot of random disconnects/reconnects from windows firewall users that have not allowed zeitcoin thru their firewall.
This is slowing down the sync for many users in Europe & Asia.
Steps: Goto Contol Panel, Click on Windows Firewall,
Click Allow a program or feature through Windows Firewall
Click Allow another app
Click Browse
Select zeitcoin-qt.exe and click open
Click Add
Click OK |
|
|
|
Is this token Coin going anywhere?
For those with Patience , the Ultra Low Inflation rate is fueling the rocket now. Long Term Holders will see the Greatest Benefits. Short Term Players should look to arbitrage and play between the current 15 Market trading pairs. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
