Sending lots of transactions is a whole different ballgame to announcing a fork without changing your network magic You know that the developers behind veriblock and btc1 are the same though, right? |
|
|
|
Mixers are usually set up in a way that can simply steal your money, coinjoin is a better way of obfuscating ownership as there's no risk of theft you can use the Lightning Network instead of a service. It is an effective mixer because transactions are done off-chain and go through other people.
sort of. If you do just one payment with Lightning, the money you receive is not exactly unknown in ownership (as the person who sent it to you knows, athough this is still better than regular onchain transactions and the same privacy level as using a mixer) But once you do a bunch of lightning payments, knowing exactly where money originated gets more difficult. Since lightning is fast and cheap, that process will be very quick if you're a regular user. |
|
|
|
OP, I believe the "drama" will start after two halvings. There will be some "influencial" people from the community who will start a "campaign" for a hard fork to change the reward schedule, but without inflating the supply.
There's already support for divding 1 BTC into smaller fractions in a hard fork. That's the end of it really, instead of mining new coins ending in the year 2140 (as things are now), mining will stop in the year 2200 or something like that Why do you want to promote drama that doesn't even exist? |
|
|
|
And it's quite obvious to anyone that Neutrino is built for and designed to be used with Lightning: Neutrino's a (more private) replacement for the current light-node tech. You have no idea what you're talking about |
|
|
|
there is still debate if this is still 3rd blockchain generation or already fourth there is no such (credible) debate |
|
|
|
- Neutrino has zero to do with Lightning
- eltoo has zero to do with Bitcoin, there is no eltoo proposal for Bitcoin
- Segwit doesn't only fix malleability (which was desirable for all contract systems, not just Lightning)
- SIGHASH_NOINPUT has been suggested for use cases that are not Lightning
So, who is viewing protocol improvements only through a "how will this help Lightning" lens? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is a deflating currency
no it isn't - supply inflates (miners mine)
- price inflates
ergo, Bitcoin is an inflationary currency the whole point of this thread hinges of the fact that the supply of Bitcoin hasn't finished inflating yet. did you notice that?  |
|
|
|
GEN4 cryptocurrencies? What are they?
Like many others, I like to call them Gen4 but there is still debate if this is still 3rd blockchain generation or already fourth. It’s not entirely clear what 4th generation blockchains are. Possibly, they are 3rd generation blockchains with lots of improvements through A.I. technology. Some of these are Matrix AI, Deep Brain Chain, SingularityNet, Multiversum, Insolar You can read more about the 4th generation of blockchain and the best projects HEREit's completely meaningless marketing rhetoric if you believe it, you deserve to lose anything you invest |
|
|
|
Your answer does not matter because it will be arguably wrong or arguably correct. But arguable nonetheless.
That's true. And I've already said I'm not arguing with someone who refuses to do even some basic research, so quit trying to draw me into one |
|
|
|
I think the lightning protocol has already been extended to allow limitless channels, the feature's called 'wumbo' (not sure why)
Is this feature available in the main implementation(s) already? It might be in the very newest versions, not sure. Certainly both lightningd and lnd are supporting wumbo, so with a bit of time wallets will update their lightning daemon base to a version of either 2 that supports it (I think all wallets are using either lightningd or lnd under the hood) |
|
|
|
we have P2WPKH which is the bc1 or bech32 addresses, these require clients to be upgraded
we have P2PKH which is the 1 or base58 or legacy addresses, this should work without upgrade since it is the old version
Yep, that's right we have P2SH which is the multi sig and has nothing to do with SegWit and should work like the last one
we have P2WSH which is the nested SegWit where we use a workaround to get an address which starts with 3 and looks the same as P2SH so that old clients without upgrade can work with this one too if they are lazy enough not to upgrade.
Not totally right, but it's not relevant why that's wrong for this discussion
Basically: Either your software supports native SW, or it doesn't (because native SW is newest). Until your software supports native SW, use the script-wrapped addresses instead (addresses beginning with a 3) |
|
|
|
However, it is an issue that has never found a solution and the questions about its sustainability will certainly return.
And how do you know that? From not reading previous threads about it? |
|
|
|
|
EXCLUSIVE: BLOCKCHAIN DICTATOR SAYS 'NO' TO INDIVIDUALISM
|
|
|
|
I had the same problem last week. Installed Avast and he blocked access somehow to my wallet. I deleted it and I can`t still log in, can he change my password?
Hm, maybe you should check avast pro antivirus review to find whats wrong with your antivirus. I think that the main problem is in authenticity of your antivirus. You shouldn`t download from foreign resources only because this version is for free. If you would buy the original one you will lose your headache for a long time. *sigh* It's like this When you're using Windows, the computer tell you what to do half the time, often the half where what you want is actually something that helps you Anti virus is another layer of Windows telling you what to do, in essence. Windows is not and never has been secure on it's own, anti-virus doesn't fix it, it just makes the machine so difficult to use that viruses can't do their job. But then neither can you; everything's slower, and the AV is always stopping you from doing something that isn't even unsafe. |
|
|
|
Why don't you explain him what your perspective on this matter is?
Because I know from experience that it's a long discussion, and I don't want to have the same conversation again Why not ask the 'what if someone starts guessing private keys? why can't they just do that?' question. same category IMO |
|
|
|
I also doubt that we'll be stuck with our current 0.16xBTC max channel capacity. When the network is considered safe/stable enough for mass use, there shouldn't be a limit at all, and I strongly believe there won't be.
I think the lightning protocol has already been extended to allow limitless channels, the feature's called 'wumbo' (not sure why) |
|
|
|
The LBMA good delivery list is the foundation of much of the International settlements using gold, I just cited that as a small example. If you don't think that control of this represents massive financial power, then it may be worth doing some research. And that's about a contract, that has nothing to do with the City of London's "spooky" autonomy This is just one of the tools they have created. Couple that with the purchase of politicians in Washington, Westminster and the EU, and you can get some idea of the control exercised over much of the Western World.
Stick with that sort of thing. City of London companies almost certainly do bribe UK politicians, you now sound credible (but no evidence I am aware of has ever linked City of London with bribery of EU or US politicians, where is the evidence? You need evidence, or you look crazy) |
|
|
|
I'll pay for the couple of km into town with the spare change running around in my jockstrap, not my lovely asset.
Why not keep your terrible asset (that constitutes the spare change) down to an absolute minimum, and thusly encourage the value appreciation of your lovely asset? At worst, it'll work out very similarly if you do everyday spending using BTC you only just bought. At best, everyone does that and the BTC economy benefits. If you only care about getting rich, you're going the wrong way about it |
|
|
|
Why do people want to add the lightning network to all of the Bitcoin transactions to become an alternative to the normal payment "on-chain"? Faster and cheaper The Lightning Network is designed for daily transactions "micropayment channels," which are often in the range of 1-5 $ per transaction, so it is not appropriate to use them with ATMs where transactions are much more than that and the time is available to receive money. no maximum channel size is 0.16777 BTC. That's alot more than $1-5 |
|
|
|
I know the question is not original, however, was there a satisfying and final solution? You could judge that for yourself, I can't tell you your opinion on something you haven't looked for (and because you're so interested, you'll be really motivated to look, I'm rather confused as to why you've not done so yet) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
