Bitcoin Forum
June 20, 2019, 02:30:33 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 ... 821 »
21  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: when somebody say bitcoin is not really decentralized give him this info on: June 15, 2019, 05:39:26 PM
bitcoin is not just one small thing. its a protocol, its a network, its a currency, its a brand.

firstly the 'brand' is centralised around a group of devs called core.
the code/protocol is also centralised around a group of devs called core.

the currency is decentralised as there is no single database of account
the network is predominently run by one code source. again core

now to compare it to file sharing. its like only being able to use one brand of torrent software from one source to be a full filesharing seed.
yes the movie/music/game is then distributed throughout thousands of users but even getting the link to start leaching requires connecting to a central server.(most bitcoin DNS peer discovery servers are managed by core)

yes bitcoin can become more decentralised by no longer REKT campaigning other dev groups that want to be on the same level network as core. but thats a fight thats been tried for the last 4 years and core are winning.

...
side note.
someone mentioned about pirating files is illegal. stating about copyrights. well thats only half the story. even having a copyright doesnt auto make distribution illegal. as mit licence/copyright allows it. its the copyright terms which would state stuff like fre to view but illegal to resell for personal profit
this is where you can stream videos for free, but if you try to monetise it EG youtube adverts. or putting videos onto DVD and selling at garage sales/bootsales expect the authorities to slap your wrist


in summary
the currency is decentralised and distributed
the users are distributed
but the code and protocol and brand is centralised to one group.... and that needs to change
22  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin: More of SoV or P2P Cash? on: June 15, 2019, 10:44:29 AM

so knowing bitcoin doesnt need to be a 'one world currency' or legal tender adopted by a whole country. this leaves bitcoin as a SoV+MoE


I don't know why some people convince other people that Bitcoin is only good as a store of value. They can knock themselves out buying, and using Bitcoin as payment.
hope this means you have now wised up to want to have bitcoin as a payment method rather than promoting deburdening the network in favour of other networks(ln)
23  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin: More of SoV or P2P Cash? on: June 15, 2019, 09:46:21 AM
"like gems, dogs mess of a particular animal, other metals"

All of these have utility  Huh

those examples were about 'scarce'
"first. what makes gold different from something else scarce "
was the first part of the sentance


Gold's value is predominately (99%+) due to it having properties / utility as a SoV. This was formulated over thousands of years of use by humans, utility came AFTER it being valued for just being gold. Do you think ancient civilisations thought wow I can make jewerly with this yellow metal, its valuable. No they found gold and valued it then decided to make jewerly with it.

Its value is based on its scarcity I never said it was based on 100% speculation. I'm economic illiterate? lol you are subscribing to the Labor theory of value which which is a crock of shite and any economist would agree.

gold didnt just be SoV because egyptians said "i found it do you want it, if you do pay me 5 loaves of bread"
it started from realising gold had a purpose. and so they begun mining it, which cost bread to feed the slaves to mine it. so rich egyptians had to buy gold.
over the thousands of years the costs went up from bread costs to excavator and sluice machine diesel and labour costs which total $900 an ounce+.
the speculative area above $900 thats the bit where the price moves up and down the most based on the utility.

but that said it needs utility to even get people to want it.

do you honestly think in historic era's of people just trying to survive by gathering food, making shelter, forging tools.. that they just sat around trading things of no utility...
in history people only done things if it was productive to survival. such as food,tools shelter. i honestly cant believe you think egyptians just traded gold initially for no other reason than it was not sand.
24  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Development for Bitcoin to reduce CO2 footprint on: June 15, 2019, 12:48:14 AM
seems most have realised bitcoin is not as bad as people thought. so now discussions moved onto how certain power plants themselves are the nasty polluters

as for people saying that renewables are.
well thats just the construction.
yes the concrete of dams, use alot of concrete mixing trucks=diesel
yes solar uses alot of materials to make a solar panel
yes wind turbines uses alot of materials to make them

but after the initial investment/construction, the utility they produce compared to just burning coal on a daily bases. shows that initial construction vs ongoing burn still makes renewable better by many thousand folds

EG
dams vs coal
the concrete of dams is comparable to the hole left from digging coal... (truck fuel waste.. change of landscape)
but coal then also produces tonnes of CO2 from burning coal. which dams dont.
but coal runs out and a new quarry gets dug=more holes in landscape. yet a dam just continues producing using a single dam
25  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Development for Bitcoin to reduce CO2 footprint on: June 15, 2019, 12:42:56 AM
More efficient miners only lead to an increase in hashrate, not to a decrease in power consumption. That is, if for example the cost of running mining hardware just got cut in half, a mining operation will simply double their hardware in an attempt to double their profits.

not exactly true.
october 2018 proved the opposite of your assumptions.

[...]

Only if you ignore that the drop in hashrate was preceded by almost a year of bear market. That the hashrate would plateau and then drop until the market recovers is hardly a surprise.

I'm not saying that your theory doesn't have its merit, but it also doesn't quite hold when looking at the surrounding factors.


not ignoring anything. quite the opposite.
the BOTTOMLINE VALUE and hashrate cost of ALL2018 was at or below ~$5800
so while the speculative FOMO layer ontop yo-yo's above $5800 and went to $20k and back down again. this didnt affect the hashrates.
the only big noticable hashrate event of 2018 was in october when next gens replaced old gens.. which due to the rate of the swap then reacted in a change in profitability that allowed the price to go down in november
26  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Crypto news website CCN going to be shutdown due to google on: June 14, 2019, 05:58:15 PM
why doesn't other websites like Coindesk are having any trouble like that?

coindesk is funded by barry silberts DCG.co.. you know the same investment group that pays core devs
coindesk doesnt rely on advert revenue or view counts. DCG pays its article writers to write stuff that are pro DCG agenda
27  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Americans need to lobby their legislators on: June 14, 2019, 02:55:51 PM
I posted at least four different threads in the last week about what FATF would do.

Now you see it. Binance is forcing KYC on the globe and kicking americans off. Do you get it yet? Do you understand how this is going down? Do you realize how much financial opportunity is going to be taken from you as you are barred from the global cryptocurrency economy? While the rich are allowed to do series A accreddited investing, institutional swap trading, and foreign trading of the most speculative altcoins. Do you realize this is a tax grab and a corral, this is not about fraud, it is about classism. Don't be deluded.

Do you get it yet?
FATF hasnt even made anything into law. they have a week of discussions 16th-21st of the month to talk about issues. if binance has changed its policies from $10k to $1k then thats off binances own back.

people can still trade above $1k value. but ofcourse. when using a exchange thats fiat regulated. expect the regulations

if you dont like regulations dont use a regulated exchange..

i actually didnt just read bloombergs INTERPRETATION. but looked to the sources
https://www.mof.go.jp/english/international_policy/convention/g20/communique.htm
https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/FinCEN%20CVC%20Guidance%20FINAL.pdf

having read it all. its not exactly an attack on crypto's... its a note of guideance for fiat regulated exchanges to report more the handling of CVC (mysql balances of fiat & crypto assets(stablecoins))

this is about the mediums of exchanges that represent fiat but are not true fiat. emphasis being stable coins for instance.
G20 governments only have jurisdiction  over fiat as its their 'product' so yea expect them to want to monitor their product and the convertibles that are made to represent them.

how would this most impact people.
well for one example arbitraging.
imagine just 1 allotment of $1k being circled several times via arbitraging between a few exchanges

one exchange will see the crypto to stablecoin swaps. which then would put the account holder as doing multiple $1k+ trades resulting in CVC. thus on one exchange the reports would show as many thousands in fiat being withdrawn
though the truth bing the user only has $1k being played with back and forth

arbitraging will come under great scrutiny due to AML risks. as it will look like your trying to 'clean' dirty fiat by cycling it around exchanges
28  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: g20 FATF regulations to demand kyc for recipient on: June 14, 2019, 11:28:45 AM
I am really shocked at how little this is being spoken about online. There's going to be a deep amount of chaos over this. They dont even have the technology to enforce it. What they are basically saying is that they are going to force you to associate your hardware wallet with an identity if you want to use it to receive funds from any FATF country regulated exchange, which is basically every meaningful country on the planet. That's not safe, and that's not what crypto was meant for.

1. little talked about?
theres atleast half a dozen topics on this forum talking about it

2. if your connecting your hardware wallet and spending direct to an exchange. you already lost anonymity. to avoid the 'hold funds hostage until ID given' .. most exchanges ask for ID upfront before you even moved any funds.

3. not what crypto was made for?
this is about using FIAT exchanges. these days even buying a car for more than $1k involves some kind of tax/income declaration. so what this is telling you is that FATF are clamping down on what people can do with fiat.
29  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin: More of SoV or P2P Cash? on: June 14, 2019, 08:38:47 AM
Lol gold does not derive its value from its 10% utility usage globally

try to break up the concept into stages. separate things.

first. what makes gold different from something else scarce like gems, dogs mess of a particular animal, other metals.
UTILITY. this as one separate thing triggers the NEED for it.

then the value. yes you are correct. golds $1.2k PRICE is not based on the 100% utility. infact the speculation of golds utility is only a couple hundred $ of the current $1200 spot price.
this utility speculation is where people see gold and in high need for it the price moves up and low need goes down.

but there is a point at which people give up wanting to sell down. because there is a bottomline support based on the acquisition costs. no one wants to sell at loss. and ofcourse the hype/FOMO can only go so far up too. so the range and volatility of the speculation area is only about $200-300 ontop of the acquisition costs.

so like i said before. imagine instead of say ~$1k to dig for gold. it only cost $1 in your back yard. people would b happy to sell gold right down to just above $1 because thats still profitable sell.

..
that being said.
to even have people wanting to dig for it to such an extent it costs about $1k an ounce of excavator diesel and labour. there needs to be utility to make people NEED it in the first place. otherwise (like crap coins) people would just speculate on dogs mess where the speculation would be from $0-$couple hundred and volatility would allow the price to dip to zero as it has no purpose/function to keep a bottomline support if speculation died

if you honestly thought gold value on the asset spot market was 100% speculation value. then economics is something you need to either take time learning more about or staying away from.

th reason why bitcoin is in the thousands as oppose to hundreds for other coins of near exact same code. is the acquisition costs. which got so high due to the utility. PoW is thousands of $/btc not pennies, because you can do something with bitcoin(there are merchants and services and until recently fee's were acceptable(but losing that edge in future))

at the moment at ~50exahash puts the bottomline support for btc at ~$5k this is the level where most would refuse to sell below as thats where loses begin. the 'value' ontop up to $8k($3k diffrence) is the speculation bit.

but if you take away the transaction utility of bitcoin and make it just a useless locked database of UTXO. no one will want to mine it and say goodbye to a huge chunk of bottomline support. and then watch the speculative element go crazy from $0 to $FOMO and then tank again. thus completely destablising/removing any 'value' store
30  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin: More of SoV or P2P Cash? on: June 13, 2019, 08:18:14 PM
thinking about it.

SoV cant survive as just SoV, but with utility.. it can

however. P2P cash is using the term cash. which implies common/mass population utility.
so maybe cash is the stumbling word.

EG
MoE medium of exchange is currency but not on any common concept of needing mass acceptance. cigarettes in prisons are a currency/MoE but not a MoE in large mass country/continent

remember
MoE: currency(niche adopted)
cash: currency(mass adopted)

so knowing bitcoin doesnt need to be a 'one world currency' or legal tender adopted by a whole country. this leaves bitcoin as a SoV+MoE
31  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How Blockchain Technology Works on: June 13, 2019, 07:59:13 PM
a simpler explanation

a blockchain is a chain of batched (blocks of) data.
each block of data is given a identifier made from hashing the data to get a unique ID.
this unique ID is then included as part of the next block, forming a chain of blocks.(blockchain)


the best part is. if any data is changed from initial block. the hash ID would be different, which then would change the hash of the next block. making it easily identifiable if data is changed when checking the chain of data, if the hashes dont match the data and the previous hash is not in the next block. the blocks are invalid. if it matches its valid.

and now without having to ask for a whole blockchain of data from EVERY peer. you only need one copy from one source and then just ask every other peer you interact with for just their latest hash. and if that matches your latest hash then you have the same data as them without needing to download everyones chain.

now everyone knowing they all have the same historic data without needing huge downloads per peer. means people can use their bandwidth for more useful things like deciding what data gets into the next new block
32  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin: More of SoV or P2P Cash? on: June 13, 2019, 05:03:34 PM
And this is up for debate and I don't think that we will settle this once and for all.

Of course maximalist will wanted to see bitcoin being used as P2P cash. But time has changed, when bitcoin went from $1-$10k then the landscape has evolved.

It's not longer just a P2P but people compare it to gold as as SoV. So it's really up to us bitcoiners on what we are going to used it, how will it benefit and no I'm sure there will be no consensus here.

gold is only SoV because it has utility. take the utility away and no one will want it.
just ask yourself. why is dirt and gold not the same. they both require digging out the ground.

you might say dirt is everywhere. but then go to any gardening centre where bagged dirt(has a purpose) has a pricetag
you might say gold is scarce. but then my dog will only do a couple thousand poo's in its life. anyone want some. its scarce

if gold had no purpose. people wouldnt dig it up and wouldnt value it. so gold needs a purpose/utility first. and then the value is LATER judged by how useful it is, but mainly how much it costs to acquire it.
(if gold could be dug up using a spoon and coffee filter in anyones backyard it would sell for $1 not $1k)

bitcoin as just a SoV wont work without it having function/utility/purpose. no one would value it if it done nothing for people
i can make a database of 200gb. the data does nothing. anyone want it for
145billion? (market cap)
how about $100k per mb?(blockreward)
33  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fraud-Fighting ‘Watchtowers’ to Arrive in Next Bitcoin Lightning Release on: June 13, 2019, 04:28:09 PM
Although this look good but their function in the LN was much anticipated for and for them coming into the system, it will be better. But i had of their intention to create their own coin which will be use to pay them for the service rendering? wil this coin be decentralize or centralize? Hope things are done right as they come into the crypto-space.  

why need own coin specific for certain users
isnt using the pegged Msats(already utilised in LN) good enough?.. start wondering why is Msats not sufficient to pay watchtowers
34  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fraud-Fighting ‘Watchtowers’ to Arrive in Next Bitcoin Lightning Release on: June 13, 2019, 04:11:49 PM
if you don't like watchtowers, put an LN node on a raspberry pi. It's easy. Problem solved

but wait. wasnt the whole point of LN because blockchains are too big for home users.
but wait. wasnt the whole point of LN to just use smart phone to buy coffee in starbucks
now things are circling back to the whole 'home users need to be paid to be their own full node' greedy cries

the mindset these days are blockchains are for "big blockers"

we have had 'banking' business models for decades. crypto/blockchains meant to be taking us away from middlemen not re-introducing them

and you can use bitcoin. but nobody said it would be free. pay the cost or use something cheap (like LN).

bitcoin is only getting more expensive. not due to technology. but due to human(dev) implemented limits under the guise of economic game theory.

LN cheap?
having a channel direct with a merchant(1hop) ~cheap. but routing =multiple fees. then add on watchtowers fee. then add on factories fee.
also people dont do 20tx a day normally. they do 1-2tx a day(even popular payment methods like visa show this). so if the guise of economic game theory is pushing onchain fee's up to match the (doomsday rhetoric game theory need for fee war) of no blockreward. then even 90tx over 3 months still would end up costing maybe $66*
crypto is becoming a system of needing to in the future pay like $22 a month just to use it.
which is still more than an hours labour in 3rd world countries per tx

*blockreward= ~$8k*12.5=100k...
  to compare pool income of future....100k/3000tx a block=$33 a tx..... open session+close session=$66

..
again i am not saying "free"tx's. but when payment systems start charging more than an hours labour for a 3rd world country. most of the ethoses and goals of blockchain currencies are lost. especially when they start needing middlemen to manage/counter-sign peoples funds.. it kinda starts defeating the point of the original inventions glamour, novelty, solution and hope
35  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fraud-Fighting ‘Watchtowers’ to Arrive in Next Bitcoin Lightning Release on: June 13, 2019, 03:57:48 PM
if you don't like watchtowers, put an LN node on a raspberry pi. It's easy. Problem solved

but wait. wasnt the whole point of LN because blockchains are too big for home users.
the mindset these days are blockchains are for "big blockers"

we have had 'banking' business models for decades. crypto/blockchains meant to be taking us away from middlemen not re-introducing them
36  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fraud-Fighting ‘Watchtowers’ to Arrive in Next Bitcoin Lightning Release on: June 12, 2019, 10:51:06 PM
watch towers are needed, because LN as just a 2 counterparty agreement just wont work.

if LN worked perfectly between 2 people. watchtowers wouldnt be needed. so watchtowers is big red neon sign that something is up

It's not that LN doesn't work, it's that the security model requires users to be online 24/7. Watchtowers are a solution to this obvious UX problem.

EG if you put a 90 day lock on funds on the bitcoin network. you SHOULD live in peace for 89 days,23hours 50minutes without having to care what your counterpart might get upto.

That wouldn't work very well. If all LN funds had different timelocks, it would destroy fungibility. Who wants funds that are stuck in LN for the next 90 days? These wouldn't be worth 1:1 to Bitcoin because they can't be used on-chain.
calling the flaw of needing to be online and needing to do certain things a 'security model' .. nah its a flaw
as for the 90 days. i personally think 30 is 'normal' as many live paycheque to paycheque and only plan/budget a month at a time
its others that love ln who keep thinking 90 in their scenarios. so i was just going with their flow

but that said. in a secure payment system. you shouldnt need middlemen, supervisees, security guards...
.. that was the whole point of bitcoin

having a system that without a middleman you have to worry about what happens when you sleep.. is not a good system

LN motto: "where sleeping makes you poor, unless you can afford a babysitter"
37  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: IF you were/are living on BTC/Crypto. Is buying mining equipment dead? Take Poll on: June 12, 2019, 05:59:44 PM
ASIC mining is not dead,

problem is 2 things:
people pay retail/public prices for asics, not wholesale
people pay domestic/public prices for electric, not excess contracts
38  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fraud-Fighting ‘Watchtowers’ to Arrive in Next Bitcoin Lightning Release on: June 12, 2019, 05:40:08 PM
watch towers are needed, because LN as just a 2 counterparty agreement just wont work.

if LN worked perfectly between 2 people. watchtowers wouldnt be needed. so watchtowers is big red neon sign that something is up

secondly. the onchain locked funds should actually be locked. thus broadcasting anything randomly day or night should get rejected right up until the lock is unlocked. watch towers subtly reveals this aint the case either.
EG if you put a 90 day lock on funds on the bitcoin network. you SHOULD live in peace for 89 days,23hours 50minutes without having to care what your counterpart might get upto.


meaning bitcoin utxo's used for LN are not as locked as you might think and that too opens up many attack avenues.

havnt people yet cottoned on that LN is and wont be as secure as bitcoin

and the last joke of the article.
even with LN payments. routing and onions. LN does not have a private way to pay a user on LN.. namely a watchtower. so now LN devs want to make a whole new token...

once people read the unicorn fluffy utopian promotion. have a coffee. sit back and then read things over properly. they start to see the real things behind the buzzwords
39  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why is using 51% hashing power stronger than using 51% of the people? on: June 12, 2019, 03:02:05 PM
found it funny the amateur eye captcha demo.
anyways

imagine retina's.. and having human verifiers

you have only 3 seconds to verify these 2 retina's

could you be 100% guaranteed and assured that in just a few (be honest) seconds of looking.. no longer, that you could tell if they are the same or not.
40  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Does lightning network really solve the scalability problem? on: June 12, 2019, 02:37:28 PM
average of 7 channels per active node.[...] so if your funding 7 channels (onchain data minimum 1 in 7 out) then the close sessions needed at the end of 2in 2out X7(14in 14out)[...]
so if someone is only transacting once a week. they are not really benefiting if they are using monthly channels(4 a month)
First, the median value would be more relevant for an analysis, because big hubs may be distorting the picture (the last time I checked the network structure it was a mix of the hub-and-spoke and the decentralized model, and there were definitively some big nodes with hundreds of channels).
firstly median is just a single number in the middle of a range
1,1,1,1,1,6,7,7,7,7,7
5,5,5,5,5,6,70,70,70,70,70
median is 6. yet using your own analysis of separating users vs hubs.
users only have 1 connections and hubs have 7.
users only have 5 connections and hubs have 70.

making 6 meaningless statistical error. its just some single use case sat amungst more meaningful data
median does not actually provide anything meaningful. as 6 has no relevance to the other numbers. the number 6 has not been derived from calculations nor from analysing other stats. its just a number that exists


when you say hubs have hundreds of channels. who do you think that those hubs are connecting to.....
when you say users have few of channels. who do you think that those users are connecting to.....
hint for each channel there are 2 sides. meaning for every 2 nodes with active channel between them thats a channel.
so adding up the nodes and adding upthe channels and averaging it out is fairer than your 'median'

I don't think that the average person needs more than 2 or 3 channels, often one alone will be sufficient.

Second, why should you open channels monthly if you only transact once a week? Remember that also average persons can receive money via LN, and that's where the potential lies. People would be most likely directly be connected with an exchange so they can "refill" easily, e.g. with their salary.
people pay rent once a week but they get a wage once a month. most live paycheque to paycheque and can only plan/budget one month at a time.
having one channel to an exchange means one channel is funded with the wage. but what about the other channels.
oh and if you think everyone will just have 1 channel with an exchange. then watch that exchange get DDoS'd and
watch the exchange have to lock in a months value with every user.. bank2.0 centralisation i hear you scream.
oh and need i forget not everyone wants their whole wage in bitcoin. because bitcoin cant buy you everything. so then throwing a whole salary into LN is not helpful
oh and if people are locking to one channel with an exchange. watch the exchange ramp up their fee, because they only have the exchange as the only route.

think about scenarios. not the one time utopian perfect experience.
EG did you know when they done the LN pizza promotion, there was only a 10% success rate. not due to any pizza or delivery or settling fiat issues. but the channel issues of LN
Quote
the fee war is not some technology limit.
It is actually if you want to keep the network decentralized and secure
actually 32mb was a technical based limit of networking related to packets. but 1mb is a arbitrary limit of human imposition
fee war is a wild west zero control human decided imposition that solves nothing but used to avoid real solutions.

It will scale the Bitcoin Network, but I believe no one knows by how much. 100x? 1000x? Or maybe less?
It depends on "usage patterns", but we can at least do a basic estimation.

Let's say we define an "user persona" that wants to transact one time per day. He normally refills his channel via LN one or two times per month, but each 3 months he needs a "refunding" via an on-chain channel opening transaction.

This would give us approximately x50 scaling (up to roughly about 300-500 tx/s or 25-30 million tx/day): we have about 100 LN transactions each 3 months (3 x 30-31 plus LN refills) and need a new channel opening, whose size approximately doubles a "normal" 1-in-2-out transaction.

With channel factories and taking into account the same "usage pattern", we could reach about ten times more, so we get a potential of hundreds of millions of transactions per day.

However, we have to take into account that we need some space on the blockchain for 1) normal non-LN transactions, and 2) channel closing transactions in the case of scams. I would estimate roughly that this would takes to a capacity of a third to half of the number I wrote above.

funny part of your maths there is that to avoid onchain refills each fortnight would actually require factories to re balance channels without onchain usage.
so you cant say using factories after already describing a offchain factory scenario would further 10x up the scenario.

also even if there was a one channel user. with only a one onchain setup and one onchain settle.
the 1LN payment a day would be a ~88 deburdening of the bitcoin network.(90 payments done in ln instead of onchain. but then discounting the 2 setup/close onchain)
so not sure where you are getting the whole other random numbers you quote. especially 25-30million a day

but lets take a guess and say that a 3rd of a block is LN reserved. as your scenario suggests
average block ~3k tx so call it 1k LN users a block = 144k a day
but because those users are not transacting onchain on day 2 a fresh set of LN users can use the 1k = another 144k a day,
same for day 3-90=  ~13mill users a quarter before they repeat

where as the 144k a day transactors if doing 1 tx a day onchain. is just 144k which again is ~90x

so based on 1 tx a day with LN sessions of 3 months using only onchain bytes of lean measure (not that many channels)
LN

but if a LN user has 3-5 channels, the onchain bloat means less than the 1000 a block/144k a day.
but if a LN user sessions close sooner than 90 days, the onchain bloat means less than 13mill before ln users refresh

now. to get to the point of transaction numbers.
UTXO stats do not any large percentage of spends happening daily. most bitcoin users are once a week-every couple years
the percentage of daily spenders is low percentile.
so until / unless LN provides access to merchants where people can buy absolutely everything (toilet roll, car fuel, bread)
dont expect many to take advantage of daily activity.
apart from day traders/mixers/spammers

so if you think out of say ~500k transactions a day it some how will equate to 144k users moving over to LN a day.. forget it.
the amount of users desiring LN for daily use would be less.

oh and check visa stats. even when you can buy most things with visa, even they only have their customers do less than 2 tx a day average
so cool down on thinking everyone will jump into LN.
so cool down on thinking everyone will be doing dozens/hundreds of tx a day
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 ... 821 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!