Well then there is no need to argue anymore on who's right and who's wrong and let the actions speak for itself and may consensus be achieved naturally for the good of the whole network. If we get bigger blocks then we get bigger blocks if not then let us see how LN helps Bitcoin scale.
I do like to see LN launched and used because there is also great potential in it. One of it is we could make users less dependent on centralized exchanges and trading from one coin to another could be done on the Lightning Network as sort of bridge between blockchains.
21inc's LN has been launched for 6 months, no one cares. If there is slightest market demand for this kind of service, why is there no one interested in it? Lack of marketing perhaps? I have not heard of their Lightning Network before you mentioned it. Is it working well and are there enough users in the system? The problem I see sometimes is some developers create something that should be cool but have their own shortcomings. Like Open Bazaar and bitsquare.io. They are usable but they are somewhat lacking some features or maybe they need a little more polishing. |
|
|
|
Gregory Maxwell is 100% right when he says: Bitcoin is a revolution currency but a fairly inefficient payment network. If people turn this on its head and try to market bitcoin as a payment rail where the currency is an unfortunate requirement, it would be immediately out competed in the market ...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/581dg/bitcoin_is_a_revolution_currency_but_a_fairly/There is no urgency to increase the blocksize. All the doomsday scenarios projected for the beginning of 2016 by the technologically inept and irresponsible bigblock-fanatics have failed to materialize. Instead we are starting to see signs of a working fee market and transaction spam has been greatly reduced (also via optimization at exchanges and payment providers). Trying to use the blockchain to make direct transactions for every single lolly that guys like Mike Hearn or Roger Ver decide to buy would be the end of decentralization. Bitcoin itself is just not suited for micropayments - it's too inefficient. Segregated Witness and Lightning Networks will enable micropayments without spamming the blockchain and thereby preserving decentralization. What bigblock fanatics seem to forget is that even micropayments are ultimately settled on the blockchain, yet in a much more efficient way.ya.ya.yo! I like that argument. But there will also be shortcomings on the Lightning Network. It can also be seen to be a problem on onchain scaling too because the transactions might become heftier if too many payment channels close at the same time and it might cause a bottleneck on how many payment channels can be closed at any given time. So that is one hypothetical situation to look into and hopefully to also find a good solution. |
|
|
|
This is definitely something interesting.... however, it is not important at all. Bitcoin doesn't need anonymity. Those who need it have things to hide...
I have seen this argument used over and over and it is annoying because people seem to not think it over when they say it. This is about our privacy and it is our right. Some people do not think like you, some of us actually want our privacy and our family's privacy protected. If you are going to say such things do not speak as if you are speaking for everyone. |
|
|
|
this is where doomsday theories rather than rational thought comes in.
some want 4mb (core) some want more. some want onchain some want 100% use offchain. thats where compromises come in and finding the acceptable level.
this "terrabyte block" doomsday has been shot out the park last year. the current compromise is 2mb bas 4mb weight.
the everthing has to be offchain has been shot out the park. the current compromise is expand onchain and allow offchain for freedom of choice.
i dont know why anyone is talking about terrabytes, apart from the doomsdayers who want to twist the future to distract the present
i dont know why anyone is talking about only offchain will work, apart from the doomsdayers who want to twist the future to distract the present
Well it is not really a "dooms day theory" but a rational thought questioning and speculating on what would happen if we had bigger blocks. As said before storage would be solved by having cheaper HD available but the question on how bandwidth is limited in a lot of areas in the world that it might become a problem if the blockchain has become really large enough and still growing. I believe that is one area of concern for the big blockers. there is misunderstandings and our misrepresenting of what a hard fork is.
ethereum was not a consensus hard fork it was a controversial fork.
ethereum bypassed consensus orphaning mechanism and literally banned communicating with nodes of different rules to avoid orphaning the minority. "--oppose-dao-fork"
it is actually Gmaxwell of blockstream that proposed that BU should split, rather than use the consensus mechanism which BU(ver) wants.
a consensus mechanism is what the community want to happen. rather than a dictatorial split.
consensus, everyone wins and everyone continues.
controversial, dictator wins and everyone else f**ks off
I now understand your view on this from your posts from the other threads. Thank you for enlightening us on the real situation. |
|
|
|
|
Well then there is no need to argue anymore on who's right and who's wrong and let the actions speak for itself and may consensus be achieved naturally for the good of the whole network. If we get bigger blocks then we get bigger blocks if not then let us see how LN helps Bitcoin scale.
I do like to see LN launched and used because there is also great potential in it. One of it is we could make users less dependent on centralized exchanges and trading from one coin to another could be done on the Lightning Network as sort of bridge between blockchains.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, it would have been better if the developers from both sides could work together. But too bad each camp has its own agenda and self interests and now the community is caught in the middle. I believe the Chinese mining cartel is also for the smalls blocks unless I am mistaken.
|
|
|
|
Let us pretend that everyone, that means the miners, people maintaining Bitcoin nodes and the community supported Bitcoin Unlimited. What will happen to the core developers. Will they lose their position and their influence over the development of the network? Who will take over, the developers who started Bitcoin Unlimited?
Are the Bitcoin Unlimited coders competent enough to take over Bitcoin's development?
I don't go that far away into conspiracy road, but I think core devs should be more flexible and open to different ideas. This solution is so simple but missed by all the core devs, which raises a large question about core devs' competence It is not a conspiracy theory because it is possible that the core developers will be supplanted as the top developers of Bitcoin. Also in asking the question if the Bitcoin Unlimited developers are as competent as the core developers, you know what I mean. Are they as good in coding and finding solutions to Bitcoin's shortcomings? If you think they are, then who are the Bitcoin Unlimited developers and what have they accomplished? Answers to these simple questions should be known to the community so we could form our own opinions and express them. I honestly do not know who the developers of Bitcoin Unlimited are except that it is led by Roger Ver which I think has his own agenda. |
|
|
|
Yes, bitcoin is a near perfect currency on the on-chain settlement layer but very inneficient as payment network, since it can't scale on-network, therefore it will need offchain solutions like lightning network and such. It is inefficient because also of all the energy used in proof of work. For now I am on the side of the smaller blocks + looking for off-chain transaction solutions. They must exhaust all possible avenues in finding a solution before the core developers make their own implementation of a hard fork.
franky1 incoming in 5....4....3....2....1.....
Is franky1 a big blocker? I assumed he was neutral and was open to both sides of the argument.
much like asling people to do an intentional split because the asker is afraid an intentional split will happen is also a self fulfilling prophecy.anyway i am open to both sides. i am not in the blockstream camp nor the classic camp. i am in the bitcoin consensus for everyone camp. i just hold a sceptical mind about many things. not a utopian dream and not a dictatorial desire. i have said that LN and sidechains have a place in the community. but people need to know the reality of what they are handling and that we should not be pushing for everyone to use offchain. even done subtly to pretend its not being done. especially when pushing false doomsdays. doomsdays such as "that in 10 years the blockchain will be many terrabytes big so that no node will be able to run it, except centralized data centers." are false doomsdays made by blockstreamers to push their offchain agenda. But isn't it true to a point that the blockchain would be too large and that it will make it harder for people to run a node? The storage problem could be stored. But what about the bandwidth problem? there is a balance. a compromise. and although some are presenting 8,6,32 proposals now..
i personally feel 2mb base 4mb weight is a good compromise everyone could agree with, and everyone gets what they want.. IF they put their political party ambitions aside.
forcing false doomsdays to coerce people offchain,(even done subtly) causes less people to want to become nodes(for security). less reason to want to become miners(for security). and turns bitcoin into a less secure system.
thus moving people to sidechains permanently the agenda. (much like "realbitcoins" rhetoric last year involving the altcoin NXT being bitcoin 2.0)
bitcoin needs to continue having an open and fair choice to continue doing onchain transactions for the immutable security. or offchain for the faster convenience.
there should not be an all or nothing debate.(though blockstreamers want all or nothing)
bitcoin is an open network that should have no barriers of entry and no dictatorship in central authority. this should not change.
by barrier of entry i mean. today sticking with 1mb blocks is a barrier to entry. jumping to obscene block sizes of "terrabytes" is a barrier of entry
thus a safe and workable compromise and agreement by the community is the best option to continue bitcoins ethos.
I also want to know your opinion what a Bitcoin hard fork would look like. I am afraid that it might happen just like what happened to Ethereum. The blockchain splits and now we have 2 chains competing against each other. Will it not slow down Bitcoin's adoption if this happens? I believe Roger Ver said something like if it happens then it happens, and he acted as if it was not a big deal. If Bitcoin Unlimited "wins", what will happen to the core developers? |
|
|
|
Yes, bitcoin is a near perfect currency on the on-chain settlement layer but very inneficient as payment network, since it can't scale on-network, therefore it will need offchain solutions like lightning network and such. It is inefficient because also of all the energy used in proof of work. For now I am on the side of the smaller blocks + looking for off-chain transaction solutions. They must exhaust all possible avenues in finding a solution before the core developers make their own implementation of a hard fork.
franky1 incoming in 5....4....3....2....1.....
Is franky1 a big blocker? I assumed he was neutral and was open to both sides of the argument. |
|
|
|
Recently, i often see discussion about Bitcoin Bank. More and more people come here and ask about bitcoin bank & surprisingly i see few user agree with this idea.
So, i would like to find out the percentage of user who agreed with this idea.
Honestly, i think this idea is stupid and worst idea that i've seen in my life. What do you think?
p.s. we don't talk about bitcoin debit card.
This just another another form of gimmickry to exploit the community and to create profit for themselves. Of course some of these "Bitcoin banks" will go bust if there will be several of these set up like how many exchanges have gone bust. Also please point out who these people are that are starting to talk about Bitcoin banks. Are they Legendary users in Bitcointalk? I wonder what kind of business model they will be using. If the Lightning Network goes online and is successful there would be no need for a "Bitcoin bank". |
|
|
|
|
I do not think there is a need to dump payment options for markets that are already efficient, although Bitcoin could make a good complementary method of payment to make it more efficient. An example of this is online shopping. It would be nice to see Amazon start to accept Bitcoin even if they do not need to.
Bitcoin should be used in markets where there is an inefficient mode of payment. As I said before the dark market payments would be very inefficient if it did not have Bitcoin payments. There are also ways to create to create new markets for Bitcoins like for example an exchange for backed frequent flyer mile tokens done on Counter Party that is tradable for Bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
|
Let us pretend that everyone, that means the miners, people maintaining Bitcoin nodes and the community supported Bitcoin Unlimited. What will happen to the core developers. Will they lose their position and their influence over the development of the network? Who will take over, the developers who started Bitcoin Unlimited?
Are the Bitcoin Unlimited coders competent enough to take over Bitcoin's development?
|
|
|
|
|
The Russian government might be trying to go ahead to limit the potential of Bitcoin. As franky1 said this might not affect Bitcoin but it will affect the things you can build on top or the business ideas that make use of Bitcoin. You see one of Bitcoin's biggest potential is to find inefficient global markets and make them efficient. An example of this are the dark markets. Trading for illegal items online had no reliable mode of payment until Bitcoin arrived.
|
|
|
|
|
It will spell the doom for everything. Why would quantum computer using hackers try to break Bitcoin when it could break the banks if they want money. The more political ones can break government and corporate encryption. So if you think everyone is after your precious Bitcoin, you are wrong. Bitcoin is only a drop in the bucket.
|
|
|
|
Tha safest wallet is not an online wallet. Also you have to protect your PC anyway.
Protect your pc or laptop with anti virus because there is a virus that can log almost all your keystroke.. so its safe if you use antivirus like kaspersky.. For me i dont trust online wallet because i already experience some problem before in online wallet.. thats why i try to use electrum and until now never had any issue.. Or why not learn how to use Linux? It is more secure and easy to learn. As long as you update it regularly then you are mostly safe from hacks. It also depends on how you use and secure your computer. I also have been recommending using a bootable Linux USB like Tails Linux as a sort of hardware wallet. Tails Linux already has an Electrum wallet included in its software packages so no need to install it. The beauty of this Linux distro is all outgoing transactions go thru TOR for more privacy. |
|
|
|
Hey! I just typed 'blochchain.info' with google search. 1st result is: Ad - www bi0ckchein info/Wallet/Login  Be careful! Thanks for the tip. I would suggest for all the people in the community who are using blockchain.info to bookmark their site in your browser. This accomplishes a couple of things, easier access and safer browsing because you are sure it is the real website you are going to. Also be sure to enable 2FA, the secondary password, disable TOR access and do not put large amounts in that wallet. Webwallets are needed for your small, daily Bitcoin expenses. It is not intended to be a place for you to store your Bitcoin savings. |
|
|
|
Well do a signature campaign, mine one earns me around 0.015 btc a week then do some clicking sites for free, and then build capital to invest in good revshares or god bitcoin sites. I am in one revshare now that earns me around 0.2 bitcoin a month in net income now, so building now a 2nd company, recyclix which you don't have to click any ads daily, that gives a 14% roi every 5 weeks for recycling waste.
This is very interesting. Can you please give us more details on how you got started with revshares? Please give us a step by step on how you did it and what happened. Also what good bitcoin sites are good to invest in? All I see are gambling sites pooling together Bitcoins to use as capital to use against the players. I am scared that the sites might sometimes bust because of being at the wrong side of variance. In your revshare how much did you invest so that you could earn .20 BTC a month? |
|
|
|
LN's biggest problem is that it increases money supply. Notice that money supply means the available money in the market, not the base money supply, thus modern economy theories seldom use M0 to measure money supply, since a large part of the M0 is sitting there collecting dust without contributing to the economy activities
Comparing two cases:
1. you have 1 bitcoin to pay a merchant, when this 1 bitcoin is in transaction, it is unavailable for anyone else, so the money supply decreased by 1 bitcoin until the merchant received your coin and spent it. If he did not spend it in time, next time you must find a new bitcoin to pay him, this will create new demand for bitcoin
2. you have 1 bitcoin to pay a merchant, but your wallet operator and merchant's wallet operator opened a payment channel between them, and then you and the merchant can do any amount of trades without more bitcoin, because the amount of incoming and outgoing transactions are roughly the same between your wallet operator and merchant's wallet operator, thus their transactions basically cancel each other and no real settlement is required between them, the channel can be left open forever. As a result, you get some salary from your boss through another payment channel, and you pay the merchant through this payment channel, everything happens in payment channel, no real bitcoin is needed
I am confused. Where will this extra LN.BTC come from when the amount locked to open the payment channel is all there is represented in the Lightning Network, no more no less. Please explain what you are trying to say a little better by giving another example.
So once payment channel and especially routing is established, all the bitcoin transactions can be done with a fraction of the total amount of required bitcoin, that will dramatically reduce the amount of bitcoin demand on market and cause the value to crash
Increased money supply always cause reduced money value, or inflation. Notice that not only new coins can cause inflation, any schemes that could increase the utility of the same bitcoin by multiple times is essentially another form of inflation, this includes payment channel, fractional reserve banking, and other forms of similar schemes
But hold on. Let us assume you are correct with the inflation of the LN.BTC in the network, but do not forget that in order to participate and have funds in LN you should buy Bitcoin. If LN is successful then the demand for real Bitcoins will only go higher. Now this is where the problem of fungibility comes in as I mentioned before. Real Bitcoin's value will go up due to demand but LN.BTC will suffer from variance and in your argument of inflation in LN.BTC it might go down. The effect will be the opposite of what you are thinking because people would prefer to hold real BTC because now it is very clear in its value than lock them in LN when there is no need. |
|
|
|
I have read somewhere in the forum that the lock out time if in case there is an uncooperative channel is 2 weeks. It would be stupid of the developers not to put this feature, making it possible for your coins to be locked forever. I would suggest that the person opening the channel should be able to choose how long the minimum time out is as long as it is not less than 24 hours. I believe that would be better.
if the locktime was 2 weeks thats only 2016 offchain payments are allowed if the locktime was 24 hours thats only 144 offchain payments are allowed, ill explain EG imagine we are at block 450,000 right now make a TX with 24 hour locktime = 450,144 make a 'payment' offchain, locktime = 450,143 (to keep newest relevant) make a 'payment' offchain, locktime = 450,142 (to keep newest relevant) make a 'payment' offchain, locktime = 450,142 (to keep newest relevant) issues 1) not unlimited. 2) if you make 140 payments in 30 minutes (current block 450,003 - payment lock now reduced to 450,004)you have to close channel and broadcast newest payment quick before previous tx become able to release funds 3) you and peer go offline/sleep. then its a game of who wakes up first and transmits the best tx in their favour, that has passed the timelock. 4) it is not a trustless system, it is a system based on mutual agreement. atleast talking about the flaws will help develop solutions or users knowing the limitations to make smart choices about how when and why they would use it. rather then pretend its all utopia and every tx should be done on it, always and forever I meant to say is that the lock out time only when there is an uncooperative channel is 2 weeks. Otherwise the channel can remain open as long as the individual at the other end is cooperative. As for item no. 4 in your post, I agree the system is not trustless but it is better than what something like the Ripple network is proposing. Ripple is all depending on trust that a gateway will not go away with your money. For me it is good to explore all possible avenues for scalabilty. Make the hard fork to bigger blocks the last resort because it is risky. |
|
|
|
|
I hope that the whole of cryptocurrencies will not be regulated by the government. What will happen is it will become a playground of Wall Street and the big banks just like how it is in the bond market, stock market and all the other regulated markets. They will impose limits and laws that will impede ordinary people from taking part in it. That will block us from creating opportunities for ourselves and it will make them take and have control. I would prefer to have small scammers run their scams than have the bigger scammers regulating us.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
