|
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.
|
|
|
|
So TKeenan what solution do you propose? Do we want to boycott both Lining Network and SegWit because these solution are not exactly a pure breed of bitcoin?
Do we have real options to enrich BTC without these upgrades? At some point bitcoin needs to be upgraded...
Simple. Make 4MB blocks tomorrow. Still Bitcoin. Always Bitcoin. 4MB will let the network expand for another 3 years maybe. During those 3 years, we should work on some nice alternatives to scaling. But for now, 4MB is a very conservative little adjustment. Only a few lines of code to remove a limit that was put in long after the genesis block anyway. This is my opinion on the scaling debate. There are certain individuals or group of individuals that have their own agendas and their own self interests threatened by how slow the Bitcoin economy is growing. Those people have invested in Bitcoin companies and only to see them become stagnant. So they blame that the Bitcoin economy is not growing fast enough because it cannot scale, so there is the need for larger blocks and that the immediate effect to this is an expanding Bitcoin economy. But is it really that simple? Maybe those individuals are right but maybe they are also wrong. Why? A hard fork comes with great risk. Ethereum is a very good example of this. I also believe that up to a certain point, the people who want bigger blocks want control over the development of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
by the second party not signing. you cant have them back. because it requires dual signing.
by this i agree the second party cannot simply "take it from you" without your signature, but you cant take it without theirs
IIRC there is a timeout period after one party initiates the closing of a payment channel. Please take this with a grain of salt, as I'm unsure and this would be a *stupid flaw* to enable the possibility of indefinite state of irresoluteness. I'll do some research on this once I find more time. 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. |
|
|
|
.....
the funny thing is, if revealing the honest truth hurts. then there is something those hurt by the truth want to hide.
if you feel the technology is sound then be honest and show what it can and cannot do. rather then circle jerk the utupian dream of perfection purely to give some rep' points to the business conceiving it.
i personally do see the positives of where LN can be useful. but i also see the flaws.
there is no point "selling" the usefulness before its even usable, but highlighting the flaws can help fix the issues to make it useful.
Speaking of flaws there could be another potential shortcoming in the system. Since the Lightning Network requires the locking of Bitcoins to open payment channels and then unlocking or "withdraw" them when you a channel, would this not send a heavier load on the blockchain and it might even cause a bottle neck? For example LN reaches a half of Visa's transaction and then for some reason a panic selling in the markets start and thousands of payment channels close at the same time to unlock people's Bitcoins. In that scenario, what kind of strain will it bring to the whole Bitcoin network? Will it clog it and make it unusable for an "X" amount of time? |
|
|
|
|
The more and more I understand the Lightning Network the more I can see its similarities with the Ripple Network. Also it is better because it might have all the functionalities and none of that XRP tokens that are mostly held by the founders and the company behind it. The system on how to send value in the network is also better in the Lightning Network. Ripple uses financial institutions as gateways to transfer value to the network while LN uses its payment channel system.
|
|
|
|
This was the second largest hack after Mt.Gox! Hell, there hasn't been any news on how the "hackers" got in. For all we know the same scenario could repeat itself. The prospects for Bitfinex are quite bleak at this point. I loved trading on there for many years!
That should worry everyone because Bitfinex could be either hiding their negligence which they could pay large fines if proven guilty under tort law. Or it is really an inside job with or without the exchange's founders/owners knowledge. That is a bigger scandal if proven true and it would force Bitfinex to close down the exchange. The safer option was to let all the talk and rumors die down and try to save the exchange and pay their customers. If I was using that exchange I would prefer to stay quiet and get paid. Then leave and never come back. |
|
|
|
|
Interesting arguments from both sides, Carlton versus Franky and the OP, about LN's "currency" being an altcoin or not. For me technically it could be but it is not. But then again it could really be. What some see as bad, I see opportunity here. I view the Lightning Network as something like a pseudo bank account in which it can be made and used as a bridge between blockchains. Like a decentralized exchange.
Thank you OP for pointing out that LN could be really an "altcoin" because it just opened the possibilities of what it really is. I am very excited on how this all works in practice.
|
|
|
|
I would like to know if anyone of you earns 0.1 BTC per week or even more? Is this possible and what is best way to earn it? Your experiences, suggestions and advices are very welcomed.
Simple. Get a real job or two jobs and then buy Bitcoins with your salary. It is never easy making a living in the real world. You have to work hard if you want to make it in life. Or you could offer your services online for Bitcoin payment. It will take time to get some clients but if you try hard enough they will come eventually. What are the skills are you proficient at? |
|
|
|
....
This could manifest itself in a much more complicated way than simply VISA, PayPal or UnionPay. Depending on the state of the Bitcoin ledger at any point in time, no Hub could consistently always be the cheapest option. The Hub would have to be routing every single other payment in the ledger in order to be able to offer the most efficient routing and in turn the cheapest price.... unless they were the only Hub.... where they would lose incentive to be cheapest anyway... it's a free-market paradox, essentially.
I have another concern about the Lightning Network. In the beginning there might only be a small portion of of Bitcoin users that will start using it. Will this not cause a problem in the fungibility of BTC? There might be a scenario where the price of Bitcoins outside LN will be higher than the coins "trapped" or "hindered" in LN. So it might create another market for LN Bitcoins versus "real" Bitcoins. What do you think? |
|
|
|
|
Tipping uber drivers would be really good in helping Bitcoin achieve the most coveted "circular economy". To make people spend Bitcoin, a person must earn it by providing a service, as his or her salary and earn them by selling goods. Bitcoin's adoption problems are not in the spending part, it is in the earning part. How can a massive amount of people earn Bitcoins when Bitcoin paying jobs are almost non existent?
OP's idea is a good one and I like it but I'm sure other people will have other ideas too. So please post them here and let is talk about it.
|
|
|
|
...then a monopoly Hub simply couldn't take control, because Hubs are in free market competition. Banks are not in free-market competition. Your point is invalid.
You do not know that. Individuals can group together to serve their own agenda and self interests. Just like in Bitcoin's cartelization of mining, a cartelization of payment hubs is possible. Reality knows it. If the barrier to enter the market is identically low for everyone, a monopoly is literally impossible. Mining isn't like that post-ASIC, but the only hardware needed to run a Lightning hub is going to be general purpose. Ok maybe the comparison with Bitcoin mining is a mistake. But I know you get what I am trying to say. It will not stop certain individuals or a group of individuals to form a large payment hub in the Lightning Network. It will be more efficient and channels more reliable because they could have the advantage to take in more people to open more payment channels with them. If you think deeply about it then maybe the network would perform better if there are only a few but large payment hubs. It will make the routing of payments easier and more efficient. |
|
|
|
|
I believe it is. But you will not earn as much as you would compared to bigger markets like stocks and commodities. There is more money moving around and changing hands over there than in cryptocurrencies. Maybe that is why there are not many professional traders doing much cryptocurrency trades yet.
There is also the questionable nature of the legality of the whole thing. A lot of people will not touch cryptocurrencies because they are fearful that they might get into legal issues.
|
|
|
|
|
When the mainstream companies start getting involved with blockchain technology you would almost know that most of what they will come out with will be snake oil and based on hype. We already have started seeing blockchain "experts" claiming that the blockchain will revolutionize everything then proceed to sell you whatever wares they are selling. Imagine if the banks get in on this.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin Unlimited .... wtf, is that still going? I thought those clowns got the message that everyone wants to follow Bitcoin Core. There has to be someone pissing against the wind.  ... Almost everyone seem to think SegWit and LN is the answer to the scaling problems, and then you get a bunch of people, who always wants to swim against the current.  ...What are they going to mine? It is in their right to support the version of Bitcoin they want. Roger Ver and his allies are not really giving up with their campaign for larger blocks yet so everyone should expect for this to go on. I personally support the Bitcoin core developers and off chain transactions like the Lightning Network system but let us also accept that such solutions will also have its own set of problems to overcome. |
|
|
|
So, do you "understand" the LN system, or are you just speculating? It can't be both, can it? Let us all know which it is before you carry on.
I said I understand it like the way franky1 does. So I speculate that what will happen could be the same, only to some extent, of how the banking system was started in Italy by the Medici clan. I was only trying to say that history is repeating itself. And which participant in the Bitcoin network holds the majority of the free capital in Bitcoin? Don't tell me you think it's the banks? Again you misunderstand the point I am trying to convey. I was using the bank example just to make a point. This is Bitcoin, it is a different scenario. But that does not mean that certain individuals or group of individuals will not pool their resources together to create a large payment hub or a group of large payment hubs interconnecting with each other. It's obvious that having just one Lightning Hub would maximise processing efficiency. Guess what that would do to the fees the Hub charges? When you bear in mind that: - Users will always choose the cheapest routing option
- The barrier to entry for competing Hubs couldn't be any lower
I do not deny that. I have to mention again that I was merely speculating on what could happen. I mean no harm. If you must know, I am for core, for smaller blocks and support off chain transactions.
...then a monopoly Hub simply couldn't take control, because Hubs are in free market competition. Banks are not in free-market competition. Your point is invalid.
You do not know that. Individuals can group together to serve their own agenda and self interests. Just like in Bitcoin's cartelization of mining, a cartelization of payment hubs is possible. |
|
|
|
When you are saying "free" bitcoins, you are really referring whether that hub operator has a
large (100s of btc) or a little (1 btc) amount of bitcoins locked in that specific hub for the escrow handoffs.
What you are saying about "larger hubs" is true in theory, but it is important to remember that systems like LN
are not meant for individual txs over a value of 50 to 100 USD or so, those should still remain on bitcoin blockchain.
LN allows for rapid and numerous micro txs that will allow Bitcoin to scale for small daily purchases, while still allowing
the underlying blockchain system to remain resistant to numerous pitfalls, attacks, regulations, and legal or governmental
enemies. In theory, the majority of LN channels should be opened and immediately closed since most tx will involve simple
purchases that don't need complex arbitration, such as a coffee, petrol, simple food shopping, and etc.
Also, if you have a LN hub (or multiple ones) and you are locking 100s of btc within it, that is potentially very
risky and it would be wiser to have many hubs with low amounts of btc locked within. Large hubs with large amount of btc,
which may have become "centralized" over time are a major point of failure. They will be prone to attack either for their btc or
outright ddosed to hurt that "large centralized" operator. IMO LN hubs or other types of "second layer bitcoin transaction system"
should be small to spread the risk over the whole LN network. Just like Bitcoin node operators.
That is the ideal way to use it, yes. But then again comes the efficiency argument. It would be more efficient to have fewer but larger hubs that have more open channels to make the routing of transactions fewer and easier for sending coins from point A to point B. We as humans would tend to go for the more efficient and I believe people will set up large payment hubs for efficiency's sake and for sure even have a model for profit behind it. It is like being a bank in the Bitcoin network.
If in the future banks become the major and largest LN hub operators, they will need to own large amounts of bitcoin.
Possibly even more than they can afford to purchase and attempt to make a profit from. It would be more reasonable if
everyone who has 10 btc or less to start up a hub, lock 2 btc into it and make a small fee here and there like an interest account.
I just mentioned that as an example of what kind of institution in the real world would make a good payment hub. I did not mean that they will actually become payment hubs. I am just making a point.
When the LN hubs system is done and working properly and as "envisioned", bank "capital" will not be needed, just any bitcoin holder.
It is exactly what I have in mind. It will be like there will be a rebirth of the Medici clan in the Bitcoin network. What I am saying is all speculatory, please take it lightly. |
|
|
|
so somebody is offering me bitcoins ridiculously cheap. and he's probably trying to scam me. but it's too good of an offer, i have to see what's up.
how many confirmations is safe? (i'm buying 40btc)
i'm gonna meet him in a bank to be safe. and not gonna hand him any cash until i get the btc.
anything i should be concerned with?
Using escrow will be better than dueling just with the seller and make your amount are more safe and i think that is the best answer for you in this time. Escrow for an in person Bitcoin trade? There would be no need for that. As already mentioned in the thread just bring someone or two friends with you and go meet him in the bank. I also would suggest that the one you are trading with to email you his ID and his Facebook page or some other social media account. Always be safe, good luck with the trade. |
|
|
|
|
First. I did not mean free as in free without paying for it. When I said "free" it means the payment hub is liquid so that it can be used by the users who decide to open a channel to that hub.
Second. That is just a speculation on what I think could happen. A small payment hub can only handle a smaller number if open channels because it has smaller "free" Bitcoins, while a larger one can handle more channels and is therefore more efficient because it can route more transactions from point A to point B. So users would then tend to go for larger hubs. So the result of this would be fewer larger hubs in operation.
So in modern society today, what institution has the most liquidity or "free capital". Banks.
|
|
|
|
I think people can earning a living from cryptocurrency options trading, but you need big balance/bankroll to earn much profit. You also earn a living though even you only have small balance, but the profit will be small.
Yes I agree. When I was doing some quick reading about trading I realized that you need to focus on the dollar amount when making a trade. So that would mean that you must have a decently sizable starting balance to make it your "job". Doing so with a small balance would be a waste of your time if you intend to earn a living out of it. It is better to have a real job and trade only as a hobby. |
|
|
|
If it was what WindFURY meant, then the Hub controls your money. Not the case. That's all I was saying.
Not sure how you managed to interpret it your meandering way. Not that interested in the "explanation" tbh
is the case. deposit real bitcoin into a multisig requiring dual signatures. just like a bank. without their permission you cant withdraw. then play around with IOU "millisats" which are not bitcoin. obviously due to the 3 extra decimals, where those funds are then only 'representing' real bitcoins, under the pretence they convert back when settling and rounding down, In my reading and googling about the Lightning Network, I believe franky1 and I have the same understanding of the system. Now this is how it will usually go when payment hubs are set up, it will encourage centralization gravitating towards the larger ones to have more efficiency since they will have more "free BTC" and open channels. In other words the Lightning Network system will tend to have as minimum number of hubs possible with these larger hubs containing larger amounts of free BTC to maintain more channels. In the real world the institution that holds a lot of free capital are the banks. So in a way banks could be the perfect candidate to run payment hubs. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
