do you think Lightning Network will lead BITC pumping?

[Cuidler]

franky1 post is nice explanation why Lightning Network alone is not magic method of scalling Bitcoin to much more people - you need onchain scaling as well because every opening and closing of a Lightning channel must be recorded on the blockchain.

Plus I dont think all of sudden many people going to use lighting or thunder thus no impact on price at all. I could compare it to multisig which is not used much even after available so long - I expect similar thing with lighting or thunder.

[X-ray]

i will let lauda try and do some maths to try to explain the nonsense he believes that LN as of 2017 can handle billions of transactions a day.

i will poke him with some tip-bits to aid him to burst his hallucination and atleast come back to reality:
when LN is released.. bitcoin at that same time period also allows for 7500tx a block ONCHAIN
(based on the 2017 roadmap proposal as oppose to 2500tx potential now).
sidenote. although im saying 2500 per block potential now its actually less (1786 based on 250k daily average tx/144blocks)
this 7500tx ONCHAIN in 2017 is equal to 1,080,000tx a day ONCHAIN.(7500 x 144)

now he has to explain how 1billion LN transactions can aggregate down to 1million A DAY ONCHAIN

here is a hint.
on average people do one transaction a day(not 1000).
on average 1bill people do NOT only pay just one million destinations
on average for the 7billion people of the world, there is not just 7million businesses, landlords, etc in the world

take for instance america: 300mill people and 30million businesses(google it)
(i didnt include the 25million population still wearing diapers, obviously they dont buy anything so dont knitpick that im not saying over 320m)

basically and logically.. 300mill peoples funds end up in 30mill destinations.. when thinking about people spending things, in short 10% aggregation/slimming down at best(buying products)
technically 30million destinations eventually goes back out to 300million people.. usually not the same that paid in (wages to staff, not customers) and not the same hour/day..
they may pay those destinations repeatedly or just one. and the 30m destinations may pay out back to the 300mill..
but basically 300m inputs 30m outputs would exist going bidirectional

now lets get technical
we all know that the settlement ONCHAIN tx needs to be 7500tx a block to get accepted by mining pools

and so the LN would open the channel, handle the transactions until the aggregated settlement transaction totaled a 7500tx, then close the channel to settle it. where the users would then need to re-lock their funds all over again in a separate block afterwards.

meaning AT VERY BEST if all americans paid in a predictable manner.. the LN could handle 75,000tx(un-aggregated) per 10 minutes. or 10.8million transactions (un-aggregated) within LN a day
(i say 'if predictable' because not everyone pays the same destinations at the same time normally/naturally)
this is far far far no where near the 300million transactions a day done in america

now here is the interesting part.. i know lauda will harp on that once the 30mill businesses are paid. the employees can move their wages within LN
 to pay bills and buy food.. meaning that more then 75,000tx can be aggregated down to the 7500tx ONCHAIN limit per settlement...

but he will forget one fundamental thing.. the channel doesnt stay open for a month by default.. it closes when the aggregated transaction limit hits the amount that would be acceptable as a ONCHAIN block transaction.

back to using the american public scenario:
with there being 300million transactions a day for america. aggregated to 30million, which means that it would take 30 days to settle 1 days LN transactions because ONCHAIN blocks can only fit 1million transactions a day. and although 300mill tx is aggregated to 30mill.. its still not enough

as i mentioned but wording it differently.. if a LN channel settled every 10 minutes it can only handle 1million aggregated transactions a day or 10.8mill LN(un-agregatated) a day and i dont think someone can get their wage, buy groceries, pay landlord etc all in the same 10 minutes that the customer paid the retailer/workplace.. so improvements on the aggregation due to assumptions that bi-directional transactions will occur are minimal.

in short:
at very best based on how people in america spend money. bitcoins LN can only handle 10mill transactions a day thanks to LN
as oppose to 1million in 2017 onchain without LN or 360,000 potential onchain now.

but knowing the channel closing occurs rapidly to achieve 10million tx and not everyone is paying the same destinations at the same time. its easy to expect actual real life usage scaling to be far far less then 10 fold aggregation.
my estimates based on people only paying a landlord once a month, groceries once a week, car fuel a few times a week, snack once a day..
best projections of real usage would be LN doing 2-5million transactions a day as a more realistic number.(but still inflated)

there is no point throwing magic numbers into the air if the reality bottlenecks trying to achieve it.

LN will not be used as a massive upscaling for every day usage of general population.. it will however reduce "spam" transactions of faucets and satoshiDice style games.

rant over

my on topic opinion
LN wont suddenly make bitcoins couple million userbase able to explode to billions of users over night. i would say it would just double it or slightly more.
LN along with long term proper onchain block scaling will SLOWLY increase capacity. but dont expect billions of users or even hundreds of millions of users happily using bitcoin in the next decade

Sure, but LN  will give a real rapid progress for bitcoin. Maybe it's will start from small expect and is not until billion of users or even hundreds of million users.
All of the bigger is start from small we don't assume if LN will give increases of many bitcoin users, I think LN is the solution to solve Bitcoin problem on block confirmation etc. Make more comfortable to bitcoin users and upgrading the bitcoin system.

[Lauda]

franky1 post is nice explanation why Lightning Network alone is not magic method of scalling Bitcoin to much more people

No it is not. He's been told that he's wrong by practically anyone, ranging from DannyHamilton to G.Maxwell and yet he persists with posting his own nonsense, assumptions/conclusions of what other people think and "math".

- you need onchain scaling as well because every opening and closing of a Lightning channel must be recorded on the blockchain.

You should not be opening and closing channels constantly, that's the idea of being 'efficient' and the theoretically infinite limit of transactions per second.

Plus I dont think all of sudden many people going to use lighting or thunder thus no impact on price at all.

Then these people should not complain about any 'capacity' problems.

I could compare it to multisig which is not used much even after available so long - I expect similar thing with lighting or thunder.

No. It is not comparable to multisig.

[franky1]

You should not be opening and closing channels constantly, that's the idea of being 'efficient' and the theoretically infinite limit of transactions per second.

once the aggregated transactions reach a certain amount the channel needs to close!
part of the whole point of closing the channel is to settle the transactions.

if there are lets say 20,000 aggregated transactions(200k LN swaps) in a hub(channel intermediaries mempool).. it cant settle because bitcoin ONCHAIN only support ~2500tx/block now or 7500tx/block next year.. so the channel has to close when the aggregated transactions reach that limit equivalent to 2500tx now or 7500tx next year

its also worth noting:
while each hub can only settle equivalent of a 7500 aggregated transaction.. and while people will need to relock in their funds again.. there can only be 3 hubs settling every hour.. 3 for settling, 3 for locking in.

yes there may be some hubs that only handle 10,000tx a day(1,000 aggregate.. maybe) so those hubs only settle once a week when they reach the block limit quota for aggregated transactions... but the more popular hubs will be settling and relaunching much sooner.. BUT limited to about 3 times an hour.
afterall lauda is assuming "billions of transactions a day" meaning popular hubs.. rather than hubs that only settle once a week due to lack of use.

and its because of the ONCHAIN limitations.. that also limit LNs capacity

in short LN its not infinite.. please get out of your unicorn dream..
i would much prefer people to say the logical truth of 2.5x-10x capacity increase based on real usage(which is still a great improvement alone)... rather then stupidly say LN allows billions-infinite transactions.

i would much prefer people to say the logical truth of LN being great for services that are like SatoshiDice.. but not great for people paying their landlord once a month.. rather then saying its the infinite transaction network for everyone to buy unicorns on without delay..

its really becoming ridiculous how lauda has not even read a single line of code, yet wants to over promise something that he doesnt even know first hand.