Time to stand up to the XT shills here!

[spartacusrex]

2) If I have acquired £10, 'lightning-around' (let's say I have just  won a penny poker tournament with 1000 players in our closed room), how will I collect that when the fee for a single TXN on the main chain is more than £10 ?
-snip-

Exactly why would there be fees so high if there was not a huge backlog on the main chain?

..

The amount we pay the miners, is directly proportional to the security of the network..

If the txn count is LOW then the fees must be HIGH. Unless we want an insecure network.

[bambou]

Altruism aside, why would anyone choose-to-use the main-chain, if the lightning network is just as secure and decentralised, and '..cheaper and faster..' ?

So if you understand that Lightning actually depends upon the main chain why would you ask this question?

Your question implies that no transaction is done on the main chain at all - and of course that is not how it works.

Please read this: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-summary.pdf

(the point being that there are other ways to scale the Bitcoin infrastructure that don't just involve creating bigger blocks)

It will certainly help with scaling in the short term, but over longer periods, the real question becomes what percentage of transaction fees are skimmed off the top and don't end up going to the miners securing the main chain?  It could potentially hit miners hard later down the line if we don't strike the balance right.  Too much traffic on the main chain is bad, but too much off-chain could be equally precarious.

I don't see how that is a problem.

There are basically two type of demand for transactions: cheap & instant and irreversible settlements.

In the long run entities looking for secure settlements of large transactions will necessarily settle directly on the blockchain and it's likely the market fee for these transactions will cover miners' cost.

I respect your optimism, but I'm not quite ready for all of us to bet the farm on "likely".  We need to tread carefully on this.  What's the plan if miner fees start to drop?  Politely ask providers of the off-chain services to stop taking a cut?  Somehow I don't see that working.  The first major off-chain solution launched is Liquid, which is designed precisely for large scale settlements.  Have we not got this a little backwards if "settlements of large transactions will necessarily settle directly on the blockchain"?

Talking about likeliness, how likely it is that some out of a hat bigger blocks size fit some out of a hat technology growth for some out of a hat mass adoption?

I concur, I am all for carefulness...

[brg444]

Altruism aside, why would anyone choose-to-use the main-chain, if the lightning network is just as secure and decentralised, and '..cheaper and faster..' ?

So if you understand that Lightning actually depends upon the main chain why would you ask this question?

Your question implies that no transaction is done on the main chain at all - and of course that is not how it works.

Please read this: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-summary.pdf

(the point being that there are other ways to scale the Bitcoin infrastructure that don't just involve creating bigger blocks)

It will certainly help with scaling in the short term, but over longer periods, the real question becomes what percentage of transaction fees are skimmed off the top and don't end up going to the miners securing the main chain?  It could potentially hit miners hard later down the line if we don't strike the balance right.  Too much traffic on the main chain is bad, but too much off-chain could be equally precarious.

I don't see how that is a problem.

There are basically two type of demand for transactions: cheap & instant and irreversible settlements.

In the long run entities looking for secure settlements of large transactions will necessarily settle directly on the blockchain and it's likely the market fee for these transactions will cover miners' cost.

I respect your optimism, but I'm not quite ready for all of us to bet the farm on "likely".  We need to tread carefully on this.  What's the plan if miner fees start to drop?  Politely ask providers of the off-chain services to stop taking a cut?  Somehow I don't see that working.  The first major off-chain solution launched is Liquid, which is designed precisely for large scale settlements.  Have we not got this a little backwards if "settlements of large transactions will necessarily settle directly on the blockchain"?

That's not what Liquid is for. It's basically a liquidity pool for market makers & exchanges.

Settlement on the Bitcoin blockchain offers unparalleled security so basically you are arguing that there is not going to be enough demand for this. I consider this pretty unlikely.

[RoadTrain]

..essentially it works like this – If all bitcoin transactions are being discussed in an open forum, its public ledger, the lightning network allows parties to enter into a closed room for a period of time, conduct transactions during that period, and at the end of the agreed time, broadcast these transactions to the network.

If it is the case, that you always have to revert (send out the final BTC totals) to the main-chain, to 'collect', after a lightning session, won't people with small amounts get stuck off chain, as the fees to re-join the main-chain will be destructively expensive?

A lightning channel is essentially 2 transactions: funding transaction and a settlement transactions. Both of these are agreed upon by participants, fees including.

[Lauda]

The amount we pay the miners, is directly proportional to the security of the network..

If the txn count is LOW then the fees must be HIGH. Unless we want an insecure network.

Says who? IIRC the fees were high so far only at peak time of traffic or during the spam attacks. When did a lower number of transactions cause higher transaction fees? It isn't all simple as this, but I'm disregarding that for now.

[spartacusrex]

The amount we pay the miners, is directly proportional to the security of the network..

If the txn count is LOW then the fees must be HIGH. Unless we want an insecure network.

Says who? IIRC the fees were high so far only at peak time of traffic or during the spam attacks. When did a lower number of transactions cause higher transaction fees? It isn't all simple as this, but I'm disregarding that for now.

Well, if the fees are low and the TXN count is low, I don't see how the miners are going to secure the network (excluding minting) ?

Currently, the newly minted bitcoins are paying for this, but in future, when there are almost no new bitcoins to mint, the miners will need to rely more on the fees to get paid.

Do you disagree ?

[Lauda]

Well, if the fees are low and the TXN count is low, I don't see how the miners are going to secure the network (excluding minting) ?

Currently, the newly minted bitcoins are paying for this, but in future, when there are almost no new bitcoins to mint, the miners will need to rely more on the fees to get paid.

Do you disagree ?

I partially agree. If the price does go up enough, there will be less fee dependence (it is also possible that the opposite happens). We can not know what is going to happen and thus what we are doing here is speculating. People need to stop looking too far ahead. Even predictions of what is going to happen in the next two years have a very high probability of being wrong. I'm not sure if this is really relevant to the XT shills nor the discussion of LN.

hehe, hitting a nerve here, them forkers got NOTHING. only the pitiful yapping.

You forgot, they have Peter that writes papers about fairy tales.

Update: Slight corrections.

[Zarathustra]

XT is not a problem. The saviors are near.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3s3u8x/our_blockstream_saviours_and_xt_infidels/

[CIYAM]

XT is not a problem. The saviors are near.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3s3u8x/our_blockstream_saviours_and_xt_infidels/

This kind of "if you are not with us you are against us" attitude is exactly why so many of us are sick and tired of Mike Hearn (who has stated he won't attend the block size meetup in December because it would be "a waste of his time").

What is needed is a well thought out and well supported (by miners, developers, businesses and users) way forward rather than a hostile takeover attempt involving misinformation and alarmist claims.

I was actually rather amazed that Gavin had got himself so involved with this although it appears that more recently he is less so.

[hdbuck]

Well, if the fees are low and the TXN count is low, I don't see how the miners are going to secure the network (excluding minting) ?

Currently, the newly minted bitcoins are paying for this, but in future, when there are almost no new bitcoins to mint, the miners will need to rely more on the fees to get paid.

Do you disagree ?

I partially agree. If the price does go up enough, there will be less fee dependence. We can not know what is going to happen and thus this is all speculations. People need to stop looking too far ahead. Even predictions of what is going to happen in the next two years have a very high probability of being wrong. I'm not sure if this is really relevant to the XT shills nor the discussion of LN.

hehe, hitting a nerve here, them forkers got NOTHING. only the pitiful yapping.

You forgot, they have Peter that writes papers about fairy tales.

meh, that charlatan.


besides, i fully concur that a fee market must emerge for the miners to keep on securing the system: 450k PH is a helluva network and it needs its income to be sustainable.

so it is very, i mean very dumb to raise the block size limit
1/ before it is actually allowing a free fee market to emerge whilst being effective (ie. full blocks)
2/ before the halving which will reduce the miners income obviously

these are facts, not some random numbers throwing out of a likeliness hat.


Finally, I'd like to underline that I stand behind the majority of the technical experts (core devs, crypto popes a la Szabo, etc..) and historical bitcoiners here (marcus, tvbcof, theymos and lots more) for the sake of bitcoin and financial freedom only.

Bitcoin is not a corporation, nor a social media.
  
I do not give a heck about USG reddit wannabes and trolls.
May them fork into oblivion if that is what they really want, sure its a free world, but bitcoin is certainly not going to adapt to them whatnots, incapable of coding and lacking basic understanding in cryptography, economy and finance..


edit: and this zarahustra shill is a tiny wheeny piece of lying fucking shit.

[Zarathustra]

edit: and this zarahustra shill is a tiny wheeny piece of lying fucking shit.

Great to know the ad-hominem 'Bitcoiners' on the small blockers side. If you have such friends and cheerleaders you don't need enemies anymore.

[brg444]

edit: and this zarahustra shill is a tiny wheeny piece of lying fucking shit.

Great to know the ad-hominem 'Bitcoiners' on the core side. If you have such friends and cheerleaders you don't need enemies anymore.

XT is not a problem. The saviors are near.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3s3u8x/our_blockstream_saviours_and_xt_infidels/

Hypocrite much?

No one cares for your delusions. Seriously, fork off.

[Zarathustra]

edit: and this zarahustra shill is a tiny wheeny piece of lying fucking shit.

Great to know the ad-hominem 'Bitcoiners' on the core side. If you have such friends and cheerleaders you don't need enemies anymore.

XT is not a problem. The saviors are near.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3s3u8x/our_blockstream_saviours_and_xt_infidels/

Hypocrite much?

Unfortunately it's true that the blockstream cheerleaders here applauded DDoS attacks against XT Nodes.

[hdbuck]

edit: and this zarahustra shill is a tiny wheeny piece of lying fucking shit.

Great to know the ad-hominem 'Bitcoiners' on the small blockers side. If you have such friends and cheerleaders you don't need enemies anymore.

yea thats free fees ad homs, way better than some frappucinos!!

[spartacusrex]

Stay on target.. we've almost got a serious discussion going on here..

Well, if the fees are low and the TXN count is low, I don't see how the miners are going to secure the network (excluding minting) ?

Currently, the newly minted bitcoins are paying for this, but in future, when there are almost no new bitcoins to mint, the miners will need to rely more on the fees to get paid.

Do you disagree ?

I partially agree. If the price does go up enough, there will be less fee dependence. We can not know what is going to happen and thus this is all speculations. People need to stop looking too far ahead. Even predictions of what is going to happen in the next two years have a very high probability of being wrong. I'm not sure if this is really relevant to the XT shills nor the discussion of LN.

I think it is relevant to the LN network, as LN will directly affect the number of on-chain txns, and therefore the total fees paid to miners.

I think it is relevant to the XT Shills 'lynching', as in reality XT has become the focal point for the 'Bigger Blocks Brigade', that's all, which again directly affect the number of on-chain txns, and therefore the total fees paid to miners.

..

hehe, hitting a nerve here, them forkers got NOTHING. only the pitiful yapping.

I'm only hearing 'pitiful yapping' from certain people, hdbuck. 

..

XT is not a problem. The saviors are near.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3s3u8x/our_blockstream_saviours_and_xt_infidels/

haha.. that's funny..

..

..This kind of "if you are not with us you are against us" attitude is exactly why so many of us are sick and tired of Mike Hearn..

err.. Bit rich Ciyam, since you started this 'with us against us' thread !?

..

edit: and this zarahustra shill is a tiny wheeny piece of lying fucking shit.

When you get angry with a child, you lose.

When you get aggressive / profane / abusive in a discussion, you lose.

(I'll let you off the hook if you admit you're an angry child. Then, I'll admit, it's more complicated.. )

[brg444]

edit: and this zarahustra shill is a tiny wheeny piece of lying fucking shit.

Great to know the ad-hominem 'Bitcoiners' on the core side. If you have such friends and cheerleaders you don't need enemies anymore.

XT is not a problem. The saviors are near.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3s3u8x/our_blockstream_saviours_and_xt_infidels/

Hypocrite much?

Unfortunately it's true that the blockstream cheerleaders here applauded DDoS attacks against XT Nodes.

XT is an attack on Bitcoin. Don't be so surprised if there are collateral damage within the minority XT faction.

[Zarathustra]

edit: and this zarahustra shill is a tiny wheeny piece of lying fucking shit.

Great to know the ad-hominem 'Bitcoiners' on the small blockers side. If you have such friends and cheerleaders you don't need enemies anymore.

yea thats free fees ad homs, way better than some frappucinos!!

2 years ago when you've been 16 years old, you were such a friendly little boy, writing so many funny things and looking forward to Chrstimas:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=250249.msg3497611#msg3497611

Since you are 18, it's the opposite! Not good, headbuck!

[hdbuck]

afaik the only people loosing are the Xt boysband so far.

[CIYAM]

err.. Bit rich Ciyam, since you started this 'with us against us' thread !?

Funny - as I'm not on any side (am just against the XT shilling and Mike Hearn's approach).

It is the XT supporters that are demanding people to "take sides" (and attacking anyone that isn't on theirs but it would be better if the ad-homs were not being used by anyone).

I'm not too fussed if the block size is increased somewhat (although I do think that BIP101 is too much and aiming to predict too far into the future).

If it wasn't for Mike Hearn and his agenda to be the CEO of Bitcoin then perhaps I'd even accept BIP101 (assuming it had widespread support - which it doesn't and that isn't just because of Hearn - it is because it is not a good solution).

[Zarathustra]

edit: and this zarahustra shill is a tiny wheeny piece of lying fucking shit.

Great to know the ad-hominem 'Bitcoiners' on the core side. If you have such friends and cheerleaders you don't need enemies anymore.

XT is not a problem. The saviors are near.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3s3u8x/our_blockstream_saviours_and_xt_infidels/

Hypocrite much?

Unfortunately it's true that the blockstream cheerleaders here applauded DDoS attacks against XT Nodes.

XT is an attack on Bitcoin. Don't be so surprised if there are collateral damage within the minority XT faction.

Blockstream is an attack on Bitcoin development; a take over. That's the reason why development is forking and decentralizing.
The mod behavior is also an attack on Bitcoin. That's the reason why the forums are forking and decentralizing:

https://www.reddit.com/r/trendingsubreddits/comments/3s0i89/trending_subreddits_for_20151108_rbtc/

Sometimes, bad behavior determines good results.