Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers)

[Bergmann_Christoph]

So the question is: To make bitcoin a forever prosperous gold rush or a mobile payment system like other similar solutions?

It's not an "this-or-that" thing. It's both.

If bitcoin was no usable payment system, it would have never had any worth. It's name is not bitgold, but bitcoin.

But if bitcoin would not have this aspects you describe, it would be just some kind of decentralized paypal (which is, btw, great). With those aspect it's some kind of decentralized paypal with gold (which is greater).

In this current situation, where it's unclear where Bitcoin is heading, too many people imho want to define what bitcoin is made for. There is no valid answer on this except: Bitcoin is made for what people do and what the network is capable to support. That's it.

Many people in eastern europe e. G. use Bitcoin to order from shops in western europe that don't accept credit cards from some countries in eastern europe. The same with people from africa.

Other people like to gamble in the internet, what is not allowed in their jurisdictation. Next people use Bitcoin to order drugs online. And other just use it to watch pornography without revealing their name.

And now there come some people and say: this usecases are not what bitcoin is made for?

[Quantus]

So the question is: To make bitcoin a forever prosperous gold rush or a mobile payment system like other similar solutions?

It's not an "this-or-that" thing. It's both.

If bitcoin was no usable payment system, it would have never had any worth. It's name is not bitgold, but bitcoin.

But if bitcoin would not have this aspects you describe, it would be just some kind of decentralized paypal (which is, btw, great). With those aspect it's some kind of decentralized paypal with gold (which is greater).

In this current situation, where it's unclear where Bitcoin is heading, too many people imho want to define what bitcoin is made for. There is no valid answer on this except: Bitcoin is made for what people do and what the network is capable to support. That's it.

Many people in eastern europe e. G. use Bitcoin to order from shops in western europe that don't accept credit cards from some countries in eastern europe. The same with people from africa.

Other people like to gamble in the internet, what is not allowed in their jurisdictation. Next people use Bitcoin to order drugs online. And other just use it to watch pornography without revealing their name.

And now there come some people and say: this usecases are not what bitcoin is made for?

I disagree: The question is what is Bitcoin the network capable of. Right now the network we have not the one we want is capable of very little. And we can't grow it or even maintain it with fees at their current level and block rewards dropping every 4 years. The Bitcoin community may grow by leaps and bounds over the next 4 years and its price may jump up to meet the level of investment miners have invested but unless we have a stable fee for miner income and reinvestment the network will fall. Transaction volume is not the issue its fees, block size is an issue about fees first then user accessibility second (transaction count) and currency usability is a distant 3rd.

[bargainbin]

Is "400% per year" price growth likely for a currency costing $100 per transaction?
"Bitcoin 2.0: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic [Useless As] Cash System"?

Why do you want to use the blockchain directly when all you want is zero fee transaction?

Why would I want to buy BTC period? To "store value"? Why not use Beanie Babies for that?

How many BTC are there gonna be total, 21 mil? You know how many First Edition Princess Di Beanies there are? That's right, *fewer*. Moar scarcity.

And while the 21 million could be changed on a whim, with a simple fork, there'll never be another First Edition Princess Di Beanie. By definition.
Princess Di Beanie scarcity is guaranteed by logic, its value could not be diluted according to fundamental and unalterable metaphysical laws.

"But how do you transact in Beanies? That's, like, the dumbest thing I ever heard!!" you protest.
"Why do you want to use the Beaniestalk directly when all you want is zero fee transaction?" I reply. Beanies are not for transacting, use sidesprouts for that. Beanies are for storing massive amounts of wealth.  

[jonald_fyookball]

So the question is: To make bitcoin a forever prosperous gold rush or a mobile payment system like other similar solutions?

It's not an "this-or-that" thing. It's both.

If bitcoin was no usable payment system, it would have never had any worth. It's name is not bitgold, but bitcoin.

But if bitcoin would not have this aspects you describe, it would be just some kind of decentralized paypal (which is, btw, great). With those aspect it's some kind of decentralized paypal with gold (which is greater).

In this current situation, where it's unclear where Bitcoin is heading, too many people imho want to define what bitcoin is made for. There is no valid answer on this except: Bitcoin is made for what people do and what the network is capable to support. That's it.

Many people in eastern europe e. G. use Bitcoin to order from shops in western europe that don't accept credit cards from some countries in eastern europe. The same with people from africa.

Other people like to gamble in the internet, what is not allowed in their jurisdictation. Next people use Bitcoin to order drugs online. And other just use it to watch pornography without revealing their name.

And now there come some people and say: this usecases are not what bitcoin is made for?

I disagree: The question is what is Bitcoin the network capable of. Right now the network we have not the one we want is capable of very little. And we can't grow it or even maintain it with fees at their current level and block rewards dropping every 4 years. The Bitcoin community may grow by leaps and bounds over the next 4 years and its price my jump up to meet the level of investment miners have invested but unless we have a stable fee for miner income and reinvestment the network will fall. Transaction volume is not the issue its fees, block size is an issue about fees first then user accessibility second (transaction count) and currency usability is a distant 3rd.

You're in the minority.  Only 20% as of this moment think Bitcoin should be a store of wealth only rather than a currency also.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1313494.new#new

[Lauda]

You're in the minority.  Only 20% as of this moment think Bitcoin should be a store of wealth only rather than a currency also.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1313494.new#new

Wrong. This is a ignorant statement and you have no data to back it up. You can't draw to conclusions from only 30 votes.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

I disagree: The question is what is Bitcoin the network capable of. Right now the network we have not the one we want is capable of very little. And we can't grow it or even maintain it with fees at their current level and block rewards dropping every 4 years. The Bitcoin community may grow by leaps and bounds over the next 4 years and its price my jump up to meet the level of investment miners have invested but unless we have a stable fee for miner income and reinvestment the network will fall. Transaction volume is not the issue its fees, block size is an issue about fees first then user accessibility second (transaction count) and currency usability is a distant 3rd.

That's exactly what I said: Question is, what people use bitcoin for AND what the network is capable of doing.

Problem is there exist several different oppinions about the second question. You think bitcoin needs higher fees to survive the reward droppings. That's ok, many people think so.

But also many people believe the opposite and think that in the long-run bitcoin can only survive if it processes a lot of transactions with little fees and for that it's growth must not be cutted now by high fees. As long as there is a substantial reward and as long as price rising equals the drop in reward there is no need to let raising fees cut adoption. In some time, when reward becomes insignificant, miners have to feed themselves by fees. This will be ~2025/2030.

Either Bitcoin achieves a status of digital gold that is not usefull for daily transactions, but usefull enough to feed a constand demand for transactions with 5-10 Dollar fee.

Or it will be a combination of digital gold and a daily payment systems that is usefull enough for a constant demand of a mass of transactions with a 0.5-1 cent fee.

Both scenarios can work. You prefer the first, I prefere the second (but would be ok with the first). I think we should avoid to decide things we can't influence. Neiher me or you nor single economic actors nor the core devs are able to decide this. It's only the market.

[johnyj]

Is "400% per year" price growth likely for a currency costing $100 per transaction?
"Bitcoin 2.0: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic [Useless As] Cash System"?

Why do you want to use the blockchain directly when all you want is zero fee transaction?

Why would I want to buy BTC period? To "store value"? Why not use Beanie Babies for that?

How many BTC are there gonna be total, 21 mil? You know how many First Edition Princess Di Beanies there are? That's right, *fewer*. Moar scarcity.

And while the 21 million could be changed on a whim, with a simple fork, there'll never be another First Edition Princess Di Beanie. By definition.
Princess Di Beanie scarcity is guaranteed by logic, its value could not be diluted according to fundamental and unalterable metaphysical laws.

"But how do you transact in Beanies? That's, like, the dumbest thing I ever heard!!" you protest.
"Why do you want to use the Beaniestalk directly when all you want is zero fee transaction?" I reply. Beanies are not for transacting, use sidesprouts for that. Beanies are for storing massive amounts of wealth.  

Sorry I never heard about Beanie Babies until last year, just like almost no one heard about bitcoin during 2009. But now there are so many exchanges out there to provide the bitcoin conversion to fiat currency world wide, if you have an exchange for Beanie Babies, it would also have its market value decided by the users

Scarcity is one of the reason for bitcoin's value, but there are more to it. Being able to produce bitcoin by yourself is a very important aspect, this does not apply to Beanie Babies

[Quantus]

I disagree: The question is what is Bitcoin the network capable of. Right now the network we have not the one we want is capable of very little. And we can't grow it or even maintain it with fees at their current level and block rewards dropping every 4 years. The Bitcoin community may grow by leaps and bounds over the next 4 years and its price my jump up to meet the level of investment miners have invested but unless we have a stable fee for miner income and reinvestment the network will fall. Transaction volume is not the issue its fees, block size is an issue about fees first then user accessibility second (transaction count) and currency usability is a distant 3rd.

That's exactly what I said: Question is, what people use bitcoin for AND what the network is capable of doing.

Problem is there exist several different oppinions about the second question. You think bitcoin needs higher fees to survive the reward droppings. That's ok, many people think so.

But also many people believe the opposite and think that in the long-run bitcoin can only survive if it processes a lot of transactions with little fees and for that it's growth must not be cutted now by high fees. As long as there is a substantial reward and as long as price rising equals the drop in reward there is no need to let raising fees cut adoption. In some time, when reward becomes insignificant, miners have to feed themselves by fees. This will be ~2025/2030.

Either Bitcoin achieves a status of digital gold that is not usefull for daily transactions, but usefull enough to feed a constand demand for transactions with 5-10 Dollar fee.

Or it will be a combination of digital gold and a daily payment systems that is usefull enough for a constant demand of a mass of transactions with a 0.5-1 cent fee.

Both scenarios can work. You prefer the first, I prefere the second (but would be ok with the first). I think we should avoid to decide things we can't influence. Neiher me or you nor single economic actors nor the core devs are able to decide this. It's only the market.

I do not think higher fees would substantially hinder the growth of the community or its network effect as long as those fees stay between 1 and 5 USD, in the distant future when we have a better internet and a better tor network and a better bitcoin network (with stable fees) then by all means go wild.

[fisheater22]

You're in the minority.  Only 20% as of this moment think Bitcoin should be a store of wealth only rather than a currency also.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1313494.new#new

Wrong. This is a ignorant statement and you have no data to back it up. You can't draw to conclusions from only 30 votes.

He clearly states "as of this moment," and cites the data he's relying on by linking to the poll. Better than most, I'd say

[bargainbin]

Is "400% per year" price growth likely for a currency costing $100 per transaction?
"Bitcoin 2.0: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic [Useless As] Cash System"?

Why do you want to use the blockchain directly when all you want is zero fee transaction?

Why would I want to buy BTC period? To "store value"? Why not use Beanie Babies for that?

How many BTC are there gonna be total, 21 mil? You know how many First Edition Princess Di Beanies there are? That's right, *fewer*. Moar scarcity.

And while the 21 million could be changed on a whim, with a simple fork, there'll never be another First Edition Princess Di Beanie. By definition.
Princess Di Beanie scarcity is guaranteed by logic, its value could not be diluted according to fundamental and unalterable metaphysical laws.

"But how do you transact in Beanies? That's, like, the dumbest thing I ever heard!!" you protest.
"Why do you want to use the Beaniestalk directly when all you want is zero fee transaction?" I reply. Beanies are not for transacting, use sidesprouts for that. Beanies are for storing massive amounts of wealth.  

Sorry I never heard about Beanie Babies until last year, just like almost no one heard about bitcoin during 2009. But now there are so many exchanges out there to provide the bitcoin conversion to fiat currency world wide, if you have an exchange for Beanie Babies, it would also have its market value decided by the users

Scarcity is one of the reason for bitcoin's value, but there are more to it. Being able to produce bitcoin by yourself is a very important aspect, this does not apply to Beanie Babies

>you have an exchange for Beanie Babies
When people see Beanie "value rise 400% per year," they'll build exchanges. Same as Bitcoin.

>Being able to produce bitcoin by yourself is a very important aspect
Oh? You mean one can spend $100 to mine $20, that sort of a thing? Because that's roughly what non-factory miners can expect.
If you want, I could create Giant's Place, a Beanie Cloudmining website, where you can pretend that you're mining Beanies while I return $20 out of each $100 you give me.
How would that be different from Bitcoin?

[Quantus]

So the question is: To make bitcoin a forever prosperous gold rush or a mobile payment system like other similar solutions?

It's not an "this-or-that" thing. It's both.

If bitcoin was no usable payment system, it would have never had any worth. It's name is not bitgold, but bitcoin.

But if bitcoin would not have this aspects you describe, it would be just some kind of decentralized paypal (which is, btw, great). With those aspect it's some kind of decentralized paypal with gold (which is greater).

In this current situation, where it's unclear where Bitcoin is heading, too many people imho want to define what bitcoin is made for. There is no valid answer on this except: Bitcoin is made for what people do and what the network is capable to support. That's it.

Many people in eastern europe e. G. use Bitcoin to order from shops in western europe that don't accept credit cards from some countries in eastern europe. The same with people from africa.

Other people like to gamble in the internet, what is not allowed in their jurisdictation. Next people use Bitcoin to order drugs online. And other just use it to watch pornography without revealing their name.

And now there come some people and say: this usecases are not what bitcoin is made for?

I disagree: The question is what is Bitcoin the network capable of. Right now the network we have not the one we want is capable of very little. And we can't grow it or even maintain it with fees at their current level and block rewards dropping every 4 years. The Bitcoin community may grow by leaps and bounds over the next 4 years and its price my jump up to meet the level of investment miners have invested but unless we have a stable fee for miner income and reinvestment the network will fall. Transaction volume is not the issue its fees, block size is an issue about fees first then user accessibility second (transaction count) and currency usability is a distant 3rd.

You're in the minority.  Only 20% as of this moment think Bitcoin should be a store of wealth only rather than a currency also.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1313494.new#new

Ideally yes both but if the poll was changed to "What do you use Bitcoin for?" (A store of wealth or a currency) and have no 3rd option you would see a 'Store of wealth' as the most common use case.

[Lauda]

He clearly states "as of this moment," and cites the data he's relying on by linking to the poll. Better than most, I'd say

With 'as of this moment' he meant that the data is present and not outdated. However, I do agree that it is better than most. Polls on this forum are of near zero value considering the amount of votes and people with alts/shills. A single user could easily manipulate a poll if he or she wanted to.

[johnyj]

So the question is: To make bitcoin a forever prosperous gold rush or a mobile payment system like other similar solutions?

It's not an "this-or-that" thing. It's both.

If bitcoin was no usable payment system, it would have never had any worth. It's name is not bitgold, but bitcoin.

But if bitcoin would not have this aspects you describe, it would be just some kind of decentralized paypal (which is, btw, great). With those aspect it's some kind of decentralized paypal with gold (which is greater).

In this current situation, where it's unclear where Bitcoin is heading, too many people imho want to define what bitcoin is made for. There is no valid answer on this except: Bitcoin is made for what people do and what the network is capable to support. That's it.

Many people in eastern europe e. G. use Bitcoin to order from shops in western europe that don't accept credit cards from some countries in eastern europe. The same with people from africa.

Other people like to gamble in the internet, what is not allowed in their jurisdictation. Next people use Bitcoin to order drugs online. And other just use it to watch pornography without revealing their name.

And now there come some people and say: this usecases are not what bitcoin is made for?

Of course it will be good that bitcoin can satisfy all these use cases at the same time. But when you have a real world resource limitation and have to take some prioritizing, it is better to maintain the core properties of bitcoin and try to move those less important part to 3rd party service providers

For example, most of the payment related requests can be done through a couple of payment service provider, similar to people doing pooled mining. These service providers only provide transaction service at a low fee, but it has clearing channel towards many of the other institutions/merchants. And such service provider will also release average user from the pain of the steep learning curve of bitcoin security. Anyway nowadays less and less people select to run a full node client, using SPV client is basically no difference than using a web wallet

I think the most exciting aspect of bitcoin is that everyone without permission can be a central bank and start to create money, and let others to use their money. However that's not an easy task since this is a highly competitive market. But still if you lose the possibility to get bitcoin through mining, then bitcoin will lose its most fundamental advantage against fiat money

[jonald_fyookball]

So the question is: To make bitcoin a forever prosperous gold rush or a mobile payment system like other similar solutions?

It's not an "this-or-that" thing. It's both.

If bitcoin was no usable payment system, it would have never had any worth. It's name is not bitgold, but bitcoin.

But if bitcoin would not have this aspects you describe, it would be just some kind of decentralized paypal (which is, btw, great). With those aspect it's some kind of decentralized paypal with gold (which is greater).

In this current situation, where it's unclear where Bitcoin is heading, too many people imho want to define what bitcoin is made for. There is no valid answer on this except: Bitcoin is made for what people do and what the network is capable to support. That's it.

Many people in eastern europe e. G. use Bitcoin to order from shops in western europe that don't accept credit cards from some countries in eastern europe. The same with people from africa.

Other people like to gamble in the internet, what is not allowed in their jurisdictation. Next people use Bitcoin to order drugs online. And other just use it to watch pornography without revealing their name.

And now there come some people and say: this usecases are not what bitcoin is made for?

I disagree: The question is what is Bitcoin the network capable of. Right now the network we have not the one we want is capable of very little. And we can't grow it or even maintain it with fees at their current level and block rewards dropping every 4 years. The Bitcoin community may grow by leaps and bounds over the next 4 years and its price my jump up to meet the level of investment miners have invested but unless we have a stable fee for miner income and reinvestment the network will fall. Transaction volume is not the issue its fees, block size is an issue about fees first then user accessibility second (transaction count) and currency usability is a distant 3rd.

You're in the minority.  Only 20% as of this moment think Bitcoin should be a store of wealth only rather than a currency also.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1313494.new#new

Ideally yes both but if the poll was changed to "What do you use Bitcoin for?" (A store of wealth or a currency) and have no 3rd option you would see a 'Store of wealth' as the most common use case.

Perhaps true, however the reason why many people invest is because they see a longer term vision of a highly usable currency.  If you're only investing because you think others will see it as a store of value, then it becomes ponzi-like.

[tl121]

As far as the numbers, there's 8 bits in one byte.  Therefore, a difference of 8 megabits in speed is one megabyte per second.
If block size is 8 MB, that's 8 seconds.  Yet it takes 10 minutes to solve a block so 8/600.

Each node connects to 8 nodes, and each of these 8 nodes connect to another 8 nodes, and so on. But some of these connections are duplicated, so it will take several hop before a block is relayed to majority of the nodes, 4-5 hops maybe. When you have 8 seconds for a block transfer and the block verify time of 8 seconds, the nodes on the far end of the network would receive it in 80 seconds, which is a significant delay

Let's first imagine the ideal bitcoin blockchain done by aliens: It takes 1 second to receive and verify each block, takes 1MB hard drive space, and can carry unlimited amount of transactions in 10 minutes    Then you add those real world limitations on it and see which part you can compromise

An 80 second delay is significant only if you are mining, as it would represent a significant orphan risk.  This is already true with 0.5 MB blocks for slow internet service, such as the slow upload rate on typical DSL connections.  Most miners who don't have excellent internet connectivity do their mining via mining pools that are well connected and need minimal bandwidth for this purpose, independent of the block size.

[Fatman3001]

Perhaps true, however the reason why many people invest is because they see a longer term vision of a highly usable currency.  If you're only investing because you think others will see it as a store of value, then it becomes ponzi-like.

More like a good old pyramid scheme, but yeah.

[Quantus]

So the question is: To make bitcoin a forever prosperous gold rush or a mobile payment system like other similar solutions?

It's not an "this-or-that" thing. It's both.

If bitcoin was no usable payment system, it would have never had any worth. It's name is not bitgold, but bitcoin.

But if bitcoin would not have this aspects you describe, it would be just some kind of decentralized paypal (which is, btw, great). With those aspect it's some kind of decentralized paypal with gold (which is greater).

In this current situation, where it's unclear where Bitcoin is heading, too many people imho want to define what bitcoin is made for. There is no valid answer on this except: Bitcoin is made for what people do and what the network is capable to support. That's it.

Many people in eastern europe e. G. use Bitcoin to order from shops in western europe that don't accept credit cards from some countries in eastern europe. The same with people from africa.

Other people like to gamble in the internet, what is not allowed in their jurisdictation. Next people use Bitcoin to order drugs online. And other just use it to watch pornography without revealing their name.

And now there come some people and say: this usecases are not what bitcoin is made for?

I disagree: The question is what is Bitcoin the network capable of. Right now the network we have not the one we want is capable of very little. And we can't grow it or even maintain it with fees at their current level and block rewards dropping every 4 years. The Bitcoin community may grow by leaps and bounds over the next 4 years and its price my jump up to meet the level of investment miners have invested but unless we have a stable fee for miner income and reinvestment the network will fall. Transaction volume is not the issue its fees, block size is an issue about fees first then user accessibility second (transaction count) and currency usability is a distant 3rd.

You're in the minority.  Only 20% as of this moment think Bitcoin should be a store of wealth only rather than a currency also.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1313494.new#new

Ideally yes both but if the poll was changed to "What do you use Bitcoin for?" (A store of wealth or a currency) and have no 3rd option you would see a 'Store of wealth' as the most common use case.

Perhaps true, however the reason why many people invest is because they see a longer term vision of a highly usable currency.  If you're only investing because you think others will see it as a store of value, then it becomes ponzi-like.

I agree and also believe that in time we will solve these difficult problems, I am optimistic bitcoin will be highly usable and accessible to all someday but that day will never come if the network is overloaded with spam or manipulated by government or private corporations.  

[tl121]

This is what I was referencing (such blocks might occur):

You need at least two known values to be able to extrapolate unknown values.

This guenie slide uses just one value, 1 MB with 30 seconds as the latest time any node process a block today. Then just says lets extrapolate unknown values 3 MB, 8 MB with function O(n^2).

This is bad science, you need at least two known values like 0.5 MB and 1 MB with corresponding propagation time to all nodes in order to create estimation of the function for any unknown values like 3 MB or 8 MB. Obviously the more know values you have (over 2), the more precise function you can create and the more reliable extreme far unknown values like 8 MB becomes.

But the slide is big fail with just one 1 MB known value and presented function which comes not from fit with at least two known values but just from author willd guess, thus the obvious and eye catching absurd 3 MB and 8 MB propagation time predictions.

The example represents a severe performance bug in the bitcoin core software and should be fixed by software changes that make an inefficient operation efficient or restrict very large transactions if this proves too difficult. There is no reason to limit blocksize because of this.

[fisheater22]

He clearly states "as of this moment," and cites the data he's relying on by linking to the poll. Better than most, I'd say

With 'as of this moment' he meant that the data is present and not outdated. However, I do agree that it is better than most. Polls on this forum are of near zero value considering the amount of votes and people with alts/shills. A single user could easily manipulate a poll if he or she wanted to.

If you feel the polls on this forum are worthless, I don't disagree, though hardly a reason to call the poster ignorant or to suggest, albeit implicitly, that he's rigging the poll.
"As of this moment," to me, reads as: "I'm conducting a poll. As of this moment, the poll shows [...]" So ambiguous, sure.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

I do not think higher fees would substantially hinder the growth of the community or its network effect as long as those fees stay between 1 and 5 USD, in the distant future when we have a better internet and a better tor network and a better bitcoin network (with stable fees) then by all means go wild.

I think the most exciting aspect of bitcoin is that everyone without permission can be a central bank and start to create money, and let others to use their money. However that's not an easy task since this is a highly competitive market. But still if you lose the possibility to get bitcoin through mining, then bitcoin will lose its most fundamental advantage against fiat money

Sorry for mixing this up.

Quantus thinks this, Johnyj thinks that, I think something else, and we all have in common that is completely irrelevant what we think.

Yes, allowing everybody to print money without permission WAS one of the most fascinated thing of bitcoin; but I was equal fascinated that Bitcoin is anonymous (pseudonymous), decentral and that you can send splits of a cent in seconds round the world and many more things. There is not that ONE aspect of bitcoin that needs to be preserved on cost of other aspects. There are so many aspects and so many usecases, and instead of saying "Bitcoin is made for this" we should watch with amazement what people are using bitcoin for.

You think higher fees wouldn't hinder bitcoins growth. I could present you a dozen of counter-arguments why fees between 1-5 Dollars would hinder bitcoin's growth immesively and would make bitcoin at this moment useless as a store of value.  But in fact I don't know it and maybe those fee would work.

But I know such fees would cut out some usecases I'd love to see emerge (for example, searchtrade*). So in my view cutting usecases should be more like a last resort than an option.

Edit: *if micropayment will work as private and secure with lightning, I'm completely ok with it.