Does a LN hub need to get and send transactions? Does he need to save them to keep record?
Yes. But every node on the bitcoin network does not. That's how we make bitcoin scale beyond the limitations of broadcast networks.
That's a wordplay. It increases throughput. That's all.
Okay, so as usual, the "solution" is to ignore the question of scalability entirely. Great solution.
Did you read what I wrote?
Yes. There were no statistics to support anything you said. Greg Maxwell's testing provided the numbers to refute you.
What do you think should happen? Growth will simply fade out.
Why? And why can't you produce any evidence that growth is fading out, or will? You keep saying baseless things like:
when bitcoin lost everything
Investments in Bitcoin companies have faded out and moved to ethereum
the price (and the usage) could be way higher / wider
There are strong indications that the current situation already cuts growth
core's roadmap will limit growth for a long time
...but you have no metrics to suggest that these statements have a modicum of truth to them. All you can do is point to an ETH chart during a hype/bubble cycle and cry about how you're not getting rich off bitcoin this second.
It's just that bitcoin is currently on the way to disqualify itself as a serious currency.
More meaningless FUD. On the contrary -- the immutability of bitcoin's consensus is precisely what makes it a serious currency.
SegWit does change nothing of throughput efficiency.
It optimizes transaction architecture such that we can achieve increased throughput without pressuring nodes off the network. If you can't understand the value of that trade-off, there is no point to this discussion.
And fact is that SW decreases our capacity to scale with this variable while, at the moment, adding nothing to throughput effiicency.
It doesn't. See my earlier post explaining the math. You continue to focus on increasing the block size when the question is how to increase throughput without degrading the network.
Since it is not possible to meassure the absenc of growth, your accusation is not adequate. There are strong indications that the current situation already cuts growth and that the plan of core's roadmap will limit growth for a long time.
Sorry, that's not how logic works. You make the claim that growth is being stifled. The burden is on you to support that claim. The impossibility of definitive proof is not sufficient to make baseless claims and act like they are true.
You are essentially saying that a small number of transactions with high fees that are the basis for offchain fee-payed transactions are a good basis to secure miner's income? Right?
I'm saying that a fee market guarantees income for miners absent block subsidy. In your scenario, where capacity remains ahead of demand (cheap and free transactions), there is no such guarantee. There is no guarantee of mass adoption and perpetual growth. So the absence of a fee market greatly threatens network security since there may be little to no incentive for miners to secure the blockchain once block subsidy ends.
And the plan is that every user will 1.) buy bitcoin 2.) send this bitcoin with a big fee (~10$) to a lightning hub and 3) pay for ln-transactions? Correct me, if I'm wrong.
I've explained how LN transactions are theoretically far cheaper than on-chain transactions, since they do not require that every node on the network validate and relay them. Any proof for this assertion that one can expect "big" fees?
You just keep repeating the same tired arguments, which fall flat on their face upon first examination. I can't keep taking the time to respond if you make no effort to move the discussion forward. If you make claims, back them up before presenting them as truths.
