Bitcoin Core Roadmap visualized

[VeritasSapere]

I do not see any reason why the "Classic Solution" can not work. Just increase the blocksize, increase it again when we need to, the market will find its own natural equilibrium.

Fortunately the solution already exist, we do not need to reinvent Bitcoin, Bitcoin is already the solution. We have multiple alternative implementations who are staying true to the original vision of Satoshi who are prepared to scale Bitcoin directly now. The way it was always intended, we should allow the experiment to continue, I do still believe in its original vision.

[Lauda]

It should work.

Great. But how?

I've revised this statement. There are various ways in which it could work. In general there are going to be more on-chain transactions regardless of off-chain solutions. The users need to open/close their payment channels as well. Additionally the price of Bitcoin could pick up the 'pace' where we need not worry about fees for a considerable amount of time. Increased block size limit does not guarantee an adequate amount of fees in the long-term future either.

The only solutions that comes to my mind (at this moment) are:
- lifting 21 million cap
- switching to different algo (PoS?) but that would affect LN

This would effectively mean the end of Bitcoin as we know it today.

I do not see any reason why the "Classic Solution" can not work. Just increase the blocksize, increase it again when we need to, the market will find its own natural equilibrium.

Because it will never be able to scale that way to accommodate enough users without sacrificing decentralization. Each time you raise this limit by a considerable amount the problem becomes worse. Besides, unlike Classic the developers behind Core are working on infrastructural improvement that should make such 'upgrades' less 'heavy'.

We have multiple alternative implementations who are staying true to the original vision of Satoshi who are prepared to scale Bitcoin directly now. The way it was always intended, we should allow the experiment to continue, I do still believe in its original vision.

Nobody cares what you believe in. Stop appealing to authority, this argument is without merit.

[VeritasSapere]

I do not see any reason why the "Classic Solution" can not work. Just increase the blocksize, increase it again when we need to, the market will find its own natural equilibrium.

Because it will never be able to scale that way to accommodate enough users without sacrificing decentralization. Each time you raise this limit by a considerable amount the problem becomes worse.

That is not necessarily the case as technology improves. We can even just scale Bitcoin directly as technology improves, decide on a lower bound, lets say the average desktop computer in the developed world for instance, even if that was our lower bound we could still justify increasing it to two megabyte once like we are now. It is not my preferred position but I would compromise there, however it seems like you are not even open to that possibility, using the blocksize limit as an arbitrary economic policy tool instead, while using IT and engineering knowledge to justify such a position, using Core as an appeal to authority.

[Lauda]

That is not necessarily the case as technology improves. We can even just scale Bitcoin directly as technology improves, decide on a lower bound, lets say the average desktop computer in the developed world for instance, even if that was our lower bound we could still justify increasing it to two megabyte once like we are now.

That's not exactly my point not was I talking about 2 MB in particular. In the case of wider adoption scaling primarily via the block size limit will never be able to accommodate enough users without sacrificing decentralization. Technology is currently in a 'difficult' position. On one hand we have fiber internet which is a huge improvement over the current world average, on the other hand we are witnessing the death of Moore's law and problems with HDD's. It is quite possible that technology advancement in some fields become really slow (look at the battery technology), however it is also possible that this won't happen. You can't work towards a best case scenario here when scaling large scale systems.

It seems like you are not even open to that possibility, using the blocksize limit as an arbitrary economic policy tool instead, while using IT and engineering knowledge to justify such a position

I've told you this a number of times and I'll tell you this again. I'm a very open minded person, especially when it comes to this debate. There was a time that I've agreed to a bigger block size limit; I'm supportive of various proposals such as LN, sidechains, dynamic blocks and even a hard fork (I do think that the system could use the experience in addition to giving us the opportunity to apply certain fixes/improvements). However, in the case of Segwit vs. 2 MB block size limit I'm fully supportive of Segwit. Additionally I highly disagree with the HF rules set by Gavin and the 'workaround' used to avoid the problem of quadratic scaling.

using Core as an appeal to authority.

You don't even know how to use a fallacy unless someone uses it beforehand. I'm not appealing to anything. I have at least stated on one occasion that the Core developers did not handle this 'block size debate' situation as best as they could.

[pawel7777]

I do not see any reason why the "Classic Solution" can not work. Just increase the blocksize, increase it again when we need to, the market will find its own natural equilibrium.

Yes, it could work. It's not a pretty solution and will probably face more challenges later on, but at least there's a realistic scenario where everything could work out fine. I can't really see it for Core roadmap (which could work truly amazing, but not the long term).

Fortunately the solution already exist, we do not need to reinvent Bitcoin, Bitcoin is already the solution. We have multiple alternative implementations who are staying true to the original vision of Satoshi who are prepared to scale Bitcoin directly now. The way it was always intended, we should allow the experiment to continue, I do still believe in its original vision.

Personally I don't see Satoshi as a god. I don't have any problem with people suggesting to depart from his vision, but only as long as they're open about it and seek for community support, rather than using mental gymnastics and pretending that complete change of how Bitcoin should function is somehow in line with original design.

It should work.

Great. But how?

I've revised this statement. There are various ways in which it could work. In general there are going to be more on-chain transactions regardless of off-chain solutions. The users need to open/close their payment channels as well. Additionally the price of Bitcoin could pick up the 'pace' where we need not worry about fees for a considerable amount of time. Increased block size limit does not guarantee an adequate amount of fees in the long-term future either.

I don't think you got my point.
First of all, lets ignore potential high BTC price, I'm specifically referring to situation where block subsidies are irrelevant or non existent.

This system is internally conflicted. To dumb it down: to keep small blocks (and for LN to get/keep traction) you need high fees (the smaller the block-size, the higher the fees). While users need low fees (otherwise BTC becomes completely unattractive and will lose to altcoins/fiat).

For that to work you would need to have some sort of constant balance, basically you'll need to find a way to keep average tx fee on optimal level (if such can be determined), keep number of on-chain txs on high enough level, prevent the channels to be open for too long (to enforce open/close on-chain fees) but let them be open long enough (to keep LN usable). On top of that you would need to be able to adjust the max block size ad hoc (both increase or decrease if needed) to adjust to current needs. Essentially you'd need central planning to get this thing somewhat working. Also, you would definitely need much bigger blocks.

The above would also require 'fee market' (keeping txs/sec capacity below the demand) which is a flaw on its own. If you had constant demand of 10 tx/sec and capacity of 7 tx/sec, that means even if all of the 10 senders put all of their wealth on paying tx fee, at least 3 txs don't go through. That's not what reliable, sustainable model looks like.

[VeritasSapere]

That is not necessarily the case as technology improves. We can even just scale Bitcoin directly as technology improves, decide on a lower bound, lets say the average desktop computer in the developed world for instance, even if that was our lower bound we could still justify increasing it to two megabyte once like we are now.

That's not exactly my point not was I talking about 2 MB in particular.

I am talking about two megabytes specifically. Stop creating straw man arguments of doomsday scenarios if we increase the blocksize, we can increase the blocksize to two megabytes and we should.

In the case of wider adoption scaling primarily via the block size limit will never be able to accommodate enough users without sacrificing decentralization.

How do you know the rate of adoption, or for that matter the rate of technological progress. I would say that this is a unqualified statement, I am saying increase the blocksize today according to the technological limits that exist today.

Technology is currently in a 'difficult' position. On one hand we have fiber internet which is a huge improvement over the current world average, on the other hand we are witnessing the death of Moore's law and problems with HDD's. It is quite possible that technology advancement in some fields become really slow (look at the battery technology), however it is also possible that this won't happen. You can't work towards a best case scenario here when scaling large scale systems.

First of all we can definitely afford to increase the blocksize to two megabytes in terms of hardrive space today, you should know better then to use that argument, and again I am saying that it can reflect the technological limits of today.

This idea that we can not scale Bitcoin to the whole world today therefore we should not scale Bitcoin any more directly today, allowing a "fee market" to develop, I think is intrinsically flawed. Such a dramatic change to the economic policy has profound effects, the more conservative route would be to continue the course, if we increase the blocksize and the majority chooses to use off chain solutions over using the Bitcoin blockchain directly then that is fine, then we would not need to increase the blocksize as much again and it might stay in step with technological growth. I do not see any reason to restrict the capacity of the network using a centralized economic policy tool, in order to "incentivize" people to move off chain. This seems counter intuitive to me, even wrong in the way that it is being done now, if anything we should encourage more on chain transactions for the health and good of the network, allowing the free market to develop.

It seems like you are not even open to that possibility, using the blocksize limit as an arbitrary economic policy tool instead, while using IT and engineering knowledge to justify such a position

I've told you this a number of times and I'll tell you this again. I'm a very open minded person, especially when it comes to this debate. There was a time that I've agreed to a bigger block size limit; I'm supportive of various proposals such as LN, sidechains, dynamic blocks and even a hard fork (I do think that the system could use the experience in addition to giving us the opportunity to apply certain fixes/improvements). However, in the case of Segwit vs. 2 MB block size limit I'm fully supportive of Segwit. Additionally I highly disagree with the HF rules set by Gavin and the 'workaround' used to avoid the problem of quadratic scaling.

The Core guys are very good at what they do, however I think they lack insight in the macro economics of Bitcoin, that is fine. Bitcoin has a governance mechanism however, maybe we could just have the best of both worlds. A hard fork to two megabytes blocksize limit soon, then segwit can be implemented when it is ready, fully polished and reviewed.

I do not think it makes any sense to endanger the economics of Bitcoin over a two megabyte blocksize limit increase. Core might not understand how important the timing of such things are and expect people to pay higher fees and maybe even go through a "economic change event" until their technology is ready, when they could just simply increase the blocksize now and avoid all of this potential damage.

Recognize that there is a governance mechanism involved here, and that fundamentally changing the economics of Bitcoin is not something that should be taken lightly, beyond all technical arguments of the superiority of segwit Core does not intend to increase the blocksize limit significantly over the long term at least not enough for the limit to be above the average transaction volume, they have explicitly stated their intention in this regard as well. They might be experts in IT and Engineering but I think they are seriously lacking in economic knowledge and real world pragmatism and politics. Fortunately Bitcoin relies on the economic self-interest of the masses to govern consensus, and is not reliant or beholden to a group of technocrats in an ivory tower.

Increasing the blocksize limit to two megabytes is possible, and will not cause any sort of doomsday for Bitcoin. If Core refuses to do so the community, miners and business will do so themselves. Bitcoin is freedom.

[VeritasSapere]

Lauda, I do like the visualization you made, not its content obviously but its design is very good, that is well done.

[achow101]

I don't think you got my point.
First of all, lets ignore potential high BTC price, I'm specifically referring to situation where block subsidies are irrelevant or non existent.

This system is internally conflicted. To dumb it down: to keep small blocks (and for LN to get/keep traction) you need high fees (the smaller the block-size, the higher the fees). While users need low fees (otherwise BTC becomes completely unattractive and will lose to altcoins/fiat).

For that to work you would need to have some sort of constant balance, basically you'll need to find a way to keep average tx fee on optimal level (if such can be determined), keep number of on-chain txs on high enough level, prevent the channels to be open for too long (to enforce open/close on-chain fees) but let them be open long enough (to keep LN usable). On top of that you would need to be able to adjust the max block size ad hoc (both increase or decrease if needed) to adjust to current needs. Essentially you'd need central planning to get this thing somewhat working. Also, you would definitely need much bigger blocks.

The above would also require 'fee market' (keeping txs/sec capacity below the demand) which is a flaw on its own. If you had constant demand of 10 tx/sec and capacity of 7 tx/sec, that means even if all of the 10 senders put all of their wealth on paying tx fee, at least 3 txs don't go through. That's not what reliable, sustainable model looks like.

The lightning network still requires transactions to occur on the blockchain. There still needs to be transactions to fund the payment channel and to close out the channel so that the Bitcoin can be spent elsewhere. That would be the source of the fees as well as other on chain transactions. From what I understand, lightning is not very useful for one time payments. It is less efficient and effective for me to pay for something through lightning that I only do once every so often, e.g. buying a new computer. Those types of transactions would still occur on chain. What lightning is good for is for recurring payments and microtransactions like those from faucets. Instead of having a bunch of transactions with tiny outputs from faucets, there is instead one transaction to close the payment channel when the faucet user wants to spend his Bitcoins somewhere else.

Furthermore people will have to reload their balance when they run out so they must close the payment channel and open a new one with more Bitcoin to be able to pay more. It basically isn't possible to stay off-chain all the time, you will have to make some transactions that are on chain.

So basically the funding and closing transactions are the sources of fees as well as other one-time payments and transfers and such that do not need lightning. It isn't possible

First of all we can definitely afford to increase the blocksize to two megabytes in terms of hardrive space today, you should know better then to use that argument, and again I am saying that it can reflect the technological limits of today.

Not necessarily. It isn't just about hard drive space. There is also the thing with hashing which doesn't scale linearly. That requires computing power and by doubling the block size, the computing power required is quadrupled so the time required to verify the block is quadrupled. That is something like a couple of seconds but in today's fast paced world where everything is about being faster, those few seconds are an extremely long time.

Additionally, there are problems with the size of the blockchain itself The sheer size of the blockchain makes downloading it take an incredibly long time. With larger blocks, the blockchain will grow faster. That means that more time will be needed to download the full thing for full nodes, more bandwidth is required, and more storage space is required. Not everyone has the bandwidth to download the entire blockchain nor able to support the amount of bandwidth that a full node consumes, which will also go up with a larger block size.


I am not entirely opposed to having a small block size increase, but I think that we definitely need segwit for its actual purpose of preventing transaction malleability and the side benefits of enabling other scaling solutions that don't require block size increases. In the long run, I don't think that increasing the blocksize is sustainable.

Also, for everyone complaining about lack of dates, the timeline is listed right here: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/

[Carlton Banks]

I do not see any reason why the "Classic Solution" can not work. Just increase the blocksize, increase it again when we need to, the market will find its own natural equilibrium.

This idea that we can not scale Bitcoin to the whole world today therefore we should not scale Bitcoin any more directly today, allowing a "fee market" to develop, I think is intrinsically flawed.

The above statements directly contradict one another. You are in favour of market dynamics when it comes to one aspect of bitcoin, and yet against it when in respect of another. And yet you constantly cite market dynamics as an overriding principle, and as the impetus for blocksize increases (and for which you provide no meaningful evidence)





Can you explain the reason for the disparity in adherence to your self-professed principles?

[Cconvert2G36]

In a capitalism based economy, the fee market would be miners deciding the prices of their product, block space.

They used soft limits for years and would do so again. Malicious block construction could be easily prevented, or at least contained to the equivalence of 1MB blocks.

Core devs with their fingers on this dial is central economic planning, something that used to be a good deal less popular around these parts. Sad thing, that.

[pawel7777]

I don't think you got my point.
First of all, lets ignore potential high BTC price, I'm specifically referring to situation where block subsidies are irrelevant or non existent.

This system is internally conflicted. To dumb it down: to keep small blocks (and for LN to get/keep traction) you need high fees (the smaller the block-size, the higher the fees). While users need low fees (otherwise BTC becomes completely unattractive and will lose to altcoins/fiat).

For that to work you would need to have some sort of constant balance, basically you'll need to find a way to keep average tx fee on optimal level (if such can be determined), keep number of on-chain txs on high enough level, prevent the channels to be open for too long (to enforce open/close on-chain fees) but let them be open long enough (to keep LN usable). On top of that you would need to be able to adjust the max block size ad hoc (both increase or decrease if needed) to adjust to current needs. Essentially you'd need central planning to get this thing somewhat working. Also, you would definitely need much bigger blocks.

The above would also require 'fee market' (keeping txs/sec capacity below the demand) which is a flaw on its own. If you had constant demand of 10 tx/sec and capacity of 7 tx/sec, that means even if all of the 10 senders put all of their wealth on paying tx fee, at least 3 txs don't go through. That's not what reliable, sustainable model looks like.

The lightning network still requires transactions to occur on the blockchain. There still needs to be transactions to fund the payment channel and to close out the channel so that the Bitcoin can be spent elsewhere. That would be the source of the fees as well as other on chain transactions. From what I understand, lightning is not very useful for one time payments. It is less efficient and effective for me to pay for something through lightning that I only do once every so often, e.g. buying a new computer. Those types of transactions would still occur on chain. What lightning is good for is for recurring payments and microtransactions like those from faucets. Instead of having a bunch of transactions with tiny outputs from faucets, there is instead one transaction to close the payment channel when the faucet user wants to spend his Bitcoins somewhere else.

Furthermore people will have to reload their balance when they run out so they must close the payment channel and open a new one with more Bitcoin to be able to pay more. It basically isn't possible to stay off-chain all the time, you will have to make some transactions that are on chain.

So basically the funding and closing transactions are the sources of fees as well as other one-time payments and transfers and such that do not need lightning. It isn't possible

So LN is not meant to be a scaling solution? If the average Joe can't use blockchain to buy his 'coffee' due to high fees and can't use LN due to high fees x2 (fee for opening and for closing the channel) for one time transaction, then this roadmap is a joke even in the short term and LN will never get any traction among regular users. You would effectively push majority of people away from Bitcoin.

And it wouldn't even work for micro transactions. If faucets are still around they would likely work as they do now, because it's cheaper and simpler than using LN. If the idea is that everyone would have to accumulate more significant amount of BTC in order to make (overpriced) transaction, then, whatever that is, it's not scaling.

I had a mental image of LN channels opened for extensive periods of time (weeks, months or even years), where you can connect to almost everyone and perform all kind of txs with multiple other parties. That would make sense in terms of making Bitcoin usable by masses, but inherently will discourage on-chain transactions, reducing miners fees reward... which you desperately need to keep both blockchain and LN secure and robust.

Again, I can't imagine it possibly working, because for that to work you need to both encourage and discourage on-chain transactions.

Edit: I see on the infograph that LN channels can be opened for indefinite period of time.

[Lauda]

I don't think you got my point.
First of all, lets ignore potential high BTC price, I'm specifically referring to situation where block subsidies are irrelevant or non existent.

This system is internally conflicted. To dumb it down: to keep small blocks (and for LN to get/keep traction) you need high fees (the smaller the block-size, the higher the fees). While users need low fees (otherwise BTC becomes completely unattractive and will lose to altcoins/fiat).

It looks like I did not understand in then. However, scaling via the block size limit does not ensure adequate fees either. Why should I include a 'decent fee' when there is so much space in the blocks and my transaction is most likely going to be confirmed 'soon-ish' (transactions that aren't urgent)? This is definitely not my area of expertise. You want to talk about economics in the wrong thread.

I am talking about two megabytes specifically. Stop creating straw man arguments of doomsday scenarios if we increase the blocksize, we can increase the blocksize to two megabytes and we should.

It is not a straw-man because I'm talking about the block size limit as a way of scaling. I'm not going to explain why Segwit is better than 2 MB block size limit once more.

How do you know the rate of adoption, or for that matter the rate of technological progress. I would say that this is a unqualified statement, I am saying increase the blocksize today according to the technological limits that exist today.

Right back at you: How do you know the rate of adoption? You don't. I at least on the other have done some research in this field. Unless something new comes up in the next 5-10 years the technological advancement of processing power (as an example) will slow down. This is why Bitcoin needs to be prepared for worst-case scenarios when scaling or pretty much applying any critical upgrades/changes.

First of all we can definitely afford to increase the blocksize to two megabytes in terms of hardrive space today, you should know better then to use that argument, and again I am saying that it can reflect the technological limits of today.

Read the first part of my post.

Increasing the blocksize limit to two megabytes is possible, and will not cause any sort of doomsday for Bitcoin. If Core refuses to do so the community, miners and business will do so themselves. Bitcoin is freedom.

It probably won't because Gavin implemented a 'bad' workaround for the quadratic scaling problem.

I do not see any reason why the "Classic Solution" can not work. Just increase the blocksize, increase it again when we need to, the market will find its own natural equilibrium.

This idea that we can not scale Bitcoin to the whole world today therefore we should not scale Bitcoin any more directly today, allowing a "fee market" to develop, I think is intrinsically flawed.

The above statements directly contradict one another. You are in favour of market dynamics when it comes to one aspect of bitcoin, and yet against it when in respect of another. And yet you constantly cite market dynamics as an overriding principle, and as the impetus for blocksize increases (and for which you provide no meaningful evidence)

He doesn't make sense either way. If we are to believe in the market dynamic then the 'fee market' would develop naturally.

So LN is not meant to be a scaling solution? If the average Joe can't use blockchain to buy his 'coffee' due to high fees and can't use LN due to high fees x2 (fee for opening and for closing the channel) for one time transaction, then this roadmap is a joke even in the short term and LN will never get any traction among regular users.
And it wouldn't even work for micro transactions. If faucets are still around they would likely work as they do now, because it's cheaper and simpler than using LN. If the idea is that everyone would have to accumulate more significant amount of BTC in order to make (overpriced) transaction, then, whatever that is, it's not scaling.

Your definition of 'high fees' is wrong. Your understanding of LN is lacking and you think that LN is expensive. LN is supposed to be both faster and cheaper than transacting on the main chain. Without the LN (or similar solutions) Bitcoin does not really have a 'decentralized global future'.

[pawel7777]

I don't think you got my point.
First of all, lets ignore potential high BTC price, I'm specifically referring to situation where block subsidies are irrelevant or non existent.

This system is internally conflicted. To dumb it down: to keep small blocks (and for LN to get/keep traction) you need high fees (the smaller the block-size, the higher the fees). While users need low fees (otherwise BTC becomes completely unattractive and will lose to altcoins/fiat).

It looks like I did not understand in then. However, scaling via the block size limit does not ensure adequate fees either. Why should I include a 'decent fee' when there is so much space in the blocks and my transaction is most likely going to be confirmed 'soon-ish' (transactions that aren't urgent)? This is definitely not my area of expertise. You want to talk about economics in the wrong thread.

The topic doesn't require advanced knowledge of economics, just a common sense really.

There's a (big) uncertainty whether scaling via block size increase will work or not in terms of sufficient fees, but at least you can project theoretical scenario where it could work fine: sufficient adoption rate -> large number of txs with small fees -> big enough rewards for miners. You don't have such mechanism in the Core's roadmap (not long term), instead you have internal conflict.

Why wouldn't you include small, affordable fee to make sure your tx gets included in block? Why do you think vast majority of current txs include fees? You tell me.

So LN is not meant to be a scaling solution? If the average Joe can't use blockchain to buy his 'coffee' due to high fees and can't use LN due to high fees x2 (fee for opening and for closing the channel) for one time transaction, then this roadmap is a joke even in the short term and LN will never get any traction among regular users.
And it wouldn't even work for micro transactions. If faucets are still around they would likely work as they do now, because it's cheaper and simpler than using LN. If the idea is that everyone would have to accumulate more significant amount of BTC in order to make (overpriced) transaction, then, whatever that is, it's not scaling.

Your definition of 'high fees' is wrong. Your understanding of LN is lacking and you think that LN is expensive. LN is supposed to be both faster and cheaper than transacting on the main chain. Without the LN (or similar solutions) Bitcoin does not really have a 'decentralized global future'.

Yes, my understanding of LN may be lacking but I was referring to (incorrect) explanation from knightdk.

So again. LN will be cheap (it will have to be). But you still need high on-chain fees to keep things going (maintain relatively small block size + make sure LN gets traction). So who would create high volume of high-fee on-chain txs, when LN provides solid incentive to stay off-chain? How will you make sure block-size is well-adjusted (you need capacity to stay below the demand, but still you need to make sure that all the txs will eventually get confirmed). You would need central planning to make sure there's a balance (push people on or off the blockchain, whatever currently needed) to get this system working.

[Carlton Banks]

In a capitalism based economy, the fee market would be miners deciding the prices of their product, block space.

They used soft limits for years and would do so again. Malicious block construction could be easily prevented, or at least contained to the equivalence of 1MB blocks.

Core devs with their fingers on this dial is central economic planning, something that used to be a good deal less popular around these parts. Sad thing, that.

Then I assume you're in favour of allowing the market to alter the 21 million coin limit? Terrible bit of centralised economic planning, isn't it?


NEWSFLASH: software development is centralised. Because a tiny percentage of the planet are capable of coding Bitcoin.


There will always be, and always has been, A MIX of centralised and decentralised forces steering Bitcoin's direction. All you've proven with your statement is that you've not been paying adequate attention to the facts.

[Lauda]

The topic doesn't require advanced knowledge of economics, just a common sense really.

Regardless, I do not want to talk about economics here. This is not the right thread nor section for it. I advise you to stop.

Yes, my understanding of LN may be lacking but I was referring to (incorrect) explanation from knightdk.
So again. LN will be cheap (it will have to be). But you still need high on-chain fees to keep things going (maintain relatively small block size + make sure LN gets traction).

It was explained to you. LN is perfect for occurring payments, not for one time transactions. There will always be demand to transact on chain.
Let's go back to the technical debate.

Lauda, I do like the visualization you made, not its content obviously but its design is very good, that is well done.

I didn't make it.

Because a tiny percentage of the planet are capable of coding Bitcoin.

Even a smaller percentage of engineers.

[pawel7777]

The topic doesn't require advanced knowledge of economics, just a common sense really.

Regardless, I do not want to talk about economics here. This is not the right thread nor section for it. I advise you to stop.

You can't take the 'economics' part away to have any meaningful discussion about Bitcoin. And if you don't want to discuss then fine, but then why did you reply to my initial post in the first place?

Yes, my understanding of LN may be lacking but I was referring to (incorrect) explanation from knightdk.
So again. LN will be cheap (it will have to be). But you still need high on-chain fees to keep things going (maintain relatively small block size + make sure LN gets traction).

It was explained to you. LN is perfect for occurring payments, not for one time transactions. ...

So is "Blockchain for settlements, LN for coffee" a lie?

There will always be demand to transact on chain.

Anything more than wishful thinking? You don't need some demand. You need high enough demand converting to high enough fees reward. If you cannot define that potential demand even on theoretical level, then you have a flawed model.

[Lauda]

So is "Blockchain for settlements, LN for coffee" a lie?

Buying coffee is a small and recurring purchase, is it not? These are the kind of purchases for which LN is intended for. Additionally I can see a block size increase of sorts after IBLT and weak blocks.

You can't take the 'economics' part away to have any meaningful discussion about Bitcoin. And if you don't want to discuss then fine, but then why did you reply to my initial post in the first place?

Yes you can. This is why there is a Economics section. Besides, this is my self-moderated thread and my rules apply. Similarly I also delete almost all of the posts of people who are on my ignore list.

[pawel7777]

So is "Blockchain for settlements, LN for coffee" a lie?

Buying coffee is a small and recurring purchase, is it not? These are the kind of purchases for which LN is intended for. Additionally I can see a block size increase of sorts after IBLT and weak blocks.

Hmm, no it's not? Unless you have a habit of buying it on regular basis (every day) from the same merchant. To avoid confusion, "coffee" is commonly used as synonym for small to medium everyday transactions (whether recurring or not). Let's use other example, I want to buy Raspberry Pi with bitcoins, what do I do? Will it be possible, will I get penalised with (artificially driven up) high fee?

Increasing block-size could work, but you still have the issues noted above (don't want to repeat myself).

You can't take the 'economics' part away to have any meaningful discussion about Bitcoin. And if you don't want to discuss then fine, but then why did you reply to my initial post in the first place?

Yes you can. This is why there is a Economics section. Besides, this is my self-moderated thread and my rules apply. Similarly I also delete almost all of the posts of people who are on my ignore list.

It's equally ridiculous statement as saying that you can take the 'technical' part out in scalability discussion.
Economics board is definitely not the right place (majority of topics there are not even bitcoin related).
Logically, if 'economics' belong to Economics board, then 'technical' belong to Technical Discussion. Then what's the purpose of this thread? To discuss the colours of infographic?

Sure, your thread - your rules. But you're sending mixed messages, you engage in discussion (including 'economics') and say you don't want to discuss. If it's the latter one, I'll just open a new thread, not a problem.

[Lauda]

Sure, your thread - your rules. But you're sending mixed messages, you engage in discussion (including 'economics') and say you don't want to discuss. If it's the latter one, I'll just open a new thread, not a problem.

I've replied in a short manner. I did not want to go in-depth about economics. Feel free to start up your own thread on the economics of LN. I'm not forbidding the discussion albeit I'll certainly not take part in it further. Depending on where the discussion goes I might delete replies and quote them all in 1 big post (as done already).

Then what's the purpose of this thread?

The discussion of (mostly) the technical side of these and similar solutions.

[achow101]

Hmm, no it's not? Unless you have a habit of buying it on regular basis (every day) from the same merchant. To avoid confusion, "coffee" is commonly used as synonym for small to medium everyday transactions (whether recurring or not).

Well that's contradictory, an everyday transaction is, by definition, recurring, is it not? It happens every day.

Let's use other example, I want to buy Raspberry Pi with bitcoins, what do I do? Will it be possible, will I get penalised with (artificially driven up) high fee?

I would not consider a raspberry pi to be a small purchase. To me small purchases are less than $10. It is also not comparable to the price of a coffee.

Since a raspberry pi is a one time, not really small purchase, it would happen on chain. Again, one time payments would happen on chain. It is not efficient to do those over lightning.