-snip-
There's nothing that helps you build a case. The fees are low enough. Tell me what you want exactly? 1 cent transactions, a fraction of a cent? Free transactions?
Well in this case I simply wrote it differently. My 50% were what the 1mb transaction amount would be in the ideal case. Let's hope segwit will be as powerful but you know it needs adoption and more to be able to do that. I'm not sure what stage of segwit development this referred to and if future changes were calculated in already.
Tl;dr: You were wrong again.
What we need is a working bitcoin whose needed fees will not grow constantly. And a bitcoin where transactions don't stuck because of too low fee. Of course it could be implemented in all wallets though you know quite well that it will lead to a fee fight at the end. And yes that means we need a higher tx capacity.
Which is not achievable with any kind of block size. Regardless of how much decentralization you want to sacrifice, and regardless of how ridiculously high you set the block size limit it will never be enough.
Sure, you can move along in ln what you want. Though only IF you need it it would make sense. I don't see a usecase for the normal user. You might see it, that's fine for me. Tell me where the normal users would need it. Normal use cases.
LN benefits:
- Trustless
- Cheap
- Near-instant transactions
You will be able to use the LN the same way that you are using Bitcoin now (the TX's are just faster), assuming that there is adoption.
Oh wait... I asked that question to users that actually were interested to educate me. This is not yet implemented in some form. In fact I wrote about such thing as one of the risks for bitcoin. LN building banks. I mean why would you think it will be an advantage to not use bitcoin as a network anymore but use an exchange instead. Well, I could use a credit card then too. I'm sure that scenario is the dream of every regulator.
Stop. Erase everything that you've ever read about LN from your brain and start from scratch. Who was talking about "exchanges" as money transmitters? It was an example, "exchange" as in entity. Secondary example: "Newbie" has payment channel to "Newbie2". Noob wants to pay for his Coffee at the Coffee Shop. "Newbie2" has a payment channel with the Coffee Shop. So: Newbie -> Newbie2 -> Coffee shop. The "LN building banks is a risk for Bitcoin" is also pure bullshit.
It's interesting how the fundamentals of bitcoin are tried to be eroded.
Bullshit.
I don't say that I want 0.00001 bitcoin fees again. I only said that we now are forced to pay more when we want to hope to get included in a reasonable time. And this get's worth constantly. You can't negate that trend.
Of course one can set a reasonable blocksize, nobody said we need to set it very high. Besides that... it would only be harmfull when the new limit is full instantly too. Otherwise the block size in practice would grow slowly.
Besides that it would be interesting how much data would be needed to save the details of LN. Bandwith and harddisc. The data needed for using it and the nodes it will use. I wonder if any or how much bandwith and harddisc can be saved with it. At the end individual transaction would not be needed to be known to everyone I guess.
It's new to me, the usage you describe is in some form similar to ripple. And no I don't say it's the same. It sounds more interesting then. If this is the plan that it might be good to take a look at the problems ripple had. I think some problem was receiving coins that were stolen. The new owner was innocent but he already lost the equivalent value.
Anyway... let's see how LN turns out. Only practice will show.
