Mass Adoption Crypto Currency Market Potential Index

[iamnotback]

I will argue that the mass adoption of crypto currency will be on payments made on mobile phones in retail and moreover in mobile app payments. And I argue this will sweep away regulatory resistance due to its mass popularity. Thus I will argue the following grouped-by-country index is the only one that matters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_mobile_phones_in_use

Note Bitcoin Market Potential Index (the full list):

http://www.lse.ac.uk/economicHistory/study/PhDProgramme/JOb-Market-papers/Bitcoin-Market-Potential-Index-Hileman.pdf#page=12

Depends more on different set of features peculiar to Bitcoin (remittances, capital control and financial crisis avoidance) because Bitcoin isn't scalable to mass payments nor instant payments yet:

http://www.lse.ac.uk/economicHistory/study/PhDProgramme/JOb-Market-papers/Bitcoin-Market-Potential-Index-Hileman.pdf#page=5

Lighting Networks is under development and an alpha was just announced, but it is a complex arduous solution that doesn't scale well decentralized (but we may eventually get there with Bitcoin highly centralized, although being that this is fighting for who will control it, it will not come without battles as we've seen with Bitcoin Classic and XT versus Blockstream and the Chinese mining cartel):

Now all we have to do is wait countless months for segwit which no doubt'll be batted around by the various parties too. Whoopee.

Other threads didn't provide a direct link to the full list for discussion:

Most countries in the ?10 most likely? to adopt bitcoin are in the developing wo

Argentina Tops List of Countries with Greatest Bitcoin Adoption Potential

[1714853073]

1714853073

[1714853073]

1714853073

[1714853073]

1714853073

[1714853073]

1714853073

[1714853073]

1714853073

[pereira4]

I will argue that the mass adoption of crypto currency will be on payments made on mobile phones in retail and moreover in mobile app payments. And I argue this will sweep away regulatory resistance due to its mass popularity. Thus I will argue the following index is the national only one that matters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_mobile_phones_in_use

Note Bitcoin Market Potential Index (the full list):

http://www.lse.ac.uk/economicHistory/study/PhDProgramme/JOb-Market-papers/Bitcoin-Market-Potential-Index-Hileman.pdf#page=12

Depends more on different set of features peculiar to Bitcoin (remittances, capital control and financial crisis avoidance) because Bitcoin isn't scalable to mass payments nor instant payments yet:

http://www.lse.ac.uk/economicHistory/study/PhDProgramme/JOb-Market-papers/Bitcoin-Market-Potential-Index-Hileman.pdf#page=5

Lighting Networks is under development, but it is a complex arduous solution that doesn't scale well decentralized (but we may eventually get there with Bitcoin highly centralized, although being that this is fighting for who will control it, it will not come without battles as we've seen with Bitcoin Classic and XT versus Blockstream and the Chinese mining cartel).

Other threads didn't provide a direct link to the full list for discussion:

Most countries in the ?10 most likely? to adopt bitcoin are in the developing wo

Argentina Tops List of Countries with Greatest Bitcoin Adoption Potential

You don't understand how Lightning protocol works to claim it's centralized. It's way less centralized than solutions proposed by XT or Classic, which lead to node centralization, this is why they have fallen by its own weight and no one cares about them anymore, because at the end of the day Core devs are the better devs.

Bitcoin will scale to mass volume payments, give it time, the smartest minds are working on it as we speak.

In the meantime, no one is having serious problems using it and it is in any case a better gold already.

[iamnotback]

YouI don't understand how Lightning protocol works to claim it's decentralized.

ftfy

Thanks for your feedback. Hope you don't get offended if I correct your misunderstanding.

LN requires orders-of-magnitude more block chain transaction bandwidth for peak garbage collection phases, than it consumes normally. Thus you need Bitcoin to scale massively before LN can scale massively. Bitcoin can't scale without being centralized for validation and mining. That is fact well known to experts such as myself. Many people may deny it and I have no desire to argue with them.

LN also requires a few numbers of centralized servers cooperating for it to function reasonably well:

It uses a decentralised method of routing by everyone knowing the topology. In the future we will implement RP routing, which dramatically decreases the requirement to know the full topology of the network down to only the 24/7 online nodes.

...

Yes correct. In my simulations routing with ten thousands of nodes was carried out in <1s.

That works fine with RP-Routing, because then you exclude all active participants from the routing problem and only concentrate on the passive nodes. I agree that if you take into account millions of wallets, it does get much more difficult.

LN can't send a payment from Bitcoin address to any Bitcoin address. It requires users establish accounts in the LN before they can be eligible, i.e. it is an opt-in system and it is not persistent.

LN is an incredibly complex Rube Goldberg kludge patched on top of an inadequate block chain design and there IS a better solution coming. You have to discard the Bitcoin block chain and Satoshi's design and start over.

In general, Bitcoin is moving towards centralization over the control of which nodes validate and thus which can do capital controls and KYC enforcement on transactions:

https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2016/01/08/spv-mining-is-the-solution-not-the-problem/
http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/1txn/

[Lauda]

LN requires orders-of-magnitude more block chain transaction bandwidth for peak garbage collection phases, than it consumes normally. Thus you need Bitcoin to scale massively before LN can scale massively.

Not really, no ("order-of-magnitude").

Bitcoin can't scale without being centralized for validation and mining. That is fact well known to experts such as myself. Many people may deny it and I have no desire to argue with them.

Even though that is correct ('can't scale efficiently'), the claim "experts such as myself" is really pointless in this context.

LN also requires a few numbers of centralized servers cooperating for it to function reasonably well:

Not really, no.

LN is an incredibly complex Rube Goldberg kludge patched on top of an inadequate block chain design and there IS a better solution coming. You have to discard the Bitcoin block chain and Satoshi's design and start over.

If by better, you mean partially-centralized scam coins that are being pumped, then you're wasting our time.

[iamnotback]

LN requires orders-of-magnitude more block chain transaction bandwidth for peak garbage collection phases, than it consumes normally. Thus you need Bitcoin to scale massively before LN can scale massively.

Not really, no ("order-of-magnitude").

Lauda you are not a software engineer for 30 years. You don't know what you are talking about.

The garbage collection load on LN is entirely dependent on how many payment channels close within any given block. The statistical outliers are in the orders-of-magnitude.

Please if you are going to argue, cite some expert resource. Otherwise your comments are useless to me.

Bitcoin can't scale without being centralized for validation and mining. That is fact well known to experts such as myself. Many people may deny it and I have no desire to argue with them.

Even though that is correct ('can't scale efficiently'), the claim "experts such as myself" is really pointless in this context.

As evident above, it is entirely relevant.

LN also requires a few numbers of centralized servers cooperating for it to function reasonably well:

Not really, no.

I am referring to supporting millions of users ("wallets").

I quoted the lead developer of LN who stated it is the case. Then you disagree with him.  

LN is an incredibly complex Rube Goldberg kludge patched on top of an inadequate block chain design and there IS a better solution coming. You have to discard the Bitcoin block chain and Satoshi's design and start over.

If by better, you mean partially-centralized scam coins that are being pumped, then you're wasting our time.

Your ignorance of what is coming, is not my problem.

Pull out your moderation powers to move the thread or otherwise censor it.

[Lauda]

Lauda you are not a software engineer for 30 years. You don't know what you are talking about.

And neither are you.

The garbage collection load on LN is entirely dependent on how many payment channels close within any given block. The statistical outliers are in the orders-of-magnitude.

What "statistical outliers"? Where can we see these.

Please if you are going to argue, cite some expert resource. Otherwise your comments are useless to me.

You cited nothing in regards to that part either. Going by your own statement, your own comments are useless.

As evident above, it is entirely relevant.

Nope.

I am referring to supporting millions of users ("wallets"). I quoted the lead developer of LN who stated it is the case. Then you disagree with him.  

The definition of "reasonably well" is subjective. He never claimed "LN also requires a few numbers of centralized servers".

Pull out your moderation powers to move the thread or otherwise censor it.

Another one of those people that can't tell the difference between moderation and censorship. Please also tell me that you like certain HF's. 

[iamnotback]

Lauda you are not a software engineer for 30 years. You don't know what you are talking about.

And neither are you.

Yes I am. Actually 37 years since first programming.

The garbage collection load on LN is entirely dependent on how many payment channels close within any given block. The statistical outliers are in the orders-of-magnitude.

What "statistical outliers"? Where can we see these.

It is by definition. But you aren't even math and computer science astute enough to understand why.

Goodbye. I will not waste my time with you. You'll learn from reality soon enough.

difference between moderation and censorship.

Moving a thread that is discussing Bitcoin and LN to for example Off Topic or Altcoin Discussion is that way you mods hide the truth (which is outside your technological comprehension) and lie about it being moderation.

Ignorance emboldens the Dunning-Kruger mod.

As Einstein said, "If the facts don't fit the theory [of Bitcoin maximalism], change the facts".

[Lauda]

Tl;dr: I'm a "expert", and I'm right because you are not and that is the definition of it all. Very useful thread and many useful sources were provided.

[iamnotback]

many useful sources were provided.

The LN dev was quoted admitting it can't scale to millions of wallets decentralized.

The LN white paper is available on the WWW.

The YouTube discussion between Poon and the co-author of the LN white paper is available where all the points I made are discussed.

Lauda you spread FUD every time an expert writes facts against Bitcoin. You force your ignorance on everyone. Before you post, you should do the research.

and Lauda's objective probably is just to pick a trolling fight so the whole thread would be considered as trolling

I think I handled him effectively. I didn't let him drag me into a tit-for-tat. I specifically didn't reply on the points so he could extend the debate on his meaningless ignorance.

Amazing that a forum allows a moderator also be a habitual FUD troll.

I didn't even intend to post this thread. I stumbled onto that Bitcoin Potential Market Adoption Index article today and wanted to comment that the thesis of the research was assuming some weaknesses in Bitcoin. A mass adoption CC won't be targeted to same users as Bitcoin. Bitcoin is for Chinese avoiding capital controls and others of us doing nefarious dealings, thus the inclusion in the Bitcoin Potential Market Adoption Index the factors pertaining the capital controls, black markets, and financial instability in each of the countries considered.

The mass use case of Bitcoin is very weak because the technology doesn't scale decentralized and decentralization and permissionless qualities were the original reason to want CC instead of digital fiat, and Bitcoin is a very tiny, miniscule market right now.

The less decentralized Bitcoin is, the slower its network effects will grow. Because turf battles turn it into a morass.

[Lauda]

The LN dev was quoted admitting it can't scale to millions of wallets decentralized.

He did not say that. Re-read the quote properly.

The LN white paper is available on the WWW.

The internet is also a nice source.

Lauda you spread FUD every time an expert writes facts against Bitcoin. You force your ignorance on everyone. Before you post, you should do the research.

Spreading FUD by posting non-negative statements? Interesting.

and Lauda's objective probably is just to pick a trolling fight so the whole thread would be considered as trolling

As soon as you resort to ad hominem, the "I'm an expert" story and your credibility goes down the drain. I've merely asked for sources (a single quote does not cover your story) and made conclusions based on your own (presented) logic. Look at it from a different perspective: A random member appears, claims that they've been a software engineer for 30 years and that they must be right because of that. How does that sound to you?

[iamnotback]

The LN dev was quoted admitting it can't scale to millions of wallets decentralized.

He did not say that. Re-read the quote properly.

Yes he effectively implied that. You do not comprehend the technical meaning of the quote, thus you are reading it only literally as English words without understanding what he is describing technologically.

He wrote that the only way that the mapping of the topology could scale out to "ten thousands of nodes" was to have the other nodes rely on the "24/7 nodes", i.e. the centralized nodes that are always there and stabilize the protocol. And for the case of millions of wallets, it would not be able to scale out a decentralized operation.

[Lauda]

Yes he effectively implied that. You do not comprehend the technical meaning of the quote, thus you are reading it only literally as English words without understanding what he is describing technologically.

I disagree. Saying that something becomes "much more difficult" is not the equivalent to saying that something is impossible.

[iamnotback]

I disagree. Saying that something becomes "much more difficult" is not the equivalent to saying that something is impossible.

If you understand the math models involved, you would understand that he is using "difficult" as a nice way of avoiding saying "centralized is the only way, but we are praying our understanding is incorrrect and we can find a miracle in the mean-time".

It is quite obvious you do not understand and you are bullshitting your FUD.

Hey I don't give a fuck if you don't believe me. It is your loss, not mine. You are the one who should being doing some research so you aren't so ignorant.

[Lauda]

If you understand the math models involved, you would understand that he is using "difficult" as a nice way of avoiding saying "centralized is the only way, but we are praying our understanding is incorrrect and we can find a miracle in the mean-time".

Are you referring to the the shortest path algorithms? I wouldn't even consider those complex. I have one implemented in Java, it isn't certainly something special nor hard to understand. Besides, this is what you think that he 'meant' by that. How about you ask him to clarify, rather than make assumptions?

Hey I don't give a fuck if you don't believe me. It is your loss, not mine.

Useless thread is going to stay useless, nice to know.

[iamnotback]

Now you've totally put your foot in your mouth and demonstrated that you never understood the meaning of the quote of the main LN dev.

Are you referring to the the shortest path algorithms?

Lolz. You Dunning-Kruger think the issue is about optimal path algorithms, but the quote clearly states it is about determining the algorithm to decide who has the accurate database of the topology and dealing with conflicts/faults in the accounting thus the need to revert to only the stable nodes along with RP routing:

It uses a decentralised method of routing by everyone knowing the topology. In the future we will implement RP routing, which dramatically decreases the requirement to know the full topology of the network down to only the 24/7 online nodes.

http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos13.3/topics/concept/multicast-rendevous-point-trees.html

"In the RP model, other routers do not need to know the addresses of the sources for every multicast group. All they need to know is the IP address of the RP router. The RP router discovers the sources for all multicast groups.

The RP model shifts the burden of finding sources of multicast content from each router (the (S,G) notation) to the network (the (*,G) notation knows only the RP). Exactly how the RP finds the unicast IP address of the source varies, but there must be some method to determine the proper source for multicast content for a particular group."


Get off my lawn Lauda. Stop trolling my thread with your ignorance, else I will report you to yourself (the mod).  

[Lauda]

Lolz. You Dunning-Kruger think the issue is about least path computation, but the quote clearly states it is about determining the algorithm to decide who has the accurate database of the topology and dealing with conflicts/faults in the accounting thus the need to revert to only the stable nodes along with RP routing:

No. I asked a question, I did not create the asumption. You were the one who said that the sources can be found on the WWW so I've stumbled upon the article with those algorithms. You can't blame anyone else besides your own logic.

The RP model shifts the burden of finding sources of multicast content from each router (the (S,G) notation) to the network (the (*,G) notation knows only the RP). Exactly how the RP finds the unicast IP address of the source varies, but there must be some method to determine the proper source for multicast content for a particular group."

Interesting, but that still does not confirm that the implicit meaning of his statement is that is it not possible (rather than just being difficult).

Get off my lawn Lauda. Stop trolling my thread with your ignorance, else I will report you to yourself (the mod).  

I didn't know that properly replying to a thread was equal to trolling. In any case, I would not be the one handling that report. I might as well repeat this part:

As soon as you resort to ad hominem, the "I'm an expert" story and your credibility goes down the drain.

[yayayo]

I think the best Bitcoin adoption indicators are internet connectivity and general wealth of a country. The LSE index is more complex but I don't think it is a good estimator, since it tends to underestimate the specific problems of developing countries. There might be a great incentive for the population to use Bitcoin in these countries, but the lack of fast internet access and low income will be serious obstacles for Sub-Saharan countries.

Lightning Network is a great step forward. It makes microtransactions available which can not be reasonably be done with the existing Bitcoin system, because it does not scale well. The LN approach is far more competent and in contrast to the HearndresenCoin-proposals does not seriously harm decentralization.

ya.ya.yo!

[aliashraf]

Sticking with loose and moderately defined solutions like LN or SW is one thing and making it another part of Bitcoin Foundation Temple's sign of loyalty and faith is another thing.

I am witnessing a 'denial of discussion' attack here:

First a hero member comes and questions the the starter's 'understanding' of how LN protocol 'works' then the starter, being offended, reminds her proficiency background (a little blooper, though, one should never do this when dealing with 'sensitive' materials like the feasibility of LN or SW proposals!) and it is enough for a mod to come and ruin the topic.

It is becoming a common practice in Bitcoin community and a very bad signal, no institution will last with this kind of attitude, being open minded and welcoming critics is the main key to stability and growth for any community.

[franky1]

lauda please read some source code,
lauda please read the presentations
lauda please read the guidance notes.

and see that there are limitations. its not a fairy tail of fluffy unicorns. so how about be honest and "sell" features on their own merit of realistic expectations instead of the unlimited utility that you wrongly think is possible.

seems these blockstreamers get worse everyday

lauda. read. learn. read again. understand.

there are limitations.
there are limits of utility
there are limits of expectations.

try and be honest for once.
and if you are going to reply purely with an insult. rather then explain the realistic expectations of LN. then save typing your insults, spend the time researching and come back only with a reply of realistic expectations.
EG main userbase that will notice its benefits (its not useful to everyone)
EG who you think will be the hubs to help people hop between while reducing transactions
EG expectant settlement transaction sizes when lets say a faucet of 50,000 users finally settles. and how many blocks will be needed before its all completed.

i can tell you have not researched LN because over the months and months of seeing you advertise LN's unicorn abilities you hav only thrown out key buzzwords but never said the main mechanism that handles payments.
so goodluck with your research and i hope to see some more honest answers in the future. if not. then just go back to your icebreaker appreciation topic.
same goes to carlton who i guess will be soon posting some insult to defend his dear friend