Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[respawn2]

Online games could use micropayments. E-commerce on cheap items or services too.

Let's walk this through. I run across an online game that I want to play. I have to open a payment channel, and prefund it with as much BTC as I think I'm likely to spend playing this game.
What's to prevent me from simply sending this macro-payment straight to the game site? Why involve LN?

[1715493373]

1715493373

[1715493373]

1715493373

[1715493373]

1715493373

[1715493373]

1715493373

[1715493373]

1715493373

[1715493373]

1715493373

[respawn2]

LN is most useful for lager entities which hold users bitcoins, and move them on there behalf.

bitpay, bitfinex, changetip, etc..

will all be connected together via LN and allow users to move funds among these large site, in a cheap / instant / trustless manner.

I'm not sure I follow. If I want to pay Bob for a hamburger with BitPay, how would LN play into this? I have an open, pre-funded channel with BitPay, and BitPay has open, pre-funded channels with everyone I want to do business with? That's a *huge* sum of BTC to tie up.
If not clear, before using BitPay, I'd have to open a payment channel with BitPay, and fund it with as much BTC as I'm likely to spend with BitPay in, let's say, a month. That's a big chunk of change, but that's not all. BitPay has to keep a huge number of open channels with all of its users, and those channels all have to be funded. That's a huge chunk of change squared.

[AlexGR]

Online games could use micropayments. E-commerce on cheap items or services too.

Let's walk this through. I run across an online game that I want to play. I have to open a payment channel, and prefund it with as much BTC as I think I'm likely to spend playing this game.
What's to prevent me from simply sending this macro-payment straight to the game site? Why involve LN?

I'm making different assumptions I guess. You assume one-way payments, I was thinking of a more amphidromous relationship where the player does something and get paid, or where he wants to make a payment for something small, etc. Betting or casino games are also like that because you can win and lose all the time.

For now the problem (in games, not casinos) can be solved with use of ingame currency that is different from BTC, so that's the aggregation mechanism so to speak. But you can then make btc as the ingame currency.

[Torque]

Online games could use micropayments. E-commerce on cheap items or services too.

Let's walk this through. I run across an online game that I want to play. I have to open a payment channel, and prefund it with as much BTC as I think I'm likely to spend playing this game.
What's to prevent me from simply sending this macro-payment straight to the game site? Why involve LN?

Because you'll have to wait over an hour for your macro transaction to even confirm, that's why.

Or maybe you chose a poor example? LN is for buying coffees, fast food, and beers, not for micro-funding your silly online gambling addiction.  

[respawn2]

Online games could use micropayments. E-commerce on cheap items or services too.

Let's walk this through. I run across an online game that I want to play. I have to open a payment channel, and prefund it with as much BTC as I think I'm likely to spend playing this game.
What's to prevent me from simply sending this macro-payment straight to the game site? Why involve LN?

Because you'll have to wait over an hour for your macro transaction to even confirm, that's why.

But LN uses BTC as a settlement layer. So that macro-payment will still be on the blockchain when I fund the channel. If it takes an hour, using LN won't magically make it confirm faster.

Or maybe you chose a poor example? LN is for buy coffees, fast food, and beers, not for micro-funding your silly online gambling addiction.  

You mean, like Starbucks gift card, that I buy from Starbucks with a BTC macro-transaction?
Yeah, that's what I am comparing LN to, because that's what it basically is: a gift card layer.

[respawn2]

Online games could use micropayments. E-commerce on cheap items or services too.

Let's walk this through. I run across an online game that I want to play. I have to open a payment channel, and prefund it with as much BTC as I think I'm likely to spend playing this game.
What's to prevent me from simply sending this macro-payment straight to the game site? Why involve LN?

I'm making different assumptions I guess. You assume one-way payments, I was thinking of a more amphidromous relationship where the player does something and get paid, or where he wants to make a payment for something small, etc. Betting or casino games are also like that because you can win and lose all the time.

I don't gamble, but if I understand it correctly, you have a casino wallet, play from that wallet (off-chain, using the casino's internal ledger), and, if you win, you get more money in your casino wallet. Is this correct? Or do BTC casinos actually do everything on chain?
When you want to stop playing and cash out, you pull your BTC out of your casino wallet (macro-transaction), or leave it there for later. Alternately, you've lost all your money, and there's no need for another transaction.
How does LN help here?

[adamstgBit]

LN is most useful for lager entities which hold users bitcoins, and move them on there behalf.

bitpay, bitfinex, changetip, etc..

will all be connected together via LN and allow users to move funds among these large site, in a cheap / instant / trustless manner.

I'm not sure I follow. If I want to pay Bob for a hamburger with BitPay, how would LN play into this? I have an open, pre-funded channel with BitPay, and BitPay has open, pre-funded channels with everyone I want to do business with? That's a *huge* sum of BTC to tie up.
If not clear, before using BitPay, I'd have to open a payment channel with BitPay, and fund it with as much BTC as I'm likely to spend with BitPay in, let's say, a month. That's a big chunk of change, but that's not all. BitPay has to keep a huge number of open channels with all of its users, and those channels all have to be funded. That's a huge chunk of change squared.

imagine you want to move bitcoins from your TheRockTradingExhange account to your bitfinex account.
right now you only have the option of transferring the funds using the bitcoin network.
but with LN...
TheRockTradingExhange will send LN bitcoin to bitfinex, bitfinex doesn't need to trust TheRockTradingExhange and they can swap bitcoin back and forth all day long at no cost.

users dont open channels, they log into a website and request to send some bitcoin to some other website, instead of a BTC address you specify a site/account to send BTC to.

TheRockTradingExhange and bitfinex open 1 channel which they use to move ALL user funds back and forth.

[respawn2]

LN is most useful for lager entities which hold users bitcoins, and move them on there behalf.

bitpay, bitfinex, changetip, etc..

will all be connected together via LN and allow users to move funds among these large site, in a cheap / instant / trustless manner.

I'm not sure I follow. If I want to pay Bob for a hamburger with BitPay, how would LN play into this? I have an open, pre-funded channel with BitPay, and BitPay has open, pre-funded channels with everyone I want to do business with? That's a *huge* sum of BTC to tie up.
If not clear, before using BitPay, I'd have to open a payment channel with BitPay, and fund it with as much BTC as I'm likely to spend with BitPay in, let's say, a month. That's a big chunk of change, but that's not all. BitPay has to keep a huge number of open channels with all of its users, and those channels all have to be funded. That's a huge chunk of change squared.

imagine you want to move bitcoins from your TheRockTradingExhange account to your bitfinex account.
right now you only have the option of transferring the funds using the bitcoin network.

Correct. One macro-transaction.

but with LN...
TheRockTradingExhange will send LN bitcoin to bitfinex, bitfinex doesn't need to trust TheRockTradingExhange and they can swap bitcoin back and forth all day long at no cost.

So TheRock has an open channel with BFX, prefunded with a humongous sum of BTC, as much as the biggest swap the two exchanges are likely to make, in, say, a month? How many thousands of BTC is that?

users dont open channels, they log into a website and request to send some bitcoin to some other website, instead of a BTC address you specify a site/account to send BTC to.

As long as TheRock has a channel with Hamburger Bob, open and funded, sounds like a plan. How much money did TheRock start out with, I mean before it funded all these channels? Are there enough bitcoins in the world for that?

TheRockTradingExhange and bitfinex open 1 channel which they use to move ALL user funds back and forth.

Or they can do it without involving Bitcoin at all, and just send numbers to each other, settle shit with macro-transactions on the first of the month, like every business in the world does.

You know that big businesses send each other bills, they sign contracts and, without any physical money changing hands, multi-billion-dollar construction projects are started and ...wait for it ... even finished!. On a signature.
But Bitcoin exchanges, they can't do accounting like every other company on the planet. They need to make trustless micropayments to each other by using LN.

[adamstgBit]

LN is most useful for lager entities which hold users bitcoins, and move them on there behalf.

bitpay, bitfinex, changetip, etc..

will all be connected together via LN and allow users to move funds among these large site, in a cheap / instant / trustless manner.

I'm not sure I follow. If I want to pay Bob for a hamburger with BitPay, how would LN play into this? I have an open, pre-funded channel with BitPay, and BitPay has open, pre-funded channels with everyone I want to do business with? That's a *huge* sum of BTC to tie up.
If not clear, before using BitPay, I'd have to open a payment channel with BitPay, and fund it with as much BTC as I'm likely to spend with BitPay in, let's say, a month. That's a big chunk of change, but that's not all. BitPay has to keep a huge number of open channels with all of its users, and those channels all have to be funded. That's a huge chunk of change squared.

imagine you want to move bitcoins from your TheRockTradingExhange account to your bitfinex account.
right now you only have the option of transferring the funds using the bitcoin network.

Correct. One macro-transaction.

but with LN...
TheRockTradingExhange will send LN bitcoin to bitfinex, bitfinex doesn't need to trust TheRockTradingExhange and they can swap bitcoin back and forth all day long at no cost.

So TheRock has an open channel with BFX, prefunded with a humongous sum of BTC, as much as the two exchanges are likely to swap, in, say, a month? How many million BTC is that?

users dont open channels, they log into a website and request to send some bitcoin to some other website, instead of a BTC address you specify a site/account to send BTC to.

As long as TheRock has a channel with Hamburger Bob, open and funded, sounds like a plan. How much money did TheRock start out with, I mean before it funded all these channels? Are there enough bitcoins in the world for that?

TheRockTradingExhange and bitfinex open 1 channel which they use to move ALL user funds back and forth.

Or they can do it without involving Bitcoin at all, and just send numbers to each other, settle shit with macro-transactions on the first of the month, like every business in the world does.

TheRock and BFX can choose to settle the channel every time the debit/credit balance is X number of BTC

if users tend to send BTC to and from TheRock and BFX such that the amount coming in / going out of BFX is always  balances out then they can keep the channel open with like 50BTC indefinitely.

[adamstgBit]

who knows Exactly how this will all play out.
the point is we are pushing with everything we got.
if you want to bet on our failure go ahead...

[respawn2]

LN is most useful for lager entities which hold users bitcoins, and move them on there behalf.

bitpay, bitfinex, changetip, etc..

will all be connected together via LN and allow users to move funds among these large site, in a cheap / instant / trustless manner.

I'm not sure I follow. If I want to pay Bob for a hamburger with BitPay, how would LN play into this? I have an open, pre-funded channel with BitPay, and BitPay has open, pre-funded channels with everyone I want to do business with? That's a *huge* sum of BTC to tie up.
If not clear, before using BitPay, I'd have to open a payment channel with BitPay, and fund it with as much BTC as I'm likely to spend with BitPay in, let's say, a month. That's a big chunk of change, but that's not all. BitPay has to keep a huge number of open channels with all of its users, and those channels all have to be funded. That's a huge chunk of change squared.

imagine you want to move bitcoins from your TheRockTradingExhange account to your bitfinex account.
right now you only have the option of transferring the funds using the bitcoin network.

Correct. One macro-transaction.

but with LN...
TheRockTradingExhange will send LN bitcoin to bitfinex, bitfinex doesn't need to trust TheRockTradingExhange and they can swap bitcoin back and forth all day long at no cost.

So TheRock has an open channel with BFX, prefunded with a humongous sum of BTC, as much as the two exchanges are likely to swap, in, say, a month? How many million BTC is that?

users dont open channels, they log into a website and request to send some bitcoin to some other website, instead of a BTC address you specify a site/account to send BTC to.

As long as TheRock has a channel with Hamburger Bob, open and funded, sounds like a plan. How much money did TheRock start out with, I mean before it funded all these channels? Are there enough bitcoins in the world for that?

TheRockTradingExhange and bitfinex open 1 channel which they use to move ALL user funds back and forth.

Or they can do it without involving Bitcoin at all, and just send numbers to each other, settle shit with macro-transactions on the first of the month, like every business in the world does.

TheRock and BFX can choose to settle the channel every time the debit/credit balance is X number of BTC

Right. You understand that the benefits of LN are actually negative if you open a channel, make two transactions, and close it?
Why can't they be like other grownup businesses, do the whole thing off-chain, as if it was USD, and bill each other at the end of the month? Or do you think everything* surrounding Bitcoin should be trusttless and as complicated as possible?

if users tend to send BTC to and from TheRock and BFX such that the amount coming in / going out of BFX is always  balances out then they can keep the channel open with like 50BTC indefinitely.

As soon as two 50 BTC transactions go in one direction (as is usually almost always the case with arbitrage), say bye bye to that "balance."

who knows Exactly how this will all play out.
the point is we are pushing with everything we got.
if you want to bet on our failure go ahead...

Scaling != LN. Two different things. I hope you're not telling me that by pointing out LN's shortcomings, I'm betting on failure.
There's that changing a constant trick. More than one way to skin a cat, but LN ain't one of them.

[adamstgBit]

Right. You understand that the benefits of LN are actually negative if you open a channel, make two transactions, and close it?
Why can't they be like other grownup businesses, do the whole thing off-chain, as if it was USD, and bill each other at the end of the month? Or do you think everything* surrounding Bitcoin should be trusttless and as complicated as possible?

Yes i understand.
Yes i believe cheap instant trustless systems are superior.

 

if users tend to send BTC to and from TheRock and BFX such that the amount coming in / going out of BFX is always  balances out then they can keep the channel open with like 50BTC indefinitely.

As soon as two 50 BTC transactions go in one direction (as is usually almost always the case with arbitrage), say bye bye to that "balance."

they will not allow users to utilize LN channel for large payments, >XBTC  TX will go through the blockchain.

[respawn2]

they will not allow users to utilize LN channel for large payments, >XBTC  TX will go through the blockchain.

No, what I'm saying is the utility of that channel is going to be next to nil, because BTC typically flows in one direction, not back-and-forth, due to the nature of arbitrage. So it will be 25 BTC from Rock to BFX, another 25 BTC from Rock to BFX, and another, and another. All small, all going in one direction, because BTC costs less on TheRock. Until things change and it starts going in a different direction, to OKCoin, which is another open channel with 50BTC stuck in it that's only good for 2 tx.

[adamstgBit]

Scaling != LN. Two different things. I hope you're not telling me that by pointing out LN's shortcomings, I'm betting on failure.
There's that changing a constant trick. More than one way to skin a cat, but LN ain't one of them.

i have made my views on scaling clear, ( i want to see node centralization, i want a crypto decentralized amongst gov/company/bank/universities/etc. i dont care about individual users running nodes. )
but my view is extremely unpopular.
I yield to the will of the majority.

[adamstgBit]

they will not allow users to utilize LN channel for large payments, >XBTC  TX will go through the blockchain.

No, what I'm saying is the utility of that channel is going to be next to nil, because BTC typically flows in one direction, not back-and-forth, due to the nature of arbitrage. So it will be 25 BTC from Rock to BFX, another 25 BTC from Rock to BFX, and another, and another. All small, all going in one direction, because BTC costs less on TheRock. Until things change and it starts going in a different direction, to OKCoin, which is another open channel with 50BTC stuck in it that's only good for 2 tx.

we will have to wait and see.

i understand what you are saying, i have made the same arguments...

[respawn2]

Scaling != LN. Two different things. I hope you're not telling me that by pointing out LN's shortcomings, I'm betting on failure.
There's that changing a constant trick. More than one way to skin a cat, but LN ain't one of them.

i have made my views on scaling clear, ( i want to see node centralization, i want a crypto decentralized amongst gov/company/bank/universities/etc. i dont care about individuals users running nodes. )
but my view is extremely unpopular.
I yield to the will of the majority.

If the majority is wrong, and is sinking all of its efforts into an exercise in mental masturbation, going with the majority is simply wrong. And asking me to support wasted effort, building a scaling solution that's not a scaling solution but is, basically, a solution in need of a problem, that's wrong too. I'm not going to cheer it on just because "we are pushing with everything we got."

By the way, I'm not raging at you, even though it might come off it definitely reads that way. Just general frustration, sorry.

[podyx]

Online games could use micropayments. E-commerce on cheap items or services too.

Let's walk this through. I run across an online game that I want to play. I have to open a payment channel, and prefund it with as much BTC as I think I'm likely to spend playing this game.
What's to prevent me from simply sending this macro-payment straight to the game site? Why involve LN?

Because you'll have to wait over an hour for your macro transaction to even confirm, that's why.

Or maybe you chose a poor example? LN is for buying coffees, fast food, and beers, not for micro-funding your silly online gambling addiction.  

Wait, you have to send money to a special channel before you spend it with LN?

[respawn2]

^Yes, you have to open a channel and fund it. Like a gift card. You open it, you pre-fund it, and then you can spend it. You can not "top it off" later.

[dumbfbrankings]

an hour and 19 minutes since the last block. They are averaging 23 minutes per block and they're all full.

this will cause the price to slump, which will kick more hashpower off the networks, causing further backlogs and higher fees in a viscous feedback loop. I told you bastards this would happen.

it's the Fullblocalypse!!

When is this feedback loop supposed to happen? I just had a tx go through fine and tx fees are only ~70 sat per byte or around 11 USD pennies per tx.


https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

Is this what the end of the world looks like? 11 cents to send a tx? What sort of timeframe are we dealing with where fees start spiraling out of control?

Remember when yous guise would tell him to calm down, it's only 25 sat/byte... yeah, me too.

Well, we're only up about 300% in a few months, not bad.

Prolly won't go much higher... as others have said, we'll just bleed use cases and users to somewhere else. Good thing utility and adoption has nothing to do with market value.

Segwit in April oughtta help tho.

[adamstgBit]

Scaling != LN. Two different things. I hope you're not telling me that by pointing out LN's shortcomings, I'm betting on failure.
There's that changing a constant trick. More than one way to skin a cat, but LN ain't one of them.

i have made my views on scaling clear, ( i want to see node centralization, i want a crypto decentralized amongst gov/company/bank/universities/etc. i dont care about individuals users running nodes. )
but my view is extremely unpopular.
I yield to the will of the majority.

If the majority is wrong, and is sinking all of its efforts into an exercise in mental masturbation, going with the majority is simply wrong. And asking me to support wasted effort, building a scaling solution that's not a scaling solution but is, basically, a solution in need of a problem, that's wrong too. I'm not going to cheer it on just because "we are pushing with everything we got."

I think its important to investigate how things like LN could be beneficial.
mean while BU is pushing in the other direction.
one way or another, we will scale.