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

[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.

[podyx]

^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.

Oh wow, that's really bad...

Perhaps we see better alternatives in the future. Unless there's a way for the network to kinda sort out smaller payments into channels automatically.

[respawn2]

I think its important to investigate how things like LN could be beneficial.

It's also important to call a spade a spade. LN may solve some problems, but not even a fraction of the problems it claims to solve. No matter what I try to walk through - micropayments, your exchange/exchange thing - it always turns out there's a simpler solution which doesn't involve LN. LN might be many things, but a scaling solution it ain't.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

^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.

Oh wow, that's really bad...

Perhaps we see better alternatives in the future. Unless there's a way for the network to kinda sort out smaller payments into channels automatically.

I'm surprised you didn't know this already. I linked to the Hacker News review of LN not long ago. They hated it. 

[Ibian]

If it's that limited then why is it being pushed?

[respawn2]

If it's that limited then why is it being pushed?

This is not some sort of pure philosophical debate, people stand to gain or lose billions. Why is anything money-related being done? Probably money. Not that I'm above it, with that much at stake who knows what I'd do, but the answer is still money. Egos play into it, but that's about the same thing.

[Odalv]

If it's that limited then why is it being pushed?

This is not some sort of pure philosophical debate, people stand to gain or lose billions. Why is anything money-related being done? Probably money. Not that I'm above it, with that much at stake who knows what I'd do, but the answer is still money. Egos play into it, but that's about the same thing.

There are customers they pay for gods or services. There are merchants and they provide gods or services.  => Customer only pay. Merchant only accept bitcoins.

You as customer will be able to open only 1 channel with LN-PROVIDER to send bitcoins to 1,000,000 merchants.  Merchant will be ablle to open 1 channel with LN-PROVIDER to accept payments from ALL customers.

Can You understand now ?

[dumbfbrankings]

If it's that limited then why is it being pushed?

This is not some sort of pure philosophical debate, people stand to gain or lose billions. Why is anything money-related being done? Probably money. Not that I'm above it, with that much at stake who knows what I'd do, but the answer is still money. Egos play into it, but that's about the same thing.

There are customers they pay for gods or services. There are merchants and they provide gods or services.  => Customer only pay. Merchant only accept bitcoins.

You as customer will be able to open only 1 channel with LN-PROVIDER to send bitcoins to 1,000,000 merchants.  Merchant will be ablle to open 1 channel with LN-PROVIDER to accept payments from ALL customers.

Can You understand now ?

Turning a decentralized P2P cash system into a quasi-centralized Hub and Spoke clearing system.

I think I understand it now.

The only thing I don't understand is why the miners would destroy their own business.

[respawn2]

If it's that limited then why is it being pushed?

This is not some sort of pure philosophical debate, people stand to gain or lose billions. Why is anything money-related being done? Probably money. Not that I'm above it, with that much at stake who knows what I'd do, but the answer is still money. Egos play into it, but that's about the same thing.

There are customers they pay for gods or services. There are merchants and they provide gods or services.  => Customer only pay. Merchant only accept bitcoins.

You as customer will be able to open only 1 channel with LN-PROVIDER to send bitcoins to 1,000,000 merchants.  Merchant will be ablle to open 1 channel with LN-PROVIDER to accept payments from ALL customers.

Can You understand now ?

First I hear of this, sounds like bullshit to me. Walk me through? Who is this "LN-PROVIDER"? How does "LN-PROVIDER" transact with "1,000,000 merchants"?
Why is it that "Merchant will be ablle to open 1 channel with LN-PROVIDER to accept payments from ALL customers."

No really. I'm waiting.

[Odalv]

If it's that limited then why is it being pushed?

This is not some sort of pure philosophical debate, people stand to gain or lose billions. Why is anything money-related being done? Probably money. Not that I'm above it, with that much at stake who knows what I'd do, but the answer is still money. Egos play into it, but that's about the same thing.

There are customers they pay for gods or services. There are merchants and they provide gods or services.  => Customer only pay. Merchant only accept bitcoins.

You as customer will be able to open only 1 channel with LN-PROVIDER to send bitcoins to 1,000,000 merchants.  Merchant will be ablle to open 1 channel with LN-PROVIDER to accept payments from ALL customers.

Can You understand now ?

First I hear of this, sounds like bullshit to me. Walk me through? Who is this "LN-PROVIDER"? How does "LN-PROVIDER" transact with "1,000,000 merchants"?
Why is it that "Merchant will be ablle to open 1 channel with LN-PROVIDER to accept payments from ALL customers."

LN-Provider can be BitPay/PayPal/Google.  You will pay to LN-OPERATOR instantlly, LN-OPERATOR will notify merchant and later LN-OPERATOR will pay to merchanat sum of all payments at once.