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

[Hyperjacked]

^This is the old paradigm. It no longer fits. The alt market is paying off like hotcakes. There must be a reason. Maybe Japan is still bitter about being Goxxed by BTC proper?

It still fits.
ICO's are the new Spaincoin.

That's most of the ICO's over the past few years...we have had a few interesting ones with big potential lately!

Take Equibit for example ! Equibit will use the blockchain to speed up stock market settlement dates... 

Didn't Blythe masters get over 50 million funds for a similar project in the Au ?!

Lots of cool projects being done with the blockchain ...

[afbitcoins]

Quoted from Slack Chat with Craig Wright

https://pastebin.com/zU6YZWXK
 
"Layer 2 networks will require the introduction of AML and intermediary controls. These are localised networks in the form of existing intermediaries.
 
They can be allowed to operate with Bitcoin competitively, but not at the expense of open exchange. This being what they fear, why use L2 if you have no need?

Those who do not think that government can set in and control this are either naive or malicious. There is no other view. This is not a false dichotomy. These are the only options.
 
In all cases, L2 will require systems that can be controlled and they will require the interaction of merchants and other parties. Networks such as lightning centralise and offer control on a platter."

Entirely false information. Your mistake was believing a word that clown says.

Please elaborate why its entirely false? In any case to hell with the Craig Wright link. That wasn't my point. My point is my own formed before I read any of Craigs own opinions.

Why is LN not going to centralise transactions? What is the protection against this? i assume we all want the common goal of bitcoin remaining decentralised. Links please. I need enlightenment so I can join the Wall Observer flock of sheeples

[york780]

Quoted from Slack Chat with Craig Wright

https://pastebin.com/zU6YZWXK
 
"Layer 2 networks will require the introduction of AML and intermediary controls. These are localised networks in the form of existing intermediaries.
 
They can be allowed to operate with Bitcoin competitively, but not at the expense of open exchange. This being what they fear, why use L2 if you have no need?

Those who do not think that government can set in and control this are either naive or malicious. There is no other view. This is not a false dichotomy. These are the only options.
 
In all cases, L2 will require systems that can be controlled and they will require the interaction of merchants and other parties. Networks such as lightning centralise and offer control on a platter."

Entirely false information. Your mistake was believing a word that clown says.

Please elaborate why its entirely false? In any case to hell with the Craig Wright link. That wasn't my point. My point is my own formed before I read any of Craigs own opinions.

Why is LN not going to centralise transactions? What is the protection against this? i assume we all want the common goal of bitcoin remaining decentralised. Links please. I need enlightenment so I can join the Wall Observer flock of sheeples

I really dont take a Dash supporter too serious tho. First they pump it, then its stagnates. Then it dissapears. Its good that Btc takes its time to figure things out properly, but the dark side of decentralisation is that innovation takes so damn long. Same with democracy, its the best solution but it takes ages to decide and implementate. Btc is like old greece. Just philosophy while other lower skilled bad equiped no-knowledge countries are closing in. Its really discusting to see so much bad alts growing while they will dissapear. Dash with this maketcap is just a joke a IMO.

[afbitcoins]

Quoted from Slack Chat with Craig Wright

https://pastebin.com/zU6YZWXK
 
"Layer 2 networks will require the introduction of AML and intermediary controls. These are localised networks in the form of existing intermediaries.
 
They can be allowed to operate with Bitcoin competitively, but not at the expense of open exchange. This being what they fear, why use L2 if you have no need?

Those who do not think that government can set in and control this are either naive or malicious. There is no other view. This is not a false dichotomy. These are the only options.
 
In all cases, L2 will require systems that can be controlled and they will require the interaction of merchants and other parties. Networks such as lightning centralise and offer control on a platter."

Entirely false information. Your mistake was believing a word that clown says.

Please elaborate why its entirely false? In any case to hell with the Craig Wright link. That wasn't my point. My point is my own formed before I read any of Craigs own opinions.

Why is LN not going to centralise transactions? What is the protection against this? i assume we all want the common goal of bitcoin remaining decentralised. Links please. I need enlightenment so I can join the Wall Observer flock of sheeples

I really dont take a Dash supporter too serious tho. First they pump it, then its stagnates. Then it dissapears. Its good that Btc takes its time to figure things out properly, but the dark side of decentralisation is that innovation takes so damn long. Same with democracy, its the best solution but it takes ages to decide and implementate. Btc is like old greece. Just philosophy while other lower skilled bad equiped no-knowledge countries are closing in. Its really discusting to see so much bad alts growing while they will dissapear. Dash with this maketcap is just a joke a IMO.

Thank you for those words of wisdom. Almost as enlightening as your mickey mouse video. Yes I like Dash which is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I like bitcoin too, I'm invested in bitcoin. I care about bitcoin, which is why I'm here worrying and fretting that LN is a bad idea.  

This is from the lighting network paper itself. Near infinite amount of transactions. Off chain. Things that make you go hmm

"If we presume a large network of channels on the Bitcoin blockchain,
and all Bitcoin users are participating on this graph by having at least one
channel open on the Bitcoin blockchain, it is possible to create a near-infinite
amount of transactions inside this network.  The only transactions that are
broadcasted on the Bitcoin blockchain prematurely are with uncooperative
channel counterparties."

[spooderman]

You are claiming that LN will create centralization somehow. I see no reason to think that this is the case.

It may not be perfect, but you can't have an infinitely big block size. So layer 2 has to happen and LN is the best way to make it happen.

[criptix]

Quoted from Slack Chat with Craig Wright

https://pastebin.com/zU6YZWXK
 
"Layer 2 networks will require the introduction of AML and intermediary controls. These are localised networks in the form of existing intermediaries.
 
They can be allowed to operate with Bitcoin competitively, but not at the expense of open exchange. This being what they fear, why use L2 if you have no need?

Those who do not think that government can set in and control this are either naive or malicious. There is no other view. This is not a false dichotomy. These are the only options.
 
In all cases, L2 will require systems that can be controlled and they will require the interaction of merchants and other parties. Networks such as lightning centralise and offer control on a platter."

Entirely false information. Your mistake was believing a word that clown says.

Please elaborate why its entirely false? In any case to hell with the Craig Wright link. That wasn't my point. My point is my own formed before I read any of Craigs own opinions.

Why is LN not going to centralise transactions? What is the protection against this? i assume we all want the common goal of bitcoin remaining decentralised. Links please. I need enlightenment so I can join the Wall Observer flock of sheeples

I really dont take a Dash supporter too serious tho. First they pump it, then its stagnates. Then it dissapears. Its good that Btc takes its time to figure things out properly, but the dark side of decentralisation is that innovation takes so damn long. Same with democracy, its the best solution but it takes ages to decide and implementate. Btc is like old greece. Just philosophy while other lower skilled bad equiped no-knowledge countries are closing in. Its really discusting to see so much bad alts growing while they will dissapear. Dash with this maketcap is just a joke a IMO.

Thank you for those words of wisdom. Almost as enlightening as your mickey mouse video. Yes I like Dash which is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I like bitcoin too, I'm invested in bitcoin. I care about bitcoin, which is why I'm here worrying and fretting that LN is a bad idea. 

This is from the lighting network paper itself. Near infinite amount of transactions. Off chain. Things that make you go hmm

"If we presume a large network of channels on the Bitcoin blockchain,
and all Bitcoin users are participating on this graph by having at least one
channel open on the Bitcoin blockchain, it is possible to create a near-infinite
amount of transactions inside this network.  The only transactions that are
broadcasted on the Bitcoin blockchain prematurely are with uncooperative
channel counterparties."

Can you please explain me with your own words what LN is and does?

[thehulkk]

What in the Holy hell is going on with ripple. All of these alt coins are soaring. Not sure how I can be excited with btc when I see all these others succeeding greater.

[Denker]

What in the Holy hell is going on with ripple. All of these alt coins are soaring. Not sure how I can be excited with btc when I see all these others succeeding greater.

The alts just get bought by the newbs due to the potential of a 10 to 100x increase in no time. It's greed and the hope of making a quick buck why alts are soaring. Sooner or later this will have to come to an end.
Bitcoin is doing good. It will continue to rule them all.
We had a great run so far and in this moment it looks like we're moving up a bit again. Since 4 days we are swinging around the $1500 range. No reason to be disappointed.

[gembitz]

Altcoin manipulators be like

^BTC @$2017.._^_*(((/\DGB(digibytes)@125satoshis==pump&dump coin of the day :-D

https://poloniex.com/exchange#BTC_DGB


woof!

[criptix]

What in the Holy hell is going on with ripple. All of these alt coins are soaring. Not sure how I can be excited with btc when I see all these others succeeding greater.

If you are new: good luck and dont lose all your btc before the rocket ignites.

Alts right now are a very good way to increase your btc holdings. The downside is that if you arent smart (TA wise) or have insider infos the probalities of profiting greatly is rather small.

[afbitcoins]

Quoted from Slack Chat with Craig Wright

https://pastebin.com/zU6YZWXK
 
"Layer 2 networks will require the introduction of AML and intermediary controls. These are localised networks in the form of existing intermediaries.
 
They can be allowed to operate with Bitcoin competitively, but not at the expense of open exchange. This being what they fear, why use L2 if you have no need?

Those who do not think that government can set in and control this are either naive or malicious. There is no other view. This is not a false dichotomy. These are the only options.
 
In all cases, L2 will require systems that can be controlled and they will require the interaction of merchants and other parties. Networks such as lightning centralise and offer control on a platter."

Entirely false information. Your mistake was believing a word that clown says.

Please elaborate why its entirely false? In any case to hell with the Craig Wright link. That wasn't my point. My point is my own formed before I read any of Craigs own opinions.

Why is LN not going to centralise transactions? What is the protection against this? i assume we all want the common goal of bitcoin remaining decentralised. Links please. I need enlightenment so I can join the Wall Observer flock of sheeples

I really dont take a Dash supporter too serious tho. First they pump it, then its stagnates. Then it dissapears. Its good that Btc takes its time to figure things out properly, but the dark side of decentralisation is that innovation takes so damn long. Same with democracy, its the best solution but it takes ages to decide and implementate. Btc is like old greece. Just philosophy while other lower skilled bad equiped no-knowledge countries are closing in. Its really discusting to see so much bad alts growing while they will dissapear. Dash with this maketcap is just a joke a IMO.

Thank you for those words of wisdom. Almost as enlightening as your mickey mouse video. Yes I like Dash which is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I like bitcoin too, I'm invested in bitcoin. I care about bitcoin, which is why I'm here worrying and fretting that LN is a bad idea. 

This is from the lighting network paper itself. Near infinite amount of transactions. Off chain. Things that make you go hmm

"If we presume a large network of channels on the Bitcoin blockchain,
and all Bitcoin users are participating on this graph by having at least one
channel open on the Bitcoin blockchain, it is possible to create a near-infinite
amount of transactions inside this network.  The only transactions that are
broadcasted on the Bitcoin blockchain prematurely are with uncooperative
channel counterparties."

Can you please explain me with your own words what LN is and does?

How did this get from me asking for links so I could read up about it to me having to explain it in my words?    
Earlier today more than once I admitted needing more info, and asking for links, (still non provided).

So far I got this. Using LN, bitcoin users can create payment channels to other users, they can pay each other back and forth without any need for commiting to the blockchain. Unless both parties want to close the channel it stays open. A node could have lots of open channels to lots of other nodes. Payments can also be routed through other channels to reach a user who isn't directly connected via their own channel. Thereby a network will be formed. The likely shape of the way the network will evolve will be a hub and spokes model. With certain nodes acting like hubs this becomes a potential centralisation point. These hubs will know a lot of information about all the transactions passing through them.  I'm still sketchy on the fees but I assume these hubs will also be incentivised by fees.  I envisage hubs could act a bit like banks people create a channel with the bank (I mean hub) in order to get fast routing through LN avoiding slow normal bitcoin. These accounts (I mean channels) will stay open. Dumb masses think they are using bitcoin but they aren't (almost all the time).

[criptix]

Quoted from Slack Chat with Craig Wright

https://pastebin.com/zU6YZWXK
 
"Layer 2 networks will require the introduction of AML and intermediary controls. These are localised networks in the form of existing intermediaries.
 
They can be allowed to operate with Bitcoin competitively, but not at the expense of open exchange. This being what they fear, why use L2 if you have no need?

Those who do not think that government can set in and control this are either naive or malicious. There is no other view. This is not a false dichotomy. These are the only options.
 
In all cases, L2 will require systems that can be controlled and they will require the interaction of merchants and other parties. Networks such as lightning centralise and offer control on a platter."

Entirely false information. Your mistake was believing a word that clown says.

Please elaborate why its entirely false? In any case to hell with the Craig Wright link. That wasn't my point. My point is my own formed before I read any of Craigs own opinions.

Why is LN not going to centralise transactions? What is the protection against this? i assume we all want the common goal of bitcoin remaining decentralised. Links please. I need enlightenment so I can join the Wall Observer flock of sheeples

I really dont take a Dash supporter too serious tho. First they pump it, then its stagnates. Then it dissapears. Its good that Btc takes its time to figure things out properly, but the dark side of decentralisation is that innovation takes so damn long. Same with democracy, its the best solution but it takes ages to decide and implementate. Btc is like old greece. Just philosophy while other lower skilled bad equiped no-knowledge countries are closing in. Its really discusting to see so much bad alts growing while they will dissapear. Dash with this maketcap is just a joke a IMO.

Thank you for those words of wisdom. Almost as enlightening as your mickey mouse video. Yes I like Dash which is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I like bitcoin too, I'm invested in bitcoin. I care about bitcoin, which is why I'm here worrying and fretting that LN is a bad idea. 

This is from the lighting network paper itself. Near infinite amount of transactions. Off chain. Things that make you go hmm

"If we presume a large network of channels on the Bitcoin blockchain,
and all Bitcoin users are participating on this graph by having at least one
channel open on the Bitcoin blockchain, it is possible to create a near-infinite
amount of transactions inside this network.  The only transactions that are
broadcasted on the Bitcoin blockchain prematurely are with uncooperative
channel counterparties."

Can you please explain me with your own words what LN is and does?

How did this get from me asking for links so I could read up about it to me having to explain it in my words?   
Earlier today more than once I admitted needing more info, and asking for links, (still non provided).

So far I got this. Using LN, bitcoin users can create payment channels to other users, they can pay each other back and forth without any need for commiting to the blockchain. Unless both parties want to close the channel it stays open. A node could have lots of open channels to lots of other nodes. Payments can also be routed through other channels to reach a user who isn't directly connected via their own channel. Thereby a network will be formed. The likely shape of the way the network will evolve will be a hub and spokes model. With certain nodes acting like hubs this becomes a potential centralisation point. These hubs will know a lot of information about all the transactions passing through them.  I'm still sketchy on the fees but I assume these hubs will also be incentivised by fees.  I envisage hubs could act a bit like banks people create a channel with the bank (I mean hub) in order to get fast routing through LN avoiding slow normal bitcoin. These accounts (I mean channels) will stay open. Dumb masses think they are using bitcoin but they aren't (almost all the time).

Where do you see the problem of centralisation when anyone can just create their own private channel?

[york780]

Altcoin manipulators be like

^BTC @$2017.._^_*(((/\DGB(digibytes)@125satoshis==pump&dump coin of the day :-D

https://poloniex.com/exchange#BTC_DGB


woof!

Man...
This market is just like Muhh this pattern is bullish : ok lets pump it and f*ck what we pump, we are just gonna do it because its possible.
Crypto troll altcoin gambling continues lol

[afbitcoins]

Quoted from Slack Chat with Craig Wright

https://pastebin.com/zU6YZWXK
 
"Layer 2 networks will require the introduction of AML and intermediary controls. These are localised networks in the form of existing intermediaries.
 
They can be allowed to operate with Bitcoin competitively, but not at the expense of open exchange. This being what they fear, why use L2 if you have no need?

Those who do not think that government can set in and control this are either naive or malicious. There is no other view. This is not a false dichotomy. These are the only options.
 
In all cases, L2 will require systems that can be controlled and they will require the interaction of merchants and other parties. Networks such as lightning centralise and offer control on a platter."

Entirely false information. Your mistake was believing a word that clown says.

Please elaborate why its entirely false? In any case to hell with the Craig Wright link. That wasn't my point. My point is my own formed before I read any of Craigs own opinions.

Why is LN not going to centralise transactions? What is the protection against this? i assume we all want the common goal of bitcoin remaining decentralised. Links please. I need enlightenment so I can join the Wall Observer flock of sheeples

I really dont take a Dash supporter too serious tho. First they pump it, then its stagnates. Then it dissapears. Its good that Btc takes its time to figure things out properly, but the dark side of decentralisation is that innovation takes so damn long. Same with democracy, its the best solution but it takes ages to decide and implementate. Btc is like old greece. Just philosophy while other lower skilled bad equiped no-knowledge countries are closing in. Its really discusting to see so much bad alts growing while they will dissapear. Dash with this maketcap is just a joke a IMO.

Thank you for those words of wisdom. Almost as enlightening as your mickey mouse video. Yes I like Dash which is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I like bitcoin too, I'm invested in bitcoin. I care about bitcoin, which is why I'm here worrying and fretting that LN is a bad idea. 

This is from the lighting network paper itself. Near infinite amount of transactions. Off chain. Things that make you go hmm

"If we presume a large network of channels on the Bitcoin blockchain,
and all Bitcoin users are participating on this graph by having at least one
channel open on the Bitcoin blockchain, it is possible to create a near-infinite
amount of transactions inside this network.  The only transactions that are
broadcasted on the Bitcoin blockchain prematurely are with uncooperative
channel counterparties."

Can you please explain me with your own words what LN is and does?

How did this get from me asking for links so I could read up about it to me having to explain it in my words?   
Earlier today more than once I admitted needing more info, and asking for links, (still non provided).

So far I got this. Using LN, bitcoin users can create payment channels to other users, they can pay each other back and forth without any need for commiting to the blockchain. Unless both parties want to close the channel it stays open. A node could have lots of open channels to lots of other nodes. Payments can also be routed through other channels to reach a user who isn't directly connected via their own channel. Thereby a network will be formed. The likely shape of the way the network will evolve will be a hub and spokes model. With certain nodes acting like hubs this becomes a potential centralisation point. These hubs will know a lot of information about all the transactions passing through them.  I'm still sketchy on the fees but I assume these hubs will also be incentivised by fees.  I envisage hubs could act a bit like banks people create a channel with the bank (I mean hub) in order to get fast routing through LN avoiding slow normal bitcoin. These accounts (I mean channels) will stay open. Dumb masses think they are using bitcoin but they aren't (almost all the time).

Where do you see the problem of centralisation when anyone can just create their own private channel?

In real world use case I don't think average users will want to create a new channel for every single time they trade with someone new. It will be a hassle. They will want to just use 'the lightning network'.   Hub and spoke will arise naturally as most efficient and fast way of routing through the network.

 

[afbitcoins]

Altcoin manipulators be like

^BTC @$2017.._^_*(((/\DGB(digibytes)@125satoshis==pump&dump coin of the day :-D

https://poloniex.com/exchange#BTC_DGB


woof!

Man...
This market is just like Muhh this pattern is bullish : ok lets pump it and f*ck what we pump, we are just gonna do it because its possible.
Crypto troll altcoin gambling continues lol

I think it is just the fact that a lot of new money is pouring into crypto, because the mess the world is in, capital controls, zero/negative interest rates, gold and silver suppressed.  In previous bubbles, historically the new money always benefited bitcoin most because it had 90% slice of the pie. Now it only has 60 something % because its getting slow and fees are getting high. This is the hard line. Money that wants a piece of crypto sees other good places to speculate where that is still lots of room to  grow.

You can wish for bitcoin to be back to the only recipient of investment money all you want but that won't change the reality.

[york780]

Altcoin manipulators be like

^BTC @$2017.._^_*(((/\DGB(digibytes)@125satoshis==pump&dump coin of the day :-D

https://poloniex.com/exchange#BTC_DGB


woof!

Man...
This market is just like Muhh this pattern is bullish : ok lets pump it and f*ck what we pump, we are just gonna do it because its possible.
Crypto troll altcoin gambling continues lol

I think it is just the fact that a lot of new money is pouring into crypto, because the mess the world is in, capital controls, zero/negative interest rates, gold and silver suppressed.  In previous bubbles, historically the new money always benefited bitcoin most because it had 90% slice of the pie. Now it only has 60 something % because its getting slow and fees are getting high. This is the hard line. Money that wants a piece of crypto sees other good places to speculate where that is still lots of room to  grow.

You can wish for bitcoin to be back to the only recipient of investment money all you want but that won't change the reality.

Thats why WE NEED TO VOTE GENTLEMAN.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1904766.0

[bitserve]

In real world use case I don't think average users will want to create a new channel for every single time they trade with someone new. It will be a hassle. They will want to just use 'the lightning network'.   Hub and spoke will arise naturally as most efficient and fast way of routing through the network.
 

So there you have: If most people use LN for their small transactions/payments more block space there is for the "important" transactions if you are willing to pay the fee. You can choose which method you use. What's bad about that?

It's not that you need to chose one way or another, you will be able to decide for each transaction you decide to make.

[Nagadota]

Quoted from Slack Chat with Craig Wright

https://pastebin.com/zU6YZWXK
 
"Layer 2 networks will require the introduction of AML and intermediary controls. These are localised networks in the form of existing intermediaries.
 
They can be allowed to operate with Bitcoin competitively, but not at the expense of open exchange. This being what they fear, why use L2 if you have no need?

Those who do not think that government can set in and control this are either naive or malicious. There is no other view. This is not a false dichotomy. These are the only options.
 
In all cases, L2 will require systems that can be controlled and they will require the interaction of merchants and other parties. Networks such as lightning centralise and offer control on a platter."

Entirely false information. Your mistake was believing a word that clown says.

Please elaborate why its entirely false? In any case to hell with the Craig Wright link. That wasn't my point. My point is my own formed before I read any of Craigs own opinions.

Why is LN not going to centralise transactions? What is the protection against this? i assume we all want the common goal of bitcoin remaining decentralised. Links please. I need enlightenment so I can join the Wall Observer flock of sheeples

I really dont take a Dash supporter too serious tho. First they pump it, then its stagnates. Then it dissapears. Its good that Btc takes its time to figure things out properly, but the dark side of decentralisation is that innovation takes so damn long. Same with democracy, its the best solution but it takes ages to decide and implementate. Btc is like old greece. Just philosophy while other lower skilled bad equiped no-knowledge countries are closing in. Its really discusting to see so much bad alts growing while they will dissapear. Dash with this maketcap is just a joke a IMO.

Thank you for those words of wisdom. Almost as enlightening as your mickey mouse video. Yes I like Dash which is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I like bitcoin too, I'm invested in bitcoin. I care about bitcoin, which is why I'm here worrying and fretting that LN is a bad idea.  

This is from the lighting network paper itself. Near infinite amount of transactions. Off chain. Things that make you go hmm

"If we presume a large network of channels on the Bitcoin blockchain,
and all Bitcoin users are participating on this graph by having at least one
channel open on the Bitcoin blockchain, it is possible to create a near-infinite
amount of transactions inside this network.  The only transactions that are
broadcasted on the Bitcoin blockchain prematurely are with uncooperative
channel counterparties."

Can you please explain me with your own words what LN is and does?

How did this get from me asking for links so I could read up about it to me having to explain it in my words?    
Earlier today more than once I admitted needing more info, and asking for links, (still non provided).

So far I got this. Using LN, bitcoin users can create payment channels to other users, they can pay each other back and forth without any need for commiting to the blockchain. Unless both parties want to close the channel it stays open. A node could have lots of open channels to lots of other nodes. Payments can also be routed through other channels to reach a user who isn't directly connected via their own channel. Thereby a network will be formed. The likely shape of the way the network will evolve will be a hub and spokes model. With certain nodes acting like hubs this becomes a potential centralisation point. These hubs will know a lot of information about all the transactions passing through them.  I'm still sketchy on the fees but I assume these hubs will also be incentivised by fees.  I envisage hubs could act a bit like banks people create a channel with the bank (I mean hub) in order to get fast routing through LN avoiding slow normal bitcoin. These accounts (I mean channels) will stay open. Dumb masses think they are using bitcoin but they aren't (almost all the time).

Where do you see the problem of centralisation when anyone can just create their own private channel?

Where do you see the problem of mining centralisation when everyone can just buy their own miner?  

Because they don't have an incentive to go through all that trouble.

[afbitcoins]

In real world use case I don't think average users will want to create a new channel for every single time they trade with someone new. It will be a hassle. They will want to just use 'the lightning network'.   Hub and spoke will arise naturally as most efficient and fast way of routing through the network.
 

So there you have: If most people use LN for their small transactions/payments more block space there is for the "important" transactions if you are willing to pay the fee. You can choose which method you use. What's bad about that?

It's not that you need to chose one way or another, you will be able to decide for each transaction you decide to make.

The bit I don't like is everyone else using 'central' hubs to put their transactions through. 

Where do you see the problem of mining centralisation when everyone can just buy their own miner? 

Because they don't have an incentive to go through all that trouble.

Yes that illustrates my point LN users wont be incentivised to go to all that trouble either.

Thanks, at least you guys are giving me some food for thought. Mainly responses have been trollish before.

[bitserve]

In real world use case I don't think average users will want to create a new channel for every single time they trade with someone new. It will be a hassle. They will want to just use 'the lightning network'.   Hub and spoke will arise naturally as most efficient and fast way of routing through the network.
 

So there you have: If most people use LN for their small transactions/payments more block space there is for the "important" transactions if you are willing to pay the fee. You can choose which method you use. What's bad about that?

It's not that you need to chose one way or another, you will be able to decide for each transaction you decide to make.

The bit I don't like is everyone else using 'central' hubs to put their transactions through. 

Where do you see the problem of mining centralisation when everyone can just buy their own miner? 

Because they don't have an incentive to go through all that trouble.

Yes that illustrates my point LN users wont be incentivised to go to all that trouble either.

Thanks, at least you guys are giving me some food for thought. Mainly responses have been trollish before.

It's not that users wont be incentivised to go to... Which trouble? Standard BTC transactions will be exactly the same trouble as they are now, nothing changes. But yes, users will be incentivised to use LN for several reasons:

- Lower fees
- Almost INSTANT transactions <- This is a really important point. No blocksize increase could ever reduce a minimum of 10 mins for the first confirmation.
- Real scalability: No more TPS limit. LN networks could process thousands, maybe even millions of transactions per second.

The future usage I envision for myself is something like this:

- For moving my BTC in non trivial ammounts -> BTC Blockchain
- For buying "coffee" or who knows what other smallish stuff -> LN
- For things between those two use cases -> LN or BTC Blockchain depending on the circumstances.

I am not saying that a Block size increase won't be needed in the future. In fact I am sure it will. But what we need first is Segwit. After that, and if it is possible to achieve an enormous consense (95%) for a hardfork to increase the blocksize, then I am ok with that too... a fixed blocksize increase, not a joke like BU.