criptix
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2464
Merit: 1145
|
 |
May 06, 2017, 07:42:57 PM |
|
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
|
|
May 06, 2017, 07:46:20 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2101
Merit: 1061
|
|
May 06, 2017, 08:06:05 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2101
Merit: 1061
|
|
May 06, 2017, 08:18:05 PM |
|
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
|
|
May 06, 2017, 08:27:12 PM |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
bitserve
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1848
Merit: 1478
Self made HODLER ✓
|
|
May 06, 2017, 08:33:01 PM |
|
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
|
|
May 06, 2017, 08:35:12 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2101
Merit: 1061
|
|
May 06, 2017, 08:48:55 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1848
Merit: 1478
Self made HODLER ✓
|
|
May 06, 2017, 09:05:44 PM |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
Nagadota
|
|
May 06, 2017, 09:22:40 PM |
|
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. I think you're missing my point. They have an incentive to use LN, but they don't have an incentive to create a personal channel for every transaction. 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 agree with that actually. The Lightning Network's transaction centralisation (which is somewhat inevitable, to be honest) shouldn't be too bad as long as people have the option available to use the real blockchain for large transactions and transactions that require the security of the blockchain. |
|
|
|
|
Meuh6879
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1012
|
|
May 06, 2017, 09:30:24 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gembitz
|
|
May 06, 2017, 09:31:49 PM |
|
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 DIGIBYTE~*~DGB~*~BITCOINS UNDERDOG BRIAN ===>  POLONIEX tradebotzzz = moooooon  lol #dgb4life bwaahaa |
|
|
|
|
|
gembitz
|
|
May 06, 2017, 09:33:23 PM |
|
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. I think you're missing my point. They have an incentive to use LN, but they don't have an incentive to create a personal channel for every transaction. 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 agree with that actually. The Lightning Network's transaction centralisation (which is somewhat inevitable, to be honest) shouldn't be too bad as long as people have the option available to use the real blockchain for large transactions and transactions that require the security of the blockchain. boltzzz :-D LN are coffee hoarders ~ meh ===> NEW YORK CITY!!! |
|
|
|
|
criptix
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2464
Merit: 1145
|
|
May 06, 2017, 10:39:52 PM |
|
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. Block rewards? Decentralisation itself? In LN it is gonna be privacy and lower transaction fees? Why do you think china doesnt control 100% of the network? The problem is similiar to the mining centralisation question but not that large because you always can decide to open your own channel or transact directly on the blockchain. |
|
|
|
|
sirazimuth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3514
Merit: 3613
born once atheist
|
|
May 06, 2017, 10:56:56 PM |
|
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 DIGIBYTE~*~DGB~*~BITCOINS UNDERDOG BRIAN ===> POLONIEX tradebotzzz = moooooon lol #dgb4life bwaahaa
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. I think you're missing my point. They have an incentive to use LN, but they don't have an incentive to create a personal channel for every transaction. 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 agree with that actually. The Lightning Network's transaction centralisation (which is somewhat inevitable, to be honest) shouldn't be too bad as long as people have the option available to use the real blockchain for large transactions and transactions that require the security of the blockchain. boltzzz :-D LN are coffee hoarders ~ meh ===> NEW YORK CITY!!! excuse the giant quote.... couldn't be bothered to edit (i always frack it up)... anyway...not sure if its me getting old(probably is) but am I the only one who never knows WTF you are on about? |
|
|
|
|
afbitcoins
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2101
Merit: 1061
|
|
May 06, 2017, 11:12:49 PM |
|
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. Best argument yet. And thanks for commenting it. This draws obvious comparison with Dash which already has a lot of that working.
* Stands back waiting for inevitable scam comments |
|
|
|
|
criptix
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2464
Merit: 1145
|
|
May 06, 2017, 11:15:15 PM |
|
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. Best argument yet. And thanks for commenting it. This draws obvious comparison with Dash which already has a lot of that working.
* Stands back waiting for inevitable scam commentsDash scammer /jk LN isnt that bad. Much better then BU for sure and safer then block size increase to x (x>4mb) (2 mb wont buy us much time). |
|
|
|
|
|
Ted E. Bare
|
|
May 06, 2017, 11:29:44 PM |
|
Next week new highs? So far it's holding strong.
|
|
|
|
|
bitserve
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1848
Merit: 1478
Self made HODLER ✓
|
|
May 07, 2017, 01:00:12 AM |
|
Next week new highs? So far it's holding strong.
Until now it is doing exactly what it should be doing to continue rising next week: Small but significant correction, half recovery and consolidation. Not sure if there will be another test of $1500 before monday... In fact it would be slightly better if it does. The biggest pump will come when people realise that altcoins can not go on pumping indefinitely and a good chunk of market share returns to BTC. That has not hapenned yet. |
|
|
|
|
MinermanNC
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2198
Merit: 1000
|
|
May 07, 2017, 01:07:30 AM |
|
All markets are rocking... so much to choose from lol what to do.
Seems this pattern has been in play recently... steady stable BTC and steady strong Alts... go figure. I just think more and more people are getting onboard with crypto's. (alts) Which is healthy for BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
