It is all driven by the block size, and dependent upon how many txs per day the average user makes. Any way you slice it, on chain tx capacity is limited by the block size. And inability to transact on chain also breaks LN - no opens, closes, or repudiation of stale channel state driven theft.
OK but that's never happened.
Absolute twaddle. I know you were here in 2017. Have you already driven the Blockapocalyse I from your memory? Too much "champaign" over the skyrocketing fees?
Oh thats right, the great blockapocalypse. Bitcoin broke, there was chaos in the streets, we all cried, and then died. We're all dead now, same as bitcoin.
Besides, Lightning wasn't around then.
That's the difference.
Of course it's always "what if" - the "what if" scenarios are the essence of system design.
Get the fuck out of here with your "anti-bitcoiner". Why TF do you think I incessantly harp on these BTC weaknesses? It is because I would like BTC to succeed. I don't take this nonstop, most-often ignorant and/or non-substantive abuse because I like it. I am trying to advocate for Bitcoin -- in all its forks -- to be all it can be.
From your constant assault on bitcoin it would seem that you hate it. But thanks for making this clarification.
OK. I mean, BTC can support a fuckload of people if none of them ever makes a tx. But that's not a usable MoE nor SoV. Not to mention the fact that to even get there will take literally decades. Like forty years for each person alive to make a single tx to buy into the system.
Have you ever considered that it doesn't have to reach every person alive to be a success? It's already an astounding success -- far more than anybody could have possibly imagined when it was getting started.
The next FOMO spike will be aborted due to tx capacity. We may even cap before that can take place.
More unsubstantiated "what if" fearmongering from the man who only beats bitcoin because he loves it so much.
Use of LN requires on-chain txs. Once the chain is full, LN breaks. We're bearing down on Blockpocolypse II, and there is still no relief valve.
1. Blockpocalypse 1 never happened. Its a fear-inducing term used by bcashers and SVers to make themselves feel righteous about choosing their particular shitcoin.
2.
The chain has never been full. Again, you're trying to claim that the chain will be unusable
which has never happened. Expensive or slow is hardly the same thing as "unusable."
Not to mention the relative irrelevance of LN in general. The average BTC on-chain tx is currently around $20,000.00.
The median transaction amount is a more encompassing measurement, and that is $412. But I'm sure you also point to average tx fees when stating your tired and endlessly-trotted argument that bitcoin sucks.
What's LN channel max value again?
LN isn't meant for huge transactions. Its meant for every-day transacting. It wasn't developed for Wall Street or whales to shift around millions.
What percentage of Bitcoiners operate an LN node? What percentage of LN txs succeed on first submission? How much time does a typical LN-er devote to managing their LN node? Nay, LN is nowhere near being a suitable replacement for good old Bitcoin. It may get there some day. Far in the future.
LN is currently at record participation and continues to grow by the week. OK at least you admit it may get there. That's an important step.
Oh yes. The 'buhbut mah decentralization' canard. For the eleventy-bajillionth time, so-called 'nodes' provide no value to the system as a whole. But let's set that aside, as that's another twenty-page discussion in and of itself. Let's ask the question 'what percentage of LN users also operate a so-called 'node'?'
Again, this is your opinion, shared by relatively few. I don't understand how you arrived at your conclusion but I've never really cared. Nodes have always been a sign of strength and health of any cryptocurrency network. This doesn't change because you say so. Everyone who opens their own LN channel operates a node, as far as I know, but not everybody has to run a node to use Lightning.
How quaint of you to claim that, when SV has processed multiple blocks larger than 100MB.
Why is the BSV blockchain significantly smaller than BTC's then? Surely it should have passed BTC by now at that rate.
That's kind of an aside, however, as the entire point is to have capacity to accommodate the demand. Which is the economic model that nurtured Bitcoin until Blockstream threw out all the sane devs.
What demand? That's the point. There's very little demand and very little reason why there would be in the future. Wright is destroying BSV with his idiotic antics faster than people can give it the time of day. There's really no point in attacking BCH or BSV any more because their "prophets" are killing their projects themselves.
Poll
