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

[HairyMaclairy]

And what is the practical use of LN? Why is LN "necessary"? And what even is MAST?

Personally I think the jury is still out on LN.  I think there will be a wave of competing second layer solutions of which LN, RSK and Liquid are just the start.  

But decentralised instant Bitcoin transfers are pretty handy.  Particularly because you don't want those coffee purchases clogging up the main chain.

As for MAST - Bitcoin already uses merkle trees.  A block is just a collection of transactions in a merkle tree format.  MAST is a twist on the idea:  Merklized Abstract Syntax Trees.  Basically MAST allows for complex scripts to be appended to the Bitcoin blockchain with just a tiny proof recorded on the blockchain, so the vast majority of the script sits offchain, creating the ability to create Bitcoin smart contracts which are largely offchain.  And because they are off-chain, they are private.      

[HairyMaclairy]

Afaik transaction malleability breaks LN.  So Segwit is necessary for LN as it fixes transaction malleability.  Also BIP 114 for MAST requires Segwit.

I think that the malleability bug is separate from the segwit. I think segwit required the fix in order to work. So segwit in on itself is not required for LN.



One advantage of segwit are reduced orphaned blocks, as the small header is sent separately and prior to the transaction data to other miners. The quicker transmission time reduces the chances two blocks are mined at the same time.
Another is simply a more efficient use of space. More tx's per Kb.

That's what I understand, anyway.

My understanding is that tx malleability shifts the tx id, which means the locked coins cannot be validly spent. So segwit is a dependency for LN.  

Edit:  this post explains it better than I could:  http://cowpig.github.io/bitcoin/cryptocurrency/2017/06/24/Segwit-and-Lightning-Network/

[JayJuanGee]

JayJuanGee & Trollgoossens, since you're very slow on the uptake, what is your opinion of the fact that numerous people shilling FOR Bitcoin like Last of the V8s and the Popescu cult all believe the segwit coins will become anyone can spend and anyone using a segwit address will lose everything?  

I find this idea pretty hilarious myself since if it actually does occur, most users and exchanges would probably be affected, the price would go to zero, and probably nobody would ever touch Bitcoin again.  But that is how dumb Bitcoin shills are in 2019.  They believe this cataclysmic event actually will occur, yet they are still "bullish" because they're not using a segwit address.

I did not buy into those scenarios about the orphaning off of segwit or whatever that pie in the sky dumb scenario... .. so if some peeps believe it and they want to continue to refrain from using seg wit, then that is their choice.

I would imagine with the passage of time, there are going to be fewer and fewer of those peeps abstaining from segwit, and surely the more peeps who use segwit, then the less likely their pie in the sky scenario would have any kind of meaningful foundation to be carried out...

So, the fact of the matter seems to be that with the passage of time, segwit is increasing usage and adoption, so, like I already mentioned, I kind of expect that with the passage of time, those fears of legacy BTC forking away from segwit will die out.

[realr0ach]

Comically bad shilling for the Rube Goldberg machine, Larry Summers Lightning Network

I suggest everyone in this thread to read this post right this second concerning Lightning Network.  This is actually supposed to be a PRO-LN post, yet it comes off as just a comically dysfunctional Rubix cube that looks like something Comedy Central would post as a joke:

https://blog.muun.com/the-inbound-capacity-problem-in-the-lightning-network/

The idea that garbage could be in ANY WAY useful or usable at all for end users is outrageous.  And the post even inadvertently shows you why LN is designed to completely centralize where all your transactions will be routed through a single permissioned bank.  I LAUGH IN THE FACE of anyone that claims this is "the future".  The future of dystopia maybe.

[mindrust]

I've registered in 02/Dec/2013

If I had put $100 on BTC weekly since that day, I would have had $382,017.68 in my BTC account now. (44btc) Feelssadman.
https://calculator.for-bitcoin.com/?amount=100.00&freq=week&month=December&day=02&year=2013

DCA really works.

[JayJuanGee]

Comically bad shilling for the Rube Goldberg machine, Larry Summers Lightning Network

I suggest everyone in this thread to read this post right this second concerning Lightning Network.  This is actually supposed to be a PRO-LN post, yet it comes off as just a comically dysfunctional Rubix cube that looks like something Comedy Central would post as a joke:

https://blog.muun.com/the-inbound-capacity-problem-in-the-lightning-network/

The idea that garbage could be in ANY WAY useful or usable at all for end users is outrageous.  And the post even inadvertently shows you why LN is designed to completely centralize where all your transactions will be routed through a single permissioned bank.  I LAUGH IN THE FACE of anyone that claims this is "the future".  The future of dystopia maybe.

Well, many of us laugh in the face of your PM pumping.

Don't get so caught up on one little topic, because bitcoin has options.   Currently, lightning is very test phase and smaller transactions, but if you want to move $10million (if any of us were to have that amount - but the amount could be more or less, too) anywhere in the world without asking permission or even not disclosing your $10million transaction to anyone what you are doing, then you can move it on bitcoin's main chain.  Try doing that with any pm or even dollars, you nincompoop!!!!

[realr0ach]

JayJuanGee, stop trying to downplay the fact that all or the majority of BTC's eggs have been placed in this basket called LN and as I just showed you, it's complete garbage.

[HairyMaclairy]

Assuming that article is true (I am not in a position to evaluate that at the moment):

1.  If I am buying coffee I don't need inbound capacity

2.  If I am buying coffee, I don't give a shit if its on a centralised solution.  I can use my exchange's lightning routing.  I have £40 on an Oyster card.  I can afford £10 on a coffee card.

If you can't afford to risk £10 on a coffee card then you should stick to Folgers

[hv_]

JayJuanGee, stop trying to downplay the fact that all or the majority of BTC's eggs have been placed in this basket called LN and as I just showed you, it's complete garbage.

as the entire BS 'feature' realm has ... but nobody cares and does due dilligence - but PoSM only

[JayJuanGee]

I've registered in 02/Dec/2013

If I had put $100 on BTC weekly since that day, I would have had $382,017.68 in my BTC account now. (44btc) Feelssadman.
https://calculator.for-bitcoin.com/?amount=100.00&freq=week&month=December&day=02&year=2013

DCA really works.

That's about when I started buying into bitcoin, too.  I believe that my first BTC purchase was in the final days of November 2013, so my hypothetical numbers based on such a similar timeline come out about the same.

$5 per day does pretty good too... gets you to about $134k in value based on about a $10k investment.

[realr0ach]

If I am buying coffee, I don't give a shit if its on a centralised solution.

You don't seem to comprehend that the pathway for Bitcoin is currently set to where ALL of your transactions would be done on Lightning Network, and as I've said for years, and as that post inadvertently shows you, all of your transactions will ALWAYS be routed through a permissioned ledger bank.  Not that it would ever gain any traction with the general public since it's the equivalent of operating a Rubix cube, so you don't have to worry about ever using Lightning Network anyway.

Still, what the fuck is the purpose of Bitcoin if all your transactions have to go through a permissioned ledger bank???  And don't give me any idiotic bullshit about "HURRR I'll just use on-chain".  No, you're not going to be paying $1000 transaction fees or whatever on-chain even if you were buying a car.  It makes 0 economic sense.

[HairyMaclairy]

Hah I sent a 20 sat transaction today and it easily cleared in the first block.

To go from there to a $1k fee would take adoption a thousand times more than it currently is.  If you want to believe that is the level of adoption we will achieve, before we have the chance to implement other scaling solutions, so be it. 

[JayJuanGee]

JayJuanGee, stop trying to downplay the fact that all or the majority of BTC's eggs have been placed in this basket called LN and as I just showed you, it's complete garbage.

What the fuck you talking about?

Yeah there has been a lot of hype around lightning network in the past year and a half, but the main bitcoin network has continued to work, too.

I have not used lightning, and in the last year and a half I have sent more than 100 onchain bitcoin transaction - and 90% of the time, I have sent them with a fee that is less than a dollar (even the priority transactions) - and the transaction amounts were usually not less than $400 - but if they were less than $400 then I would frequently use a smaller fee.

The about 10 % that included higher fees were still tending to be relatively low, and perhaps only a couple of occasions did I pay more than a couple of dollars for fees when someone wanted a transaction to be sent priority during a period that fees were higher.

Also transaction times have tended to be decently fast, too.

So, you are pie in the sky theoretical, roach, when you don't even use the thing (bitcoin) that you are constantly  complaining about.. as if your PMs  provided some superior use cases... ..


NOT.

[P_Shep]

Afaik transaction malleability breaks LN.  So Segwit is necessary for LN as it fixes transaction malleability.  Also BIP 114 for MAST requires Segwit.

I think that the malleability bug is separate from the segwit. I think segwit required the fix in order to work. So segwit in on itself is not required for LN.



One advantage of segwit are reduced orphaned blocks, as the small header is sent separately and prior to the transaction data to other miners. The quicker transmission time reduces the chances two blocks are mined at the same time.
Another is simply a more efficient use of space. More tx's per Kb.

That's what I understand, anyway.

My understanding is that tx malleability shifts the tx id, which means the locked coins cannot be validly spent. So segwit is a dependency for LN.  

Edit:  this post explains it better than I could:  http://cowpig.github.io/bitcoin/cryptocurrency/2017/06/24/Segwit-and-Lightning-Network/

Ah, ok. So Segwit IS the bugfix. thought they were separate.

Why would people want to used these shitcoin forks with bugs in them?
Crazy.

[JayJuanGee]

JayJuanGee, stop trying to downplay the fact that all or the majority of BTC's eggs have been placed in this basket called LN and as I just showed you, it's complete garbage.

as the entire BS 'feature' realm has ... but nobody cares and does due dilligence - but PoSM only

Surely, you have been doing your research, right HV_? 

I have seen a lot of intelligent and accurate posts from you, HV_, so surely I would trust your diagnoses of bitcoin's ailments.   




NOT!

[realr0ach]

Hah I sent a 20 sat transaction today and it easily cleared in the first block.

To go from there to a $1k fee would take adoption a thousand times more than it currently is.  If you want to believe that is the level of adoption we will achieve, before we have the chance to implement other scaling solutions, so be it.  

Nobody actually uses Bitcoin for anything right now except sending to and from places like Coinbase to gamble, so of course it's semi-functional when nobody uses it.  Stop pretending what Hal Finney said isn't true, that Bitcoin is completely useless except as an intra-bank SDR on-chain scaling-wise.

[HairyMaclairy]

Maybe you wouldn't bitch about transaction fees if you started using segwit


I use Bitcoin to buy VPN for fairly obvious reasons.  I am not about to use my credit card for that, and Liberty Dollars seems to have shut down. 

[El duderino_]

So in a bearmarket every day r0ach comes with the same crap.... always the same centralised BS and always same LN BS or segwit BS talks..... etc....

When we go up he’s DFT Goes to WFT  (daily FUD talk, weekly FUD talk)

We are almost on that moment r0ach’s DFT and WFT wil go to MFT follow by Total absence —> Then NEW account with NEW name and entering the thread as BTC-newbie asking, Sir Micg how should I handle my BTC-buying and strategie, asked on a very polite manner that I probably merit at that time....

[HairyMaclairy]

Afaik transaction malleability breaks LN.  So Segwit is necessary for LN as it fixes transaction malleability.  Also BIP 114 for MAST requires Segwit.

I think that the malleability bug is separate from the segwit. I think segwit required the fix in order to work. So segwit in on itself is not required for LN.



One advantage of segwit are reduced orphaned blocks, as the small header is sent separately and prior to the transaction data to other miners. The quicker transmission time reduces the chances two blocks are mined at the same time.
Another is simply a more efficient use of space. More tx's per Kb.

That's what I understand, anyway.

My understanding is that tx malleability shifts the tx id, which means the locked coins cannot be validly spent. So segwit is a dependency for LN.  

Edit:  this post explains it better than I could:  http://cowpig.github.io/bitcoin/cryptocurrency/2017/06/24/Segwit-and-Lightning-Network/

Ah, ok. So Segwit IS the bugfix. thought they were separate.

Why would people want to used these shitcoin forks with bugs in them?
Crazy.

Yeah dont worry about those guys.  They are still trying to convince people that 0 conf transactions are safe.

[Ibian]

And what is the practical use of LN?

Cheap small transactions and fast confirmations! I've recently installed a LN-wallet, and I already made more transactions on LN than I made on Bitcoin in at least a year.
It makes small payments possible again, such as sending 0.0001 BTC with 0.0000000202 BTC fee.

I'm okay with paying a high fee for a big transaction, but I'd love to be able to use Bitcoin for small transactions too. LN allows much more users to actually use it, as 7 transactions per second can't scale up.

Okay first of all, it does not "make small transactions possible", again or otherwise, that was always possible. That kind of inserted misdirection does not make it look better.

So small fees. To one specific target. Cost of opening/closing such a channel?