SEGWIT & LN KILLING OFF the OnChain Miners (Better start looking for new Jobs)

[kiklo]

Question No Segwit Supporter will Answer

How will the OnChain Miners make Money, when almost all of the Transactions Occur OFFCHAIN on Lightening Network?

Answer:
You won't make enough money to stay a miner!
Segwit Supporters know this and don't care as long as they can make a Quick Buck at your expense.


Charlie Lee has sold out Litecoin and Plans on installing Segwit , No Matter how the Miners Vote!
http://www.newsbtc.com/2017/02/17/charlie-lee-potentially-enforcing-litecoin-segwit-activation-bitcoiners-concerned/

He is planning to Change the Proof of Work and Kill all of your Scrypt Miners, and make you Change PoW Algorithms .
https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5uf679/charlie_lee_people_dont_realize_what_segwit_is/ddtrbxe/

If you are talking about changing the POW then I have to notice it is a risky, expensive and difficult-to-coordinate strategy that may not work.
For one, the hard fork could fail to gain consensus.
For another, even if the POW changes, large miners are arguably the best positioned people to quickly deploy hardware that executes the new POW

Segwit = Onchain Miners Demise



 

[dinofelis]

Question No Segwit Supporter will Answer

How will the OnChain Miners make Money, when almost all of the Transactions Occur OFFCHAIN on Lightening Network?

Answer:
You won't make enough money to stay a miner!
Segwit Supporters know this and don't care as long as they can make a Quick Buck at your expense.

Hum, that's a strange statement.   First of all, it would be a good thing that you won't make enough money to be a miner.  Mining was supposed to be distributed, not a centralized business opportunity.  Every node should mine a bit.  But second, if mining is less profitable, normally, difficulty goes down.  If difficulty goes down, the cost of mining goes down, and hence becomes more profitable, no ? 

And if most income comes from transaction fees, there are in any case instabilities in the system, so it can be a good idea that this breaks down right away.  In fact, there should be continuous tail emission in order to stabilise a PoW coin.  And sound money doctrine is in any case flawed in the competitive crypto world.

[kiklo]

Question No Segwit Supporter will Answer

How will the OnChain Miners make Money, when almost all of the Transactions Occur OFFCHAIN on Lightening Network?

Answer:
You won't make enough money to stay a miner!
Segwit Supporters know this and don't care as long as they can make a Quick Buck at your expense.

Hum, that's a strange statement.   First of all, it would be a good thing that you won't make enough money to be a miner.  Mining was supposed to be distributed, not a centralized business opportunity.  Every node should mine a bit.  But second, if mining is less profitable, normally, difficulty goes down.  If difficulty goes down, the cost of mining goes down, and hence becomes more profitable, no ? 

And if most income comes from transaction fees, there are in any case instabilities in the system, so it can be a good idea that this breaks down right away.  In fact, there should be continuous tail emission in order to stabilise a PoW coin.  And sound money doctrine is in any case flawed in the competitive crypto world.

I think you are missing my point ,

When block rewards are gone, and nothing but transactions fees are paying the onchain miners,
if LN keeps the Majority of the Transactions Fees for theirselves Offchain, the Onchain Miners Go Broke and the whole profession is unprofitable.
So LN then starts their own smaller onchain mining service, (which they use a small % of their offchain fees to pay for) for the few times when they need an onchain transactions, which by the way, THEIR FINAL GOAL IS ALL TRANSACTIONS ONLY HAPPEN OFFCHAIN.
LN=Banks
And we are all right back where we started, with Banks controlling all of the money. 

[dinofelis]

Question No Segwit Supporter will Answer

How will the OnChain Miners make Money, when almost all of the Transactions Occur OFFCHAIN on Lightening Network?

Answer:
You won't make enough money to stay a miner!
Segwit Supporters know this and don't care as long as they can make a Quick Buck at your expense.

Hum, that's a strange statement.   First of all, it would be a good thing that you won't make enough money to be a miner.  Mining was supposed to be distributed, not a centralized business opportunity.  Every node should mine a bit.  But second, if mining is less profitable, normally, difficulty goes down.  If difficulty goes down, the cost of mining goes down, and hence becomes more profitable, no ?  

And if most income comes from transaction fees, there are in any case instabilities in the system, so it can be a good idea that this breaks down right away.  In fact, there should be continuous tail emission in order to stabilise a PoW coin.  And sound money doctrine is in any case flawed in the competitive crypto world.

I think you are missing my point ,

When block rewards are gone, and nothing but transactions fees are paying the onchain miners,

Yes, but that's a fundamental error in crypto currencies that stop block rewards.  There's a known instability in that reward system.  I think that iamnotback has already posted links to public research that demonstrates this.  There's no reason to stop block rewards.  It is an error in bitcoin, litecoin and others, because they stop block rewards to adhere to a principle (sound money doctrine) that doesn't make sense if the "sound money" doesn't have the market monopoly.

And we are all right back where we started, with Banks controlling all of the money.[/i]  

But that is in any case an unavoidable evolution, unless the money market keeps on inventing new crypto and old crypto dies off.  Only this continuous turnover, with new coins coming in, and old ones suffering hyper inflation, can avoid "banking" and "centralisation".  Every stable system will always evolve to a centralised banking-type system.  Because of scaling laws.

[kiklo]

Yes, but that's a fundamental error in crypto currencies that stop block rewards.  There's a known instability in that reward system.  I think that iamnotback has already posted links to public research that demonstrates this.  There's no reason to stop block rewards.  It is an error in bitcoin, litecoin and others, because they stop block rewards to adhere to a principle (sound money doctrine) that doesn't make sense if the "sound money" doesn't have the market monopoly.

And we are all right back where we started, with Banks controlling all of the money.[/i]  

But that is in any case an unavoidable evolution, unless the money market keeps on inventing new crypto and old crypto dies off.  Only this continuous turnover, with new coins coming in, and old ones suffering hyper inflation, can avoid "banking" and "centralisation".  Every stable system will always evolve to a centralised banking-type system.  Because of scaling laws.

We actually Agreed on that, completly ending Block rewards is a bad thing,
however unless they change it Transaction fees will be the miners only source of income, and ergo the dilemma.

It is not the Banks that bug me as much as it is the Fractional Reserves Games they play , that if anyone else did , they would be charged with Fraud and placed in Jail.
Crypto was supposed to end fraction reserve banking, at least that was my hope it would achieve it.
Not until segwit and LN has it become apparent, they are planning Offchain Shenanigans that will reintroduce fractional reserves into crypto and destroy any chance of an honest economy.  If Segwit & LN succeeds , we are right back where we started from, and I would like to postpone that evolution as long as humanly possible.

 

[disconnectme]

I still don't get the debate surrounding this Segwit thing, some people said the miners are not going to active Segwit because it would turn Bitcoin into an Altcoin but from your points above it seems they are only trying to protect their own business not because the technology won't work or make transaction faster and cheaper.

 I think the miners have been the ones trying to centralise Bitcoin from the way they've be running things, the BTC price has been on increase for the past 6 months and also the transaction fee in Satoshi, do this make any sense, now there is a tech that want to make the transaction faster and cheaper they said no to it.

[kiklo]

I still don't get the debate surrounding this Segwit thing, some people said the miners are not going to active Segwit because it would turn Bitcoin into an Altcoin but from your points above it seems they are only trying to protect their own business not because the technology won't work or make transaction faster and cheaper.

 I think the miners have been the ones trying to centralise Bitcoin from the way they've be running things, the BTC price has been on increase for the past 6 months and also the transaction fee in Satoshi, do this make any sense, now there is a tech that want to make the transaction faster and cheaper they said no to it.

Actually it the BTC Core Devs trying to Takeover Control of BTC using segwit & LN.
Miners agreed to a 8mb blocksize ~ year ago and BTC Core refused to even hard fork to a 2MB, which would have resolved the current transaction issues.
BTC Core is trying to force the issue so they can completely control BTC with LN.

Offchain Transactions are not good, will not show up on the block explorer and can be counterfeit.
Instead of funny money , LN will introduce fake BTCs, which you only find out they are fake if you try and cash them out onchain.

 


FYI:
In no way does segwit or LN speed up anything ONCHAIN,
Their offchain Fake BTCs seem faster, but they are fake, not real BTC, the real BTC is locked in place on the ONCHAIN network, which there are ways those locks may fail and someone steal your BTC because of LN. Simply put Segwit & LN are just plain Bad News for everyone , miners & users.


 

[dinofelis]

Crypto was supposed to end fraction reserve banking, at least that was my hope it would achieve it.

That was a naive expectation.  You can't.  Because fundamentally, "fractional reserve banking" is nothing else but the creation of a new monetary token that is only partially exchangeable for the "fundamental".  If you allow for the free creation of new monetary tokens (and if you don't, then crypto is already out of the game), then you must also allow for the inavoidable emergence of fractional reserve banking.

If tomorrow, I have 2000 bitcoin, and I give out zombiecoin, with 10 000 of them, "exchangeable 1-1 to bitcoin as far as the reserve goes", and if it catches on, and people use zombiecoin, and only rarely exchange it for bitcoins, then I simply launched a new coin, with a kick-off value of bitcoin's.  The new creation of zombiecoin is now a fractional reserve banking of bitcoin ; and one day I may declare (as Nixon did) that I give up on keeping parity by exchanging it 1-1 for bitcoin, and that's it.  Then zombiecoin exists too.  Like the dollar exists next to gold.  My zombiecoin ate away some bitcoin market cap, like any altcoin would.  It is as if I created 8000 new bitcoins out of thin air.  That's what every altcoin does.

You can't avoid that mechanism to take place, if you are against monetary monopolies.

[kiklo]

Crypto was supposed to end fraction reserve banking, at least that was my hope it would achieve it.

That was a naive expectation.  You can't.  Because fundamentally, "fractional reserve banking" is nothing else but the creation of a new monetary token that is only partially exchangeable for the "fundamental".  If you allow for the free creation of new monetary tokens (and if you don't, then crypto is already out of the game), then you must also allow for the inavoidable emergence of fractional reserve banking.

If tomorrow, I have 2000 bitcoin, and I give out zombiecoin, with 10 000 of them, "exchangeable 1-1 to bitcoin as far as the reserve goes", and if it catches on, and people use zombiecoin, and only rarely exchange it for bitcoins, then I simply launched a new coin, with a kick-off value of bitcoin's.  The new creation of zombiecoin is now a fractional reserve banking of bitcoin ; and one day I may declare (as Nixon did) that I give up on keeping parity by exchanging it 1-1 for bitcoin, and that's it.  Then zombiecoin exists too.  Like the dollar exists next to gold.  My zombiecoin ate away some bitcoin market cap, like any altcoin would.  It is as if I created 8000 new bitcoins out of thin air.  That's what every altcoin does.

You can't avoid that mechanism to take place, if you are against monetary monopolies.

Maybe it is naive, however allowing out & out fraud is worst than being naive.

Your 10,000 zombie coin should have been exchangeable at .2 of a BTC,
Charging a % or fees to transfer between one and the other is fair.

Say you have a house rental service with 10,000 900sqft Trailers and 2000 Mansions at 12,500sqft .
You Rent all of the trailers out claiming they are Mansions, at the price of a mansions.
Renters check the sqft and see you cheated them out of over 11,600 ft of living space.
They take you to court and sue you for Fraud and they win, because it was fraud.

In a fractional reserve system, fraud is accepted as legal.  
And the same thing happens every single time, price is always untethered from the original resource and next inflation skyrockets and in a few years or decades a currency collapses and the people suffer all over again. At some point we got to say , enough is enough, No more . Now is the time, and Crypto is the way, we stop it here or our great great grandchildren will be cheated by the fraud of fractional reserves banking on a Virtual Coin. That is a little more irony , that I can stand.  

 

[peekabootoo]

first of all why are you so negative to segwit ? do you mine ltc or are you a btc fan trying to keep ltc down... Let Ltc make its own decision.. dont bring your btc politics to ltc and try to pull ltc miners down any further....

at the current time ltc is not profitable to mine in 99 % of counties.. simple
ltc is rarely the most profitable scrypt coin to mine anyway... just check multi pools ! they jump to the most profitable coin all the time

without segwit ltc is slowly dying .. everyone can see that

myself   i'm a micro ltc / btc miner..  i support both ... i am not a whale     .... segwit is a win win win for ltc..  i support segwit  

here's the win win win bit... as i see it  

with segwit miners still receive block reward   same $ for miner for securing network
segwit activation brings lightning network, this brings increased ltc price..   more $ for miner for securing network
increased price in ltc brings more interest / investment.....   again brings increase in ltc price... more $ for miner for securing network

if as one or two people has said... ltc has been sold out to ( L.N. ) and it becomes less $ for the miner then the miner moves to a more profitable coin to mine ( litecoin is Not the most profitable coin to mine )      again this is a win win   .. simple...   litecoin miner has nothing to lose..   its Win Win Win

the only loser would be btc, as it falls even further.. losing more market to an Alt..   what ever the outcome btc will most probably fall from grace eventually.. even faster as they constantly can't agree

what ever the outcome i will still be happy 

just my twopence worth

[dinofelis]

Maybe it is naive, however allowing out & out fraud is worst than being naive.

Your 10,000 zombie coin should have been exchangeable at .2 of a BTC,
Charging a % or fees to transfer between one and the other is fair.

Say you have a house rental service with 10,000 900sqft Trailers and 2000 Mansions at 12,500sqft .
You Rent all of the trailers out claiming they are Mansions, at the price of a mansions.
Renters check the sqft and see you cheated them out of over 11,600 ft of living space.
They take you to court and sue you for Fraud and they win, because it was fraud.

There's nothing really fraudulent here, and the comparison is not exact, because after all, the comfort of a trailer is not the one of a mansion.

However, the value of a monetary asset is entirely fictional and "belief".  As such, my zombiecoins can in principle take on any value, including "one bitcoin".  The initial parity through exchange is just a kick-off to get the belief going, but once it is going, and there's no bank run exposing this, the zombiecoin is an asset of his own right, and the parity can even be lifted, once the belief system is strong enough.  That's exactly what happened to the dollar, when the exchangeability with gold was lifted.  It takes some time to get the "equivalence belief" going, and there, the fractional 1-1 exchange possibility is a good way to pin the prices.  Once people get used to it, and don't use the actual exchange possibility any more, the fractional ratio can indefinitely be increased, until it can be lifted all together.

This is just another way to kick-start a monetary belief system.  It is only if the fractional ratio is raised too quickly and there's a bank run, that the system breaks down.

In a fractional reserve system, fraud is accepted as legal.  

Because it isn't fraud.  It is a limited belief-kick off system.  Any monetary asset is nothing else but belief.

[Ayers]

I still don't get the debate surrounding this Segwit thing, some people said the miners are not going to active Segwit because it would turn Bitcoin into an Altcoin but from your points above it seems they are only trying to protect their own business not because the technology won't work or make transaction faster and cheaper.

 I think the miners have been the ones trying to centralise Bitcoin from the way they've be running things, the BTC price has been on increase for the past 6 months and also the transaction fee in Satoshi, do this make any sense, now there is a tech that want to make the transaction faster and cheaper they said no to it.

Actually it the BTC Core Devs trying to Takeover Control of BTC using segwit & LN.
Miners agreed to a 8mb blocksize ~ year ago and BTC Core refused to even hard fork to a 2MB, which would have resolved the current transaction issues.
BTC Core is trying to force the issue so they can completely control BTC with LN.

Offchain Transactions are not good, will not show up on the block explorer and can be counterfeit.
Instead of funny money , LN will introduce fake BTCs, which you only find out they are fake if you try and cash them out onchain.

 


FYI:
In no way does segwit or LN speed up anything ONCHAIN,
Their offchain Fake BTCs seem faster, but they are fake, not real BTC, the real BTC is locked in place on the ONCHAIN network, which there are ways those locks may fail and someone steal your BTC because of LN. Simply put Segwit & LN are just plain Bad News for everyone , miners & users.


 

funny stuff is that they excuse say they don't want to do an hardfork because it would not solve anything as you need to hardfork again in the future, but then they are pro segwiit which don't solve the issue either and we would require a hard fork in the future anyway

[thejaytiesto]

Are you fucking stupid? Offchain transactions happen daily every time, tons of them. On every exchange there are tons of offchain transactions happening.

There will still need to be the same amount of miners or more. LN means offchain transactions are wrapped in packages, then those packages are sent ONCHAIN which means you still need miners. Segwit is a needed improvement for other things besides scaling.

Why are all the anti segwit and anti LN guys literally braindead? This must be me replying to a troll again anyway.

[European Central Bank]

pathetic.

a functioning lightning network which retains a low block size would make miners a goddamn killing provided it was actually used. the on chain fees would be horrifically large.

[kiklo]

Are you fucking stupid? Offchain transactions happen daily every time, tons of them. On every exchange there are tons of offchain transactions happening.

There will still need to be the same amount of miners or more. LN means offchain transactions are wrapped in packages, then those packages are sent ONCHAIN which means you still need miners. Segwit is a needed improvement for other things besides scaling.

Why are all the anti segwit and anti LN guys literally braindead? This must be me replying to a troll again anyway.

Those offchain transactions don't directly steal transaction fees from the miners, (Like LN will)
, and every movement outside the exchange will pay the onchain miners a transaction fee.
LN wants a system that Almost Never goes ONCHAIN, as you can transfer to anyone with an LN address and never needing to go onchain, you pathetic moron of an asshat. 

Pro Segit Supporters (No Brain whatsoever)



 

[dinofelis]

Those offchain transactions don't directly steal transaction fees from the miners, (Like LN will)
, and every movement outside the exchange will pay the onchain miners a transaction fee.
LN wants a system that Almost Never goes ONCHAIN, as you can transfer to anyone with an LN address and never needing to go onchain

This is something that I don't understand technically.  LN is quite similar to exchange IOU transactions, isn't it ?  In as much as there are systematic flows from one node to another, sooner or later, the node that "gets empty" will have to "fill up" its reserve on the chain, and the node that "boils over" will have to dump on chain, no ?  Regularly, LN nodes will have to interact with the chain to "fill up" or to "empty" I would think, unless the LN network is entirely a closed graph and all nodes have sufficient reserves in their node to accommodate for all fluctuations. 
My fear with LN is rather the opposite: that propagating "waves of panic" will overwhelm the block chain with transactions, because the amount of transactions pending on the LN network can in principle be orders of magnitude larger than what a block chain can handle (that's its main idea !).  So if a block chain can handle, say, 100 000 transactions per hour, and the LN network has 10 million transactions pending in 10 minutes, and there's a panic wave going through the network, those 10 million transactions will need to go on-chain which will create a backlog of 100 hours, often passing the safety time limit of regularisation, and huge opportunities to scam.

[kiklo]

My fear with LN is rather the opposite: that propagating "waves of panic" will overwhelm the block chain with transactions, because the amount of transactions pending on the LN network can in principle be orders of magnitude larger than what a block chain can handle (that's its main idea !).  So if a block chain can handle, say, 100 000 transactions per hour, and the LN network has 10 million transactions pending in 10 minutes, and there's a panic wave going through the network, those 10 million transactions will need to go on-chain which will create a backlog of 100 hours, often passing the safety time limit of regularisation, and huge opportunities to scam.

Your fears are confirmed , article from  Jul 5, 201612:28 PM EST by Kyle Torpey
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/here-s-how-bitcoin-s-lightning-network-could-fail-1467736127/

The Lightning Network’s Failure Mode

The Lightning Network failure scenario described by Todd, takes place when a large number of people on the Bitcoin network need to settle their Lightning Network disputes on the blockchain in a relatively short period of time.

“We do have a failure mode which is: Imagine a whole bunch of these [settlements] have to happen at once,” Todd explained.
“There’s only so much data that can go through the bitcoin network and if we had a large number of Lightning channels get closed out very rapidly, how are we going to get them all confirmed? At some point, you run out of capacity.”

In a scenario where a large number of people need to settle their Lightning contracts on the blockchain, the price for doing so could increase substantially as the available space in bitcoin blocks becomes sparse. “At some point some people start losing out because the cost is just higher than what they can afford,” Todd said. “If you have a very large percentage of the network using Lightning, potentially this cost is very high. Potentially, we could get this mass outbreak of failure.”

The way the Lightning Network works, a user must be able to issue a breach remedy transaction in order to keep their counterparty honest. If a user is unable to make the proper transaction on the blockchain in a certain amount of time, their counterparty may be able to take control of bitcoins tied up in the smart contract between the two parties.

 

[peekabootoo]

yourself and a certain few others! preach such hate and negativity around litecoin,segwit,L.N.  constantly    

as it is litecoin and its miners have nothing to lose ( price wise ) by accepting segwit and L.N.  litecoin is depreciating in value ! or is it being manipulated and purposely kept down ?? by certain entities !

miners and litecoin have lots to gain if it works !! more investment, bigger market share, unlimited adoption,  more value....   more $$$$$s

if it proves not to work ( as you constantly bleat on about ) ...  then miners have lost nothing, other !! ( than a couple of minutes pointing miners to a new coin )..   they move proudly on to a profitable coin to mine ( at least they tried ) !!  because for around a year or so! litecoin has not been profitable to mine anyway !! and as it continues it will never be profitable to mine .. litecoin and its miners have nothing to lose

crypto is about freedom and freedom of choice... is it not !

so stop your hate ( your proving yourself to be on some obsessive btc mission )    lets see litecoin implement the updates. good or not ...   its litecoin's miners freedom of choice ( not btc politics and pools ) .. lets allow litecoin miners to freely choose .. let litecoin freely take its own path, let litecoin freely evolve , its litecoins destiny....       that's whats freedom is about..

unless you or you's have hidden agenda's in trying to stop the update thus keeping litecoin's value down  

i personally have 25 or so and mini mine them . i would love to see litecoin adopt updates and evolve ( good or bad )

again .. please read below !!

whether its a good or not.. its litecoin's miner's choice ( don't let btc politics interfere ) ....  litecoin stands for freedom and has a right to implement the updates and freely evolve ....

 

[PovertyByte]

LN is controversial, but SegWit is needed for BTC to keep up and without it or something else it will be crippled by transaction times. The only way the transaction times can be fixed while leaving BTC alone is if the coin moonshots to the point where transaction fees discourage btc transactions. Now you effectively let BTC become the rich mans tool for moving large sums of money and its real world utility is limited. Bitcoin would be nothing more than a store of wealth and the death of western union at that point.

I do think that some block reward should exist. It keeps mining incentives stable and it also makes up for lost coins which will be an ongoing issue in every cryptocurrency.

LN or something like it is needed in order for a crypto to be viable for day to day mainstream use. Without LN Bitcoin will at most be a secondary currency to fiat, a decant alternative to keep the banks and government hands on top of the table rather than under the table

[blackhawkeye1912]

Well many of the bitcoin enthusiast will in favor into segwit, So no wonder why the segwit supporters are not answering. Maybe because they know what the bitcoin supporters will react on this matters. And the number one will get affect on this was the people who mined bitcoin if I am not mistaken.