Lightning Network vs Bitcoin cash

[complexMachines9]

hello I want to know your thoughts on Lightning network vs Bitcoin cash

Lightning network off chain is not as secure as bitcoin cash, or are they the same?

not sure because i go on reddit /r/BTC and they say very bad things about lightning!

[1715652800]

1715652800

[1715652800]

1715652800

[1715652800]

1715652800

[redigaffi]

Lightning nodes will remove the decentralization, and those who hold those nodes will have the power. Who will hold these nodes? The banks. Bitcoin sold his soul.

[kingaltcoins]

Lightning nodes will remove the decentralization, and those who hold those nodes will have the power. Who will hold these nodes? The banks. Bitcoin sold his soul.

Who told you that bullshit?

Lightning nodes will be implemented in wallet services which we use today like Mycellium, Copay, Coinomi etc. and also on some hardware wallets like Trezor, Ledger etc. On the contrary, Coinbase already has some kind of "off-chain" transaction capabilities between Coinbase users from their inception.
No nodes will have the power to alter any terms and conditions of lightning network payment channels since they'll be controlled solely between the buyer and the seller. Nodes will just act as a medium to conduct the processes.

People like Roger Ver is brainwashing new individuals like you into thinking that lightning network = centralization.  It's their own altcoin which is = centralization since miners have the power to control the block sizes in their bcash crap coin.

[Xynerise]

hello I want to know your thoughts on Lightning network vs Bitcoin cash

Lightning network off chain is not as secure as bitcoin cash, or are they the same?

not sure because i go on reddit /r/BTC and they say very bad things about lightning!

Stay away from r/BTC for the sake of your sanity and IQ.
Prolonged reading of r/BTC could lead to your IQ dropping by as much as 50 points or you becoming one of Roger's mindless zombies that think bitcoin cash is bitcoin .

[kingaltcoins]

Stay away from r/BTC for the sake of your sanity and IQ.
Prolonged reading of r/BTC could lead to your IQ dropping by as much as 50 points or you becoming one of Roger's mindless zombies that think bitcoin cash is bitcoin .

Both r/BTC and r/flatearth are equally cancerous. These individuals should stop reproducing.

OP, if you really wanna waste your time, you might as well do something rather than looking into the garbage sections of reddit. What core devs are trying to do in order to curb the scalability solutions will never penetrate inside the brains of multi-millionaires who just doesn't know anything beyond making money. That's why these species have a seperate space to form their own bubble full of sock-puppets.

[cupronickel]

hello I want to know your thoughts on Lightning network vs Bitcoin cash

Lightning network off chain is not as secure as bitcoin cash, or are they the same?

not sure because i go on reddit /r/BTC and they say very bad things about lightning!

I would not be concerned about security on LN. Really.

[redigaffi]

Lightning nodes will remove the decentralization, and those who hold those nodes will have the power. Who will hold these nodes? The banks. Bitcoin sold his soul.

Who told you that bullshit?

Lightning nodes will be implemented in wallet services which we use today like Mycellium, Copay, Coinomi etc. and also on some hardware wallets like Trezor, Ledger etc. On the contrary, Coinbase already has some kind of "off-chain" transaction capabilities between Coinbase users from their inception.
No nodes will have the power to alter any terms and conditions of lightning network payment channels since they'll be controlled solely between the buyer and the seller. Nodes will just act as a medium to conduct the processes.

People like Roger Ver is brainwashing new individuals like you into thinking that lightning network = centralization.  It's their own altcoin which is = centralization since miners have the power to control the block sizes in their bcash crap coin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYHFrf5ci_g&t=1s

[kingaltcoins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYHFrf5ci_g&t=1s

You clearly got brainwashed by the false agenda with that video.
If you know the Big-O complexity algorithm, it's clear that Bitcoin is not scalable, because it follows the O(n²) curve.
Thus, Bitcoin needs to scale in the same way the internet does, with additional protocol layers like lightning networks and sidechains.

I would recommend you to learn how complexities work before making conclusions based off of fake agendas. Also watch this instead: https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw

[ir.hn]

Lightning nodes will remove the decentralization, and those who hold those nodes will have the power. Who will hold these nodes? The banks. Bitcoin sold his soul.

Who told you that bullshit?

Lightning nodes will be implemented in wallet services which we use today like Mycellium, Copay, Coinomi etc. and also on some hardware wallets like Trezor, Ledger etc. On the contrary, Coinbase already has some kind of "off-chain" transaction capabilities between Coinbase users from their inception.
No nodes will have the power to alter any terms and conditions of lightning network payment channels since they'll be controlled solely between the buyer and the seller. Nodes will just act as a medium to conduct the processes.

People like Roger Ver is brainwashing new individuals like you into thinking that lightning network = centralization.  It's their own altcoin which is = centralization since miners have the power to control the block sizes in their bcash crap coin.

I'm a small blocker, but mining is the aspect of bitcoin that was designed to decentralize.  It requires work to do so people can't just mine for free.  It requires investment for your vote to count.  This is why we mine.

So if miners control the network, then bitcoin is working as designed.

[kingaltcoins]

I'm a small blocker, but mining is the aspect of bitcoin that was designed to decentralize.  It requires work to do so people can't just mine for free.  It requires investment for your vote to count.  This is why we mine.

So if miners control the network, then bitcoin is working as designed.

Absolute bullshit. Miners will never be given full power let alone be having an option to choose block sizes. Bitmain has already been caught doing some shady shits in the past before the bcash split ... Go figure the terms: ASICBOOST and ANTBLEED scandals.

Sorry to burst your bubble but that's not gonna happen in Bitcoin. Miners will never be given any extra privilege. Move your miners to Btrash if you have to and we won't miss you.

[ir.hn]

I'm a small blocker, but mining is the aspect of bitcoin that was designed to decentralize.  It requires work to do so people can't just mine for free.  It requires investment for your vote to count.  This is why we mine.

So if miners control the network, then bitcoin is working as designed.

Absolute bullshit. Miners will never be given full power let alone be having an option to choose block sizes. Bitmain has already been caught doing some shady shits in the past before the bcash split ... Go figure the terms: ASICBOOST and ANTBLEED

Sorry to burst your bubble but that's not gonna happen in Bitcoin. Miners will never be given any extra privilege. Move your miners to Btrash if you have to and we won't miss you.

Um yes they do.  If 51% of miners want anything at all, they can fork everyone else off the blockchain that doesn't use their protocol.

[hatshepsut93]

Um yes they do.  If 51% of miners want anything at all, they can fork everyone else off the blockchain that doesn't use their protocol.

This kind of uneducated nonsense will (hopefully) get you banned for a few days if you'll continue spreading misinformation on this board. If you are not trolling, you will have an incentive to read some good resources that explain Bitcoin's protocol (you can find a lot of quality stuff here: http://lopp.net/bitcoin.html), and if you are trolling, it will be a good riddance.

[ir.hn]

Um yes they do.  If 51% of miners want anything at all, they can fork everyone else off the blockchain that doesn't use their protocol.

This kind of uneducated nonsense will (hopefully) get you banned for a few days if you'll continue spreading misinformation on this board. If you are not trolling, you will have an incentive to read some good resources that explain Bitcoin's protocol (you can find a lot of quality stuff here: http://lopp.net/bitcoin.html), and if are trolling, it will be a good riddance.

If I am wrong please explain my error instead of deliberately maliciously threatening me.  Please explain why 51% of mining power cannot create a chain fork.

[nullius]

Both r/BTC and r/flatearth are equally cancerous. These individuals should stop reproducing.

Quoted because that makes me wish I had more available space in my signature.

Bitmain has already been caught doing some shady shits in the past before the bcash split ... Go figure the terms: ASICBOOST and ANTBLEED scandals.

Some handy references:

https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2017-9230

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html

N.b. that the altcoin deceptively misnamed “Bitcoin Cash” is still wide open to covert exploitation of ASICBOOST.  Add in the way its DAA could be gamed before its November hardfork, and there was in substantial essence an on-the-fly BCH premine with Jihan (Bitmain) getting up to a 30% cost advantage over other miners.  That last advantage remains.  Anybody who is not Jihan and mines BCH, is a patsy for Jihan.

Um yes they do.  If 51% of miners want anything at all, they can fork everyone else off the blockchain that doesn't use their protocol.

This kind of uneducated nonsense will (hopefully) get you banned for a few days if you'll continue spreading misinformation on this board. If you are not trolling, you will have an incentive to read some good resources that explain Bitcoin's protocol (you can find a lot of quality stuff here: http://lopp.net/bitcoin.html), and if are trolling, it will be a good riddance.

If I am wrong please explain my error instead of deliberately maliciously threatening me.  Please explain why 51% of mining power cannot create a chain fork.

You are deliberately, maliciously lying, and spamming your lies over multiple threads in a forum designated for well-informed technical discussion.  But if you want to play stupid, go read my other recent reply, q.v.:

[...]

General point:  There is a common misconception about the role of miners.  Miners have one, only one, and exactly one job:  To provide the ordering of transactions in a Byzantine fault-tolerant manner (which in turn prevents double-spends).  That’s what miners do.  That is all miners do.  Granted, it is an important and resource-intensive job; that’s why miners get paid for it.  But that is the one and only security function of miners.

[...]

Full nodes do not blindly “follow the longest chain”.  They follow the chain independently validated by them which has the highest total POW.  A miner who produced invalid blocks would be wasting his hashrate, and likely risking widespread blacklisting of his IP address.  It doesn’t matter if the invalid blocks steal money from Segwit transactions, steal money from old-style transactions, create 21 billion new coins, or are filled with gibberish from /dev/random.  An invalid block is an invalid block, and shall be promptly discarded by all full nodes—period.

ir.hn is creating nonsensical non-arguments by exploiting the aforesaid misconception about the role of miners.  After all the attempts others have made to explain on this and other points, I cannot but conclude that ir.hn is maliciously spreading misinformation.  I write this post for the benefit of others.  I am uninterested in arguing with somebody who is a deliberate liar and/or so manifestly ineducable as to appear braindead.

[Andre_Goldman]

Honestly ... regards to scalability I would like to see simulations ( as we often do while design networks )

[hopeAo]

hello I want to know your thoughts on Lightning network vs Bitcoin cash

Lightning network off chain is not as secure as bitcoin cash, or are they the same?

not sure because i go on reddit /r/BTC and they say very bad things about lightning!

The main purpose of Lightning Network is to address scalability. More specifically, providing a much higher transaction throughput at reduced fees through payment channels. An intriguing concept, especially when considering Bitcoin’s current throughput and fees situation. With the transaction costs mounting several times this year alone, a cheap solution will have a lot of merit. However, Bitcoin Cash provides a similar functionality and some added features.

Both systems work completely different, to say the least. Secondly, people claim the Lightning Network will only work for small transactions. That is the main objective, granted, but people can still use Bitcoin for larger amounts. Bitcoin Cash has no real advantage here either, despite its “unlimited” transaction size.

The Lightning Network still doesn’t require actual network confirmations like Bitcoin Cash does right now.  Moreover, BCH has no unlimited transaction size either. Right now, it appears to be capped at 24 TX per second, which isn’t exactly stellar either. 

In the end, people are free to use whichever solution they like best. From a technical point of view, the Lightning Network and Bitcoin Cash are nothing alike whatsoever. There will always be squabbles between BCH and BTC supporters, that much is evident. The Lightning Network is an exciting development, although its actual sue cases have yet to be determined.

http://www.livebitcoinnews.com/bitcoin-cash-better-lightning-network/

[icanscript]

Lightning Network is best idea to solve all bitcoin problems.

Perhaps the best, but unfortunately not resolved in time.
Now this is becoming a serious problem with the BCH

[CryptosapienZA]

Lightning Network is best idea to solve all bitcoin problems.

You cant just throw statements like that, without backing them up. Please provide us with the reasons why you are saying so.

[benzmuircroft]

can we earn for operating payment channels? If they run from inside your wallet as I'm assuming from the word network in the name

[Xynerise]

can we earn for operating payment channels? If they run from inside your wallet as I'm assuming from the word network in the name

Yes, you can.
Like the Bitcoin network, the lightning network will also operate on a model of market-driven transaction fees. However, these are not the same fees paid to miners on the Bitcoin blockchain.
Nodes will charge you to use their channel, and if you run a node, you will receive payments from users using your payment channel.
The fees, however, will not be as much as an on-chain transaction, but much much less.
You can read this article for more info: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-lightning-network-creators-fees-will-be-effectively-zero-1459955513/

[nc50lc]

can we earn for operating payment channels? If they run from inside your wallet as I'm assuming from the word network in the name

Yes, you can.
Like the Bitcoin network, the lightning network will also operate on a model of market-driven transaction fees. However, these are not the same fees paid to miners on the Bitcoin blockchain.
Nodes will charge you to use their channel, and if you run a node, you will receive payments from users using your payment channel.
The fees, however, will not be as much as an on-chain transaction, but much much less.
You can read this article for more info: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-lightning-network-creators-fees-will-be-effectively-zero-1459955513/

So, how will it be faster than the chain if the miners would stay in the main channel because the payment they will receive might be lower?
I'm looking forward to the Lightning Network and I don't want to use Bitcoin Cash just for a faster transactions.

[achow101]

So, how will it be faster than the chain if the miners would stay in the main channel because the payment they will receive might be lower?
I'm looking forward to the Lightning Network and I don't want to use Bitcoin Cash just for a faster transactions.

THere is no "main channel". Miners are not involved in lightning except for confirming the on-chain opening and closing transactions. The transactions are faster through lightning because they can be done nearly instantaneously (well as fast as you can send data over a wire) with basically guaranteed security.

[pratapadityasi]

Lightning nodes are a healthy way to solve centralization issues, lets see how the development and implementation goes

[Anphonsus]

What everyone agrees on is that Lightning Network can't come soon enough. The fees for BTC transactions are becoming ridiculous recently.

Once the Lightning Network is there, BitcoinCash, Litecoin would be swept aside.

[Kakmakr]

What everyone agrees on is that Lightning Network can't come soon enough. The fees for BTC transactions are becoming ridiculous recently.

Once the Lightning Network is there, BitcoinCash, Litecoin would be swept aside.

Nope, they will increase their Block sizes to try and compete with Bitcoin and the Lightning Network and then realize that it will never be able to compete. By doing this, they will open new attack vectors and their strategy will explode in their face.

LiteCoin will do much better, because it already implemented SegWit and the Lightning Network runs on top of that. BCash does not run SegWit, so they will not be able to implement the LN. ^smile^

[Alexbit2017]

Lightning Network is best idea to solve all bitcoin problems.

advertising?

[bob123]

Bitcoin is currently able to handle about 3 Transactions per second.
Now bitcoin cash doubled the block size.. so about 6 tx / s are possibe..
Thats a pretty weak 'technological' growth. Increasing block size is just delaying the problem. Its not solving it at all.
The lightning network (together with segwit) on the other hand could have the capacity to handle up to 50.000 Tx/s.
This brings bitcoin to the same level of scalability as ripple, which is quite impressive.
IMO BCH is just a fraud. It may take some time.. but people will realize that BCH is just a smart way of stealing peoples money.
In the end BTC will outpace BCH in terms of everything.

[irukandji]

What everyone agrees on is that Lightning Network can't come soon enough. The fees for BTC transactions are becoming ridiculous recently.

Once the Lightning Network is there, BitcoinCash, Litecoin would be swept aside.

Nope, they will increase their Block sizes to try and compete with Bitcoin and the Lightning Network and then realize that it will never be able to compete. By doing this, they will open new attack vectors and their strategy will explode in their face.

LiteCoin will do much better, because it already implemented SegWit and the Lightning Network runs on top of that. BCash does not run SegWit, so they will not be able to implement the LN. ^smile^

Could Bitcoincash just introduce Segwit any time they liked?

[irukandji]

With the lightning network, if I want to send say 1 bitcoin to someone I have never met and don't know, how will that work in practice?

Will we have to first set up a channel between us and deposit bitcoin in it? 

[bob123]

With the lightning network, if I want to send say 1 bitcoin to someone I have never met and don't know, how will that work in practice?

Will we have to first set up a channel between us and deposit bitcoin in it? 

The lightning network is an implementation of Hashed Timelock Contracts (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hashed_Timelock_Contracts).
You can think of it as a network with bidirectional payment channels which allows the payments to broadcasted/routed between several channels safely.
Therefore you and your business parther would not have to join the same channel since you are connected through a 'network of paymentchannels'.

[justone123]

With the lightning network, if I want to send say 1 bitcoin to someone I have never met and don't know, how will that work in practice?

Will we have to first set up a channel between us and deposit bitcoin in it? 

Well if you want to send the money to someone on lightning network, you need funds commited to it. So yes you will have to pay the on-chain fee to enter the LN.

LN is useless for sending one payment. But it's good for making many. You deposit your monthly expenses and then send 100s of payments off-chain through LN.

[Darooghe]

When will lighting network launch?
I'm waiting 5 days for some confirmations and i really panic and tired now.

[bambazamba]

hello I want to know your thoughts on Lightning network vs Bitcoin cash

Lightning network off chain is not as secure as bitcoin cash, or are they the same?

not sure because i go on reddit /r/BTC and they say very bad things about lightning!

Bitcoin cash is so temporary . Who can say that bitcoin cash is safer than the lightening network after the suspections and the frozen deals with the bitcoin cash ?
Lightening deal is the best way out to the problem . Some day bitcoin cash is also going to need such technology when it is over flooded in the coinbase , Actually i hope bitcoincash remains underflooded .      

[ahmad21]

hello I want to know your thoughts on Lightning network vs Bitcoin cash

Lightning network off chain is not as secure as bitcoin cash, or are they the same?

not sure because i go on reddit /r/BTC and they say very bad things about lightning!

They are not at all same. Bitcoin cash has nothing to do with swiftness and affordability of transactions. Fact that it itself will become slow once overcrowded is undoubtedly true. While lightning network provides a much better solution by compressing the fees and times by a great scale and making BTC ready for mass adoption. But what until it doesn't hits the market? BTC dominance is already under 45% they need to launch it very soon to avoid further questions on the supreme command of bitcoin.

hello I want to know your thoughts on Lightning network vs Bitcoin cash

Lightning network off chain is not as secure as bitcoin cash, or are they the same?

not sure because i go on reddit /r/BTC and they say very bad things about lightning!

Bitcoin cash is so temporary . Who can say that bitcoin cash is safer than the lightening network after the suspections and the frozen deals with the bitcoin cash ?
Lightening deal is the best way out to the problem . Some day bitcoin cash is also going to need such technology when it is over flooded in the coinbase , Actually i hope bitcoincash remains underflooded .       

I won't even say lightening network is the best way out if we see of long term. Miners are thinking of making BTC ready for a very long term which means it may be used as a mainstream method of settlement. In such a case its impossible for even lightning network to cater such traffic we need some ultra lightning network for it.

[Factor0008]

When will lighting network launch?
I'm waiting 5 days for some confirmations and i really panic and tired now.

https://www.coindesk.com/lightning-last-test-shows-bitcoin-scaling-solution-almost-ready/

soon

[lionelho]

LN is the future. Many small transactions don't need to be on the chain. No matter how big the block is, increasing block size is not scalable.

[hv_]

Lightning Network is best idea to solve all bitcoin problems.

Perhaps the best, but unfortunately not resolved in time.
Now this is becoming a serious problem with the BCH

The 'biggest' problem here only is, that BCH is open to all scaling options. That's real decentralization.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I'm a small blocker, but mining is the aspect of bitcoin that was designed to decentralize.  It requires work to do so people can't just mine for free.  It requires investment for your vote to count.  This is why we mine.

So if miners control the network, then bitcoin is working as designed.

Absolute bullshit. Miners will never be given full power let alone be having an option to choose block sizes. Bitmain has already been caught doing some shady shits in the past before the bcash split ... Go figure the terms: ASICBOOST and ANTBLEED scandals.

Sorry to burst your bubble but that's not gonna happen in Bitcoin. Miners will never be given any extra privilege. Move your miners to Btrash if you have to and we won't miss you.

Antbleed? Seriously?

The n00b seems to have acquired a more balanced understanding of how things work than the blinkered, force-fed propoganda that you are spewing.

People have a choice, they will pick what suits them. If you are so sure that you made the right choice, then you would not care. But it clearly bothers you when any users choose an alternative implementation: and thats on you, not them.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Lightning Network is best idea to solve all bitcoin problems.

Perhaps the best, but unfortunately not resolved in time.
Now this is becoming a serious problem with the BCH

The 'biggest' problem here only is, that BCH is open to all scaling options. That's real decentralization.

Solid point. One that is at the root of all the anti-BCH hatred.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

 While lightning network provides a much better solution by compressing the fees and times by a great scale and making BTC ready for mass adoption. But what until it doesn't hits the market? BTC dominance is already under 45% they need to launch it very soon to avoid further questions on the supreme command of bitcoin.

You missed the point that LN, now using a version of Tor based routing, will be UTTERLY inefficient. You are trying to shoehorn fast payment methods into a subsystem whose primary objective was to obfuscate the very connections that need to be optimised to keep fees and time reasonable.

Have a look at bolts 4-7 specs to see how hideously complex and unfit for purpose these layers have become.

When they finally realise that this is not going to work on any scale ( like Poons original, now binned proposal) it too will need to be binned. Welcome to your next 18 month delay.

[irukandji]

 While lightning network provides a much better solution by compressing the fees and times by a great scale and making BTC ready for mass adoption. But what until it doesn't hits the market? BTC dominance is already under 45% they need to launch it very soon to avoid further questions on the supreme command of bitcoin.

You missed the point that LN, now using a version of Tor based routing, will be UTTERLY inefficient. You are trying to shoehorn fast payment methods into a subsystem whose primary objective was to obfuscate the very connections that need to be optimised to keep fees and time reasonable.

Have a look at bolts 4-7 specs to see how hideously complex and unfit for purpose these layers have become.

When they finally realise that this is not going to work on any scale ( like Poons original, now binned proposal) it too will need to be binned. Welcome to your next 18 month delay.

LN is using a version of Tor?
Is there somewhere I can read up on this?  And the rest of the stuff you mentioned?    thanks

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

LN is using a version of Tor?
Is there somewhere I can read up on this?  And the rest of the stuff you mentioned?    thanks

The github is the least nuanced source, start with this:

https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/blob/master/04-onion-routing.md

Follow the links there to go through the other layers.

[irukandji]

LN is using a version of Tor?
Is there somewhere I can read up on this?  And the rest of the stuff you mentioned?    thanks

The github is the least nuanced source, start with this:

https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/blob/master/04-onion-routing.md

Follow the links there to go through the other layers.

Thank you

[uniqueCoin]

it seems like some smart people have been visiting this thread so maybe you will be able to help me out
my knowledge is limited but i'd like to learn more

as far as i know there are 2 main problems with big blocks: blockchain size and blocks propagation time

solution for blockchain size seems easy:
we can just from time to time archive old parts of blockchain removing middle-man transactions from main chain

for the solution of blocks propagation time i had this idea, maybe you can point out why it's bad:
we increase block size and make it so miner who solves puzzle picks transactions not for current block but for 2 blocks ahead
miner who mined new block had added at the bottom sha256 of his transactions list for 2 blocks ahead, he sends out 2 packets:
    1st small packet consisting of 2 things: sha256 of his transactions list and solution for block
    2nd big packet of transactions for 2 blocks ahead (or whatever best current method is to send less data)
1st packet propagates very fast and since everyone was mining same transactions (passed from 2 blocks before) everyone can easily verify if solution is valid just with this 2 recieved information (they cannot yet verify if sha256 is correct, they trust it because proof of work)
2nd packet propagates slowly, but it has time since we are all working on next block and it propagates during that work (now they can verify sha256 of transactions list and list itself and if something is wrong go back to working on previous block)

[Xylber]

Lightning nodes will remove the decentralization, and those who hold those nodes will have the power. Who will hold these nodes? The banks. Bitcoin sold his soul.

Agree, I'm starting to see a lot of coins who are taking away, little by little, some of the users power

[Shu1llerr]

in general, I don't understand why this is a need to discuss. because bitcoin cash this cryptocurrency peer-to-peer with a large size of the block in 8mb. and lightning this payment system that is designed to pay cryptocurrency. maybe I don't quite understand and in question about lightning bitcoin then I think this once no one desired Fork. for whom you need it, if the modernization requires the whole system, not one currency.

[Shu1llerr]

I looked at the code on github but about Tor and the anonymity of the system, this is a frank step, to which they must make a difficult decision. this covers the black part of the market and the technology that should make a breakthrough in the network should not be associated with this. although this is just my opinion, I do not know whether it coincides with the community

LN is using a version of Tor?
Is there somewhere I can read up on this?  And the rest of the stuff you mentioned?    thanks

The github is the least nuanced source, start with this:

https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/blob/master/04-onion-routing.md

Follow the links there to go through the other layers.

[psibenik]

Kingaltcoins is bang on in my opinion. Block size increase is only a small temporary solution to a larger problem. It's not clear to me just how effective this lightning network will be, but I forsee a fall for Bcash, a rise is quality alcoins (that are better than btc), and a chance for btc to remain in the lead due to first movers advantage.

[Rinaze]

Does anybody knows if there're short term plan by the official BTC developer team on how are they going to tackle the congested blockchain in the meantime? The 3rd and 4th gen currency coins are already by far ahead despite not being tested as much as Bitcoin.

Will they be making an exception to preharps decrease the mining difficulty to help ease slightly (not sure if it helps; just a random thought) or BTC is practically handicapped until LN comes out? LN will probably still take quite a (long) while..

[villuta]

Funny thing is that Bitcoin was designed to work AND SCALE without 3rd party and now punch of devs,who are being funded by AXA(ceo is bilderberg chairman), claiming that increasing block size is not solution without even trying it.
Bitcoin was ment to be peer-to-peer money not gold 2.0 like they are claiming atm.
If those core devs didnt fk things up, ALOT of retailers would be using bitcoin already and there wouldnt be bitcoin cash.
And some legacy corp's would be losing a lot of money right now.
Personally i think some entities want to get their hands on bitcoin wheel before old banking system falls apart.
People who attack bitcoin cash or roger ver are just brainwashed, that guy been in this industry from beginning and problably has better knowledge of bitcoin and economy than all of us + some moneyhungry devs.
Bitcoin cash tx per sec isnt much of a thing right now because its couple months old and got no infrastructure but thats gonna change massively..

[cellard]

Funny thing is that Bitcoin was designed to work AND SCALE without 3rd party and now punch of devs,who are being funded by AXA(ceo is bilderberg chairman), claiming that increasing block size is not solution without even trying it.
Bitcoin was ment to be peer-to-peer money not gold 2.0 like they are claiming atm.
If those core devs didnt fk things up, ALOT of retailers would be using bitcoin already and there wouldnt be bitcoin cash.
And some legacy corp's would be losing a lot of money right now.
Personally i think some entities want to get their hands on bitcoin wheel before old banking system falls apart.
People who attack bitcoin cash or roger ver are just brainwashed, that guy been in this industry from beginning and problably has better knowledge of bitcoin and economy than all of us + some moneyhungry devs.
Bitcoin cash tx per sec isnt much of a thing right now because its couple months old and got no infrastructure but thats gonna change massively..

Bitcoin cannot be "peer to peer" if you have to go through a corporation that is hosting a massive chunk of the nodes, which could be compromised and therefore censoring transactions at will, and that is the future of any "as-big-as-needed" blocks approach. The blocks would be massive, and as a direct result, the network would be centralized.
I don't know why big blockers fail to realize this simple fact. They either don't care, or they are stupid.

Forget about Blockstream, it's a private business. Even if Blockstream didn't exist, the problem of "as-big-as-needed" blocks approach, would still be here. Roger Ver is on record claiming that the blocksize must be made higher as long as you get full blocks. Well, all an attacker next to do is to spam the network (just as they do with the Bitcoin network) then the blocks would be full, and then continue doing this as the blocksize is increased indefinitely. The result: only a handful of corporations control both the nodes and mining on Bitcoin. At that point, you might as well use Ripple.

[Spendulus]

Funny thing is that Bitcoin was designed to work AND SCALE without 3rd party and now punch of devs,who are being funded by AXA(ceo is bilderberg chairman), claiming that increasing block size is not solution without even trying it.....

Claiming?

What part of "increasing block size is not solution" do you not understand?

[cellard]

Funny thing is that Bitcoin was designed to work AND SCALE without 3rd party and now punch of devs,who are being funded by AXA(ceo is bilderberg chairman), claiming that increasing block size is not solution without even trying it.....

Claiming?

What part of "increasing block size is not solution" do you not understand?

There is no way to reason with big blockers, they just don't care, they want transactions to be fast and cheap at all costs, or they will not admit that the nodes would end up centralized in the hands of corporations. They point at how satoshi wanted this... so what? satoshi got a lot of things wrong, hey may have downplayed the impact of datacenters running nodes or possibly he didn't predict things to end up like that. A lot of things have changed since 2009. Oh and satoshi was bright enough to predict how people would be against having big blocksizes. I can't bother to find the quote now, but he said that, so he definitely considered that scenario. Things weren't written in stone, he left and now everyone says this or that is satoshi's vision as long as it helps their agenda. There's no such thing as "satoshi's vision".

[Spendulus]

Funny thing is that Bitcoin was designed to work AND SCALE without 3rd party and now punch of devs,who are being funded by AXA(ceo is bilderberg chairman), claiming that increasing block size is not solution without even trying it.....

Claiming?

What part of "increasing block size is not solution" do you not understand?

There is no way to reason with big blockers, they just don't care, they want transactions to be fast and cheap at all costs, or they will not admit that the nodes would end up centralized in the hands of corporations. They point at how satoshi wanted this... so what? satoshi got a lot of things wrong, hey may have downplayed the impact of datacenters running nodes or possibly he didn't predict things to end up like that. A lot of things have changed since 2009. Oh and satoshi was bright enough to predict how people would be against having big blocksizes. I can't bother to find the quote now, but he said that, so he definitely considered that scenario. Things weren't written in stone, he left and now everyone says this or that is satoshi's vision as long as it helps their agenda. There's no such thing as "satoshi's vision".

That's pretty well stated. However, Satoshi certainly did have a vision, and it was of people being freed from the chains of debt based fiat currency.

As for the details involved in navigating to that point, I don't really care if people "believe" one block size or another. It doesn't matter at all what they believe.

These are simple issues of mathematics and database theory. Any questions can be answered with eighth grade math.

I can't make it any clearer than that. No stopgate or temporary solution will work because of the huge variance between normal and surge conditions in the transaction flow.

[hv_]

Funny thing is that Bitcoin was designed to work AND SCALE without 3rd party and now punch of devs,who are being funded by AXA(ceo is bilderberg chairman), claiming that increasing block size is not solution without even trying it.....

Claiming?

What part of "increasing block size is not solution" do you not understand?

There is no way to reason with big blockers, they just don't care, they want transactions to be fast and cheap at all costs, or they will not admit that the nodes would end up centralized in the hands of corporations. They point at how satoshi wanted this... so what? satoshi got a lot of things wrong, hey may have downplayed the impact of datacenters running nodes or possibly he didn't predict things to end up like that. A lot of things have changed since 2009. Oh and satoshi was bright enough to predict how people would be against having big blocksizes. I can't bother to find the quote now, but he said that, so he definitely considered that scenario. Things weren't written in stone, he left and now everyone says this or that is satoshi's vision as long as it helps their agenda. There's no such thing as "satoshi's vision".

That's pretty well stated. However, Satoshi certainly did have a vision, and it was of people being freed from the chains of debt based fiat currency.

As for the details involved in navigating to that point, I don't really care if people "believe" one block size or another. It doesn't matter at all what they believe.

These are simple issues of mathematics and database theory. Any questions can be answered with eighth grade math.

I can't make it any clearer than that. No stopgate or temporary solution will work because of the huge variance between normal and surge conditions in the transaction flow.

We are only sitting in a time slice here and nobody can see what works in the future. The best way is to try.

Bitcoin started as an experiment and still is.

Now we have two mostly orthogonal versions and we should give both room to show what works. Try to fight one down is pretty inmature and shows only good trolling qualities.

In my vision it can only win that version having the most simplistic protocol layer and highest degrees of freedom to build on top = rapid adoption.

[Spendulus]

Funny thing is that Bitcoin was designed to work AND SCALE without 3rd party and now punch of devs,who are being funded by AXA(ceo is bilderberg chairman), claiming that increasing block size is not solution without even trying it.....

Claiming?

What part of "increasing block size is not solution" do you not understand?

There is no way to reason with big blockers, they just don't care, they want transactions to be fast and cheap at all costs, or they will not admit that the nodes would end up centralized in the hands of corporations. They point at how satoshi wanted this... so what? satoshi got a lot of things wrong, hey may have downplayed the impact of datacenters running nodes or possibly he didn't predict things to end up like that. A lot of things have changed since 2009. Oh and satoshi was bright enough to predict how people would be against having big blocksizes. I can't bother to find the quote now, but he said that, so he definitely considered that scenario. Things weren't written in stone, he left and now everyone says this or that is satoshi's vision as long as it helps their agenda. There's no such thing as "satoshi's vision".

That's pretty well stated. However, Satoshi certainly did have a vision, and it was of people being freed from the chains of debt based fiat currency.

As for the details involved in navigating to that point, I don't really care if people "believe" one block size or another. It doesn't matter at all what they believe.

These are simple issues of mathematics and database theory. Any questions can be answered with eighth grade math.

I can't make it any clearer than that. No stopgate or temporary solution will work because of the huge variance between normal and surge conditions in the transaction flow.

We are only sitting in a time slice here and nobody can see what works in the future. The best way is to try.

Bitcoin started as an experiment and still is.

Now we have two mostly orthogonal versions and we should give both room to show what works. Try to fight one down is pretty inmature and shows only good trolling qualities.

In my vision it can only win that version having the most simplistic protocol layer and highest degrees of freedom to build on top = rapid adoption.

This is certainly true, however we can use eighth grade math to figure how transaction speed and volume scale with a simple change of block size.

Just pick a desirable range for future volume, and ask how do we get there. Let's take 100x current or 300 transactions per second.

It is not required to test solutions which will fail at 2x or 4x current volume.

[cellard]

Funny thing is that Bitcoin was designed to work AND SCALE without 3rd party and now punch of devs,who are being funded by AXA(ceo is bilderberg chairman), claiming that increasing block size is not solution without even trying it.....

Claiming?

What part of "increasing block size is not solution" do you not understand?

There is no way to reason with big blockers, they just don't care, they want transactions to be fast and cheap at all costs, or they will not admit that the nodes would end up centralized in the hands of corporations. They point at how satoshi wanted this... so what? satoshi got a lot of things wrong, hey may have downplayed the impact of datacenters running nodes or possibly he didn't predict things to end up like that. A lot of things have changed since 2009. Oh and satoshi was bright enough to predict how people would be against having big blocksizes. I can't bother to find the quote now, but he said that, so he definitely considered that scenario. Things weren't written in stone, he left and now everyone says this or that is satoshi's vision as long as it helps their agenda. There's no such thing as "satoshi's vision".

That's pretty well stated. However, Satoshi certainly did have a vision, and it was of people being freed from the chains of debt based fiat currency.

As for the details involved in navigating to that point, I don't really care if people "believe" one block size or another. It doesn't matter at all what they believe.

These are simple issues of mathematics and database theory. Any questions can be answered with eighth grade math.

I can't make it any clearer than that. No stopgate or temporary solution will work because of the huge variance between normal and surge conditions in the transaction flow.

We are only sitting in a time slice here and nobody can see what works in the future. The best way is to try.

Bitcoin started as an experiment and still is.

Now we have two mostly orthogonal versions and we should give both room to show what works. Try to fight one down is pretty inmature and shows only good trolling qualities.

In my vision it can only win that version having the most simplistic protocol layer and highest degrees of freedom to build on top = rapid adoption.

This is certainly true, however we can use eighth grade math to figure how transaction speed and volume scale with a simple change of block size.

Just pick a desirable range for future volume, and ask how do we get there. Let's take 100x current or 300 transactions per second.

It is not required to test solutions which will fail at 2x or 4x current volume.

We already have studies that show at what rate nodes would get wiped out at current block size and in increases of 2MB up to 8MB. This study was developed by Bitfury:



So if BCash was getting used AND spammed as BTC does, blocks would get filled and 95% of current nodes would get wiped out of the system.

[hv_]

Funny thing is that Bitcoin was designed to work AND SCALE without 3rd party and now punch of devs,who are being funded by AXA(ceo is bilderberg chairman), claiming that increasing block size is not solution without even trying it.....

Claiming?

What part of "increasing block size is not solution" do you not understand?

There is no way to reason with big blockers, they just don't care, they want transactions to be fast and cheap at all costs, or they will not admit that the nodes would end up centralized in the hands of corporations. They point at how satoshi wanted this... so what? satoshi got a lot of things wrong, hey may have downplayed the impact of datacenters running nodes or possibly he didn't predict things to end up like that. A lot of things have changed since 2009. Oh and satoshi was bright enough to predict how people would be against having big blocksizes. I can't bother to find the quote now, but he said that, so he definitely considered that scenario. Things weren't written in stone, he left and now everyone says this or that is satoshi's vision as long as it helps their agenda. There's no such thing as "satoshi's vision".

That's pretty well stated. However, Satoshi certainly did have a vision, and it was of people being freed from the chains of debt based fiat currency.

As for the details involved in navigating to that point, I don't really care if people "believe" one block size or another. It doesn't matter at all what they believe.

These are simple issues of mathematics and database theory. Any questions can be answered with eighth grade math.

I can't make it any clearer than that. No stopgate or temporary solution will work because of the huge variance between normal and surge conditions in the transaction flow.

We are only sitting in a time slice here and nobody can see what works in the future. The best way is to try.

Bitcoin started as an experiment and still is.

Now we have two mostly orthogonal versions and we should give both room to show what works. Try to fight one down is pretty inmature and shows only good trolling qualities.

In my vision it can only win that version having the most simplistic protocol layer and highest degrees of freedom to build on top = rapid adoption.

This is certainly true, however we can use eighth grade math to figure how transaction speed and volume scale with a simple change of block size.

Just pick a desirable range for future volume, and ask how do we get there. Let's take 100x current or 300 transactions per second.

It is not required to test solutions which will fail at 2x or 4x current volume.

We already have studies that show at what rate nodes would get wiped out at current block size and in increases of 2MB up to 8MB. This study was developed by Bitfury:



So if BCash was getting used AND spammed as BTC does, blocks would get filled and 95% of current nodes would get wiped out of the system.

Again, Bitcoin Cash is about scaling on the miner node network. Core claims that you would need lots of non mining nodes where Bitcoin Cash claims non mining nodes are slowing down the network and are not needed minimumfor a needed degree of decentralization. Here it starts to be seen orthogonal to each other. And I understand why many have issues to accept this. No math needed up to this point.

[Taras]

Does anybody knows if there're short term plan by the official BTC developer team on how are they going to tackle the congested blockchain in the meantime?

Make segwit easier to use by implementing it in the core GUI. We haven't felt its effects very much yet because nobody actually uses it. Once that changes, then we'll start having 1.4 MB blocks.

[chrissbiggs]

The Bitcoin will always stay top coin no matter what. BCH has no chance to over take it

[irukandji]

Does anybody knows if there're short term plan by the official BTC developer team

I didn't know there was an "official" BTC developement team.  

Who had the authority to appoint them.  

[Spendulus]

...
We already have studies that show at what rate nodes would get wiped out at current block size and in increases of 2MB up to 8MB. This study was developed by Bitfury:



So if BCash was getting used AND spammed as BTC does, blocks would get filled and 95% of current nodes would get wiped out of the system.

What does it mean "wiped out of the system?"

Is that computed as a side effect of the fact that people don't have, say for example, another 200 gb to dedicate to block chain for each year that passes?

[hv_]

Does anybody knows if there're short term plan by the official BTC developer team on how are they going to tackle the congested blockchain in the meantime?

Make segwit easier to use by implementing it in the core GUI. We haven't felt its effects very much yet because nobody actually uses it. Once that changes, then we'll start having 1.4 MB blocks.

That's exactly what 'big-blockers' were telling you from the very beginning. SW is too complicated, too slow in impl & deploy ( opt-in!) adoption and still is no sufficient scaling with that little capacy increase and we also pointed out that new 2nd layer tech is not ready, has no 8 year slow start working success story as on-chain has and is too risky to play with a fin tech application in the middle of a sigmoidal mass adoption process.

The ship has sailed now and we have two relevant bitcoin approaches and only one that runs as open (source, discussible, tech, ideas, economy ) as possible.

[nullius]

...
We already have studies that show at what rate nodes would get wiped out at current block size and in increases of 2MB up to 8MB. This study was developed by Bitfury:



So if BCash was getting used AND spammed as BTC does, blocks would get filled and 95% of current nodes would get wiped out of the system.

What does it mean "wiped out of the system?"

Is that computed as a side effect of the fact that people don't have, say for example, another 200 gb to dedicate to block chain for each year that passes?

Look at the numbers cellard posted!  Do you have a home PC with 32GB spare RAM to dedicate to a Bitcoin node?  Can your home connection pass 99.2GB of daily traffic?  That’s all with full 8MB blocks; and according to Bitfury, all that hardware buys you a whopping 28tps.  It’s still 2 orders of magnitude under the throughput of Paypal, and 3–4 orders of magnitude under that of Visa.

I don’t see any figures here on iops; but I can guess qualitatively.  Got RAIDed enterprise-class SSDs?

Disk space is the smallest problem with big blocks.  Nodes of modest means can prune.  But the above table shows that there would be nothing to prune:  They wouldn’t be able to keep up with the network, or even run without getting hit by the OOM-killer.

(For comparison, the Steem documentation specifies a minimum requirement of 32GB RAM for a Steem node.  Most users simply use steemit.com.  So decentralized.  But it has the magic word, “blockchain”.)

[hv_]

BCH: mining nodes = full nodes
If 'the world' is mining this is decentraliztion enough.
Non - mining nodes are not needed for small hodlers.

Get it or stay on BTC.

[nullius]

BCH: mining nodes = full nodes

So, in BCH:  Jihan = full nodes.  Got it.

If 'the world' is mining this is decentraliztion enough.

In what world are you living, that “‘the world’ is mining”?

Non - mining nodes are not needed for small hodlers.

It is self-evident, you have no idea how Bitcoin works.

Get it or stay on BTC.

There is only one Bitcoin; and yes, I will stay on that.

[hv_]

BCH: mining nodes = full nodes

So, in BCH:  Jihan = full nodes.  Got it.

If 'the world' is mining this is decentraliztion enough.

In what world are you living, that “‘the world’ is mining”?

Non - mining nodes are not needed for small hodlers.

It is self-evident, you have no idea how Bitcoin works.

Get it or stay on BTC.

There is only one Bitcoin; and yes, I will stay on that.

Yes, esp you should stay there.

 

[nokati]

 I am still on the dev side for now, but they really need to get this lighting network up and running asap. If its not active by 2-3 months and not widely used in the next couple of months it will be a disaster for bitcoin, whether your on the btc or bch camp your screwd. There is just to many coins that can deliver what bitcoin was supposed to do. So dear dev, if you are reading this: get your act together and hurry the fuck up with this lighting network

[hv_]

I am still on the dev side for now, but they really need to get this lighting network up and running asap. If its not active by 2-3 months and not widely used in the next couple of months it will be a disaster for bitcoin, whether your on the btc or bch camp your screwd. There is just to many coins that can deliver what bitcoin was supposed to do. So dear dev, if you are reading this: get your act together and hurry the fuck up with this lighting network

Bitcoin was created as a PoW electronic cash system and at some time when TXs fees where almost zero the param 1MB was added as a flood control because 'spamming' was zero cost at that time, this is years ago and not the case any more.

Now BTC + SW fork + LN is more a Proof of Dev or of Code and the miners that have spent most of work are dammed by small blockers, why? Is that FOMO ?

BCH keeps it up and makes proper use of that what miners have built, the most expensive crypto env on earth, that is backing up price and security and cannot be replaced with technobubbles on top. The bitcoin code base / protocol was complete years ago and needed no other genius proof of dev any more like E=mc^2 does not need to be bubbled up by other fellows any more. And a small non mining node is not doing any PoW, rather Proof of Panic and slows down the scaling.


Work = Energy = mining cash coins

[Slyah]

Lightning nodes will remove the decentralization, and those who hold those nodes will have the power. Who will hold these nodes? The banks. Bitcoin sold his soul.

Who told you that bullshit?

Lightning nodes will be implemented in wallet services which we use today like Mycellium, Copay, Coinomi etc. and also on some hardware wallets like Trezor, Ledger etc. On the contrary, Coinbase already has some kind of "off-chain" transaction capabilities between Coinbase users from their inception.
No nodes will have the power to alter any terms and conditions of lightning network payment channels since they'll be controlled solely between the buyer and the seller. Nodes will just act as a medium to conduct the processes.

People like Roger Ver is brainwashing new individuals like you into thinking that lightning network = centralization.  It's their own altcoin which is = centralization since miners have the power to control the block sizes in their bcash crap coin.

I'm in absolute agreement. Roger is causing a big issue in this community by somehow trying to make Bcash a direct opposition to Bitcoin. It creates hostility and confusion especially for those just now entering the crypto market.

[nullius]

The bitcoin code base / protocol was complete years ago and needed no other genius proof of dev any more like E=mc^2 does not need to be bubbled up by other fellows any more.

And thus, you show your ignorance of physics, too.  E=mc^2 is the equation for the rest energy of matter.  Got velocity?  A more complicated equation is required to ascertain E.

What else would I expect from somebody with the abject technical incompetence requisite for belief in a linear scaling solution to an exponential scaling problem?  Even a five-year-old can understand the difference between “big” and “huge”.

I’m sorry that the universe is not oversimplified to fit your childish expectations.  No, wait—I am not sorry, after all.

Well, if (if) BCH ever gets sufficiently popular for its 8MB blocks to persistently fill, enjoy your skyrocketing fees and backed-up mempool on your centralized pseudocoin with 1/1000 the tx throughput of Visa—as Lightning scales up to compete with the big boys.

People like Roger Ver is brainwashing new individuals like you into thinking that lightning network = centralization.  It's their own altcoin which is = centralization since miners have the power to control the block sizes in their bcash crap coin.

Ver accuses others of his own worst sins.  When enforced through repetition, that’s an effective propaganda technique for corralling the weak and the stupid.  But BCH’s supporters even admit to their anti-node/miner-supremacy agenda; what they want is not decentralization, but “decentraliztion enough [sic]”:

BCH: mining nodes = full nodes
If 'the world' is mining this is decentraliztion enough.
Non - mining nodes are not needed for small hodlers.

Get it or stay on BTC.

[hv_]

The bitcoin code base / protocol was complete years ago and needed no other genius proof of dev any more like E=mc^2 does not need to be bubbled up by other fellows any more.

And thus, you show your ignorance of physics, too.  E=mc^2 is the equation for the rest energy of matter.  Got velocity?  A more complicated equation is required to ascertain E.

What else would I expect from somebody with the abject technical incompetence requisite for belief in a linear scaling solution to an exponential scaling problem?  Even a five-year-old can understand the difference between “big” and “huge”.

I’m sorry that the universe is not oversimplified to fit your childish expectations.  No, wait—I am not sorry, after all.

Well, if (if) BCH ever gets sufficiently popular for its 8MB blocks to persistently fill, enjoy your skyrocketing fees and backed-up mempool on your centralized pseudocoin with 1/1000 the tx throughput of Visa—as Lightning scales up to compete with the big boys.

People like Roger Ver is brainwashing new individuals like you into thinking that lightning network = centralization.  It's their own altcoin which is = centralization since miners have the power to control the block sizes in their bcash crap coin.

Ver accuses others of his own worst sins.  When enforced through repetition, that’s an effective propaganda technique for corralling the weak and the stupid.  But BCH’s supporters even admit to their anti-node/miner-supremacy agenda; what they want is not decentralization, but “decentraliztion enough [sic]”:

BCH: mining nodes = full nodes
If 'the world' is mining this is decentraliztion enough.
Non - mining nodes are not needed for small hodlers.

Get it or stay on BTC.

Sure, go learn more physics but the genuis part is done by Einstein and yet we are years later and still try to prove parts. Dont come up with all the rest here or could you solve the rest with pure men power (as you do now with btc + SW + ...) ?

Satoshi did the genius part (by introducing artificial order = energy = negativ entropy) and there is no need to extend it with extra kinetics..  and dilute the genius order.

Think big and accept that BCH will work better also because its simpler.

[Anti-Cen]

Is that computed as a side effect of the fact that people don't have, say for example, another 200 gb to dedicate to block chain for each year that passes?

Interesting indeed, nice graph.

if the developers working on BTC could not do the sums like years ago to work out that BTC would not scale
then they should have the block size set using a CONST and seem to be enjoying the current state of
affairs where we are being ripped off by the mining cartel.

See https://blockchain.info/pools

this 200gb problem a year growth in the size of the block-chain will result in having to use a AS-400 computer
to process that amount of data because to balance a wallet you need to walk back down the chain (Link list)
and trace all the part coins in the wallet back to the original mined coins which more or less involves scanning
all 200gb for each transaction and this process gets repeated by all 20,000 nodes on the network.

Distributed systems are not built like this as i am sure many of you here already know and they are not even trying
to clear down the mempool that stands at 115,564,705 bytes and we need to do a bit of house clearing ourselves
and it's time to call out the garbage collector to dump 90% of the full nodes because we don't need this many

if they continue to refuse to implement code shown below
public static money MaxFee=1.50 // Less miners because not enough cream to go around
or
public CONST int32 BlockSize=4 //Just like any decent programmers would use

Then we need to publicly name and shame BTC and it's developers and try to salvage Cryptocoins by backing
one of the other forks because as we speak it's our money and effort that is being dragged down by this mess

[Spendulus]

...
We already have studies that show at what rate nodes would get wiped out at current block size and in increases of 2MB up to 8MB. This study was developed by Bitfury:



So if BCash was getting used AND spammed as BTC does, blocks would get filled and 95% of current nodes would get wiped out of the system.

What does it mean "wiped out of the system?"

Is that computed as a side effect of the fact that people don't have, say for example, another 200 gb to dedicate to block chain for each year that passes?

Look at the numbers cellard posted!  Do you have a home PC with 32GB spare RAM to dedicate to a Bitcoin node?  Can your home connection pass 99.2GB of daily traffic?  That’s all with full 8MB blocks; and according to Bitfury, all that hardware buys you a whopping 28tps.  It’s still 2 orders of magnitude under the throughput of Paypal, and 3–4 orders of magnitude under that of Visa.

I don’t see any figures here on iops; but I can guess qualitatively.  Got RAIDed enterprise-class SSDs?

Disk space is the smallest problem with big blocks.  Nodes of modest means can prune.  But the above table shows that there would be nothing to prune:  They wouldn’t be able to keep up with the network, or even run without getting hit by the OOM-killer.

(For comparison, the Steem documentation specifies a minimum requirement of 32GB RAM for a Steem node.  Most users simply use steemit.com.  So decentralized.  But it has the magic word, “blockchain”.)

To compete on a practical basis with Visa cannot mean that every node has the entire transactional volume passing through it.

To compete with 1/100 the volume of Visa cannot mean that every node has the entire transactional volume passing through it.

Block sizes are not relevant to this issue.

[nullius]

Said “Anti-Cen” with unspecified units, presumably some fiat currency with no possibility of Byzantine agreement on an exchange rate:

public static money MaxFee=1.50 // Less miners because not enough cream to go around

That is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever seen in my whole life; and it has plenty of competition between the four corners of this world.

You have no idea how Bitcoin works.  Or how reality works.

The security level of Bitcoin’s Byzantine agreement on transaction ordering grows proportionally to its value, as mining increases in revenue, and thus becomes more competitive.  But it’s not even necessary to look that far.  Capping the sole criterion which miners use to choose between transactions of equal size, and users use to determine which transactions are important to them, is tantamount to trying to fulfill my desire for a Porsche with one simple line of code:

public static money MaxPorschePrice=1.50 // Less Porsches because not enough cream to go around

That should work, right?

Look at the numbers cellard posted!  Do you have a home PC with 32GB spare RAM to dedicate to a Bitcoin node?  Can your home connection pass 99.2GB of daily traffic?  That’s all with full 8MB blocks; and according to Bitfury, all that hardware buys you a whopping 28tps.  It’s still 2 orders of magnitude under the throughput of Paypal, and 3–4 orders of magnitude under that of Visa.

To compete on a practical basis with Visa cannot mean that every node has the entire transactional volume passing through it.

To compete with 1/100 the volume of Visa cannot mean that every node has the entire transactional volume passing through it.

Block sizes are not relevant to this issue.

I know.  Really, that’s my point.  Per the ridiculous thread title, Lightning Network will compete with Visa.  It is not comparable to “Bitcoin Cash”, “S2X”, or genital herpes.

[Spendulus]

Said “Anti-Cen” with unspecified units, presumably some fiat currency with no possibility of Byzantine agreement on an exchange rate:

public static money MaxFee=1.50 // Less miners because not enough cream to go around

That is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever seen in my whole life; and it has plenty of competition between the four corners of this world.

You have no idea how Bitcoin works.  Or how reality works.

The security level of Bitcoin’s Byzantine agreement on transaction ordering grows proportionally to its value, as mining increases in revenue, and thus becomes more competitive.  But it’s not even necessary to look that far.  Capping the sole criterion which miners use to choose between transactions of equal size, and users use to determine which transactions are important to them, is tantamount to trying to fulfill my desire for a Porsche with one simple line of code:

public static money MaxPorschePrice=1.50 // Less Porsches because not enough cream to go around

That should work, right?

Look at the numbers cellard posted!  Do you have a home PC with 32GB spare RAM to dedicate to a Bitcoin node?  Can your home connection pass 99.2GB of daily traffic?  That’s all with full 8MB blocks; and according to Bitfury, all that hardware buys you a whopping 28tps.  It’s still 2 orders of magnitude under the throughput of Paypal, and 3–4 orders of magnitude under that of Visa.

To compete on a practical basis with Visa cannot mean that every node has the entire transactional volume passing through it.

To compete with 1/100 the volume of Visa cannot mean that every node has the entire transactional volume passing through it.

Block sizes are not relevant to this issue.

I know.  Really, that’s my point.  Per the ridiculous thread title, Lightning Network will compete with Visa.  It is not comparable to “Bitcoin Cash”, “S2X”, or genital herpes.

The amount of WRONG, it hurts....

[nullius]

public static money MaxFee=1.50 // Less miners because not enough cream to go around

[...]

public static money MaxPorschePrice=1.50 // Less Porsches because not enough cream to go around

That should work, right?

[...] Block sizes are not relevant to this issue.

I know.  Really, that’s my point.  Per the ridiculous thread title, Lightning Network will compete with Visa.  It is not comparable to “Bitcoin Cash”, “S2X”, or genital herpes.

The amount of WRONG, it hurts....

Do what I’m doing!

I’ve been ignoring my forum duties (so rudely as to fine folks) whilst coding multilanguage support for easyseed(1).  The race has been on to get that feature published before midnight UTC; and I appear to be losing.

The latest push was yet another battery of runtime integrity self-tests.  I think by now I have more lines of runtime test code than feature implementation code, which is good for a utility which pertains to Other People’s Money.

Every time I feel I need a short break, I pop in here and see if this thread was updated with more stupidity.  If so, I take a swing at one of Ver’s hapless little drones.  That takes less effort than hitting a punching bag; and it’s more satisfying than shooting literal fish in a barrel.

Now, I’m happy to have chatted with you irrelevantly on a thread which is anyway offtopic garbage in its entirety.

Cheers!

[Spendulus]

public static money MaxFee=1.50 // Less miners because not enough cream to go around

[...]

public static money MaxPorschePrice=1.50 // Less Porsches because not enough cream to go around

That should work, right?

[...] Block sizes are not relevant to this issue.

I know.  Really, that’s my point.  Per the ridiculous thread title, Lightning Network will compete with Visa.  It is not comparable to “Bitcoin Cash”, “S2X”, or genital herpes.

The amount of WRONG, it hurts....

Do what I’m doing!

I’ve been ignoring my forum duties (so rudely as to fine folks) whilst coding multilanguage support for easyseed(1).  The race has been on to get that feature published before midnight UTC; and I appear to be losing.

The latest push was yet another battery of runtime integrity self-tests.  I think by now I have more lines of runtime test code than feature implementation code, which is good for a utility which pertains to Other People’s Money.

Every time I feel I need a short break, I pop in here and see if this thread was updated with more stupidity.  If so, I take a swing at one of Ver’s hapless little drones.  That takes less effort than hitting a punching bag; and it’s more satisfying than shooting literal fish in a barrel.

Now, I’m happy to have chatted with you irrelevantly on a thread which is anyway offtopic garbage in its entirety.

Cheers!

Gosh, I just don't know.

I've never tried to shoot literal fish in a barrel.

Adjusting aim for refraction is not a problem.

How about big fish, little barrel?

[Taras]

The bitcoin code base / protocol was complete years ago and needed no other genius proof of dev any more like E=mc^2 does not need to be bubbled up by other fellows any more.

And thus, you show your ignorance of physics, too.  E=mc^2 is the equation for the rest energy of matter.  Got velocity?  A more complicated equation is required to ascertain E.

What else would I expect from somebody with the abject technical incompetence requisite for belief in a linear scaling solution to an exponential scaling problem?  Even a five-year-old can understand the difference between “big” and “huge”.

I’m sorry that the universe is not oversimplified to fit your childish expectations.  No, wait—I am not sorry, after all.

Well, if (if) BCH ever gets sufficiently popular for its 8MB blocks to persistently fill, enjoy your skyrocketing fees and backed-up mempool on your centralized pseudocoin with 1/1000 the tx throughput of Visa—as Lightning scales up to compete with the big boys.

People like Roger Ver is brainwashing new individuals like you into thinking that lightning network = centralization.  It's their own altcoin which is = centralization since miners have the power to control the block sizes in their bcash crap coin.

Ver accuses others of his own worst sins.  When enforced through repetition, that’s an effective propaganda technique for corralling the weak and the stupid.  But BCH’s supporters even admit to their anti-node/miner-supremacy agenda; what they want is not decentralization, but “decentraliztion enough [sic]”:

BCH: mining nodes = full nodes
If 'the world' is mining this is decentraliztion enough.
Non - mining nodes are not needed for small hodlers.

Get it or stay on BTC.

Sure, go learn more physics but the genuis part is done by Einstein and yet we are years later and still try to prove parts. Dont come up with all the rest here or could you solve the rest with pure men power (as you do now with btc + SW + ...) ?

Satoshi did the genius part (by introducing artificial order = energy = negativ entropy) and there is no need to extend it with extra kinetics..  and dilute the genius order.

Think big and accept that BCH will work better also because its simpler.

Huh?
Why shouldn't we make transaction malleability avoidable and then make use of the powers of bitcoin script that Satoshi had designed? Using opcodes that Satoshi conceived but didn't personally use is too complicated?

[nullius]

The bitcoin code base / protocol was complete years ago and needed no other genius proof of dev any more like E=mc^2 does not need to be bubbled up by other fellows any more.

And thus, you show your ignorance of physics, too.  E=mc^2 is the equation for the rest energy of matter.  Got velocity?  A more complicated equation is required to ascertain E.

[...]

Sure, go learn more physics but the genuis part is done by Einstein and yet we are years later and still try to prove parts. Dont come up with all the rest here or could you solve the rest with pure men power (as you do now with btc + SW + ...) ?

Satoshi did the genius part (by introducing artificial order = energy = negativ entropy) and there is no need to extend it with extra kinetics..  and dilute the genius order.

Think big and accept that BCH will work better also because its simpler.

Oh, my.  Somebody “learned” from “science popularizers”, then combined that miseducation with a heaping dose of New Age woo.  “artificial order = energy = negativ entropy”?  “extra kinetics”?  With all the quack pseudoscience pseudo-jargon flying about, next we will hear that quantum mechanics proves we have entered the Age of Aquarius.

Quantum mechanics also proves that I have psychic powers; and my psychic powers tell me that you are an imbecile.

Every time I feel I need a short break, I pop in here and see if this thread was updated with more stupidity.  If so, I take a swing at one of Ver’s hapless little drones.  That takes less effort than hitting a punching bag; and it’s more satisfying than shooting literal fish in a barrel.

Gosh, I just don't know.

I've never tried to shoot literal fish in a barrel.

Adjusting aim for refraction is not a problem.

How about big fish, little barrel?

Try a shotgun.  Sawed-off.

Nah, still not as fun as smacking down bcash shills and sycophants.

Which itself is not so rewarding as the spiritual solace brought by founding my own cult, ϐ bitcult.faith ϐ.  All hail the god of Bitcoin.

Sure, go learn more physics but the genuis part is done by Einstein and yet we are years later and still try to prove parts. Dont come up with all the rest here or could you solve the rest with pure men power (as you do now with btc + SW + ...) ?

Satoshi did the genius part (by introducing artificial order = energy = negativ entropy) and there is no need to extend it with extra kinetics..  and dilute the genius order.

Think big and accept that BCH will work better also because its simpler.

Huh?
Why shouldn't we make transaction malleability avoidable and then make use of the powers of bitcoin script that Satoshi had designed? Using opcodes that Satoshi conceived but didn't personally use is too complicated?

Taras, per the above, you are arguing with somebody who just proved that negativ [sic] entropy brought us into the Age of Aquarius!  Humble yourself.  Don’t you dare presume to question the wisdom of a guru.

[Taras]

The bitcoin code base / protocol was complete years ago and needed no other genius proof of dev any more like E=mc^2 does not need to be bubbled up by other fellows any more.

And thus, you show your ignorance of physics, too.  E=mc^2 is the equation for the rest energy of matter.  Got velocity?  A more complicated equation is required to ascertain E.

[...]

Sure, go learn more physics but the genuis part is done by Einstein and yet we are years later and still try to prove parts. Dont come up with all the rest here or could you solve the rest with pure men power (as you do now with btc + SW + ...) ?

Satoshi did the genius part (by introducing artificial order = energy = negativ entropy) and there is no need to extend it with extra kinetics..  and dilute the genius order.

Think big and accept that BCH will work better also because its simpler.

Oh, my.  Somebody “learned” from “science popularizers”, then combined that miseducation with a heaping dose of New Age woo.  “artificial order = energy = negativ entropy”?  “extra kinetics”?  With all the quack pseudoscience pseudo-jargon flying about, next we will hear that quantum mechanics proves we have entered the Age of Aquarius.

Quantum mechanics also proves that I have psychic powers; and my psychic powers tell me that you are an imbecile.

Every time I feel I need a short break, I pop in here and see if this thread was updated with more stupidity.  If so, I take a swing at one of Ver’s hapless little drones.  That takes less effort than hitting a punching bag; and it’s more satisfying than shooting literal fish in a barrel.

Gosh, I just don't know.

I've never tried to shoot literal fish in a barrel.

Adjusting aim for refraction is not a problem.

How about big fish, little barrel?

Try a shotgun.  Sawed-off.

Nah, still not as fun as smacking down bcash shills and sycophants.

Which itself is not so rewarding as the spiritual solace brought by founding my own cult, ϐ bitcult.faith ϐ.  All hail the god of Bitcoin.

Sure, go learn more physics but the genuis part is done by Einstein and yet we are years later and still try to prove parts. Dont come up with all the rest here or could you solve the rest with pure men power (as you do now with btc + SW + ...) ?

Satoshi did the genius part (by introducing artificial order = energy = negativ entropy) and there is no need to extend it with extra kinetics..  and dilute the genius order.

Think big and accept that BCH will work better also because its simpler.

Huh?
Why shouldn't we make transaction malleability avoidable and then make use of the powers of bitcoin script that Satoshi had designed? Using opcodes that Satoshi conceived but didn't personally use is too complicated?

Taras, per the above, you are arguing with somebody who just proved that negativ [sic] entropy brought us into the Age of Aquarius!  Humble yourself.  Don’t you dare presume to question the wisdom of a guru.

Nullius I love everything that you say.

Does anybody knows if there're short term plan by the official BTC developer team

I didn't know there was an "official" BTC developement team.  

Who had the authority to appoint them.  

Developers work in their own source code trees, and their changes are merged into the main codebase after they have been discussed and tested by other developers. The nodes all use this software and will continue to as long as they agree with the developers' work. So, you could say they are universally appointed by the nodes.

[Spendulus]

The bitcoin code base / protocol was complete years ago and needed no other genius proof of dev any more like E=mc^2 does not need to be bubbled up by other fellows any more.

And thus, you show your ignorance of physics, too.  E=mc^2 is the equation for the rest energy of matter.  Got velocity?  A more complicated equation is required to ascertain E.

[...]

Sure, go learn more physics but the genuis part is done by Einstein and yet we are years later and still try to prove parts. Dont come up with all the rest here or could you solve the rest with pure men power (as you do now with btc + SW + ...) ?

Satoshi did the genius part (by introducing artificial order = energy = negativ entropy) and there is no need to extend it with extra kinetics..  and dilute the genius order.

Think big and accept that BCH will work better also because its simpler.

Oh, my.  Somebody “learned” from “science popularizers”, then combined that miseducation with a heaping dose of New Age woo.  “artificial order = energy = negativ entropy”?  “extra kinetics”?  With all the quack pseudoscience pseudo-jargon flying about, next we will hear that quantum mechanics proves we have entered the Age of Aquarius.

Quantum mechanics also proves that I have psychic powers; and my psychic powers tell me that you are an imbecile.

Every time I feel I need a short break, I pop in here and see if this thread was updated with more stupidity.  If so, I take a swing at one of Ver’s hapless little drones.  That takes less effort than hitting a punching bag; and it’s more satisfying than shooting literal fish in a barrel.

Gosh, I just don't know.

I've never tried to shoot literal fish in a barrel.

Adjusting aim for refraction is not a problem.

How about big fish, little barrel?

Try a shotgun.  Sawed-off.

Nah, still not as fun as smacking down bcash shills and sycophants.

Which itself is not so rewarding as the spiritual solace brought by founding my own cult, ϐ bitcult.faith ϐ.  All hail the god of Bitcoin.

Sure, go learn more physics but the genuis part is done by Einstein and yet we are years later and still try to prove parts. Dont come up with all the rest here or could you solve the rest with pure men power (as you do now with btc + SW + ...) ?

Satoshi did the genius part (by introducing artificial order = energy = negativ entropy) and there is no need to extend it with extra kinetics..  and dilute the genius order.

Think big and accept that BCH will work better also because its simpler.

Huh?
Why shouldn't we make transaction malleability avoidable and then make use of the powers of bitcoin script that Satoshi had designed? Using opcodes that Satoshi conceived but didn't personally use is too complicated?

Taras, per the above, you are arguing with somebody who just proved that negativ [sic] entropy brought us into the Age of Aquarius!  Humble yourself.  Don’t you dare presume to question the wisdom of a guru.

I'm thinking if we spin that barrel, then we're barreling well outside the bounds of Einstein's theories, which didn't deal with torsion and centrifugal forces. You could say we are fishing in the Fourth Dimension, to get teknikal.  So this Aquarius barrel spinning at the right speed has time space warping inside and this moves the fish all to the barrel sides and at the right side they warp out one at a time.

Note the One at a time. That's clearly a quantum phenomena hence we've not got quantum physics as the causation factor.

And you already know what's coming next. String theory. We gonna catch those fish on a string.

[hv_]

The bitcoin code base / protocol was complete years ago and needed no other genius proof of dev any more like E=mc^2 does not need to be bubbled up by other fellows any more.

And thus, you show your ignorance of physics, too.  E=mc^2 is the equation for the rest energy of matter.  Got velocity?  A more complicated equation is required to ascertain E.

[...]

Sure, go learn more physics but the genuis part is done by Einstein and yet we are years later and still try to prove parts. Dont come up with all the rest here or could you solve the rest with pure men power (as you do now with btc + SW + ...) ?

Satoshi did the genius part (by introducing artificial order = energy = negativ entropy) and there is no need to extend it with extra kinetics..  and dilute the genius order.

Think big and accept that BCH will work better also because its simpler.

Oh, my.  Somebody “learned” from “science popularizers”, then combined that miseducation with a heaping dose of New Age woo.  “artificial order = energy = negativ entropy”?  “extra kinetics”?  With all the quack pseudoscience pseudo-jargon flying about, next we will hear that quantum mechanics proves we have entered the Age of Aquarius.

Quantum mechanics also proves that I have psychic powers; and my psychic powers tell me that you are an imbecile.

Every time I feel I need a short break, I pop in here and see if this thread was updated with more stupidity.  If so, I take a swing at one of Ver’s hapless little drones.  That takes less effort than hitting a punching bag; and it’s more satisfying than shooting literal fish in a barrel.

Gosh, I just don't know.

I've never tried to shoot literal fish in a barrel.

Adjusting aim for refraction is not a problem.

How about big fish, little barrel?

Try a shotgun.  Sawed-off.

Nah, still not as fun as smacking down bcash shills and sycophants.

Which itself is not so rewarding as the spiritual solace brought by founding my own cult, ϐ bitcult.faith ϐ.  All hail the god of Bitcoin.

Sure, go learn more physics but the genuis part is done by Einstein and yet we are years later and still try to prove parts. Dont come up with all the rest here or could you solve the rest with pure men power (as you do now with btc + SW + ...) ?

Satoshi did the genius part (by introducing artificial order = energy = negativ entropy) and there is no need to extend it with extra kinetics..  and dilute the genius order.

Think big and accept that BCH will work better also because its simpler.

Huh?
Why shouldn't we make transaction malleability avoidable and then make use of the powers of bitcoin script that Satoshi had designed? Using opcodes that Satoshi conceived but didn't personally use is too complicated?

Taras, per the above, you are arguing with somebody who just proved that negativ [sic] entropy brought us into the Age of Aquarius!  Humble yourself.  Don’t you dare presume to question the wisdom of a guru.

As I already said up thread stay on btc and troll there .

Genius cast the things into very simple order / formular (PoW electronic cash, blockchain, E=mc^2, ...).

Its not for you to understand all at first but you then go experiment a lot with surroundings (SW, +++)  until you might finally get it. Good luck with that.

But in the end we need to thank you and lots of other altcoin builders for this because it is needed to get others educated by the great myspace fall.


Happy new year!

[Anti-Cen]

public static money MaxFee=1.50 // Less miners because not enough cream to go around

That is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever seen in my whole life; and it has plenty of competition between the four corners of this world.

Your reply does compute and you are angry about the price of your coins going down but you should
get out more from the church and read other development forums to see what they are saying instead
of trying to insult people because you lack the skill to debate and don't write code for a living

[Anti-Cen]

Look at the numbers cellard posted!  Do you have a home PC with 32GB spare RAM to dedicate to a Bitcoin node?  Can your home connection pass 99.2GB of daily traffic?  That’s all with full 8MB blocks; and according to Bitfury, all that hardware buys you a whopping 28tps.  It’s still 2 orders of magnitude under the throughput of Paypal, and 3–4 orders of magnitude under that of Visa.

I don’t see any figures here on iops; but I can guess qualitatively.  Got RAIDed enterprise-class SSDs?

Disk space is the smallest problem with big blocks.  Nodes of modest means can prune.  But the above table shows that there would be nothing to prune:  They wouldn’t be able to keep up with the network, or even run without getting hit by the OOM-killer.

(For comparison, the Steem documentation specifies a minimum requirement of 32GB RAM for a Steem node.  Most users simply use steemit.com.  So decentralized.  But it has the magic word, “blockchain”.)

Well said and if you look at LN you will see it uses hubs to break the work down between nodes as was needed from day one for any system to scale
and they can break the block-chain down in the same way but they are too stupid to see it.

The BC is a linked list so take the headerID and just point that to a list of nodes who have the full block details if you don't hold it yourself
so think about it as storing a reference in <LIST> to other objects. Distributed system is not what they do best and no one can argue that
I am wrong because we know the wheels are falling of the current BTC block-chain

Few people like me have seen what starts to happen to a database when you push the size too high and the index
becomes too big to hold in memory and that's with spreading the DB over several drives.
 

[sjefdeklerk]

Lightning nodes are a healthy way to solve centralization issues

How so? Quite the contrary in my opinion, LN equals centralization, it's the only way this can even work. Do you really imagine a world where somebody has 30 hops to another person and the amount of money that can be sent over those 30 hops is  determined by the guy with the lowest amount of money AVAILABLE, for YOUR transaction, in his payment channel ? Come on that's ridiculous! In fact it's one of the most dumbest idea's I've ever even heard, the guy who invented LN must be quite disconnected from reality, smoking too much weed, only some crazy hippy with a distorted world view could come up with something like this.

Reality check: the ONLY way this can even work is if banks will solve that problem and start big nodes. Then the size of your account (behind the scenes this would then be called "payment channel") determines the amount of money you can send, just like it does now in traditional banking.

In fact I opened a topic LN vs Ripple, it got deleted not sure why, but I really wonder what the advantage of bitcoin + LN will be over Ripple and the current banking system. In both scenario's it will be all about banks using block chain infrastructure to facilitate their own banking process. Difference though is that banks are already experimenting with Ripple, while LN hasn't even been released yet, so I figure my self Ripple has a much bigger chance of surviving.

[nokati]

Lightning nodes are a healthy way to solve centralization issues

How so? Quite the contrary in my opinion, LN equals centralization, it's the only way this can even work. Do you really imagine a world where somebody has 30 hops to another person and the amount of money that can be sent over those 30 hops is  determined by the guy with the lowest amount of money AVAILABLE, for YOUR transaction, in his payment channel ? Come on that's ridiculous! In fact it's one of the most dumbest idea's I've ever even heard, the guy who invented LN must be quite disconnected from reality, smoking too much weed, only some crazy hippy with a distorted world view could come up with something like this.

Reality check: the ONLY way this can even work is if banks will solve that problem and start big nodes. Then the size of your account (behind the scenes this would then be called "payment channel") determines the amount of money you can send, just like it does now in traditional banking.

In fact I opened a topic LN vs Ripple, it got deleted not sure why, but I really wonder what the advantage of bitcoin + LN will be over Ripple and the current banking system. In both scenario's it will be all about banks using block chain infrastructure to facilitate their own banking process. Difference though is that banks are already experimenting with Ripple, while LN hasn't even been released yet, so I figure my self Ripple has a much bigger chance of surviving.

And why is al this bullshit comments always from new accounts? Ripple? Seriously? I think that your right about smoking weed, you should stop smoking it.

[sjefdeklerk]

And why is al this bullshit comments always from new accounts? Ripple? Seriously? I think that your right about smoking weed, you should stop smoking it.

Care to elaborate? Or prove me wrong?

[khalized]

Lightning network will always be one step ahead of the curve than Bcash. People like Roger and his army of shills will call it centralized not knowing the actual network topology behind LN.

On one hand, since LN is at its early adoption stage, not everyone realizes the true power it can provide in the long rung. Increasing block size doesn't always solve the scalability problem. Bcash will eventually face problems when large 20MB blocks will be implemented. Nobody except big corporate parties will only run full nodes of bcash at that time. Isn't that centralized, huh?

[sjefdeklerk]

Lightning network will always be one step ahead of the curve than Bcash. People like Roger and his army of shills will call it centralized not knowing the actual network topology behind LN.

Aha, so I must misunderstand something, great, I'm always eager to learn. So how do you imagine that I send a $2000 payment over 30 hops where a guy with only $100 freely available in his account is in the middle ? Or another guy in my route just bought something himself and doesn't even have any money freely available at all ? LN at its core is just a 'chain of lenders' and most people are not really suited as lenders cause, well, they just don't have any money to lend. But I clearly must misunderstand something so I hope you can enlighten me and explain how LN is going to be a DECENTRALIZED success, a network where the little guy is going to lend the big guy tons of money to process his transaction!

[nokati]

And why is al this bullshit comments always from new accounts? Ripple? Seriously? I think that your right about smoking weed, you should stop smoking it.

Care to elaborate? Or prove me wrong?

No, you are a waste of time as you try to compare bank coin to bitcoin.

A) you are a troll
Or
B) you are missing some serious IQ
Or
C) you try just make some advertisements for your bank coin and dont bother what arguments you use.

As I say before always same bullshits from some newly created accounts.

[sjefdeklerk]

And why is al this bullshit comments always from new accounts? Ripple? Seriously? I think that your right about smoking weed, you should stop smoking it.

Care to elaborate? Or prove me wrong?

No, you are a waste of time as you try to compare bank coin to bitcoin.

A) you are a troll
Or
B) you are missing some serious IQ
Or
C) you try just make some advertisements for your bank coin and dont bother what arguments you use.

As I say before always same bullshits from some newly created accounts.

Thanks for all the options, but if you don't have anything actually relevant to add to the discussion and can only post insults, then you might want to move to some other thread.

[nokati]

And why is al this bullshit comments always from new accounts? Ripple? Seriously? I think that your right about smoking weed, you should stop smoking it.

Care to elaborate? Or prove me wrong?

No, you are a waste of time as you try to compare bank coin to bitcoin.

A) you are a troll
Or
B) you are missing some serious IQ
Or
C) you try just make some advertisements for your bank coin and dont bother what arguments you use.

As I say before always same bullshits from some newly created accounts.

Thanks for all the options, but if you don't have anything actually relevant to add to the discussion and can only post insults, then you might want to move to some other thread.

There is nothing wrong with discussing bitcoin anf bitcoin cash as both camp have some good arguments. You dare to mention and  to compare it to centralized bank ripple, its hilarious

But its fine, let see wat this trash coin is;

There will be 100 billion xrp and 60 billion is in de hand of ripple / bank candidates,  If this isn't a deal breaker for you, you should stay at your local bank and font bother cryptocurrency.

Ay any time rippel can cancel and seize my money, sounds familiar? B  A  N  K

I dare anyone to seize my bitcoin! YOU CANT. LOL. ITS MINE.

For love of brain, they work with the banks and you don't like it when people call it a bank coin any time that its you against the bank you are the one that will get screwed. Or do you truly think banks will invest in something that benefit you and harm the bank. Lol its hilarious  



Discusion about bitcoin and bitcoin cash is what this topic is about, about your ripple bank coin just use goggle to find more what a scam this ripple is. Dont waste people's time and hijack this topic to selll bullshit to newbies about your ripple bank coin

[sjefdeklerk]

And why is al this bullshit comments always from new accounts? Ripple? Seriously? I think that your right about smoking weed, you should stop smoking it.

Care to elaborate? Or prove me wrong?

No, you are a waste of time as you try to compare bank coin to bitcoin.

A) you are a troll
Or
B) you are missing some serious IQ
Or
C) you try just make some advertisements for your bank coin and dont bother what arguments you use.

As I say before always same bullshits from some newly created accounts.

Thanks for all the options, but if you don't have anything actually relevant to add to the discussion and can only post insults, then you might want to move to some other thread.

There is nothing wrong with discussing bitcoin anf bitcoin cash as both camp have some good arguments. You dare to mention and  to compare it to centralized bank ripple, its hilarious

But its fine, let see wat this trash coin is;

There will be 100 billion xrp and 60 billion is in de hand of ripple / bank candidates,  If this isn't a deal breaker for you, you should stay at your local bank and font bother cryptocurrency.

Ay any time rippel can cancel and seize my money, sounds familiar? B  A  N  K

I dare anyone to seize my bitcoin! YOU CANT. LOL. ITS MINE.

For love of brain, they work with the banks and you don't like it when people call it a bank coin any time that its you against the bank you are the one that will get screwed. Or do you truly think banks will invest in something that benefit you and harm the bank. Lol its hilarious  



Discusion about bitcoin and bitcoin cash is what this topic is about, about your ripple bank coin just use goggle to find more what a scam this ripple is. Dont waste people's time and hijack this topic to selll bullshit to newbies about your ripple bank coin

My whole point, which you somehow still fail to see, is that bitcoin + lightning network can only succeed as a banking solution too. For the reasons I laid out before, LN can not work as a decentralized solution. That's why you need to compare it to a banking solution like Ripple, not to bitcoin cash, that's really a whole different world, which actually can and does function decentralized.

Either way, I'm not interested in your opinion about Ripple. I'm interested in your vision of how LN could even work decentralized because it seems you still seem to think that. Then again, this might not be the right thread, I'm going to open one especially for this subject.

*EDIT* done: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2679337.new#new

So this topic can be used for comparison between BCH and BTC, although still this is a very important aspect in that discussion too.

[nokati]

Sorry if I insult you, I was truly under impression that it was another ripple troll.

About LN network:
 Not really... Maybe on paper but not in a practical way.
Most of the small buying coffee transactions don't need big nodes having big btc wallets, we have now also big mining farms and also small home miners and it works in harmony to a certain level.

Second thing is and please correct me if I am wrong, you still have the option to chose, If I want to send some real amount I can choose the main chain and nobody can block or censor my transaction.

Keyword is the option that you can choosing what you want and nobody can block your transaction. Its open market and open market will always find his way

[jafu]

With the lightning network transaction, times should be similar to bitcoin. I don't think so how it'll perform with more and more transactions though.

[nokati]

With the lightning network transaction, times should be similar to bitcoin. I don't think so how it'll perform with more and more transactions though.

https://lightning.network

Instant Payments. Lightning-fast blockchain payments without worrying about block confirmation times. Security is enforced by blockchain smart-contracts without creating a on-blockchain transaction for individual payments. Payment speed measured in milliseconds to seconds.

Scalability. Capable of millions to billions of transactions per second across the network. Capacity blows away legacy payment rails by many orders of magnitude. Attaching payment per action/click is now possible without custodians.

Low Cost. By transacting and settling off-blockchain, the Lightning Network allows for exceptionally low fees, which allows for emerging use cases such as instant micropayments.

Cross Blockchains. Cross-chain atomic swaps can occur off-chain instantly with heterogeneous blockchain consensus rules. So long as the chains can support the same cryptographic hash function, it is possible to make transactions across blockchains without trust in 3rd party custodians.

[Spendulus]

With the lightning network transaction, times should be similar to bitcoin. I don't think so how it'll perform with more and more transactions though.

https://lightning.network

Instant Payments. Lightning-fast blockchain payments without worrying about block confirmation times. Security is enforced by blockchain smart-contracts without creating a on-blockchain transaction for individual payments. Payment speed measured in milliseconds to seconds.

Scalability. Capable of millions to billions of transactions per second across the network. Capacity blows away legacy payment rails by many orders of magnitude. Attaching payment per action/click is now possible without custodians.

Low Cost. By transacting and settling off-blockchain, the Lightning Network allows for exceptionally low fees, which allows for emerging use cases such as instant micropayments.

Cross Blockchains. Cross-chain atomic swaps can occur off-chain instantly with heterogeneous blockchain consensus rules. So long as the chains can support the same cryptographic hash function, it is possible to make transactions across blockchains without trust in 3rd party custodians.

It's worth noting that these features are features of a category of mesh network style payment schemes. OF WHICH LN is the one we know about and expect to be implemented.

But such features could be found in many implementations other than LN.

And these could be layered on top of many coins - for example, Bitcoin Cash....not just Bitcoin.

[alko89]

I'm affraid Bitcoin is becoming a patched zombie and it might be time to move most of the coins to some other currency like Monero or PIVX.

[Samarkand]

...

But such features could be found in many implementations other than LN.

And these could be layered on top of many coins - for example, Bitcoin Cash....not just Bitcoin.

I thought SegWit capability was a mandatory requirement for the Lightning Network?
Bitcoin Cash has not activated SegWit. Therefore I don´t think the Lightning Network
would be able to function on top of Bitcoin Cash.

Why would they deploy a solution like the LN anyway? Their whole narrative is based around
how on-chain scaling is the superior solution to scaling Bitcoin. If they would introduce a 2nd layer scaling solution
they would lose their main value proposition.

[Spendulus]

...

But such features could be found in many implementations other than LN.

And these could be layered on top of many coins - for example, Bitcoin Cash....not just Bitcoin.

I thought SegWit capability was a mandatory requirement for the Lightning Network?
Bitcoin Cash has not activated SegWit. Therefore I don´t think the Lightning Network
would be able to function on top of Bitcoin Cash.

Why would they deploy a solution like the LN anyway? Their whole narrative is based around
how on-chain scaling is the superior solution to scaling Bitcoin. If they would introduce a 2nd layer scaling solution
they would lose their main value proposition.

I am only pointing out that "for many blockchain based crypto currencies" additional layers may be added, such as "mesh network transaction systems of the LN variety."

Thus it is INCORRECT to debate merits of LN vs BCH. It does not matter that people are trying to impress you that you should debate it that way, or that it is a valid comparison. You might consider those to be political motivations and arguments. They are not valid arguments from computer science or database theory.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

...

But such features could be found in many implementations other than LN.

And these could be layered on top of many coins - for example, Bitcoin Cash....not just Bitcoin.

I thought SegWit capability was a mandatory requirement for the Lightning Network?
Bitcoin Cash has not activated SegWit. Therefore I don´t think the Lightning Network
would be able to function on top of Bitcoin Cash.

Why would they deploy a solution like the LN anyway? Their whole narrative is based around
how on-chain scaling is the superior solution to scaling Bitcoin. If they would introduce a 2nd layer scaling solution
they would lose their main value proposition.

LN only requires tx malleability fixes from segwit. There are other ways to skin that particular cat.

As regards BCH deploying an LN like solution - why not? As long as users are given the choice to continue to use Layer1 as before, then L2 solutions can be developed that offer real value propositions to users and their intended use cases.

What BCH wont do is force the issue by making the L1 solution unusable.

[Spendulus]

...

But such features could be found in many implementations other than LN.

And these could be layered on top of many coins - for example, Bitcoin Cash....not just Bitcoin.

I thought SegWit capability was a mandatory requirement for the Lightning Network?
Bitcoin Cash has not activated SegWit. Therefore I don´t think the Lightning Network
would be able to function on top of Bitcoin Cash.

Why would they deploy a solution like the LN anyway? Their whole narrative is based around
how on-chain scaling is the superior solution to scaling Bitcoin. If they would introduce a 2nd layer scaling solution
they would lose their main value proposition.

LN only requires tx malleability fixes from segwit. There are other ways to skin that particular cat.

As regards BCH deploying an LN like solution - why not? As long as users are given the choice to continue to use Layer1 as before, then L2 solutions can be developed that offer real value propositions to users and their intended use cases.

What BCH wont do is force the issue by making the L1 solution unusable.

Right. I can't buy arguments like "Their whole narrative is ..." or "they would lose their main value proposition."

Things are moving fast and will be moving faster (except transactions trying to get into the blockchain). Narratives can change overnight to fit the issues of the day.

[yojodojo21]

Internet has so many lies reddit have articles about crypto currency that is not reliable and trustworthy, (not all). every lesson done is applied when it is experienced you don't have to outline the capabilities of each coin especially in it's security what you have to do is to explore and try. There are so many statements tackled about your TOPIC above my post, so all in all it's a matter of reading and decision.

[hv_]

Here's some techy stuff about LN

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg27684676#msg27684676

[Samarkand]

... Narratives can change overnight to fit the issues of the day.

I disagree with that notion.

Let´s take the example of Bitcoin. The value of a Bitcoin would crater if somehow the narrative
of a distributed, immutable ledger with a 21 million Bitcoin hard cap was changed to something different.

This happened with several altcoins. They had a certain use case and after seeing the success
of the privacy-focused coins like Monero or ZCash they suddenly pivoted their narrative to
also fit in this category.

I concede that it may be a feature of these open-source projects that they can change the direction
if new promising technologies emerge, but keeping an existing narrative also has its advantages.