Lightning Network vs Bitcoin cash

[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.