[2018-1-11] TorGurad Lightning Network payments lower fees to almost nothing

[DowBit]

Bitcoin users claim Lightning will address some of the cryptocurrency’s flaws. For example, high transaction fees and slow confirmation times continue to stymie the network since the cryptocurrency has gained millions of new users.

Alternative cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin Cash and Ripple address the issues too, but with different approaches. Early Bitcoin adopters though remain confident that Layer 2 updates such as LN payments will provide the necessary updates to the original cryptocurrency.

Ideological debates still rage about which cryptocurrency best serves the spirit of freedom, decentralization, and subversion best. Do you think Lightning Network will solve Bitcoin’s ills? Or do you think that one of the altcoins will replace the original crypto? Tell us what you think in the comments.

More:https://dowbit.com/torguard-lightning-payments/

[1714636090]

1714636090

[senin]

If the network of lightning allows you to conduct almost instantaneous transactions, without waiting for their confirmation and for small amounts of commission fees, it definitely needs to be entered into bitcoin. True, I not only do not see the proper interest in this team of bitcoin developers, but, on the contrary, their passive ignoring of this overdue and overripe problem. These conversations about the introduction of the network of lightning have been going on for too long, and bitcoin, without eliminating its accumulated shortcomings, is slowly losing its popularity.

[DowBit]

senin,

You make good points, innovation in cryptocurrency is essential for it to leap from niche communities to greater acceptance.

Thanks for your comment
--DowBit team 

[tee-rex]

Bitcoin users claim Lightning will address some of the cryptocurrency’s flaws. For example, high transaction fees and slow confirmation times continue to stymie the network since the cryptocurrency has gained millions of new users.

Alternative cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin Cash and Ripple address the issues too, but with different approaches. Early Bitcoin adopters though remain confident that Layer 2 updates such as LN payments will provide the necessary updates to the original cryptocurrency.

Ideological debates still rage about which cryptocurrency best serves the spirit of freedom, decentralization, and subversion best. Do you think Lightning Network will solve Bitcoin’s ills? Or do you think that one of the altcoins will replace the original crypto? Tell us what you think in the comments.

More:https://dowbit.com/torguard-lightning-payments/

Just like there is no cloud without a silver lining, there is no sun without a spot. While Lightning Network is a huge step forward, it is still a crutch mostly. Let's not forget that we still have a PoW coin which success greatly depends on miners whose economic interests don't quite match interests of Bitcoin's users. Moving away from the PoW paradigm would definitely be a real game-changer.

[CryptoBry]

If the network of lightning allows you to conduct almost instantaneous transactions, without waiting for their confirmation and for small amounts of commission fees, it definitely needs to be entered into bitcoin. True, I not only do not see the proper interest in this team of bitcoin developers, but, on the contrary, their passive ignoring of this overdue and overripe problem. These conversations about the introduction of the network of lightning have been going on for too long, and bitcoin, without eliminating its accumulated shortcomings, is slowly losing its popularity.

There is too much indecision and politicking on the part of the people responsible for the welfare of Bitcoin. The time has come to stop this kind of behavior because it is already affecting the future of Bitcoin. They should decide ASAP in the implementation of the Lightning Network and not just let things go by without doing anything as if wishing that the problem would just be carried by the wind somewhere. Right now Bitcoin is almost shooting its own feet and this is a situation we should never allow to happen.

[1Referee]

It doesn't say anything yet. I want to see how the network handles everything once at least 50% of the entire market makes and takes LN transactions. It's impossible to at this point say anything of value about LN just because a few users have used it with a big smile due to the lower fees, etc. If we manage to consistently use LN as how it gets 'advertised', it would be a major adoption booster, but the real test starts when the mass starts hopping on board. I will start this week by looking into Segwit to start transacting that way, which I am already excited for since people say that it helps taking down the fees as well. Not that I am transacting a lot (barely in reality), but I like to move forward with things.

[J. Cooper]

It doesn't say anything yet. I want to see how the network handles everything once at least 50% of the entire market makes and takes LN transactions. It's impossible to at this point say anything of value about LN just because a few users have used it with a big smile due to the lower fees, etc. If we manage to consistently use LN as how it gets 'advertised', it would be a major adoption booster, but the real test starts when the mass starts hopping on board. I will start this week by looking into Segwit to start transacting that way, which I am already excited for since people say that it helps taking down the fees as well. Not that I am transacting a lot (barely in reality), but I like to move forward with things.

Great point. All the videos look nice and all but we need to keep in mind that the current adoption and usage of LN is very very small. We will only know what LN is worth once the masses start using it and we will be seeing sever thousand of transactions per second. We need to keep in mind that people will be more likely to transact once fees are basically zero.

[Carlton Banks]

Ideological debates still rage about which cryptocurrency best serves the spirit of freedom, decentralization, and subversion best.

Anyone entering into ideological debates deserves everything they get. Transaction capacity scaling is a technical issue, not an ideological issue.

[richardsNY]

I even read that TorGuard will compensate people when they suffer losses if they make use of lightning network, which is fair, but still not convincing for me to use it this early on. I rather wait for an actual release of lightning network just like I wait for an actual release of the new Core client enabling SegWit transactions. And yes, I know that you can get SegWit working with the Core client at current stage by taking a few steps, but nothing beats the solidity of the Core client doing this itself. I have seen a few videos where lightning network gets demonstrated, which looks impressive, but as 1referee mentioned, we will only see how everything will play out with a market majority putting actual pressure on it.

[coolcoinz]

I even read that TorGuard will compensate people when they suffer losses if they make use of lightning network, which is fair, but still not convincing for me to use it this early on. I rather wait for an actual release of lightning network just like I wait for an actual release of the new Core client enabling SegWit transactions.

I'm also not convinced. It sure looks like an improvement but you'll be making your transactions more vulnerable too. Everything that will be taking place outside the blockchain on those private nodes that will share and compile your transaction before it gets into blockchain are the weak point of this system. While we could be upgrading the coin, increasing block size like BCH has done, we are diverting traffic outside.

If we think of the blockchain as a highway between 2 cities, we could be making the cars faster (decreasing time between blocks), adding another lane (increasing block size), or loading cars on train to take less space and move faster and unloading at the end of the highway. Is that really the best solution?

[Ozero]

It doesn't say anything yet. I want to see how the network handles everything once at least 50% of the entire market makes and takes LN transactions. It's impossible to at this point say anything of value about LN just because a few users have used it with a big smile due to the lower fees, etc. If we manage to consistently use LN as how it gets 'advertised', it would be a major adoption booster, but the real test starts when the mass starts hopping on board. I will start this week by looking into Segwit to start transacting that way, which I am already excited for since people say that it helps taking down the fees as well. Not that I am transacting a lot (barely in reality), but I like to move forward with things.

Indeed, the network of lightnings has so far only been tested by several single transactions and no one knows how it will behave in massive transactions. But you have to do something, not sit back. Yes, it's a little embarrassing to me that the lightning network is not the initiative of Bitcoin's development team, but of Bitrefill. But I do not see the opinions of the bitcoin development team about the implementation of the lightning network. If you continue to do nothing, bitcoin is waiting for a disaster.

[Carlton Banks]

If we think of the blockchain as a highway between 2 cities, we could be making the cars faster (decreasing time between blocks), adding another lane (increasing block size), or loading cars on train to take less space and move faster and unloading at the end of the highway. Is that really the best solution?

Both those "solutions" have been rejected, for good reasons. But if you want more centralised mining (by reducing time between blocks), or a centralised network overall (by increasing the blocksize), there are other cryptocurrencies that offer those "features".

It's a free market, put your money where your mouth is, instead of offering these reckless ideas as false solutions. And you are by no means the first.

[richardsNY]

While we could be upgrading the coin, increasing block size like BCH has done, we are diverting traffic outside.

That's pretty much the only thing that we'll get to experience. It's obvious that there is no interest in larger blocks, which I to a certain extent can understand, but it would allow everything to get settled on-chain. On the other hand, with all aforementioned in mind, we can also be happy with lightning network offering a workable solution to people looking to transact cost efficient, and very fast. Good thing here is that we aren't forced to use lightning network, which will result in smaller transactions to be settled off-chain, and the more important (i.e. higher value transactions) to get settled on-chain. This balance will make sure that basically everyone gets what he/she wants.

[Carlton Banks]

While we could be upgrading the coin, increasing block size like BCH has done, we are diverting traffic outside.

That's pretty much the only thing that we'll get to experience. It's obvious that there is no interest in larger blocks, which I to a certain extent can understand, but it would allow everything to get settled on-chain.

Larger blocks are not a problem, but only if there is sufficient improvements to block validation time/costs before any increase, and that the increase is made in line with those improvements.

Sorry if it seems like I'm directing this at you richardsNY, not the situation. But it gets frustrating hearing people like coolcoinz bleating "can we has more big please" without thinking that there might be other consequences of doing that to consider too (or that other coins with that design are already available, and not so successful).

Check out what happens if unbalanced engineering solutions like Bcash starts becoming used (Bcash has 8MB blocks, and it still doesn't have enough transaction rate to fill up 1Mb of that maximum). Or even better, just check out Bcash's market price: there's not a whole lot of confidence that this approach will work

[Thekool1s]

Well its clear that bitcoin can't scale with its current infrastructure, The Bitcoin has the first movers advantage currently, I don't know how long it will last. Nokia was the king of the phones for a long time and it got replaced with something better, Same will happen with bitcoin if it fails to adapt and change. I believe Bitcoin cash and other forks are not an answer to this problem. We need something like lightning network which will actually solve the 'Big Fee' issue which is currently plaguing the bitcoin community. Else we all know how the market plays with the guy who doesn't wants to change and adapt in time.