No mate, I just don't like seeing people ripped off
I don't like to see people getting ripped off, which is why I would never advocate a currency where those in authority can freeze your account. Like Ripple can.
fees we were forced to pay
That's not how fees work in Bitcoin. You aren't "forced" to pay that much, people merely chose to. Ripple chooses your fee for you. That's what force looks like, cretin.
Ripple for all I know has the word "Fees" all over it's white paper but one they are cheaper than Bitcoin and two they are not pretending to
be something they are not and three it scales.
one: Only sometimes and centralisation is still a higher cost than any network fee
two: They're pretending to be a cryptocurrency and they aren't
three: Because it's centralised
Yeah, Ripple understands distributed (No single point of failure) but this was lost with the LN development team here but that's above your head
Ripple = 55 banking hubs
Lightning = ~1500 independent nodes and growing
Hmm... which one is more distributed? Apparently basic numeracy goes over your head.
Now stop shitting up the thread, troll.
Not as an in-game currency, that's a horrible idea even if LN became free of transaction charge.
Lightning Network can be used as a payment method to purchase in-game credits an alternative of credit cards and game cards.
The best candidate of all the cryptocurrency-related technology we have now for in-game currency is: Smart Contract - Tokens.
Potentially, it can make the in-game economy hack-proof, hyper inflation-proof and duplication-proof.
Too-much-proof but imagine if an item like a Rare Sword can be limited to 20 units represented by a token with a hard cap of 20, the same limitation can be applied in the game's currency using another token (Initial supply will be distributed among NPC traders).
The problem is trading them, it's going to be slow, so the whole game must act like an exchange when it comes to trading items and currency, nothing is traded onchain within the game, but the items can be traded outside the game if they requested to take it out (withraw).
LN however, can't be used as part of a game's economy.
That seems like a sensible assessment. In terms of withdrawal, the thought occurs that while the player is actually playing the game itself, the amount they accumulate will depend on how long they're playing and how good they are at the game. There's no point in pre-loading a payment channel until the game knows how much they need, so it's better to wait until the player wishes to "cash out". It wouldn't be practical to maintain the channel in real-time. In game credits maintained separately would indeed be the better option.