LN: Bitcoin could theoretically scale beyond VISA.

[BitHodler]

The best is for everyone to be ready to key in this, rather looking for ways to criticize and pull it down without even giving it a chance to prove itself.

The problem isn't really LN, but the general idea that Bitcoin makes a step forward towards mass adoption. Some people just can't and don't want to see Bitcoin progress and become a mainstream instrument.

After LN we'll have other implementations that people will jump on and try to talk down on it. I'm used to how everything goes and can only laugh at how desperate these attempts to tarnish Bitcoin are.

I'm sure that even when Bitcoin has surpassed gold and does everything better in all aspects, there still will be skeptics trying to talk it down. Just let it go. Some people just can't be pleased, regardless of what you show them.

[1714768544]

1714768544

[1714768544]

1714768544

[1714768544]

1714768544

[1714768544]

1714768544

[1714768544]

1714768544

[1714768544]

1714768544

[DooMAD]

so when you set up a channel with starbucks and you deposit $60 to cover $2 coffee for a month. do you really expect starbucks to deposit $60 also??
imagine a starbucks hub(local town branch) with 8000 customers. do you really think that starbucks is going to stake $480,000.
no its going to be more like
customer[$60 - $0]starbucks
starbucks will have nothing to lose. so it is NOT a "mutual destruction" scenario

and it will be starbucks that will set up the channel and offer the initial deposit rules, fee's and punishments. and its starbucks that can. du to nothing to lose refuse to sign their half. forcing a customer to broadcast an older tx. so that then starbucks can then sign the refuted tx to then use as a rvocation(chargeback) to punish the customer.

i think you need to run more scenarios based on a "can i break it" mindset. not a "utopia, it works" mindset.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.  It almost sounds like you're raising a legitimate concern that could genuinely affect users, rather than just spouting mindless propaganda about "banks".  You actually managed to make an entire post without blaming a particular group of developers for everything, well done.  That must have been difficult for you.  Why couldn't you just open with something that sounds reasonable like this, rather than the reams of utter drivel you've been posting lately?  I might have actually taken you seriously.  

If I soften my stance and concede there might be the occasional instance where this is an issue, is there a chance you might be able to soften your stance and concede there might actually be the occasional benefit to using the Lighting Network?  Maybe compromise and find a fair-minded middleground?  Or was this just another attempt at a cheap points-scoring exercise and you have no interest in being fair-minded or neutral about it because you're the embodiment of the tribalism you opportunistically use as a smokescreen for your attacks?  Is there some remote possibility that you might be able to say something positive about Lightning for once?

But as you've said, "don't assume, don't assume, don't assume", so let's run that scenario:

If Starbucks don't sign their half of the transaction, they've effectively let a customer walk out without paying for their coffee.  That customer could conceivably think the best course of action is to broadcast from an older transaction, but that's not really in the customer's best interests.  The more likely scenario is that when the customer goes back for another coffee, they say "Hey, you didn't sign the transaction for my last coffee, you need to do that before I can pay for today's coffee".  And the Starbucks staff would say "Oh yeah, we're a business and we need to accept money for our products and services or we'll go out of business, duh".  Well, okay, maybe they wouldn't say it quite like that, but clearly the financial incentive is there for Starbucks to hold up their end of the deal.  It's not like they don't have anything at stake.  They have operating costs to cover just like any other business.  And to cover those costs, they need to actually sell the coffee, not try to screw their customers over.

Companies want to accept your money.  Because companies that place barriers to transact will naturally lose customers.  And if a company deliberately tried to rip people off, like your scenario, that would probably involve larger problems, like negative publicity, a tarnished brand and possibly even consumer protection agencies, watchdogs and regulators getting involved.  In extreme cases, fines and other criminal proceedings.  

The path of least resistance (and consequence) is the honest one in this scenario (and many others).

[iyemroker]

it's great there will be a network of lightning, it can make Bitcoin more clever and faster in terms of transactions.

because Bitcoin or Altcoins should always update the system and let not be considered by the user's own ancient itself.

[DooMAD]

Nearly three weeks and still no reply, franky1?  I was enjoying our little exchange.  Still running those scenarios?   

I'll happily give you a bit more time to come up with a convincing argument.  You clearly need it.   

[BelieveInBTC]

Lightning Network is not centralised and because of that it will take a longer period of time for it to become more popular. VISA will face serious problem due to growing number of users or... maybe lack of them. Lightning Network scales better because every individual is able to create their own node and earn a little money on it which encourages people to run it.

[angchosenone]

This is valid, and this is the thing that bitcoin needs to go into the following level of being acknowledged. On the off chance that we don't do a wonder such as this, at that point we're not going to have the capacity to contend in reality with enormous traders, for example, visa, paypal, and so forth. In case we can't get to this point, at that point we will have issues when the system is congested, (for example, high charges, long sit tight circumstances for affirmations, and a burglary of the whole system)

[richardsNY]

Lightning Network scales better because every individual is able to create their own node and earn a little money on it which encourages people to run it.

I like how that will give people incentive to run their own nodes and compete with others when it comes to offering the lowest possible rates for the 'services' as node. I find it quite funny how the BCash squad keeps pointing at banking hubs and that it will destroy Bitcoin, while in reality BCash has been destroyed already. It's centralized around the Roger Ver cartel, and the most hilarious thing is that they might be planning to upgrade their block size to 1TB, which is beyond insane. Their reasoning is that everyone can buy a $50 HDD and have insane internet speeds. These idiots don't understand that people will NOT upgrade just to run a full node of something, and especially not when it comes to an altcoin.

[Winifredinme825]

Bitcoin may theoretically extend beyond VISA. But the speed of processing it can not be as fast as a visa.

[Pursuer]

Bitcoin may theoretically extend beyond VISA. But the speed of processing it can not be as fast as a visa.

if you are hinting at confirmation speed then you should know that bitcoin's transaction confirmation speed is already ridiculously faster than VISA's confirmation speed!
for example as a merchant when you receive bitcoin it will only take about 10 minutes on average to get 1 confirmation and be sure of the payment. but with VISA it will take a couple of days (up to 3) to have it confirmed and receive actual money.

[franky1]

so when you set up a channel with starbucks and you deposit $60 to cover $2 coffee for a month. do you really expect starbucks to deposit $60 also??
imagine a starbucks hub(local town branch) with 8000 customers. do you really think that starbucks is going to stake $480,000.
no its going to be more like
customer[$60 - $0]starbucks
starbucks will have nothing to lose. so it is NOT a "mutual destruction" scenario

and it will be starbucks that will set up the channel and offer the initial deposit rules, fee's and punishments. and its starbucks that can. du to nothing to lose refuse to sign their half. forcing a customer to broadcast an older tx. so that then starbucks can then sign the refuted tx to then use as a rvocation(chargeback) to punish the customer.

i think you need to run more scenarios based on a "can i break it" mindset. not a "utopia, it works" mindset.

If Starbucks don't sign their half of the transaction, they've effectively let a customer walk out without paying for their coffee.  That customer could conceivably think the best course of action is to broadcast from an older transaction, but that's not really in the customer's best interests.  The more likely scenario is that when the customer goes back for another coffee, they say "Hey, you didn't sign the transaction for my last coffee, you need to do that before I can pay for today's coffee".  And the Starbucks staff would say "Oh yeah, we're a business and we need to accept money for our products and services or we'll go out of business, duh".  Well, okay, maybe they wouldn't say it quite like that, but clearly the financial incentive is there for Starbucks to hold up their end of the deal.  It's not like they don't have anything at stake.  They have operating costs to cover just like any other business.  And to cover those costs, they need to actually sell the coffee, not try to screw their customers over.

your too stuck in the utopian mindset. plus your thinking of the hub as the honourable party..
so lets use some real names that might make you think
trendon shavers, mark kerpeles, bitconnect, butterfly labs, cloudminers, ico scammers, any exchange that claimed "we been hacked"
 
lets clarify this.. in normal bank chequing account terms

customer and naferious have a joint bank account requiring 2 signatures.  and if a bank gets 2 cheques. it accept the highest cheque number
..
cheque one. customer pays $3 to naferious. both sign cheque includes punishment to take customers whole funds if cheque1 is sent but cheque 2 is presented aswell

cheque two. customer pays $3 to naferious. naferious refuses to sign. and says "im going offline and locksing customrs funds forever."

customer gets compelled to send cheque 1 because the customer still has $57 in limbo(but got a free coffee).. and cheque one is the only duel signed cheque customer has..

then as cheque 1 is being broadcast. naferious signs cheque 2. and broadcasts it.
now cheque 2 initiates the revoke and steals $57 from customer

...
also look into the issues of sighash_noinput and the other opcodes the devs are implementing. even they are agreeing its dangerous and would require users to actually read the raw tx data before signing to know what they are signing.

LN has many holes.. the devs themselves dont even trust it and warn people of using it. stop promoting it as utopia
do you know why after decades of digital money. bitcoin was invented instead of just having dual managed/signed accounts. do you understand what the purpose of the blockchain is and why doing things offchain is the reverse of rvolutionary.

think about it

[gladydark]

This is obvious. In the next ten years, the utilization rate of VISA will be greatly reduced, and the encrypted currency can well fill the needs of these customers.

[DooMAD]

your too stuck in the utopian mindset. plus your thinking of the hub as the honourable party..
so lets use some real names that might make you think
trendon shavers, mark kerpeles, bitconnect, butterfly labs, cloudminers, ico scammers, any exchange that claimed "we been hacked"
 
lets clarify this.. in normal bank chequing account terms

customer and naferious have a joint bank account requiring 2 signatures.  and if a bank gets 2 cheques. it accept the highest cheque number
..
cheque one. customer pays $3 to naferious. both sign cheque includes punishment to take customers whole funds if cheque1 is sent but cheque 2 is presented aswell

cheque two. customer pays $3 to naferious. naferious refuses to sign. and says "im going offline and locksing customrs funds forever."

customer gets compelled to send cheque 1 because the customer still has $57 in limbo(but got a free coffee).. and cheque one is the only duel signed cheque customer has..

then as cheque 1 is being broadcast. naferious signs cheque 2. and broadcasts it.
now cheque 2 initiates the revoke and steals $57 from customer

Wow, so you're saying that if people transact with scammers, there's a chance they might get ripped off?  What a truly shocking revelation!  

I mean, you might have noticed how Karpeles, BitConnect, BFL, ICO scammers, etc didn't actually need to use Lightning to steal peoples' money?  So firstly, in what conceivable way is that an argument against Lightning?

Secondly, Lighting isn't a chequing account or a bank.  You are utterly incapable of understanding the meaning of words if you think it is.

And thirdly (the main point), your hypothetical scenario still makes no sense in the real world.  You don't appear to be grasping the timelock part correctly (or pretty much Lightning in its entirety for that matter).  CLTV means that if the transaction isn't signed by the recipient within a set time, the sender gets their coins back.  

It doesn't mean the customer's funds are "locked forever".  If that's what you think it means, you need to forget everything you think you know and start again from scratch.  You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.  But, chances are, you probably do know it doesn't mean what you've been saying and you're just spreading FUD to make newbies think it's something bad.  That's seemingly just the kind of person you are.  Deceitful.

And the customer would still be incredibly unwise to spend from an older state, regardless of how much money is in the channel.  The funds are not "in limbo", either.  What drugs are you even on?  Try learning something for once, rather that just shouting "BANKS BANKS BANKS" like a total buffoon.  

I hear the PM needs a new Foreign Secretary, I think you'd make a great replacement for that bumbling imbecile Boris.  I read all your posts in his voice now.  You're pretty much on par with his level of dishonest propaganda.  All you need now is a bus:

also look into the issues of sighash_noinput and the other opcodes the devs are implementing. even they are agreeing its dangerous and would require users to actually read the raw tx data before signing to know what they are signing.

LN has many holes.. the devs themselves dont even trust it and warn people of using it. stop promoting it as utopia

It's called beta software.  No one is under any illusion about the fact it's not ready for mainstream usage yet, you contemptible, manipulative little weasel.  No responsible developer would encourage people to throw large sums of money at something that's still in development, so stop trying to twist decency on their part into something sinister.  You are a total and utter disgrace.  Is there nothing you won't try to distort or pervert with your insidious rhetoric?

Again, none of the wasted keystrokes you've expended here come close to forming an argument against continuing to develop Lightning.  I hope everyone sees you for the hollow, morally bankrupt vermin you are.  Troll harder.

[necessary]

I know LN is a good solution for electronic money (and some blockchain decentralization) ensures everyone can run full nodes without the high cost.

[ETHtotheMOON1]

Great news from LN: According to Decker

each channel can process about 500 transactions per second. With thousands of channels being utilized at once, Bitcoin could theoretically scale beyond not only any other cryptocurrency but any other payment method, including VISA.

In addition to the talk about scaling, Decker explained that using the lightning network would be impossible to track sending/receiving bitcoins, as long as the user has more than one open channel.
After all this, Bitcoin Cash fans are still surprised by all the positive about the lightning network.
Read more and source https://coinjournal.net/scaling-layer-2-and-cryptographic-innovations-discussed-at-consensus-2018/ *
* This text from the middle of the conversation.[Scroll down the cursor]

I'm really excited about the lightning network either. What we need to do though is to make sure regular users won't even recognize that there is any difference while using it, otherwise it might be too confusing for them

[vual]

 Of course, their remarkably probable that will BTC can be employed because of very same selection similar to visa pertaining to installments procedures along with most. Btc seems to have a new lightning rate and also a very good multilevel also along with the technological innovation can be solid ample for you to get your substantial number of deals instantly. Could possibly be natural meats discover exactly the same thing down the road along with substitute will certainly be ready for generating installments method more cut-throat.

[allthebitandbobs]

anything new is very hard to get introduced especially to bitcoin which is very set in it ways

[takesomethingaway]

Some developers have made the following statement indicating the security and privacy of bitcoin;
"According to Decker, each channel can process about 500 transactions per second. Decker also explains that Lightning Network will provide more privacy than online transactions."

[Herbert2020]

anything new is very hard to get introduced especially to bitcoin which is very set in it ways

true, but Lightning Network is going to work on top of bitcoin, it doesn't need you to change any of your "ways". you just have to install a new application (an LN node app) if you wanted to use it and if not you can continue your "ways" as before.
and it is already happening, LN has grown huge even though it is still in testing phase.

[Zin-Zang]

anything new is very hard to get introduced especially to bitcoin which is very set in it ways

true, but Lightning Network is going to work on top of bitcoin, it doesn't need you to change any of your "ways". you just have to install a new application (an LN node app) if you wanted to use it and if not you can continue your "ways" as before.
and it is already happening, LN has grown huge even though it is still in testing phase.

Actually Lightning network can work with any segwit infected coin. ie: bitcoin / litecoin / groestlcoin
What will the bitcoiners say, if LN becomes more popular using litecoin or groestlcoin than bitcoin.  

LN is nothing more than a virtual banking system, and it can use any coin that activated segwit.
It is not specific to bitcoin only.

FYI:
Groesltcoin is the only one that used a hard fork to make their segwit active.
BTC & LTC only used a soft fork, not enforced by program code.
LTC & Groestlcoin have a much greater Onchain Capacity , so theft from bad time locking is less likely with their coins.

[franky1]

Wow, so you're saying that if people transact with scammers, there's a chance they might get ripped off?  What a truly shocking revelation!  

I mean, you might have noticed how Karpeles, BitConnect, BFL, ICO scammers, etc didn't actually need to use Lightning to steal peoples' money?  So firstly, in what conceivable way is that an argument against Lightning?

firstly you have not used LN.. thats obvious
secondly. in bitcoin you need to push funds to a scammer, so many people will say its the victims fault for not doing due dilegance.
in LN. there are MULTIPLE ways to tap away at someones funds without even having to be a channel partner. and without the victim needing to manually decide to make a payment to someone they dont know.

the LN devs themselves have said there are risks of losing funds.. yes the devs themselves.

Secondly, Lighting isn't a chequing account or a bank.  You are utterly incapable of understanding the meaning of words if you think it is.

you do not have 100% signing authority over btc in LN.. with banks you dont either. even if you think its just you signing a cheque, thee banks can refuse to authorise the cheque(refuse to sign their part you dont see). you also need to pre fund a ledger entry that is co managed.. for LN and banks. unlike onchain where you can push the funds to anywhere you please without needing to find the right routing system (americans call banking system routing numbers.(if thats not enough of a hint). uk calls it sort-code..

right now LN devs are concepting factories (fortknox) and channel managers for when your asleep or offline
..
it might be worth you stop reading reddit and start using LN, and not under the selctively find the merchant you want and only fund $3 to make a one time $3 payment.. but a more realistic deposit a months salary of testnet coins and then try finding 84 mrchants and try paying them randomly over 2 months.(more realsitic to real life scenario)

And thirdly (the main point), your hypothetical scenario still makes no sense in the real world.  You don't appear to be grasping the timelock part correctly (or pretty much Lightning in its entirety for that matter).  CLTV means that if the transaction isn't signed by the recipient within a set time, the sender gets their coins back.  

you are wrong.
CLTV means the funds are not spendable for a certain time even after confirmation onchain EG 3-5 days (ELI-5 like mined coins 100block maturity)
and CSV is where by your counterpart can show a signature and take the funds from you (chargeback) in that unmatured timeframe

again learn LN

It doesn't mean the customer's funds are "locked forever".  If that's what you think it means, you need to forget everything you think you know and start again from scratch.  

seems your stuck at th now 2 year old glossy leaflet utopia image of LN..
maybe you need to start from scratch.. learn things like auto-pilot, factories, managed channels.. but maybe first start with multisig. because it sounds like you dont even know what a multisig requires.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.  But, chances are, you probably do know it doesn't mean what you've been saying and you're just spreading FUD to make newbies think it's something bad.  That's seemingly just the kind of person you are.  Deceitful.

you might want to check your research.. factories(fortknox).. where funds are locked and then allow you to fund channels from the factory. when you close channels you dont settle/unlock to blockchain freeing them up back to your sole control.. . but it just updates the factory 'balance' and then you just use the balance to set up new channels if you have funds available in the factory to do so. thus keeping the funds locked into LN
again do some research.

And the customer would still be incredibly unwise to spend from an older state, regardless of how much money is in the channel.  The funds are not "in limbo", either.  What drugs are you even on?  Try learning something for once, rather that just shouting "BANKS BANKS BANKS" like a total buffoon.  

stop hyping up stuff you have not used or not researched. and then insulting people that have used it and are purely not going to just toe the party line of kissing ass and screaming utopia is near..
the worse type of people are thos that scream everything is great and perfect. as they are the ones in dream land. its better to be open and honest and admit there are issues then promote something broken as if its utopia

also look into the issues of sighash_noinput and the other opcodes the devs are implementing. even they are agreeing its dangerous and would require users to actually read the raw tx data before signing to know what they are signing.

LN has many holes.. the devs themselves dont even trust it and warn people of using it. stop promoting it as utopia

It's called beta software.  No one is under any illusion about the fact it's not ready for mainstream usage yet, you contemptible, manipulative little weasel.  No responsible developer would encourage people to throw large sums of money at something that's still in development, so stop trying to twist decency on their part into something sinister.  You are a total and utter disgrace.  Is there nothing you won't try to distort or pervert with your insidious rhetoric?

Again, none of the wasted keystrokes you've expended here come close to forming an argument against continuing to develop Lightning.  I hope everyone sees you for the hollow, morally bankrupt vermin you are.  Troll harder.

funny part is. i have highlighted issus about segwit a couple years ago and the devs after fighting their utopian mantra, eventually twisted their own words and gameplan to then work around the issues i mentioned ..
ask the devs why they didnt release segwit address/wallet utility until way after segwit activation.. then look back to 2016 and my gripes about 'anyonecanspend'

as for lightning some devs have reacted to what i have said and changed their game plan and adjusted a few things..
even now they are arguing about a few things.. right now they have just realised that a few opcodes thee added has rintroduced malleability.. i am laughing mega hard at that.

but what i do find completely irrelevant is people who advertise LN as the bitcoin solution.. especially those saying its great, perfect, the thing bitcoin really needs. even though its obvious those propagandists have not even usd it, let alone researched it.

when its not a feature just for bitcoin. not something that all users will need and for those that dont need it, those non LN users are still stuck. meaning bitcoins issues have not been solved.
by this i mean its not advantageous for people who are not daily spenders or have a good continual 100% guaranteed routeS to all their merchants as and when needed to trust thier funds in channels for lengthy periods


maybe you should use it under real life scenario with a critical mindset, put a blackhat on and act as if you are more interested in finding the holes in it to fix it, then you might get something positive.. instead of pretending its utopia already yet not even used or researched it.. as thats you wasting your keystrookes

have a nice day
and dont reply until you have used it for more then one selective test purchase.
run proper scenarios, research the concepts look at the features. and you will start to see