LN: Bitcoin could theoretically scale beyond VISA.

[cellard]

bitcoin cash is august 2017
"gigabytes by midnight" reddit propaganda has been going on since 2014-2015.. and has been show as propaganda because no implementation that wanted to run on the main net or as a altcoin competitor ever even said gigabytes.. the actual REAL debate was 2mb. and that was a compromise from 8mb. but the core supporters who wanted to REKT any core opposition so it was th core fanboys who were the ones screaming gigabytes by midnight. to drown out the real proposals

Core cannot decide when to hardfork. Even if all main Core devs agreed, you would still have many opposing forces with many bitcoins at stake to crush your hardfork attempts. If all it took to hardfork was Core (as in the main devs) meeting with some exchanges and miners Bitcoin would be centralized. They know it's not that easy so they don't want to pull a clusterfuck which would end up in 2 competing coins.

again bitcoin cash is august 2017
but any attempt to offer anything else that is deemed as a full validationa and archival node to run on the mainnet and offer an alternative got met with and treated as an attack.
yea Luke JR pretends his client is an independant second free choice of a full validation archival node.. but the hint is in the name of the creator that its still part of the core roadmap..

so tell me one full validation, full archival node solution that runs on mainnet where none of the devs are funded by the same investors as core... and where the nod has its own 'proposals'program that do not sheep cores.
show me the freedom of choice.

The TRB software by MP and co for instance, have their own funding and don't depend on Core. Other implementations here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4180898.msg38298585#msg38298585

OMG its delusional. kodak said how digital media wont scale up and how they will stick with film media because floppy disks can only handle 1.44mb of photos...... look what happened to kodak

if you want to argue that users cant handle more thn a couple mb of data very 10 minutes.. then you should do a kodak, but modernise it.. go tell twitch.tv that streaming video wont work. tell youtube users cant live stream. go tell EA sports that online gaming wont work. tell skype. even go and tell netflix that users wont get to watch HD movies.

..... oh wait. users can...... hmm

Ehh.. all of your examples are centralized databases.

gotta laugh that you think raising the blocksiz is impossible..  oh and by the way there are multiple other ways of scaling up the mainnet without losing peoples independant control of their funding, emphasis sacraficing their independant control for convenience, which is only caused by innnovation stagnation to require such sacrifice

and something we do agree on.. not al 7 billion people will use bitcoin. and not all will use it 5-10 times a day
which is another laughing point about th core fanboys screaming gigabyts by midnight because the real debate has never been about a be-all-for everyone coin by midnight...
a one world single currency is worse than fiat
people in reality dont do 5-10 transactions a day.
my mindset is about growth and SCALING. (you know progress over time) to kep bitcoin innovative and feature rich compared to other coins
not halting because something cant happen in 5 hours so it should never happen, to then push people away from using bitcoin

and the other point about the whales.. yep we can both agree those circling around the core team with deep pockets are whales and yes they do have power over the devs to not sway them off th commercial direction the devs have taken since 2013.

.. now.. here is something you dont realise
if people advertised LN in the same mindset as advertising other offchain gateways. where they HIGHLIGHT thats its not the real 100% control technology revolution of 2009-2013, but just a side service for those that need it, but willing to sacrifrce the bitcoin ideology for convenience..
if people then admit they hate it that devs have said btc is broke and cant scale. and instead think.. well maybe that dev is not the one to do it because he might have an agenda
if people actually cared more about the mainnet/ethos/revolution of bitcoin.. and not be defending a certain team of PEOPLE..
then my comments would be completely different.

The Bitcoin mempool is pretty much empty right now, but again, the problem is getting everyone on board, and there are many people with many resources that are not part of Core and are not part of wanting a blocksize increase. You need to unite everyone or you end up in a clusterfuck, this is why I say there may never be a hardfork, but just attempts which result in a mess.

[1714958742]

1714958742

[1714958742]

1714958742

[DooMAD]

where > > YOU < < think the person retains 100% control .. then i could buy 3000 coffee's and keep the 1btc

This is hilarious!  In what world do you live in where you could possibly arrive at the conclusion that having 100% control of your funds means you continue to retain control of the funds AFTER you've spent them and they're not yours anymore?  Why would anyone design a system that worked that way? 

Comedy gold!  You literally have no clue!  

But keep going, please.  This is amazing.

[franky1]

where > > YOU < < think the person retains 100% control .. then i could buy 3000 coffee's and keep the 1btc

This is hilarious!  In what world do you live in where you could possibly arrive at the conclusion that having 100% control of your funds means you continue to retain control of the funds AFTER you've spent them and they're not yours anymore?  Why would anyone design a system that worked that way?  

Comedy gold!  You literally have no clue!  

But keep going, please.  This is amazing.

you ar the one saying 100%.. and guess what.. if you read the post.. i was telling you that YOU DO NOT HAVE 100% CONTROL even BEFORE they are spent.
maybe next time i should reqest you read it 5 times. have a break to let it sink in and thn rad it 2 more times again. as it seems your not comprehending. even when i did highlight it to make it even easier for you

oh and you highlight more. even when you PLAY with your txB and chang amounts ovr to your partner.. guss what. they do not have 100% control of the funds after spending either.
its a co-managed / co-sign system.. NO ONE HAS 100% control

[darkangel11]

i even went into the depths of showing that even when you get to PLAY with the AMOUNTS of a tx. you are not 100% in control as it requirs 2 signatures. you cannot solo sign the tx YOU PLAY with.

It's still a better situation then with an escrow, wher a third party has total control and has to be trusted by both sides, yet people are trusting escrows and don't see them as a threat, but rather as a useful service.
If I don't have 50% control and the other party has the same, neither of us can steal the money. We have to come to an agreement. I'd say that's a fair system, much safer than the one we're stuck in now with our fiat money.

I don't know why this thread turned to be a pro/anti LN discussion  

[franky1]

It's still a better situation then with an escrow, wher a third party has total control and has to be trusted by both sides, yet people are trusting escrows and don't see them as a threat, but rather as a useful service.
If I don't have 50% control and the other party has the same, neither of us can steal the money. We have to come to an agreement. I'd say that's a fair system, much safer than the one we're stuck in now with our fiat money.

I don't know why this thread turned to be a pro/anti LN discussion  

but there are flaws. one side can use to steal from the other. so its not a fair 50-50
also even as far back as 2016 they were talking about due to the issue about needing to be online to ensure the other party doesnt mess around. they already envisioned third party managers.
here is andreas talking about it i skipped to the important part where he starts talking about the latst concept
https://youtu.be/wqbQJ82Hf0s?t=1m37s
1:37-3:00
this was him using a LN flaw about unfair stealing... and advertising that thirdparty managers will be needed.. as a way to try selling why segwit was needed.
you start to see them admit flaws in one concept to advertise another concept.
learn factories. as thats the latest bit about keeping funds from broadcasting when channels close and also third part managing chanels.
oh and one fun fact.. schnorrs concept is to hide WHO signs what and hide if its a 2-2 or a 2-3 multisig. meaning that when you open a channel you will know even less about the channel partner and manager and not realise that if partner and manager hve 2 keys. they can over rule you.
you wont know who signed it. and wont be able to prove you did not agree. because of how schnorr hides all that validation signature stuff into one 'witness'

[franky1]

as for the economics of offchain vs onchain..
usually convenient fast services has a premium higher price and the slower system has a lower price. allowing a fair trade off of speed vs saving.
unless your trying to kill off the slower old system, by making it as unattractive as possible

core devs have made onchain both slower(limiting onchain scaling) and more expensive. thus de-incentivising people from wanting to return to bitcoins mainnet. then along with factories with their extented locks beyond the channel locks. keeps people in LN for longer.

again think about the old 19th century banks..saying:
gold is heavy.. hand it over and PLAY with these receipts which are not 100% your because it needs the signature and verification of the bank manager.
how many people actually cashed in thir paper receipts(bank notes) for gold

[darkangel11]

but there are flaws. one side can use to steal from the other. so its not a fair 50-50
also even as far back as 2016 they were talking about due to the issue about needing to be online to ensure the other party doesnt mess around. they already envisioned third party managers.
here is andreas talking about it i skipped to the important part where he starts talking about the latst concept
https://youtu.be/wqbQJ82Hf0s?t=1m37s
1:37-3:00

And then he gives the solution. The most basic was staying online, but with segwit it was no longer needed as another person could monitor your channel and potentially earn some money if the other party decides to close it early to steal the coins. Since we have segwit now I think it's all fine and dandy. Also, if you don't trust the system you can always use the old fashioned way of sending the coins, without LN. LN is great for those payments that are small and thus have to be cheap and fast, like paying for a meal.

this was him using a LN flaw about unfair stealing... and advertising that thirdparty managers will be needed.. as a way to try selling why segwit was needed.
you start to see them admit flaws in one concept to advertise another concept.
learn factories. as thats the latest bit about keeping funds from broadcasting when channels close and also third part managing chanels.
oh and one fun fact.. schnorrs concept is to hide WHO signs what and hide if its a 2-2 or a 2-3 multisig. meaning that when you open a channel you will know even less about the channel partner and manager and not realise that if partner and manager hve 2 keys. they can over rule you.
you wont know who signed it. and wont be able to prove you did not agree. because of how schnorr hides all that validation signature stuff into one 'witness'

So you want schnorr and not LN... Did anybody even make an estimation of how much faster and cheaper would the network become with it? AFAIK it could be implemented along LN, so we might see it one day too.  

[franky1]

So you want schnorr and not LN...

schnorr is being mis-sold as a witness size reduction. .. but it only benefits those using multisig and segwit transaction formats.. not a benefit to bitcoin onchain legacy transaction users. and its size rduction is not that much.. the hidden utility is that it hides how many parties are in th multisig.. which is a security risk for those thinking one thing.. but under the hood its another.
imagine thinking its a 50-50 cosign.. then realise its a 2-3 multiparty where your signatur is not actually needed. and their was a hidden 3rd party managr (or your counter party with 2 keys), you would not know

the point is convenience at a cost of loss of independance and reduction of security is something we should not advocat for.
all this stuff like LN.. people lose funds for speed. (i have only highlighted a couple of ways out of dozens more that people can take funds)
segwit to allow third part monitoring because txID's cant change thus third party can monitor
all this stuff like schnorr for witness size reduction, by not revealing who signed what
all weaken the security and trust of bitcoin and loses whole point/ethos of blockchain security/trust.

all this 'convenience' stuff is just turning people into using fiatesq services. at the cost of making bitcoin onchain unattractive to use.
bitcoins onchain ethos was to not be fiatesq but to offer something better than fiat. things seem to b going backwards.

do you realise there are even new opcodes which do not even sign the amounts into a tx. so that usrs can edit the amounts at the last minute to adjust for tx fee's (or take the whole lot) without needing a new signature from the 2 parties to revalidate the new who deserves what.
oh and guess what. these new opcodes actually re-introduce malleability..
so it reveals segwit was not about malleability. it was about allowing other things in. and ahve managers, co parties etc all of which make sending a transaction more risky.
but all peopl care about is 'faster/cheaper).. which could have been solved years ago without security risks by not stifling onchain innovation

normal people wont know how to read a raw transaction. nor will they know what they are signing. infact users wont even know they are signing for something as it will be on 'autopiliot' (but maliciaous parties can tweak their node to their favour)

bitcoins original vision of self control 100% push to anyone you want without barriers. and all the other ethoses that made blockchain and bitcoin tech so revolutionary. has been stifled/limited/twisted for commercial gain

Did anybody even make an estimation of how much faster and cheaper would the network become with it? AFAIK it could be implemented along LN, so we might see it one day too.  

schnorr wouldnt make LN faster. but would open more malicious loop holes to allow people to steal funds.
as for bitcoins mainnet.
segwit has a 2x capacity and about 2.1mb size(IF EVERYONE used segwit and NO ONE used legacy)
segwit+schnorr has a 2x capacity and ATLEAST 1.5mb-2mb size(IF EVERYONE used segwit and NO ONE used legacy)

core devs set the 'weight' as more because other scripts wil be added later to bloat up the witness area as these scripts do need 3x data compared to the basic in/outamount part of a tx

[franky1]

but there are flaws. one side can use to steal from the other. so its not a fair 50-50
also even as far back as 2016 they were talking about due to the issue about needing to be online to ensure the other party doesnt mess around. they already envisioned third party managers.
here is andreas talking about it i skipped to the important part where he starts talking about the latst concept
https://youtu.be/wqbQJ82Hf0s?t=1m37s
1:37-3:00

And then he gives the solution. The most basic was staying online, but with segwit it was no longer needed as another person could monitor your channel and potentially earn some money if the other party decides to close it early to steal the coins. Since we have segwit now I think it's all fine and dandy. Also, if you don't trust the system you can always use the old fashioned way of sending the coins, without LN. LN is great for those payments that are small and thus have to be cheap and fast, like paying for a meal.

i mentioned the economics. a fair system would be slow but cheap or faster but expensive. that way it becomes obvious that people gt a good freedom of choice. but if onchain is slow and expensive.. who would use it.. (and thats the commercial game plan)
as for staying online.. do you sleep?.. again instead of fixing an issue to not need to worry about staying online. they decide to invent factoris and third party managers. (and thats the commercial game plan)

do you ever question how the bitcoin devs like rusty russel, gmax.lukejr, sipa. were suppose to repay back the over $100m investment they got.
ofcourse they dont want bitcoin to remain a cheap fast option thats better than fiat. they want people to move their coin into commercial services like LN so investors can get fee's. and have the funds cycle round in those factories without exiting so they can get repeat fee's long term

if you ever get the chance to listen into communications between the big players. you would be shocked at their ignorance of care towards normal community(users) and their passions for pleasing investors/corporations. it truly is an awakening

[franky1]

OMG its delusional. kodak said how digital media wont scale up and how they will stick with film media because floppy disks can only handle 1.44mb of photos...... look what happened to kodak

if you want to argue that users cant handle more thn a couple mb of data very 10 minutes.. then you should do a kodak, but modernise it.. go tell twitch.tv that streaming video wont work. tell youtube users cant live stream. go tell EA sports that online gaming wont work. tell skype. even go and tell netflix that users wont get to watch HD movies.

..... oh wait. users can...... hmm

Ehh.. all of your examples are centralized databases.

um. you might want to read it again. its from the prospective of the users.
the argument for not increasing the block size is that users computers wont be able to cope with processing and sending data out. becasue upload speeds are bad (they lost the download speed argumnt years ago, which is why they retracked and now have this 4mb weight(yet not allow it to be 4x capacity) .. (netflix argument)

read again. its not about just users VIEWING netflix. its users LIVESTREAMING. meaning their computer taking 32-64 HD webcam images a second,  and sending them out.

these days hundreds of millions of people can play a game on their computer. sending all the player position, angles facing. gun height direction and bullet timing OUT. while also talking to their friends on teamspeak or skype.(voice data OUT) while having a webcam on so they can overlay their facial reactions ontop the gameplay and have that sent OUT to livestream, twitch or youtube..

think about all the data being processed every second for all the vector positions of gaming. the overlaying of webcam footage and overlaying of groupcalls to a seamless constant stream of data to twitch. aswell as simultaniously sending out parts of that data as individual streams to skype to EA..

now go tell twitch that their service does not work because users cannot send out megabits/second for twitch to receive. oh wait, people can send out many mbyte/10min

1mbit/s = 1*60*10 /8 = 75mbyte/10min
.. i know i can feel you itching to press the reply button to rebut about developing countries being slow and also relaying out data to multiple node= multiplying the data amount. also many dveloping countries have nver been in the nod running requirment because their internet is cellular. which no matter what speed their internet is. core is not functional as a full node on a cellular (programming issue not speed issue) and also the tx fee surpassed 1c a tx. thus rulling out good utility for developing countries.

but if you take time to check the stats we are in the era of fibre and 5g cellular. not adsl copper wire and 2g cellular

global average
http://www.speedtest.net/global-index
46down 22 up
22mbit/s up = 22*60*10/8 = 1.6gbyte/10min .. or the average node with 8 connctions = 200mbyte per 10mins

[tokatuku]

Although initially I was skeptical about their effectiveness, but over time they proved me wrong and made a lot of progress. On the occasion that we did not do a wonder like this, at that time We will not be able to compete in practice with big traders, for example, visas, paypal, and so on.

[GeorgiyBilyk]

bitcoin has already proved to the whole world about its capabilities! with every day, more people are being turned to this new payment system! the cost is very cheap. Perhaps over time it will reach the cost of a visa. But bitcoin has even more advantages among traditional payment systems.