Bitcoin Forum
August 17, 2019, 12:08:06 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin developers wants to lower blocksize to 300kb to push LN  (Read 323 times)
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2478
Merit: 1451



View Profile
February 19, 2019, 04:39:04 AM
 #41

I remember a plenty of posts from dabblers screaming about how a massive chunk of their dabble was lost in the sending so I think yes to an extent. If your first toe dip results in much of your play evaporating you're going to be turned off for quite some time, if not for good. Enough narked minnows is the same as one big swinging dick.

you also gotta think about the millions of people where an onchain fee is more than an hours wage.
even if they lock funds up to then play with LN.. they still gotta pay upfront just to get into LN

remember the good old days where even a homeless man could just random generate a keypair for free.. publicise it anywhere for free and hope to get paid day or night without authorisation.. needing to be online or having a partner involved in signing for payment.

LN's concept is people need to open channels pre-funded counterparty agreed, just to cover punishments and close session costs. thus LN is not a open system once fully conceptualised start to finish

you also then gotta think about those who wanna get out of LN and just sole-hold their own asset in their own privat key. if its gonna cost them XX to convert the 12decimal pegged LN token to a 8decimal bitcoin.. but far cheaper to convert it to say litecoin.. guess what

18th century banking. gold goes in.. play with unadited paper.. silver and copper come out

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Paashaas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1989
Merit: 1375



View Profile
February 19, 2019, 04:54:28 AM
 #42

Decreasing blocksize not only hurts bitcoin, it hurts LN as well! It makes LN less usable because the ability to use the LN (open up channels, close channels, add funds to channels) still relies on bitcoins on-chain tx capacity! Decreasing blocksize hobbles both bitcoin and LN in an effort to force people to use a technology that isn't ready yet and isn't needed yet.

LN is a separat network for multiple coins.
it is not a bitcoin feature.
the secret is in what does N stand for.
its not an exclusive feature to make bitcoin more unique than other coins. its something other coins will have access to aswell

LN was not created to fit bitcoin needs
bitcoin was altered to fit LN's needs.(so was litecoin, vertcoin and others)

as analogies go LN is better to be called thunderdome(mad max)
'2 may enter 1 may leave'
(funds are locked into counterparty controled multisigs(2 may enter))
(channels only really close when one counterparty has run out of funds(1 may leave))

bitcoiners lock up their bitcoins. other users lock up their litecoins, vertcoins.
people transact using unconfirmed 12 decimal tokens with other people that need to be online to accept payment(2flaws)

and in the end if bitcoins network is bottlenecked due to lack of blockspace. and also fee's are high.
those that want to exit the 12 decimal token payment system and try to unlock independent 8 decimal true value, end up choosing the cheaper fee, faster confirm, more accessible altcoins. or staying in the vaulted system(research factories)

meanwhile LN is not a blockchain, not as decentralised, not immutable, no guarantee of confirmation at settle. and other flaws that devs happily admit to
https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=570

do you really think bitcoin would retain its few $k market price if people are selling them for altcoins.
do you really think bitcoin would retain its few $k market price if no one is retaining bitcoin but prefering altcoins

taking the "burden" off the network.. is a lame excuse for LN. a "burden" created by devs by halting BITCOIN scaling

and for those that want to continue to think LN payments are true bitcoin payments.
write someone a cheque. sign it and hand it to them. let them hold it for a month and pretend you paid them and its all job done.
then watch when they try to settle the cheque and it does not clear(bitcoin doesnt confirm to a blockchain).. i guarantee you that you still owe that person money.. you cannot say that you dont owe that person anything.
LN is an IOU system until the funds are confirmed.
much like zero confirms. its not a real payment until its confirmed

If you know so much about it and how to do a better job why don't you stop spreading FUD and show uss what you got at the Github?
gentlemand
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100
Merit: 1897


Your dearest bum chum


View Profile
February 19, 2019, 05:03:02 AM
 #43

The last time he encountered a real developer on here it was not a pretty sight. I'll leave it to your imagination as to who came off worse.

squatter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 872


STOP SNITCHIN'


View Profile
February 19, 2019, 07:13:53 AM
Merited by BitcoinFX (1)
 #44

I remember a plenty of posts from dabblers screaming about how a massive chunk of their dabble was lost in the sending so I think yes to an extent. If your first toe dip results in much of your play evaporating you're going to be turned off for quite some time, if not for good. Enough narked minnows is the same as one big swinging dick.

you also gotta think about the millions of people where an onchain fee is more than an hours wage.
even if they lock funds up to then play with LN.. they still gotta pay upfront just to get into LN

The design for Bitcoin was always dependent on users paying fees. Not to mention the fact that you need to buy (or mine) bitcoins first in order to use them. There have always been -- and will continue to be -- upfront costs just to use Bitcoin.

Once you've paid enough fees for two (or four or six) onchain transactions to open Lightning channels, you can make far more offchain transactions than that. Paying less fees for more transactions, with a security model that leverages Bitcoin's blockchain -- what's to complain about?

BitcoinFX
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1129


youtu.be/7oLdYay0PnE ... hahaha! FU (c)D(c) CSW


View Profile WWW
February 19, 2019, 12:28:10 PM
 #45


The design for Bitcoin was always dependent on users paying fees. Not to mention the fact that you need to buy (or mine) bitcoins first in order to use them. There have always been -- and will continue to be -- upfront costs just to use Bitcoin.

Once you've paid enough fees for two (or four or six) onchain transactions to open Lightning channels, you can make far more offchain transactions than that. Paying less fees for more transactions, with a security model that leverages Bitcoin's blockchain -- what's to complain about?

Smaller Blocks = Less SPAM. Less pollution.

or middle-out ...

- https://www.quora.com/Is-middle-out-compression-real   Cheesy

Bitcoin without polity !?! | Get a Gapcoin slice of Mathematically constant π + new world record and attempt ongoing! | "The industry of the integrated spectacle and immaterial command owes me (us all) money." | We do not Forgive. We do not Forget. Expect Revolution Renaissance! for we are all Satoshi now? | Vision does not = Prescient | "the multiple and the multiplex!" | HODL BTC and/or buy Pizza's | Read the first chapter ... | P.S. "I Eye love found you!" 456 | Mostly harmless ... 42 | "INSERT COIN" break blocks!
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!