Off chain transactions (trigger warning)

[syskall]

Controversial opinion.

I love Bitcoin the currency, but IMO a major barrier to adoption has been the community's reluctance to embrace "off chain" payment systems. Bitcoin's network is simply too slow and expensive for the majority of day to day transactions. And there are fundamental reasons for that which can't be fixed with a fork or an altcoin. It should be used as a settlement system, for moving between payment systems and for large transactions (e.g. Coinbase -> Hardware wallet, Hardware wallet -> Pay credit card bill, Kraken <-> Binance, etc.).

Now what if Visa added BTC as a supported currency? That would be big for adoption. Consumers could pay their bills directly in BTC. Merchants could receive BTC from Visa. What if some entity (El Salvador?) issued BTC backed bank notes? BTC could be used just like cash. Basically, all criticism about the Bitcoin payment network would become moot. But the "on chain" system would still exist when you need it and the currency would still retain its important properties.

Is the above vision still considered taboo?

[BlackHatCoiner]

I love Bitcoin the currency, but IMO a major barrier to adoption has been the community's reluctance to embrace "off chain" payment systems.

I think that every day that passes, it blunts this phenomenon.

The lightning network was highly criticized in 2018-19 with FUDs like centralization. Now that most of them have understood the concept in a technical level, they're probably supporting it. During that time, there was a lot of development in OSes such as myNode, Umbrel etc., that made it more user-friendly and attracted those who were “afraid” to use it.

Now what if Visa added BTC as a supported currency?

Don't you find it oxymoron? The Lightning Network does what Visa does, but without Visa.

What if some entity (El Salvador?) issued BTC backed bank notes?

People use IOUs if it's comfortable. For instance, prior 1971, it was much easier to use a banknote rather than gold itself as a currency. In the case with bitcoin, they're both equally comfortable so I don't find a reason to have IOUs.

Lots of bitcoin users already transact with IOUs. Take for instance, the ones at Binance.

[teosanru]

Controversial opinion.

I love Bitcoin the currency, but IMO a major barrier to adoption has been the community's reluctance to embrace "off chain" payment systems. Bitcoin's network is simply too slow and expensive for the majority of day to day transactions. And there are fundamental reasons for that which can't be fixed with a fork or an altcoin. It should be used as a settlement system, for moving between payment systems and for large transactions (e.g. Coinbase -> Hardware wallet, Hardware wallet -> Pay credit card bill, Kraken <-> Binance, etc.).

Now what if Visa added BTC as a supported currency? That would be big for adoption. Consumers could pay their bills directly in BTC. Merchants could receive BTC from Visa. What if some entity (El Salvador?) issued BTC backed bank notes? BTC could be used just like cash. Basically, all criticism about the Bitcoin payment network would become moot. But the "on chain" system would still exist when you need it and the currency would still retain its important properties.

Is the above vision still considered taboo?

I think what you are trying to say is pretty much the concept of the lightning network too, as far as I have understood it aims to creates swift routes between nodes off chain thereby reducing the instances of transactions going on main chain making transaction more speedy and also less expensive. Also VISA is not at all needed in this whole process, LN already has a better concept than VISA could ever pitch in and moreover all of it would still be decentralized.

[avikz]

Controversial opinion.

I love Bitcoin the currency, but IMO a major barrier to adoption has been the community's reluctance to embrace "off chain" payment systems. Bitcoin's network is simply too slow and expensive for the majority of day to day transactions.

Totally agree! Bitcoin is not fit for daily and small transactions. Ther6no controversy at all because fact is alway fact! In such situations, crypto services like bitpay or polispay comes handy. Where you load your card with cryptos and use it like any other card. But that's not what bitcoin was created for.

And there are fundamental reasons for that which can't be fixed with a fork or an altcoin. It should be used as a settlement system, for moving between payment systems and for large transactions (e.g. Coinbase -> Hardware wallet, Hardware wallet -> Pay credit card bill, Kraken <-> Binance, etc.).

Now what if Visa added BTC as a supported currency? That would be big for adoption. Consumers could pay their bills directly in BTC. Merchants could receive BTC from Visa. What if some entity (El Salvador?) issued BTC backed bank notes? BTC could be used just like cash. Basically, all criticism about the Bitcoin payment network would become moot. But the "on chain" system would still exist when you need it and the currency would still retain its important properties.

Is the above vision still considered taboo?

Visa has already announced that they are exploring the possibilities to adopt cryptocurrency within their system. But again that's not what bitcoin was created for. So go ahead and explore a technology called "lightening network". A simple Google search will help you to find more details about it.

LN is the answer to all your questions here! Off-chain and settled in bulk. It reduced both time and fees which makes it perfect for daily use!

[pooya87]

a major barrier to adoption has been the community's reluctance to embrace "off chain" payment systems.

It depends on what you mean by "off-chain". If it means using a third party like handing over your BTC to VISA and then they let you use your money (or not let you use it some day) then it is not just reluctance it is about the fact that using third party defeats the whole purpose of bitcoin! Not to mention that loss of security and privacy.

But if you mean a second layer that sometimes referred to as "off-chain" such as Lightning Network, then it is being used and it needs more time to grow in adoption. Again there is no reluctance here, just needing time.

Bitcoin's network is simply too slow and expensive for the majority of day to day transactions.

It is neither slow nor expensive. It is actually funny that you mentioned VISA since VISA is more expensive and extremely slow compared to bitcoin.
Both bitcoin transaction and VISA transactions are validated in seconds but bitcoin transactions take on average 10 minutes to be settled while VISA transactions take months to be settled.

Now what if Visa added BTC as a supported currency? That would be big for adoption. Consumers could pay their bills directly in BTC. Merchants could receive BTC from Visa.

Why use bitcoin then? Just use VISA and their IOUs backed by USD.

Basically, all criticism about the Bitcoin payment network would become moot.

Wrong. Using bitcoin itself becomes moot. The point of using bitcoin is that you no longer need a third party and remain in 100% control of your own money. If you give that up that means you didn't even care about the idea of bitcoin in first place!

[witcher_sense]

Controversial opinion.

I love Bitcoin the currency, but IMO a major barrier to adoption has been the community's reluctance to embrace "off chain" payment systems. Bitcoin's network is simply too slow and expensive for the majority of day to day transactions. And there are fundamental reasons for that which can't be fixed with a fork or an altcoin. It should be used as a settlement system, for moving between payment systems and for large transactions (e.g. Coinbase -> Hardware wallet, Hardware wallet -> Pay credit card bill, Kraken <-> Binance, etc.).

Now what if Visa added BTC as a supported currency? That would be big for adoption. Consumers could pay their bills directly in BTC. Merchants could receive BTC from Visa. What if some entity (El Salvador?) issued BTC backed bank notes? BTC could be used just like cash. Basically, all criticism about the Bitcoin payment network would become moot. But the "on chain" system would still exist when you need it and the currency would still retain its important properties.

Is the above vision still considered taboo?

From my point of view, your opinion can barely be considered controversial on the grounds that there is a clear distinction between a base layer (final settlement layer) and secondary layers (payment layers). There is also a difference between such concepts as "a medium of exchange" and "a means of payment", which may seem not so obvious at first glance. Bitcoin is a medium of exchange that is, in effect, a currency of a base layer. Once a bitcoin transaction has received at least one to six confirmations, the payment can be considered finally settled. A medium of exchange has changed its owner. A means of payment, on the other hand, is not a currency, it is simply a method with which we facilitate our transactions before they are settled. Banknotes, Lightning Network, Opendime, PayPal, Visa - these are all just methods that can be employed for making transactions in bitcoin. The key thing to realize is that a payment is not finished until it is settled on a base layer.

[mk4]

Lightning has been growing slowly but surely, but it still doesn't have the level of adoption that we really want simply because it adds a teeny tiny bit of complexity over typical on-chain transactions. What I think we need is:

1. LN to be easy enough to use as typical on-chain transactions in 1 single wallet app
2. Major exchanges to support LN

I think #2 is totally essential as speculation is still one of the reasons why bitcoin is attractive to most people.

[Blawpaw]

Now what if Visa added BTC as a supported currency?

We are talking about competitors here mate. On one side, you have Visa that represents Banks and the old financial model. On the other side, the LN represents Decentralized finance and financial freedom. Can't say that the two would be able to mingle. As said, they are competitors with completely different financial approaches. Competition between these two approaches should escalate in the coming years.

[franky1]

topic creator raises the points about issues with bitcoins network. but things can be done. but are being avoided because its more financially beneficial for devs to just promote their altnet as the solution.

its like saying pepsi's taste is a lil off in recent years. so go have walmart own brand cola instead. rather then actualy tweak pepsi's formula a bit to taste as it should be.. pretending that walmart cola is pepsi

LN is NOT a bitcoin feature. its not a bitcoin layer
no blockchain. payment raw binary data does not get accepted on bitcoin
the bridge transactions at end sessions have even lost the independant non middleman authorisation
the in LN payment unit of account is not the same.
(the fluffy front end graphic user interface emulates pretends to be bitcoin. but the hard data passing between users is not)

LN is like visa. by which you have to understand that Visa is not the dollar. visa is not gold.
even though people 'perceive' it as being about the dollar.

LN is a separate altnet that multiples currencies can utilise.

the issues with LN are that it has no consensus. it has no network wide audit. it loses alot of the security features of bitcoin and leaves it open to all the vulnerabilities of other systems.
and by ignoring trying to actually make bitcoin useful for all. LN becomes an offering to offramp people away from bitcoin. and once away from the bitcoin network then offer altcoins as the exit from LN. thus removing peoples utility of bitcoin

a solution to bitcoin 'growth' is not to remove its utility by taking people away from bitcoin.

making or even just ignorantly allowing bitcoin transactions to be expensive is not going to make people want to exit LN back to bitcoin. bitcoin transactions can be made cheaper. devs just choose not to

so its like showing the person the toll gate out of bitcoin town saying the towns congestion charge is too expensive to own a bitcoin car. then once outside bitcoin town, pricing them out from ever being let back into the town. where by. any new people wont even bother entering bitcoin town because the price of entry is high and so they go to altcoin cabins instead

devs should never EVER be the economic decision makers. and yet for last 5+ years they have been allowed to be. and its actually not benefiting bitcoin

the two main upgrades of the last 5 years. have not been to benefit bitcoin. but to provide exit roads to other networks away from bitcoin.

who would want to run bitcoin full nodes if they never touch the bitcoin network for 3-6 months.
who would want to run bitcoin if it takes hours to confirm and at a price more than a hours minimum wage
who would want to run bitcoin if its being hindered to pretend its still 2010 technology limitations