BTC as "every day" spending currency vs. 10 min Block Confirmation/Mining time

[stompix]

While by no mean I want to start a flame war, I think that I've understood what he means.

You might need a check-up, when you start understanding frankish it's not a good sign.

His point is that LN acts like a hose. It doesn't care if it will transport water (bitcoin), oil (name your altcoin) or even air (if it's tight). It will work the same, depending on where it's plugged.

More like a submerged hose that at both ends communicates in the same pool, since there is no difference between me opening a channel paying you and you closing it and re-entering the blockchain and me sending directly those coins to you on-chain. The coins are still there, they have never left the pool and can't leave the pool and more importantly, coins entering the circle don't even have to go to the other end.
 

At the moment the hose is plugged to 2 holes of a water pipe, it's a water hose. So... why argue for tiny details?!

Because he claims that water entering the hose turns into piss, that's why 

[1714570597]

1714570597

[1714570597]

1714570597

[1714570597]

1714570597

[NeuroticFish]

You might need a check-up, when you start understanding frankish it's not a good sign.

Well, you seem to understand it even better than me
But, yep, point taken.

Because he claims that water entering the hose turns into piss, that's why  

Oh. That part was unclear to me. Thank you.
I know that he's a big supporter of big blocks and all against LN. And yeah, he tends to cross the line, that's why I was a bit afraid to post.
But then yes, although I am not that "strong" as DooMAD was, I agree (with you and DooMAD) that there's a problem there.

I like the way @titular have read it all and came to the right conclusion:

LN is a scaling solution that brings people more flexibility. You can't say LN does damage to the ecosystem.

[franky1]

Because he claims that water entering the hose turns into piss, that's why  

LN plays with millisats.. not btc
when your pissing in the hose. you have to realise there is a filter at the ends of the hose to stop the piss getting into the pool.
piss and pool water dont mix.
the filters being the 'settlement contracts' . the piss being the millisat payment. the pool water being the LOCKED btc.
(millsat contracts dont enter the bitcoin network!!)

the pool is a different shape/store of water then what a hose is/uses. they hold the data differently and move the fluid differently.

the hose is not created to only fit the btc pool. its not a btc hose. its just a universal hose thats not made specifically for the btc pool.

infact the hose manufacturer has forced the btc pool to design a filter(tx format) to fit the universal hose.
this does not then make it a btc hose. its still a universal hose, with a filter
the universal hose has many filters for different pools.

but hey if you want to pretend that a hose is a pool and people can swim in a hose as free as they can a pool.. you keep playing that delusion.. there is a liquidity and flow rate issue with the hose that does not offer the same flow as a pool

but yea if you cant tell the difference between a pool and a hose. then anything IT related must be extremely hard for you to understand

infact. the hose is not a single hose allowing 1-to-1 transfer of piss from one end to another. its actually a spiders web of thousands of hoses. where each connector needs to accept a certain amount of piss to pass through it. where some connectors have limits on how much piss can pass.. where your piss can get blocked if you try sending too much in one go.

bitcoins pool does not have connectors that resist the waves of water molecules. it just flows around. there is no "your water molecule is more then my connector can handle so i wont let you passed". nodes dont stop transactions based on having too large a value. thats why bitcoin works. if someone has $1billion in btc, he can send it and nodes wont stop it due to them not having $1billion to pass the parcel along.
bitcoin does not have this value pass the parcel flaw

i dare anyone to try today to lock up 100btc and make a LN payment to a destination(not their co-channel partner). see how well LN works. or more precisely doesnt work.

a solution to a payment system is not a system that has for example 90% fail rate of pizza amounts in 2018. and 70% fail rates of under 0.09btc in2021.

in bitcoin. i can send $10 amount or $1billion+ and know its going to get confirmed. no ifs or buts or maybe or praying that there are people around to accept/pass the parcel.

[thecodebear]

i dare anyone to try today to lock up 100btc and make a LN payment to a destination(not their co-channel partner). see how well LN works. or more precisely doesnt work.

a solution to a payment system is not a system that has for example 90% fail rate of pizza amounts in 2018. and 70% fail rates of under 0.09btc in2021.

in bitcoin. i can send $10 amount or $1billion+ and know its going to get confirmed. no ifs or buts or maybe or praying that there are people around to accept/pass the parcel.

Why are you clowning dude?

You cant be serious. LN does not have a 70% fail rate lol.

And when your example of LN not working is sending 100 btc (currently over $5 million worth of bitcoin!) it is easy to see you aren't trying to make a serious point. LN isnt for enormous transactions. It's mostly for daily transactions. It's for sending maybe half a bitcoin or 0.1 btc or 1000 sats or 10 sats. Not 100 btc lol.

Just as you said the base chain is for sending $10 and up, LN network is for sending let's say a few thousand dollars down to a tiny fraction of a cent. LN isnt for sending millions or billions of dollars in a tx just like the base chain isnt realistically reasonable for sending something less than in the 10s of dollars because then you get a high % fee.

You just seem to not understand the point of LN. It's not some non-btc thing that is trying to compete with btc. It's literally just a network built on top of the bitcoin base chain to broaden the scope of the types of payments bitcoin can do. Base chain can do transactions that dont require immediate settlement and is only reasonable to use for payments minimum in the 10s of dollars. LN is for transactions that require immediate settlement (like buying something in person) AND/OR for smaller transactions like the kind people do on a daily basis.

LN broadens the scope of Bitcoin's abilities.

You wouldn't want to use the base chain to make daily purchases, that's what LN is perfect for. You wouldn't want to try to use the LN to send $5 million of bitcoin, that's what the base chain is for. They complement each other which is the whole point, and there is a nice overlap where if you want to spend $100s or $1000s of dollars in a transaction either L1 or L2 would work very well so then it just comes down to whether or not you needs LN's insant finality or not and whether you care about saving a few bucks by using LN for such a large tx.

[franky1]

Why are you clowning dude?

You cant be serious. LN does not have a 70% fail rate lol.

And when your example of LN not working is sending 100 btc (currently over $5 million worth of bitcoin!) it is easy to see you aren't trying to make a serious point. LN isnt for enormous transactions. It's mostly for daily transactions. It's for sending maybe half a bitcoin or 0.1 btc or 1000 sats or 10 sats. Not 100 btc lol.

you might want to check on your assumptions.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5369431.msg58357392#msg58357392
rath is a dev for the altnet known as LN. even he has 70% fail rate in 2021.
(success:fail  143:389)
oh and his payment fails. were all of amounts under 9000000000millisat (rounded/converted under 0.09btc)

yes its an altnet. its a different network. its literally highlighted in the name. N part of LN. the handshaking and communication format agreement of messages between LN peers is different then the handshake connection of bitcoin full nodes.

its not a network "built ontop of bitcoin" .. its a separate network build separetly. that only connects to blockchains if the blockchain has had a fork or txformat upgrade to be able to lock coins in a special way to fit LN.

bitcoin had to change to fit LN's settlements(filtered/rounded close session contracts) . LN was not built to be 100% bitcoin else bitcoin would not need to have been changed to be 'compatible' because in a bitcoin centric altnet, everything in the altnet wouold meet bitcoins standard format.
the funnier thing as already highlighted but worth emphasising yet again is LN doesnt have a consensus mechanism so extremely easy to have designed LN to be 100% compatible without editing bitcoin to fit. but because LN is a separate thing doing its own methods and protocols, it decided it does not want to be bitcoin centric.. LN is its own network that wants to be something else. hense why bitcoin had to change to fit rather than the altnet being fully bitcoin centric in all of its formats

if people were honest about why its not bitcoin, then other people could spin that as the advantages of why to use it instead of bitcoin. after all if its just suggested that LN is bitcoin. then there is no difference, thus no need to use it.
so explaining the differences can be made into a positive, for those wanting to advertise altnernate networks

as for others using the swimming pool/hose analogy. the filter connecting the 2 separate vessels of separate fluid is a filter separate smart contract that converts piss to water. (rounds up/down millisats to sats)

the LN 'payments' (invoice and secret reveal)(aka hose) is a separate contract than the settlement contract(sat denominated bitcoin format)filter

the hose is not part of the pool that only works for that pool. it needs the specific filter for a bitcoin pool and uses a different filter for other pools.

inside the hose is invoice payments and htlc secrets that open up milisat payments(piss not water).
the hose of piss, is not bitcoin.

...
as for Doomad wanting me to die by fire.. a bit harsh, why so emotional..
.. oh, because he is mad that he has not realised that LN does not have the same security as bitcoin. nor the features of bitcoin.. doesnt make payments in the same units as bitcoin, he has not realised the differences. he has failed to understand they are separate networks that do different things. offering different features. even when the name of the altnet literally says it in its name..
.. he may also be mad that its someone that doesnt like other networks, doesnt want to use other networks, that has highlighting the differences and even suggesting that these differences could, if honest about them be used as positive PR spin for why people could use another networks.. but instead Doomad wants to stick with lies and deception to pretend it is bitcoin and fool people  into thinking its just as secure and safe and guaranteed as bitcoin.. hiding the flaws, fooling other people just to get them to stop using bitcoin by his deceptions. rather then acquiring new users with fair honest advice about risks and limitations of using other networks whilst explaining what other networks can do.

more people would be happy to use another network when getting honest advice about the risk/advantage and they weighed up the pro's and cons and decided they thought its acceptable under honest advice about what they are getting themselves into.. rather than being deceived into using an altnet and finding out the flaws the hard way.
you dont built up a loyal fan base via deception.

.. oh and bitcoin does not accept millisats.
. maybe he should take more time reading code and not playing with being an angry arsonist that wants to offramp bitcoin users to other networks because he doesnt believe bitcoin should be used by everyone.

i know Doomad is not a dev and so doesnt understand anything beneath the GUI. but he does try too hard to make LN sound like its bitcoin, when it has no consensus mechanism, no blockchain to audit the LN network of 'instant payments' no PoW security of the "instant payments" where all instant payments need co-signers and need the other people to be online.

totally not what bitcoin is about

[DooMAD]

.. oh, because he is mad that he has not realised that LN does not have the same security as bitcoin.

I openly tell people off-chain doesn't have the same security level as on-chain.  As evidenced by my post history:

If you need to move a sizeable sum of wealth and security is paramount, it's best to do it on-chain.  If you need to make a small payment, where speed is a higher priority than security, you can transact off-chain.

Willing users can opt to send smaller transactions off-chain, sacrificing some security for speed and cost-effectiveness - leaving more space in blocks for significant sums that require the greater security provided by on-chain transactions.  

Bitcoin has a greater mining difficulty and total hashrate than any other network on the face of the planet.  It is therefore the most secure.  It seems that many users place a great deal of value in the security of Bitcoin and they're clearly willing to pay for it.  If you feel your transaction doesn't need as much security, you can do it off-chain

But please, keep discrediting yourself further by saying things which are blatantly untrue.  Clearly you've become so completely addicted to lying, you don't even bother checking if there's any evidence to counter what you're saying.  How do you expect anyone to believe a single word you say?  You're pathetic.

you dont built up a loyal fan base via deception.

Y'know, that would be the most insightful thing you've ever said if you hadn't said it without a hint of irony.  

Does it not occur to you that this is the exact reason why no one here likes you?  Because you try to twist and manipulate every last word to suit a false narrative.  

its a different network. its literally highlighted in the name. N part of LN. the handshaking and communication format agreement of messages between LN peers is different then the handshake connection of bitcoin full nodes.

I'm going to stick with the water/steam analogy.  Someone invented the steam engine and you're telling everyone it's a bad idea to use it because it's not water anymore.  Steam is just water in a different form and it allows us to do some things we can't do with regular water.  No one is forcing you to turn your precious water into steam.  The choice is yours.  But you can't take that choice away from us.  

You're there raving like a madman that it's not safe for people to drink hot steam, as though that was some sort of valid argument against using it.  I think most people are aware that operating a steam engine might have some safety implication that they need to consider.  Particularly if they've never used one before.  And I'm not suggesting for a moment that a steam engine is suitable for all situations.  It's not.  But enough of us find it useful and it's only natural for us to assume others may find it useful too.  Perhaps you believe the right course of action is to shield people from this technology to protect them, but some of us believe people should be allowed to decide for themselves.  

But yes, steam is hot, everyone, please be careful when you use it.  

bitcoin had to change to fit LN's settlements

And we are painfully aware that you're still butthurt about that.  I would say build yourself a bridge and get the hell over it, but then you'd probably launch into a tirade about how I'm "promoting bridges in a dangerous fashion when we should just ford rivers like the good ol' days".      

why so emotional..

They do say that sociopaths don't "understand the emotional consequences of their actions"...

Qualities of a Sociopath
Someone who is described as a sociopath will have several traits that set them apart from those with no personality disorders. These traits include the following…

• Lack of empathy – Inability to feel sympathy for others or to understand the emotional consequences of their actions

• Cold, calculating nature – The ability and willingness to use others around them to personal gain

• Narcissism – A personality disorder in itself in which the individual feels strong love and admiration toward themselves (often a defense mechanism against deep seated low esteem)

• Grandiose self image – They might see themselves as someone who is superior to others and sometimes even experiences delusions. A sociopath might see themselves as a fitting ruler of a country or even the world, but might also have delusional beliefs such as seeing themselves as a God or having super powers

• Despotic/Authoritarian – Often the sociopath will see themselves as a necessary authority and will be in favor or totalitarian rule

• Compulsive lying – As part of their facade, and as a means to an end, sociopaths are compulsive liars and will rarely speak truthfully making them hard to pin down

Scary how many of those traits you appear to be 100% nailing.

[DapanasFruit]

I think I fully get the main point you are driving at. Imagine paying for a cup of coffee in a coffee shop and you have to wait for at least 10 minutes before you can go out because the payment has not yet been confirmed - in this scenario it could really be a big hassle. However, it might be a little different if we are paying online - that 10 minutes wait can be tolerable that is assuming that you are doing things online at home maybe. Now, I also understand that we already have Lightning Network that we can use and being utilized by merchants who are accepting Bitcoin. There will always be solutions to different problems as long as there can be a demand for it - or there can be money that can be made.

[franky1]

yawn...

the thing is its YOU that says that LN IS bitcoin. sorry but bitcoin does not accept millisats. plain and simple.

if we go with your steam/water analogy. you think that a steam engine works on ICE. nope steam works on vapour not solid. there is a difference. to work in a steam engine for fast transport. the ICE needs to be converted from solid to vapour.

if you want to pretend that what goes in, through and out of a steam engine is ICE. then you are deluded.

as for your other insults of calling me a sociopath. you are just showing your anger and frustration that i am highlighting the flaws you dont wish to be popularised. and dont worry i get it i understand it. you love to hype up your other network. and you like to steal the fame of the bitcoin network to try off-ramping people to other networks by suggesting that other networks are bitcoin.

yes in some places you may hint that there are different levels of security. but others you keep saying that it IS bitcoin. which people take as to mean its the same security.

much like this topic. your not calling it a multi-crypto network for offchain payments of different coins. instead you say its bitcoin layer 2. again suggesting that it has everything that bitcoin does and is made for bitcoin and unique feature of only bitcoin.

[famososMuertos]

They have already named several solutions that have been presented and that give scalability in those two points, but, in other words, the solution cannot be accepted by many, perhaps that matters(!?).

We have been adapting our financial priorities to traditional banking, checks continue to exist, transfers take five days, then why not accept bitcoin as such and understand that despite the "hassle" there are alternatives today that satisfy those who see this as an inconvenience.

[DooMAD]

much like this topic. your not calling it a multi-crypto network for offchain payments of different coins. instead you say its bitcoin layer 2. again suggesting that it has everything that bitcoin does and is made for bitcoin and unique feature of only bitcoin.

Except for the part where within this very same topic of which you are continuing to post in, I have already clearly stated:

It's layer 2 on BTC, it's layer 2 on LTC and it's layer 2 on any of the other chains that support it.  Being layer 2 on other chains doesn't cause it to stop being layer 2 on BTC.

Look at me drawing attention to the different coins.  Tell me how I'm trying to hide the fact it can be used on other coins when I've literally just said you can use it "on LTC" and "other chains that support it".

You couldn't be honest if your reputation depended on it.  Oh wait.  It does.

[o_e_l_e_o]

bitcoin had to change to fit LN's settlements(filtered/rounded close session contracts) .

By this logic, we should all still be using P2PK transactions, since everything that has come since (P2PKH, P2SH, P2WPKH, P2TR, etc.) represents a change to bitcoin.

However, it might be a little different if we are paying online - that 10 minutes wait can be tolerable that is assuming that you are doing things online at home maybe.

It is a non-issue when paying online. No merchant is receiving, processing, packing, and shipping your order within 10 minutes. They can wait for the first confirmation with no delay to your order.

the solution cannot be accepted by many, perhaps that matters(!?).

It doesn't. If the user or merchant in question doesn't like Lightning, then there is absolutely no requirement for them to use it. They can continue to transact on the main chain as we have always done.

[franky1]

I think I fully get the main point you are driving at. Imagine paying for a cup of coffee in a coffee shop and you have to wait for at least 10 minutes before you can go out because the payment has not yet been confirmed - in this scenario it could really be a big hassle.

because the altnet LN does not confirm transactions(THEY ARE UNRELAYED/OFFCHAIN). its the same risk as accepting a zero confirm transaction on bitcoin.. so why wait if all you are selling is coffee.

if you acept a zero-confirm risk when using LN you might as well do the same on bitcoin.

infact. if your co-partner to a hub owned by a coffee shop, whereby your just trading balance in the offchain contract. you might aswell buy a large giftcard of a coffee shop using bitcoin and then trade the giftcard balance with the retailer. its the same thing in the end.

many people including LN devs have lost value when using LN. so its not 'just noob/operator error'. its actual flaws in how LN functions.

LN has many payment fail issues. many loss of funds issues. many ways a co-partner can screw over each other. LN does not have the same elegance as bitcoin.

i personally if i want coffee would just buy a starbucks giftcard for say a months worth of coffee value using bitcoin.
thus not have the hassle worry or concern of altnet problems of liquidity stopping payment successes, or having bad expensive routes or having to have several 'pots' of funds locked up with different people just to try and get a better success rate of a payment.

people want a payment system that is a no fuss straight forward system that works every time. thats why bitcoin is so elegant and beautiful in its invention. these other non-blockchain offerings have more flaws and issues and require more effort than simpler methods.

its funny how LN supporters think people to lock up 5 'accounts' just to make a payment. its funny how LN supporters want to blame users if payments fail rather then admit the flaws in LN's design.

the issue i have is bitcoin devs are trying more and more to restrict what bitcoin can do and trying to push people away from using bitcoin, by means of pretending bitcoin has problems and these other networks dont. when in actual fact bitcoin doesnt have problems technically. but has been purposefully restricted in its expansion to cause issues just to advertise other networks as solutions.

but hey. if people were atleast honest to admit the flaws instead of saying 'if you just want to buy small things like coffee just use LN', where by making it sound like its the same/just as easy as using bitcoin. also without actually highlighting the issues that need addressing to guarantee 100% payment every time. then that is not an honest depiction of a solution to bitcoin.

especially when the "solution to bitcoin" is a work around to a problem only caused by devs personally refusing to allow bitcoin expansion on the bitcoin network. (thus not a real problem bitcoin cant solve. but a purposefully created restriction on bitcoin to cause problems), done to advertise other networks as a thing people should use instead of bitcoin.

using doomads ice/steam analogy. he does not want bitcoin to be a steam engine. he wants bitcoin to be an ice hoarding cargo ship. where it keeps h2o locked up as ice and not used for months for any purpose. where people dont need to audit the ship for months.. and then transported to another vessel to be melted into steam to then use on steam engines. requiring middle men to co-manage the evaporation and freezing process at port entry and exits.

i personally prefer the 2009-2016 utility of steam powered boats(bitcoin). where they store the ice and allow it to be broken down and melted into small vapour molecules by the owner of the ice alone, his full control.. on the same ship where every litre/gallon is accounted for. where it doesnt need different vessels or middle men or having to have several ships per pair of users to ensure delivery of steam. via passing steam through several boats along a stream hoping none is lost on the way or hoping there are available boats in the stream to allow passage. where you cannot 100% guarantee delivery is confirmed and settled for weeks/months

LN's payment method is not the same as bitcoins payment method. in LN even if you think a 'payment' is successful, the co-partner can still screw you over with how the final settlement is done. so its no better then just accepting a zero-confirm on the bitcoin network. atleast you only have to wait for like 10 minutes on bitcoin, and not left waiting days-months hoping the co partner doesnt screw you over while you wait out the lock for a settlement.

many people have totally forgot or purposefully ignored the benefit of why bitcoin was invented.

just remember. if its not a confirmed transaction on the blockchain. its not yet your funds. LN payments are just as much at risk as zero confirm bitcoin transactions. LN payments wont even get a chance to confirm within 10mins-hour. as they are usually locked for weeks/months, before getting a chance to unlock and confirm. plus ofcourse the co-signer can mess with the potential settlement contract which adds more risks to confirm chances.

but hey people will still say LN is "bitcoins solution" without explaining the issues

bitcoin had to change to fit LN's settlements(filtered/rounded close session contracts) .

By this logic, we should all still be using P2PK transactions, since everything that has come since (P2PKH, P2SH, P2WPKH, P2TR, etc.) represents a change to bitcoin.

P2PKH P2SH benefit features on the bitcoin network.
P2WPKH P2TR benefit gateway transactions /locks which other networks want as their 'pegs'

using real logic. if LN was bitcoin layer 2, something worthy of being called a bitcoin feature.
it would be something only bitcoin can have and use. something unique to bitcoin.

also LN would be the code that would change to fit bitcoin.. where LN would have to fit bitcoin because its part of bitcoin.
but thats not the case.

LN is its own network for multi crypto. its not a bitcoin layer two (hinting that its unique/solely part of bitcoin, for only the benefit of bitcoin)

EG
visacard is not 'dollar' .. visa is a multi currency payment system
visacard is not 'L2Dollar'.. visa is completely different then the dollar payment network.

yes you can settle your visa balance at an ATM by requesting and getting authorisation of a 'cash advance' but thats more about the ATM and the bank authorisation, not a simple "plastic card is a bank note" misrepresentation

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[o_e_l_e_o]

it would be something only bitcoin can have and use. something unique to bitcoin.

Why? Why if an altcoin steals an idea does that make it not worthy for bitcoin? By that logic, bitcoin isn't even worthy enough to be bitcoin because there are dozens of fake fork coins which employ the exact same mechanisms. P2PKH isn't unique, PoW isn't unique, secp256k1 isn't unique, 10 minute blocks aren't unique, I could go on all day.

And then, why does it even matter? Who cares if 100 altcoins also decide to implement Lightning? All that means is that it has merit and people want to copy it.

What do suggest instead? That the devs patent Lightning?

[franky1]

actually its more like you saying. that altnets are bitcoin because they too use p2wpkh. if you want to get pedantic.

reality is:
a transaction that includes a utxo on the bitcoin blockchain thats using say p2pkh that gets confirmed by the bitcoin blockchain. and accepted by fullnode peers of the bitcoin network. are part of bitcoin.

if 'payments' use p2wpkh but are denominated in 'picobitcoin-1' (millisats) which bitcoins blockchain rules dont understand and wont get confirmed by the bitcoin network or accepted by bitcoin full node peers.. then its not bitcoin.

emphasis. just because it uses p2wpkh, does not mean it will be accepted on the bitcoin network guaranteed.., because other parts of the "payment" uses millisats, that are not supported by the bitcoin network

thus using p2wpkh is not a defining thing that decides if something is bitcoin

maybe you need to learn the differences of what LN does vs bitcoin.

..
i find it strange how the altnet lovers are trying soo hard to declare their altnet as being bitcoin. even when its a separate network and different payment 'forwarding' system to bitcoin.

if they just said that its a multicoin faster payment rail. and listed the pro's and cons honestly. they could actually find a niche and their own community of loyalist that want such things. without trying to tarnish bitcoins utility and over exaggerate the altnets ability. just to promote their altnet as being better than bitcoin.

the funnier thing is these altnet lovers also want to now express that bitcoin full nodes dont need to be blockchain archivers to support the backbone of the network, where they want to promote that 'fullnodes' just need to scan the blockchain once and just keep a UTXO set to ensure the users own funds are legit.

in my eyes thats just too much BSing to try getting others to stop supporting bitcoin, while risking their value on altnets

[Rath_]

(success:fail  143:389)
oh and his payment fails. were all of amounts under 9000000000millisat (rounded/converted under 0.09btc)

Sure, my node failed to route 389 payments. Some of them were probing attempts, some failed at a further point in the route and others could not be routed because I didn't have enough coins on my side in the outgoing channel. However, those were not my payments. I keep my fees fairly low compared to other nodes so no wonder why I am getting a lot of routing attempts. Anyway, my point is that my node failed to route 70% of the payments, but it doesn't mean that LN failure rate for transaction smaller than 0.09 BTC is 70%. You can't tell if another attempt for the same transaction was successful or not.

I still haven't shared my stats for December, but you will be delighted once you see them. I didn't have much time this month to adjust my fees and rebalance my channels so my node failed over 300 payments mostly due to no liquidity.

because the altnet LN does not confirm transactions(THEY ARE UNRELAYED/OFFCHAIN). its the same risk as accepting a zero confirm transaction on bitcoin.. so why wait if all you are selling is coffee.

No, if you accept a zero-conf transaction and the other party cheats, you have no way of penalizing them. If someone broadcasts an old channel state, you can publish a penalty transaction.

[franky1]

I still haven't shared my stats for December, but you will be delighted once you see them. I didn't have much time this month to adjust my fees and rebalance my channels so my node failed over 300 payments mostly due to no liquidity.

and yet on bitcoin whether i send $1 or $1mill (0.0002 or 20btc) i dont have to think about rebalancing different accounts, or wondering about which route to take by seeing who can pass the parcel. my destination will get it guaranteed and confirmed where by their confirmed payment is actually their's, for good, no ifs or buts or 'maybe laters'. they dont need to worry about "what if next month the sender tries to scam me and i need to be online to spot the broadcast 24/7 and online within a certain time period to punish him to make sure it confirms in my favour"

its things like this that those promoting LN as bitcoin. seem to forget to mention as the differences that make it not bitcoin.

like i said if you lot fairly and openly atleast inform people of the differences without trying to tag your altnet as bitcoin2.0 thing, when its obviously a separate mutli crypto network. people could then potentially see why its different and why its even needed as a niche service, as a separate offering to what bitcoin does.

all these subliminal and subtle hints that it IS bitcoin2.0. is just false advertising and trying to say bitcoin is broke, bitcoin cant be fixed, but here is bitcoin2.0. suggesting 'everyone abandon bitcoin as its not fit for daily purpose and just use bitcoin 2.0 because it is better'... yet ultimately thats a complete lie, when novice users try to use LN and end up scratching their head even more, with the iffy installation requirements and then the channels setup hurdles and then the non guarantee of payment even with 5+ co-signed accounts(channels).

so atleast dont pretend its bitcoin 2.0 when its actually more like 'multicoin 0.1beta'

[Woodie]

Almost all services today require at least three confirmations before a transaction can be concluded and this means long waiting times which makes it impractical to use in the real world. But with lightning network and the alike i think it compensates for these short comings.

If LN isnt working as intended i see another soft fork happening.

[franky1]

If LN isnt working as intended i see another soft fork happening.

LN doesnt have a blockchain. there is no need of a softfork.
LN is already failing in the respect of 'hop/routing' and so they are moving more to the 'hub/spoke' model.

the initial overhype/promise of LN was
'just lock up your funds into A channel(singular) and be able to send instant unlimited payments to anyone'

now its more like
'divide up and lock up your funds into channels(plural) with the main retailers you regularly spend with to send them instant unsettled value'

[ir.hn]

My personal opinion is that since around 2017 bitcoin has been on a timer and they will need to either reduce blocktime and/or increase blocksize or they will be replaced.  So far 62% of the marketcap has been lost to altcoins and every year this increases.  Tick tock.

[franky1]

My personal opinion is that since around 2017 bitcoin has been on a timer and they will need to either reduce blocktime and/or increase blocksize or they will be replaced.  So far 62% of the marketcap has been lost to altcoins and every year this increases.  Tick tock.

market cap is meaningless

anyone can make an altcoin with 5 trillion coins premined. and sell just 0.01 coin for $1. and instantly they have created a market cap of $500 trillion

yep for just $1 you too can make bitcoins $1trill market cap become just 0.2% of your $1 spend altcoins cap