/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>12016311

anyone doing even just a little bit of his own research knows that BCH is objectively better than BTC

it's literally the same thing as BTC a few years ago, just with improvements to opcodes and difficulty readjustment + with higher limits

>everything is totally fine actually ok?

>>10543708
https://youtu.be/4KiWkwo48k0?t=365
Andreas Antonopoulos himself letting everybody know that routing is an unsolved problem in Lightning Network. 28:th June 2018.

It's such a big problem that it was intentionally skipped in the LN whitepaper, the authors knew it wouldn't work and are still hoping someone magically finds a solution.

>>10513011
first of all bitcoin has changed in the past. second, changing in order to stay relevant is key to be able to remain value in the future. third, any autist can actually touch it, as long as the exchanges upgrade the miners and users will follow like the slaves they are.

refusing to insert an if condition into the code back in 2015 to increase the max blocksize in 2017 was full blown retarded. only a group with ulterior motives would do something that stupid.

>>10448211
lightning is dead on arrival, it cannot scale and goes against the whole idea of a decentralized currency. not to forget it isn't even BTC exclusive.

segwit increases transaction count by 70% max at 100% adoption. current adoption is around 35%.

>>10299874
lulz, very true. just wish sending the LN tokens would have failed once because one of them went offline temporarily because of a poor wifi connection.

also a soft fork = non-optional. if you don't agree with segwit, tough luck. even if you dont upgrade you are stuck with the changes and now get blocks without input scrips.

hard forks = optional changes. soft forks = mandatory changes.

saw this just now, pretty spot on concerning BTC scaling
https://youtu.be/u_o0k1Q5Qs4

>>9921988
if you had actually tried to use Lightning yourself you'd know exactly why it's taking so long

Fucking LULZ you can't even receive payments with Lightning Network wallets without jumping through hoops.

https://old.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8q9wco/is_it_really_true_that_there_is_no_consumer/

>Nothing can be received immediately after creating a new payment channel, as ‘room’ for incoming funds has to be made by spending some funds first. A payment channel can be thought of as a full bottle of water: in order to pour something in one first has to pour something out.
>Each channel implicitly contains a reserve which is unspendable and typically takes about 2% of the channel’s capacity. You must spend that reserve before receiving is allowed. Unspendable channel reserve is the reason you see a negative receive limit when a new channel is full. It indicates how much you need to spend before anything can be received through the channel.
>Every payment request is disposable, they can’t be fulfilled twice. So you will need to issue a new individual payment request for every incoming payment you wish to receive.
>Wallet needs to be online in order to receive off-chain funds.

This is a big step backwards in crypto, why is ANYONE hyped about it?

>>9830344
6. bitcoin (cash) works for payments today. there's no reason to reinvent the wheel. we don't live forever and every year we delay crypto adaption is another year the banks will adapt to instant online global payments. you think it's hard to on-board people with crypto today? good luck if banks offer the exact same user experience as crypto. when that happens the only perk crypto has is censorship resistance and most people just don't care if banks are convenient enough.

TL;DR i wouldn't want to use lightning even if it already worked flawlessly with BCH, BTC, ETH, LTC and whatever else.

>>9689486
Less than a year ago BTC worked just like BCH.

>>9660555
Why lightning network is a bad idea even if all its issues were solved:

1. you have to set up your payment channel with on-chain transaction. if you have to deal with on-chain transactions anyway you might as well just scale up on-chain instead

2. if someone else use your payment channel they can deplete your funds to a merchant. if there are no other channels, which is likely since otherwise your channel wouldn't be depleted, you now need another on-chain transaction to make a new channel

3. the network will inevitably develop backbone nodes that nearly all transactions pass through. this "solves" the routing problem but makes the whole thing completely centralized, just like internet is today (with master backbone nodes).

bonus: 4. once you put your crypto into a channel you're basically trapped in the system. it's designed so that you would never want to take it out. eventually there would be almost no in/out on the bitcoin blockchain and at that point bitcoin is essentially dead and you can be sure that there will be talks to just drop it completely in favor of some kind of issued lightning network token

another bonus: 5. it's possible to make solutions for micropayment channels on-chain instead. someone needs to figure out a way for the sender to be able to construct a transaction but he cannot broadcast it, the reciver on the other hand can't change the transaction but he is allowed to broadcast it. the payment channel is then either closed by the receiver with the latest state or it is closed by a timeout with a full refund to the sender.

TL;DR i wouldn't want to use lightning even if it worked

also bitcoin (cash) works for payments today. we don't live forever and every year we delay crypto adaption is another year the banks will adapt to instant online global payments. no need to reinvent the wheel when there's no god damn need to and it only helps the banks.

>>9636398
you prefer Bitcoin Core?

also it's not pointless, Bitcoin Gold's algorithm would have to be several billion times slower than SHA256 to even approach 1% of the security that BCH have. it's slower but not that much slower.

this thread is still up?!

>>9612713
of course banks works as long as you do safe little pussy transactions. i dare you try to transfer 10 USD to Achmed in the middle of Islamistan and see how far you get.

your isolate safe-space experience of banks dont translate to what a lot of people all over the world have to go through

>>9559771
all i said was i dont know about holding Monero, though it's great for its anonymous purpose.

in the end there will only be a need for Bitcoin Cash tho. now that the bitcoin devs are finally free again there's no reason to lift over great ideas from other cryptos. even if transactions won't ever be anonymous im sure built-in obfuscation options that are good enough will arrive sooner or later.