/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>11937856
lol yeah wouldn't want to support a centralised system, christ what a fucking retard.

>>11922335
There's no difference between one cryptographic transaction which is backed by another cryptographic transaction vs a paper receipt backed by gold. If the second layer transaction is tampered with, the backing layer protocol is also fucking tampered with, just like when you tamper with paper receipts for gold, you tamper with fucking gold you brainless twat.
Therefore the security model encompasses both cryptographic transactions. And oh, look, wouldn't you just fucking know it, the lightning network topology just so happens to be centralised by design requiring large hubs with a lot of stake and channels amongst each other which will act as the financial backhaul for the system. I'm sure we can trust those fucking banks and intelligence agencies that will make up those central hubs not to run the same fucking scam they've run on civilisation for hundreds of years now, because fucking reasons, you clueless halfassed fucking moron.

>>11876771
> your assumption that you can lock people in to a few providers is unproveable and unlikely
Wrong https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800
> let the market sort it out man!
That's exactly what I'm doing by making the scam clear to brainlets.

>>9720371
>Eventually, with optimizations, the network will look alot like the correspondent banking network

https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

Sure thing, bud.

>>9716442
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

>>9685085
It isn't trustless period. It is destroying the product and replacing it with the exact thing bitcoin was designed to destroy. They even admit it will end up looking like the banking correspondent network.

>>9534577
And the mouse thinks the cheese vending machine is just malfunctioning. The housekeeper who set the mouse trap knows otherwise though.

>>9505131
> yfw lightning (((works)))

>>9477171
Exhibit A for just how hard people will cling to the decentralisation meme in the face of overwhelming evidence exactly what they say is necessary for the maintenance of it is actually what is destroying it.
I think most people are actually incapable of admitting they were wrong. Especially if they were wrong because they were tricked. I remember quite well the three day period where I finally decided this block size debate had gone on for long enough and the big blockers claims had to be summarily properly demolished in order for the space to move forward. It was ego destroying to slowly realize I had been tricked, and actually it was I who was utterly wrong.
Most people don't seem to be able to cope with that and instead result to whatever rationalizations are necessary to maintain their narrative, case in point.

>>9467180
So if the whole community agrees we should all ride unicorns, it'll also totally happen regardless of the rules of reality that make it impossible right?
And let's really not go into the hurting the goals of cryptocurrency argument when even the Normans are aware now that lightning was nothing more than a forcible centralization play.

The exact thing that LN/BTC fanfags said wouldn't happen has obviously happened. Every single node on the LN is connected to the two highlighted in the image. Can we officially say that BTC has been co-opted by those who don't want to see Satoshi's vision? But BCH folks, it is the future. Sadly, BTC no longer resembles what made it so great in the first place. BTC is an altcoin