/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>16170359
>>16170383
>but when financial institutions will be hubs this will be alleviated by the legal layer

>>15481043
>Bitcoin treathens banks
Hahahahahahahaha LOL what fucking fantasy are you living in?

>>13520330


>>13520330


Spot on OP!

Pic related if you really want to make it

>>12341495

Serious reply her OP. So the problem i have with LTC is the adoption Lightning network aka Wall Street Banking Network. It literally doesnt make any sense what so ever for LTC to adopt this sidechain. Furthermore it a bit controversial that the founder Mr. Lee DUMPED a shit ton of LTC at the peak in December 2017. Do you really believe all of that was a coincidence anon?

>>10411711
I get your point. Not sure how they will avoid those issues. Lightning network cant scale.

Serious question, if the LINK node network is sufficiently large and secured, won't it be able to directly compete with the Lightning Network. Consider that the LINK network is not actually on the blockchain, nodes could relay transactional data between each other, then settle this data monthly. It could do this for any/all blockchains. This would also justify the high security features other people believe are useless for APIs.

In this sense LINK could actually operate as the 'highest' transactional layer amongst blockchains because it is just a supercharged network of nodes, except with a subscription based economy it incentivises node decentralisation far more than Lightning networks which will always trend to centralisation.

It's astonishing how people ITT will still defend Blockstream/Bitcoin Core even when they continue to stifle any innovation for Bitcoin. Counterparty (XCP) was ready to implement smart contract functionality and Blockstream did everything they can to block them for attaining this because XCP required on-chain scaling. Luke-jr even blacklisted Counterparty transactions in one of the previous Bitcoin Core releases. Vitalik Buterin was ready to develop smart contract functionality for Bitcoin but he saw how bad XCP was treated and instead opted to make his own altcoin - Ethereum. Yes, that same altcoin that now has the second largest marketcap and is slowly eclipsing Bitcoin was completely unncessary if Blockstream weren't a bunch of kikes and allowed for on-chain scaling.

Now Blockstream has done fuck all to make improvements to Bitcoin since 2013 yet the delusion among Blockstream fanboys stays strong with the supposed implementation of the Lightning Network. LN is vaporware and will never see mainstream adoption, because adoption is stifled by default thanks to the 1MB block size limit and low tp/s. It'll take decades to get a billion people on the Lightning Network. And what does LN boil down to? Essentially swapping IOUs that still need to be settled on-chain. With a 1MB block size limit. Oh, and your Bitcoins can get stolen too if your node loses connection for whatever reason.

Bitcoin could sit mighty on his throne with >90% market dominance if it weren't for Blockstream stifling innovation. As of today Bitcoin sits at a measly 35% market dominance.

>>6923364
Gee, that sure doesn't look like the left figure.
Totally decentralized, go- i mean guys! :^)

>>6851456
Basically, LN is just a glorified tab keeping system.

https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800

>>5976206
WHEW

BCH has the numbers behind it

>>5949240
Dude you cant complain about 20k nodes while praising lightning.
Example: If you want to run an LN node with just 10 channels of 0.5 BTC each you have to have at least 5BTC on hand to lock up in those channels as counterparts to your users BTC.
Thats a nice what? at least 100k USD just to have the node running.
And you will fall under money transaction regulations and likely have to implement various KYC procedures.

And if LN actually works and gets adoption nobody will use tiny nodes like that because Googlenode and Paypalnode will have way better routing throughout the network.

>>5774534
The only way you will get cheap instant transactions is a cumbersome network overlayed on top of BTC core, issues with lightning network are already glaring. Surely you've seen this picture.

By the time a viable working solution is in order, what's stopping people from already having moved over their currency to something they can literally try and experience for themselves as a better product. IOTA and Rai have their own problems with shit like double spend. But their success shows people really do care about transaction time and fees. BTC is failing in its intended purpose as a P2P currency

>>5094699
Who will to link up to when Lightning Network arrives? Lightning network solves nothing unless centralized hubs get set up, and I haven't heard of any big player ready to support a large lightning network. If you want low fees don't use Bitcoin.

>>5053119
Nice centralization :)

Is lightning fractional reserve banking or not? Saw a good debate last night and reddit is shilling the fuck out of this.

>>4531801
>bitcoin is decentralized
hahahahahahahahahahahhaa

blockstream are globalists trying their best to destroy bitcoin