/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>16002114
But because of the Lightning network, this will not be the case. The LN can handle micro txns, in fact, we could even divide the Satoshi further.

>>15499643
I know... that you know... that I know... that you know... that that's stale-ass, meme-tier fud that you posted out of pure fucking laziness.

>>10406788
I'd recommend reading the article because it answers some of those questions. Also, Lightning Network is being developed which will allow micro-fee txns. Fractions of a penny.

This high fee situation was exacerbated by politics, but it should be temporary (as pertains to spending txns, which will be raised to second layers like LN). The article explains some of that.

The actual Bitcoin Blockchain is goin to become a settlement layer for high-powered txns not small ones. You buying a coffee doesn't have to be on the blockchain. If the blocksize becomes to memory intensive, then the chain becomes too large to upload and download in the ten minute block window and therefore only datacenters can run full nodes, which reduces decentralization and exposes the network to fragmentation.

>>8809839
Yes you can, it goes both ways.
Otherwise, Lightning Network would be absolutely useless (if you can only spend what you lock in and nothing more).
Check pic related for a clearer picture.

Let's say you put 0.1 btc in a channel with user B. B has a payment channel to other users that leads to McDonalds, Starbucks, Walmart, etc. That means you can make payments to ALL of those establishments.

AND once you've used up your 0.1 BTC, and somewhere from B's payment channel into the network of payment channels, you have a channel to Coinbase/Binance/Bittrex/Gemini etc., you can buy MORE BTC from them, and they can use your channel to B to replenish your channel (up to your 0.1 BTC, even more if user B put up more BTC on their side when the channel was opened).

You appear to be bashing something you are not terribly informed about.
On the other hand, I am not a bitcoin maximalist (you can see here >>8809003
I even understand why exchanges had a NANO congestion issue back near ATH levels and when Binance newly added it), but I prefer to be informed enough about everything.

Personally, I still currently prefer Ripple for doing fast transfers, as it is very cheap (cents), nearly instant (even across exchanges, doesn't require confirmations and it's there within seconds), and GREAT liquidity (I can move 2-digit BTC's worth with it and not lose a lot of value to slippage), and almost all exchanges support it (unlike NANO). But you won't catch me dead holding Ripple long-term though (pumps and dumps a LOT).

>>8168368
Bitpay is owned by Bitmain (Jihan Wu)

Bitpay's company was based on a faulty premise in regards to the development of the Bitcoin protocol:

https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/the-three-economic-eras-of-bitcoin-d43bf0cf058a

>>8086273
>Huuurrrrr