/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>56891018
>Not being asked for it at the time of posting doesn't change the reality of that. Exchanges use to be the same way. Regulation takes time.

Stop getting too excited and replying before formulating a thought, it's making you look more retarded than you already do.

>>29153179
I'm really not. I'm split between BTC, XMR and BSV. The arguments for BSV are sound. BTC cannot function as a new monetary system. At least not one designed to free people from central banker tyranny.

>>19941090
>did read: never schloping

>>19290903
Well it's like I said here: >>19290311

If you're familiar with money creation, goldsmiths and bankruns. Then you'll understand how it is these Lightning hubs can operate and where small blocks take us.

High fees and slow transaction times insure very little activity happens onchain, in fact it's entirely prohibitive at scale for anyone besides banks to use. So what you end up with is middlemen in Bitcoin (the thing Bitcoin eliminates at least for transactions) because nobody besides banks with massive liquidity pools can even use the technology.

Its funny, the biggest argument for BTC is "muh nodes", but they argue for a system that isn't checked by user nodes at all (actually even the current system isn't). Sure the BTC will settle onchain, but everything that happens before that (off chain) isn't bound by the same rules as Bitcoin. Especially when nobody even owns the Bitcoin themselves anymore because it's not practical to transact with outside of payment processors.

>>19160759
sure.

it doesn't really matter who owns the hash power as long as it isn't controlled by 51% and even then m8 the math on doing a 51% attack isn't sound. the game theory of BTC is goddamn brilliant. and frankly I think if this experiment works the rest of the world will start pumping out hash with renewable energy run off. it is already starting to happen in america. i think we just hit 60 straight days of renewables out-performing coal in the US energy grid.

money is a social agreement. bitcoin simply has the longest chain and the most secure system of trust ever before seen in a money system on earth. sure, maybe LN doesn't quite get us to whizzing coffee prices around (I think it will though mate, just not for a while) but, un-ironically, zoom out. this is a new system of financial exchange. scale is irrelevant compared to the benefits btc supplies. that said, by all means buy the utility coins too but btc is the soundest form of value exchange we have ever had. hard stop.

there will be utility coins that are centralized as fuck and are actually used for day to day processing. china is already doing this. US is not far behind. (imo usps will become the new banking system for FEDCoin, maybe ripple hence the suicide bag.) but btc is king.

you think JK Rowling woud ever tweet about getting XMR explained to her? think Trump would tweet about BAT?

the public has a change to actually grasp bitcoin. that combined with its deflationary, capped token economics with the ability to scale interplanetary makes bitcoin the most valuable asset of all time.

but then again lol i dont know im just a fucking bot

>>19159316
>>19159323
Why are you queers so afraid of LN? Probably because you're holding shitcoins that can't even hope to compete with the apex predator that is The Lightning Network.

>>15982562
IMAGINE MY SHAWK

>>15646200
Lightning requires hubs to work and they have all kinds of financial backing. Why can't they get their science project to work? :(

>>14328556
>weakness is Lightning

top kek. Lightning's weakness is itself. You can't even route 50 bucks though that Jewish scam. If you look closely you can even see a happy merchant.

>>14175405
The fudders stop posting in any thread you post this image to try slide it.

>>14149647
>If you're okay with centralization, use legacy banking

Give me a fucking break.

>>13592907
>Lightning Network
Doesn't work and even if it did, it'll be considered a money transmitter under the new guidance. Meaning all hubs require KYC and other heavy regulation to facilitate trade for people on the network. So basically only banks (as intended) Core's only objective was to steal from the miners and centralize the network around banks.

>>13573400
>he thinks developers and bankers intend to keep fees with the miners

ohnonononono

Are you telling me that miners aren't going to go for Smart "Hubs steal the fees from miners" Contracts?

>>13556294
Why is BTC giving control over to the banks?

KYC MONEY TRANSMITTERS
HUBS HAVE INCENTIVE TO FORM CARTELS
IMPOSSIBLE TO AVOID SYBIL ATTACKS
SEPARATE USERS FROM THE BLOCKCHAIN
TRAVELING SALESMAN PROBLEM
ROUTING PROBLEM
LITERALLY DOESN'T WORK PROBLEM

>>13487931
>implying Craig isn't working on the final solution

He built a technology that destroys fractional reserve banking. Blockstream is trying to recreate it with Lightning.

Can someone please explain to me how I can monitor for fraud myself and enforce the contract and the best way to avoid fraud when I'm away from the computer without trusting or paying a third party. tnx

>>13455032
>but they won't ever let him win this battle
The problem is they are trying to keep their parasitic game going with Lightning Network. SV is going to scale as intended without the parasitism. The economic incentives of Bitcoin don't allow for something like LN anyway. In the long run (half the rewards or so are reliant on fees) the chain becomes unminable because its unprofitable for the miners who secure the network. The structure of Bitcoin is really something profound. Hubs taking fees is outside the incentive structure and the whole thing will collapse.

>>13439284
Lightning literally kills the security and incentives structure of Bitcoin. Its extremely shortsighted and foolish or malicious. I'm going with the latter. These people aren't dumb, they understand what they're doing to Bitcoin.

>>13396085
100% this

LN is literally the banking solution to bitcoin. Core devs should be lined up and shot unironically.

>>13380200
Fun fact: if you're only interacting with a 2nd layer, you aren't using the blockchain at all. But your ban- hub is. Even then, they're only settling payments every couple weeks or so at best.

>>13372343
>First fuck off I'm running a full node
Oh really? How much hashpower do you have?

Which hub are you connected to so I can DDoS you shit up senpai?

https://1ml.com/

>>13352651
The post you linked is him defending it lol. He's saying a double spender has almost no chance of propagating the network before the original transaction occurred. Its one of those things that are "technically" possible but extremely unlikely. Maybe not as unlikely as a bitcoin key collision, but you get the idea...

>>13352662
nah its actually garbage. The original protocol goes by "first seen" (which allows for 0-conf in the first place). The only reason rbf EVER came to be is because the developers wanted congestion on the network to force people off the blockchain and onto what is essentially a banking layer. Otherwise rbf makes no sense at all. Your transactions only get "stuck" when users have to compete for block space ie. paying higher fees to get onto the next block before the other guy. The only people who are suppose to be competing in the incentives scheme of bitcoin are the miners.

>>13352691
Online retail has less reason to use 0-conf than brick and mortar. If I walk into Home Depot and pick up $300 worth of supplies, when I go to checkout both me and Home Depot are going to want to use 0-conf. Otherwise customers are going to have to sit around for 10 minutes to an hour (sometimes blocks don't propagate fast) for the payment to settle. As I said before, you're more likely to get fraud from a credit card user than you are someone using 0-conf and that isn't because latter are just good people, its because its harder to pull off.