/biz/ - Business & Finance

it's been resolved LN can scale to 10s of millions txs.

the routing problem is unsolveable, its only going to get worse

>>12081262
>>12081344

Lol wut?

Also, it doesn't matter if lightning can or can't scale to "millions of txs" (it can't) because every transaction must be completed on-chain. So bitcoin HAS to increase the blocksize to accommodate lightning. Without it, you're just trading IOUs on a network of nodes run by banks

>>12081208
>LN
Might as well invest in cold fusion.

>>12081262
great, thanks anon

>>12081344
are you referring to the failure rate with high value transactions?
that has only improved over time, and will continue to

>>12081358
>every transaction must be completed on-chain.
technically, yes
but LN allows hundreds of transactions to be compressed into 2
and they dont have to be settled on-chain for days, weeks or months

>bitcoin HAS to increase the blocksize to accommodate lightning
no shit, nobody is arguing against that

we just dont want the block size to snowball when we have far better ways of scaling


>trading IOUs on a network of nodes run by banks
incorrect
sure, banks could participate in LN
(like how Hollywood could participate in seeding torrents)
but they have no custody of anyone's money,
they merely rout payments like any other user

and since LN requires 'hot wallets'
this disincentivizes anyone from keeping a huge amount of money in LN
which is required to act as any kind of hub
(theres a reason exchanges only keep 1-2% of their funds in hot wallets)

>>12081531

The only way for there to be enough liquidity for transfers is for large, centralized hubs to route payments.

>>12081538
wrong again
larger payments can be split up and routed across multiple paths,
if any one path doesnt have enough liquidity

these kinds of payments ($300+)
are usually less time/fee sensitive anyway
>oh no
>I had to pay a 2 cent fee
>AND wait 20 seconds to transfer $500

much better to have to wait 2/3 blocks for confirmations right?

>>12081605
>larger payments can be split up and routed across multiple paths,
>if any one path doesnt have enough liquidity

That's not how probability works, smartguy. Let's say you have 10 channels, and each channel gives you a 10% chance of routing $10. You attempt to route the payment on all 10 channels. Giving you a

Roughly 65% chance. So instead you cut the payments in half ($5), which gives you a 20% chance of succeeding. You try again. You need 2 successful routes for the payment to be approved. This is a 62%. Try again with $2.5 and 40%, 61%. If we repeat this process we approach 50%. A far from guaranteed result.

This does not take into account that very small payments will use rapidly use up bitcoin in small routes, so it's not really a solution.

ITs been 1 fucking year. And what are we still "15 months away"? I mean it doesn't matter we got bigger blocks and no one ended up using them, Kek. All that drama for nothing. Fucking Bcash assers.

>>12081605
anon you seem quite knowledgeable, pls answer my questions as i am a relative newfriend to /biz/
what methods are BTC are implementing to solve its issue of scale? (apart from lightning and seg-wit_
what issue is btc-sv trying to solve, and how?
what assets are you holding?
ty anon

>>12081757
those probabilities are not inherent to LN technology

as nodes/channels/liquidity increase with usage, (exponentially)
it wont be an issue worth thinking about

>>12081800
patience anon
we're not even at Early Adopter level adoption yet

>>12081823
happy to help anon

*Batching:
allows a number of payments to be compressed into 1 transaction
(1 input - N outputs)
useful for:
>businesses paying salaries / expenses
>exchanges sending money to user's personal wallets

*Schnorr Signatures
more efficient than ECDSA
(by 20-40%)
also enhances privacy somewhat

another possibility,
is the use of smart-contract locked tokens on other chains
(look up W-ETH/W-BTC)

yes, this does require 'more' trust than using pure BTC
but since you'd only use this for weekly/monthly spending money
its a net positive since it keeps most of your net worth secure on-chain
(it's important to keep the base layer as secure / decentralized as possible,
which is hard when you want people to download / upload hundreds of gigabytes every 10 minutes)

there are others like MAST which i wont pretend to understand
as I havent read much about them

remember, most BTC fans arent opposed to bigger blocks
we just want it to be sustainable,
so we don't centralize the chain
(BCH are calling for 1Tb blocks, which is a million-fold increase over BTC)

as for Bitcoin SV,
they seem to want to scale mostly/entirely on-chain
(128mb blocks,
with plans to raise it more in the near future)

theyre also aiming to offer smart contracts / tokens
dont know a whole lot else about them 2bh
but they are behaving quite badly imo,
suing BCH for 'unfairly' winning the hash war
(after CSW was certain he'd have more hash power)

it couldnt hurt to hold some BSV in case craig keeps his word
but most people regard him as a fraud

at the moment I hold a small amount of:
BTC, ETH, EOS, IOTA and OMG
I'm fairly confident the market will fall more before bottoming,
I'll be dollar-cost-averaging in over the next year

>>12082312
same anon from b4, ty for the help

what other assets do you hold? what are you longing?
also are you knowledgeable in more traditional aspects of fin/analysis. asides from the ones in the /smg/ sticky are there other places to look at?

>>12082538
"asides from the texts from the /smg/ thread, are there other places to look at"

>>12082538
(moving between wifi's so ID changes often)

I own commercial property in the city
(inherited so cant take credit for that)

I don't actually own any stock,
but if I did I would probably long term hold:
AMZN, FB, GOOG, TSLA
and NFLX wouldnt be bad to short
(lots of steaming competition nowadays,
plus their original content quality is dropping)

I wouldnt be comfortable buying any stocks now though,
particularly american/tech ones
since we seem to be on the verge of another gfc

gold/silver could be a good hedge if the economy starts to slip

I'm mainly reading about crypto, as its the most interesting to me
and probably has the highest potential ROI

>>12081208
They haven't done any load testing so whatever large number they claim should only be taken with a grain of salt.

>>12082695
i agree with you on these fronts. good luck on your investments and in life. > _ <

also beware of housing market bc if gfc that will take a hit also

>>12082695
also one more question if it reaches you, but what crypto are you longing atm? and which exchance is the best. ty again

>>12082714
true, but this is all bleeding edge
we'll just have to be patient

>>12082751
>>12082929
thanks, best of luck to you too!

>what crypto are you longing
if I had to pick one; BTC
I was considering holding some BCH/BSV as a hedge,
but since decided against it

ETH, EOS, IOTA, BNB and OMG are other good picks imo

BCH is working a lot harder than BTC to get merchant adoption but I think theyll fail for a number of reasons

>97% vs 82% down from ATH
doesnt look like much of a difference, but think about it in terms of how many times it has to double in price to break even

BTC only has to double 2.5 times
BCH has to double 5.1 times
(it's also at an all time low unlike almost every other coin)

>failed to keep any kind of peg to BTC


hit 0.2 BTC a few times,
but has since fallen to 0.15 to 0.10 to 0.05 to 0.03

>all the confusion around SV

regarding SV,
you should check out some of the accusations made against CSW
he talks a lot but has yet to achieve anything notable

>claims to be Satoshi - fails to provide any substantial proof

>plagiarizes other people's work - blames his editors for not adding citation
(that's not their job)
https://news.bitcoin.com/craig-wright-shrugs-off-plagiarism-accusations/

>pretends to be able to code
https://toshitimes.com/craig-wright-proves-he-can-code-by-copy-pasting-hello-world-program/

>holds numerous patents and threatens to use them against competitors - which goes against the whole idea of open source / free market
http://fortune.com/2016/06/20/bitcoin-craig-wright-patent/

>claims that BTC has a fatal flaw in it, which he'll apparently reveal in 2019 - expects us to trust him
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9x2i7h/yesterday_in_this_interview_craig_wright/

Vitalik has shown support for Bitcoin Cash a number of times,
but even he was calling out craig for his BS long before the SV fork
https://youtu.be/2qLI3VIHuKU

another good video
https://youtu.be/Zkg_-_HwRcI

there's a meeting on an irc channel to discuss lightning network that's scheduled in a couple weeks was Dec 24th now Jan. 2nd I believe
I'll drop in and listen and post on biz what I get out of it
it's all the top developers talking about the current state of the network and future
so I'll just keep quiet and recap it here

>>12081208
>or is this an unsolved issue?
Yeah

>>12083167
Thank you for sharing your resesrch anon. Can I ask what you think about chainlink?

>>12081344
>the routing problem is unsolveable, its only going to get worse

This, the problem is not fucking solvable. Its a genuine no bullshit scam. 100% fucking scam. Its layers and layers deep bullshit where even if the problem was solvable it would still be objectively more buggy and complex than just buying another coin to use. On top of that even if it was designed to be super simple the core design is centralized as fuck.

Anyone who says otherwise is 100% fucking lieing their asses off to you without a shadow of a fucking doubt. I am not slightly fucking exaggerating either. Its not a "DEBATE" its literally people who are selling you a fucking lie. Its trash, absolute guaranteed trash. Nobody should even still be talking about it. 10% failure rate on transactions is like insanity. HAHAHA

ANONS SAVE YOURSELVES FROM THIS GARBAGE.

>>12081531
>are you referring to the failure rate with high value transactions?
>that has only improved over time, and will continue to

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! HOLY FUCK! THIS IS AMAZING TOO ME!!!

This scam makes the LINK scam look like a fucking joke in scale and comparison. LN is hilariously shit to a point where I think it makes even Bitconnect look legit. At least Bitconnect functions.

>>12083167
>true, but this is all bleeding edge

It doesn't seem bleeding edge to me. It looks more like a ghetto-rigged solution to a problem which Satoshi overlooked.

>>12083227
>routing is not solveable
kek i guess networks dont work then thats why the internet never took off

also end-user to hub connections dont add to the complexity of the topology and dont limit anything 10k connections is a fucking lot otherwise.

>>12083227
>>12083235
>>12083248
>>12083267
eating now so will respond more thoroughly soon

>unsolveable routing problem meme
instead of talking shit about how the LN is nothing but a big scam
(when its already working)

show me that you have any technical understanding

the routing on the LN doesnt have to be 100% efficient to be infinitely better than on chain transactions
it will still work within ms or a few seconds at most

>>12081360
Cold fusion has man advantages over lightning network. First of all if it ever gets figured out it would be beneficial and useful. Where if Lightnings main problems are solved it will still be worse and less reliable than buying 10 dollars of XRP to buy your coffee with. Its so unbelievably bad that even if it was completely functional tomorrow it would still be more pragmatic to buy another coin and use that instead for small transactions.

>>12083324
>show me that you have any technical understanding

Anon its basic common sense. You dont even need to attack this shit show from a technical level.

Do thing with 5-10 steps and have chance of shit going wrong, more bugs. transactin vanishing god knows what the fuck else. Requires understanding to even use the shit. What the fuck is this garbage?

Do thing with 2 steps and it works reliably. No need to understand anything. Use other coin, simple and fast.

This is not a debate anon I am informing you that you are a brainlet.

>>12083324
>infinitely better

Take off your rose-tinted glasses, man.

>show me that you have any technical understanding

Having to find open channels in order to initiate transactions is no different than waiting for a spot in a raiding party in MMORPGs. It's a PITA. It may work fine in the test network, but when it scales up, no doubt there are going to be issues, and with only a small team to troubleshoot, it's a house of cards waiting to collapse. Look at the team working on it. You seriously believe this small group of less than 10 people is enough to maintain a global network?

The fact that centralized hubs are needed defeats the point of Bitcoin and the use of blockchains. If you're heading away from decentralization to solve the slow transaction problem, then it's completely pointless. At this point, crypto like XRP makes sense.

>>12083434
>At this point, crypto like XRP makes sense.

Boom! Any coin with a 3 second transaction honestly. There are a ton of fast shitcoins on the market. They FUNCTION RIGHT NOW.

>>12083324
>eating now so will respond more thoroughly soon

Anon when you come back to explain to me I want you to do it in the context that Lightning network is fully functional right now and is fully live. I bet you wont even be able to prove it has a reason to exist Even if it was fully live AND bug free.

The shilling of lightning is a scourge in the crypto space LOL
You would have to be so absolutely brainlet tier to prefer LN over just using another faster coin. Which is exactly what the free market is going to do anon!

Fucking prove me wrong!

>>12083227
> how does routing on the Internet work

The 'routing problem' refers to finding the most efficient route, in the case of LN, any route will do that is low enough cost and latency. Finding the absolute best route is not necessary.

Tldr : routing problem is not actually a problem, and you are a brainlet.

>>12083199
sorry for the late response anon

I dont know too much about LINK on a technical level
other than the basic value prop

but I do know that there are a bunch of other projects competing to solve the same problem LINK does

IOTA could be a particularly strong rival,
assuming the rest of their network works according to plan

since its focus is quite small,
I cant see the price growing as much as everyone says it will
($50 would be a stretch, let alone $1000, ever)

it also doesnt really need to have it's own token

it would be enough to have oracles stake $$$ - and lose it if they acted maliciously

>>12083987
>Finding the absolute best route is not necessary.
/thread/
the routing problem is a meme

even an incredibly inefficient route would be miles cheaper than credit cards,
and probably still faster than XRP

>>12083345
>>12083374
>>12083434
>>12083469
>samefagging this hard
>not even trying to hide it

>less reliable than buying 10 dollars of XRP to buy your coffee with

you can already buy your coffee for a like 15c in fees with your centrally controlled credit card

this isnt about those 15c dipshit,
this is about removing the central control from authorities who time and time again abuse it at our expense
the fact that LN gives us fees at 1/100 of a cent is just a bonus

but you straight up just dont get the whole point of crypto
this is meant to money that is permissionLESS
and not controlled by a central entity
>inb4 blockstream conspiracy with no evidence behind it

go use your central-bank coin then,
nobody here is stopping you
but don't come here with your bullshit firehose
trying to tell us all we need is a cheaper credit card

ETH will flip bitcoin next year. Act accordingly

>>12084054
The first coin that flips bitcoin will release a flood of competitors.
Then BTC has no chance of being #1. It will have to compete with it's shitty tech.

>>12083345
>>12083374
>>12083434
>>12083469
>dont even need to attack this shit show from a technical level.
>i have no technical understanding of this so i will not even try to engage on that level


>Do thing with 5-10 steps and have chance of shit going wrong, more bugs.
>transactin vanishing god knows what the fuck else.
>Requires understanding to even use the shit.
>What the fuck is this garbage?

all this shit and more was said about:
credit cards
television
email
and BITCOIN


>why would i want to have this weird electronic box and trust people have enough money in their plastic cards
>when i can just have physical cash in my hand
>its so much simpler so its better


>why would i want to have to install an extensive television box in my house
>when i can just walk down to the local theatre
>its so much simpler so its better


>but why wouldnt i just write a letter and put it in the mailbox
>its so much simpler
>i dont have to connect physical wires between computers
>learn this super complex command line
>its so much simpler so its better


>why would i store my own private keys to keep this volatile currency that i cant spend anywhere
>when i can just swipe this plastic card and let my bank handle it
>its so much simpler so its better


you're retarded if you think this is any different

>>12083345
>>12083374
>>12083434
>>12083469
>Take off your rose-tinted glasses, man.
says the guy who refuses to wrap his head around this new, necessary technology

>Having to find open channels in order to initiate transactions
everyone using BTC will have a lightning channel open, because it's;
faster, cheaper
AND with the underlying security of BTC

>centralized hubs are needed
you're unironically making me more bullish on LN than ever anon
the fact that you have to keep reviving this long ago debunked line
says a lot

>At this point, crypto like XRP makes sense.
no it doesn't
XRP has the worst traits of credit cards and crypto

>centrally controlled

>not accepted anywhere
>volatile


I'm sorry that you've lost a lot of money anon
but this wont change that

>>12083345
>>12083374
>>12083434
>>12083469
>Any coin with a 3 second transaction honestly.
>There are a ton of fast shitcoins on the market.
>They FUNCTION RIGHT NOW.

you're right about one thing
theyre SHITCOINS
there's a reason nobody is using them to transact
anyone can spin up a coin with a 1 second block time and $0.000001 fees

people use Bitcoin in spite of its high fees and 10m block times
because it actually has useful qualities
the LN is a layer on top that keeps all of those underlying qualities,
but makes it far cheaper and faster than credit cards
>but-but the technology isnt perfect yet
no technology is ever perfect or finished idiot


theres no chance in hell of convincing you
(except you probably already know,
and are just trying to extract some small fraction of the money you lost on XRP)

but hopefully people who are on the fence,
see you for what you are

>>12081358
> Without it, you're just trading IOUs on a network of nodes run by banks

Yes and? That's all BTC is.

>>12084133
>people use Bitcoin in spite of its high fees and 10m block times
because it actually has useful qualities

Those being? Ethereum is a thousand times faster, more decentralised and is actually useful beyond hodling or selling.

You’re just a bitcoin maximalist faggot aren’t you.

>>12084658
>more decentralized
Proof or I'll have to assume your an ETH maximalist

>>12084658
>Ethereum is a thousand times faster

No, it really isn't. It's slow as fuck

>more decentralised
Ripped straight out of your asshole; the argument.

>useful beyond hodling or selling

For what? Are you forgetting that measly one dapp called Crypto - fucking - kitties almost crashed the whole network.

Shithereum is garbage that can't die soon enough. I'm glad that most people are starting to agree and have dumped the price to oblivion.

>>12084658
t. learned about crypto in 2017 and thinks he knows everything

>>12081208
>A year ago
kek

>>12084708
>Shithereum is garbage that can't die soon enough. I'm glad that most people are starting to agree and have dumped the price to oblivion.
people that understand crypto and the importance of decentralization, discount ETH's price 90% due to the single skeleton of failure risk, kek

>>12084658
>Ethereum is a thousand times faster
try 2-3x as fast
can't even handle a cat collectible app,
let alone the global economy... yet

>more decentralised
objectively wrong, it's actually far less

i believe in Ethereum's long term potential
(it cant do shit right now though)

one of the key ways of scaling they are hard at work on is...

RAIDEN NETWORK

which is - you guessed it - basically a clone of Lightning Network
because that shit works,
and all the smart people behind ETH know it

>>12081531
>rational, cogent, articulate
4channel BTFOs 4chan

>>12081531
>they merely rout payments like any other user

When they have monopoly of central routing hubs it stops being "merely routing payments".

As it stands now it's infeasible for normal people to have a big portion of their funds tied to multiple channels.

LN will never achieve wide usage as long as people have to tie their funds in the channels.

>>12083987
To be fair, routing on lightning is different than routing on the internet. The internet let’s each node determine what the most efficient route is, whereas in lightning the initiator of the transaction calculates the route beforehand, which can be extremely time consuming to calculate if there are a fuckton of nodes.

That doesn’t mean lightning is broken though. Even if there is a max number of routes, say 80, you could most definitely connect to anywhere in the network with 80 hops. Now obviously the topology will change, so I don’t know for certain, but i think lightning will be a very useful innovation.

>>12085033
>t. watched "How the Banks Bought Bitcoin"
>took it as indisputable fact
>regurgitates it at every opportunity

has anybody noticed that this guy is just talking AT us?

he isn't even trying
(let alone succeeding)
to debunk anything we're saying
he's just making claim after claim
hoping you're all too stupid to see through his facade

time and time again
you demonstrate that you have no understanding of Lightning

>When they have monopoly
nice assumption there buddy,
why would they?

LN wallets are being programmed to open up a number of channels at a time
so routing potential expands more and more with each new user

LN channel factories extend this even further

even IF every bank jumped onto the lightning network
(they won't, banks are notorious for lagging behind in tech)

and provided huge amounts of liquidity to act as hubs
(they won't, it would be like standing in a city square
with a literal target painted on your face,
holding tens of millions in cash in each hand)
all they could offer people, is savings of a few tenths of a cent

I'll ask you again since you covered your ears last time

why do exchanges only keep 1-2% of their funds in hot wallets?

because keeping any huge amount of money in an online wallet is beyond stupid
whether its normal BTC or LN

people will keep their spending money in LN like they already do with wallets on their phones
they'll keep their savings on chain, in cold storage where its safest

>it's infeasible for normal people to have a big portion of their funds tied to multiple channels
people wont have a "big portion" of their funds in Lighting
just spending money

>LN will never achieve wide usage as long as people have to tie their funds in the channels.
also, why do you keep saying "tie"
(apart from you being a highly dishonest person)
LN is and will continue to be the preferred way to use Bitcoin
>basically free
>instant
>more p2p than before
>less censor-able
if anything, Lightning is UNtying them

>>12084084
the thing is, the first solutions were retarded and convoluted and were replaced by other solutions that were better and simpler. the same will happen to bitcoin and lightning network. they will be not the technologies that will actually be adopted. there is nothing revolutionary in bitcoin itself. only in blockchains with highly distributed security for trustlessness in general.

You're talking as if bitcoin is analogous to credit cards or television in general. It's not. It's analogous to one of the first attempts at doing something like that that went into the dustbin of history.

>because keeping any huge amount of money in an online wallet is beyond stupid
whether its normal BTC or LN
>people will keep their spending money in LN like they already do with wallets on their phones
they'll keep their savings on chain, in cold storage where its safest
Think about the throughput necessary for that vision to not be ultracucked by a fee market fiesta of super high fees, leading people to just open accounts with banks and never cryptographically own their own assets, only having "rights for the bank to spend X amount of bitcoin on their behalf to the address or person's account in another bank of their choosing".

Regular people aren't going to ever use the base chain. They aren't ever going to be cryptographically control their own assets. That is the beauty of how blockstream is cucking bitcoin by choking the main chain. They create an economic environment in bitcoin transactions where the end user will always be incentivized to use custodial services just like in the pre-bitcoin era and basically own nothing except an IOU from the bank.

Btw I'm not a fucking cashie, and you're smart enough to know what I'm saying is right. A choked main chain will lead to only the rich to ever bothering to cryptographically control their own assets. Everyone else will operate with IOUs that will largely be sent to other people who only operate with IOUs, the settlement transactions between banks issuing IOUs being done largely via lightning or some other sidechain that blockstream has cooked up on the downlow, because sending bitcoin to your own wallet will be effectively prohibitively expensive for normies and people in poor countries, and so will the cost of opening lightning channels.

A bunch of old bitcoiners stopped caring about financial sovereignty for the masses after they became rich. It's sad. Finney's Vision is sad.

>>12085403
>because keeping any huge amount of money in an online wallet is beyond stupid whether its normal BTC or LN
>people will keep their spending money in LN like they already do with wallets on their phones they'll keep their savings on chain, in cold storage where its safest
Think about the throughput necessary for that vision to not be ultracucked by a fee market fiesta of super high fees, leading people to just open accounts with banks and never cryptographically own their own assets, only having "rights for the bank to spend X amount of bitcoin on their behalf to the address or person's account in another bank of their choosing".

Regular people aren't going to ever use the base chain. They aren't ever going to be cryptographically control their own assets. That is the beauty of how blockstream is cucking bitcoin by choking the main chain. They create an economic environment in bitcoin transactions where the end user will always be incentivized to use custodial services just like in the pre-bitcoin era and basically own nothing except an IOU from the bank.

Btw I'm not a fucking cashie, and you're smart enough to know what I'm saying is right. A choked main chain will lead to only the rich to ever bothering to cryptographically control their own assets. Everyone else will operate with IOUs that will largely be sent to other people who only operate with IOUs, the settlement transactions between banks issuing IOUs being done largely via lightning or some other sidechain that blockstream has cooked up on the downlow, because sending bitcoin to your own wallet will be effectively prohibitively expensive for normies and people in poor countries, and so will the cost of opening lightning channels.

A bunch of old bitcoiners stopped caring about financial sovereignty for the masses after they became rich. It's sad. Finney's Vision is sad.

>>12086256
> Finney's Vision is sad.
Finney envisioned 2nd layer solutions but I'm damn sure he never envisioned a completely crippled main layer. I'm pretty sure he'd be just as disgusted with core nowadays as every other early adopter.
Desu, I don't even think that 2nd layers being centralised is a bad thing, as long as there's opportunities for the common man to use layer 1 for his transactions. Core actively worked to prevent this from happening.
Normies cannot live without chargebacks, and money recovery when they inevitably send bitcoin to the wrong address. In a crypto-future banks will need to exist, exclusively to cater to normies - and they will work the exact same way that the banks of today do.
And all of this will be OK as long as EVERY single individual who wants to actually use the bitcoin layer directly is allowed to do so, saving on bank fees.

>>12086957
Sounds like we should build the second layer solutions over a better base coin. Nano is free, instant, and decentralized, while using basically zero data and still relying on a distributed ledger of sorts. BTC fees and delays make it a bad first layer choice, it is the snail mail of the cryptocurrency world.

>>12081208
It's a node latency issue that has already been solved by everyone else by clustering but shitty lightning and the low IQ core team refuses to acknowledge it.

I have never seen a group that ignores research more then BTC and the devs surrounding it.

>>12087229
Nano is also shit.
What I said is that the first layer only needs to be big enough to cater to freedom-loving individuals with personal responsibility. AKA 1% of the population.
The rest will want their banks

>>12081208

Routing problem is NP-Complete. Approximation of routing problem is still NP-Complete.

Its not going to scale at all. LN is a joke.

The joke is most devs I talked to are delusional.

Anyway, maybe P = NP and this will go away, but then if P = NP all cryptocurrencies will fall apart.

>>12086957
“I see Bitcoin as ultimately becoming a reserve currency for banks, playing much the same role as gold did in the early days of banking. Banks could issue digital cash with greater anonymity and lighter weight, more efficient transactions.”—Hal Finney

>>12081358
>Without it, you're just trading IOUs on a network of nodes run by banks

babbies first blockstream red-pill.

that’s why’s axa want you doing.

>>12087801
So the exact same thing I said.
Nothing in the quote suggests that layer 1 should be completely crippled

>>12087679
LN does not need to find the most efficient route. Any route with low enough cost and latency will do.

muh 'Routing problem' is such weak FUD.

>>12087884
No. He suggests that regular people will not have cryptographic control over their own assets (like it is now). Not that they will transact on 2nd layer. That bitcoinw ill just be the new gold that frees banks from governments, but not regular people from banks.

>>12088389
No. He suggests that banks will have cryptographic control over people's assets. Not that regular people would be banned from also having such control (or be excluded via block size restrictions).

>>12088077
> Any route with low enough cost and latency will do.
The easiest route is always going to be the route that just goes through the centralised hub. That's the thing

>>12081262
>it's been resolved LN can scale to 10s of millions txs.
it's been resolved LN can scale to 10s of millions txs of $1 value on average
it's been resolved LN can scale to 10s of millions txs of $10 value on average
it's been resolved LN can scale to 10s of millions txs of $100 value on average
it's been resolved LN can scale to 10s of millions txs of $1000 value on average
...

>>12085058

You are right anon. I just want to point that is proven tech.
Tor routes the exact same way and it works,

>>12084107
>>12084107
>says the guy who refuses to wrap his head around this new, necessary technology

It's been over 10 years and no one has been using crypto for its intended purpose except in mostly illegal activities.

>faster, cheaper

There's no way to know that until the network is fully operational and in use.

>AND with the underlying security of BTC

There's absolute zero security against fraudulent transactions. If your key somehow gets stolen or lost, you'll lose your BTC forever.

>I'm sorry that you've lost a lot of money anon

Nice projection. I've lost money but not as much as you did. :^)

>>12084045
>samefagging

You're paranoid, dude. Go see a shrink.

>>12084658
>>12084133
>because it actually has useful qualities

Most people ignored the slow transaction times and high fees because they were using it for speculation during the bull market, not because they were using it as a currency. If most people were using BTC as a currency, the market cap wouldn't have such rapid rises and falls. That's not the sign of adoption but of speculative mania.

>t. Butt hurt eth basedboys / anti-bitcoin maximalist (AKA shitcoin maximalists) try to discredit LN
To the morons who think not enough has been done over the previous 10 years, go look up any technological disruption and how long it took to become mainstream.
It is you kind of people who will get absolutely left behind because you decided to make an assumption based on the early stages of the technology in question.

Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize cryptography as a whole has boomed over the past 10 years. Bitcoin being the most secure will lead this movement for the decades to come.

Join or become BTFO

>>12086118
>the thing is, the first solutions were retarded and convoluted

everything seems convoluted when you use the back-end version of it
>implying any other app in existence would be possible to use without a simplified front-end
LN only needs front-end work to be perfectly useable

>they will be not the technologies that will actually be adopted.

well, you're just guessing
its been 10 years and we have yet to see a better technology

>there is nothing revolutionary in bitcoin itself.

wtf are you talking about?
Satoshi solved digital scarcity

before Bitcoin;
it was impossible to have anything digital that wasnt easily duplicable
(unless controlled by a central entity)

>only in blockchains with highly distributed security for trustlessness in general.

Bitcoin is currently the most decentralized and secure crypto
and there is effort underway to make it even moreso

look up BetterHash,
it removes mining pool's ability to potentially censor transactions

which means in the long run,
the number of entities required to 51% the chain will be measured in hundreds / thousands


>You're talking as if bitcoin is analogous to credit cards or television in general.

you forgot email, which is strange,
because that was equally clunky as BTC/LN when first being developed
(and is still used today)

>analogous to one of the first attempts at doing something

well, neither of us know if it is or not
even if something marginally better does come along,
itll be hard to overthrow Bitcoin
(look at Facebook)

>>12087853
Do you even know how hashed time lock contracts work anon? You cannot spend bitcoin you do not have on LN

>>12088469
There aren't really any barriers to starting your own centralised hub though. So it's not like a traditional central authority who can censor your transactions and you not have any alternative. Failing that you can even transact on layer 1

>>12084107
>says the guy who refuses to wrap his head around this new, necessary technology

Dude shut the fuck up. Nobody believes your bullshit. Its absolutely pointless if some random cheap ass shitcoin can do the same thing cheaper and faster. The only value Bitcoin has right now is its ponzi power. And its ponzi power is actually higher if nothing is done to it for now. Lightning network is more likely to ruin Bitcoin than it is to save it because the technology is ABSOLUTE FUCKING TRASH.

> I'm sorry that you've lost a lot of money anon

I have only gained in this market. People like you need to be bled dry and forced to fucking leave.

>>12084133
>theres no chance in hell of convincing you

Of course not, I know the difference between something useful and something that is total shit. I am not dumb enough for your pajeet tier bullshit. You said it yourself! A random shitcoin is capable of out performing lightning network.

> Hold bitcoin until you need to spend it. Buy X amount of shitcoin to do transaction.

Just fucking KYS

>>12084851
>RAIDEN NETWORK
>which is - you guessed it - basically a clone of Lightning Network
>because that shit works,
>and all the smart people behind ETH know it

This is actual legit FUD against ETH because it means scaling will never be solved in a meaningful way. In the case of ETH it would be far better to use LOOM for transactions than it would ever make sense to fucking use Raiden.

>>12083267
> a problem which Satoshi overlooked.
That's because BTC was never meant to be either a full fledged transaction method, nor a currency.

This entire discussion boils down to one fundamental yes or no question.

> Is it faster, cheaper and more efficient to use another coin to do transactions?

The answer is yes.

You will never escape this. You cannot argue or rationalize around this. You are fucked. You cant sell me this bullshit. That is it.

Stop working on it, stop fucking shilling it, you are wasting time and resources and potential to enable something that is actually good. Something that works.

FUCK OFF TO PLEBBIT YOU FUCKING NIGGERS THIS THREAD IS UNREADBLE

>>12090121
get out of crypto if all you're looking for is speed you massive brainlet

I'm sure if Facebook, Google, Amazon and the NSA
came together to create a coin
with a 0.01 second "block" time and 0.0001 cent fees

you'd be loving that shit too wouldnt ya

>>12090228
>thread is unreadable
What kind of plebbit complaint is that. kys

>>12090329
What kind of spacing is that.
They write blogposts with space after every line unironically.

>>12090033
>legit FUD against ETH
>scaling will never be solved in a meaningful way

>thinks he understands scaling better than thousands of developers
>when he holds XRP
>XR fucking P!!!

ecksdee my friend, ecksdee
xD xD xD

you do realize even the Ripple fag himself thinks LN is huge
>https://ambcrypto.com/ripple-xrp-david-schwartz-lightning-network-game-changer-bitcoin-btc/

>However, back in August 2017 Ripple along with Bitfury,
>a full-service blockchain technology company,
>released a code that integrated Lightning Network into Interledger.
>Interledger is Ripple’s protocol developed to enable transactions between different blockchains.
https://cointelegraph.com/lightning-network-101/altcoins-with-lightning-network-support

sir please go back to your containment zone - /r/iamverysmart

>>12090439
eat

shit

and

die

faggot

>>12090044
Yes it was, before it got blockstreamed.