/biz/ - Business & Finance

>How is this shit not going to lead to massive centralization
It will

you also forgot to mention that Blockstream will sell these sidechain services to businesses, and then take a chunk of the fees afterwards. It's literally kike economics on steroids.

>>13116365
>Are we being cucked right under our noses?
Yes. Core is dead.

>>13116365
>I’m in it for the tech
Never gonna make it

Who cares centralized is good goy

I think the real question now is: what do we use if not BTC?

It will never be BSV, craig sanjay is too much of a cocksucking bootlicking charlatan to ever represent the crypto community. It will never be ETH, as sharding is proven to be an NP-complete problem and will never be fully implimented. Normies will never buy anything except Bitcoin. So where the fuck do we go from here?

>>13116429
all in BTC and [censored]

>>13116365
>he fell for (((blockstream’s))) “btc is bitcoin” meme

>>13116378
Why is everyone going along with it if it's so obvious?

>>13116402
>Core is dead
>meanwhile, it's still #1 by mcap, usage, volume or any other metric by far

>>13116413
What else is this about? We already have a correspondent banking network, why the fuck should we change Bitcoin into one as well?

>>13116429
Yeah, that's sad. Big blocks could actually be the answer, but sanjay has shat on that path with his antics so thoroughly that it's sure no one will ever seriously consider it.

>>13116365
>How is this shit not going to lead to massive centralization?
centralization is relative here. the lightning networks ideal shape is completely centralized single hub, but of course the 2 hop mesh is still manageable. but the point is it's settled on the btc blockchain and you retain full custody of your coins as a buyer you have zero counterparty risk.

decentralization is not the end goal in crypto it's a means to an end crypto wants to be trustless permissionless and decentralization is a means to that end. however with lightning the worst a hub can do to you is ignoring you which is not in it's financial interest mind you.

>>13116480
People have been calling the tech dead since at least 2015, yet I still made hella cash from buying low selling high. LN, block size, and faketoshi can all kys for all I care.

>>13116480
>Why is everyone going along with it if it's so obvious?
It isn't obvious because nobody cares or bothers to understand the fundamentals. This is market is 99.9% speculators.
>meanwhile, it's still #1 by mcap, usage, volume or any other metric by far
>this means that the coin is good must be good!! it can't have anything to do with the fact that it was the first ever cryptocurrency and as such has an insurmountable marketing and speculative advantage!
Retard.

>next global currency backed by jews and their banksters

No guys dont invest its dead!

>>13116480
>We already have a correspondent banking network, why the fuck should we change Bitcoin into one as well?
do you retain full custody and ownership of your bank deposits or it ceases to exist the moment you put it into the bank? does the bank only able to spend/loan out the coins deposited there or they just make numbers up from nothing? can you electronically transact your money without a bank (or an other centralized service) if you really want to? can you move all your wealth across a border without a bank or some clerk confiscating it?

you think btc is the same as banks even if it becomes equally centralized? then you don't understand it at all. bitcoin is about giving the people back control over their finances. and no it will not replace the banking. it will just hover over the throat of bankers as a constant threat: "defect and we leave you dead"

>>13116583
Now all we need is this to be an issue for any law abiding citizen in the real world and we'll make mad dosh!

>>13116482
>the 2 hop mesh is still manageable
each hop means that there has to be sufficient balance on the correct side of every channel. This gets exponentially more unlikely the more hops you plan in. It's not going to be like in all the LN demos that "Bob has a channel with Alice, and Alice has a channel with Starbucks, so Bob can route his BTC through Alice without paying any on-chain fees". That shit is not going to happen. People won't have a whole bunch of channels open to every store and person they transact with. As you said, the LN's ideal shape is a single hub, and the more time passes, the more likely it is that it approaches that shape.

>however with lightning the worst a hub can do to you is ignoring you which is not in it's financial interest mind you.
This is exactly what crypto should prevent. Legacy banks can also ban you, which isn't in their financial interest, but they won't give a shit about your lunch money if you've been selected to be unpersoned. And don't forget, people have actually been banned from banks for political opinions in the West.

With legacy banks you could at least use cash in such a scenario, but in a crypto-oriented world your only option would be to pay tx fees out the ass for every single transfer, since the LN wouldn't accept your channels and you would have to do everything on-chain, which would be expensive af since the blocks are 1MB and there are a shitload of users.

>>13116510
>he thinks 4, 10 or 15 years matter in the scope of a civilization
Nice that you've been making gains so far, but those gains won't mean much when the single routing node owned by Blockstream decides to deny you use of the LN because you retweeted Ron Paul in 2011 and you're left bleeding money with every transaction until you're bankrupt.

>it will just hover over the throat of bankers as a constant threat: "defect and we leave you dead"

>>13116429
>as sharding is proven to be an NP-complete problem
the fuck are you talking about specifically? you can't do sharding on a pow chain but for a pos chain it's childs play to set up sidechains and lock the tokens in it till you feel like it.

>>13116590
that's the point, trust always gets abused and before bitcoin there was no real alternative to the banking system, they were involved in all aspects of your life and even if they lied to you what could you do shake your fist throw your hat on the floor? same for governments that control fiat issuance. you couldn't live without them. and they got used to that. now with bitcoin and other cryptos a defection from these parties gets punished immediately in a way they are largely helpless against.

>>13116526
>>this means that the coin is good must be good!! it can't have anything to do with the fact that it was the first ever cryptocurrency and as such has an insurmountable marketing and speculative advantage!
What the fuck are you on about? I'm just saying that it's far from dead if it's the most widely used crypto. Obviously there are reasons to it, but that doesn't make it false. You made the leap from there to "it must be good" yourself, retard.

>>13116583
All of that is nice in theory, but the fact remains that with a very large scale of adoption and 1MB blocks, on-chain tx's will be very expensive. Yeah, sure, you can theoretically still move your money, but it'll cost you $150 a transfer. Good luck, Mr. Sovereign Citizen.

>>13116583
>>13116590
The government forced the Silk road guys and all the other times they seized BTC to give up access.
But what about at the everyday level, say I'm going through bankruptcy or owe a bunch of debts.
I can hide it all in bitcoin or, they know I hid it and they can't go after it. Whereas the bank can seize your assets.
It's not like they can threaten you with jail time if you don't turn in the private keys.

I wonder what the first court case of bitcoin disputes will be like.

>>13116595
>This gets exponentially more unlikely the more hops you plan in.
>the 2 hop mesh is still manageable
...
>This is exactly what crypto should prevent.
since the entry for the lightning hub market is almost zero obstacle unlike opening up your own bank, i think it's a huge improvement in this regard alone. i'm not talking about capital but the legal hoops regulations fuck knows how many ways banks could kill a new competitor rising from the unsatisfied plebs...
>With legacy banks you could at least use cash in such a scenario
and you can use the miriads of cryptos or bitcoin onchain much more conveniently than cash. it's smart money after all.

the 1mb block will get increased this is pretty obvious even with ln it's unsustainable if they want real adoption. and if they don't want real adoption devs are easier to replace in an opensource project then lightbulbs.

NANO is the future

>>13116653
>1MB blocks
segwit 2x already tired to fix that, if need be i have no doubt it gets a nice consensus hard fork. what happened is there was no consensus and some cashie fuckers defected on their own.

>The government forced the Silk road guys and all the other times they seized BTC to give up access.
probably different when they can prove that you have it with an entire fucking investigation probably honey potting, maybe having their own coins on your address and a hefty sentence over your head for other things they can prove.

>>13116628
>It's not like they can threaten you with jail time if you don't turn in the private keys.
yeah, about that, bro... There are laws in many places saying that you have to cooperate with law enforcement agencies if they need to open some encrypted device of yours or in other similar situations. There was even a guy in the US who sat in a prison for something like 5-6 years because he owed money on alimony, but he had hidden his substantial savings and wouldn't say where. He was, of course, claiming that he had lost the money, but the court didn't believe it. Don't think the government will let itself be fucked out of money. You WILL be deprived of your basic rights and freedoms if that's what it comes to.

>>13116671
>the 2 hop mesh is still manageable
Yeah, okay, gotta concede that. The LN is claiming that it's designed for up to 20 hops though. Nice in theory, but I don't see that ever coming true, except maybe for some very tiny transactions.

You bring up some very valid points in general, nice to see coherent counter-arguments. Using other cryptos in case of censorship is very likely, they'll just become the new "Bitcoin" in sentiment if BTC itself gets too centralized. Unfortunately, that also means that they'll come with all the limited uses that BTC currently has as well. Using on-chain tx's probably wouldn't be as good of a work-around if the blocksize isn't increased, because you'd be poor before long.

About the blocksize being increased in general though, it'd of course make sense to go through with it some time, but why would they? It's directly in Blockstream's interest to funnel as many users as possible to the LN, which is best accomplished with the smallest blocks possible. If anyone tries dissenting from Blockstream's opinion, then it's not like a whole lot of people would even bother paying attention to forks after this whole BCH and BSV fiasco.

>>13116429
0xBitcoin on Ethereum. Dyor. Lava network stays decentralized. Its out now

>Are we being cucked right under our noses?

Absolutely, I don't know how you all let them get away with this but they're laughing in your face with this shit

>>13116915
>The LN is claiming that it's designed for up to 20 hops though.
that's not gonna work. i think there will be a 3rd layer for inter-hub settlement removing the routing problem altogether for the most part. this 3rd layer will either be a ring signature type of thing used by privacy coins or a legal settlement layer between hubs where they can run a negative balance on each other or have collaterized debt positions traded removing the need for huge amounts of btc locked in to channels over the network.

we will see ln is still in it's infancy. too early to bury it is my opinion.

>>13116954

Sounds like a dystopian nightmare, think about what you're saying right now lol, that sounds like utter bullshit.

You people have been PLAYED hard.

>>13117023
What are your thoughts on POS

Here's the sad rreality: if you want something to perform better, you have to make it centralized and insecure. If you want it to be secure, you make it decentralized but slow.
Sorry to break it too you guys, but this is how the world works.

>>13116915

>It's directly in Blockstream's interest to funnel as many users as possible to the LN, which is best accomplished with the smallest blocks possible. If anyone tries dissenting from Blockstream's opinion...

Bingo

>>13116671

>the 1mb block will get increased this is pretty obvious even with ln it's unsustainable if they want real adoption.

What makes you think that? Many of the Core devs want SMALLER blocks, and have said they look forward to $100 fees. How are you going to close a $20 channel when the FEE is 5x that.

>>13117056

Not a fan, but it's worth the experiment.

>>13117085

The whole issue of centralization is moot as long as there's a capitalistic edge to be carved out as a miner via difficulty adjustment and market games etc.

"A security model dependent on 'full-nodes' who don't mine is in contradiction to bitcoin having value. Because for it to have value, it needs a network effect of people who believe it has value, and will do two things: validate transactions they receive and report them to the network if they're invalid, or validate miners blocks and produce a new candidate block if they're invalid. As typically defined, a 'full node' is not a wallet or a miner. It's a node that 'validates transactions' / 'secures the network' yet its costs of operation are not compensated in-protocol. This is a contradiction. To believe that full nodes are required in order to maintain protocol security, we'd also have to believe that miners won't check each others' work and users won't validate their incoming transactions. If we believed those things, then bitcoin would have no value, as its entire value is derived from the belief in its resilience and utility by its users and investors. If bitcoin has no value, nothing will hold it together. Without supply of security (hashrate) and demand for security (transactions), and an ability for the provider of the security to profit, then it will cease to exist."

>>13116954
>a legal settlement layer between hubs where they can run a negative balance on each other
How would having negative btc even work? That kind of defeats the whole purpose of a trustless network, doesn't it? I agree that it's still too early to totally bury the LN, but it seems to be going awry from the start atm.

>>13117085
We could just have 100MB blocks, which would come to a little over 5TB a year. An 8TB HDD costs $140, and storage is getting cheaper every year. Just throw a couple of those together in RAID 10 and you'll be good to go for years. It'll cost a few thousand bucks at most and ensure full decentralization. Surely there are thousands of people around the world who could afford such a configuration and would be willing to host it. Only shitty thing about this is that you'd basically be admitting that satoj was right, so it's very unlikely to happen.

>>13117056

To add, people really like the idea of POS and LN routing and such because there's a psychology to dividends, they like to see their investments make money for them in their sleep. I don't think it will help the actual network at all, however I will say I do think ETH POS is going to work out much better than LN and I'm generally way more optimistic about ETH despite a litany of issues (which are mostly abstract/political for now)

https://markwilcox.com/articles/separating-consensus-concerns/

>>13117210
>It'll cost a few thousand bucks at most and ensure full decentralization
Forgot to add that it'd also ensure that fees stay in the range of a couple of cents. I literally can't see anything wrong about this, if there's something I'm missing, please do let me know.

>>13116365
BTC will never be used as a day to day or even relatively small transaction network. It will be valuable but not used for payments. Digibyte will be used for that.

>>13116435
Monero

>>13117175
>Many of the Core devs want SMALLER blocks, and have said they look forward to $100 fees. How are you going to close a $20 channel when the FEE is 5x that.
[citation needed]

>>13116482
>the worst a hub can do is ignore you which is not in its financial interest
>So, it won't ignore you
Yes it will, if you are persona non grata. YouTube gives up shit tons of money for blocking or de-advertising channels every day and that's against their financial interest.

>>13117261

https://cointelegraph.com/news/ari-paul-tuur-demeester-look-forward-to-up-to-1k-bitcoin-fees

>>13117023
>Sounds like a dystopian nightmare
not really, the point is that you may use the system in a trustless manner. which you will be able to do. that hubs have to trust each other or trade smart contract basd debt instead of locking btc into channels inbetween is not your problem.

>>13117175
>Many of the Core devs want SMALLER blocks
just luke-jr who is a fucking retard.
>How would having negative btc even work? That kind of defeats the whole purpose of a trustless network, doesn't it?
not for you, basically it works like this hub A pay you instead of hub B. hub A now owes hub B. if hub A defaults hub B sues it. you still got your bitcoins or the vendor you sent it to.

>>13117269
well my node will route you even if you murder little kids.

>>13117283
>many core developer
>one guy on twitter
In relation to that tweet, the comparison was between gold transfer which costs a lot and anything in relation to that that merely costs 1000 $ is insanely better. He wasn't saying that all fees will be at 1k per transaction. Way to spread false bullshit.
You also haven't shown 'many core devs want smaller blocks'. I've only seen one person argue that and no one agreed.

>>13117398
>not for you, basically it works like this hub A pay you instead of hub B. hub A now owes hub B. if hub A defaults hub B sues it. you still got your bitcoins or the vendor you sent it to.
So it's trustless for the end-user, but the hubs still have to trust each other and settle things through the legacy court systems. It might be a bit better than what we have now, but probably nowhere near the potential we could achieve with smart contracts.

>>13117403
Do you have enough liquidity to service every persona non grata? Furthermore, you would fall under the definition of a third party settlement organization and all the regulations that stem from that.

>>13117398
>>13117384

>not really, the point is that you may use the system in a trustless manner. which you will be able to do.

I already can use the system in a trustless manner, today

>>13117457

>You also haven't shown 'many core devs want smaller blocks'. I've only seen one person argue that and no one agreed.

Plenty of people agreed, and they've done everything they can to remove or shut ho anyone who proposed bigger blocks for Core. Anyone who mentioned it on reddit or btctalk got banned. Clearly you weren't around in 2015 when Gavins commit rights were taken away.

>>13117577
maybe it's time we started something towards bitcoin unlimited's original goal. to democratize the development process but it must be done without an other minority fork bullshit. enough shitcoins exist as it is.

>>13117604

It's tricky like that, and others have tried doing really interesting things (Amir Taaki's dark wallet idea) but at the end of the day, if you want to mess with the protocol you need devs to agree and work together to prevent such forks.

>>13117467
i believe most people will settle for trustless for the end users as opposed to trusless for everyone including hubs. and we can clearly demonstrate this scales. i see it as a worst case / temporary solution. i agree a smart contract based 3rd layer would be better.

i have been thinking about dai for a while now, there is no reason why you couldn't make a bitcoin based version. creating a bitcoin tracking "stablecoin" can help with scarcity issues for routing and maybe useful for lending and stuff.

>>13117577
>Plenty of people agreed,
Only people making apps and whatnot agreed, not actual bitcoin devs.

>they've done everything they can to remove or shut ho anyone who proposed bigger blocks for Core.
Big blocks don't solve anything.

>Clearly you weren't around in 2015 when Gavins commit rights were taken away.
Fucking idiot argued that an australian is satoshi like a chump.

>>13116429
They probably admit defeat and raise the blocksize

>>13117656

>Only people making apps and whatnot agreed, not actual bitcoin devs.

So why is it that mentioning bigger blocks gets you banned on all the major online social hubs for bitcoin? In no way is it taboo to suggest smaller blocks.

>Big blocks don't solve anything.

It solves the simple fucking problem of $50 on-chain fees, stop parroting what other people say and look at the reality.

>Fucking idiot argued that an australian is satoshi like a chump.

So what? That had nothing to do with his ideas for scaling. They said his account must have been hacked, and then ousted him and anyone else that wanted bigger blocks before they could give it back.

>>13116365
Lightning is definitely more decentralized than an exchange. But nowhere near as decentralized as the base layer.
It's for walking around money, not value storage. Kinda like Metamask.

>>13116365
>have to open a new channel with everyone you want to transact with
I don't have access to my brainlet collection on this device, I would have posted a rare one for this comment.

>>13116365
>opening and closing channels are on-chain tx's that cost fees, which are most likely going to be very large with a 1MB blocksize
Or you could do all your txs on-chain for even more fees...

>>13116365
Roger fuck off

>>13117793
>So why is it that mentioning bigger blocks gets you banned on all the major online social hubs for bitcoin? In no way is it taboo to suggest smaller blocks.
Because it's a dumb idea that doesn't solve anything and smaller blocks also aren't a proper solution.

>It solves the simple fucking problem of $50 on-chain fees, stop parroting what other people say and look at the reality.
No it doesn't. Anything beyond 3 MB leads to bad contingency. It's why SV will fail spectacularly.

>So what? That had nothing to do with his ideas for scaling. They said his account must have been hacked, and then ousted him and anyone else that wanted bigger blocks before they could give it back.
Either way, he's gone so it doesn't matter.

>>13117933
obviously block size needs to increase with time adoption and technological advance will dictate it naturally there is no reason to push it full retard.

>>13117933

>Either way, he's gone so it doesn't matter.

It does matter, because it sets a precedent that Bitcoin Core will only accept sycophants and yes-men, and anyone else will be politically removed and publicly attacked.

>Because it's a dumb idea that doesn't solve anything and smaller blocks also aren't a proper solution.

>Anything beyond 3 MB leads to bad contingency

[Citation needed]

We could have avoided Ethereum and Zcash and all the forks if we just doubled the block size for every halving. Everything could be done on BTC instead, and it would have been awesome. Anyone who doesn't think we gave power to shitcoins is actively denying the reality in front of them.

>>13117853
looks like you could just use the front camera to create some fresh OC for your collection since you're apparently not able to read past the first line
>when routing your payment through multiple people, each of the connections on the way has to have enough balance, it's not enough for just the original sender to have enough btc

>>13118119

Don't worry, someone will figure it out on layer 3

>>13118137
But why go through all of this layered shit if we could just make the blocks bigger and it'd all work nice and smooth on the base layer?

>>13118094
>we just doubled the block size for every halving
that's a decent enough idea e would be at 4mb as max now

>>13118169
ln does a bit more than just allow for more transactions per block. it solves the retail problem in a non retarded way.

I actually believe that BSV is going to win at this point.

>>13118212
You can just use 0-conf with big blocks. Or would that be a "retarded way" for some reason?

who cares! get in or stay pooooooooor!

>>13118169

No I'm with you, but I've seen people actually say that whenever a problem comes up with LN.

>>13118234

0-conf alone is way more secure than any existing payment system by far, and it will only get harder to perform a double spend as time goes on

I can still buy like 50 BSV, should I do it lads?

>>13118234
>Or would that be a "retarded way" for some reason?
yeah

>>13118453
>and it will only get harder to perform a double spend as time goes on
but that's not true doesn't get any harder as times goes by.

>>13118119
Practically though I doubt this will be a huge impact. There's no reason to believe that daily transactions like groceries and gas or shit like that are going to have liquidity issues, its only big purchases like cars or houses or maybe some big electronic purchases, in which case you can just do them on chain. For all the other shit though, which is almost everything else you buy, there should be a easy liquidity route without necessarily needing big hubs to provide huge amounts of liquid btc

i will just leave this here
enjoy staying poor

>>13118793
i think two things will happen in case of adoption, everywhere you pay normally will also be an ln hub larger or smaller chains like walmart and tesco will be hubs you can open a channel to them roughly in the amount you expect to spend there and you will pay no routing fees in fact you will get reward points for purchases. 1-2-3% cashbacks or some random lame ass points. so most of your more serious purchase can be done directly you can also set up a channel to a store as you enter shopping having your transaction confirm while you wander around pay at the cash register by scanning a barcode and fucking settle and dissolve the channel as you leave the store.

these are as real possibilities as using a bunch of intermediaries paying fees every hop and running into liquidity and congestion issues left and right.

>>13116365
why is everything you said wrong?

>have to open a new channel with everyone you want to transact with
no, it's a network. You clearly don't understand how it works, or are purposely spreading lies.

>have to close channels to actually receive bitcoin to use in other channels
kind of true, but there will be soon a way to fund lightning channels with other lightning channels.

>opening and closing channels are on-chain tx's that cost fees, which are most likely going to be very large with a 1MB blocksize
blocks are not 1MB any more.

>when routing your payment through multiple people, each of the connections on the way has to have enough balance, it's not enough for just the original sender to have enough btc
This one is true, however, you paint it as it if it doesn't work. It works. It's currently working. Because channels are bidirectional. It's a fucking network.

>it literally says in the Lightning Network wp that " Eventually, with optimizations, the network will look a lot like the correspondent banking network"
similar, yes, but it settles in bitcoin, which is the clearly distinctive feature away from the banking network.
Don't you get this last part?

>>13118966
sorry forgot the other thing yes your bank will also be an ln node basically. or there will be new bitcoin banks that handle exchanging btc to fiat and act as ln nodes allow you to participate in their liquidity pool for interest (from fees) and offer online wallets also and multisig vault services. there is no reason locally to ever go through more than 2 banks for card payments and there will be no reason to jump more than 2 hoops with ln.

>>13118514
>It will never be BSV, craig sanjay is too much of a cocksucking bootlicking charlatan to ever represent the crypto community.
you already answered your own question

>>13119105
the answer would have been carefully increasing the block size so that it remains mostly 30-70% full not to go full retard and fall off the map with gigabyte blocks. bch started this bullshit with their 128mb blocks when all they needed was 10k for all the transactions they had.

>>13116429
STELLAAAA

>>13119168
There's a difference between block size limit and the blocksize. Under your mindset having a blocksize limit makes no sense since you'd constantly be forking to increase it once it approaches that 70%. When you understand why the limit was added in the first place you begin to understand why it makes no sense to have today.

>>13118604
And why would that be?

>>13119359
>Under your mindset having a blocksize limit makes no sense since you'd constantly be forking to increase it once it approaches that 70%.
not exactly also you could automate it to adjust every time the difficulty adjusts based on avrage block size with a single fork.
the reason for block size limit is to make denial of service attacks and unintened splits harder and keep network propagation and storeage requiremets predictable

>>13119105
>represent the crypto community.

LOL, as if. We are here to make money, literally, there is no "crypto community"

>>13116932
fuckoff ranjeet
>>13119180
centralized coin= shitty ledger
>>13120149
Might be, but I"m not putting my money anywhere near sanyans vision. If you can't see Craig for what he is; a larping moron I can't even feel sorry for you. We've had more credible larps here on 4chin as satoshi than that cunt lmao

Bitcorn needs fungibility and needs to find an alternative to POW, pow will inevitably lead to centralisation unless you somehow force it to work through the wallet instead of dedicated miners. Default it on every android/apple/jollafish w/e the fuck device and it'll be pretty much impossible for governments/big entities to carry out 51%.
Hashrate doesn't need to be high if every mobile phone with an internet connection uses .1% of their average daily battery on maintaining the payment network.

^is unlikely to happen tho' so for now its a speculation party. Still going nowhere near sanjays vision nor bitcorn cash with jihan holding bags that heavy.

>>13120196

I never mentioned Craig.

The whole point of the Proof of Work game is that nodes cannot be trusted. The only thing we can trust is the difficulty of solving the problem, and the economic interests of everyone involved. This means that, quite crucially, 'everyone is responsible' is different from 'everyone must do everything'. Wecollectivelyneed to protect the network. But the whole point of rewarding nodes that contribute hashpower is tofree everyone else of the burdenof having to worry about attacks on monetary policy or denial of service. Szabo practicallyscreamed it at us.
A security model dependent on 'full-nodes' who don't mine is in contradiction to bitcoin having value. Because for it to have value, it needs a network effect of people who believe it has value, and will do two things: validate transactions they receive and report them to the network if they're invalid, or validate miners blocks and produce a new candidate block if they're invalid. As typically defined, a 'full node' is not a wallet or a miner. It's a node that 'validates transactions' / 'secures the network' yet its costs of operation are not compensated in-protocol. This is a contradiction. To believe that full nodes are required in order to maintain protocol security, we'd also have to believe that miners won't check each others' work and users won't validate their incoming transactions. If we believed those things, then bitcoin would have no value, as its entire value is derived from the belief in its resilience and utility by its users and investors. If bitcoin has no value, nothing will hold it together. Without supply of security (hashrate) and demand for security (transactions), and an ability for the provider of the security to profit, then it will cease to exist.

>>13116604
lightning's routing is proven to be np-complete, so that's where he learned that word. spent a few minutes searching and can't find shit on eth's sharding being np-complete though.

keep in mind 99% of np-complete problems are easy, so you can just bail if you don't find a solution in 1 second and it will still work 99% of the time, so I don't see lightning's routing being np-complete as a big deal

>>13120244
Except a gigantic problem with nodes and their contribution of hashpower is that asics fuck everything up. Some guy in North-east south angolia can setup a shed filled with asics and get the same mining power out of it as thousands of gpu's. Making it unprofitable for gpu's to mine which in turn turn off their miners, inevitably centralizing the entire thing:

I agree with your last line but there has to be a better way to do this. Most systems eventually lead to centralisation in some way or form, which in turn opens possibilities for rampant manipulation/security faults(either in the code or by using the old wrench method). To prevent this the only way I can think of is to spread the hashrate as much as possible. The only way to accomplish this, as I am currently aware, is to involve mobile devices in some way or form due to practically everybody in this day and age having one. You need to force it on users by default as the vast majority wont go through the trouble of actually setting anything up. Therefor forcing it by default on all androids/apples/w/e's is the only feasible way I can come up with.
Wrench method can be mostly circumvented by democratising the development process; however democracy among the shittiest forms of governance if you want to actually improve/accomplish something so at least for now it's not the answer.

Blockstream needs to be cut the fuck out of btc core to accomplish any of this regardless but the only way this is ever going to happen if you onboard all/most big exchanges and fork btc(AGAIN) and give your new, legit, actual bitcoin, the BTC ticker. Not having the btc ticker is a big part of what killed bitcoin cash in the end; the public doesnt trust it because its not the "real" bitcoin, regardless of technology.

>>13117403
Your node will route but the hub will deny.

>>13120464
This guy fucks

>>13120464
how are asics bad? specialty cards kind of like gpus are meant for games

Is it wrong to assume nodes and hubs may never settle off-chain and simply keep debt records? Won't this lead to fractional reserve Bitcoin issued by hubs? I fail to see how this second layer fixes anything. If this is what they want, they could avoid the entire mess by banks holding bitcoin wallets and settling between each other directly off chain with iou's.

>>13116365
>>have to open a new channel with everyone you want to transact with
Not true I did a 5 hop payment on LN

>>13120617
Fractional reserve is impossible in LN learn some facts before you spread FUD

There's legitimate criticisms but this is not one

Legit the most level headed discussion i seen on biz this year.

>>13120550
Like I said, they centralize the entire thing.

random example: If your entire network is in the end run by a handful of parties mining in gigantic centers with fields of asics someone could just walk in there, put a gun to the head of whoever is running the entire entire thing and fuck your entire shit up.

The entire idea behind mining, correct me if I'm wrong, was to decentralise the network. The idea was that a lot of people have a PC which in turn can mine and by doing this you decentralise it as much possible(back then, remember it was 2009 or some shit when it came out. Phones werent the monsters they are today). Hence the reference to the bittorrent network back then.

Now in 2k19 we can look back a bit and(today even) see that asics are centralising the mining; its not profitable for the vast majority of people to mine with what they have and would have to buy specialized equipment sold only by a handful of parties to have a chance of being profitable(or at least not running at a net loss).

Add to this that the desktop is a platform that isn't as common anymore, at least in comparison to the widespread adoption of smartphones. Even the poorest in third world countries usually have a phone at least.
Forcing it on phones would as far as I'm aware be the only way to truly counter these issues. Use a very small % of the average daily battery usage to power some hashrate and run it like a lottery; 0.5% of your battery=.xxxx% of a chance to win a full bitcoin(so consumers dont feel like they're just being fucked out of battery % for no reason and start looking into ways to turn it off).

it's too late here for me to discuss this much longer as my brain is starting to fog&my English is falling down to cavemen levels but it's been a long time since I've actually seen a decent thread on this board. It's refreshing honestly.

>>13120643
The hubs control the majority of Bitcoin in the network and can issue iou's on their own or over a third layer. Lightning give control of bitcoin to lightning hubs instead of real nodes and miners.

>>13120686
ur just saying words. use common sense buddy. someone invents a new thing. i invest in the new thing i make money DUH

>>13120686
I like your idea but it is difficult to implement fair mobile mining when people can run 1000 virtual android phone instances in docker.

>>13120740
Fair mining?? Wtf r u even talking about

The best way forward is with distributed agreement protocols like XRP and XLM for the base layer, payment channels without the major drawbacks of Lightning (already implemented) for layer two, and integration with ILP for interoperability between ledgers. I'd love to see something like XRP/XLM with better distribution and a focus on privacy, but for short to medium term adoption it's best not to scare off institutions with anonymous transactions.

>>13120758
Ppl could still run asic like farms that emulate millions of phones

I know i sound crazy but i can see a future where everyone is chipped and part of a true decentralized blockchain like tech

>>13120776
Question, would u want to runs that capped how much u could earn? Do u think business would strive to be better than the next if all their revenue was "fair" and "equal"? Fucking retarded

>>13120740
a few ways I can think of to solve that problem;
#1: unique hardware ID's for every phone. Could probably get spoofed but should be easily detectable if implemented right
#2: limit "mining" per country to a maximum of 1.3x population size or something of the like. Would leave a few people that get screwed over/dont get to "play" the lottery but would for the most part fix it.
I thought of something else but it slipped my mind already

>>13120806
*A business

>>13120806
I know but rather than a business model they use a lottery style system. Think about the average person here. The end goal is always adoption.

>>13120836
No just kys u commie fuck

>>13120852
I wasnt aware the lottery was commie faggot

>>13120808
Just chip everyone and reward them coins based on their government social score.

>>13120940
Lmao I wouldn't put it past the chinese to actually implement that

>>13117085
That is going to change. Decentralized money is now a realization because of Bitcoin and blockchain. Research and development is expanding. Coders are learning new ways of scaling without compromising security. If you don't know what zkstarks and nipopow tech is, take a look. Offchain troubleshooting is only beginning.

This is the Ethereum version of Lightning Network. It is operable. Don't prematurely judge until you check it out.

Backed by oxbitcoin hahaha, you just made my day.

>>13121017
Im familiar with zkstarks but can you give me a quick run down on nipopow

>>13116365
By using word "Lightning" in its name, it has already been set up for failure from the very beginning.

>>13121137
Non interactive proof of proof of work. Nimiq has it built in. Consensus uses a single signature (block header) shared between sender and receiver. Faster and more scalable than normal proof of work.

>>13116429

Bitcoin Cash aka the real Bitcoin duh

/biz/ has only been telling you this for a year and a half now.

>he thinks Bitcoin isn't a complete failure already
>But muh third world country use case
>muh "store of value" after failing at being a "currency".
>only wastes the same amount of energy per day as a small country so you faggots can lose money on Bitmex.

>>13116365
0xBitcoin and the LAVA network is the holy savior. Bitcoin Core is a kike coin.

When is bitcoin going to die. lightning has been proven a dud so bitcoin should go to 0

>>13121509
How come none of you zoomers have any long term vision. Too many youtube videos frying your short attention spans. Lightning is growing everyday and bitcoin has a lot of interesting stuff coming to the base chain, but it isn't your flavor of the month so of course you go pump your shitty zoomer salary into the next shiny object that you will inevitably sell in 3 months

>>13116365
Either OP is a troll or full of shit and knows nothing. Like literally every sentence in his post is wrong. Did you even read into how this works? Holy Shit in case you’re not a troll: you are one uneducated mothetfucker spreading falsehoods and lies. Go get some solid knowledge retard.

Why bother with a flawed and complex 2nd layer solution when you could just use 4 second xlm or xrp?

>>13116429
0xBitcoin on Ethereum. Dyor. Lava network stays decentralized. Its out now

>>13121628
This. Lightning Network is just a digital Rube Goldberg machine.

>>13116365
You can still use the apart from segwit unaltered mainchain. You are whining like a little bitch about a thing that is completely seperate from bitcoin

>>13121628
>Why not use [insert heaviest bag here]
People like you are pretty pathetic

all scaling solutions lead to massive centralization

>>13121852
Bitcoin is already massively centralized.

>>13120686
Asics are no more centralized than gpus retard. This is like saying red is more of a color than blue.

Lightning Network will never work and even if it did it isn't BTC exclusive so I don't know why BTC people put so much hope into it.

>>13121909
>I don't know why BTC people put so much hope into it.

When you're holding massive BTC bags, you will always be on the edge and defend BTC at all costs.

>>13121939
you've got it backwards, the entire community is simply waiting for btc/eth to scale. It might look like people care about what a bunch of alts are doing, but outside of the speculative bubble nobody even recognizes payment/feature coins or alt-platforms. they're simply irrelevant.

crypto isn't like the tech sector, it's finance, it's money. you don't just come along with a better version of money, you come along with better technology to use said money, but it's the same money being used all the way. so long as crypto exists in a recognizable form, bitcoin will always be the "money" of crypto.

>>13121628
because everybody understands that xlm and xrp are zero-value tokens, so their only value comes from the technology underneath them, something that in a few years from now will be just as obsolete as people say bitcoin is today. only when that happens they don't have anything else to fall back on, because nobody is interested in a 70%+ centralized corporate token.

>>13121966
Maybe, but I hold Hedera as a backup.

>>13121954
Lmao, tech sector is about money too. Since when were businesses not about making money?

Certain features will become relevant even if speculators don't care about them, especially if it has a negative impact on the price. In Bitcoin's case, it can't fucking scale on its own. So they came up with the Lightning Network, but the problem is the Lightning Network wasn't created for large transactions which was what fed the 2017 bullrun. It's created for micropayments, which is completely useless for speculators.

First mover advantage doesn't last forever. Look at how long it took for the digital camera to be adopted after it was first invented. Kodak lost to its competitors even it invented it first because it insisted on sticking with old technology. If Bitcoin can't adapt, it will just end up like Kodak.

>>13121939
Isnt this what most altcoins are? Sv retards for example just live on the hope of having bought "bitcoin" at 40$ or some shit. Ripple just gained traction because people didnt understand market cap and supply and thought ripple had growth potential like bitcoin. To me both of these kinds of people are scum that i mostly see in btc threads especially sv and ripple scum. So who is the greedier one the people who just hold the main coin and genuinly like crypro in general or scum like ripple or sv holders who want to get rich quick no matter the cost?

>>13122016
Because you can already do large transactions on main chain? Are you retarded or why do you think its impossible to just as easily move 100000btc like 1btc? What a non fucking argument.

>>13116378
This is exactly it.

Save this chart, bizbros. And remember who's in charge.

>>13116378
Well if its turbo kike economics and easy money why dont you open a ln channel as well and provide the same seevice retard? You will go to the moooooooooon.

>>13122017
>So who is the greedier one the people who just hold the main coin and genuinly like crypro in general or scum like ripple or sv holders who want to get rich quick no matter the cost?

That's a loaded question. It's ridiculous to claim higher moral ground when there's a conflict of interest. BTC fanboys want every alt gone and BTC to monopolize the crypto space. The fact that you're "less greedy" is irrelevant.

>>13122025
this fucking image makes me feel ill. How can so-called "cypherpunks" and "cryptographers" allow their movement to be subverted so easily?

>War Is Peace
>Freedom Is Slavery
>Ignorance Is Strength
>Centralization is Decentralization

>>13122051
I rarely see these btc maximalists you are talking about. But i see xrp scum and sv very often and most of them are maximalists. Its not about beeing less greedy the btc holders have a completely different mindset but pea brained altcoiners(yes i hold alts as well) dont get this.

>>13122023
>Because you can already do large transactions on main chain?

You're obviously joined the Bitcoin bandwagon late. Yes, you can do small and large transactions on the main chain, but it'll take days or even longer for the transactions to go through if the network is congested which was what had happened in late 2017. So, if you're speculating, it would be very difficult to buy or sell. This created a price ceiling for Bitcoin.

>>13122066
>have 1 dev
>He hands the keys over to a bunch of kikes
>The kikes all vote to kick out the last good dev
>Kikes all decide we're going to jew bitcoin
>Nobody does anything
>Nobody in the community is willing to say fuck blockstream let's do what we want
>Miners all realize they're being jewed
>None of them do anything
>None of them reject Blockstream's changes
>Just sit around like good boys being cucked
>Eventually a couple developers grow some testicles and fork
>All the obsequious dick licking "Cypherpunks" grab their torches and pitchforks because someone DARED to change bitcoin

Basically, cypherpunks are huge pussies who hate authority but in reality are massive doormats

>>13122071
If you ignore the greed, it just boils down to which coin(s) you believe in. There's no way for you know the mindset of other people except what you project into them so it's not an argument.

>>13122075
I am here since early 17 and bitcoin already scaled above 17 levels since then. Why do you say bullshit?

>>13122075
>>13122098
https://coindoo.com/bitcoin-transaction-volume-is-now-equal-to-those-during-the-2017-bull-run/
B-but you told me i couldnt use btc if its volume is high like this. How about you stop beeing a worthless altcoin maximalist and inform yourself about the space in general than your information wouldnt be like 2 years outdated

>>13122089
Im not subscribed to btc if another coin would gain the upper hand i would move my funda accordingly but i just hate the state of the space in general too many trash people here and with sv and ripple the concentration of trash people is the highest. They damaged the space the most out of all

>>13122078
People would have supported bch if it wasn't run and controlled by Roger and Jihan.

>>13122017
oh sweet child of mine. eyes of the bluest skies.

>>13122204
more like bch shouldn't have happened without ample support like 90% instead of maybe 10%.

>>13116365
I am pro SV.

The thing to understand is that this isn't really just about Craig. This is about you, this is about me, this is about our beliefs. This is about the structure of reality itself.

Our reality has literally split into multiple parallel time tracks (movies) that are simultaneously occurring. You see this in politics with how polarized it has gotten and how people can't seem to make up their minds about whether a particular person or group is good or bad, or what story or narrative of events is the true one. The secret is, there is no real external truth to any of this, as physical reality is really just a projection in our own consciousness and will automatically reflect whatever our strongest beliefs are. As such, the way we experience reality as it unfolds as positive or negative entirely depends on what definitions and beliefs we are holding.

Bitcoin is actually a technological reflection of something bigger. The Bitcoin network is a cross section extrusion of a geometric matrix from a higher dimension into this dimension of spacetime. The original term used for the blockchain was actually the timechain and if you look at the early source code from 2008 you will see this. Bitcoin, in the form of the original design, exhibits quantum mechanical properties and as it scales it develops into a hive-mind network of artificial intelligence that hyper connects and coordinates all human activity to allow it to operate at higher frequencies, in order to assist in stabilizing our timeline and accelerating our evolution from the 3rd to the 4th "density" or frequency range of consciousness.

This is why there can be no proof. Craig is simultaneously Satoshi and a fraud, and you will see the one or the other depending on the point of view you are taking. He is whoever you say he is. With that in mind, make the choice for yourself and decide what you want to buy into. It's your projection after all.

>>13122908
go to sleep creg you are drunk!

>>13122016
you misunderstand, expectedly. bitcoin isn't technology, technology is just the means to and end, creating digital money. you can't replicate that again now it's happened.

first mover advantage is irrelevant, because that again assumes technology plays a relevant part as to what makes bitcoin valuable. when you understand that bitcoin doesn't gain any value from it's technology, you'll understand why it's only possible to compete against bitcoin at a superficial level.

>>13122066
>subverted
says the late adopter actually buying bcash. it's incredible how tone-deaf emotional late adopters are about their bags sometimes.

We're getting closer to the moment a critical mass of people realise.