/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>16528259
I was thinking it’s a possibility this jumpstarts some shit . Has the potential to scale on a large scale . Boomers could be on board too

>>16528259
Crypto is dead, this new fancy shit won't even help

>>16528270
It’s obviously not dead there are billions of dollars in this market . I’ve been around since 2013 and I’ve heard crypto declared dead ever single year

>>16528289
Don't tell me you missed the 2017 bull

>>16528259

What’s the address for their node so i can connect?

Nobody is ever going to use this shit

>>16528259
A question anon:
1) Will XSN be helpful to build the LN?
Because I have inveted (not shilling now). But they worc for litecoin and LN solutions

>>16528259
lightning is over engineered crap

exchanges hate lighting, how would they continue charging withrldrawl fees with it

>>16528555
why?
>>16528566
>exchanges hate lighting, how would they continue charging withrldrawl fees with it
why? LN has no fees?

>>16528566
Pretty sure they make more money with trading fees and lending. Not to mention, most coins won't have lightning support unless the devs decide to make it.

LN has so many flaws. It will always be a meme.

>>16529092
>LN has so many flaws. It will always be a meme
why so many flaws?

>>16529113
Always online nodes. Ie. a reactive security model.

Im dependant on others channel liquidity, if i dont want to pay for another direct channel with my counterparty.

If im sending 1000USD worth, i need other nodes to have that much in a useful channel. If they don't, i cant use them.

Other nodes might exhaust my own channel, with access, forcing me to open another channel to pay.

LNs only practical usecase is micropayments anyway. Like pay per second watched. This can be done with any payment channel system.

>>16529113
Because its custodial solution for peer-peer electronic cash pivoted in custodial to custodial store of value and whole development of it is shotshow whit 0 traction

>>16529152
>>16529177
yo bsv bagholders, your chain will outgrow the btc chain in size within 2020 lmao
thanks for proving the point that bigger blocks dont work

>>16529280
As was written in WP, longest chain will be Bitcoin.

>>16529152
I don't see any major problems with a solution just as a liquidity aggregator

>>16528259
LN actually works in the banking model, although it's fully centralized.
However, this kills bitcoin. Bitcoin is supposed to run off fees eventually, but if everyone stores their coins on exchanges and uses them as ln banks, blocks are going to be empty.
There's really no possible future in which bitcoin survives.

>>16529308
longest chain means most proof of work you literal dumbass. That means most blocks

>>16530503
lol what

>>16530574
elaborate

>>16530503
why would everyone store their coins on exchanges?

just use a goddam non-custodial wallet

>>16530620
Ln doesn't work with normal people having their own channels. Routing fails, to receive funds you have to pay a lot for channel capacity, backups are a security disaster (if you try to enforce an old state you're going to lose everything). Channels become imbalanced very fast. You need to rely on third party watchtowers (not free) or run your own. Last but not least, you need to be online to receive funds. Fees are proportional to sent amount, rather than constant, making ln more expensive than on-chain transfers for anything over trivial sums over just few node hops. In short, it's an absolute catastrophe.

All those problems go away if people store funds in exchanges and 'custodial wallets' that support ln. Exchanges can have very big channels just with other exchanges and few payment providers. They remain roughly balanced because people send funds back and forth. This is the only way ln can actually work.

>>16530656
but aren't larger transactions more expensive that lightning than using onchain tx. That would mean excahnges would be incentivized to do large tx on chain. ln is just for small microtransactions that clog up the network, miners will still profit from verify the larger tx.

right?

>>16530814
no, because fees are paid to node operators that route the payments, but if exchanges have direct channels between themselves there are no intermediary nodes, so there are no fees.

>>16530839
Why would exchanges allow free transfers when they can charge for secure tx?

>>16530895
They're going to charge just below the alternative cost most likely.
It's not hypothetical anymore, bitfinex has a direct connection to bitrefill and you can shop from your bfx account. It's a banking system.

>>16530933
I suppose it all depends on the limits of the ln, how much btc can be transferred per node, etc. Ultimately, to open and close a channel, you still need to record tx on chain. I feel like exchanges would still record large tx on chain for security. Also, if each node is limited to like <1 btc, then that leaves plenty of room for on chain tx. Bitrefill sounds interesting, banking analogy is right. Exchanges can act as banks, use ln for everyday purchases. Large transfers of value between peers and exchanges happen on chain for security, ln is settled on main chain.

>>16530933
Also, I thought ln charged fees? ln also struggles with larger tx, so that's where on chain comes in.

>>16531007
it struggles with larger tx because you have a path with enough capacity, but if you have a direct channel with someone there are no limits, you can load it with 10k btc if you want.
>Also, I thought ln charged fees?
not ln, intermediary nodes. There are no fees if you have a direct connection.

>>16528259
>Bitfinex has just set up a lighting network node a few days ago

Sweet, so I can fund my account a couple dollars at a time (because doing anymore would lose my stack)? THE FUTURE IS HERE!

>>16528892
>LN has no fees?
Wrong

>>16529152
>LNs only practical usecase is micropayments anyway

The sad part is that's literally one of Bitcoin's primary use cases. Core has fucked this project up so fucking badly. It's maddening.

>>16529308
WP also says a coin is a chain of digital signatures. Segwit removed that. BTC is not Bitcoin and LN sure as hell isn't.

>>16530574

>>16530814
>small microtransactions that clog up the network
https://sv.coin.dance/blocks/transactions

Millions if not billions of transactions per second is the goal. If you want Bitcoin to work, you want these things because they keep the miners sustained.

Micropayments = NANO

>>16529280
I dont care about bsv dude now tell me how i am wrong again?