/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>6750905
is she cosplaying as the protagonist of a 1980s B B horror movie

>>6750941
Pay attention to the text you mother fucker.

Isn't the lightning network still in its early stages? Why would its failure cause the crypto market to crash?

>>6751000
don't post rapebait if you want us to read your shit

Thanks for the FUD

LN is centralization, might as well use a credit card desu. Good write up anon

>>6751096
> Isn't the lightning network still in its early stages?
It will NEVER work, not even in 10 years. It's too technical to explain here but they chose intentionally an unsolvable routing problem. They don't fucking want it to work.

>Why would its failure cause the crypto market to crash?
Because it will prove even the original biggest oldest most expensive was a ponzi scam for years. They sold vaporware.

>>6750905
Lightning is vaporware. It's been "18 months away" for years. This is why we have Bitcoin Cash

>>6751096
What is the last time you saw something taking 8 years and still not showing a functional product? Its Daikatana, Duke Forever levels at this point. If ANYTHING takes more than a 1 year to be functional in at least a basic state someone shit the bed and the odds of it ever happening drop to almost zero.

>>6750905
As soon as devs start memeing instead of delivering shit is about to tank
muh Wraith protocol
muh Segwit
muh Lightning network
muh FairX

>>6751249
>LN is centralization
It's NOT EVEN CENTRALIZED, it just can't work. Period.


>>6751325
BCH will also go down with BTC, all faith will be shaken.

>increasingly nervous cashcucks

The "LN" software that is out there is not beta release, nor alpha release (that is mostly complete but still too buggy for real use), nor a prototype, nor a proof-of-concept implementation. The concept has not been proved to work, because no one knows whether a suitable path-finding algorithm will ever be developed. Last time I checked, the code that they have released has no specific path-finding service. Instead, each user node finds the paths that it needs. In order to do so, each user node needs to know the capacity of all channels in the network, at least approximately. The capacity of a channel is the initial funding minus the net total payment made through it. Thus, every user node in the network must be promptly informed about every significant channel payment made anywhere in the network. If an LN payment needs n hops, those n channel payments must be promptly broadcast to the whole network. Obviously this solution scales worse than raw bitcon. In the latter, only the miners need to know about all transactions in the network. Simple clients need only check the chain of block headers (to make sure that they are getting a valid chain) and the part of the Merkle trees that contain payments to their wallets.

Moreover, the number of channel payments is the number of actual user-to-user payments mutiplied by the average payment path length. Some guys at BitFury have proposed an intermediate solution (FLARE). There about O(sqrt(N)) "beacons" (routing servers). Each beacon knows the topology of his "domain", a region of the network around the beacon, with O(sqrt(N)) users. The constant terms in the O() notation are chosen so that any two domains are very likely to have at least one user in common. So, when Alice needs to send a payment to Zoe, the two users contact their respective beacons BA,BZ. The beacons figure out that user Mike is in both domains. So BA return a path from Alice to Mike in its domain, and BZ returns a path from Mike to Zoe in its domain.

>>6751376
LN requires private side chains, no?

The two paths together are the desiired payment path. FLARE reduces the overall cost of the network since only the beacons need to know about channel capacities, and only of channels in their domain. Still, if Alice belongs to the domains of K beacons, she must promptly communicate every payment that she makes to those K beacons. Also, the paths found by FLARE will tend to be longer than those that would be found by a an omniscient router. It may happen that all the domains that include Alice are disjoint from all the domains that include Zoe, in which case FLARE fails.

If the resulting path does not work, because some of its middlemen is offline or refuses to cooperate, FLARE (like any other algorithm) may be unable to provide a second option that works. In FLARE, each user must trust that her beacon will not choose to block her payments, nor try to direct her payment through his cousins Mel, Ned, Oscar, and Pete, who overcharge for their service. Another alternative to FLARE is a single big hub and every user having just one channel to that hub. Then the hub automatically knows the state of every channel, and route finding is trivial...

>>6751376
>BCH will go down
Maybe in the short term, hopefully I can buy them up cheap.

>>6751402
>>6751449
ty for this; there is an abnormal amount of intelligence in this thread.

>>6751282

why did they want it to fail, explain yourself anon!

Fortunately, confirmation times and fees for litecoin keep on falling. I think LTC IS the real lightening network here. I never transacy im BTC anymore. I jump in and out of LTC.

>>6750905
it's still early mate

what solution do you propose OP? there doesn't seem to be any choices

>>6751647

We need more of these threads, where actual discussions take places on crypto tech viability & future etc.. instead of pajeet shilling coins

>>6751150
>i dont like it
FUD!

>>6751696
I'm not selling a solution retard, I'm saying someone else is selling an impossible one

>>6750905
If you couldn't receive more than your Channel it would die in the middle of the transaction. That isn't the case. If C sends 5 to B and B only has 3 instead of 5 to send to you, how does 3+5 not >= 5?
The lightning network is to reduce congestion on the main net. You would just send main net unless there was a wallet application that managed to implement LN channels between two people, which is still entirely possible.

>Bcashies needing to FUD for fear their coin is worthless

>>6751125
He's right you know. The things in the OP are correct nonetheless.

>>6751664
Source?

>>6750905

>>6751772
>f you couldn't receive more than your Channel it would die in the middle of the transaction.
You're lying, that's a known problem with the LN, but it doesn't matter at all since that's the least of the problems it has, just read >>6751402

So.. how does BCH keep transaction fees low?

Why does BTC have to complicate thigns, just raise the blocksize?

I'm a newb though, no fucking clue as to what all of this means. But BTC is making me increasingly nervous

Just go with SkyCoin ffs

>>6751988
The reason why fees are high in the first place is because in BTC people have to outbid each other to be in the next 1MB block.

BCH can include 8 times as many transactions and soon infinite amounts, that is why you can pretty much pay any fee you want and you will be included in the block.

>>6752007
Even Ethereum scales better than that crap.

>>6751352
>muh Wraith protocol
>muh Segwit
>muh Lightning network
>muh FairX

this tbqhfampai

>>6751942
Knowing that LN uses onion routing, what power does a centralized hub have over your transactions?

>>6752170
>onion routing automatically make things decentralized because I don't understand what onion routing does

>>6752068
Explain

>>6752235
I'm saying they are not aware of the sender and receiver, therefore cannot censor any particular transactions.

The worst a hub can do is block all transactions.

>>6751813
http://lightning-wallet.com/using-lightning-wallet#receiving-lightning-funds
i'm using a testnet wallet on android and can't receive anything right now but sending is really easy

>>6752258
explain what? bcash solution is to increase block sizes. its very straight forward and a short term solution

>>6751988
BCH just lazily removes the block size limit, which is like sticking a band-aid on a wound that needs stitches. Eventually the blocksize is going to get really unweildy in BCH.
Its a cash grab by its creators.

>>6750905
I don't understand, are the sleeves sewed on or is she wearing another shirt under the black and white one? It looks like the blue/green one is another shirt underneath, but the red one looks like it's on top somehow

Who dat?

>>6752308
Transactions still have to be validated and addresses can be censored despite knowing sender receiver origins.

>>6752387
Lets pretend that block size is only a short term solution. Why not do it anyway? Oh that's right, large block size run counter to Blockstream's business plan to monetize side chains.

>>6752333
He referenced to SkyCoin not scaling and I asked him to explain, next time please read within context, yes? thank you.

>>6751402
>>6751449
ty for this

>>6752308
Are you really that stupid?!?!?!?! The negotiation itself is still unsolvable, that's why all of that doesn't matter. There will never be a LN, you won't get to the point where all that fake decentralization discussion matters. You first have to calculate the routes, and they didn't even solve that, NOT EVE IN THEORY.

>>6752331
That's because it's a tiny cenralized network which DOES ALL THE ROUTING FOR YOU. That's not a LN, that's a fake. It doesn't even resemble what it's supposed to do.

>>6752387
WTF does it have to do with BCH?

>>6752387
> Eventually the blocksize is going to get really unweildy in BCH.
Look up sharding.

>>6752387
>Its a cash grab by its creators.

How can it be a cash grab? THat doesn't make sense, there was no premine and every BTC owener received the same amount in BCH. It's probably less of a cash grab than most cryptos.

>>6752709
I was referring to his argument about centralization, I didn't read your enormous rant.

>>6752589
Core probably *should* increase block size to at least 2mb, considering thats not at all excessive, but the devs are obsessed with other solutions. On the other hand, Roger Ver and co pretending that they've 'fixed' Bitcoin is a scam, since all they've done is kick the can to create bigger problems down the road.

>>6752837
Sorry but you have no idea what you're talking about. Devs have tested 1GB blocks already and they can be achieved with today's hardware.

>>6750905
try hard fud

>>6752837
Larger block sizes are a solution. Stop letting propaganda get to you, anon. Core can't increase block size, first it would require consensus which they won't get and second it would completely out them as being frauds for putting (((Blockstreams))) interests of monetizing sidechains over users. Seriously ask yourself, if Core increases block size, what does that say about BCH?

>>6752887
You could get far bigger blocks effectively using sharding.

how is it not a lightning network?

>>6752931
They can't increase the blocksize easily with segwit, which is part of the reason why they implemented it in the first place. Other reason was to ensure it'll be hard for another team to replacing them.

>>6752931
>Seriously ask yourself, if Core increases block size, what does that say about BCH?

Only that band-aids can have short term benefits.

>>6753111
Again, even if it is short term fix which we've already demonstrated to you multiple times in this thread that it is not. Why the fuck haven't the done it already to increase throughput?

>>6753031
Holy mother of god.... to sum it up: because it doesn't scale even in a CENTRALIZED way. They chose a solution knowing very well will never work.

>>6753187
>we've already demonstrated to you multiple times in this thread that it is not
Have you now?
Buy more hard drives, lol.

>>6753111
It's not a short term solution, it's a solution that can easily reach Paypal levels of adoption. Blockstream is spreading mass misinformation. They want people to use BTC through their sidechains so they can make money.

>>6753306
no one is forcing you to use it, faggot

>>6753292
Good god, soygoi. You're just choosing to ignore everything in this thread, so maybe a video will make it easier for you to understanding scale and the cost in doing so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbD0kiTddEs

>>6753371
>34% dominance

The market is already deciding not to.

>>6750905
At intervals, the following process is initiated:

A beacon node B is selected via a pseudo-random process.
Neighbors of B broadcast their shortest route to B to their neighbors.
The neighbors of neighbors of B now become aware of a route to B and in turn broadcast their shortest route to B.
This cascades through the network until every reachable node has broadcasted their shortest route to the beacon node B.
Whenever a node becomes aware of a new shorter route, it broadcasts this updated shortest route as well.
After a short wait, start from top with a new beacon node B1.
Nodes remember their shortest routes to a number of previously selected beacon node.

Now, Alice wants to send 0.3BTC to Bob.
Alice has shortest routes to B, B1, and B2. Bob just came online and only knows B2. They add together their respective paths to B2 and thus find a path:

Alice → N1 → N2 → B2 ← N3 ← Bob
If they have multiple common beacons, they can also compare different paths, and check whether any earlier nodes in their routes match. If they instead had found:

Alice → N1 → N2 → B2 ← N2 ← Bob
They could shorten the route to:

Alice → N1 → N2 ← Bob
Altogether, "shortest" would be some combination of reachable, sufficient liquidity, lowest fee, fewest hops, and most reliable. As Hash Time Lock Contracts are nearly trustless (only potentially locking your money for some time), and operating a routing wallet should have low resource requirements, it seems likely that the payment routing market should achieve a healthy competition, therefore discouraging nodes to lock money by establishing channels just to earn fees from routing. Payment channels between nodes that have some form of regular business relationship seem more likely as there is an immediate benefit.

>>6753405
that known shit propaganda paid by ver, you've been hoodwinked shitlord. It's just starting you're fucked. LOL

>>6753453
Wonderfully constructed argument and market analysis.

>>6753416
OK then, go buy BTC.
Bye.

theres one thing i dont get. Nobody uses btc other than speculating on price. Its used to trade other meme coins. Prove me wrong (protip: you can't)

>>6753306
>buy bitcoin.com
>control bitcoin leddit
>control bitcoin twitter
>see, we are the real bitcoin!
>this random rich guy is actually Satoshi and he supports us!
>lol dont notice that we control 80% of the bch mining
>please buy our bags

Who is spreading misinformation?

>>6753516
I used Bitcoin to regularly purchase items from Newegg. I don't anymore because of fees. I will begin to buy from them after Bitpay has Bitcoin Cash fully implemented.

However for the most part you are correct, which is why BCH desperately needs pairs.

>>6753453
What is said in the video is completely true, if you actually had any understanding of how Bitcoin works you would get it.

>>6750905
the idea that you can only use an LN channel to transact with a small number of 'certain people' is incorrect. You can transact with anyone else connected to the network.
the idea that on-chain fees (i.e. to open/close LN channels) will remain at the current ridiculous levels is an unreasonable assumption that ignores all the scaling currently in progress to combat that very problem
the idea that channels would be regularly opened/closed is incorrect - most people would keep their channel(s) open indefinitely
There is no 'locking up'. This is FUD spread by those who don't like LN as a scaling solution.

If you take money out of your bank account and put it in your wallet, would you consider that 'locking it up'? No, you're actually making your money more usable.

With BTC in a wallet, you can make payments via the blockchain (slow, requires non-neglible fees, requires confirmations, not very private). With BTC in LN, you can make cheap, instant, more private payments to anyone on the LN network (which, at least theoretically, will be anyone with bitcoin).

If for some reason you need your BTC back in a standard wallet, you just transfer it back with a regular bitcoin transaction. You'd only really need to send money back to a regular wallet for saving/storage, so waiting for an on-chain transfer is never going to be a concern. The only other scenario for wanting to move money back to a wallet if to then make an on-chain payment with the funds...which is an odd edge case, as it would almost always make more sense to make the payment via LN.

>>6753533
Forgot to mention

>straight up copy the tech and slap on a band-aid

>>6753533
None of those entities have changed hands ever, so you're argument is invalid. The people mining Core are the same mining Cash.

>>6753587
1) You don't have to open a channel with everyone in town. Just a few channels might be sufficient. This is the "network" part of the "lightning network", if you want to pay someone, but don't have a direct channel with them, you can send the payment through one of your existing channels, which will forward the payment hopping through other people's channels until it reaches its destination. (ex: You have a channel with Alice, you want to pay Bob, but you do not have a channel with Bob. However Alice & Bob are connected, so you send the payment to Alice, and ask her to forward it to Bob on your behalf). Best of all, this happens in a trustless and non-custodial manner, i.e. intermediate nodes cannot steal the in-transit payment (thanks to a cryptographic contract called the "Hashed Time-Lock Contract").

Also, you do not need to fill a channel with everything you expect to spend, because you can refill the channel through the network. Example: You open a $20 channel with Starbucks, you spend everything. Then let's say someone pays you through Lightning for some small service, their payment can arrive through your Starbucks channel which will now be refilled. Sweet, more coffee! (or something else, you don't necessarily have to use that channel only to pay Starbucks)

>>6753616
>copy
>open source project

Just fucking leave, you stupid faggot.

>>6753638

2) No need to close a channel to spend coins in it. If Starbucks wants to spend the coins they received from your channel, they can pay someone else using you as a router. (ex: they refill your channel, and in exchange you use some other channel of yours to route their payment to someone of their choice). The only reason to close a channel is if the other party become unresponsive, which hopefully would be infrequent enough to not be a huge problem.

Even in that case, in the future we will have "channel factories" which are a way to open/close payment channels off-chain, which will further optimize and reduce the costs of the whole process, dramatically reducing the need to pay miner fees.

It's obvious we need second layer solutions like lightning network( which needs segwit to run well). There is no way in a million years it'll scale onchain. Bitcoin will work without 2nd layer solutions, but the 'cash' component will come with that adoption.

>>6753533
Blockstream is controlling Bitcoin Leddit and Bitcointalk actually.

And the reason why BCH was created in the first place because of mass misinformation. The original devs such as Gavin and Mike wanted to scale Bitcoin with Satoshi's solution, they created the Bitcoin XT implementation but were kicked out. Everyone who supported them was banned. Same happened with Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited.

Blockstream/Core literally hijacked the project and banned everyone who disagreed with them. This is why it seems like people love BTC even though it's completely worthless.

>>6753674
Roger Ver's confusion -- along with many who agree with him -- is that he thinks of the blockchain as an efficient payment network. It's not. Just look at the electricity expenses that are going into making transactions on the blockchain possible. Right now the network is consuming as much energy as the country Ireland? All that energy is not being spent on making transactions cheap or fast -- additional mining power has a negligible affect on the speed of bitcoin as the protocol always seeks to maintain 10 minute confirmation times, and additional mining power has a negligible affect on the price of fees as that is determined most principally by the fact that there is a limited supply of block space.

No. That energy is being spent entirely on securing the network. The blockchain is about security first, not cheap payments. Cheap payments will come with Lightning and other such payment networks, but the purpose of the blockchain is first and foremost about securing a global public ledger.

What you want is the security layer to be secure, and the payment layer to be fast and cheap. The two combined (along with so much more) is what will eventually be considered Bitcoin (much like people ceased to differentiate the internet from the web). What you don't want is to try to use the security layer as the payment network so that it isn't secure. And since the blockchain, the security layer as it were, isn't particularly fast or cheap, any network that attempts to use the blockchain as a payment network to compete with networks specifically designed to be payment networks, like Lightning, will in the long run fail.

>>6753638
>>6753674
We know how LN works you dumb nigger.

>>6750905
OP I Just want to thank you for your analysis

>>6753716
thing is you don't, your fucking idiot's huffing ver's fart box.

>>6751703
Shit FUD

>>6753714
Lightning can not work as designed. The routing algorithm needed to efficiently settle multi link payment channels doesn't exist. It requires total knowledge of the entire channel network to implement instant payments on lightning.

>>6753714
For a world currency that functions correctly the energy consumption is not that big of a deal, look at all the data centers and banks and how much money and electricity they eat.

Also Bitcoin itself is faster and cheaper than the LN because it has only one hop and can potentially confirm millions of transactions per second. What you are thinking of is the confirmation time which is negligible for most payments.

>>6753213
what is your definition of scalable?

>>6754024
What you want is the security layer to be secure, and the payment layer to be fast and cheap. The two combined (along with so much more) is what will eventually be considered Bitcoin (much like people ceased to differentiate the internet from the web). What you don't want is to try to use the security layer as the payment network so that it isn't secure. And since the blockchain, the security layer as it were, isn't particularly fast or cheap, any network that attempts to use the blockchain as a payment network to compete with networks specifically designed to be payment networks, like Lightning, will in the long run fail.

It's really simple, people who can't do the math and realize on chain fees can be amortized will create a centralized ponzi scheme that can be censored, shut down, and have payments blocked/frozen/money seized because they have no grasp of reality. Anytime a node is 'in a data center' you're handing over the FUCKING CREDIBILITY.

You do realize thats why BTC was created was because the MONEY SUPPLY was being manipulated right? If you can't validate the money supply(node), then BCH or a protocol with large blocks can be perverted and used against the poor and downtrodden IDENTICALLY to the way fiat is.

I don't know how many times people will just choose to not look at how block size increase is a throughout increase and nothing to do with scaling. Literally, it will do jack fucking shit to raise it to 8mb.. I’d love to see the BCH network with our volume but it will never happen because it’s a joke and a clear sign that the devs aren’t CS centric for BCH. You've been hoodwinked to sign up to a centralized coin that can be changed whenever necessary.

You have to be autistic to think that bigger blocks solves scaling long term. Go back to school anon.

>>6751333

> Mentions Daikatana and Duke Forever

Checking them trips.

Listen to this man. He is a seasoned veteran with decades of experience. He has seen things.

>>6754096
>payment layer

No faggot, that's why we made crypto. To get rid of (((payment layers))).

>>6753901
Haha. Very similar to why the Internet failed when routers stopped being able to store the whole network?

>>6754110
doesn't it basically make it impossible for normal people to download the blockchain because it will get so large?

>>6754125
won't work you're a mongoloid that doesn't understand scaling. Have you special ed teacher help you understand.

>>6754139
>the Internet failed when routers stopped being able to store the whole network?
wat

>>6754197
Scaling works just fine, you're literally choosing not to look into this yourself.

>>6754096
>What you don't want is to try to use the security layer as the payment network so that it isn't secure.

You have no fucking idea what Bitcoin even is. The blockchain is faster and cheaper than the LN, unless you artificially cripple it.

Also the LN will never work with 1MB blocks, just opening channels is gonna be way too expensive.

>I don't know how many times people will just choose to not look at how block size increase is a throughout increase and nothing to do with scaling. Literally, it will do jack fucking shit to raise it to 8mb

Holy shit you are a brainlet. BCH literally cleared a 100MB mempool a couple days ago extremely fast. BTC hasn't done anything like that ever.

>>6754166
Bitcoin's blockchain was never intended to be stored on everyone's PC.

>>6754166
Big blockers think it's fine to be adding TB's worth of data to the blockchain per year. There's no way that will lead to centralization... rrrrrrright anon?

>>6754166
The bandwidth will consume 5 Mbps at 2000 tps. That's 10% of a broadband connection, and $500 a year in hard drive space.

I think i need to make an infographic for this, because no one understands how expensive big blocks are

>>6753674
If we are lucky we might even get the beta by 2040 or 2050! So exciting!

>>6754139
The internet is based around a very small number of internet exchanges that most of the worlds internet traffic traverses. Similar centralisation would be necessary for lightning. The thing is though is that its pointless. You might as well just use traditional payment systems which are faster and cheaper and don't require the energy of half the solar system to keep secure. Lightning network isn't economically viable.

Why the fuck would Starbucks take segwit coins when by the end of the year in Europe they will run their POS systems on SEPA SCT inst and pay no credit/debit card fees for instant transactions? Lightning has no place. Its literally getting outpaced by the traditional banking industry and fintechs in Europe.

>>6754366
Centralization of what? The people that need to have and work on the blockchain are the miners and they get paid for their work. Normal userts don't fucking download the blockchain.

>>6754366
>>6754379
>$500 a year
>cost prohibitive

You probably think nodes with no hashpower secure the network too.

>>6751282
>they chose intentionally an unsolvable routing problem
i-i-it is like they wanted to "block the stream" all along

who would have ever thought...

>>6754314
Actually... I have done the research.

I don't know how many times people will just choose to not look at how block size increase is a throughout increase and nothing to do with scaling. Literally, it will do jack fucking shit to raise it to 8mb.. I’d love to see the Bcash network with our volume but it will never happen because it’s a joke and a clear sign that the devs aren’t CS centric for bcash. You've been hoodwinked to sign up to a centralized coin that can be changed whenever necessary.

When will the increase stop? 10MB? 100MB? No more like 300-1000MB every 10 min. So the bloat to the blockchain for having visa level tps(2000-56,000+ tps) would be so massive there would be no full nodes to run the blockchain except for big players willing to add like 300MB every 10 min...centralizing the network to its death with the enormous packs of data.

This is a poor design decision because it WILL get FILLED almost instantly. Increasing the block size pulls the voting power out from the knowledgeable user in that it makes it near impossible for them to run a node (would be 20k to run a node if MB is increased too drastically) and 'vote' with what software they want for the protocol. If there are only companies running the nodse then they will determine what get's upgraded within the code, so, for example, they could raise the 21 million limit.

>>6754431
Most miners go through pools and don't need to run a full node. If regular users were able to run nodes it would absolutely help with decentralization

>>6754500
NODES WITHOUT HASHPOWER DON'T VALIDATE TRANSACTIONS OR SECURE THE NETWORK YOU FUCKING BRAINLET

>>6750905
Funny thing is it impossible to even set LN channels for millions users. 30 millions bitcoin users will open their channels for half a year if there is no other onchain transactions besides LN settlements, because 1 mb block can handle only 300 000 transactions per day. Why (((they))) do this to bitcoin?

>>6754429
you sure about that? Better catch up.

>>6754431
Developers do and I'm not downloading TB's worth of transactions because a bunch of fucking retards think they know how to scale software.

Go suck Jihan's dick faggot.

BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH

>>6754500
I love how you copy paste your own fucking comments and post it over and over again.

>>6754434
that's compounding. year one will cost $500, year 5 will cost $2500.
that's at 2k tps when 4ks tps is a possible average.

hard drive efficiency only improves at 1% per year, also.

>>6754379
do it anon, i believe in you

>>6754548
If a transaction or block violates the consensus rules, then it is absolutely rejected, even if every other node on the network thinks that it is valid. This is one of the most important characteristics of full nodes: they do what's right no matter what. For full nodes, miners actually have fairly limited power: they can only reorder or remove transactions, and only by expending a lot of computing power. A powerful miner is able to execute some serious attacks, but because full nodes rely on miners only for a few things, miners could not completely change or destroy Bitcoin

>>6754595
>brainlet

>>6754604
trying to drill it into your thick fucking skull since you're a slow learner.

>>6754633
>then it is absolutely rejected, even if every other node on the network thinks that it is valid

So? It doesn't do anything. If someone has 51% hashpower they now run the Bitcoin they want, your node can reject it but the network doesn't care. Your node has no power to run any other blockchain.

>>6754643
My $0 worth of BCash proves my IQ is pretty high up there anon.

>>6754633
All a full node with no hashpower can do is see malicious actions. They literally can't influence the network in any meaningful way. The only people who need to run full nodes are miners and some merchants.

>>6754604
Yea I'm pretty sure its the same XRP shill that does the same shit.

>>6754609
Not cost prohibitive in the slightest

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-cost-per-gigabyte/

>>6754685
Running your own full node is the only way to have full control and to ensure that all the rules of Bitcoin are being followed. Nodes do this by rejecting blocks and transactions that don’t follow the consensus rules and by rejecting connections from peers that send them (or too many of them).

In this sense, nodes are more important than hash power as they are the ones that verify that the blockchain is following the rules. Even with the longest Proof-of-Work chain, nodes will still determine if said chain follows the rules and whether or not it is accepted or ignored

That pic freaks me out, looks exactly like my cousin.

>>6754861
FULL NODES WITHOUT HASHPOWER DO NOT VALIDATE ANYTHING AT ALL EVER ON THE NETWORK. END YOUR FUCKING LIFE

>>6754944
Are you literally retarded? Full nodes validate their local copy of the blockchain.

>>6754944
In the possible event of a hard fork where both blockchains remain active with economic activity on each side like the one in Ethereum/Ethereum Classic, running a full node is the only way you can validate the rules of the new or old blockchain, according to your preference. If you don’t run a full node, your opinion will not be considered and you will simply follow the blockchain that is given to you.

Running a full node of the client you support is also an indirect way of voting, which shows miners what rule set the users overwhelmingly support.

You've been brainwashed propaganda and huffing ver's fartbox far too long. You're unsalvageable. Don't procreate you retard.

There are million coins better than btc and bcash, stop FUD. /thread closed

>>6755024
You get it anon.

I love you.

>>6754861
Sorry but you're an idiot.
The term "node" refered originally to a miner. What you probably have at home is a useless node that just downloads the blockchain but doesn't do any work.

>Nodes do this by rejecting blocks and transactions that don’t follow the consensus rules and by rejecting connections from peers that send them (or too many of them).

I already told you why this is bullshit. A non-mining-node is the same as a mining-node except it doesn't do anything for the network. All it does is give the information to the miner. You probably have been brainwashed by people such as Andreas Antonopulous.

>>6755004
>>6755024
All full nodes without hashpower can do is see malicious actions without the ability to dick about it. You can verify consensus rules are being followed or not followed, but you literally have no power to do anything about it without any fucking hashpower.

>>6750905
>>6750905
>>6750905

I won't get into who I am, even though it would give more weight to what I'm saying. In any case, OP is a fucking moron that has no idea what the fuck he is talking about because he is not a LN developer or a cryptographer. It used to be necessary for me to provide a long winded refutation and explanation as to how/why all the things that faggot OP is spewing is factually incorrect but now everyone can just see the network developing and that's it, enjoy. **link to overview of the network is below**

https://lnmainnet.gaben.win

>>6755188
>appeal to authority
>doesn't even reveal the authoritative source

How fucking desperate can a person be?

>>6755132
>>6755158

Non-mining full nodes are needed to economically enforce the network rules on miners. Without at least a supermajority of the economy enforcing the rules, miners are de facto free to violate them at will, however they feel is best. You effectively just create the Fed all over again, but with a bunch of wasted energy for no reason.

>>6755231

I said it won't do shit and I didn't bother to do so. I also provided a link to the network development thus far. Check out the link and make your own conclusions. Tx are routing already and more users continue to join, it's not that complicated. Tbh I really don't care who believes it and who doesn't. I only come here still because 4chan is how I found out about btc years ago so I try and stop by to give back a little guidance every now and then. Believe what you will, it makes no difference to me.

>>6755132
>>6755158

>>6755394
>miners are free to violate consensus rules
>literally has no fucking clue has bitcoin works

Just fuck economic incentives and game theory and shit.

>>6753588
I can't even sweep all of my coins into segwit addresses because it's prohibitively expensive to do this

so when am I going to be able to use LN ever?

>>6755394
Can you tell me what non-mining nodes do that mining-nodes don't?

Also if the miners were to change the protocol how would your non-mining node stop it?

All this LN drama. Just buy ETH and POS and sharding and raiden will land this year.

>>6755548
This shit is actually important, even if you don't have a stake in either.

>>6755394
There is no miners, there is mining pools and people who vote for them with hashpower. There is only ~10 computers in entire world what do some mining. These computers stored in datacenters. These computers are known business and can be regulated by government any day. No nodes can have some influence on these computers.

>>6754609
There's already that much spent on fees IN EVERY SINGLE BLOCK

you're focusing on the cost of 1000 people having to spend $2500 a year, while 1000 people spend $2500 every TEN MINUTES

Crypto is in its infancy and proper long term scaling solutions will be found. In the mean time there's no reason to up the block size to be able to handle transactions. It is literally retarded not to have increased block sizes 2 or 4x. Internet speeds have increased in the last five years. Niggers in Africa who could handle a 1mb block can handle a 2mb block now so there is no centralisation argument with a small block size increase.

If they had increased the block size bch wouldn't exist. Instead they fucked btc, encouraged a competitor and put all normal users off using this shit coin which as designed to be used for cheap fast transactions.

Regardless of what scaling solution you like or what works, or will work, the best they turned btc into a shitcoin for no reason, wasted their first mover advantage.

Who cares if LN works or not, it's too late, they fucked it all up and if you can't see this or if you want to spend all day discussing technical minutia then you clearly can't see the forest for the trees.

Plus everyone who had bitcoin before the fees got out of control (which isn't me so I'm not saying this for my own benefit) would be way richer now because btc's value would be way higher.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

With 1 mb block bitcoin network can handle 300 000 transactions per day
Every LN user need at least open one LN channel
30 millions users would need 100 days to open a channel if there is no transactions besides LN settlements
300 million users need several years for this.
LN channels should be also closed, refilled, reset and who ever know what. This all need onchain transfers network can't handle at all.

>>6755755

I think increasing the block size would have been prudent, but make no mistake, LN does work and is working right this very moment.

>>6750905
>b) have a listening node with no router/firewall
what is port forwarding

>>6751696
sharding

this is precisely why I sold all my BTC for ETH

>>6755838
Even if it does, normal people are not gonna go through the hassle of downloading that software and running a lightning node and opening channels. They are rather gonna use BCH or ETH or LTC or ZEC or fucking Doge. Anything works better than BTC.

>>6753714
>I-I-IT'S ABOUT SECURITY AND DECENTRALIZATION
>one chink company owns all the hashing power

LAUGH
OUT
FUCKINGF
GIGALOUD

>>6756260
So much better to have three chinks owning all pools and hashing power, yes?
DECENTRALIZED AS FUCK

>>6756049

Try eclair wallet you dumb cunt. Also, sending an email used to be difficult for the average person and now a 90 year old geezer can send one so relax.

>>6756446
>and now
Yes, now no one use email for correspondence. Only to recive activation links for some bullshit online service.

>>6756446
Literally why would anyone do that, especially when almost no business or exchange accepts Lightning transactions? ETH has way more transactions and is much faster and cheaper, BTC is just a complete joke and nobody except for braindead cultist is gonna wait for LN adoption.

>>6756577

The point isn't whether or not people use it, the point is that it's trivial to use. You are moving the goal posts cunty.

>>6755755
Agreed, there is much to bitcoin that would have made it worth over $100k right now if they wouldn't have removed all its functionality. To included opt codes and the ability to do color coins. Etherieum didn't even need to exist. Vatalik wanted to launch everything on Bitcoin but was fucking blocked by Core who called smart contracts spam.

>>6751402
Please write more, I got smarter reading you.

>>6756640
Fucking this. Bitcoin's network effect was basically unstoppable until Corecucks with the help of Blockstream completely fucking ruined everything! Now they want us to wait on LN. Another system within a system that relies on network effect.

Yo dawg, I heard you like adoption, so I put adoption in your adoption so you can wait on more adoption while you're still waiting for adoption.

>>6756640

Because as soon as ecommerce stores start to offer 5 to 10% discounts on items paid through LN, they instantly connected millions of people relatively quickly. The fees on Ether are not sub satoshi and they won't be until Raiden is deployed. I expect Raiden to be pretty great too but I think everyone here should be aware that a global venmo is about to emerge from LN on btc. Be careful with your alt exposure is all I'm saying. Member the auroracoins of the world.

>>6756673
How retarded should one be to compare e-mail and bitcoin? Email was decentraluzed and now it's centraluzed. No one run their own mail server these days. You need to provide your phone number and name to use it, you can be blocked. This is why we need big blocks, you dufus.

>>6756873
Or just accept BCH and do this now.

>>6756914
I run my own mail server
the protocol is the same. I can email your centralized server and they can email me back

>>6756873
Why would they offer 5 or 10% discounts? Just implementing the LN is already overcomplicated and there is no reason to do it when there are enough other cryptos.

Also with the LN you don't connect to millions of people relatively quickly, first you need millions of channels with high enough capacity opened which is gonna cost a lot of BTC and there is no guarantee that you can always route to the specific target in every situation. It's completely unrealistic.

>>6756914

I'm not making a point about the service, I am making a point that it used to be difficult to use and now it's easy. Since you are an especially dumb cunt I will make this easier for you. Rememberrrr how like using the internet used to be hard and stuff and now it's like easy for grandma's and stuff, well that's what will happen with LN.

>>6756957
So, we don't need bitcoin because you run your own mail server? Corecucs, please, this is embarassing.

>>6757100
LN actually adds a layer of complexity, so no it doesn't help adoption in any way. You're thinking of user interfaces or other applications that make things more user friendly. That isn't LN.

>>6751376
>BCH will also go down with BTC, all faith will be shaken.
literally everything BCH camp has been saying will be proven correct, it wont kill bch but yes price might drop there too if btc loses 98% of value

>>6757027

For the merchants:

Instant payment no 30 day wait like with cc.

No chargebacks.

No cc fees per tx.

No cc fees monthly or yearly to cc companies.

The network is already up and routing txs.

You can open a channel with pretty much anyone on network and you will be connected with everyone else.

>>6752709
When will it become obvious to even the normies that this won't ever work? Will they ever admit defeat, try to push a crippled solution, or what do you think their end game is? That is, how do you see this playing out, and over what time frame? Thanks again for the info.

>>6757100
No it's not. You can't even make LN xhannel for every user.
---> >>6755823
Bitcoin already has full blocks and there is no room for additional millions onchain transactions for LN settlements and shit

>>6757186

That is LN, look at eclair wallet dummy. Also, none of the really good ui/ux people have gotten involved yet but they are coming.

>>6757287

I am not saying LN is easy now, my god you are dumb. I am saying it will get more user friendly over time.....uh you know, like literally everything else in human existence.

>>6757249
All these apply to multiple cryptos, no LN required. The scaling problem is fabricated by Blockstream.

>You can open a channel with pretty much anyone on network and you will be connected with everyone else.

Wrong, for a complete Lightning Network among everyone to exist, every single Bitcoin user would have to open enough channels to either connect directly or indirectly to every other person and every single channel would have to have gigantic amount of BTC locked up so everyone can route through. This is incredibly expensive, more expensive than what most people can afford. And with every hop you add, the time and cost of the transaction increases.

>>6757143
never made that argument.
you said nobody runs their own mail server and I said I did.
your lack of knowledge of technology is embarrassing.

>>6757422
YOU CAN"T RELEASE LN NETWORK BECAUSE YOU CANT PROVIDE LN CHANNELS FOR ALL USERS
THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN RUN LN NETWORK WITH 1 MB BLOCK
THERE IS NO ROOM FOR ONCHAIN SETTLEMENTS
NO WAY TO OPEN A LN CHANNEL FOR ALL THE USERS IN A YEARS OR EBEN TEN YEARS, you dufus

>>6757321
LN in no way boosts user adoption. Its another step that a user has to take to use the network. Again you're thinking of UIs or custodial services like Coinbase that handhold.

>>6757437

There is no decentralized cryptocurrency currently thst can scale without a layer 2. Not hashgraph, not dags, not pos, not dpos, nothing.

Putting money into LN is like putting money into a global venmo checking account, it's really not hard to understand. For 5 bucks you can put 500 bucks in and enjoy sub satoshi fees on the network for as long as you would like.

This reminds me of 2013 and everyone that lost on alts after the bubble popped, maybe you faggots are meant to be poor.

>>6757677
>There is no decentralized cryptocurrency currently thst can scale without a layer 2

False

>>6757621

Global anon venmo is coming and it will be easier than you can possibly imagine.

>>6757529
You just 4chin troll who pretend to be retwrded. No one run their mail server if it's not for their webservice these days. No personal mail servers. Period.

>>6757757

How big are your blocks with 1 billion users?

>>6757789

You are really embarrassing yourself, please stop or just kys.

>>6757677
>There is no decentralized cryptocurrency currently thst can scale without a layer 2. Not hashgraph, not dags, not pos, not dpos, nothing.

Wrong again. 1GB blocks are already possible with today's hardware. That is way more transaction throughput than what is required. And I already told you why the LN doesn't work in a decentralized manner.

>>6757677
There is no decentralised crypto. DPoW bitcoin not decentralized too. I can name you all mining machines and their owners phine number, you silly

>>6753533
>Who is spreading misinformation?
>lol dont notice that we control 80% of the bch mining
you are

I know how to fix what is wrong with Bitcoin Cash. Last week we tried rebranding Bitcoin Core to Bitcoin Legacy and it didn't catch on. We can't accept making a step backwards from Satoshis true vision. The next step forward in development for Bitcoin Cash is we have to rename the original Bitcoin to Bitcoin Retard so we can progress Bitcoin Cash, the real Bitcoin. We also must make sure to remind Bitcoin Retard followers that development of any kind is bad especially with a dead worthless coin like Bitcoin. Make sure to always sound angry and defensive so people will keep buying our bags instead of investing in coins with a purpose beyond currency. Also don't forget we just got a store in a market that sells fish parts to accept the real Bitcoin. Remember Bitcoin Cash needs Bitcoin Retard to fail to get more people's money.

>>6757947

I asked about 1 billion users. Do you have any idea how big the blocks would be? Do you have an idea about the latency trying to achieve consensus every 10 minutes with blocks that big?

>>6750905
>runs at 350% CPU usage

>>6757889
Why you now threating my life, corecuck? Because my arguments so strong you can't handle it?

>>6758140
lol'd
persistent troll 10/10

>>6757760
>second layer payment services
>yeah that's what crypto currency is all about
>totally not like traditional banking at all

>>6757824
To do Visa tier transactions would require less than 500MB blocks IIRC

>>6758140

No, because you are too much of a dumb cunt to continue a convo with so it's not worth it anymore. I'm already loaded so I don't really care if you faggots stay poor like all the other retards from 2013. These are pity posts because I have a soft spot for biztards still but whatever floats your boat.

>>6758048
Do you know how much Visa can do per second? 1GB blocks does more than that

man that girl is pretty

>>6758253

It's open source competition on the 2nd layer so it's perfectly fine, you obviously don't understand how this works.

Sounds like you also don't know the technical limitations surrounding 500mb blocks every 10 min. Just use a database at that point you cunt.

>>6758463
jfc man, I'm expect to remember every block size and tps? Get fucked cunt. Second layer is perfectly fine in an opt-in environment. BLOCKSTREAM CORE IS NOT OPT-IN. You must use LN if you want to transact, otherwise pay fees ranging from $100-1000s and leadtimes that take days to weeks.

Bitcoin Cash has payment channels, if you want to use second layers to transact you can.

>>6758463
Watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SJm2ep3X_M

>>6758340
but it doesn't do computationally difficult transactions. they're not even exchanging real value, it's credit

>>6758664
What are you talking about? Both BTC and Visa credits are just tiny amounts of data that represent numbers.

Also watch the video I linked.

>>6758622

It is opt in dumb shit. You are free to put all your money into 10gb block bcash all you want but that doesn't mean I will advise it. The existence of bcash and btc is the literal definition of free market opt in capitalism you fucking low iq downy. What do you not understand about this? You have your datacenter coin that doesn't scale, enjoy it moron.

>>6758640

Lmao, none of what was demonstrated actually works in a real live environment, only in squeaky clean lab tests. There is a reason they were all jokes that failed.

>>6758852
omg dude get fucked. I'm talking about opt-in if you're going to be using the Core chain. Unless you're actually so dense that you didn't realize that. Obviously the market is choosing what it wants.

>le 34% dominance face

>>6758640

I love how the comments are disabled because they would get destroyed loooool.

>>6759013

"Durrrrr it's not opt in durrrrrrr"

>Can use identical chain that wants to scale on chain like morons.

What is it you are confused about? Is your iq below 80 or something?

Why not skip all this bullshit and buy OMG?

>>6759139
God this is a waste of time. At any rate don't expect BTC to be in the top 5 or possibly top 10 by EOY.

>>6750905

I've been saying this for forever. The segwit implementation is a fucking dumpster fire. Segwit data is shoved into the extra data field in the coinbase transaction...what a fucking mess.

The whole thing is because AXA bought out Blockstream, and they have absolutely zero interest in a truly decentralized currency. So they bought out the biggest one (really the only one at the time), and that was that.

It's a real shame, honestly, because BTC had the potential to be the de facto. Now it's antiquated garbage.

>>6759239

I own a bunch of chains but I'm 70% btc.

>>6757789
>he's never been to /g/

>>6752887
This, as Anon said, 1GB blocks have been tested. All these newfags don't get it, the blocksize debate has been going on for YEARS. BCH has taken most of BTC's developers like Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin ABC etc and is supported by the miners.

THINK ABOUT THIS: The majority of BTC hashpower comes from miners who support BCH. What is the long term effect on price when BTC miners are continuosly cashing in their BTC fees for BCH? Bitmain already has something like 1million BCH and growing. Think about what this means for BTC.

>>6758963
Yes they do work in real life environments. There is zero point in even arguing with you, you will follow Blockstream into their death if necessary.

>>6752387
Much better idea to let the wound fester until we can get to a doctor in a couple months right? Not to mention your assertion that blocksize increases are only a bandaid is completely false too.

>>6759599

There is a reason eth is going to scale using 2nd layer Raiden too you dumb cunt.

>>6751282
>Because it will prove even the original biggest oldest most expensive was a ponzi scam for years. They sold vaporware.

USD is a ponzi scheme, student loans are a ponzi scheme. I'll take my chances.

Lightning just sounds like a shit idea - a darker reality lies underneath why it exists (centralisation).

It's such a bad fucking idea - having to open a "channel" and hold money in it to send it... lmao

>>6750905
Calm the fuck down, Roger.

>>6760911
>lel

FUCK YOU ROGER AND YOUR B-CASH

>>6757249
or merchants could just use ripple, turn their brains off and have it all handled for them. don't underestimate the power of laziness.

>>6750905
Timing? Q3? Q4?

>>6751942

>>6761615
v1.0rc released. This is why BCashers are scurred:

https://medium.com/@lightning_network/lightning-protocol-1-0-compatibility-achieved-f9d22b7b19c4

Noone cares about Bitcoin anymore anyway.

Buy XLM.

>>6762518
The funny thing about /biz/ is they don't go outside so they have this self perpetuating bias.

The only cryptocurrency a normie has heard of is Bitcoin. It's not going anywhere - November/December was just a taste of the normie assault and they're all coming for BTC.

>>6750905
t. Roger

>>6762518
>>6762677
XLM and XRP aren't crypto currencies.

>>6762703
Thanks pajeet

>>6751352
Gox was supposed to get the "Midas Engine" before it exit scammed.

>>6762423
Nice. Somebody even mentions https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800 in comments. I'm unfortunately too lazy and dumb to understand that...

>>6750905
I'm putting all my money into a BTC short you better not let me down OP