2022-05-12: Ghost posting is now globally disabled. 2022: Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!
Will it ever happen?
Nope. Blockstream is a Jewish failure, like all things Jews do.
>>11754100Please explain to a brainlet what is looking at?>>11754067>>11754068I get the hate, but at the end of the day, if they can make it work, and we have this decentralized blockchain, with some centralized crap on top of it to make it practical for every day use, the market would skyrocket.
>>11754134that's the current stats for the ln mainnet you can start your own node right now if you wanted you can also just download an app like eclair on an android phone and mess with it on the testnet or mainnet.the phone apps are for outgoing payments only though currently.also its only in beta and pic related
>>11754051Why would you run LN when you could just use blockchain transactions?
>>11754181Ah I see, thanks for explaining. What's your sentiment on LN?>>11754230Well, it is one of the solutions to the scaling problem as far as I understand. And different solutions (like increasing blocksize) have different advantages. The biggest problem I have with increasing block sizes is that BCH is spearheaded by a bunch of emotional man-children.
bch's proposition for bigger blocksizes is a pretty crass solution. Current btc proposes that we make btc modular and comprised of different layers. Each layers will provide different functionalities and compromises. LN network may be centralized by design, but the base layer (btc) will always be a reliable, decentralized store of value. When there are traffic jams you don't just widen the roads to solve the issue, you create high speed rails and more efficient public transport system
>>11754051It already happened. You're just not correctly identifying the purpose of the apparatus. You're like a mouse holding out hope the cheese vending machine will soon be complete, but all along it was just a mouse trap. It works fine. You're just not the customer.You're the product.
>>11754389This guy fucks.
>>11754683pls point out the flaws in my statement
>>11754658jesus christ the absolute brainlet of /biz/
>>11754051I already build an app with it what do you want to know?
>>11754892... I could go on quite literally for days. But I'm bored now and don't figure you have a chance of actually grasping it if you haven't by now.
>>11755981satoshi is wrong or being quoted out of contexttry to sync an eth validating node and there's no real activity happening on that chain
>>11756018Satoshi is not wrong, core simply flatly lied. Look at BCH right now with 32mb blocks just fine. Sorry to remaining coretards, but gmaxwell fooled you all and that's all there is to it. Further math to back up just how little of a problem on chain scaling actually is.ETH is a completely different blockchain with a completely different architecture and scaling model, and it still manages just fine with multiples of BTC throughput if you know how to configure a node worth a damn.
thought on pic related?
>>11756097Just more core bullshit. Let's step through it;1) Block propagation was never optimised with proposals like graphene or many of the other options in BTC, because this would reduce the actual impetus to get what the core cult actually wanted; segwit and lightning to advance the interests of blockstream as >>11755971 correctly points out. Furthermore, The costs of running nodes relative to the costs of acquiring and running significant amounts of hashpower are laughably small. I would also note that this core observation, that orphan risk increase, acknowledges the fundamental fact I will make reference to in 4)2) In the sense that you can't run doom on a commodore 64, right. This is still no legitimate excuse as to why doom was a good idea. Your raspberry pi being unable to keep up is not sufficient justification to hold back the entire world from economic freedom. Either get a better node to keep up with the chain or just use SPV as >>11756076 indicates was always the plan. No matter how big the blocks get, the block headers are always the same size.3) This is just a re-statement of 2, and has the exact same response.4) Either block propagation of larger blocks doesn't increase orphan risk, thus costing miners money and meaning they should charge fees, or it does and there's already a fee market. 1) directly contradicts this point. The "negative externalitiy infinite zero cost storage" bugbear is simply a one meg greg myth. It has literally never been even close to true.
>>117562055) It's hard to come to consensus because the special interest group that took political control of the core codebase and made a concerted political effort to kick everyone else out *made it hard*. This is like gosh I can see you can't stop choking on my dick there, that's a pity. What the fuck do you mean take my hand off the back of your head? No.6) Muh schnorr signatures. And where are they now, still? No-fucking-where. And what's your optimisation of a transaction with a base size of 400 bytes going to offer in terms of throughput when we're stuck with a limit you sabotaged us with at 1 megabyte? Fuck all. And what's worse, what did they actually do? Segwit, which actually fucking increases the tx size.7) This is another restatement of 5. We can't agree because we have hijacked and sabotaged the project and now force idiotic demands and perspectives through to the contrary of the very plain well thought out plan on the original project, which has now been proven to empirically work with a year of production deployment on BCH, so it's not even theoretical anymore. Despite the fact it was always obvious it would work because it's actually very simple to calulate the load of the system involved. They simply flat out lied and sabotaged and hijacked the entire thing, that's it, end of story.
>>11756269It confuses me that people still don't know all this shit. Honestly when will you coretards wake up and smell the fucking ashes? YOU LOST.
>>11756097Nice font rendering. What font is that?
It's already happening dumbasshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Fb6Xww2P7cNow sit back and enjoy the ride to $1,000,000
>>11756205>>11756216Same copypasta debunked a million times already.
>>11756541>YOU LOST.This guy gets it...Pretty sure its only the newfags. Such a shame Core got infiltrated ,it only took a few people of subvert the idea...cheap really Sad as most seem to hate PoW.Still HODL some legacy just incase....
>>11756882Where by "debunked" you mean braindead coretards said "is not dumb head" a whole bunch of times.
>>11756541you could still transfer large amounts with monero.
>>11754051It already happened and it failed in case you didn't notice
>>11756939>>11756961you're retards and have been debunked time and time againsoon your ideas will have proven cases of error as eth and bcash crumbleidiots in your group are already calming PoW is dead based off your failures and soon enough pos will have cases of error (if it doesn't already) I'll be laughing as you try to buy .0001 BTC with your 100 dollars left in whatever shitcoin alt token ICO you get scammed by
>>11754389It isn't centralized brainlet
>>11757617Sure, you could totally use an unkiked chain in order to transact in an unkiked fashion. And you could include a kiked chain like XRP or BTC In the loop to make some point about said kiked chain, but what exactly would you have accomplished in so doing? If you want to use fiat, then pic related.
>>11757706>debunkedThese claims are actually impossible to debunk because there's no logic to debunk. The claim is that BTC is now run by kikes. There's nothing more to the claim, no real data or logic, it's a claim of personal revelation which are all impossible to debunk.
Core is dumb and BCH is dumb. 2mb blocks+segwit would have given BTC so much breathing room. 32mb blocks are clearly not needed at this time. Just go to coinmarketcap crypto is dead stop arguing about this. Clearly people just wanted to just hold 1's and 0's and not use this shit. Just look at all the crap projects.
>>11758081>2mb blocks+segwit would haveYou can't hard fork BTC. It doesn't work. All you get for your trouble is some mutant chain like BCH.
>>11758107Fair point. The immutability aspect of BTC is what I really like about it. You can hardford with consensus. Even with LN and Liquid 1mb blocks are not enough for a "world" currency.
>>11757749guy could you restate your arguement in a non memey fashion? with lightning we could have the world use bitcoin today and you can still use xmr as a store of value. we haven't lost anything
>>11757953> no logic to debunkYou think there's a chance they might be using "kiked" as shorthand to refer to the well established fact of https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800Or perhaps drawing your attention to liquid, which rolled out under the exact circumstances which the BCH side said it would, and with the exact same topology, and exact same obvious consequences?Or maybe bakkt, which is literally a plain old standard centralised exchange, without even the pretense of decentralisation?Instead you choose to just ignore all that and say "LOL MUH JOOS HURRR DURRRR".Sad, really. It makes what you're doing transparently obvious to anyone paying even the slightest amount of attention. Core needs to hire a better class of shill.
>>11758126I think real consensus only comes with real use. Academia and theoretical software development is all about arguing, the opposite of consensus.
>>11758230My point is that this should be "hammered" out before any mass adoption.
>>11758228I'm using kiked as a shorthand for these wider claims of general kikery. None of them are coherent enough to "debunk". Blockstream wanting to sell blockchain services isn't a bad thing. If LN topology really becomes centralized (which your memes don't actually "mathematically prove") you may finally have the real world pressure required to hard fork.
>>11758289It's been centralised since the beginning, it's centralised now, and it's not even the most centralised layer in the BTC stack. Your denial of reality does not change it.
>>11758275The more we think like this the longer adoption will take and people will become more used to crypto being something in constant development instead of something relevant in the real world.The common people do intuitively grasp that decentralized ledgers are something very useful but being developed. LN being pushed hard into adoption and allowed to fail if it doesn't work is better for crypto than keeping everything in development mode all the time.>>11758324Mining is also centralized. The problem existed before LN.
baka why do people even talk to coretards? they just waste perfectly good space with their asinine bullshit, if they haven't got the message over a year after the blindingly obvious sabotage and everything that's been shoved up their asses since then, they literally never fucking will. They will be filing tax returns in triplicate on their "state and central bank special support for shitcoin chain" form before they acknowledge they've been had.Just give it the fuck up already, don't even talk to them, it's a waste of time.
>>11758364You miss my point as I fail to deliver it. RIght now the the average daily users of BTC. The block size should be discussed and any changes should be implemented before BTC becomes actually political. Like say after every so many blocks the average TX is confirmed and size adjusts accordingly.
>>11754100>>11754181Friendly reminder that Biz is an echo chamber that has fabricated an entirely false narrative that Bitcoin is dead and stuck in development hell, when in reality it is the most developed and has the most potential for growth. Biz does this mainly to troll, but secondly because of the paranoid schizophrenics here who love self-sabotage.
>>11758641I too get my quality information from /r/bitcoin fellow based coredawg. You tell these peasants what's what.