LN vs block size increase

[Anonymous No.5551663]

Scaling along the axis of block-size alone will lead to centralization, and scaling along the axis of lightning-network alone will lead to centralization. Thus block scaling as well as lightning-network need to be implemented at the same same, forming an adversarial relationship with one another. Both LN hubs and miners are incentivized by fees. Should LN hubs charge too much, users will resolve transactions on the blockchain directly and pay miners. Should miners charge too much, users will use LN hubs.

If BTC keeps to their 1mb block size and implements lightning network, then BTC will be centralized without a doubt. Should BTC scale to global adoption levels, then if you ever wished to bypass a lightning network hub, you would be required to pay on the order of $4000 (a conservative estimate) to resolve your transactions on the blockchain, going by current network fees. This would allow ((them)) with their lightning-network banks to simply force you to use their hubs and the blockchain will then become an abstract useless ledger to the average person. This is simply disgusting and corecucks should be hung in public for promoting such depravity.

That said, lightning network is a brilliant idea for off-chain scaling if and only if users are able to freely bypass these hubs and resolve transactions on the blockchain at will with minimal fees.

BTH aims to solve the scaling problem through increasing the block size. As of right now, 2000tps (average tps for visa) could be reached by using 300mb blocks. A common corecuck response is: "300mb blocks will not allow me to validate the ledger". However, this is not an argument. With BTC currently, the vast majority of users don't even run nodes to validate transactions anyway, so they are willing to trust the network implicitly. If you did wish to run a node on a 300mb block size network, all you would need is a 16tb hard drive per year ($300) and a 120mb/s internet connection.

[Anonymous No.5551684]

uhh... in English?

[Anonymous No.5551744]

And that's why you use Litecoin, made by actual engineer, not a retard with "lets send to ip address, lets do a decentralized lottery" (((satoshi))) retards.

[Anonymous No.5551770]

>>5551663
You are an idiot. Inform yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zVzw912wPo

Core targets 133MB blocks

[Anonymous No.5551810]

>>5551770
They don't want to increase block size. Antonopulos said 1mb here forever.

[Anonymous No.5551832]

>>5551810
>Antonopulos said 1mb here forever.
When and where did he say that?

[Anonymous No.5551841]

>>5551663
Hashgraph public announcement in Q1 2018, all the issues of blockchain will be solved

[Anonymous No.5551845]

>>5551744
Mah nigga!

[Anonymous No.5551891]

>>5551744
wtf dude. the guy or people who created bitcoin are pure genius. Even though I agree with you that litecoin is more reliable.