Topic: BTC as "every day" spending currency vs. 10 min Block Confirmation/Mining time (Read 724 times)

It is not every time that a Bitcoin transaction takes up to a minute, not to talk of taking up to 10 minutes. Most of the times the transactions you are making with Bitcoin takes nearly an instant for it to happen. The only time that we usually experience this increase in the length of time that is taken in a transaction is during a time when the market is increasing  in price (bullish period), which is when the network gets congested, and there are lots of transactions to be processed on the network.

The transactions starts taking a lot of time. But you are given options which goes from the regular fees to priority fees. And when you select a priority fee, your transaction is  processed faster than when you choose the regular fee or a lower fee. By the way we now have lightning network, although this lightning network has not been finished yet and there is still a lot more work to be done on it, but you can still find wallets that are already making use of this technology. Then you can as well choose to be making use of centralized or custodial wallets that would request that you give your information (KYC) to them.

chargebacks are a bane of merchants lives. many people try to 'recall' their money. its not rare. chargeback scamming is a big deal. and its not a simple 'the recipient chooses to reject the application'. what you find is that the customer can say "my bank account was hacked" and the bank favours the customer and does the recall without the merchants permission.
its like ebay, they favour the customer too.

bitcoins settlement irreversibility stops these things and makes people responsible of their assets.. altnets like LN are not new or innovated. they are old school banking economics with the same chargeback(punishment) loopholes and clauses.

altnetter want bitcoin to have replace by fee and conditional contracts(punishments) to introduce chargebacks into bitcoin.. shameful



already have said many idea's. you know it as do your buddies. but the ignorance of you and your chums dont care about bitcoin scaling

heres a quick refresher
1. to prevent 'spam attacks' of people re-spending same value every block to fill blocks. the solution is not to make ALL transactions more expensive(current idiot model). its to actually use the blockheight of the utxo as a measure of how fresh the value is, if its less then X confirms. they pay more.
EG someone respending a 1confirm utxo pays 144x more then someone with a day old utxo
this way someone spending once a day is not paying the same high fee per transaction as a spammer spending 144 times a day.. simple logic and common sense approach. punish just the spammers, not everyone

2. there are other fee formulae's that do actually count all the bytes(like pre 2017 did) where they make a fairer fee charging system for all. and yes they can be implemented as a consensus rule, before you spout out the fake propaganda that fee's are not a rule. after all the ignore witness in fee costing(the vbyte code) is a rule.

3. if the worry is having a single transaction with 2000 signatures/scripts that can cause validation delays. simply limit tx maxsigops to being under 100 signatures

4. go back to lean transactions without all these lengthy 'witness' (special contract condition scripts/signatures)

5. its not about jumping to 100mb by tomorrow, its about taking out the bad math cludge of misguiding the 1mb limit that still exists and instead actually allow full transaction utility of 4mb which is now considered safe data amount per block. then we can actually see more tx count increases. and PERIODICALY increase, not leap to 100mb like the special boys club pretend is the only option on bitcoin, as their lame propagandised excuse to not want scaling

AFAIK a request can be sent during 13 months but the recipient is free to accept it or to deny it.

https://api-docs.form3.tech/tutorial-sepa-instant-receive-a-recall.html

The first response to OP pretty much covered whatever I was going to say when I first saw the topic title, but consider the other solution long implemented by many Bitcoin-accepting services I've been using since 2016:

- Accept the transaction as soon as it's discoverable on the network
- Only allow the delivery of product and/or withdrawal upon 1 confirmation

Of course, it doesn't work for a lot of on-the-go businesses, so you'd have to accept on 0 confirmation BUT you could get on a network of "identifier" wallets, where you encourage the customer to identify their spending wallets (not necessarily KYC) with a trust list.

Propose a solution then. Rather than just complaining and whining non stop, actually propose a change to the protocol which you think will work and let the community debate it. Or go to the Altcoin board and start discussing your chosen Bitcoin fork shitcoin which most closely aligns with your proposed solution instead. You have many to choose from.

And a quick web search tells me that such payments can be reversed for a massive 13 months after the payment date.

Quote me all you like.  I'm not wrong.  Leaving is an option and I wouldn't dream of trying to deprive someone of that freedom.

I say that to explain consensus networks to you in terms that your brain might comprehend.  Yet no matter how many times I explain it, you still don't seem to grasp the concept.  If you are part of the network, you are accepting its rules.  You clearly despise the rules.  It makes no sense for you to stay.  I'm not ordering you to fuck off, I'm highlighting your best option.  

For all your talk about "other networks", you seem to pretend that there aren't other networks which are perusing the scaling path you prefer.  You know they exist.  You know you could get exactly what you say you want by using their protocol and accepting their rules.  But again, you freely choose to stick with our rules when you could have theirs.  Because you recognised the part where our rules have created the stronger network effects and greater utility.  Our rules are working.  So you stay.

The fact that you still use Bitcoin means you agree.  You are opting in, accepting our rules and choosing to stay because you understand that the benefits of staying outweigh the benefits of leaving.  If you try to enforce different rules, the consensus mechanism will remove you.  You understand that too.  So you don't try to enforce new rules.  You just whine about them like a pathetic man-baby.  Impotent and pissy.



But you're a one trick pony with no imagination.  That's all you know how to do.  You will never stop.  We're trying other things.  Exploring innovative ideas.  Advancing new technologies.  If we did things your way, every single time the issue of scaling crops up, your response will forever be "let's just make blocks bigger again" because you have closed your mind to any other ideas.

It's not propaganda.  It's a fact.  You'll deny it, though.  Because, again, you've backed yourself into a corner.  You'll continue to exhibit the same toxic behaviour because you can't concede the fact that you have lost.  The other networks which have chosen to work the way you want us to work are failing to compete.  We are not following that path.  If you're smart, you'll realise it's the wrong path too.


//EDIT:

It's not worth bumping the topic to respond to this crap, so my response is going here:


So you repeat the same mindless bullshit you've been spouting for years, and this is meant to convince me that you're not a one trick pony?  How fucked in the brain are you?  Users decide fees for themselves.  If you want Totalitariancoin with compulsory fees and bigger blocks and an inability to transact off-chain forced upon everyone, build it and fork off.  You are not in a position to force your ideology on us.  You are a lone headcase.  No one cares what you think would be better, because you have proven that all you want to do is control people.

actually LN is not settled in 10 seconds. its in millisat valued "payments" which are not settled. and usually the funding transaction has a lock for multiple blocks meaning it wont settle quickly either. LN's promotion is that people dont need to settle after a week or month, they can just renegotiate their channel millisat balance to 'rebalance' the channels without ever having to settle

You're wrong, in Europe you can make instant wire transfers in less than ten seconds now, with SEPA Instant Credit Transfer. You just need to know the SEPA account number(IBAN) of the person or the company to pay. Only few dozens of cents are usually charged for those wire transfers.

you giving options?

your options is "bitcoin limits stay, bitcoin wont scale... if you dont like it f**k off"
do you want me to quote the number of times you have said to people f**k off to other networks (both **=uc and or)

scaling bitcoin is not your propagandised scripts of 2015-6 where your clubhouse of buddies pretend the only scaling solution is your silly rhetoric "bigblocker: 100mb by midnight". i know you think thats the only option for bitcoin but you are soo wrong on so many levels.

but here is the thing, we are not in 1999 of dial-up and floppy disks.
i can get a 1tb microxd card cheaper than a GPU
i can get monthly internet fibre of 900mb cheaper than just 2 fastfood meals

its not a budget breaker to scale bitcoins blockchain periodically.

bitcoin does not need to jump to 100mb by midnight. so stop with that dead end rhetoric as if its the only option.

what you fangirls miss in your silly thought process. is that although you want fee's to rise to give more persuasion that people should avoid bitcoin.. that same fees rise is the REAL reason less people will use bitcoin daily, and thus less people will run full nodes

the transactions cost being the "just stop using bitcoin advert" is more of the problem for those wanting to run a node daily.. not the hard drive/internet cost.
if you actually cared about wanting more people to be full node users you would actually want more people to use BITCOIN DAILY.

and you would not be chanting "we dont want people using bitcoin for daily stuff like coffee", instead you would be trying to make BITCOIN a daily utility.. not promoting some altcoin to make people not need to be full noders every day because they dont need to check every day, because they are happy on other networks.

heck you and your chums even are foolishly trying to pretend that a pruned node (that wont act as blockchain seeder for peers) pretending its still a full node. to fool people into running nodes that dont support the network

shameful on many levels!!


i can spend less than 1 weeks rent on storage space that can store then entire blockchain as it is now plus the estimated next 5 years..
yet if i was to transact daily. i could not transact daily for 5 years where the total fee's would be less than 1 weeks rent

see the problem
the transaction fees due to limiting bitcoin scaling will cost people more than any hardware scare tactics you pretend exist.

lets just take an example
https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee
today its $3

imagine having your utopian ideology of having LN with 5 channels(average expectation). where the locks/unlocks happen once a month
month 1: 5x$3=$15 lock into 5 channels
month 2: 5x$3=$15 unlock from 5 channels, 5x$3=$15 decide to lock into 5 new channels (running total $45)
month 3: 5x$3=$15 unlock from 5 channels, 5x$3=$15 decide to lock into 5 new channels (running total $75)
month 4: 5x$3=$15 unlock from 5 channels, 5x$3=$15 decide to lock into 5 new channels (running total $105)
month 5: 5x$3=$15 unlock from 5 channels, 5x$3=$15 decide to lock into 5 new channels (running total $135)
month 6: 5x$3=$15 unlock from 5 channels, 5x$3=$15 decide to lock into 5 new channels (running total $165)

oh look in under 6 months time you have spent more value avoiding bitcoin. than buying a storage device that can handle bitcoin upto 2026

so just give up the 7 year old rhetoric and propaganda about hard drive being a node decentralisation killer.. and wake up to the real fact that transaction fee's will be the persuader to make people not want to use bitcoin daily, thus not need to run a node daily.

and another thing.
with the mining reward:fee dynamic of salary:bonus slowly flipping to  fee:reward being salary:bonus. miners will need fee's so they would want more onchain transactions. and instead of keeping it at the average 2500tx a block meaning fee's need to double periodically.. instead if transaction count capacity doubled periodically then people wont have to pay double but mining pools will get double income.

again common sense.

and no the 4mb 'weight' is not a scaling bitcoin. because the 'weight' miscalculation of bytes has not translated into a 4x of transaction count, nor will it. so stop promoting the 4mb weight as 'giving bigblockers more bloat like they asked' as thats not what bitcoiners asked for as a scaling solution(fake counted bloat) they asked for more transaction capacity

When are you going to give an honest appraisal on the flaws of your big-blocker ideology?  Why can't you openly admit that you wish to compel everyone running a full node to bear a larger cost to achieve your preferred outcome?  That's your fantasy.  It's unlikely to come true any time soon.  And what annoys you more than anything else is that LN isn't a fantasy.  It's real and people are using it.

You're the one trying to sell utopia, where there are supposedly no tradeoffs in cranking up the size of blocks to squeeze in more transactions.  Be honest for once in your miserable existence.  Admit there is a cost to having larger blocks.  Admit that you want those who secure the network to bear that increase in cost.

Ours is the pragmatic approach.  If you wish to make lots of relatively small transactions, you have the option of paying for the same on-chain security as someone sending a vast sum, or you have the option of sacrificing some security and making some of your transactions off-chain.  No one is being forced.  We're just presenting the options.

You aren't giving people options.  You're demanding that other people pay for your ideology.  Only problem is, you can't make them.  The people who bear the costs would have to volunteer to increase their burden.  It's collectively up to them.  None of your weasel-words and obnoxious behaviour can alter that fact.

If you have any better ideas (and let's be honest, you clearly don't), then we're going to continue highlighting the benefits of LN because Bitcoin isn't a dictatorship and most users seemingly don't agree with dumping the cost of greater throughput onto those who help secure the network.

derailed, debunked? you are funny.
i was not the one that turned this bitcoin topic into an altnet advert

but what you will actually find is that if you read what i said, without auto replying like a cult member defence guard.
you would see that i said if you actually honestly advertised whats different about LN and its niche away from bitcoin. its features and benefit that are separate to what bitcoin can offer. you would actually end up promoting the altnet better and gain more support for those that want the niche service it offers.

but atleast also promote its issues and flaws so that users are risk aware, and not just the utopian fantasy of bitcoin2.0 brand tagging.

i say this, but i know you wont bother even conceiving the thought. and just continue with your brand stealing auto fame and trust PR method of promoting deceptive utopia's

Because, like many other threads, you have derailed it with your same old tired and already debunked arguments.

Once again - who cares? Altcoins have poorly copied everything which bitcoin has done first, from the blockchain itself, to the elliptic curve, to the mining protocol, to the core software, to HD wallets, to segwit, etc. Them copying Lightning is completely irrelevant.

Spend it! If you want to use bitcoin as a currency, then start using it as a currency. If everyone in the world was only interested in holding bitcoin or trading it back and forth on centralized exchanges, and no one was interested in spending it, then no merchant would go to the effort of accepting it. If there is a demand to spend it, then merchants will start accepting it.

Look for merchants which accept bitcoin directly and shop with them (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5367983). If you can't find a merchant for something you want to buy, then look in to buying a gift card for such a merchant (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/list-gift-cards-providers-5208530). If you still can't spend it, then speak to merchants yourself and tell them you want to pay in bitcoin. You might not be able to convince them yourself, but at least you'll get them thinking about it.

So, all of the posts were mostly helpful and I thank each of you for taking the time to reply.  I didn't recognize that the LN was truly "ready for the game" and I suppose that small purchases (like a slice of pizza or a sandwich) can simply "assume the risk".  To me, this screams that BTC/crypto real can pull this off!

I actually do believe that there will come a time when government's will no longer have the stranglehold on currency that they do now.  The idea of a decentralized blockchain makes a heck of a lot of sense to me and, in the long run, I don't think the banks can stop this from becoming widespread.  Don't get me wrong, they are sure as heck going to try and bring it down and put up obstacles, etc... but - as one Cypherpunk put it - "Just like we now have separation of church and state, in the future we will have separation of currency and state."

I suppose what I am trying to think about is, "What is the best way to get from Point A (today) to Point B (future - cryto-dominated Earth currency)."  I realize that some of you don't think this will happen and I respect that, but I think we are going to see more and more smaller countries go the crytpo route and, eventually, the larger countries will have to succomb or risk being left in the dust.

locking up funds is a bitcoin thing. its not a LN thing. its not measured in millisats, it is not involving "routing" or "invoices" and doesnt require other people to be online to permission the lock.

do not even attempt to try to trivialise the separate things by pretending its the same. even when you want to flip flop in one message they are separate things and then flip flop they are the same thing

you are the one causing the strawman confusion by trying stupidly to make LN be thought of as bitcoin


i have not been the one trying to say that its all the same and that LN is part of bitcoins network. you and your friends of the altnet are the strawmen trying to trivialise it to try making it all sound like the same thing.

and the funnier part is how this whole topic has turned into a altnet promotion topic. just look at Doomad pushing hard to advertise it.

well it is not bitcoin. why do you suggest that me saying its not bitcoin with statements like "argue" and "but". LN is a lightning network not a bitcoin network
lightning is a network for multiple crypto currencies. its not a 'bitcoin' only thing

to use another altnet fangirl analogy
its like ketchup. no one calls it the french fry layer
everyone knows ketchup can be used for multiple things. so why say it should be only talked about as something for french fries or even pretend it is french fries when its obviously ketchup

ketchup has different nutrient content than fries. ketchup is stored in different packaging as fries and ketchup is served differently then fries. fries are put into paper containers. ketchup is squeezed out of plastic bottles. ketchup has a messy liquidity issue with how it flows.

i know you want to act as if its 'bitcoin2.0", but thats just to tag on a brand recognised coin to win instant fame and trust. even though LN's flaws do not deserve the trust bitcoin has.

and i am surprised rath is now trying to confuse the bitcoin locks vs the LN payments. by pretending the settlement commitment is the same contract as the invoice/payment temporary things that dont broadcast.

they are separate things. for separate purposes. appearing on separate networks

HTLCs are used only in commitment transactions when there is at least one unsettled payment in the channel.

franky's point is that HTLCs are not Bitcoin because they need to be "converted" (routed down to a whole satoshi). Otherwise, HTLC outputs would be invalid and nodes would reject such commitment transaction. When someone asks you to forward for example 500 msat, you sign a new commitment transaction with a higher fee; there is no HTLC output. At worst, you can lose 999 msat, which is worth $0.00047 at the moment, when you close your channel. Oh, and the same applies to HTLCs and final balances below the dust limit.

So, yes, there is some trust involved here. You might not get either up to 999 msat (~$0.00047) or up to 546 sat (~$0.26) back. It doesn't really matter when you are the founder of the channel; you have to pay the transaction fee anyway.

The Lightning Network could work without milisatoshis, but franky would still argue that it's not Bitcoin because you are not guaranteed to get your money since someone might broadcast an outdated commitment transaction while you are offline.

It's worth mentioning at this point that if anyone wants a nice tidy topic regarding LN, they can head to the Development & Technical Discussion sub.  Because franky1 annoyed two moderators by being a disingenuous shitweasel, he is banned from posting in these topics and you won't have to read his tedious mindless drivel:

• The Lightning Network FAQ
• The Lightning Network node experience
• bitcoind, c-lightning and RTL on centos 7 (walktrough)
• [Complete] A fortnight of lessons on the lightning network

Lol.

Opening and closing channels via HTLCs - on main chain.
Individual Lightning payments - not on main chain. The entire point of Lightning is that these transactions happen off chain. No one has ever claimed that these transactions should be on the main chain (except you when constructing your pointless strawman).

This is not a difficult concept.

just grow up. seems you cant put your fangirl bias aside to think logically.

LN's payments are denominated in millisats. something that does not confirm on the bitcoin network.

funny part is YOU are now saying that LN payments DO confirm on the bitcoin network even though just yesterday you were saying no one has ever claimed that lightning transaction will be confirmed on the bitcoin network

you keep contradicting yourself.
why is it that LN fangirls flip flop and change their mind about how LN should be described. its as if they are just reading some glossy pamphlet of positive words, without actually trying to look at the code or actual functions.

by you flip flopping and contradicting even yourself. seems you are misstating the facts to fit your ever changing narrative. yet my narrative has stayed the same and can be backed up by code and issues raised by LN devs themselves.

anyway it seems you cannot escape your never ending desire to try promoting LN and coax people to use it as oppose to using bitcoin. so ill just leave you alone in your insane flips and flops. and just chuckle at your failed attempts to give straight honest answers.

i see no point trying to explain things outside of your glossy pamphlet of misstatements. because you have obviously failed to even try to spend 10 minutes thinking outside your fangirl prospective. so no point wasting time explaining things to the ignorant flip flopper fantasists of altnet promoters

+1
Indeed, it is the idea of my answer in a general context, using bitcoin as it is designed is a solution that many may not like but there are already solutions such as LN and that same alternative in itself satisfies some, but having followers or Detractors of any of the alternatives does not actually imply that Bitcoin is not moving forward.

And you implying that the HTLCs which Lightning is based on, which obviously do confirm on the main chain, are identical to individual Lightning payments which don't, just goes to show you either don't understand what you are talking about or are deliberately misstating the facts to fit your narrative.

Repeating the same non-argument over and over doesn't make it any more true. Just because altcoins have copied Lightning (you know, because it works, despite what you keep saying), does not mean it is any less bitcoin. Altcoins all copied the very idea of a blockchain. Does that mean bitcoin is actually an altnet now or some "multi-crypto system", as you put it? Of course not. Just because I'm running a bitcoin lightning node does not mean I'm routing altcoin payments or any other such nonsense.

If you don't like Lightning (despite the fact I'm almost certain you've never actually used it), then don't use it. Simple. If you really want to fight against fake bitcoin, then turn your attention to tokenized bitcoin or wrapped bitcoin on top of centralized shitcoins.