Topic: Comparison of Offchain Solutions for Crypto Coins - page 4. (Read 1225 times)

No one in their right mind is going to argue anything about cheques in this context, because it's a false analogy.  There is no valid comparison between Lightning and traditional banking, as I've made it abundantly clear to you in the past.  They are entirely different things.

I dare you to argue that sending a standard Bitcoin transaction which doesn't confirm because you didn't include a suitable fee means you paid someone in full. 
I dare you to argue that sending a standard Bitcoin transaction which doesn't confirm because you attempted a double spend means you paid someone in full.

What's your point?  Do you ever have one? 

Finally , something we agree on!  


Again you stupidly fail to comprehend,
Whichever coin that succeeds and over throws Bitcoin will have ample ONCHAIN capacity to handle it's workload.
If LN does become a big deal, then that coin would be Litecoin which has onchain capacity and a segwit infection.

The ASICS miners are the ones that will determine which of the Bitcoins survive and thrive,
so you have to ask them what their plans are for btc, bch , & bsv, because they are the ones maintaining all three.

Notice LN is an 3rd party offchain IOU network and it's success or failure is irrelevant to btc future.

However the general populace will determine which is the coin that sits atop CMK.

things you will learn when you finally gt around to actually use LN:
1. values IN A CHANNEL  are not 8 decimal.
2. thus what is signed in channel is not even true BTC
3. unconfirmed transactions are not settled. until funds are settled you still owe the person value(imagine how cheques work when a cheque bounces/doesnt clear)
4. signing TO pay. is an agreement. AKA a contract. it is not actually the settled payment itself
5. saying that unconfirmed payments not on the blockchain are as good and final as confirmed blockchain payments is the foolish mindset of not understanding the point of ledgers/ and more specifically blockchain secured ledgers.
6. you may then learn that things like schnorr means that contracts/agreements dont need all parties signatures. (think about that)
7. if you think that an agreement is not a declaration of something you owe that you agree to pay. (emphasis: OWE) then you have much to learn about basic economics let alone bitcoin

i know you have not used LN. so understand it from the same logic of old tech 'signed value payments'

its much like going to court and agreeing you owe the court a fine. this does not mean setting/signing an agreement is in itself settling the debt

i dare you to argue that writing a cheque that is never sent to a bank means you paid someone in full.
i dare you to argue that writing a cheque that is never cleared by a bank means you paid someone in full.
i dare you to argue that writing a cheque that bounces means you paid someone in full.

have a nice day

I am the most stupid moron in the community, I accept that. I wish I was as smart as you.


There are no IOUs in Lightning. I cannot accept something which is simply not true. Transactions in Lightning are signed transactions made by both participants of a channel, that are not yet broadcasted and included in the blockchain.

You are not sending a worthless IOU to the other end of the channel.


Then are you confident that Bitcoin Cash SV, the biggest blocks of them all, will be a success, and take Bitcoin's place in 10 years?

you honestly think/trying to say people think a currency is better if they CANT use it when they like or for a cost they can afford??
really? (facepalm)


cheapness is about the COST. artificially raising the fee but limiting its utility is not about getting better quality, better utility. its about just raising the fee to make less people want to use it. to advertise an alternative product/solution as a replacement.

yep and your on a mission to pretend alternative networks are bitcoin(facepalm)

natural supply and demand. not artificially caused decrease in supply by making bloated tx sizes and stiffling the throughput potential


its not realistic to expect an alternative network like LN to be the replacement for what the original ethos of bitcoin was...
(should you ever dare challenge yourself to go learn and research what bitcoin truly is)

its not about being a "one true coin" (EG one world currency)
its about being a true coin that is barrierless to entry. that does not require some membership fee or large fee just to use
its about the whole point of blockchains/bitcoin being to get away from needing 'bankers' co-authority

i admit i am a bitcoin fan.
i guess you are admitting your not a bitcoin fan

doomad trying to advocate that transaction throughput should stay down purely to cause an 'open market' is stupid
your quote above about the need for a 'open market' does not show WHO actually benefits. from the artificial open market you advocate.
after all raising the fee just makes more people NOT want to use it.
the tx fee by raising it has NO positive inpact on the 'asset value' infact basic logic by having less desire to use bitcoin will actually cause the asset value to not increase
the tx fee by raising it has NO positive impact on the income of miners. infact by raising the fee to lets say $1(~$2k average total is not even 4% bonus. but will cause less people to want to transact. making the total less than~$2k meaning not a good bonus
its far better to have ways to get more people to adopt bitcoin than it is to deburden bitcoin of people..
that way with more people fee's stay low but the combined fee total adds up to be something that will eventually give miners an advantage(emphasis eventually: decades(smooth scaling).. not mass growth by midnight which u propagandise as the only onchain option)

doomad you advocation for alternative networks is absurd.
especially when that advocation is about advertising an alternative network that
uses pegged coins(12 decimals!!).
require other people to be online just to make payment.
require other people to have their own funding just to allow your payment to be passed via them
requires other peoples PERMISSION

EG
bitcoin. a homeless guy can just make a public key and sit on the streets displaying it.
LN. the homeless guy needs to 'buy a channel' and be online 24/7 to accept payments plus have other people involved that also need to be online to pass the payment. then also need to ensure other people dont route their own payments through the homeless guy taking the value away from the homeless guy.

do you even understand the whole point of bitcoin was to get away from needing 'managers' just to make a payment

we all know you will cry how you pretend core(who CAN slide in network changes without community agreement) have no control, yet deep down everyone can see you love that bitcoin network is now controlled and you love how funds on LN are a business model of control.

we all know you are dead against the true original ethos of bitcoin freedoms and your a strong advocate of capitalism/control.
we all know you are dead against a currency that could be used worldwide and even by the homeless

but the day you realise that you personally will not financially gain from the alternative networks. your blind careless mindset to dislike bitcoin will be your own downfall.

but here is a few lessons to you.
1. mayb you should spend more time on a LN forum. as you will seem to be a happier person there
2. trying to suggest that being a bitcoin fan is a bad thing, and how being a LN fan is a good thing does not help bitcoin
3. trying to suggest that loving LN is somehow loving bitcoin. when obviously they are separate networks, is your own false advertising,
4. your echo chamber of bitcoin scaling onchain is only achievable via X is your own false advertising
5. your echo chamber of bitcoin transacting is only achievable via X is your own false advertising

we all get it. you love the artificially crated 'open market' but you have failed at every opportunity to explain WHO benefits from it to actually make the 'open market' a positive thing FOR BITCOIN

I've been to see local bands at small venues, where the entry price was £2.  I've been to see well-known bands at national venues, where the price has been £70 or more once you add the booking fees and whatever other crap they include in the price.  And I can promise you more people were at the £70+ gigs.  People are absolutely willing to pay higher prices if they want a big name, even if some of the local bands that only a few people have ever heard of might have some serious talent.  It happens all the time in the real world, so I suggest you come back to it.

So where else in the real world , do you pay 33X the normal price for anything?

It is hard to believe you are that stupid,
but if you want to show proof that you on average pay 33X the normal gas price, food prices , or other, feel free to share.  

Personally I pay more for performance, and btc is on the bottom end of that scale.

Obsessing over increased throughput at the base protocol level to the exclusion of all else is foolish.  Throughput is not the sole feature users are looking for in a coin, despite how much you like to pretend it's literally the only thing that matters.  Cheaper doesn't always mean better.  Sometimes in the real world you get exactly what you pay for, so if you buy cheap, you get cheap quality in return.  In the real world, products compete for market share.  Cryptocurrencies are no different.  It's an open market.  Bitcoin is clearly not the only coin.  But it is currently the one with the highest security, the strongest network effects and the widest brand recognition.  It's only natural you would expect to pay a bit more for such desirable qualities, because supply and demand is an important factor in free and open markets.  However, it's not realistic to expect Bitcoin to be the one-size-fits-all product for every single crypto transaction in the known universe.  If you and franky1 are advocating that Bitcoin should be the "one true coin" that does everything for everyone otherwise it's somehow broken, then perhaps it is you who are the fanatics.  

 

cant wait for doomad to realise he wont get rich from LN. then he will realise his endless promotion of LN was for nothing.

Yet, you debunked nothing as the business owner just quit using btc.
Just like users in the past 2 days quit using btc , which is the only reason transactions have dropped.
You can see etherum onchain transaction spiking over the last few days to compensate for btc incompetence.
https://etherscan.io/chart

That is the bad part about talking to a bitcoin fanatic that is blinded by a false religious belief in a tech product.

When a sane person uses a product , they compare fees require and service provided.
BTC does not need to be free, but 33X the competing coins, is a recipe for being ignored.

In your mindless world, only btc exists, in the true reality their are other ways to pay and people choose them.

No one cares if you can't see the sense in it.  Other people can see the sense in it and that's why it's happening.  If more people saw things the way you do, it might be different.  But they don't see things the way you do.  You are free to start your own network if you don't like what's happening on this one.  That would make far more sense than you incessantly whining to all the people supporting this network that you aren't getting a free ride. 



Which is why I'm free to discuss why your ideas are abysmal.  If you don't like me talking about why your ideas are abysmal, cry harder, because it's not going to change.  Other chains are doing on-chain scaling.  This chain is doing small amounts of on-chain scaling as and when the users deem it appropriate.  On-chain scaling may increase in future, but if/when it does happen, I can assure you that your ceaseless bawling won't be the catalyst.

doomad
all i hear is your insults blowing in the wind like a tumbleweed

if you want to find out if mining pools care about tx fees. GO DO SOME RESEARCH and ask them
ask them do they care about $400 or $62k

why should there be any fee pressure? again trying to pressure people to pay 20cents (ruling out many regions of the world..) purely to give pools $400?? makes no sense

secondly
'full node users' dont get anything from being full nodes. so its not like bitcoin fee's need to climb to keep things decentralised.

the whole situation is to FAKE that pools NEED $400+ and to do so, by saying that fee's need to rise, and to do that transaction throughput needs to be restricted.

what i find truly foolish and stupid is you actually are advocating for restricting transaction throughput. plus onto of that you are actively promoting deburdening bitcoin of its utility, while trying to offer people to use other networks

your just emotional that your not 'getting rich' and you dont like it that i am pro bitcoin and anti fiat enrichment

actually. this is a discussion forum. whr people talk and discuss informationa and opinions. if you dont like mine. press the ignore button.
if you think that this forum is some kind of 'vetoing' venue with some power to oveer-rule code and network protocols. then you have no clue.
learn the difference between information and opinion, vs the code consensus.. oh and then learn that code doesnt string out of nowhere but is developed by developers.
and then learn that before developers dont their controversial hardkfork on august first 2017 to fake a victory.. core was only getting 35% as of spring 2017. meaning 65% not wanting cores bip..

you may learn this if you actually done some research and learned about bitcoin. rather than just trying endlessly to stop people talking about things you dislike

I'd rather hear that directly from them, rather than a renowned disinformation agent like you.



Except for the part where you're the one who keeps saying it's "bad" and "expensive" because you are bitter and resentful about the fact that Bitcoin is not a democracy where we have to care about what you think.  We are categorically not doing what you'd like us to be doing and I genuinely don't care how incapable you are of accepting that, because it makes no difference to Bitcoin. 

Anyone who is capable of taking a neutral and balanced stance (clearly not you), would say that there are compromises involved and that we need to explore all the options, rather than just increasing throughput in the base protocol each and every time transaction fees begin to rise.  That's not deemed a sustainable approach for a blockchain that has to deal with as much traffic as Bitcoin.  In the last 24 hours, Bitcoin handled nearly 400,000 transactions, averaging over 16000 transactions per hour.  Most altcoins don't even come close to one-tenth of that.  What those coins might be able to handle if they ever came close to their capacity is completely irrelevant.  What their fees are right now is completely irrelevant.  They are not valid comparisons if they do not handle the same amount of traffic.



And I really find it stupid how some people think that having no fee pressure is positive.  Each to their own, I guess.  Maybe come back when you have some actual support for your terrible ideas.  Until then, your impotent whining is achieving nothing. 

Maybe next you could tell us again how it's the developers who are supposedly "stalling development" when in reality it's you who wish you could stall development by vetoing any changes you don't like with just 6% of the network disagreeing.  Sorry, but you are not in a position to block the advancements that have already been made, and it's unlikely you'll be in any position to block any future advancements.  But I'm sure you'll stick around to bitch about it all the while, anyway. 

mining pools do not care about tx fee's
the block reward is adequate payment.(its why pools do empty blocks or dont just accept top fee tx's)
also if the blockreward is not adequate then things like the bitcoin deflationary value will take care of that, as has been the case for the last 9 years

again pools dont think tx fee's are significant nor important nor necessary right now.
2000tx of 20cent = $400
vs
12.5*$5000=$62k
pools do not even think about the $400 compared to $62k..
yet 2000 people DO care about the 20cent fee.
20cent actually rule out a significant prcentage of population where that 20cent is mor than an hours wage.

there is no point in trying to push for a fee war now under the foolish and empty argument of benefiting pools. if the pools themselves dont care.

the real reason stupid foolish fiatlovers are trying to push for a bitcoin fee war, is to make bitcoin look bad, look useless, look expensive. just so they can advertise the only way to buy things is not via blockchains but via managed accounts (old tech banking)

put it this way. under the pretense of not moving the transaction count of BITCOIN NETWORK
to cause an even income stream of say $62k. each ''offchain' open/settlement =$31
who would pay $31

imagine going to a bar/pub and they said they can offer a bartab system of 'cheap fee's' but they had a bartab setup and a bartab settlement fee of $31 each side.. not only would you laugh at the barman... but you would also avoid using the bar/pub

i really find it stupid how many people think that fee wars are positive and needed

Everything , you don't want to hear is fud, no matter how many different sources it comes from.

Everything you say is bitcoin fanatic bullshit, keep ignoring reality, it will bite you in the arse one day.

He should have just used litecoin, and only cost 6 cents, instead of wasting $2 on btc.

I read the article a long time ago. The guy is talking about paying wages to his employees using Lightning, which is unnecessary. He could simply do 1 on-chain multi-output transaction and pay all his employees at once for $2.

Its just anti-bitcoin propaganda straight from the factory.

Everything else in your reply is unsubstantiated fear-mongering B.S.

The failure is in the unconfirmed transactions that can sit for days or weeks making btc unusable as a money transfer system.
I guess your memory will get jogged once transaction fees start hitting $20 again.  


What you fail to understand, is that is a nonsense argument for refusing to update.
Should we have all stayed on 26k dial-up modems, just because a few people did not want to upgrade to cable internet.
The fact is, almost every other coin has increased onchain capacity over btc, (and they all run fine)
some maxed out to 32mb and higher, 4mb would be nothing to handle compared to that.
(Even the true 2mb you wanted, would have easily handled the current volume.)

Those non-mining nodes are an excuse, which the big players like Coinbase or exchanges would have no trouble running anything,
the networks could dish out, the guy living in his mom's basement can't keep up, so fucking what,
it is not like he actually makes a difference.
If people are not mining, and are not an major wallet/exchange service, it is stupid for them to run a non-mining node anyway.
If you want it, start paying those idiots , so they quit working for free, and you can end the nonsense discussion they can't keep up,
if they don't matter enough to pay for their efforts , then they don't matter enough to hamper an entire network development.

BTC Mining nodes are centralized to less than 15 pools, with only 3 pools having >51%,
BTC have been centralized for years now, and any economic blackmail you think non-mining nodes have is false,
the big exchanges are the one with the economic clout to blackmail a coin,
those people just running a non-mining node just to run one are just wasting their time because they have no power at all.


The problem is some services are already shutting down btc transactions transfers and telling others to use other coins.
But I guess if you don't care that other coins are going to steal btc market share, then their is nothing to worry about.
Just use BCH or LTC or Doge and to hell with BTC, is that your opinion?
(Because that is what the non-scaling BTC seems like it is telling the general public.)
And the general public pays attention :
when a BTC transfer is almost $2, LTC transfer is 6 cents, and Eth is 15 cents while processing over double the # of btc transactions on a daily basis.

As the failure of BTC onchain transactions become more apparent, even that much valued BTC marketcap will begin to suffer once the truth is realized.
BTC can't Scale, because it's developers won't let it.  


FYI:  What the Business Owners think.  
https://news.bitcoin.com/business-owners-seething-critique-of-the-lightning-network-goes-viral/

The on-chain system has never failed. Save your FUD for r/btc.


Personally I would have been perfectly fine with the increase to 2 MB. However, what you don't want to understand is that the block size is remaining limited for a reason. Right now the blockchain is growing linearly. A blockchain that grows exponentially poses risks of centralization. It's already too unwieldy for the average BTC enthusiast to run a node. If it gets bigger too quickly, an even fewer % of the population will be able to run a node, which means it becomes more centralized.


Meanwhile the median confirmation time is 12 minutes. So where's the problem exactly?

https://www.blockchain.com/charts/median-confirmation-time

Sad part is you seem to be the most clueless person in crypto.

You can't see an IOU system when it is right in your face.
You can't understand that any offchain system will fail, if the onchain system is failing.

Their is no search for onchain scaling answers, only btc devs lying and saying increasing blocksize or faster blockspeeds won't do it,
when the truth is , that is exactly what will do it.

Had BTC just moved to a mere 4mb maximum block size, it's onchain capacity would be 28 transactions per second,
which equates to ~2.4 Million transactions per day, which would easily handle 3X the current volume.

FYI:
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/unconfirmed-transactions
Currently over 70000 Unconfirmed Transactions

There's no "social drama", just a debate that there are no "IOU pegged promises to pay" in the Lightning Network. You're the one starting with the name-calling and insults when someone calls out that you are wrong, or spreading misinformation.


Good luck to on-chain scaling. I hope you find the answers. But right now, the market says Bitcoin is still the most valuable.