Here's an article explaining lightning network:
https://coincodex.com/article/1124/what-is-the-lightning-network/
I'm really happy that it's gaining support.
Topic: Lightning network (Read 1250 times)
it basically adjusts the price lower and the transaction is faster.
I think It's is a non-blockchain
And it impossible
And it impossible
it will take all the fees generated by low value TX on each block, away from miners and move them to LN CEO node operators.
90% of fees generated on each block come from low value TX.
some say its bitcoins killer app.
90% of fees generated on each block come from low value TX.
some say its bitcoins killer app.
a small change was required to make this comment more palatable.
May I ask why you are being resentful? Why try and discuss what LN is/isnt emotionally and not rationally?
Why would someone choose to transact over LN if the fees were the same? Also, why wouldnt fees on LN transactions be lower, due to the fact that it would be much cheaper to be a LN node than a miner?
it will take all the fees generated by low value TX on each block, away from miners and move them to LN CEO node operators.
90% of fees generated on each block come from low value TX.
some say its bitcoins killer app.
90% of fees generated on each block come from low value TX.
some say its bitcoins killer app.
a small change was required to make this comment more palatable.
Fees from LN don't go to miners anyways.
If the fees in payment channel hops becomes greater than normal transaction fees, then people will just use the good ol blockchain.
If the fees in payment channel hops becomes greater than normal transaction fees, then people will just use the good ol blockchain.
and finally, welcome to the conversation.
as the other person said. if miners are not getting fee's... so now i think you are finally on the same wavelength and understanding of his point.
if people are using LN miners wont get paid.
There is also nothing stopping miners from also becoming payment channel nodes to also make some money from those fees.
if miners have to diversify to survive over the next 16 years (when fee's actually become important) then say goodbye to bitcoin security as they would jump ship, which i believe is a worry of the other person and many others. the fear of 131 year promise(2009-2140) turning into a 23 year bait and switch(2009-2032) over to other premined side chains that also have LN, is not appealing to long term investors including some of the core fanboys that think of bitcoin as a reserve currency rather than a casual payment currency
I don't see a fundamental problem. Mining will still provide income from on-blockchain fees. The LN just provides an additional opportunity for revenue. If LN fees rise too much then more activity is pushed onto the blockchain, and vice-versa. So there is a competitive environment, which is good for the whole bitcoin ecosystem.
Users of LN's are still motivated to support a robust bitcoin mining community, because an insecure bitcoin network means the value of their holdings within the LN's are at risk.
Fees from LN don't go to miners anyways.
If the fees in payment channel hops becomes greater than normal transaction fees, then people will just use the good ol blockchain.
If the fees in payment channel hops becomes greater than normal transaction fees, then people will just use the good ol blockchain.
and finally, welcome to the conversation.
as the other person said. if miners are not getting fee's... so now i think you are finally on the same wavelength and understanding of his point.
if people are using LN miners wont get paid.
There is also nothing stopping miners from also becoming payment channel nodes to also make some money from those fees.
if miners have to diversify to survive over the next 16 years (when fee's actually become important) then say goodbye to bitcoin security as they would jump ship, which i believe is a worry of the other person and many others. the fear of 131 year promise(2009-2140) turning into a 23 year bait and switch(2009-2032) over to other premined side chains that also have LN, is not appealing to long term investors including some of the core fanboys that think of bitcoin as a reserve currency rather than a casual payment currency
Wow...
Thanks guys, now Im much more than informed
with all this information it seems like I've taken a course
Thanks guys, now Im much more than informed
with all this information it seems like I've taken a course
Fees from LN don't go to miners anyways.
If the fees in payment channel hops becomes greater than normal transaction fees, then people will just use the good ol blockchain.
If the fees in payment channel hops becomes greater than normal transaction fees, then people will just use the good ol blockchain.
and finally, welcome to the conversation.
as the other person said. if miners are not getting fee's... so now i think you are finally on the same wavelength and understanding of his point.
if people are using LN miners wont get paid.
There is also nothing stopping miners from also becoming payment channel nodes to also make some money from those fees.
It is best to ignore before you get brain damage (MaximBady reference).
says the guy that knows ZERO about bitcoin code.. (psst, heres a hint, its not java)
how can he claim to know everything about bitcoin and think he knows whats best when he hasnt even read a single line of bitcoin code..
Quote
OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY: 25,000% improvement in bi-directional payment channel efficiency by allowing users to keep channels open as long as they want.
Totally not LN?
Quote
Joseph, Tadge and roasbeef's version: https://github.com/LightningNetwork/lnd/
Rusty's version (Blockstream): https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning
Do you see here the Core team working on LN? No. Rusty's version (Blockstream): https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning
Fees from LN don't go to miners anyways.
If the fees in payment channel hops becomes greater than normal transaction fees, then people will just use the good ol blockchain.
If the fees in payment channel hops becomes greater than normal transaction fees, then people will just use the good ol blockchain.
and finally, welcome to the conversation.
as the other person said. if miners are not getting fee's... so now i think you are finally on the same wavelength and understanding of his point.
if people are using LN miners wont get paid.
Well, it's clearly shown in position 3 of your own thread called "Bitcoin Core Roadmap visualized". Innit?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-core-roadmap-visualized-1349965
It mentions BIP 68 & BIP 112 which are needed for LN to operate. This is the roadmap:https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-core-roadmap-visualized-1349965
Quote
Dec 2015 Deploy segregated witness testnet
Feb 2016 0.12.0 libsecp256k1 verification
Feb 2016 Segregated witness feature complete & ready for general review
Mar 2016* 0.12.x Deploy OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (BIPs 68 & 112) + BIP113 as first BIP9 versionbits soft fork
April 2016* 0.12.x Deploy segregated witness
2016 Weak blocks, IBLTs, or both
Do you see the Lightning Network anywhere? Feb 2016 0.12.0 libsecp256k1 verification
Feb 2016 Segregated witness feature complete & ready for general review
Mar 2016* 0.12.x Deploy OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (BIPs 68 & 112) + BIP113 as first BIP9 versionbits soft fork
April 2016* 0.12.x Deploy segregated witness
2016 Weak blocks, IBLTs, or both
This is getting funny.
So why, in your opinion, those 2 BIPs + LN mentioned at all in the roadmap visualisation (in a separate section) if it's "completely false" that LN is part of the roadmap?
But, most of all, what are those "bi-directional payment channels" in the link you provided? Like this one:
Quote
OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY: 25,000% improvement in bi-directional payment channel efficiency by allowing users to keep channels open as long as they want.
Totally not LN?
Those fees will go to the people who own those payment channels and it is up to them whether to charge fees and how much to charge.
so whats stopping these "people" from turning thier utility of being an owner of a payment channel, into a legit business, thus making the owner a CEO of an LN channel, where the fees go to these "people" and not to minersbecause if there are no fee's to use LN internally then miners get nothing.. because there are no fees to hand them..
If the fees in payment channel hops becomes greater than normal transaction fees, then people will just use the good ol blockchain.
Well, it's clearly shown in position 3 of your own thread called "Bitcoin Core Roadmap visualized". Innit?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-core-roadmap-visualized-1349965
It mentions BIP 68 & BIP 112 which are needed for LN to operate. This is the roadmap:https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-core-roadmap-visualized-1349965
Christ, just when you think adamstgbit's "LN CEO" retort couldn't get any moronic....
....We've Been Franked!
dear me.
It is best to ignore before you get brain damage (MaximBady reference). ....We've Been Franked!
dear me.
You should watch this guy (albeit off-topic suggestion). 
Christ, just when you think adamstgbit's "LN CEO" retort couldn't get any moronic....
....We've Been Franked!
dear me.
....We've Been Franked!
dear me.
Those fees will go to the people who own those payment channels and it is up to them whether to charge fees and how much to charge.
so whats stopping these "people" from turning thier utility of being an owner of a payment channel, into a legit business, thus making the owner a CEO of an LN channel, where the fees go to these "people" and not to minersbecause if there are no fee's to use LN internally then miners get nothing.. because there are no fees to hand them..
and move them to LN CEO.
rebuttle:
There is no Lightning Network CEO. In fact, I don't think there are really any fees with Lightning if you use the payment channels.
debunk of rebuttle
There may be some small fees if you do hops between channels because you have to pay the people you are hopping through.
wait, did the person rebuttling, just debunk himself.. in the same paragraph.
so lets not call them LN CEO. lets call them Payment channel owners. (as i think thats what adamstgBit was insinuating. that the people who own the channels will profit. and it could become such a big business that they make it a business and become CEO's of said business
the next question is who picks who these 'people' who own the channel get to be..
this might help show how LN would look like on the blockchain
the left side is people making transactions normally onchain.. the right is how those same transactions would look like and how many transactions would appear onchain if the users used LN instead
the left side is people making transactions normally onchain.. the right is how those same transactions would look like and how many transactions would appear onchain if the users used LN instead
So let's state this outright. According to the roadmap you support, Bitcoin is not meant for people that make a lot of non-recurring low-to-medium transactions.
Correct?
This is completely false. The Lightning network is not part of Core's roadmap. Correct?
Well, it's clearly shown in position 3 of your own thread called "Bitcoin Core Roadmap visualized". Innit?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-core-roadmap-visualized-1349965
Jump to: