Topic: Lightning network - page 3. (Read 624 times)

Not my fault , you are too stupid to see it.   



You be shocked to know how much. 



LOL,
you the one saying they should use LN over all altcoins & exchanges that work better and are safer.
LN is 1 service, their are multiple altcoins and exchanges that do the job better than LN tied to bitcoin.
Maybe you should pull your head out of your butt and find that clue yourself.

If people want to use a bank, I have no problem with that, but don't lie and say it is not a bank when it is.



FTFY , 

Except for the part where it isn't.



You should probably GTFO of crypto, then.  Everything is in beta. 



It's beyond adorable you think you have anything to offer in terms of development.



I'm all about giving people options.  You're about authority and telling people what they can and can't do. 

Also, what's your alternative proposal?  What do you think we should be doing instead of LN?  Larger blocks?  Tell me what the point is in having two BCHs.  How is that, in any way, productive?  If you want larger blocks, there is already a blockchain that caters to your needs.  You're free to choose that one if you like.  But you're not making our choices for us.  Get a clue.
 


Some of us are just more patient than others. 

LN is not the fastest or reliable 3rd party payment service.
It is a buggy (in some cases money losing) 3rd party payment service.

Using some exchanges offchain transactions is faster & more reliable than LN.
Some will argue an exchange is more centralized, but exchanges do not require time locking for hours or weeks at a time.
With a exchange , I only need to send the amount I spending at that moment , with LN you have to lock up larger amounts of funds for much longer periods.

Also even LN developers admit , it is not fully safe yet and some lost money which will never be recovered.
https://www.trustnodes.com/2018/03/26/lightning-network-user-loses-funds

But some people lie and act like LN is running perfect when it is not.  

---

Franky1's analogy that LN is Banking 2.0 is accurate, too bad that is beyond your ability to understand.
The last beta code , I played with was OS/2 . I don't waste my time on beta code anymore.
Having someone claim every problem that arises, well it is beta, gets pretty lame,
get the shit working or don't release it to the public as I am not wasting my time fixing their lousy programming for the new banking system.

First you push hubs, then you claim users should just transact between each other.
Do you seriously think individuals are going to waste all of that time and all of the hassle transacting in LN offchain crapshot, when they can just transact onchain.
We use Alts ONCHAIN to transact as they are faster and cheaper and EASIER than wasting time on LN's beta crapshoot service.

Your False Religious Beliefs blinds you to the reality of how bad LN sucks and the fact no casual users will ever run hubs or transact at that level.
John Q. Public wants easy / quick / simple transactions without needing a PHD to use it.
(LN is none of those things.)
Without being easy for the consumer, mass adoption will never occur, and bitcoin will continue to be a greater fool's game for naive geeks.

 

Yes i agree with you. If lighting system can be implemented in bitcoin i think transaction will be more easier. But as lighting system is 3rd party payment system people can't trust properly on that system.

Guess it will never be apparent to you that you don't have to route through a hub if you don't want to.  Try actually learning how it works instead of repeating the crap you've absorbed from reddit.  It's as peer-to-peer as you're willing to make it. 

I mean, perhaps you might need to rely on a hub, since you don't strike me as the kind of person that people would voluntarily want to associate with, let alone transact with.   

Seems like you've spent too long looking at franky1's bus.

Have the Funds to be a Centralized Hub that has the majority of channels to it directly , and refuse to open channels with hubs they or government policy disapproves of.
Therefore starving non-banking hubs of funds until they run them out of business and can have their own banking monopoly like with fiat.  

Guess it is not apparent to you either.  

FYI:
Or just slip a few bucks to a few politicians to pass a law requiring all LN Hubs to require a Banking License and follow all KYC/AML laws.
 

OMG..
lets address the last point first.
in LN YOU DO NOT have full control over your bitcoins.. LEARN MULTISIG
it requires signatures of more than one person. atleast learn that as a basic first lesson.

now. lets go back to th first point

LN is not a service to scale "the network"(you are talking about bitcoin).. LN is a separate service network all on its own. LN is to allow many different coins to use this separate service network so they are no longer using the blockchain of many coins.
its got nothing to do with "scaling bitcoin" its about diverting people away from using bitcoins mainnet.
EG its not a highway that needs an extra lane and LN is that extra lane.
LN is telling people to get off the highway and use a country road along side farm trucks and pedestrians(othercoins). thus the highway doesnt get its extra lane

lol laugh at ur subtle attempt to bring bitcoincash into the conversation.. but guess what. i care about bitcoin cores issues. not the drama of other coins.
but that said if dogecoin had cheaper fee's and had same listings on merchant shopping cart tools and exchanges and had a faster blocktime thn core, cash, ltc, ether or any coin..  yes people would move to dogecoin..

back to concentrating on the core network
if LN was designed to only interact with bitcoin cores network. then it would help. but. the reality by making cores mainnet innovation stall and become expensive and be screamed by devs as unscalable. people wont want to return to cores mainnt due to costs of doing so.
would you redeem your btc if it cost you $1-$26.. or would you redeem LTC costing 1c-5c. knowing your just going to deposit coin back into LN later so want to avoid costs as much as possible EG 5c settle 5c reopen new channel.. vs $1 settle $1 open new channel

lets word it this way. if you are to lock up coin into a co-managed fund (bank) and then separately you play around with receipts where the sharable units of measure are different..which are unconfirmed, unaudited and have punishments and issues that can prevent settling back to coin. are you still playing with coin
EG deposit 1000 sats.. play with tx's measured as 1,000,000millisats that require channel co-partner to authorise with you

if you are to lock up gold into a co-managed fund (bank) and then separately you play around with banknotes where the sharable units of measure are different..which are unconfirmed, unaudited and have punishments and issues that can prevent settling back to gold. are you still playing with gold
EG deposit 1oz gold.. play with banknote measured as redemable for 31grams of gold that require bank manager to authorise with you

if it costs more to redeem your gold(bitcoin) than it does to convert it to silver(litecoin) where silver is just as acceptable by exchanges, merchants and others. people end up moving to silver. thus the bank (channel co-partner) keeps the gold(bitcoin)

cant you even see that its a way to lock bitcoin up and make it hard to get your bitcoin back due to mainnet issues
have you even used LN and run real life scenarios, have you done any maths, have you even rad the issues the devs themselves are screaming about.. or have you just read the pumped up hype on reddit by those that havnt done any research/scenarios,  

think outside th core box, without a utopian hat. put on a critical hat and do some proper thinking

What can a "Bank of America" hub exactly do to Bitcoin if they become a Lightning Hub? Nothing. They can also do nothing on the Lightning Network itself because Bitcoins are locked in a multisig address when opening a channel. What it can do is build on top of Lightning and do anything they like but only from within their service.

this is only true if  bitcoin fees go up and stay up. for example if fees become at least $10 and stay like that forever then it is the end of bitcoin in my opinion. but the thing is fees have always gone up because of spam attacks not because of lack of capacity and that means they won't stay up forever so there is no point for anyone to go use an altcoin that is not even accepted anywhere to make payments they wanted to make with bitcoin.

LOL, LN Hub operators.
 
Serious how did you not know that?

Guess it won't be apparent to you even when the LN Hub is Named Bank of America.

It is not "hype" for Bitcoin that Lightning developers are after, it is to scale the network while keeping the ability of the network to scale up at the same time.


That does not make sense. If Dogecoin increases block size to 32mb then people will also prefer to settle to Dogecoin instead of Bitcoin Cash?


It is not perfect. But relax and let it develop. "We" already have "our" "onchain innovations" in Bitcoin Cash. Let "us" enjoy that.

But what are those "onchain innovations". Talk about that instead.


You say that as if the users do not have full control over their Bitcoins and channels. They still do have 100% of their coins.

In my opinion it’s a great decision. It will help bitcoin fro transaction. The lighting network is used to reduce the transaction fees. The transaction system is more quicker than now. If bitcoin use it it will be more better.

Totally agreed. Thanks for sharing! Lightning network will allow Bitcoin to use for daily shopping etc in the real life especially.

At least Lightning Network is a great solution for Bitcoin transactions. And I am happy with the presence of this Lightning Network.

From my point of view bitcoin will much more better if the lighting network will use . The bitcoin transaction fees will be lower if the lighting fee are implemented. The transaction is also much faster than now.

The lighting network is very nice for the crypto market. This makes the crypto currency safer and secure. They are very progressive and committed to providing good services to the crypto people.

True, but network effects mean that the more coins which are LN-enabled, the more useful the network becomes.  Plus, with atomic swaps via LN, we don't need to rely as heavily on centralised exchanges.  This can only ever be a positive for crypto as a whole.
  


You say that like having the choice is somehow a bad thing.  How is this a problem?  



True again.  But some people are creatures of habit and make the same routine purchases.  I know that, unless I've booked time off work, I'll spend between £3 and £4 in the staff canteen each day that I'm in for a full shift.  It's easy to plan ahead for that sort of thing.  It's literally no different to making sure there are enough physical notes and coins in your wallet before you leave the house each day if you're a fan of paying in cash.  It doesn't require a goddamn PhD or bachelor's degree to figure out.  Just because it isn't a one-size-fits all deal, that doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue it.



Many would argue that no one is "stalling" anything and that you're expressing an opinion rather than a fact.  Also, on-chain features doesn't necessarily mean changing the size of blocks.  Things to improve on-chain scaling are already in development.  Schnorr Sigs and MAST could both result in smaller transactions, meaning we can squeeze more transactions into a block.  PSBT could give us the option to make payments completely offline without an internet connection and then settle them on-chain at a later time, so you may be able to time it strategically to record it on the blockchain when network traffic is calmer and fees are lower.  Making more efficient use of existing resources should be considered before simply burning through more resources.  Bitcoin is still on the bleeding edge of innovation.  Most of the altcoins that claim the latest and greatest features are just throwing buzzwords around and aren't actually delivering any real innovation.

1.lightning is not a feature of bitcoin. its a separate service that many coin can use. so MANY coins will get the same advantage thus not bring any hype to bitcoin alone

2. if the other coins that use LN have less fee and more tx/s onchain. then people will prefer to settle to those coins. especially if those coins are listen on the same exchanges and able to be used by the same merchant shopping cart tools

3. lightning is not a solve all solution for every usecase. it only works well for prepayment of known future spending. EG predepositing enough funds for the next month of spending where you will need to do more then a couple transactions per month. most real world spenders only use their debit cards 1-2 times a day and vary where they will spend each day. thus its only useful for things like
google adsense partners, exchanges reserves swaps and users who buy giftcards to cover a months spending..
where as randomly spending funds here there and everywhere is not straight forward, or plannable when it comes to the fund locks.

due to LN limitations of usecases and the fact that other coins will use LN.. devs need to stop stalling bitcoins onchain innovation to then only add features relevant for LN. and get back to innovating bitcoin onchain features for thos that cant/wont and will not need LN.

when you se dvs use "reserve currency" instead of cash..
when you see devs use weight instead of tx/s
when you see devs mntion locking funds

the subliminal message is bitcoin is gold and payments are expensively heavy, so needs to be locked into fortknox and then play around with unaudited unconfirmed receipts.. much like victorian banks which then screwed people over by not letting them have their gold back later on. think about how this so called bitcoin revolution has been lost. and has now become just another repeat of the old re-banking structure...
just try to send a payment without another parrty co-authorising your request and see how far you get on LN.. you will soon see how the revolution has been lost

i know i know.. im prepared for the onslaught of fiat lovrs that just want hype to get btc to a exit fee they like so they can run baack to fiat.. but that was not why bitcoin was inventd. and if bitcooin uses all its ethos and advantages over othr payment systems/networks/ciurrncies. the bitcoins exit price wont be as dramatic. so it actually is worth it to fiat lovers to try lobbying devs to go back to the drawing board and start re-innovating bitcoins onchain feature with things only bitcoin can do that othr coins cant. and do them cheaper onchain. to keep bitcoin in first place

Lightning network is an additional layer that makes a nice leap in chances to bitcoins and all the other ccrypts that are compatible. Yeahhh!!!

I am glad that the authority are thinking about all of this topics, this kind of improvement are needed to fall a important impact on the market and of course if the condition of the market will improve it will definitely effect on the market price and the coins growth will also increase if you wait and watch then my point will be clear to you