Topic: Lightning Network Observer - page 26. (Read 14270 times)

Very appropriate, personally at first we also experienced problems in terms of starting bitcoin investments, because the available capital could not make large purchases of bitcoins, so on another occasion I had to find a way to be able to start investing bitcoins and finally decided to buy bitcoins a little little by little, today my financial strength is increasing, following the bitcoin price increase in the previous year.
Many people don't understand the concept of investing in bitcoin, so they don't look for ways to get around it. In fact, if we look further, bitcoin has grown so rapidly to date.

Many options can be added regarding the second layer. Think of it similar to having friends with someone on twitter or other social media. This way, if the user does not have an open channel with someone on the lightning network, there is still a path through the shared user.
More precisely, there are many ways that can be solved using the network, so convenience for convenience will continue to be created and bitcoin is the basic idea of ​​the emergence of the innovation that we are discussing.

It still looks offline, even though this development has gone through a much more developed level than before. I mean, if doing transactions in the year using numbers like you mentioned, then under $300 is very unbalanced, even when someone does and wants to make a transaction, the main thing to think about is distance and meeting arrangements.
But now we no longer need to do distance and time management, because people abroad can make transactions so quickly and cheaply with bitcoin, the adoption and development of bitcoin is very sophisticated through the available technology.

It may be due to unbalanced transaction fees, that some exchanges decide to take minimum and maximum steps for trading.
Of the many exchanges that I have searched, it is true that they make a minimum figure of $5 for transactions, but I also don't know whether this minimum restriction is to compensate for the number of transactions made by someone.

This is the most interesting issue to discuss, because people usually forget about technical things, even though there are many ways to make it easier to run, in order to broaden my horizons, the most interesting focus is probably on this technical issue.
Given that there are still many drawbacks that I do not fully understand, so that I can understand technical things like that and can apply them in my bitcoin trading, and I am sure you better understand the cycle of understanding and solutions to this problem

Annoying story, people who are a little bit crazy getting to know you as a master of bitcoin, my question?
what if people in this forum one by one start coming and asking the same thing, this will waste your time in providing special material outside the usual curriculum.
The fault lies in people usually not trying to learn bitcoin as a whole, they are only interested in the stories that people tell, although there are many other reasons that must be considered, fluctuating and the wrong way to invest in "OneCoin", when it should simply buy and provide a Bitcoin address.

So in conclusion from my narrow thinking, someone knows bitcoin closely, but unfortunately they don't know where to start, even though the available resources and technology can be learned quite easily for now.
The progress of bitcoin is so rapid, many technical developments were launched based on the idea of bitcoin, and for that bitcoin is something that is difficult to describe or manifests that are not visible, but can be felt like a blowing wind.
Please correct me if my understanding is wrong in interpreting the meaning of your discussion

We seem to be deviating more and more away from talking about lighting network - yet for me, sometimes it is not easy to leave new ideas or responses outstanding.. ..

Accordingly, I will agree with you that it is likely that a lot of poor people are not very well financially educated - and part of the evidence would be their actual status of being poor and perhaps not being able to get out of such trap, but the basics of building wealth are neither complicated nor difficult to understand in practice - which is living within your means, setting some portion of your income aside and then try to put that "investment" money into something that will either appreciate in value or hold its value as much as you can.... and sure the other part about NOT dipping into the wealth stash while it is building and compounding can be quit difficult for anyone to accomplish - whether poor or not.,.. and of course, if you are poor, you may well only have one or two places in which you have stored value... when you are richer then you would likely have more areas in which you have stored your value, so if you have an emergency (or some desire to purchase) while you are rich, you can choose to spend from the asset class / currency that has the least likelihood to appreciate in value.


I am pretty sure that I have similar back and forths with you on this topic in the past, and it does not seem to be that we really disagree about some of the underlying characteristics that might exist at certain points of time regarding how an investment portfolio might look, but we should be talking about how the poor person can potentially be in a position to improve his/her lot, even when his/her starting position is relatively worse, way worse or even dire as compared to the person with way more assets and resources.

So maybe I am starting to get frustrated with some of your themes because you seem to imply that obstacles are so great for poor people that they would not be able to overcome them or to catch up to the rich person, or that the rich person is always going to be ahead, not have to try very hard to stay ahead, and a lot of those kinds of assumptions have some truth within them because the world has a lot of unfairnesses, and social (financial) mobility can be quite difficult to achieve - including that maybe the moving up from being in poverty would not be possible to get to millionaire status, but still it seems to me that there still could be decent chances that diligent poor person is going have decent odds to catch up to the sloppy millionaire.. even though s/he would not be able to catch up to the equally diligent millionaire.  

Regarding diversification, it is not necessarily true that a rich person is going to automatically be diversified, even though it may well be true that it may well not be prudent for a poor person to attempt too much diversification prior to growing his/her investment portfolio to a certain size in which diversification starts to become more justifiable in order to bring more protections towards the kinds of assets being held and abilities to being able to choose from which assets to spend during times in which various asset classes might have differences in their valuations and projections of valuation changes.


There are a lot of ways to frame ideas of fairness whether we are talking about access to being able to buy bitcoin or ability to know about it or to understand the information that is out there about bitcoin.  Of course, one of the easier ways to attack fairness would be if there would have been some insider folks who would have gotten more bitcoin than others due to their insider distribution (and or superior knowledge or location), and sure those kinds of accusations can be made after the fact because there are people who were in a better position to know about bitcoin and to find out about bitcoin (and to understand it), so it should not be unexpected that people are going to make claims about bitcoin being unfairly distributed and the earlier adopters knowing more and having more access - so in some sense the great price swings do allow for newer people to get into bitcoin at a relatively lower price - even though they won't likely be able to get bitcoin below $5k or even less likely below $1k or $100, as some of the earlier adopters had been able to do.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. Sure, if a poor person had bought some bitcoin since the very beginning, he'd have had them appreciated in value. But since he's poor, chances are, he isn't financially educated, and might had spent them in the time between, or perhaps even kept them, but couldn't step forward.

I'm of the opinion that if you have a $800/month, 9-5 job, with zero capital other than your house and your bitcoin, you don't have that much wealth. Wealth comes from time, which is the real asset that we can't afford to lose in the end. A millionaire can just live off his capital, because he's living off passively, not actively.

You know what? I don't even know what the fuck does that mean. What's fair ultimately? Bitcoin exists 13 years now, and is accessible by literally every person that has some meager Internet connection. And every such person can have the exact same rights, oppositely to our current monetary system wherein only politicians and bankers do. People must take the personal responsibility to educate themselves at some point. Fair or not, it's unquestionably fairer.

I like this quote:

You started off so great franky1, and you described one of the issues, and how bitcoin addresses the ability for very poor people to get into bitcoin, and you lasted almost 3 paragraphs before you started to devolve into nonsense.

Very poor people can still invest into bitcoin, and they do not have to NOT operate a node and they do not have to use any inferior aspects of bitcoin or even any side chains if they do not want.  They can buy bitcoin little by little, and they can study bitcoin at the same time to figure out how they want to store their bitcoin and even the extent to which they might run a node  or to engage in any of the securing the network aspects that come with running a bitcoin node.

Regarding lightning network or any other second layer those are additional use case options that they can choose or not choose to add to their BTC participation that might go beyond merely just buying bitcoin, whether it is $3 per week or some other amount that might work for them.

By the way, between about 2015 and 2019, I used to buy and sell bitcoin to random folks, and I would charge anywhere between 5% and 12% premium over what I considered to be my replacement costs for the mere hassle of meeting some stranger or some random person, and I would also tell them that I did not want to arrange a meeting unless they were going to transact a minimum of $300.. and many times I had maximum amounts too.. such as maybe just a few thousand, and if I got to know them, then maybe I would agree to go outside of the ranges or to change the premium.

People will sometimes meet others at bitcoin meet ups or other events and then agree to buy or sell bitcoin, and I suppose if they know each other they might decide not to even charge any premium or to have minimum amounts, and maybe if someone is in a really poor location they might choose to trade very low amounts - and it used to be that some of the exchanges would allow trading of any amount, even a dollar... but these days some of the exchanges will have $5 minimum.. or some other similar amount as their minimum trade amount.

There are ways to attempt to work around minimums, and I would imagine that some of the ideas around minimums would depend on the environment.. Sometimes when BTC prices start to move a lot in a short period of time, some individual buyer/sellers don't want to transact, and some exchanges will shut down or "pause" their services, and maybe volumes get high, or maybe the price gets so volatile that they don't want to get caught on the wrong side of a trade (or a bunch of trades that are flooding in and meeting in person , there might be ideas that people are starting to act crazy during such high volatile times, so it might feel unsafe to even meet).

You likely realize that some kinds of products are more pegged to BTC than other types of products, and I recall a guy who used to come to me on a fairly regular basis, and I frequently would try to talk him out of doing any bitcoin transactions because he seemed a bit nutso.., and several times he told me that he had heard about bitcoin from a friend who told him to get involved in "OneCoin."  So he would text me or something and say that he wanted to meet so that he could buy some bitcoin, and then he would give me an apparent bitcoin address to send bitcoin to him, and so many times, I tried to explain to him that he should be buying bitcoin, not investing into "OneCoin" because that was a scam and he was quite likely to lose all of his money... but I said that I would sell him the BTC and he just needed to give me a BTC address, and I was not responsible for if he received the BTC or if the BTC was credited to his "OneCoin" account.. and so sometimes people get ideas in their head, and I was in a bit of an uncomfortable position regarding how much to interact with the guy and the extent to which I should even agree to sell him BTC that he was having me send to his "OneCoin" account.

in fiat land. people used to only be able to buy whole shares and when 1 share was many hundreds of dollars. third world country citizens could not afford to buy single shares because their $3 a week wage (ignorant people call "coffee amount") meant they couldnt buy a single tesla share unless they saved up for years

yet bitcoin came around to solve that. allow people to buy decimal amounts every week to skip the 'save to buy' and just go straigh tto the buy stage

but then the ignorant "coffee amount" preachers then tried to say bitcoin was not fit for the 3rd world countries where bitcoin should not be used for the unbanked, in their narrow minded view. and so tried to push for 3rd world countries to adopt a sub network. offramping people away from bitcoin to this weak, insecure subnetwork

now they are saying the 3rd world countries are not "techies" and shouldnt run independent nodes but instead put their value into the trust of a custodian wallet
silly thing is that this weak subnetwork, has no big rules. thus it is not difficult to build user friendly GUI's. but as its well known when devs cant be bothered to make rules, secure a network and then make the network userfriendly.. that network is not going to succeed. but hey they dont care. they just want control and limit users abilities in the elites favour


(i mentioned this phase years ago about moving from hop model to hub/soke model of "factories"/custodians)


these ignorant people have been seen in the last couple days to start to word this subnetwork as a more risk aware less utopian promise. and even try to be more realistic by saying the unit of measure is not "bitcoin" but a different unit which they start calling LN-btc.. much like other subnetworks dont define their units as bitcoin but (binance: WBTC, liquid LBTC)

so although they have now started to sound more realistic to the risk awareness and difference of the networks and security models and utility(a positive) they are still trying to limit what 3rd world countries have access to, where only the elites can get the parts that 'make' profit at the jeopardy of the poor who have to trust the elites wont abuse such system

such a shame they wasted 5 years going down that avenue..

Bitcoin is a possibility to redistribute the wealth without the use of violence, for the first time in history.
And for the first time in History also, there weren't entry barrier to the bitcoin investment, nor violence or prevarications involved.

I am not saying that the resulting distribution will be fair, no one ever said that and it's not something Bitcoin has or even want to address.
It will only be different: as different are the criteria used for this distribution.
Luck, smartness, vision, instead of violence, prevarication and law, as the previous paradigm.

I hate to be refusing to give up on a topic, and to beat it to death, but we can imagine situations in which a persistent (and even relatively poor) bitcoiner could have had gotten ahead of a person who is much better off, such as a millionnaire.  Of course, the wise millionnaire is going to beat out the poor person every time, if we were using wealth as the ONLY differentiator.

One of the historical matters with bitcoin has been that the bitcoiner has been able to get ahead of a lot of people who were much better off than the bitcoiner because of knowing about bitcoin, and it surely would have had helped if the bitcoiner also had not really made any mistakes.

Let's take a somewhat extreme example of a millionnaire who failed to invest over the past 9 years, and largely his networth stayed the same.. or if he ONLY invested in index funds and the very basics, maybe his networth might have gone up to $1.5 million rather than $1 million.. perhaps?

Now we can take a hussling and bussling poor person who works consistently through the past 9 years, but really maybe in our extreme hypothetical we might be able to say that such poor person could ONLY scrape together around $10 to $20 per week in order to invest into bitcoin.. so in that sense the average per week was ONLY $15 per week... so such poor person may well have ended up investing $7k into bitcoin over 9 years, but only able to generate around 7.2BTC.. so he would still be way behind the hypothetical non-industrious millionnaire, but perhaps another 9 years is going to bring him to parity or to surpass the hypothetical non-industrious millionnaire.

So don't get me wrong.. I am not trying to say that the poor person is going to completely be able to catch up. because millionnaires have all kinds of advantages if other things are equal, but we are in a bitcoin forum in which people know about bitcoin and they should be able to figure out some reasonable, prudent and even aggressive strategies that are NOT overly aggressive in order to contribute to their advancing upon the so many no coiners who are out there who fail/refuse to either learn about bitcoin or to take adequate and/or sufficient action upon knowing about bitcoin.

I will acknowledge too that poor people fuck up all of the time, and there can be a lot of reasons for that, including becoming too aggressive and then ending up gambling rather than protecting themselves and building, and surely if they are poor, they will continuously be tempted to dip into their bitcoin savings rather than allowing it to grow... so I am surely not suggesting that growing wealth is easy and it can take 30-40 years or longer, and sometimes even people who work that long on growing wealth never end up getting to a kind of retirement or fuck you status, but bitcoin does seem to have historically been able to offer those kinds of opportunities if it had been played correctly (and should be easier with an asset that has been going up.. even though people do figure out ways to lose money, even on an asset that has been historically going up), and there really is not any evidence that bitcoin's investment thesis is weaker currently than it had been historically - even though the already BTC price appreciation likely has dampened some of the upside potential since the total addressable market is still ONLY about $1 Quadrillion and bitcoin has gone from $0 to around $1.2 trillion and then currently back down to around $400 billion.

became aware today of this interesting service for the lightning nodes.
anyone already there who has tried this?


https://tunnelsats.com/

Lightning node operator.
This is the first professional figure in a new economic system, where capital allocation choices are profoundly influenced by technical analysis of the network. Maybe one day there will be derivatives on this to hedge against adverse scenarios (like an orange producer can hedge selling orange juice futures, why not a node operator can hedge his operations selling futures on network fees?)

That's the exact way I'd describe it. It's like renting your funds to someone, but you don't hand them over anything. 

We might reach a time when routing a transaction becomes more expensive than paying the transaction fee of an altcoin, but we will never pay more for an off-chain transaction than an on-chain one, with the same confirmation time.

Also,

I believe it's going to be the same as the evolution of Bitcoin mining. Altruism helped bootstrap/establish the network, but as it became more specialized, the Lightning node operators who could run them for profit will be more incentivized to maintain their node for a much longer amount of time.

I also believe that because it is actual capital being "staked" in those channels, and a very limited form of capital at that, the fees would, at times of high demand, would be more expensive than the fees of some altcoins. I use BlueWallet's Lightning app, I sometimes pay $0.25 per transaction because they also take a fee for each transaction besides the Lightning fee.

The report gives  quite a surprising insight on the matter:







This is way more than I would have expected.
This is yield out of your own private keys.

Running and maintaining a seriously commercial lightning node, such as OpenNode, requires technical competence around Bitcoin, Lightning, APIs, web development, Unix, system administration, android and iOS, etc., and a shitload amount of capital. It's an entire business on its own.

Just running a lightning node for sending and receiving LN-BTC doesn't require all that stuff, though.

I'm just saying this: A person with minimum wage can't save the same amount a millionaire can. Their living is too limited to saving.

That's true for everything. But, yes. Running a lightning node can be seen as mining, because in both cases you're spending capital to create some.

That's what I have been asking, but never had a good reply, and I was only made to look stupid for asking "such a stupid question".

The question was, "If it was possible that the increase of level in "specialization" to run a Lightning node 24 hours a day, 7 days a week would be the same as mining Bitcoin, and because of that, will cause to require node operators to actually profit from routing". Node operators are also staking actual Bitcoins, a form of "capital" that can possibly be used more profitably somewhere else. Therefore, there must be a motive for profit to run a Lightning node as it gets more specialized.

I never give up on the idea that a person has to have discretionary income to even be able to invest into anything, so yeah, if we cannot even get into the arena of having discretionary income, and also meaning that the income invested into bitcoin is "extra money" that they are not going to need for 4-10 years, then we might not get anywhere, except for talking about how they might be able to increase their income or to decrease their expenses.. or maybe in the event that the person is very old. or has issues that they cannot even get to a minimum of a 4 year investment timeline, then that also might either create a "no go" situation or a need to reduce further the amount that they even put into bitcoin. .whether that is less than 1% or maybe just on the lower end of the range of possible investment amounts.


I do like that the Blue Wallet has both bitcoin and lightning wallets... and I am likely going to be experimenting.. but many of us know that we have to be careful once we start to put value on any wallet to make sure that we have a back up or whatever information that we are able to keep, and I have systems for my back ups in order to both keep them secure but also to keep them organized.. so if I try to do too many things at once, then I would lose track of my back up or other information that I am trying to retain in a systematic way (and sometimes duplicates and broken up within the system that I use), and I recall one time I was traveling a couple of years ago.. and I was continuously looking for various ways to use my bitcoin, including merely just getting some local cash through bitcoin ATMs.. or whatever might work that I could figure out how to use my BTC while traveling..

And, I recall going to several broken BTC ATMs.. and then finally I found one that was working, and it was in a kind of Cafe.. and there was a person that helped me in the process to figure out that it required that I create another kind of wallet.. so I ended up saying that I would go home and come back in a day or two.. so I had created another kind of a wallet (and a back up), and I tried to insert my back up into my traveling system (I have a couple of non-traveling systems too, so there are redundant back ups.. but since I was traveling, I could ONLY do the traveling back up), and for some reason, over one or two months I made several transactions using that wallet.. and there were a few tricks and a few differences with the wallet a compared with my other wallets.. but I kind of got used to it after a bit of time.

About 8 months later, I was back from that particular travel and that use of the wallet, and I was going to insert my redundant back ups so that I was getting prepared to go on another trip, so I wanted to make sure that all of my redundant back ups were in order.  It took me quite a bit to figure out my scribblings of my back up regarding that particular wallet - but I had some other bitcoin related updates that I was losing my memory regarding how to use the whole system, even though I thought that it was straight forward.  One thing is that the back ups are intended for me.. but they are also intended in a kind of inheritance situation in which I start to question if any heir might not be able to figure out so many aspects, even though I thought that I had made the back ups clear once the instructions are understood... and communicated... once I am dead (or maybe just mentally incapacitated). I can no longer clarify what the instructions had meant or what the redundant systems had meant.


That one does not show up in walletscrutiny.com.. and even though it surely might work for others, it is not IOS compatible..  - call me a non-adventurous one... or a fud dud.   

In the video and in the document they state they have a team of 4 full time engineer employed only to run this node.




This looks like a proper job, requiring a scientific approach.

Of purse there will be space for amateur operator, but this is going to be another highly capital intensive industry.

@jjg

This is interesting...

https://github.com/nbd-wtf/obw

I do that too, but not on everyone. Someone who makes $800/month doesn't have the same 10% with a millionaire. Unfortunately, inflation is a destructive disease in lower to medium class. It's much, much harder to escape and beat inflation rates if you don't have any capital other than your income.

In that case, just recommend them a comfortable custodial solution, such as BlueWallet, and explain them the main negative. If they're interested, they can step forward.

Yep.. with any of us.. there are the making of priorities, and sometimes when I mention some aspects about bitcoin to someone that I know, I find that they frequently will have difficulties even looking into listening to some podcasts or reading some articles that relate to bitcoin as a topic, so sometimes it can be more difficult to put something as a higher priority - such as I will frequently say to newbies to bitcoin that they could invest anywhere between 1% to 25% (prior to mid 2020, I used to say 1% to 10%) of their quasi-liquid investment portfolio into bitcoin while they are learning about the basics, but if they never get around to learning "the basics," they are going to have difficulties investing even 1% of their quasi-liquid investment portfolio into bitcoin.. so in that regard, each of us has to figure out how much time that we want to (or are able to) invest into learning about new things in order to add those new things to our lives.. whether it is the quantity that we invest into something or maybe figuring out various ways that we do transactions and that we might want to add some new ways in which we might start to transact in the future.

The difficulties in backing up Lighting network wallets makes it much more difficult for me to recommend them - because I hate for anyone to lose any funds.. if I say that I want to send them value in bitcoin (or over the lightning network), and then if they say that they do not have any kind of bitcoin wallet, it is difficult to get them to download something - but they might have Cash App.  Maybe somewhere like El Salvador, we might be able to run into people who are already using lightning network, so there is no need to convince them to download anything?.. but I hear that even in somewhere like El Salvador, they are still having difficulties to get people to have those apps available on their phone or whatever other electronic medium they might be using to perform a transaction.

Good to know you're going in that direction. Setting up a Bitcoin full node is an easy task. A Lightning node is not so easy, and it involves greater risk (as you leave your coins in a non-airgapped environment).

If you're like me, who wants to know exactly what's going on in the background, it's going to take a while to comprehend the technical stuff. If not, a few reputable wallet software such as BlueWallet might be sufficient, or even a lightning OS device such as myNode.

This is not how it works. GUI stands for Graphical User Interface. CLI stands for Command Line Interface. They're both interfaces, and you can't know in both what's going on in the background, unless you dive into the code. Similarly, verifying the binaries can happen in the same way, whether it's GUI or CLI based software.

One at a time, and no need to rush. Unless you're a merchant. In that case, hurry!