Lightning Network is best idea to solve all bitcoin problems.
advertising? 
Topic: Lightning Network vs Bitcoin cash - page 5. (Read 1436 times)
What everyone agrees on is that Lightning Network can't come soon enough. The fees for BTC transactions are becoming ridiculous recently.
Once the Lightning Network is there, BitcoinCash, Litecoin would be swept aside.
Once the Lightning Network is there, BitcoinCash, Litecoin would be swept aside.
Nope, they will increase their Block sizes to try and compete with Bitcoin and the Lightning Network and then realize that it will never be able to compete. By doing this, they will open new attack vectors and their strategy will explode in their face.
LiteCoin will do much better, because it already implemented SegWit and the Lightning Network runs on top of that. BCash does not run SegWit, so they will not be able to implement the LN. ^smile^
What everyone agrees on is that Lightning Network can't come soon enough. The fees for BTC transactions are becoming ridiculous recently.
Once the Lightning Network is there, BitcoinCash, Litecoin would be swept aside.
Once the Lightning Network is there, BitcoinCash, Litecoin would be swept aside.
Lightning nodes are a healthy way to solve centralization issues, lets see how the development and implementation goes
So, how will it be faster than the chain if the miners would stay in the main channel because the payment they will receive might be lower?
I'm looking forward to the Lightning Network and I don't want to use Bitcoin Cash just for a faster transactions.
THere is no "main channel". Miners are not involved in lightning except for confirming the on-chain opening and closing transactions. The transactions are faster through lightning because they can be done nearly instantaneously (well as fast as you can send data over a wire) with basically guaranteed security. I'm looking forward to the Lightning Network and I don't want to use Bitcoin Cash just for a faster transactions.
can we earn for operating payment channels? If they run from inside your wallet as I'm assuming from the word network in the name
Yes, you can.Like the Bitcoin network, the lightning network will also operate on a model of market-driven transaction fees. However, these are not the same fees paid to miners on the Bitcoin blockchain.
Nodes will charge you to use their channel, and if you run a node, you will receive payments from users using your payment channel.
The fees, however, will not be as much as an on-chain transaction, but much much less.
You can read this article for more info: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-lightning-network-creators-fees-will-be-effectively-zero-1459955513/
I'm looking forward to the Lightning Network and I don't want to use Bitcoin Cash just for a faster transactions.
can we earn for operating payment channels? If they run from inside your wallet as I'm assuming from the word network in the name
Yes, you can.Like the Bitcoin network, the lightning network will also operate on a model of market-driven transaction fees. However, these are not the same fees paid to miners on the Bitcoin blockchain.
Nodes will charge you to use their channel, and if you run a node, you will receive payments from users using your payment channel.
The fees, however, will not be as much as an on-chain transaction, but much much less.
You can read this article for more info: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-lightning-network-creators-fees-will-be-effectively-zero-1459955513/
can we earn for operating payment channels? If they run from inside your wallet as I'm assuming from the word network in the name
Lightning Network is best idea to solve all bitcoin problems.
You cant just throw statements like that, without backing them up. Please provide us with the reasons why you are saying so.
Lightning Network is best idea to solve all bitcoin problems.
Perhaps the best, but unfortunately not resolved in time.Now this is becoming a serious problem with the BCH
hello I want to know your thoughts on Lightning network vs Bitcoin cash 
Lightning network off chain is not as secure as bitcoin cash, or are they the same?
not sure because i go on reddit /r/BTC and they say very bad things about lightning!
Lightning network off chain is not as secure as bitcoin cash, or are they the same?
not sure because i go on reddit /r/BTC and they say very bad things about lightning!
The main purpose of Lightning Network is to address scalability. More specifically, providing a much higher transaction throughput at reduced fees through payment channels. An intriguing concept, especially when considering Bitcoin’s current throughput and fees situation. With the transaction costs mounting several times this year alone, a cheap solution will have a lot of merit. However, Bitcoin Cash provides a similar functionality and some added features.
Both systems work completely different, to say the least. Secondly, people claim the Lightning Network will only work for small transactions. That is the main objective, granted, but people can still use Bitcoin for larger amounts. Bitcoin Cash has no real advantage here either, despite its “unlimited” transaction size.
The Lightning Network still doesn’t require actual network confirmations like Bitcoin Cash does right now. Moreover, BCH has no unlimited transaction size either. Right now, it appears to be capped at 24 TX per second, which isn’t exactly stellar either.
In the end, people are free to use whichever solution they like best. From a technical point of view, the Lightning Network and Bitcoin Cash are nothing alike whatsoever. There will always be squabbles between BCH and BTC supporters, that much is evident. The Lightning Network is an exciting development, although its actual sue cases have yet to be determined.
http://www.livebitcoinnews.com/bitcoin-cash-better-lightning-network/
Honestly ... regards to scalability I would like to see simulations ( as we often do while design networks )
Both r/BTC and r/flatearth are equally cancerous. These individuals should stop reproducing.
Quoted because that makes me wish I had more available space in my signature.
Bitmain has already been caught doing some shady shits in the past before the bcash split ... Go figure the terms: ASICBOOST and ANTBLEED scandals.
Some handy references:
https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2017-9230
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html
N.b. that the altcoin deceptively misnamed “Bitcoin Cash” is still wide open to covert exploitation of ASICBOOST. Add in the way its DAA could be gamed before its November hardfork, and there was in substantial essence an on-the-fly BCH premine with Jihan (Bitmain) getting up to a 30% cost advantage over other miners. That last advantage remains. Anybody who is not Jihan and mines BCH, is a patsy for Jihan.
Um yes they do. If 51% of miners want anything at all, they can fork everyone else off the blockchain that doesn't use their protocol.
This kind of uneducated nonsense will (hopefully) get you banned for a few days if you'll continue spreading misinformation on this board. If you are not trolling, you will have an incentive to read some good resources that explain Bitcoin's protocol (you can find a lot of quality stuff here: http://lopp.net/bitcoin.html), and if are trolling, it will be a good riddance.
If I am wrong please explain my error instead of deliberately maliciously threatening me. Please explain why 51% of mining power cannot create a chain fork.
You are deliberately, maliciously lying, and spamming your lies over multiple threads in a forum designated for well-informed technical discussion. But if you want to play stupid, go read my other recent reply, q.v.:
[...]
General point: There is a common misconception about the role of miners. Miners have one, only one, and exactly one job: To provide the ordering of transactions in a Byzantine fault-tolerant manner (which in turn prevents double-spends). That’s what miners do. That is all miners do. Granted, it is an important and resource-intensive job; that’s why miners get paid for it. But that is the one and only security function of miners.
[...]
Full nodes do not blindly “follow the longest chain”. They follow the chain independently validated by them which has the highest total POW. A miner who produced invalid blocks would be wasting his hashrate, and likely risking widespread blacklisting of his IP address. It doesn’t matter if the invalid blocks steal money from Segwit transactions, steal money from old-style transactions, create 21 billion new coins, or are filled with gibberish from /dev/random. An invalid block is an invalid block, and shall be promptly discarded by all full nodes—period.
ir.hn is creating nonsensical non-arguments by exploiting the aforesaid misconception about the role of miners. After all the attempts others have made to explain on this and other points, I cannot but conclude that ir.hn is maliciously spreading misinformation. I write this post for the benefit of others. I am uninterested in arguing with somebody who is a deliberate liar and/or so manifestly ineducable as to appear braindead.
General point: There is a common misconception about the role of miners. Miners have one, only one, and exactly one job: To provide the ordering of transactions in a Byzantine fault-tolerant manner (which in turn prevents double-spends). That’s what miners do. That is all miners do. Granted, it is an important and resource-intensive job; that’s why miners get paid for it. But that is the one and only security function of miners.
[...]
Full nodes do not blindly “follow the longest chain”. They follow the chain independently validated by them which has the highest total POW. A miner who produced invalid blocks would be wasting his hashrate, and likely risking widespread blacklisting of his IP address. It doesn’t matter if the invalid blocks steal money from Segwit transactions, steal money from old-style transactions, create 21 billion new coins, or are filled with gibberish from /dev/random. An invalid block is an invalid block, and shall be promptly discarded by all full nodes—period.
ir.hn is creating nonsensical non-arguments by exploiting the aforesaid misconception about the role of miners. After all the attempts others have made to explain on this and other points, I cannot but conclude that ir.hn is maliciously spreading misinformation. I write this post for the benefit of others. I am uninterested in arguing with somebody who is a deliberate liar and/or so manifestly ineducable as to appear braindead.
Um yes they do. If 51% of miners want anything at all, they can fork everyone else off the blockchain that doesn't use their protocol.
This kind of uneducated nonsense will (hopefully) get you banned for a few days if you'll continue spreading misinformation on this board. If you are not trolling, you will have an incentive to read some good resources that explain Bitcoin's protocol (you can find a lot of quality stuff here: http://lopp.net/bitcoin.html), and if are trolling, it will be a good riddance.
If I am wrong please explain my error instead of deliberately maliciously threatening me. Please explain why 51% of mining power cannot create a chain fork.
Um yes they do. If 51% of miners want anything at all, they can fork everyone else off the blockchain that doesn't use their protocol.
This kind of uneducated nonsense will (hopefully) get you banned for a few days if you'll continue spreading misinformation on this board. If you are not trolling, you will have an incentive to read some good resources that explain Bitcoin's protocol (you can find a lot of quality stuff here: http://lopp.net/bitcoin.html), and if you are trolling, it will be a good riddance.
I'm a small blocker, but mining is the aspect of bitcoin that was designed to decentralize. It requires work to do so people can't just mine for free. It requires investment for your vote to count. This is why we mine.
So if miners control the network, then bitcoin is working as designed.
So if miners control the network, then bitcoin is working as designed.
Absolute bullshit. Miners will never be given full power let alone be having an option to choose block sizes. Bitmain has already been caught doing some shady shits in the past before the bcash split ... Go figure the terms: ASICBOOST and ANTBLEED
Sorry to burst your bubble but that's not gonna happen in Bitcoin. Miners will never be given any extra privilege. Move your miners to Btrash if you have to and we won't miss you.
Um yes they do. If 51% of miners want anything at all, they can fork everyone else off the blockchain that doesn't use their protocol.
I'm a small blocker, but mining is the aspect of bitcoin that was designed to decentralize. It requires work to do so people can't just mine for free. It requires investment for your vote to count. This is why we mine.
So if miners control the network, then bitcoin is working as designed.
So if miners control the network, then bitcoin is working as designed.
Absolute bullshit. Miners will never be given full power let alone be having an option to choose block sizes. Bitmain has already been caught doing some shady shits in the past before the bcash split ... Go figure the terms: ASICBOOST and ANTBLEED scandals.
Sorry to burst your bubble but that's not gonna happen in Bitcoin. Miners will never be given any extra privilege. Move your miners to Btrash if you have to and we won't miss you.
Lightning nodes will remove the decentralization, and those who hold those nodes will have the power. Who will hold these nodes? The banks. Bitcoin sold his soul.
Who told you that bullshit?
Lightning nodes will be implemented in wallet services which we use today like Mycellium, Copay, Coinomi etc. and also on some hardware wallets like Trezor, Ledger etc. On the contrary, Coinbase already has some kind of "off-chain" transaction capabilities between Coinbase users from their inception.
No nodes will have the power to alter any terms and conditions of lightning network payment channels since they'll be controlled solely between the buyer and the seller. Nodes will just act as a medium to conduct the processes.
People like Roger Ver is brainwashing new individuals like you into thinking that lightning network = centralization. It's their own altcoin which is = centralization since miners have the power to control the block sizes in their bcash crap coin.
I'm a small blocker, but mining is the aspect of bitcoin that was designed to decentralize. It requires work to do so people can't just mine for free. It requires investment for your vote to count. This is why we mine.
So if miners control the network, then bitcoin is working as designed.
You clearly got brainwashed by the false agenda with that video.
If you know the Big-O complexity algorithm, it's clear that Bitcoin is not scalable, because it follows the O(n2) curve.
Thus, Bitcoin needs to scale in the same way the internet does, with additional protocol layers like lightning networks and sidechains.
I would recommend you to learn how complexities work before making conclusions based off of fake agendas. Also watch this instead: https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw
Lightning nodes will remove the decentralization, and those who hold those nodes will have the power. Who will hold these nodes? The banks. Bitcoin sold his soul.
Who told you that bullshit?
Lightning nodes will be implemented in wallet services which we use today like Mycellium, Copay, Coinomi etc. and also on some hardware wallets like Trezor, Ledger etc. On the contrary, Coinbase already has some kind of "off-chain" transaction capabilities between Coinbase users from their inception.
No nodes will have the power to alter any terms and conditions of lightning network payment channels since they'll be controlled solely between the buyer and the seller. Nodes will just act as a medium to conduct the processes.
People like Roger Ver is brainwashing new individuals like you into thinking that lightning network = centralization. It's their own altcoin which is = centralization since miners have the power to control the block sizes in their bcash crap coin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYHFrf5ci_g&t=1s
Jump to: