Topic: LN: Bitcoin could theoretically scale beyond VISA. - page 3. (Read 739 times)

Wow, so you're saying that if people transact with scammers, there's a chance they might get ripped off?  What a truly shocking revelation!  

I mean, you might have noticed how Karpeles, BitConnect, BFL, ICO scammers, etc didn't actually need to use Lightning to steal peoples' money?  So firstly, in what conceivable way is that an argument against Lightning?

Secondly, Lighting isn't a chequing account or a bank.  You are utterly incapable of understanding the meaning of words if you think it is.

And thirdly (the main point), your hypothetical scenario still makes no sense in the real world.  You don't appear to be grasping the timelock part correctly (or pretty much Lightning in its entirety for that matter).  CLTV means that if the transaction isn't signed by the recipient within a set time, the sender gets their coins back.  

It doesn't mean the customer's funds are "locked forever".  If that's what you think it means, you need to forget everything you think you know and start again from scratch.  You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.  But, chances are, you probably do know it doesn't mean what you've been saying and you're just spreading FUD to make newbies think it's something bad.  That's seemingly just the kind of person you are.  Deceitful.

And the customer would still be incredibly unwise to spend from an older state, regardless of how much money is in the channel.  The funds are not "in limbo", either.  What drugs are you even on?  Try learning something for once, rather that just shouting "BANKS BANKS BANKS" like a total buffoon.  

I hear the PM needs a new Foreign Secretary, I think you'd make a great replacement for that bumbling imbecile Boris.  I read all your posts in his voice now.  You're pretty much on par with his level of dishonest propaganda.  All you need now is a bus:





It's called beta software.  No one is under any illusion about the fact it's not ready for mainstream usage yet, you contemptible, manipulative little weasel.  No responsible developer would encourage people to throw large sums of money at something that's still in development, so stop trying to twist decency on their part into something sinister.  You are a total and utter disgrace.  Is there nothing you won't try to distort or pervert with your insidious rhetoric?

Again, none of the wasted keystrokes you've expended here come close to forming an argument against continuing to develop Lightning.  I hope everyone sees you for the hollow, morally bankrupt vermin you are.  Troll harder.

This is obvious. In the next ten years, the utilization rate of VISA will be greatly reduced, and the encrypted currency can well fill the needs of these customers.

your too stuck in the utopian mindset. plus your thinking of the hub as the honourable party..
so lets use some real names that might make you think
trendon shavers, mark kerpeles, bitconnect, butterfly labs, cloudminers, ico scammers, any exchange that claimed "we been hacked"
 
lets clarify this.. in normal bank chequing account terms

customer and naferious have a joint bank account requiring 2 signatures.  and if a bank gets 2 cheques. it accept the highest cheque number
..
cheque one. customer pays $3 to naferious. both sign cheque includes punishment to take customers whole funds if cheque1 is sent but cheque 2 is presented aswell

cheque two. customer pays $3 to naferious. naferious refuses to sign. and says "im going offline and locksing customrs funds forever."

customer gets compelled to send cheque 1 because the customer still has $57 in limbo(but got a free coffee).. and cheque one is the only duel signed cheque customer has..

then as cheque 1 is being broadcast. naferious signs cheque 2. and broadcasts it.
now cheque 2 initiates the revoke and steals $57 from customer

...
also look into the issues of sighash_noinput and the other opcodes the devs are implementing. even they are agreeing its dangerous and would require users to actually read the raw tx data before signing to know what they are signing.

LN has many holes.. the devs themselves dont even trust it and warn people of using it. stop promoting it as utopia
do you know why after decades of digital money. bitcoin was invented instead of just having dual managed/signed accounts. do you understand what the purpose of the blockchain is and why doing things offchain is the reverse of rvolutionary.

think about it

if you are hinting at confirmation speed then you should know that bitcoin's transaction confirmation speed is already ridiculously faster than VISA's confirmation speed!
for example as a merchant when you receive bitcoin it will only take about 10 minutes on average to get 1 confirmation and be sure of the payment. but with VISA it will take a couple of days (up to 3) to have it confirmed and receive actual money.

Bitcoin may theoretically extend beyond VISA. But the speed of processing it can not be as fast as a visa.

I like how that will give people incentive to run their own nodes and compete with others when it comes to offering the lowest possible rates for the 'services' as node. I find it quite funny how the BCash squad keeps pointing at banking hubs and that it will destroy Bitcoin, while in reality BCash has been destroyed already. It's centralized around the Roger Ver cartel, and the most hilarious thing is that they might be planning to upgrade their block size to 1TB, which is beyond insane. Their reasoning is that everyone can buy a $50 HDD and have insane internet speeds. These idiots don't understand that people will NOT upgrade just to run a full node of something, and especially not when it comes to an altcoin.

This is valid, and this is the thing that bitcoin needs to go into the following level of being acknowledged. On the off chance that we don't do a wonder such as this, at that point we're not going to have the capacity to contend in reality with enormous traders, for example, visa, paypal, and so forth. In case we can't get to this point, at that point we will have issues when the system is congested, (for example, high charges, long sit tight circumstances for affirmations, and a burglary of the whole system)

Lightning Network is not centralised and because of that it will take a longer period of time for it to become more popular. VISA will face serious problem due to growing number of users or... maybe lack of them. Lightning Network scales better because every individual is able to create their own node and earn a little money on it which encourages people to run it.

Nearly three weeks and still no reply, franky1?  I was enjoying our little exchange.  Still running those scenarios?   

I'll happily give you a bit more time to come up with a convincing argument.  You clearly need it.   

it's great there will be a network of lightning, it can make Bitcoin more clever and faster in terms of transactions.

because Bitcoin or Altcoins should always update the system and let not be considered by the user's own ancient itself.

I personally like Lightning network a lot. Though in the beginning I had doubt about their efficiency, but with time they have proved me wrong and has progressed a lot. The best part is it makes Bitcoin so fast that transactions become very easy and smooth.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.  It almost sounds like you're raising a legitimate concern that could genuinely affect users, rather than just spouting mindless propaganda about "banks".  You actually managed to make an entire post without blaming a particular group of developers for everything, well done.  That must have been difficult for you.  Why couldn't you just open with something that sounds reasonable like this, rather than the reams of utter drivel you've been posting lately?  I might have actually taken you seriously.  

If I soften my stance and concede there might be the occasional instance where this is an issue, is there a chance you might be able to soften your stance and concede there might actually be the occasional benefit to using the Lighting Network?  Maybe compromise and find a fair-minded middleground?  Or was this just another attempt at a cheap points-scoring exercise and you have no interest in being fair-minded or neutral about it because you're the embodiment of the tribalism you opportunistically use as a smokescreen for your attacks?  Is there some remote possibility that you might be able to say something positive about Lightning for once?

But as you've said, "don't assume, don't assume, don't assume", so let's run that scenario:

If Starbucks don't sign their half of the transaction, they've effectively let a customer walk out without paying for their coffee.  That customer could conceivably think the best course of action is to broadcast from an older transaction, but that's not really in the customer's best interests.  The more likely scenario is that when the customer goes back for another coffee, they say "Hey, you didn't sign the transaction for my last coffee, you need to do that before I can pay for today's coffee".  And the Starbucks staff would say "Oh yeah, we're a business and we need to accept money for our products and services or we'll go out of business, duh".  Well, okay, maybe they wouldn't say it quite like that, but clearly the financial incentive is there for Starbucks to hold up their end of the deal.  It's not like they don't have anything at stake.  They have operating costs to cover just like any other business.  And to cover those costs, they need to actually sell the coffee, not try to screw their customers over.

Companies want to accept your money.  Because companies that place barriers to transact will naturally lose customers.  And if a company deliberately tried to rip people off, like your scenario, that would probably involve larger problems, like negative publicity, a tarnished brand and possibly even consumer protection agencies, watchdogs and regulators getting involved.  In extreme cases, fines and other criminal proceedings.  

The path of least resistance (and consequence) is the honest one in this scenario (and many others).

The problem isn't really LN, but the general idea that Bitcoin makes a step forward towards mass adoption. Some people just can't and don't want to see Bitcoin progress and become a mainstream instrument.

After LN we'll have other implementations that people will jump on and try to talk down on it. I'm used to how everything goes and can only laugh at how desperate these attempts to tarnish Bitcoin are.

I'm sure that even when Bitcoin has surpassed gold and does everything better in all aspects, there still will be skeptics trying to talk it down. Just let it go. Some people just can't be pleased, regardless of what you show them.

LOL
so when you set up a channel with starbucks and you deposit $60 to cover $2 coffee for a month. do you really expect starbucks to deposit $60 also??
imagine a starbucks hub(local town branch) with 8000 customers. do you really think that starbucks is going to stake $480,000.
no its going to be more like
customer[$60 - $0]starbucks
starbucks will have nothing to lose. so it is NOT a "mutual destruction" scenario

and it will be starbucks that will set up the channel and offer the initial deposit rules, fee's and punishments. and its starbucks that can. du to nothing to lose refuse to sign their half. forcing a customer to broadcast an older tx. so that then starbucks can then sign the refuted tx to then use as a rvocation(chargeback) to punish the customer.

i think you need to run more scenarios based on a "can i break it" mindset. not a "utopia, it works" mindset.

there are other things starbucks can do too. i can think upp multiple blackmail extortion methods. and also due to not involving community validation(blockchain). ways a LN hub can tweak its code to have the upper hand. such as being best frinds with the DNS seed nodes so that their hub is part of the initial list fresh nodes see. and thus grabs as many users as possible. and becomes the hanshaker not the handshakee. to ensure the hub gets the customer to sign first. to ensur the customer is on the losing side and makes the hub th real controller of funds

again run some scenarios. it will shock you.
but even th devs have been public to say that you should not use LN unless prepared to lose because they know there are many flaws. they are still only tsting the handshaking to make a payment. they ar still not at the test it to break it until it doesnt break no more stage

And if you look at CoinmarketCap ,

You can see the majority Do not share your Opinion about exchanges.

You Determine how much you leave on the exchange ,
since the transfers are not time locked you can move funds in and out at a faster speed and not have the majority of your funds at risk.

Need to spend $100 offchain, deposit it and pay the other party. (Your only risk the $100)
Get Pay $100 offchain, withdraw it immediately to your onchain wallet. (Again Your only risk the $100)
Since their is no time locking like in LN you can immediately deposit or withdraw, protecting you from excessive risk.


If you are dumb enough to leave the majority of your funds under a 3rd party's control, well that is your personal call.
But using the exchanges that is a choice not a requirement.

---

*At this point in time , LN has yet to be proven safe and has reported loss of time locked funds.*
https://www.ethnews.com/lightning-network-users-report-losing-bitcoin-due-to-bugs
*Almost 4 Months later, the Lost LN's Notes for bitcoins have not yet been reported as recovered.*

---

It's nice to hear processing visa become faster and easier and of course affordable.

I am still trying to understand the technicalities that surrounds the Lightening Network as those jargon are too difficult for someone less technically inclined but I am hopeful that this is one that would further makes this technology a bigger one and of the mere fact of comparison with Visa and projected to go beyond Visa in terms of transactions handling based on the what I estimated Visa to be handling every second is surely a project to behold. Just like SegWit, until when I saw how this reduced transaction fees significantly, it still does not make sense to it.

The best is for everyone to be ready to key in this, rather looking for ways to criticize and pull it down without even giving it a chance to prove itself.

I think bitcoin is a property such as gold is not money, up no need to try to move so fast, of course moving fast is a good thing, bitcoin too expensive to buy a bread

it has not been that long since the last time an exchange got hacked and people lost a lot of their money. and each year we have at least two exchanges that either scam their users or get hacked and run away. you still are advertising exchanges as a solution!!!
even a child can tell you that is not safe...

Lightning Network is an off-chain solution, it is just a third party service offered to bitcoin users. What Bitcoin needs is an on-chain solution being able to accomodate an increased incoming transaction stream without the effect of fees rising astronomically. Only then you can speak about a decentralized payment system.

What LN offers, an off-chain solution, a third party payment service - well, it can be built upon anything, glass beads or shells too.