Topic: The great Lightning scam - page 2. (Read 603 times)

Oh yes.You are right.None of us here thought about it before.We were just thinking that lightning network would be the ultimate solution for all the transaction problems which bitcoin is now facing . It would be better for our bitcoin community to encourage all to use Segwit itself and solve the transaction issues.

Well the system is already in place to accept payments with Visa, so it's really smart to leverage that, and be able to spend your money where you want. There's no limits that way. You don't need to find places that accept BTC, and it's strategically a good deal to get the "system" to accept Crypto, cause Visa is still getting their 3% from merchants for accepting it, banks still get their ATM fee when you withdraw, so big business doesn't feel as threatened by a major adoption. Yeah, there's a little politics at play, but what do you expect when big moneys involved? Bitpay has not been cancelled, I used it yesterday, and they only sent mine to me like the week before Christmas, and I have a friend who is waiting on his card which was sent out Monday, so those were rumors you heard about it being cancelled.

Coinbase is a USA based exchange I know lots of people in Europe all of them with Visa and MasterCard connected to Bitcoin canceled

I'm surprised coinbase still operating their card

Also multiple articles say bitpay visa canceled

Never made sense to me tying a crypto card to a fiat card

Just sell crypto through exchange then exit into an account with a card tied to it

Crypto credit cards just never seemed right

You're spreading disinformation. From the article you linked: "Visa said the cards had been suspended after Visa terminated WaveCrest's membership due to "continued non-compliance with our operating rules", although it said other Visa cards that convert Bitcoin into normal currency would not be affected.

"Visa has other approved card programmes that use fiat funds converted from cryptocurrency in a number of jurisdictions. The termination of WaveCrest’s Visa membership does not affect these other products."
It was one card provider that they were having an ongoing problem with. The sky is not falling.

Just for your info:
If you are developer there is a Bitcoin + Lightning developer survey:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc6aO_VK27AoxCskzw3upZKnth6dFSiLjOvT75Z6ee0jdw-nw/viewform

What's the whole point of paying for an intermediary if you can pay the miners without having to go through all of this shenanigans? At first I was kinda hopeful whether LN would deliver or not, but after churning every single bit of detail I get about LN, it turns out that this would benefit a select few, especially the off-chain intermediaries who'd receive some cut on the tx. It's not a scalability solution but rather a compromise just to make ends meet in the meantime until a feasible scaling soution is implemented. I share the sentiment, but wouldn't call LN a scam.


What is your proposition, then?

You're wrong about this one. Coinbase does have a special deal. Bitpay does also. There are a few more as well. Other then the Shift card which is the Coinbase one, the way the other cards work is they connect to an exchange and you are basically selling some of your BTC (some of them support other altcoins as well) so anyways, you sell some of your coins and the exchange sends your money to what is basically a prepaid reuseable Visa card (with their own branding on it) I'm in the process of moving to a less restrictive state (In NY atm, which is most restrictive there is, and doesn't allow half the exchanges) so I can get one of those cards. Now as far as limits go, the Shift card offered by Coinbase has a $1000 limit per transaction. The Bitpay card has a much larger limit (10000 per transaction) so you'd want to utilize that for your big ticket items. I get the feeling that you don't particularly like Bitcoin for some reason. Kinda strange that you would join a Bitcoin forum if you dislike Bitcoin. Also, there's lots of things in this life I don't like, but I just concentrate on the ones I do. Why would I want to be reminded of something I didn't like? It's a big world out there. I'm sure you could find a hobby that makes you happy.

lol, you clearly do not know sht about what you are talking about. yet you have the guts to rant about your thoughts without even taking the time to know what you are talking about. let alone compare lightning to bitcoin cash? lol. do you know how crappy the bitcoin cash solution is? thinking about it, it will only last a year or two till we'll need another fork to the the same solution that bitcoin cash did. try to read more first next time before you post things that you do not even know sht about. because this can confuse a lot of newbies out there that doesnt know a lot yet about bitcoins and the lightning networks together with all the other altcoins present out there.

Don't forget that anyone who uses bitcoin has to open and close channels,which means that for someone who wants to make 1-2 payments within the bitcoin network, it won't save any fees.

Also, lightning nodes will most likely be centralized, the whole idea about lightning network is that it will be centralized.
Think about it like that, there are going to be  several nodes that have connections to most of the common used addresses among the network, those nodes are going to be the only nodes that will be used for lightning transactions, that is going to make it very centralized network.
It is not going to solve anything, all it is going to do is to convert decentralized slow network into a centralized fast network- not going to solve any problem at the long run.

When a channel is opened or closed, it is securely recorded on the public ledger.  Channels can be opened by anyone with funds, which means it shouldn't be centralised.  You have to timelock the funds on the Bitcoin blockchain before you can send any off-chain transactions, so Lightning absolutely still requires proof of work in order to function.  The transactions are only temporarily off-chain.  There's no fractional reserve involved and at all times no one can send more Bitcoin than they possess.  It sounds like your post is generally more "tech ignorant" than anything else I've read about Lightning lately.  

It's also a little surprising you care so much given your subsequent replies about "abandonment of blockchain" and needing a centralised company to be in control to make anything work.  Even if Lightning was centralised, and there's no evidence that it is, why would it even matter if you don't rate the importance of decentralisation very highly to begin with?  Then you start shamelessly plugging your altcoin, which makes me think the thread itself might possibly just be click-bait for you to get attention for your altcoin and freely discuss it in the wrong subforum.  Maybe that wasn't the intent, but it looks more than a little suspect.

However, if you are being genuine regarding your concerns, it's fair to say I initially had more than a few reservations over Lightning too, but those concerns have been largely assuaged by seeing it in action.  I suggest you take some time to do some research and figure out how it actually works, because based on what you've said so far, it's only fair for me to assume you haven't done that.  If, after educating yourself, you still have concerns or questions, feel free to post again.

you know to call something a scam you would need to identify people who deliberately try to get unfair money, trick others, etc. anyway there is always the beneficiary and a victim of a scam. From your post I can see that you consider Lightning Network crap and I can understand your point of view (although I don't agree, because there is still not much evidence this or that way, and I try not be prejudiced).

But, to call it a scam - well it is much too farfetched and even harming to the creators as it assumes their malevolent motives and bad intentions.

I understand that you want to be a little provocative, but listen you said it, it is off chain.
Nobody wants it to be the solution.

It is just something that permits send bitcoin fast to from a sender to  receiver.
In my opinion is an experiment that we can develope and see if in the near future it is possible to add required features to make it more secure.

I don't get what peoples problem is. I buy stuff with BTC all the time. Get yourself a Coinbase account. I know, everybody loves whatever wallet they're using. Just use 2 wallets. The Coinbase wallet links to the Shift card they offer. Spend money any time you want. It's a Visa card, and the transaction goes thru immedietely. Take cash out of the ATM. Theres a ATM fee, but it's the same amount as my bank for foreign ATMS (3.00 or 3.50, cant remember) Now your transactions happen off blockchain. Problem solved. Oh, you want to send BTC to your friend, or someone who you are buying from? Or you want to recieve BTC from someone who bought something from you on ebay? Coinbase does Coinbase to Coinbase transactions off blockchain too also with no fee. That's how I pay the rent for my mining space. The other problem with BTC transactions is you want to wait till the price is up to make a large purchase. So get yourself a second (or third) wallet from Bitpay. Wait till the price is where you need it to be, and move over $500 or whatever you need to over to the Bitpay card. Now those funds are locked in (basically you've sold some of your BTC) Now since your sending BTC from yourself to yourself the time it takes to go through shouldn't matter as much so use a really low transaction fee, and just wait a couple days for it to go through if that's what it takes. Just use the tools you have available, and there really aren't any problems. I think people WANT there to be a problem, probably cause they have invested in some altcoin. People need to be able to go into a store and swipe a card. That's how the whole world is setup. It's best to work with what is there already. Visa gets their cut, banks get their cut, and everyone will chill with the resistance. Wallet to wallet is cool for some stuff for sure, but not for a McDouble and a Coke.

I think this ranting about bitcoin is just to promote your bizbytes. Anyway, no one is forcing you not to believe on bitcoin and you cannot contradict on what people want.

Or a new thing that they don't understand, so they simply complain about it.


That is the reason that there will never be a blockchain based cryptocurrency that scales with all transactions entirely on chain.


Correct.


Incorrect. It is a hybrid on/off chain system.

The transactions that open and close the channels are ON CHAIN.
The transactions within a channel are individually off-chain, but the net result of the channel transactions is committed to an ON CHAIN transaction when the channel is closed.


I don't think the word "centralized" means what you seem to think it means.


nor???  The blockchain IS the public ledger.  Those aren't 2 different things.

As I explained, some of it DOES hit the Blockchain (the public ledger).


I'm not sure what you mean by that, but you can not open or close a channel without a miner including the transaction in a block that they've built and then completing the proof of work.


Considering that it's ability to function depends entirely on cryptography such as cryptographic signatures and cryptographic hashes, that is a blatant and obvious LIE.


That is just an opinion.  It is an opinion of someone that clearly doesn't understand what they are talking about, so I'm not going to take that opinion very seriously.  I doubt any knowledgeable and educated person will.


Another blatant and obvious LIE.  The transaction that opens the channel is an on-chain bitcoin transaction. The transaction that closes the channel is an on-chain bitcoin transaction. The value that moves through the channel is bitcoin value. The keys that are used in the signatures are bitcoin private keys. The scripts in the transaction outputs are bitcoin scripts. There isn't anything about a Lightning Channel that isn't bitcoin.


That is just an opinion.  It is an opinion of someone that clearly doesn't understand what they are talking about, so I'm not going to take that opinion very seriously.  I doubt any knowledgeable and educated person will.


Because, we don't share your uneducated opinion on the matter.


Honestly, I don't care whether or not you think it's the "Bitcoin fix to scaling".  It's pretty clear that it will be possible to send MANY more transactions through Lightning Channels than could ever fit on any Blockchain.


We've been over this already.  I'm not going to repeat it again.  I suggest you go back and re-read this post to get the response to this silly statement.


Dummies don't need to be tricked.  Dummmies make up nonsense of their own, and then believe it regardless of the facts.


We've been over this already.  I'm not going to repeat it again.  I suggest you go back and re-read this post to get the response to this silly statement.


You seem to be stuck in a repeating cycle here.  You keep saying the same thing over and over as if that will make it more true.  Repetition won't change facts.

Because almost all users are so hell-bent on believing that LN is the solution, so these 'dummies' believe them. The coin is decentralized but the development sure isn't.


See, you made good points on your first post, but now you just sound like an angry dude ranting on bitcoin. Seems like the whole point of these thread is you promoting this bizbytes thing, whatever that is.

Well BCrash is even worst, because bigger Block sizes {to scale to VISA & PayPal} would centralize Bitcoin even more. Just

do the math on Block sizes needed to scale to VISA/PayPal levels and imagine how many people would be able to run FULL

nodes to accomplish that. Bitcoin has to scale with second layer applications to compete with other big payment networks.

It takes no genius to see that... but people are still jumping on that boring bandwagon.  

Your BCrash price is going one way, once the Lightning Network is running ....DOWN. {Reason for your post?}

Edit : VISA processed 141 billion tx in 2016. That is 4471 tx/sec! We would need 1.49 GB blocksize to process this, and it

would grow blockchain by 214 GB every day, and 78 TB every year!

Is lightning Bitcoin? No
Is lightning on bitcoins public ledger? No

It's a centralized attempt to confuse public it's Bitcoin

Where can I get lightning? No where in reality

What merchants take it? None in reality

The problem with these new developments are the adoption to it in a large scale just like you said. The main reason is the concerns of the pools if it could be effective or not.

With Segwit, almost all major exchanges/wallets haven't implemented it yet. How many new Bitcoin users rely on wallets with access to private keys? A very small percentage, rest keep funds on centralized exchanges/custodial wallets, that's one of the main reasons behind lack of Segwit adoption. Secondary, Segwit was a temporary solution to implement further scaling solutions. Increasing the blocksize to 2 MB would have the same results within a year.

With Lightening Network the argument is always about centralization and offchain transactions, again my above point, if a service like Coinbase has a payment channel, wouldn't a good number of their users use it, thus taking the load off Blockchain, and lowering on-chain fees. As far as I have seen, people don't have much issue using well-established centralized Bitcoin services/exchanges/wallets. Offchain transactions, although it's security is enforced by Blockchain, isn't?


LN isn't going to fix anything until it gets adopted at a large scale, the same Segwit scenario. The developers can roll out upgrades, but it's the ecosystem consisting of big services that have to implement it to deliver it to the user.
 
https://decentralize.today/struck-by-lightning-bitcoins-true-killer-app-491092574cd8