XT is not a problem. The saviors are near.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3s3u8x/our_blockstream_saviours_and_xt_infidels/
Topic: Time to stand up to the XT shills here! - page 6. (Read 10598 times)
Well, if the fees are low and the TXN count is low, I don't see how the miners are going to secure the network (excluding minting) ?
Currently, the newly minted bitcoins are paying for this, but in future, when there are almost no new bitcoins to mint, the miners will need to rely more on the fees to get paid.
Do you disagree ?
I partially agree. If the price does go up enough, there will be less fee dependence (it is also possible that the opposite happens). We can not know what is going to happen and thus what we are doing here is speculating. People need to stop looking too far ahead. Even predictions of what is going to happen in the next two years have a very high probability of being wrong. I'm not sure if this is really relevant to the XT shills nor the discussion of LN.Currently, the newly minted bitcoins are paying for this, but in future, when there are almost no new bitcoins to mint, the miners will need to rely more on the fees to get paid.
Do you disagree ?
hehe, hitting a nerve here, them forkers got NOTHING. only the pitiful yapping. 
You forgot, they have Peter that writes papers about fairy tales. Update: Slight corrections.
The amount we pay the miners, is directly proportional to the security of the network..
If the txn count is LOW then the fees must be HIGH. Unless we want an insecure network.
Says who? IIRC the fees were high so far only at peak time of traffic or during the spam attacks. When did a lower number of transactions cause higher transaction fees? It isn't all simple as this, but I'm disregarding that for now. If the txn count is LOW then the fees must be HIGH. Unless we want an insecure network.
Well, if the fees are low and the TXN count is low, I don't see how the miners are going to secure the network (excluding minting) ?
Currently, the newly minted bitcoins are paying for this, but in future, when there are almost no new bitcoins to mint, the miners will need to rely more on the fees to get paid.
Do you disagree ?
The amount we pay the miners, is directly proportional to the security of the network..
If the txn count is LOW then the fees must be HIGH. Unless we want an insecure network.
Says who? IIRC the fees were high so far only at peak time of traffic or during the spam attacks. When did a lower number of transactions cause higher transaction fees? It isn't all simple as this, but I'm disregarding that for now. If the txn count is LOW then the fees must be HIGH. Unless we want an insecure network.
Quote
..essentially it works like this – If all bitcoin transactions are being discussed in an open forum, its public ledger, the lightning network allows parties to enter into a closed room for a period of time, conduct transactions during that period, and at the end of the agreed time, broadcast these transactions to the network.
If it is the case, that you always have to revert (send out the final BTC totals) to the main-chain, to 'collect', after a lightning session, won't people with small amounts get stuck off chain, as the fees to re-join the main-chain will be destructively expensive?
Altruism aside, why would anyone choose-to-use the main-chain, if the lightning network is just as secure and decentralised, and '..cheaper and faster..' ?
So if you understand that Lightning actually depends upon the main chain why would you ask this question?
Your question implies that no transaction is done on the main chain at all - and of course that is not how it works.
Please read this: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-summary.pdf
(the point being that there are other ways to scale the Bitcoin infrastructure that don't just involve creating bigger blocks)
It will certainly help with scaling in the short term, but over longer periods, the real question becomes what percentage of transaction fees are skimmed off the top and don't end up going to the miners securing the main chain? It could potentially hit miners hard later down the line if we don't strike the balance right. Too much traffic on the main chain is bad, but too much off-chain could be equally precarious.
I don't see how that is a problem.
There are basically two type of demand for transactions: cheap & instant and irreversible settlements.
In the long run entities looking for secure settlements of large transactions will necessarily settle directly on the blockchain and it's likely the market fee for these transactions will cover miners' cost.
I respect your optimism, but I'm not quite ready for all of us to bet the farm on "likely". We need to tread carefully on this. What's the plan if miner fees start to drop? Politely ask providers of the off-chain services to stop taking a cut? Somehow I don't see that working. The first major off-chain solution launched is Liquid, which is designed precisely for large scale settlements. Have we not got this a little backwards if "settlements of large transactions will necessarily settle directly on the blockchain"?
That's not what Liquid is for. It's basically a liquidity pool for market makers & exchanges.
Settlement on the Bitcoin blockchain offers unparalleled security so basically you are arguing that there is not going to be enough demand for this. I consider this pretty unlikely.
Altruism aside, why would anyone choose-to-use the main-chain, if the lightning network is just as secure and decentralised, and '..cheaper and faster..' ?
So if you understand that Lightning actually depends upon the main chain why would you ask this question?
Your question implies that no transaction is done on the main chain at all - and of course that is not how it works.
Please read this: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-summary.pdf
(the point being that there are other ways to scale the Bitcoin infrastructure that don't just involve creating bigger blocks)
It will certainly help with scaling in the short term, but over longer periods, the real question becomes what percentage of transaction fees are skimmed off the top and don't end up going to the miners securing the main chain? It could potentially hit miners hard later down the line if we don't strike the balance right. Too much traffic on the main chain is bad, but too much off-chain could be equally precarious.
I don't see how that is a problem.
There are basically two type of demand for transactions: cheap & instant and irreversible settlements.
In the long run entities looking for secure settlements of large transactions will necessarily settle directly on the blockchain and it's likely the market fee for these transactions will cover miners' cost.
I respect your optimism, but I'm not quite ready for all of us to bet the farm on "likely". We need to tread carefully on this. What's the plan if miner fees start to drop? Politely ask providers of the off-chain services to stop taking a cut? Somehow I don't see that working. The first major off-chain solution launched is Liquid, which is designed precisely for large scale settlements. Have we not got this a little backwards if "settlements of large transactions will necessarily settle directly on the blockchain"?
Talking about likeliness, how likely it is that some out of a hat bigger blocks size fit some out of a hat technology growth for some out of a hat mass adoption?
I concur, I am all for carefulness...
2) If I have acquired £10, 'lightning-around' (let's say I have just won a penny poker tournament with 1000 players in our closed room), how will I collect that when the fee for a single TXN on the main chain is more than £10 ?
-snip-
Exactly why would there be fees so high if there was not a huge backlog on the main chain?-snip-
.. The amount we pay the miners, is directly proportional to the security of the network..
If the txn count is LOW then the fees must be HIGH. Unless we want an insecure network.
Altruism aside, why would anyone choose-to-use the main-chain, if the lightning network is just as secure and decentralised, and '..cheaper and faster..' ?
So if you understand that Lightning actually depends upon the main chain why would you ask this question?
Your question implies that no transaction is done on the main chain at all - and of course that is not how it works.
Please read this: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-summary.pdf
(the point being that there are other ways to scale the Bitcoin infrastructure that don't just involve creating bigger blocks)
It will certainly help with scaling in the short term, but over longer periods, the real question becomes what percentage of transaction fees are skimmed off the top and don't end up going to the miners securing the main chain? It could potentially hit miners hard later down the line if we don't strike the balance right. Too much traffic on the main chain is bad, but too much off-chain could be equally precarious.
I don't see how that is a problem.
There are basically two type of demand for transactions: cheap & instant and irreversible settlements.
In the long run entities looking for secure settlements of large transactions will necessarily settle directly on the blockchain and it's likely the market fee for these transactions will cover miners' cost.
I respect your optimism, but I'm not quite ready for all of us to bet the farm on "likely". We need to tread carefully on this. What's the plan if miner fees start to drop? Politely ask providers of the off-chain services to stop taking a cut? Somehow I don't see that working. The first major off-chain solution launched is Liquid, which is designed precisely for large scale settlements. Have we not got this a little backwards if "settlements of large transactions will necessarily settle directly on the blockchain"?
It will certainly help with scaling in the short term, but over longer periods, the real question becomes what percentage of transaction fees are skimmed off the top and don't end up going to the miners securing the main chain? It could potentially hit miners hard later down the line if we don't strike the balance right. Too much traffic on the main chain is bad, but too much off-chain could be equally precarious.
Conclusion: No solution is perfect. I thought everybody knew this by now? If we were to worry about every single aspect in X amount of time in the future, then we'd probably rarely implement anything. By examining pros and cons of various solution, one must make a decision on which is the 'best'. LN is much better than bloating the network, although I wouldn't mind dynamic blocks up to a certain limit. 2) If I have acquired £10, 'lightning-around' (let's say I have just won a penny poker tournament with 1000 players in our closed room), how will I collect that when the fee for a single TXN on the main chain is more than £10 ?
-snip-
Exactly why would there be fees so high if there was not a huge backlog on the main chain? -snip-
Altruism aside, why would anyone choose-to-use the main-chain, if the lightning network is just as secure and decentralised, and '..cheaper and faster..' ?
So if you understand that Lightning actually depends upon the main chain why would you ask this question?
Your question implies that no transaction is done on the main chain at all - and of course that is not how it works.
Please read this: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-summary.pdf
(the point being that there are other ways to scale the Bitcoin infrastructure that don't just involve creating bigger blocks)
It will certainly help with scaling in the short term, but over longer periods, the real question becomes what percentage of transaction fees are skimmed off the top and don't end up going to the miners securing the main chain? It could potentially hit miners hard later down the line if we don't strike the balance right. Too much traffic on the main chain is bad, but too much off-chain could be equally precarious.
Also, they should probably fix that typo in the summary.pdf:
Quote from: lightning-network-summary.pdf
Transactions confirmed on the bitcoin blockchain take up to one hour before they are irrevesible.
I don't see how that is a problem.
There are basically two type of demand for transactions: cheap & instant and irreversible settlements.
In the long run entities looking for secure settlements of large transactions will necessarily settle directly on the blockchain and it's likely the market fee for these transactions will cover miners' cost.
i concur, quite a story you got here, but im more of a stoic person, sry.
i do not like to let myself drift into futuristic unicorns or past metaphors, but i understand what makes bitcoin valuable now, and i can assure you nothing else matters.
Just keep in mind that since 2010 when this debate was started the goalposts have moved. 1 MB of data back then is more like 6 MB of data today. By next year it will be around 8 MB. So are we talking about what is appropiate today or 5 years ago?
I think that Moore's Law is underestimated by some of the participants in this discussion. Yes, they are considering an evolving technology, but are they considering a technology that is evolving at an exponential rate?
Innovation happens very quickly around digital technology....very quickly! Some here are too young to even remember how innovative the first Atari Pong game was...loved it...or the 8800 and 8080 chip sets! We've come a long way very fast since then...very fast....Remember when there was no such thing as a personal computer, a cell phone, or an application specific integrated circuit? I do! And I'm still young.
Moore's Law doesn't really work in real life. Sure first world countries may be able to benefit but the people in countries like Venezuela, Greece, Argentina etc that go from bill to bill always benefit from technology decades later. We must guarantee that nodes can be run over there too.
1) At some point, at the end of a lightning session in a 'closed room', someone has to collect on the main chain. Do we agree on that ?
2) If I have acquired £10, 'lightning-around' (let's say I have just won a penny poker tournament with 1000 players in our closed room), how will I collect that when the fee for a single TXN on the main chain is more than £10 ?
3) My original question was concerned with the fact that in the end, someone is left standing holding the secure IOU's (or whatever) that need to be broadcast to the main chain (probably in a single TXN) to collect, and who would want that un-enviable position.. ? Ergo - I'll try and stay on the lightning side as long as possible.
For LARGE amounts these arguments are mute, but if you only allow large TXN's there's no need to scale up anyway..
..
aannndddd .. just as I finished rambling ..DooMAD 'cuts to the chase'..
2) If I have acquired £10, 'lightning-around' (let's say I have just won a penny poker tournament with 1000 players in our closed room), how will I collect that when the fee for a single TXN on the main chain is more than £10 ?
3) My original question was concerned with the fact that in the end, someone is left standing holding the secure IOU's (or whatever) that need to be broadcast to the main chain (probably in a single TXN) to collect, and who would want that un-enviable position.. ? Ergo - I'll try and stay on the lightning side as long as possible.
For LARGE amounts these arguments are mute, but if you only allow large TXN's there's no need to scale up anyway..
..
aannndddd .. just as I finished rambling ..DooMAD 'cuts to the chase'..
..but over longer periods, the real question becomes what percentage of transaction fees are skimmed off the top and don't end up going to the miners securing the main chain? It could potentially hit miners hard later down the line if we don't strike the balance right. Too much traffic on the main chain is bad, but too much off-chain could be equally precarious.
Altruism aside, why would anyone choose-to-use the main-chain, if the lightning network is just as secure and decentralised, and '..cheaper and faster..' ?
So if you understand that Lightning actually depends upon the main chain why would you ask this question?
Your question implies that no transaction is done on the main chain at all - and of course that is not how it works.
Please read this: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-summary.pdf
(the point being that there are other ways to scale the Bitcoin infrastructure that don't just involve creating bigger blocks)
It will certainly help with scaling in the short term, but over longer periods, the real question becomes what percentage of transaction fees are skimmed off the top and don't end up going to the miners securing the main chain? It could potentially hit miners hard later down the line if we don't strike the balance right. Too much traffic on the main chain is bad, but too much off-chain could be equally precarious.
Also, they should probably fix that typo in the summary.pdf:
Quote from: lightning-network-summary.pdf
Transactions confirmed on the bitcoin blockchain take up to one hour before they are irrevesible.
Altruism aside, why would anyone choose-to-use the main-chain, if the lightning network is just as secure and decentralised, and '..cheaper and faster..' ?
I think it would be analogous to deciding whether to take a bus or driving your own car when you need to get crosstown through crowded city streets.
Altruism aside, why would anyone choose-to-use the main-chain, if the lightning network is just as secure and decentralised, and '..cheaper and faster..' ?
So if you understand that Lightning actually depends upon the main chain why would you ask this question?
Your question implies that no transaction is done on the main chain at all - and of course that is not how it works.
Please read this: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-summary.pdf
(the point being that there are other ways to scale the Bitcoin infrastructure that don't just involve creating bigger blocks)
You do understand that the Lightning Network *depends* upon Bitcoin?
err.. Yes.
It is comments like yours that simply cloud any attempt at serious discussion. 
Is that your attempt at serious discussion ?
..
The question is genuine.
Quote
..essentially it works like this – If all bitcoin transactions are being discussed in an open forum, its public ledger, the lightning network allows parties to enter into a closed room for a period of time, conduct transactions during that period, and at the end of the agreed time, broadcast these transactions to the network.
If it is the case, that you always have to revert (send out the final BTC totals) to the main-chain, to 'collect', after a lightning session, won't people with small amounts get stuck off chain, as the fees to re-join the main-chain will be destructively expensive?
I can assure you many people are not seeing this as clearly as you obviously are.
Altruism aside, why would anyone choose-to-use the main-chain, if the lightning network is just as secure and decentralised, and '..cheaper and faster..' ?
You do understand that the Lightning Network *depends* upon Bitcoin?
It is comments like yours that simply cloud any attempt at serious discussion.
Altruism aside, why would anyone choose-to-use the main-chain, if the lightning network is just as secure and decentralised, and '..cheaper and faster..' ?
Quote
..essentially it works like this – If all bitcoin transactions are being discussed in an open forum, its public ledger, the lightning network allows parties to enter into a closed room for a period of time, conduct transactions during that period, and at the end of the agreed time, broadcast these transactions to the network.
XT Shills are complaining about sidechains. Sidechains are not the proposed solution to scalability - Luke Jr (IIRC).I never said "as secure and decentralised".
The Lightning Network should actually be cheaper and faster than transacting on the main chain (that's at least what a developer said - search on reddit or ask on IRC). I don't see a reason for which one should not use it. I'd use the main chain only for a high amount of money. Bloating the main chain just for the sake of transacting on it isn't a valid reason.
Altruism aside, why would anyone choose-to-use the main-chain, if the lightning network is just as secure and decentralised, and '..cheaper and faster..' ?
Jump to: