Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking &amp; discussion - page 18447. (Read 26712938 times)

Quote from: respawn2 on July 19, 2016, 01:47:21 PM

Scaling != LN. Two different things. I hope you're not telling me that by pointing out LN's shortcomings, I'm betting on failure.
There's that changing a constant trick. More than one way to skin a cat, but LN ain't one of them.

i have made my views on scaling clear, ( i want to see node centralization, i want a crypto decentralized amongst gov/company/bank/universities/etc. i dont care about individuals users running nodes. )
but my view is extremely unpopular.
I yield to the will of the majority.

If the majority is wrong, and is sinking all of its efforts into an exercise in mental masturbation, going with the majority is simply wrong. And asking me to support wasted effort, building a scaling solution that's not a scaling solution but is, basically, a solution in need of a problem, that's wrong too. I'm not going to cheer it on just because "we are pushing with everything we got."

By the way, I'm not raging at you, even though ~~it might come off~~ it definitely reads that way. Just general frustration, sorry.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: adamstgBit on July 19, 2016, 01:38:45 PM

they will not allow users to utilize LN channel for large payments, >XBTC TX will go through the blockchain.

No, what I'm saying is the utility of that channel is going to be next to nil, because BTC typically flows in one direction, not back-and-forth, due to the nature of arbitrage. So it will be 25 BTC from Rock to BFX, another 25 BTC from Rock to BFX, and another, and another. All small, all going in one direction, because BTC costs less on TheRock. Until things change and it starts going in a different direction, to OKCoin, which is another open channel with 50BTC stuck in it that's only good for 2 tx.

we will have to wait and see.

i understand what you are saying, i have made the same arguments...

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: adamstgBit on July 19, 2016, 01:38:45 PM

Scaling != LN. Two different things. I hope you're not telling me that by pointing out LN's shortcomings, I'm betting on failure.
There's that changing a constant trick. More than one way to skin a cat, but LN ain't one of them.

i have made my views on scaling clear, ( i want to see node centralization, i want a crypto decentralized amongst gov/company/bank/universities/etc. i dont care about individual users running nodes. )
but my view is extremely unpopular.
I yield to the will of the majority.

respawn2

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

they will not allow users to utilize LN channel for large payments, >XBTC TX will go through the blockchain.

No, what I'm saying is the utility of that channel is going to be next to nil, because BTC typically flows in one direction, not back-and-forth, due to the nature of arbitrage. So it will be 25 BTC from Rock to BFX, another 25 BTC from Rock to BFX, and another, and another. All small, all going in one direction, because BTC costs less on TheRock. Until things change and it starts going in a different direction, to OKCoin, which is another open channel with 50BTC stuck in it that's only good for 2 tx.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Right. You understand that the benefits of LN are actually negative if you open a channel, make two transactions, and close it?
Why can't they be like other grownup businesses, do the whole thing off-chain, as if it was USD, and bill each other at the end of the month? Or do you think everything* surrounding Bitcoin should be trusttless and as complicated as possible?

Yes i understand.
Yes i believe cheap instant trustless systems are superior.

Quote from: adamstgBit on July 19, 2016, 01:24:36 PM

Quote

if users tend to send BTC to and from TheRock and BFX such that the amount coming in / going out of BFX is always balances out then they can keep the channel open with like 50BTC indefinitely.

As soon as two 50 BTC transactions go in one direction (as is ~~usually~~ almost always the case with arbitrage), say bye bye to that "balance."

they will not allow users to utilize LN channel for large payments, >XBTC TX will go through the blockchain.

respawn2

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: respawn2 on July 19, 2016, 01:17:53 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on July 19, 2016, 01:06:18 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on July 19, 2016, 12:35:47 PM

LN is most useful for lager entities which hold users bitcoins, and move them on there behalf.

bitpay, bitfinex, changetip, etc..

will all be connected together via LN and allow users to move funds among these large site, in a cheap / instant / trustless manner.

I'm not sure I follow. If I want to pay Bob for a hamburger with BitPay, how would LN play into this? I have an open, pre-funded channel with BitPay, and BitPay has open, pre-funded channels with everyone I want to do business with? That's a *huge* sum of BTC to tie up.
If not clear, before using BitPay, I'd have to open a payment channel with BitPay, and fund it with as much BTC as I'm likely to spend with BitPay in, let's say, a month. That's a big chunk of change, but that's not all. BitPay has to keep a huge number of open channels with all of its users, and those channels all have to be funded. That's a huge chunk of change squared.

imagine you want to move bitcoins from your TheRockTradingExhange account to your bitfinex account.
right now you only have the option of transferring the funds using the bitcoin network.

Correct. One macro-transaction.

Quote

but with LN...
TheRockTradingExhange will send LN bitcoin to bitfinex, bitfinex doesn't need to trust TheRockTradingExhange and they can swap bitcoin back and forth all day long at no cost.

So TheRock has an open channel with BFX, prefunded with a humongous sum of BTC, as much as the two exchanges are likely to swap, in, say, a month? How many million BTC is that?

Quote

users dont open channels, they log into a website and request to send some bitcoin to some other website, instead of a BTC address you specify a site/account to send BTC to.

As long as TheRock has a channel with Hamburger Bob, open and funded, sounds like a plan. How much money did TheRock start out with, I mean before it funded all these channels? Are there enough bitcoins in the world for that?

Quote

TheRockTradingExhange and bitfinex open 1 channel which they use to move ALL user funds back and forth.

Or they can do it without involving Bitcoin at all, and just send numbers to each other, settle shit with macro-transactions on the first of the month, like every business in the world does.

TheRock and BFX can choose to settle the channel every time the debit/credit balance is X number of BTC

Right. You understand that the benefits of LN are actually negative if you open a channel, make two transactions, and close it?
Why can't they be like other grownup businesses, do the whole thing off-chain, as if it was USD, and bill each other at the end of the month? Or do you think everything* surrounding Bitcoin should be trusttless and as complicated as possible?

Quote from: adamstgBit on July 19, 2016, 01:28:44 PM

who knows Exactly how this will all play out.
the point is we are pushing with everything we got.
if you want to bet on our failure go ahead...

Scaling != LN. Two different things. I hope you're not telling me that by pointing out LN's shortcomings, I'm betting on failure.
There's that changing a constant trick. More than one way to skin a cat, but LN ain't one of them.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

who knows Exactly how this will all play out.
the point is we are pushing with everything we got.
if you want to bet on our failure go ahead...

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: respawn2 on July 19, 2016, 01:17:53 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on July 19, 2016, 01:06:18 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on July 19, 2016, 12:35:47 PM

LN is most useful for lager entities which hold users bitcoins, and move them on there behalf.

bitpay, bitfinex, changetip, etc..

will all be connected together via LN and allow users to move funds among these large site, in a cheap / instant / trustless manner.

I'm not sure I follow. If I want to pay Bob for a hamburger with BitPay, how would LN play into this? I have an open, pre-funded channel with BitPay, and BitPay has open, pre-funded channels with everyone I want to do business with? That's a *huge* sum of BTC to tie up.
If not clear, before using BitPay, I'd have to open a payment channel with BitPay, and fund it with as much BTC as I'm likely to spend with BitPay in, let's say, a month. That's a big chunk of change, but that's not all. BitPay has to keep a huge number of open channels with all of its users, and those channels all have to be funded. That's a huge chunk of change squared.

imagine you want to move bitcoins from your TheRockTradingExhange account to your bitfinex account.
right now you only have the option of transferring the funds using the bitcoin network.

Correct. One macro-transaction.

Quote

but with LN...
TheRockTradingExhange will send LN bitcoin to bitfinex, bitfinex doesn't need to trust TheRockTradingExhange and they can swap bitcoin back and forth all day long at no cost.

So TheRock has an open channel with BFX, prefunded with a humongous sum of BTC, as much as the two exchanges are likely to swap, in, say, a month? How many million BTC is that?

Quote

users dont open channels, they log into a website and request to send some bitcoin to some other website, instead of a BTC address you specify a site/account to send BTC to.

As long as TheRock has a channel with Hamburger Bob, open and funded, sounds like a plan. How much money did TheRock start out with, I mean before it funded all these channels? Are there enough bitcoins in the world for that?

Quote

TheRockTradingExhange and bitfinex open 1 channel which they use to move ALL user funds back and forth.

Or they can do it without involving Bitcoin at all, and just send numbers to each other, settle shit with macro-transactions on the first of the month, like every business in the world does.

TheRock and BFX can choose to settle the channel every time the debit/credit balance is X number of BTC

if users tend to send BTC to and from TheRock and BFX such that the amount coming in / going out of BFX is always balances out then they can keep the channel open with like 50BTC indefinitely.

respawn2

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: adamstgBit on July 19, 2016, 01:06:18 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on July 19, 2016, 12:35:47 PM

LN is most useful for lager entities which hold users bitcoins, and move them on there behalf.

bitpay, bitfinex, changetip, etc..

will all be connected together via LN and allow users to move funds among these large site, in a cheap / instant / trustless manner.

I'm not sure I follow. If I want to pay Bob for a hamburger with BitPay, how would LN play into this? I have an open, pre-funded channel with BitPay, and BitPay has open, pre-funded channels with everyone I want to do business with? That's a *huge* sum of BTC to tie up.
If not clear, before using BitPay, I'd have to open a payment channel with BitPay, and fund it with as much BTC as I'm likely to spend with BitPay in, let's say, a month. That's a big chunk of change, but that's not all. BitPay has to keep a huge number of open channels with all of its users, and those channels all have to be funded. That's a huge chunk of change squared.

imagine you want to move bitcoins from your TheRockTradingExhange account to your bitfinex account.
right now you only have the option of transferring the funds using the bitcoin network.

Correct. One macro-transaction.

Quote

but with LN...
TheRockTradingExhange will send LN bitcoin to bitfinex, bitfinex doesn't need to trust TheRockTradingExhange and they can swap bitcoin back and forth all day long at no cost.

So TheRock has an open channel with BFX, prefunded with a humongous sum of BTC, as much as the biggest swap the two exchanges are likely to make, in, say, a month? How many thousands of BTC is that?

Quote

users dont open channels, they log into a website and request to send some bitcoin to some other website, instead of a BTC address you specify a site/account to send BTC to.

As long as TheRock has a channel with Hamburger Bob, open and funded, sounds like a plan. How much money did TheRock start out with, I mean before it funded all these channels? Are there enough bitcoins in the world for that?

Quote

TheRockTradingExhange and bitfinex open 1 channel which they use to move ALL user funds back and forth.

Or they can do it without involving Bitcoin at all, and just send numbers to each other, settle shit with macro-transactions on the first of the month, like every business in the world does.

You know that big businesses send each other bills, they sign contracts and, without any physical money changing hands, multi-billion-dollar construction projects are started and ...wait for it ... even finished!. On a signature.
But Bitcoin exchanges, they can't do accounting like every other company on the planet. They need to make trustless micropayments to each other by using LN.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: adamstgBit on July 19, 2016, 12:35:47 PM

LN is most useful for lager entities which hold users bitcoins, and move them on there behalf.

bitpay, bitfinex, changetip, etc..

will all be connected together via LN and allow users to move funds among these large site, in a cheap / instant / trustless manner.

I'm not sure I follow. If I want to pay Bob for a hamburger with BitPay, how would LN play into this? I have an open, pre-funded channel with BitPay, and BitPay has open, pre-funded channels with everyone I want to do business with? That's a *huge* sum of BTC to tie up.
If not clear, before using BitPay, I'd have to open a payment channel with BitPay, and fund it with as much BTC as I'm likely to spend with BitPay in, let's say, a month. That's a big chunk of change, but that's not all. BitPay has to keep a huge number of open channels with all of its users, and those channels all have to be funded. That's a huge chunk of change squared.

imagine you want to move bitcoins from your TheRockTradingExhange account to your bitfinex account.
right now you only have the option of transferring the funds using the bitcoin network.
but with LN...
TheRockTradingExhange will send LN bitcoin to bitfinex, bitfinex doesn't need to trust TheRockTradingExhange and they can swap bitcoin back and forth all day long at no cost.

users dont open channels, they log into a website and request to send some bitcoin to some other website, instead of a BTC address you specify a site/account to send BTC to.

TheRockTradingExhange and bitfinex open 1 channel which they use to move ALL user funds back and forth.

respawn2

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: AlexGR on July 19, 2016, 12:52:42 PM

Quote from: Torque on July 19, 2016, 12:53:01 PM

Online games could use micropayments. E-commerce on cheap items or services too.

Let's walk this through. I run across an online game that I want to play. I have to open a payment channel, and prefund it with as much BTC as I think I'm likely to spend playing this game.
What's to prevent me from simply sending this macro-payment straight to the game site? Why involve LN?

I'm making different assumptions I guess. You assume one-way payments, I was thinking of a more amphidromous relationship where the player does something and get paid, or where he wants to make a payment for something small, etc. Betting or casino games are also like that because you can win and lose all the time.

I don't gamble, but if I understand it correctly, you have a casino wallet, play from that wallet (off-chain, using the casino's internal ledger), and, if you win, you get more money in your casino wallet. Is this correct? Or do BTC casinos actually do everything on chain?
When you want to stop playing and cash out, you pull your BTC out of your casino wallet (macro-transaction), or leave it there for later. Alternately, you've lost all your money, and there's no need for another transaction.
How does LN help here?

respawn2

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Online games could use micropayments. E-commerce on cheap items or services too.

Let's walk this through. I run across an online game that I want to play. I have to open a payment channel, and prefund it with as much BTC as I think I'm likely to spend playing this game.
What's to prevent me from simply sending this macro-payment straight to the game site? Why involve LN?

Because you'll have to wait over an hour for your macro transaction to even confirm, that's why.

But LN uses BTC as a settlement layer. So that macro-payment will still be on the blockchain when I fund the channel. If it takes an hour, using LN won't magically make it confirm faster.

Quote

Or maybe you chose a poor example? LN is for buy coffees, fast food, and beers, not for micro-funding your silly online gambling addiction. Tongue

You mean, like Starbucks gift card, that I buy from Starbucks with a BTC macro-transaction?
Yeah, that's what I am comparing LN to, because that's what it basically is: a gift card layer.

Torque

legendary

Activity: 3794

Merit: 5474

Online games could use micropayments. E-commerce on cheap items or services too.

Let's walk this through. I run across an online game that I want to play. I have to open a payment channel, and prefund it with as much BTC as I think I'm likely to spend playing this game.
What's to prevent me from simply sending this macro-payment straight to the game site? Why involve LN?

Because you'll have to wait over an hour for your macro transaction to even confirm, that's why.

Or maybe you chose a poor example? LN is for buying coffees, fast food, and beers, not for micro-funding your silly online gambling addiction. Tongue

AlexGR

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1049

Quote from: adamstgBit on July 19, 2016, 12:35:47 PM

Online games could use micropayments. E-commerce on cheap items or services too.

Let's walk this through. I run across an online game that I want to play. I have to open a payment channel, and prefund it with as much BTC as I think I'm likely to spend playing this game.
What's to prevent me from simply sending this macro-payment straight to the game site? Why involve LN?

I'm making different assumptions I guess. You assume one-way payments, I was thinking of a more amphidromous relationship where the player does something and get paid, or where he wants to make a payment for something small, etc. Betting or casino games are also like that because you can win and lose all the time.

For now the problem (in games, not casinos) can be solved with use of ingame currency that is different from BTC, so that's the aggregation mechanism so to speak. But you can then make btc as the ingame currency.

respawn2

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

LN is most useful for lager entities which hold users bitcoins, and move them on there behalf.

bitpay, bitfinex, changetip, etc..

will all be connected together via LN and allow users to move funds among these large site, in a cheap / instant / trustless manner.

I'm not sure I follow. If I want to pay Bob for a hamburger with BitPay, how would LN play into this? I have an open, pre-funded channel with BitPay, and BitPay has open, pre-funded channels with everyone I want to do business with? That's a *huge* sum of BTC to tie up.
If not clear, before using BitPay, I'd have to open a payment channel with BitPay, and fund it with as much BTC as I'm likely to spend with BitPay in, let's say, a month. That's a big chunk of change, but that's not all. BitPay has to keep a huge number of open channels with all of its users, and those channels all have to be funded. That's a huge chunk of change squared.

respawn2

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: respawn2 on July 19, 2016, 12:30:19 PM

Online games could use micropayments. E-commerce on cheap items or services too.

Let's walk this through. I run across an online game that I want to play. I have to open a payment channel, and prefund it with as much BTC as I think I'm likely to spend playing this game.
What's to prevent me from simply sending this macro-payment straight to the game site? Why involve LN?

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: AlexGR on July 19, 2016, 12:13:25 PM

Quote from: satoshi on August 04, 2010, 11:25:36 AM

https://twitter.com/bencxr/status/755241138756448256
LN test: 20 payments in 100ms > 17+million per day, per channel.

This is getting interesting.

Indeed. You know, there are prominent people in the Bitcoin community that I admire and still support, but I'm baffled by their opposition to LN being a separate thing from the core Bitcoin network.

Anyone who knows anything about technology, networks, and programming knows the valid reason why databases are completely separate from the transactional layers of any application. Or how bank clearing houses work. It's really the only way to scale it properly.

Bitcoin, unsettling as this may sound, is very much unlike a bank. It was designed to be both a currency and a payment processor, i.e. A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
Lightning is not a p2p cash system, but a p2p gift card system. One opens a "channel" and funds it with BTC. Think credit card that, instead of letting you buy now and pay later, requires you to pre-fund it every month, and then allows you buy up to the pre-funded amount. Why "gift card" instead of credit card, you ask? Because you can only use it to transact with a single entity, just like you can only spend your Starbucks gift card at Starbucks.

Perhaps LN can be viewed as the aggregating mechanism that makes micro-txs possible:

Bitcoin isn't currently practical for very small micropayments. Not for things like pay per search or per page view without an aggregating mechanism, not things needing to pay less than 0.01. The dust spam limit is a first try at intentionally trying to prevent overly small micropayments like that.

Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods. Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range. But it doesn't claim to be practical for arbitrarily small micropayments.

I can see LN being useful, but it's not a scaling solution.
Let's take micropayments (assuming that by "arbitrarily small," you mean sub-$2 now, sub $4 when the tx fees double, etc., but that's a different topic).

Why are micropayments useful? Let's say Google is charging me per search: there's absolutely no reason for Google not to tally the number of searches I do on their own database, and then bill me by the month. Is there?
So micropayments aren't needed for sites that I use often, but LN is utterly useless to me if I need to make a micropayment to a site I never visited - I'd need to create a channel first.

In short, give me some compelling use cases for micropayments which couldn't be handled simpler without LN. I'm sure there are many, but just can't think of them offhand.

LN is most useful for lager entities which hold users bitcoins, and move them on there behalf.

bitpay, bitfinex, changetip, etc..

will all be connected together via LN and allow users to move funds among these large site, in a cheap / instant / trustless manner.

AlexGR

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1049

Quote from: respawn2 on July 19, 2016, 12:30:19 PM

Quote from: AlexGR on July 19, 2016, 12:13:25 PM

Quote from: satoshi on August 04, 2010, 11:25:36 AM

https://twitter.com/bencxr/status/755241138756448256
LN test: 20 payments in 100ms > 17+million per day, per channel.

This is getting interesting.

Indeed. You know, there are prominent people in the Bitcoin community that I admire and still support, but I'm baffled by their opposition to LN being a separate thing from the core Bitcoin network.

Anyone who knows anything about technology, networks, and programming knows the valid reason why databases are completely separate from the transactional layers of any application. Or how bank clearing houses work. It's really the only way to scale it properly.

Bitcoin, unsettling as this may sound, is very much unlike a bank. It was designed to be both a currency and a payment processor, i.e. A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
Lightning is not a p2p cash system, but a p2p gift card system. One opens a "channel" and funds it with BTC. Think credit card that, instead of letting you buy now and pay later, requires you to pre-fund it every month, and then allows you buy up to the pre-funded amount. Why "gift card" instead of credit card, you ask? Because you can only use it to transact with a single entity, just like you can only spend your Starbucks gift card at Starbucks.

Perhaps LN can be viewed as the aggregating mechanism that makes micro-txs possible:

Bitcoin isn't currently practical for very small micropayments. Not for things like pay per search or per page view without an aggregating mechanism, not things needing to pay less than 0.01. The dust spam limit is a first try at intentionally trying to prevent overly small micropayments like that.

Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods. Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range. But it doesn't claim to be practical for arbitrarily small micropayments.

I can see LN being useful, but it's not a scaling solution.
Let's take micropayments (assuming that by "arbitrarily small," you mean sub-$2 now, sub $4 when the tx fees double, etc., but that's a different topic).

Why are micropayments useful? Let's say Google is charging me per search: there's absolutely no reason for Google not to tally the number of searches I do on their own database, and then bill me by the month. Is there?
So micropayments aren't needed for sites that I use often, but LN is utterly useless to me if I need to make a micropayment to a site I never visited - I'd need to create a channel first.

In short, give me some compelling use cases for micropayments which couldn't be handled simpler without LN. I'm sure there are many, but just can't think of them offhand.

Online games could use micropayments. E-commerce on cheap items or services too.

I'm of the opinion that the long-term goal of BTC+technology should be to ...eliminate the need for things like LN - but work with them while they are needed.

respawn2

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: AlexGR on July 19, 2016, 12:13:25 PM

Quote from: satoshi on August 04, 2010, 11:25:36 AM

https://twitter.com/bencxr/status/755241138756448256
LN test: 20 payments in 100ms > 17+million per day, per channel.

This is getting interesting.

Indeed. You know, there are prominent people in the Bitcoin community that I admire and still support, but I'm baffled by their opposition to LN being a separate thing from the core Bitcoin network.

Anyone who knows anything about technology, networks, and programming knows the valid reason why databases are completely separate from the transactional layers of any application. Or how bank clearing houses work. It's really the only way to scale it properly.

Bitcoin, unsettling as this may sound, is very much unlike a bank. It was designed to be both a currency and a payment processor, i.e. A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
Lightning is not a p2p cash system, but a p2p gift card system. One opens a "channel" and funds it with BTC. Think credit card that, instead of letting you buy now and pay later, requires you to pre-fund it every month, and then allows you buy up to the pre-funded amount. Why "gift card" instead of credit card, you ask? Because you can only use it to transact with a single entity, just like you can only spend your Starbucks gift card at Starbucks.

Perhaps LN can be viewed as the aggregating mechanism that makes micro-txs possible:

Bitcoin isn't currently practical for very small micropayments. Not for things like pay per search or per page view without an aggregating mechanism, not things needing to pay less than 0.01. The dust spam limit is a first try at intentionally trying to prevent overly small micropayments like that.

Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods. Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range. But it doesn't claim to be practical for arbitrarily small micropayments.

I can see LN being useful, but it's not a scaling solution.
Let's take micropayments (assuming that by "arbitrarily small," you mean sub-$2 now, sub $4 when the tx fees double, etc., but that's a different topic).

Why are micropayments useful? Let's say Google is charging me per search: there's absolutely no reason for Google not to tally the number of searches I do on their own database, and then bill me by the month. Is there?
So micropayments aren't needed for sites that I use often, but LN is utterly useless to me if I need to make a micropayment to a site I never visited - I'd need to create a channel first.

In short, give me some compelling use cases for micropayments which couldn't be handled simpler without LN. I'm sure there are many, but just can't think of them offhand.

AlexGR

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1049