Another thing is that you seem to be ongoingly suggesting (or is it whining) that there are some other coins out there that are better than bitcoin, but surely you leave these implications in vague ways because you probably realize that there ain't shit out there that is even close to being as good as bitcoin, but you want to leave that vague implication out there as if there is some kind of valid criticism of bitcoin that is contained within it.
Well, since I was directly asked, I will respond. No, I'm certainly not shilling other coins. I don't hate them other than the obvious scams (of which there are too many to count), I simply have no interest in them. The trivial amount of Litecoin I have is from trying out scrypt mining with a GPU way back when and the ETH is a similarly tiny amount bought on a whim. I had hoped that BCH would be able to address the capacity issue but for a variety of reasons, it was unable to take the crown and as its major attraction over other alts was that its fork nature meant that it had the potential to take the user base with it. As time has passed, it has moved more and more away from that and has basically reverted to just another alt. BSV is simply a joke because of the close association with the clown, CSW.
Well, at least you admit that there is nothing even close to bitcoin, and yeah we do not necessarily need to elaborate in regards to those various other shitcoins, but if we are currently both recognizing them as largely shitcoins that are not even close to bitcoin in terms of any kind of potentiality, then that is a good place to agree upon.
Here's the thing, love SOV as much as you like, not addressing the on-chain capacity restriction is going to have some effect on certain aspects of Bitcoin that were long considered to be important aspects of it.
Here's where we get into battle because you are getting into prescriptive areas rather than descriptive, and whining because bitcoin is not good enough in some aspects that you wished it to be better.. so just do not use it or allocate out of it to the extent that that aspect of "on-chain" capacity is deficient.. or work on improving that or fund someone to work on improving it. It just seems a bit derailing to be asserting bitcoin does not do x even though it does y and z. .and whining about x ongoingly... including that some people either do not consider x to be as big of a deal as you and some people consider having limited x remains a feature rather than a bug.. so.. your ongoingly framing x as a problem seems to be a problem with you rather than a problem with bitcoin.
When those aspects are brought up in thread, the correct answer is simply the correct answer.
I don't know about that.. There is descriptive and there is prescriptive, and when you talk about descriptive there are going to be some answers that are way more accurate (and therefore correct) than others and when you talk about prescriptive, we are going to go all over the place in terms of what might be better blah blah blah.. and there is likely no correct answer even though some have more rationale and justification than others.
Now, adding a different perspective on that answer "That is true but SOV/decentralization/what have you is more important" is fine but people go off on all sorts of tangents about what they think I'm saying. Not so many years ago, it was quite common to give away a little bit of bitcoin to get people interested. Not reasonable anymore. Bitcoin used to be viewed as for the world and now it's just for the rich. Now, whether that's OK or not is a discussion that could be had but people just don't want to admit it.
You are devolving into making shit up again. People do not need to buy a whole bitcoin, and also they can profit from merely stacking sats. Furthermore, people have had quite a long time to front run institutions and richie peeps, and surely more institutions and richie peeps are coming into bitcoin but normies can still get in.. they just have to pay more the longer they wait (even if there are likely to continue to be dips along the way, we just cannot know when such dips are going to be coming or how much of dips are going to be coming).
I don't really have much against second layer solutions either but we hit full blocks in 2016 and now it's 2021.
Here, even if you are NOT making shit up, you are exaggerating. Sure there may be times in which 1 sat per byte transactions are not going to go through, so in that regard, when that heavy spamming bullshit was happening in late 2017 until January 2018, that has proven to be such a gold mine for making up shit, and of course, there has been more attention to fees and how much it will cost to get BTC transactions to go through.. so of course, there are ways to attempt to send transactions with low fees, but surely when dealing with strangers or if the delivery of the product is needed quickly, there might be a desire to get the transaction to go through quickly so then a measuring of fees to cause such transaction to go through quickly.
Of course, the more fees the less feasible to be using onchain bitcoin transactions for smaller transactions, even below $1k might seem to be a small transaction if fees go up to $100 during short periods of time... so people will weigh such fee options based on their circumstances too, which kind of seems to be a feature and not a bug as you are making it out to be a bug... but at the same time, second layer is likely going to serve more and more important roles in the future, especially if we get another 10x to 100x price rise from here, and of course the block reward ongoingly decreasing as well in every 4 year increments until completely vanishing in 2140 (likely sooner).
LN was already in development at that stage and still is not delivering.
Well, you may recall that in January 2018, there were some folks who ended up causing lightning network to go live in a kind of rush response to the ongoing then spammenings of the bitcoin network that had been happening for nearly 2 months at that time, and surely a lot of bitcoiners considered that move to be reckless, but it seemed to have contributed to a stop of the then spamming... so yeah, lightning network continues to get worked on and seems to be ongoingly becoming more and more capable and reliable...
So whatever in terms of your desire to prematurely label lighting network as dead or suggest it to NOT be unimportant even though from your perspective it could be better blah blah blah.. getting into your prescriptive bullshit (we could call it the richie T wishlist... .. which is a BIG fucking so what, no?.. bitcoin gives no shits what you want.. either you see value in bitcoin and you use it or you do not or maybe you just allocate less into bitcoin.. which you already know that... I would suspect.. even though you keep whining about how bitcoin is not satisfying your needs)
Someone will quote me some number of LN nodes but that's a totally irrelevant stat if it is still not properly useful. It should also be noted that opening an LN channel requires one transaction and closing it another. Simply put, Bitcoin doesn't have the capacity for LN to be used by a meaningful number of people.
Ok.. don't use it then....and we will see if LN (and/or other second/third layer solutions) becomes more and more used with the passage of time.
The LN developers have even effectively stated this themselves. LN, although potentially an excellent solution for what it was designed for, micropayments, also has several shortcomings for use in the manner that second-layer proponents are advocating. Seriously, if you're a LN advocate and haven't read and comprehended LN's shortcomings, you're underinformed and in for a shock.
ditto my above answer.. and there are still a large number of peeps who hardly have a fucking clue about what LN is, so it is difficult to assert that they are underinformed or do not comprehend when they hardly even know about it.
So yeah, in summary, while I've never been a hardline BTC maximalist, it's always been my favorite coin and I just wish we weren't still passing around blocks on these.
You hardly make any sense on this point Richy.. You seem to be wanting to spout out some kind of nonsense about bitcoin being "grandpa coin" which is hardly even close to the case. As you likely realize, but maybe fail to appreciate, is that bitcoin remains paradigm shifting technology that has come along way since its October 2008 white paper and its January 2009 activation.. and there have surely been tweaks and developments along the way that keep it serving its original objectives and amazing levels of adoption, development, network effects, and future potential that is already built on strong foundations that you want to ongoingly poo poo as if some shitcoin might be better, even though you admit there is nothing that even comes close, but you still want to whine about grandpa coin not being enough for you. I hardly get your purpose, but hey hopefully some day you will figure out some ways to balance a bit more, and maybe get to fucking work on chartbuddy, so we can at least get some pleasures to balance out the pain of having to put up with your ongoing seemingly persistent whinings...
#nohomo... you fuck.
