Topic: What are the advantages and disadvantages of BTC/LN and BSV? (Read 298 times)

The reason people primarily talk about it as a Bitcoin feature is due to network effects.  In the past, you've made repeated comments about Lightning's success being dependent on actually being able to route a payment.  If you now want to undermine that argument by claiming that you can get exactly the same benefit using LN on Vertcoin where there's comparatively a pittance of channels to route through, then go right ahead.  But I think even a diehard detractor like you would be forced to admit it's going to be easier to route a payment on Bitcoin's LN network than it is on Vertcoin's.

LN on Bitcoin is the one most people are using.

LN would exist.. even fanboy doomad proved that by saying how it works with testnets litecoin and other coins too. LN does not require bitcoin to function...

but you and your chums love to define it as a purely bitcoin feature and a layer of bitcoin. rather than a separate network used for multiple cryptos

the differnce in the wording is about how much hype and stuff..
EG people think it will add more utility to bitcoin alone which other coins wont get.. bu the truth is other coins can too.
also its not based on bitcoins rules
bitcoin is based on blockchain rules. LN has no blockchain
LN is different
by trying to make it sound like LN is "bitcoin" is like making it sound like peoples funds are by defacto just as safe as blockchain funds.. but they are not.

people need to know the realities of it. just like id never call bitfinex a 'bitcoin layer'

it is not separate in the way that you think it is. lightning network is completely tied with bitcoin network and relies completely on it. without bitcoin, there is no LN.

and if we start calling anything that altcoins copy a "separate thing" then almost everything that bitcoin has ever done doesn't belong to bitcoin and is separate since they have copied everything!

bitcoin is the first crypto launched even though bitcoin is having problems with scalability and transaction costs to swell but bitcoin is still the king of cryptocurrency, while LN solves the problem of scalability and high transaction costs operating on the bitcoin blockchain, i think bitcoin will survive in the future while my LN does not can guarantee to advance, because bitcoin is now more and more people want to adopt it.

Bitcoin isn't a company and it doesn't have centralized leadership, so it's hard to talk about its goals. I think generally people who contribute to Bitcoin software don't worry too much about adoption, they just want to keep improving the software, and if it will be good enough, adoption will come on its own.
What we know for sure is that Bitcoin devs will never trade off security and decentralization for additional scalability and higher adoption. Bitcoin is only valuable because it gives people full control over their money.

Just because it can be built on top of multiple blockchains, it doesn't suddenly mean what chaoscoinz posted is wrong.

It is a set of rules built on Bitcoin, but it's also a set of rules built on Litecoin, which is easily distinguishable from Bitcoin.  If they're not real bitcoins or litecoins as you claim, and are instead some new and separate thing, it wouldn't be so easy to tell the difference between BTC and LTC transactions in Lightning.  It's also a set of rules built on BTC testnet, but again, those millisats aren't going to be confused with mainnet ones.

So yes, the Lighting Network absolutely is a set of rules built on top of Bitcoin's blockchain AND Litecoin's blockchain AND Vertcoin's blockchain, etc.

Actually there is only a small subset of merchants that need this "3 secs transaction". Many things can be bought with a day long transaction just fine, its just the typical coffee thing. In general, anything bought online can wait a day or so perfectly fine.

Gold is actually more cumbersome, if there was a merchant willing to take it directly, you would need to take it there which is risky, and the merchant would have check it to see if its not fake or low quality, weight etc..

In "good" days bitcoin transactions confirm in under 1 hour, which is fine for most things. In "bad" days it may take a day or so. I haven't seen the early 2018 mess repeat again.

Offchain "micro" transactions should also help reduce traffic somewhat for onchain transactions. Its not perfect, but it does fit that need. Yes i know LN transactions eventually get consolidated onchain. Perhaps there was a better way to design this.

Beyond legal/accounting reasons, i don't see why most merchants don't just adopt Bitcoin, and some other altcoins to look "trendy/fashionable".

The way i see it, once the major wallets adopt LN, it will "just happen". But we will see how this gets implemented and if it is user friendly enough. To me, LN transactions should be exceptional, not default.

The major disadvantage is no system that could actually protect them from the governmental laws and such and also volatility.

I think only Bitcoins will survive in the long run and also at the same time it would actually undergo some advancements to make the money payment instantly.

The mass adoption is gonna help everyone and it's quite near in the future

No it won't die out .. it's too intricate network to be actually cut off.

nope
LN is a complete separate network which any coin can use if they have the right coin locking mechanisms.
you are playing with unblockchained tokens called millisats that are tokenised as payments within LN in replacement of playing with real coins on the blockchain.
real bitcoin does not leave the blockchain. it cant. thats the point of blockchain

people foolishly conceive that the tokens on LN are the same as the real coin because what they locked up is pegged to what is played with within ln. emphesis on pegged
BTC does not have 12 decimals...
LN's minisat based token does have 12 decimals

the analogy is like someone foolishly thinking a 1920's PAPER bank note is gold
no its paper. but can be redeemed for gold. there is a difference

the whole talk of 'layers' is to make it sound bitcoin/blockchain conjoined.. but they are not siamese twins in anyway.
LN is a separate network utilised for MULTIPLE currencies and not a pure bitcoin thing

remember when playing with LN your not playing with ''gold' your playing with 'paper'. once you understand the risks and implications you will not try to pretend they are the same thing but use each wisely for different purposes and use each for their intended purpose

bank notes are banknotes gold is gold. bank notes were never a 'layer 2 of gold' as some bank notes were also silver sterling pegged

   Normal "Bitcoin" (BTC) wasn't scalable and was handling 7 transactions per second with around roughly 10 minutes per transaction confirmation. "Bitcoin" (BTC) itself can't be used as a medium of exchange because it was slow and very expensive for small payments. The "Lighting Network" is a set of rules built on top of "Bitcoin" Blockchain and was first introduced in 2015. It's designed to handle micro transactions. "Bitcoin" is considered a layer 1 protocol and "Bitcoin LN" (lighting Network) is considered a layer 2 protocol. The premise is small transaction needn't be recorded on "Bitcoin's" Blockchain, instead off chain. Bitcoin LN uses payment channels for off chain transactions

   "Bitcoin Cash" is a "hard-fork" of "Bitcoin". A "Fork" is an alternative version of a coin resulting from a split in the network. A "soft-fork" is compatible with the original version of the coin, while a "hard-fork" is incompatible with the original version. "Bitcoin Cash" has bigger block sizes (32mb), and has an adjusted mining difficulty and doesn't support Segwit or Lighting Network.
 
 "Bitcoin SV" stands for "Satoshi's Vision", and is a hard-fork of "Bitcoin Cash".    "Bitcoin Cash" (BCH) & "Bitcoin SV" (BSV) or (BCHABC) & (BCHSV) are the exact same thing (just abbreviation changes).

1. the purpose of LN is routing. EG instead of breaking up 0.1btc into 20 different channels to have 'giftcards' with your landlord, grocery store, amazon, starbucks, etc etc. you are far more likely to want to 'gc' your funds with som big hub service (imagine paypal) and then paypal then pay starbucks.. or in the case of routing paypal buys a amazon card which then buys a apple card so you can buy music on itunes. all without having to separate your funds bcause you just use paypal as your main channel hub

again like i said in other post if people were to break it up into 20 channels and have to preplan spending habits for 1-3 months it becomes impractical. hense the routing scenario of only having 1-5 channels and borrow thir funds with their partner channels to route payments.

2. the 'not exactly true' statement about LN using blockchain.
no LN has no blockchain. all LN has is unconfirmed channel transactions that are measured in millisats.. a completly different unit of measure(12 decimals) than btc(8 decimals)
the close analogy is like your presuming bitfinex's market exchange system is blockchain because the deposits and withdrawals are viewed on blockchain.. but the reality is the bitfinex market exchange is mysql database not blockchain

1. BTC/LN is fast cheap and awesome. SV is trying to replicate btc but would definitely fail.
2. No only one would survive and btc/ln has much higher chances of survival.
3. Goal of BTC in future is a wider adoption as well as adaption. LN is a way towards such adaption
4. Yes definitely some people argue this with replacing fiat but I don't think that could happen.

Both are trying to solve the Bitcoin Scalability problem in the first place, means the number of transactions that Bitcoin can manage within a block. the Lightning Network is an attempt to solve this problem by putting a lot of the data off-chain using payment channels, and forming an "off-chain" peer-to-peer network. the opposite side (On-chain Camp) was an attempt to solve the Scalability problem by enlarging the block size.

Bitcoin SV forked off of Bitcoin Cash, and they were forked from a parent chain, but BSV has a larger max block size, and higher transaction throughput in comparison to Bitcoin Cash, and BSV has old "OP codes" re-enabled that allowing for simple scripting functionality which can be built upon. for the bitcoin protocol version used on BSV, you can be sure that applications and services you build today will run forever.

Off-chains sometimes called sidechains, are for processing of chain things like computing logic or processing smart-contracts and things of that nature. things the blockchain does not do, and then use the blockchain for what it does do. It is for adding to the blockchain without hindering it. also the blocksize increase really has nothing to do with sidechain technology with the exception of technology supported that would benefit from "higher speeds".

Lightning network is internal network that holds bitcoin and transfers value. I love to compare it with BEP2, the bitcoin pegged token of binance. They aims to do mostly the same thing.
BSV is an altcoin, a fork of Bitcoincash, it has nothing to do with bitcoin except it shares an early branch of bitcoin.

Does this mean LN doomed to fail?

LN wont work like that
EG if A wnats to send 10btc to G via LN
a(10:0)b(10:0)c(10:0)d(10:0)e(10:0)f(10:0)g would work.. because it would end up as
a(0:10)b(0:10)c(0:10)d(0:10)e(0:10)f(0:10)g.. however now
           b has nothing himself if he wanted to spend with c,d,e,f
                      c has nothing himself if wanting to spend with d,e,f
                                d has nothing if he wanted to spend with e,f
                                           e has nothing if spending with f

also in a case of
a(10:0)b(10:0)c(1:0)d(0:2)e(0:0)f(10:0)g
a cant spend anything with e f g due to d having no funding
a cant spend more than 1 to d

so LN has flaws in its utility generally, irrespective of the flaws of not being a secure blockchain that solves many things

lastly some will just say set up a channel with G
well if you didnt know you wanted to pay G 10 until today you need to set up a channel, which involves an onchain transaction so you might aswell just send him the 10
LN's utility model is more complex than any payment system i know. it involves preplanning spending habits for even a chance of saving on fee's

Thanks for your answers.

I asked the question "Is massive adoption a goal for BTC in the long future?" in Reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/dqt23q/is_massive_adoption_a_goal_for_btc_in_the_long/

But most people said No.

But I get Yes here. I'm confused.

Advantage of investing bitcoin for long term will increase bitcoin to higher price, Investor always take benefit with bitcoin and altcoin investing for long term with increase of bitcoin price more than tenfold from how much money to invest with bitcoin, increase price of bitcoin depend with situation at the future and get many respond from companies make bitcoin will be higher price.

The main difference between the two is security.  In BTC/LN you have more freedom in how you choose to transact.  If you need to move a sizeable sum of wealth and security is paramount, it's best to do it on-chain.  If you need to make a small payment, where speed is a higher priority than security, you can transact off-chain.

SV takes a 'one-size-fits-all' approach and forces you to compromise.  There is only one way to transact and it's generally considered less secure than BTC's blockchain due to the vastly lower hashrate.