Realistically, when can we expect btc lightning app?

>he thinks lightning network will ever be user friendly

Attached: 1496454033035.jpg (249x250, 7K)

Right... I have no idea what the fuck people are thinking with this shit. Its 10 times more complex and all it does is suck more than xrp or something that we already know works.

The user experience won't be complex. IF LN delivers what it promises it can scale infinitely. XRP doesn't do anything, it's just a useless centrally issued token like lazytown funbucks.

>The user experience won't be complex. IF LN delivers what it promises it can scale infinitely. XRP doesn't do anything, it's just a useless centrally issued token like lazytown funbucks.

100% of this is absolutely false and you should fucking feel bad you god damned liar. What the fuck difference is XRP vs using LN in practice even if LN wasn't even more centralized than XRP ever could be in a worst case scenario.

This is even assuming LN is scientifically fucking possible in the first place. We have to go fucking layers deep of bullshit show stopper problems just to get to this argument.

LN is a complete fucking disaster. Its so bad it would be worthless even if it was released perfectly as planned yesterday.

Not a Chink scamcoin = no interest on Jow Forums.

The more obvious and egregious the scam, the higher the FOMO on Jow Forums. Just look at Vechain and Neo.

>infinitely
proven to cap out around 100k nodes. People still fail to accept the reality that if it ever does get used it will be unusable. Nobody will spend hundreds in fees to open a channel. I swear you are the absolute worst speculators in history.

XRP is a going to get slammed as a security, and it's a centralized, pre-mined database.

It should not even be considered a crypto.

Two to 4 Years. Until normies actually have to give a fuck, a decade.
Not joking, pulling estimations from ass.

>he thinks lighting network will ever get released

Learn2logic you braindead cultists. How hard is it to parse the upper case "IF" they deliver what they promise they scale infinitely. If they're wrong they're wrong, it doesn't affect me much.
Whatever the case XRP is completely irrelevant and useless like you.

>It should not even be considered a crypto.
Exactly my point. Its STILL better than LN. At least it functions.

I swear to god btc supporters are the biggest fucking brainlets in crypto

>It should not even be considered a crypto.
its only the newfags that consider it crypto, pretty sure everyone calls it what it is, scam

>How hard is it to parse the upper case "IF" they deliver what they promise they scale infinitely.

They cant you fucking dumbass, the system is total fucking shit.

> I swear to god btc supporters are the biggest fucking brainlets in crypto

I know! I feel like anyone who has not got the memo by now is a complete fucking retard!!

So what's the new hip crypto the cool kids think will take over the world? If it's XRP or BCH please kill yourselves.

any of the 1000+ transaction per second dapps coins. Take your pick. And shut the fuck up about LN or plasma because the shit is not happening.

They all promise that but can't even prove they can deliver under load. Even if they can they are too slow, 100k tps is not nearly good enough. Second layer is required.
Fuck off with your braindead speculating, just leave crypto to the devs please.

>They all promise that but can't even prove they can deliver under load.

Shut the fuck up and die with your worthless 3 tps shitcoins you fucking brainwashed cuck.

> Second layer is required. Fuck off with your braindead speculating, just leave crypto to the devs please.

This doesn't even make any fucking sense you brain dead moron.

You need second layer solutions built upon top a forever gimped main chain that will only increase the demand of said chain if the second layer solutions get used. Let the devs work duh

>This doesn't even make any fucking sense
Because you don't know what you're talking about. You're an idiot financial speculator rushing into an experimental market made by developers for developers. Just leave, we don't need your money, you're not helping.

>You need second layer solutions built upon top a forever gimped main chain that will only increase the demand of said chain if the second layer solutions get used. Let the devs work duh

You chimping the fuck out and just saying random shit that makes no fucking sense. The only time a second layer is needed IS FUCKING NEVER. Its called make a coin that doesn't suck or die from bleedout.

If the base layer can do thousands of tps then the second layer makes no fucking sense to even talk about.

>Because you don't know what you're talking about.

It doesn't make any sense because a second layer is a shit solution if you can just make a first layer that isn't fucking garbage.

It was actually made by a person running under the psudeonym satoshi nakamoto with the creation of a p2p digital cash system. Developers then changed this system into speculative driver for their 2nd layer vaporware solutions.

Don't pay any attention to btc supporters, they are either stupid or dishonest.

It gives me a sigh of relief to see people who have a full understanding posting here. Seeing someone claim NEO or IOTA would need a second layer solution is giving me a fucking brain aneurysm.

>you can just make a first layer that isn't fucking garbage
Ideally but nobody has managed it so far. Do you have a solution to the scaling problem or an example of a coin that solves it? 1000 tps or 100k tps is not a solution, which is something you don't seem to be able to grasp because you probably think this is about payment processing, an already solved problem with minor costs. 100k is not even enough to serve parking meters, just one of endless potential practical applications for scalable crypto. 100k tps or a million does not mean it scales, it means it has a hard fucking limit.

>Ideally but nobody has managed it so far.

oh this is why you are retarded. I would be retarded too if I believe that!

> think this is about payment processing, an already solved problem with minor costs.

I feel like I am arguing with technological mad libs. Well, it turns out the best next gen coins are not mined.

> 100k tps or a million does not mean it scales, it means it has a hard fucking limit.

kek

> If they claim it can only do 100k tps then its a HARD LIMIT MAN!!!

Why do you feel like you can make claims on a complex esoteric subject when you don't even have basic reading comprehension? I'm not using advanced concepts. I doubt you're capable of understanding basic instructions and yet here you are claiming to be more an authoritative source of information than the btc devs.

2020 is when new stuff will get released and we’ll see 100k btc by the end of that year

>authoritative source of information than the btc devs.

You need a grasp of the topic to be able to use this kind of line of reasoning with me. Your argument that LN is the only way to reach infinite transactions per second hilarious at best. Not only is that silly anyway, VISA only needs 24k to be effective. But there already exists many coins that completely destroy both BTC and ETH on this front without even breaking a sweat.

You are just wrong. You are obviously wrong. You don't know what you are talking about. You have no argument. You have nothing you can say to redeem your argument. You have no way to make me see your point because the evidence is in front of my own eyes. You cant tell me what I am seeing isn't what I am seeing because I wont let you, reality wont let you. You are using random statements in hope I might not argue your points. You think LN is even going to happen. You think that it would be good even if it did happen, which it wont. You cant grasp the fact that LN is deeply flawed and can never be implemented anyway.

Are you located in india?

At theoretical 100% adoption, Segwit would only increase transaction throughput 1.6x. And its adoption is only at 40% now, so 1.25x of the 3-5tpxs before the upgrade. It surprises and annoys me how few people know what segshit actually does before shilling it. Stop being sheep and blindly following Core. If and when another bull run for btc happens, it will clog up just as badly.

>no reading comprehension
Second layers solutions are required for unlimited scaling if the first layer has limited transactions. That's objective fact not an opinion. I already said I don't know if LN will work.
You could have used that blog to raise valid criticism of LN instead of this pure sperging but I know you can't, you get all your information from meme videos. No matter how bad LN actually turns out to be you're an idiot.

>Second layers solutions are required for unlimited scaling if the first layer has limited transactions.

The best second layer solution is....

Another coin.

Lightning is already happening. It's already implemented and working on top of mainnet bitcoin. If you weren't an inbred retard, you could download a the full blockchain with the bitcoin core client, download eclair (a lightning wallet) and start using lightning with mainnet bitcoins today. And it actually works, I've been playing around with it and I've only had minor issues, which is to be expected from software in beta. You don't have to worry though, a retard proof version is coming out for subhumans like you that will make it so anyone and their autistic sister could use the lightning network. Do you know anything about developing blockchain based software? Probably not since you think TPS is the entire point of cryptocurrencies. While it is true some coins have higher TPS, they have trade-offs in other respects that bitcoin does not have. If you have a higher TPS, you will either have faster block times or larger blocks. Having either of these things increases the size of the blockchain, which makes it harder for you to sync a full node client as you need to download ***and verify (which takes a fuckton of time)*** the entire history of transactions. But you've probably never verified a transaction in your life, because you rely on others to do so. Bitcoin core is trying to scale the network in a conservative way that relies on developing more efficient transaction methods, rather than increasing the size of an already inscalable datastructure, the blockchain.

>Lightning is already happening.

No its not. Its major flaw is that it cant work in an unpredictable environment. And shut the fuck up about muh onion routing.

LN works if the network never changes. It cannot work if its a dynamic environment where channels can open and close at any moment.

not sure if I can even stomach reading the rest of that blog post of yours.

>I've only had minor issues

Your transactions failed and the money went poof.

It doesn't matter if your ip address changes. Your uri on the lightning network is

your publickey@yourip

if your ip addresses changes, your public key will still remain the same, so you can still keep your channels open.

No, I had routing issues, where I could not find a destination, but those routing issues decrease when there is more adoption.

lulz

Attached: funny75.gif (288x231, 1.32M)

>but those routing issues decrease when there is more adoption
thousands of nodes constantly coming online and going offline, thousands of nodes constantly updating their balance. sure, it will become super stable... when everybody connects to a centralized backbone of super nodes that all trust each other to have the correct balance so they don't bother to check each other's balance

Attached: lightning network3.jpg (1920x800, 163K)

There's no reason everyone has to connect to a "central hub", it's optional.
You could just connect to you're mates and your local pub if you really wanted to just keep a bar tab.
However, not everyone wants to do that.
Naturally, central hubs will form, but it will be no worse than the Central hubs we already have in the bitcoin ecosystem today.
Take an exchange for instance. You don't have to use an exchange to buy bitcoins. You can use local bitcoins.
However a lot of normies will use exchanges because there is hassle to using localbitcoins, and most of the time there is a cost.
It's just human nature for hubs to form, but nobody is enforcing it. You don't need to go through them, you can open a connection with anybody on the network. Anybody who tells you otherwise is misinformed.
Also you only need to verify your connections. As long as you verify the people you're transacting with you don't need to worry about anybody else. You verify your connections by making sure your party has actually escrowed their bitcoins on the blockchain with you, and then you just verify any subsequent transactions they make with you.
Any transaction they send you (or you send them) is a valid bitcoin transaction, that could be pushed to the block chain at any time. As long as you make sure what you're receiving is valid, you will be fine. It doesn't matter if someone else on the network is trying to pull shenanigans. It doesn't affect you since you verified the people you are connected to.

you didn't get what i was saying.

right now there's a chance to succeed with a LN transaction because the network is minuscule (but it still fails a lot). the larger it becomes, the more hops you need to make, the more it will fail. or you need to introduce trust (centralized mega hubs). nobody have a clue on how to solve the routing problem in lightning network, only solution is a trusted backbone.

Attached: bitcoin understanding.png (501x394, 318K)

besides even if lightning worked it is still a bad idea...

channels are only moving funds from one end to another. a payment doesn't "flow" through channels as if flowing through tubes, instead the channels shift their balances from one end to the other

going to the pub or grocery shop or wherever only to find out that your channel has 0 balance because someone else paid through it is a terrible user experience. now you have to fund your channel again with an on-chain transaction. you can't use someone else's channel because then yours wouldn't have been depleted by someone else.

it's not a good idea even if it worked.

Attached: btc under attack.jpg (600x816, 77K)

>stop clinging to the literal greatest 10 year investment in human history

Gas yourself

What I am saying is there are no reason for hubs to form, other than users making the choice to form hubs.
If the network was dictated authoritatively, you could make it decentralized, and it would function just fine.
It is not though, you are given the freedom of choice to open a channel with whoever you want.
If you cannot find a route, you can simply open another channel and have a direct route, or you can open a channel with a "central hub".
The same structure is used in buying bitcoins.
You can use a central hub like coinbase, or you can find someone who already owns bitcoins and buy it directly from them.
It's a naturally occurring structure, caused by human nature, as humans will typically take the path of least resistance.
If there is a large hub, why not open a channel with them, as they will most likely have more routes.
Or if you don't want to make any hops, you can open a channel directly with the person you are doing business with.
There's nothing in graph theory that says lightning has to have central megahubs. The whole network can be connected in a decentralized mannor, people just choose not to do it that way.

>3 billion per day in volume is illiquid

I can’t insult you any more than you just insulted yourself

ok, as long as you agree that lightning network doesn't work anything you say is fine by me

Attached: calculated risk.png (540x360, 316K)

it does work. you should try it out.

bitcoin core:
bitcoin.org/en/download

eclair:
github.com/ACINQ/eclair/releases

then you're not fine by me.

Attached: quad damage.png (720x712, 649K)

this

Why don't you test it out, before you knock it. It's pretty good considering what stage of development it's in.

Also watch this video. Towards the end, he talks about centralization, and how the network actually creates an incentive not to go through central hubs. (but you still have the option to do so) youtube.com/watch?v=D-nKuInDq6g

Me and a friend did test it. But of course it failed the transaction. But it's only been in development since 2015 so I guess that's to expect. And it was so easy to set up, just had to read a guide and pray to god that it would work after 20 minutes of setting it up.

BTC should have raised the block size to 2 MB because it was needed NOW (actually six months ago). Would have allowed for another 5 years of development for the LN, which is clearly needed. I still think they wouldn't be able to solve the unsolvable issues though.

Also that Andreas M. Antonopoulos character, he completely flipped his mindset right about the time Blockstream came around. Wonder why? I'll watch the video though because all I do all day is read and watch bitcoin stuff (both BTC and BCH).

Attached: firenflames.jpg (1920x1200, 519K)

Why are you arguing with these idiots? They just don't get it. Its like they believe Paypal or Visa don't work.

bitcoin isn't supposed to be paypal or visa pal

No shit...

I didn't say it was easy to set up. Right now it's in beta, so you do have to jump through some hoops. Eventually it will be streamlined, just how bitcoin was streamlined into the version we have today.

I personally think they should raise the blocksize limit, but they should do it the way satoshi wanted it to be implemented. By planning it out way in advance. It would have been a very bad time to raise it a year ago when bitcoin cash forked off. We would have been even further divided than we are now if we had a bitcoin segwit, bitcoin segwit 2x, and bitcoin cash fork.

It saddens me to see this community so divided. We all still believe in the the same things, decentralization, taking on the banks, deflationary currency, etc. Yet we spend most of our time arguing with each other over imo dumb shit. I liked it better when we had one common enemy, but mysteriously as soon as bitcoin cash was created, both sides spend more time arguing with each other rather than our mutual enemy. I want people to understand the rational why bitcoin core is implementing its upgrade in this way. They were trying to keep us united.

i don't actually see BTC as a competitor to banks because the idea behind it is very different from our banking system today and it'S debatable that BTC could be a substitute

cc companies charge 6% to the vendor.
guess who pays that in the end?

I see it as a competitor to the banking system, not necessarily banks in general. I would be supportive of bitcoin banks, if and only if they were not able to use fraction reserve manipulation. I think that in general, people are pretty retarded, and some would certainly need an entity to guide them through this new banking system. I think that bitcoin banks would be different than modern banks, as they would have to rely on charging annual fees, rather than lending out more money than they have in reserves, since their reserves could be verified on the block chain. It's really a whole new economic system, and the point of its creation was to eliminate fractional reserve banking and return to a system similar to the gold standard, but modified for the modern era. I think considering the entire world has used the gold standard up until this past century, a commodity backed standard (like a bitcoin standard) should also work just as well, if not better because its easy to verify the amount of funds in circulation. With gold its not nearly as easy, if not impossible to verify. Only time will tell if this system survives, but I really hope it does as it is better than the alternative fractional reserve system.

God you dumb faggots amaze me with your stupidity. The LN was designed to fail, it can be never work.

Blockstream's goal is to delay BTC growth and kill off adoption until the next 4-6 years or 1-2 halvings until the miners die off and BTC with them.

Bitcoin Cash is unironically the real Bitcoin.

You can't use lightning network unless both parts are connected to the internet at the same time to do a transaction LMAO. It's probably the most broken payment system I have even used

but why would a bitcoin standard be desirable, after all there is no real intrinsic value of a bitcoin, with the only differences to a fiat currency like the USD being its tracability (wich is not desirable) and it's limitation in total ammount (wich could lead to significant deflationary tendencies)

Sh..shut up

Highly illiquid, sounds like you need Liquid.com

This advertisement has been paid for by Liquid.com

Get more Liquidity at www.Liquid.com

They said the inernet would never be user friendly yet somehow your dumbass figured out how to post.

The answer, as always, is 18 months.

so two kids?

I doubt it. Lightning will just confuse people and put them off Bitcoin at this early stage. Lightning is functionally a separate coin where you need different wallets and addresses.

no that's an other first layer not a second layer nigga you got dropped on the head or something?

this this os one of the reasons crypto needts a 20t mkt cap. then the big money can pull out or put in 100b without much change

You need a full node to run lightening, so HW reqs will be 256gb iPhone.

Also, segwit adoption has been absolute dog shit. Why are developers dragging their feet so much on this?

Also if you drive through a tunnel or use the subway your funds will be stolen.

>Naturally, central hubs will form
you god damn kikes

Attached: merchant large.png (4282x5000, 1.21M)

>Implying lower fees and freeing up blocks is somehow a bad thing

Attached: 1512879272496.png (734x414, 113K)

Excuse me sir, are you retarded?

100k nodes= 100k permanent open channels aka banks

...