Stop fucking around. Will this work or not?

>pay to use
>24/7 online otherwise forget it

It will never work.

It's only 1 years old. Still looks promising as a way to scale Bitcoin. This and Roostock/Smart Bitcoin will scale Bitcoin past anyone's expectations.

coinmarketcap.com/currencies/smart-bitcoin/

bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/future-bitcoin-what-lightning-could-look/

Attached: 1545934067580.jpg (1043x740, 143K)

Sorry retards this is a Vishnu-free zone.
>This will not bring the normies back
Normies only care about the price going up. If you want normies back go out and buy several million $ of crypto

>but something that should have been there all along
lol wtf are you smoking second and third layer solutions are built on top of an existing and functioning first layer. btw for btc the third layer is the legal layer where hubs can settle in the future freeing ln from the constraints of supply and simplify the topology and routing off chain. altho i can see now that it's possible to handle debt/futures with smart contracts and automated script which would be ideal.

>24/7 online otherwise forget it
what are you smoking?

The node has to be online for users to transact

You mean the channel. The node doesn't have to be on, though this brings in the risk of losing your funds. Anyone can run a node and start a channel, hell I even have one running right now.

Attached: 1545551930405.jpg (630x630, 66K)

mobile.twitter.com/abrkn/status/1078193601190989829

Major hub owner closes his node as It's not worth the effort

The Lightning Network is a collection of two-person shared wallets called "Payment Channels"; the wallets requires two signatures to sign a payment; the wallet contains a balance based on who contributed funds to it.

The LN software then lets the two people share a wallet agree on who owns what balance in the wallet, and update it by passing a signed transaction that can empty the "payment channel" to the other persons wallet for the balance amount. These signed transactions have a time-out to prevent them lasting forever; they can be submitted to the Bitcoin settlement layer to "close" or empty part of the "payment channel".

The LN works on a large scale, because when there's enough of "payment channels" people can agree to route payments from one another, to pay anyone on the network. The LN ultimate goal is to have everyone's income and expenditures being routed as LN payments; this will re-balance all the active "payment channels" so that new ones never need to be created, or closed.

nope if you receive and want to make sure you get payed you should be online at settlement.
that's all, for 99% of the users they can be offline aside from setting up the channel.

>I would run an LN hub if the return was better than lending and arbitrage funds (10-20%/year)
>(10-20%/year)
This guy wants a guaranteed 20% a year.
He is a delusional fucking retard.

Attached: unfixable.jpg (1052x837, 92K)

brave and poopilled

It just werks

This was one guy who had something like 90% of all funds on the LN shortly after it got released on mainnet. Old news. The network has grown tenfold since then.

Attached: Screenshot_20181227-195254_Firefox.jpg (1014x434, 154K)

instant transactions existed already, it's called 0-conf. but corr disanled it because they are fucking pajeet-tier shitty codets. BSV is going to enable it, and put an end to bcore. fucking core cucks.

no 0-conf is not accepted it's not that it's not possible or it doesn't work it's just unreasonably unsafe for the seller.

if you allow 0-conf people are gonna get scammed or at least fucked over a lot.

Look up Actinium (ACM), a currency with an active lightning network and privacy through tor browser. Transactions are so fast, this shit will moon hard once LN becomes more widely adopted.

allow is not a good word really if you accept 0-conf payments for goods and services you gonna get fucked.

I think so. It's what will bring the normies to crypto for real this time. I mean, they will use it in their daily lives.
No they won't set up their own nodes, they'll go through thirdparty companies who will do that for them. I know this sounds scary, because the whole point of bitcoin is to create a completely decentralized system (as in every node is connected to every other node), but it really isn't as bad as it sounds.

Normies are not intelligent people. They're not going to take the time to set up a lightning wallet or bitcoin wallet. They don't care about decentralization. They want things to just work.

So if lightning is even more difficult to use than a bitcoin wallet, is it a failure?

No, because its intended to be used by centralized services and tech savy users, not normies. Normies will just have to use centralized lightning service, just as how they currently use centralized bitcoin services.
These centralized services will manage transactions for the normies using lightning.

Wait isn't that just a bank. Isn't that bad?

Not if the new "banks" (centralized services) are using the lightning network. These centralized services will be regulated by the lightning network. The lightning network will be regulated by the bitcoin protocol.

Lightning mimics the current banking-system's structural layout (which allows it to scale to billions of transactions), without the possibility of usury to occur. You still cannot issue credit on lightning. Since it is physically impossible for bitcoin to scale to the entire planet (even with a terabyte blocksize), it only makes sense to build layers on top of it that may be more centralized, but offer different advantages (like reduced fee sizes).

Lightning is more centralized, but it is more scalable. It still utalizes the security of the main bitcoin blockchain, without its problems.

It will create a usury-free banking-system 2.0, that will bring normies to the space without them even realizing it.

>It will create a usury-free banking-system 2.0
1 that's just a retarded notion for several reasons.
2 ln has transaction fees and the channels setup and settle will have onchain transaction fees so this system does take it's cut in contrast to credit cards with cash returns.

conclusion no normie is gonna use btc for a very very long time.

Look at LTC progress.. its bitcoins test net. Whatever works there moves to bitcoin

Id say about 8 months

look up channel factories in LN

also normies will use BTC when starbucks or fortnite starts using BTC with LN from their collaboration with bakkt

no they will use btc when it's faster cheaper easier and more secure than cash.

and when btc will also be a better store of value that's when crypto will explode.

No normie will ever use bitcoin directly.
They will use layers built on-top of it.

Everything in life is hierarchical, it only makes sense that bitcoin will become one too.
Hopefully we it will be a fair hierarchy.

Attached: lightning.png (903x346, 13K)

Who cares if this shit will work or not. We have NANO, what else do you need?

when the fiat currencies start collapsing, bitcoin will be the store of value causing the price to skyrocket, since it is limited in amount, contrary to their hyper inflating fiat currencies.

this

Attached: 1544560693984.jpg (1280x1074, 229K)

>when the fiat currencies start collapsing
that won't happen at the same time or won't happen at all. keep on waiting tho. in the foreseeable future fiat is going nowhere.

if you go by that pyramid the one that pays the most is on the top as every layer exacts a price. it's bullshit.

>will this work or not
It will be able to transfer bitcoins from point A to point B, so corecucks will claim this as a success.
But it won't be censorship resistant, KYC requirements are a very likely outcome, everyone will either have to settle for a 3% chance their transaction will succeed, or just connect to the biggest hub on the network, so decentralization will become a meme.
It will be less reliable and efficient than using an optimized blockchain. Also less user friendly. And just like today, no-one would use it unironically

No the pyramid is based on control of the currency. Obviously the bitcoin protocol is what defines the unit of account we know as bitcoin.

No not necessarily. The layers will compress many transactions into a single one on chain. You could make 1000s of transactions between centralized services or with lightning channels, and it could still be many times cheaper than making a single transaction onchain.

On chain transactions require more resources so they are more expensive, but of course are more secure.

when the fiat currencies start collapsing, GOLD will be the store of value, not your internet fiat crap, causing the price to skyrocket, since it is limited in amount, contrary to their hyper inflating fiat currencies.

When the 2020 halving occurs, Bitcoin will have a lower inflation rate than gold. Gold is gonna do great, don't get me wrong, but good luck trying to leave your country with 50 oz of gold on you. They will confiscate it since it's physical. With crypto, you can leave the country with only clothes on you, and still have your wealth wherever you go.

Attached: gold.png (1500x850, 283K)

all i'm saying is if the use of bitcoin will be just as expensive and cumbersome as banks it will not catch on. the finer points like you retain control over your funds will not matter until it's financially worth it to use the system to most. and also if you put centralized services on top of it that arguably makes the entire point moot. like you just made a bitcoin paypal...what's the fucking point of crypto then? at the very least you have to be able to hold the secrets that allow for spending your coins. i mean sure you don't have to directly connect to the network you can use spv wallets. but online wallets are not an option if it goes that way it's fucked.

also more and more innovation in the crypto sphere shows we can do a lot of shit automated in a publicly auditable way. but there are always risks. and the more complex these systems get the more complex the risks get. part of btcs success stems from the easy enough understanding of the risks involved for the average user (with some basic mathematical knowledge and understanding of magnitudes).

The more you go up, the pyramid the cheaper your transactions become at the expense of your security.

Attached: lightning.png (903x690, 25K)

yeah i'm gonna make a 1000 transactions sure... no, i'm gonna make like 20 a month tops.

Who's saying that would be one person? A company like Starbucks could open one and people just come in and out as a channel factory.

The Channel Factories can act sort of like “sub-channels” for the Lightning Network. Participants within a Channel Factory can open and close a virtually unlimited number of Lightning channels with each other, without requiring any additional on-chain transactions. By doing so, they could, in theory, bring the number of required on-chain transactions for the Lightning Network down by a magnitude. But channel factories haven't been implemented yet, as this protocol is still in beta and came on mainnet only one year ago. Eventually it will be able to do a lot more than we thought.

They don't call them revolutions for nothing. It's circular. Eventually bitcoin will become the banking system we have today, and will be overthrown by a better one. Just like how the current banking system will be overthrown by a better system, bitcoin.

Even if bitcoin had theses to-be-created centralized layers I'm talking about, it would still be better than the current banking system because it would not be heavily influenced by usury. It will be scarce, sound money, not issued by a central bank, but by a decentralized network. The centralized layers obviously wont be decentralized, but they will be linked to the decentralized one, offering some sort of checks and balances.

Decentralization is an idea. I good idea. But Utopian. To suggest that hierarchies won't form is naive. The idea is to create these hierarchies in a way that prevents the centralized systems from plundering the normies, like how it is today with the current banking system.

Think about the current banking system.
>Deposit money
>90% loaned out without your knowledge
>money loses value because of the fed's inflation
>working class loses purchasing power, banker class gains purchasing power (not producing anything for the economy).

A good way to fix the current banking system
>Banks cannot loan out customer money
>Inflation does not exist
>The fed is controlled by the people

A bitcoin system would have those features.

>A company like Starbucks could open one and people just come in and out as a channel factory.
i know that, but there this issue of locking funds into it it's almost like prepaying tabs everywhere you go. mighty inconvenient.

i'm much more in favor of only opening a tab when you enter shopping to says a walmart or tesco. then as you shop your channel confirms and as you pay (instantly no confirmation) can request the release of your funds. however this means for a single purchase you need 3 onchain transactions at least maybe more. if your purchase was not a great amount that will cost you a lot. say you bought shit for $100 and it cost you like $1. as opposed to a $2% cashback on your cc which is touch and go.

>Eventually bitcoin will become the banking system we have today, and will be overthrown by a better one. Just like how the current banking system will be overthrown by a better system, bitcoin.
the banking system and bitcoin has almost nothing in common. it's like comparing dolphins to beavers.

>i know that, but there this issue of locking funds into it it's almost like prepaying tabs everywhere you go. mighty inconvenient.

But that's the thing it's a network. You can use your Walmart tab to pay for something in target if Walmart is connected to target. You don't need to open a tab with every node you want to do business with.

>Banks cannot loan out customer money
>Inflation does not exist
it's fucking hilarious some people think having money sit around and do nothing is an improvement of the system. the economy would grind to a screeching halt.

>The fed is controlled by the people
if banks can't loan out money there is no reason the fed exist at all.

>A bitcoin system would have those features.
nah, bitcoin is a hedge against the government turning on it's own people, kinda like gold only better in almost every way but most importantly it's unconfiscateable.

which will make bitcoin sort of a check against the power of the state and bankers. like a loaded gun held to their head that says "go on defect if you want to, try to fuck us over and we are out!" so they have to make the banking system more liveable cheaper and more convenient than crypto. and i love that.

but these dreams about bitcoin replacing fiat are retarded. it won't happen.

that's when expenses pile up with routing and hub monopoly can be abused. exactly.

They have a lot in common. Especially as bitcoin continues to build more layers on top of it.

The banking system, like bitcoin, is not a single layer. There are central banks, investment banks, commercial banks, insurance agencies, and governments. These can all be viewed as separate "layers" to the whole system.

Bitcoin is going to grow in a similar way, but hopefully a more technologically oriented way.

>it's fucking hilarious some people think having money sit around and do nothing is an improvement of the system. the economy would grind to a screeching halt.
Money is a measurement of wealth. Manipulating the value/definition of money to "stimulate" growth really just exchanges wealth from one class of people to another.
I'm sorry but banks do not produce any real world goods for the economy, yet they make up 40% of the USA's GDP. That is just them stealing from people who are actually producing things, by manipulating numbers.
>if banks can't loan out money there is no reason the fed exist at all.
I don't mind if banks loan money, if its money the get through user fees. Not from user funds. Either way the market should determine interest rates, not the fed.
>but these dreams about bitcoin replacing fiat are retarded. it won't happen.
I disagree.A new banking system will be created with bitcoin at the center. It will have lots of layers though, like the current system.

>They have a lot in common.
no they almost have none, the payments are not done by the banking system they are done by card companies. the loaning and investing is what is done by banks it's about 90% or their thing. btc nope it's all about transactions.

Gonna laugh when bitcoin ends up being no different than modern banking by the time they figure this shit out

What the fuck is wrong with you people? Just use nano lmao

no you don't understand, banks make it possible that money doesn't sit around idly but participates in the economy productively. that's what they do. despite all the memeing and shit. inflation is the natural incentive for thy system.

it's not manipulation it is the intended use.

>I don't mind if banks loan money, if its money the get through user fees. Not from user funds.
again a misunderstanding of the modern monetary system.

>I disagree.A new banking system will be created with bitcoin at the center.
let's just take step by step first we reach golds market cap and make bitcoin a proper hedge and escape vehicle. then maybe we can start thinking about shit like futures (smart) contracts making decentralized lending possible.

until that banks will stay where they are only they will be operating with less staff and offices and more online.

>hedge against government and standard banks
>they have to make the banking system more liveable cheaper and more convenient than crypto
This is the actual crypto blackpill.

this fucking guy

Attached: 1545697681273.jpg (822x1071, 213K)

It already works you literal fucking mongoloids

I was more focused on how both systems have multiple layers, some more centralized than others. In theory government is the decentralized layer that is supposed to regulate the rules of how the centralized layers operate (decentralized as in controlled by the people through voting).
Just how bitcoin is the decentralized layer that regulates the rules of the centralized layers (like the lightning network, and the exchanges), and is controlled by the people through the running of full nodes.
Yes they are very different systems, but they are both hierarchical.

Attached: 1543262031771.jpg (1200x900, 280K)

this whole post makes no fucking sense whatsoever

i'm just a realist sorry. bankers will not roll over for your meme internet money. i'm 100% a btc fan, and i do appreciate it and personally don't like this fuckery that's going on with fiat the bailouts qes and debt bubble. but i also see this system works and can work indefinitely.

>but i also see this system works and can work indefinitely.
That's where you're wrong. This system is on the verge of collapse.

Attached: a5f449be78ee9d00dad1b87540017ec5.png (1138x598, 477K)

>I'm sorry but banks do not produce any real world goods for the economy, yet they make up 40% of the USA's GDP. That is just them stealing from people who are actually producing things, by manipulating numbers.
Newsflash, most people don't produce anything, they just deliver services using products that already exist. Banks are no different.
>I don't mind if banks loan money, if its money the get through user fees. Not from user funds. Either way the market should determine interest rates, not the fed.
The market does determine interest rates. However the fed can also keep interest rates low to encourage borrowing and stimulate growth.
>I disagree.A new banking system will be created with bitcoin at the center. It will have lots of layers though, like the current system.
The whole point of bitcoin is to not have those systems, that's why it uses a block chain. Once you create a banking system around it, you lose all the benefits of crypto and are left with a currency more limited than fiat.

modern economy in a nutshell yeah
that is why we need contractions not just expansions to get rid of literal bullshit eating businesses. because they don't survive deflations. but with que and the new line of keynsian full retard economics we just keep rolling the shit forward.

>This system is on the verge of collapse.
see i disagree, there is nothing in this system that spells failure. it can and will go on indefinitely. only thing that can end it is the end of consumerism a crisis so severe that the most basic things like food and water and stuff will actually be scarce and only real tangible things will be valued. it takes a war or worse for it to collapse.

No

Attached: 1DBDC842-99F0-4424-AD98-DB167DEAFA33.jpg (746x541, 56K)

The debt is a political problem, not a monetary one. Even if the fed could not print money, nothing would stop it from borrowing money in other currencies to pay for goods and services. You would need to ban borrowing altogether.

by it, I mean't the US government, not the fed

If this system of fiat currency is so secure, why do all central banks keep most of their reserves in gold? Why not just sell it all and keep it in fiat if they are so confident in the system? Do you not understand that the prices are raising constantly due to the expansion of the monetary supply and that our currencies are literally backed by debt. Every generation, or 35 years, the purchasing power of their currency is halved.

Attached: Ben Bernanke.jpg (1200x1394, 1009K)

It's a scam like Bitcoin itself.

>Every generation, or 35 years, the purchasing power of their currency is halved.
Because encouraging people to sit on their money is dangerous for the economy. A consistent depreciation encourages investment and spending, which prevents deflation.

>Once you create a banking system around it, you lose all the benefits of crypto and are left with a currency more limited than fiat.
well yes and no we will probably try everything just lie there are a thousand shitcoins there will be hundreds of layers competing with each other some will be trustful centralized permissioned, some will try to keep true to crypto long term but they will have a hard time to catch on. but most importantly... there is no way to interact between the traditional fiat systems and a crypto in a decentralized way. defection pays too well for the first to defect the first one that separates the asset from the token and sells both will drag the system down but also get paid handsomely.

this is why maker and dai is so interesting to me. it just shows you that some things are possible that a few years ago we thought can only exist in a centralized way. scaling however is an eternal issue.

>no you don't understand, banks make it possible that money doesn't sit around idly but participates in the economy productively. that's what they do. despite all the memeing and shit. inflation is the natural incentive for thy system. it's not manipulation it is the intended use
That's the propaganda they spew in order to justify their thievery. In reality a small banker elite class of less than 1% of the population owns most of the assets on the planet. These assets allow them to escape theft by inflation, while the working class who hold most of their wealth in cash have their purchasing power stolen from them. Naturally, the assets the 1% own will appreciate equal to inflation, while the poor will be robbed. That's why there's an ever growing wealth gap between the middle class and the elite. The wealth gap correlates with us leaving the gold standard in 1970.
>again a misunderstanding of the modern monetary system.
no I understand the deception of the modern banking system. It allows for millions of people to be stolen from without even noticing. I would much rather pay a fee for the security and convenience of the bank, if the bank actually was focused on continence and security. Instead, they loan out and gamble my hard earned money without my knowledge.
>let's just take step by step first we reach golds market cap and make bitcoin a proper hedge and escape vehicle
agreed. But once it is, a new banking system with multiple layers will be formed on top of it. Hopefully it will be the gold standard for the modern era.

Exactly, but under a sound monetary system, people can save their money and invest in large scales of work such as art, like in the Renaissance, or in innovations. All of the innovations we use today were invented during the gold standard of the 1800s. How many innovations have been created in the 20th century? Remember, innovation as in nothing to a telephone, not from a telephone to a cellphone. The only way we can progress is to get off of unsound money.

Attached: FUCK FED.jpg (600x335, 51K)

>why do all central banks keep most of their reserves in gold
that's not a thing where did you get this bullshit? the modern monetary system doesn't need gold. some banks hold some gold as par of their forex reserve when it makes no sense to hold any other currency, like the usd is basically a reserve currency so...

Attached: central-bank-gold-reserves-chart-tonnes.jpg (600x339, 21K)

>That's the propaganda they spew in order to justify their thievery.
no that's how it works really.
>In reality a small banker elite class of less than 1% of the population owns most of the assets on the planet.
1% of the population is much larger than the entire banker clans altogether. it's also a very different issue unrelated to the monetary system. i would argue under any other system the same thing would eventually happen.
>no I understand the deception of the modern banking system
you apparently don't sorry

yeah the forex reserves are a tiny portion of all reserves. 70% of 2% kinda like that. and again what the fuck would the us hold as forex reserve? everything is backed by dollars pretty much.

>All of the innovations we use today were invented during the gold standard of the 1800s.
You couldn't even troll on biz with 1800s technology brah. Let alone computers, air planes, satellites, wireless communication, nuclear fission, innumerable advances in medicine, materials, food, and automation. It's hard to find things that haven't changed in the last 100 years.

Good luck when fiat crashes

Attached: moneybags.jpg (225x224, 19K)

I am so sick of reading this nonsense spouted everywhere. We have thousands of years of evidence where economies grew using a stable, non-inflationary currency. Yet here you are, equating all growth with fractional reserve banking and inflationary currency like a good little peasant.

>omputers, air planes, satellites, wireless communication, nuclear fission, innumerable advances in medicine, materials, food, and automation
All of those things you listed were invented in the 1800s. The technologies were than expanded from those inventions in the 20th century, that doesn't mean they were created from thin air.

I'll repeat it again: going from NOTHING to a telephone is a lot HARDER than going from a telephone to a cellphone.

i'm just saying don't misread statistics. banks don't actually hold significant gold reserves compared to the money supply any more. that era is gone.

>banks don't actually hold significant gold reserves compared to the money supply any more. that era is gone.

Attached: WGC-gold-sq.png (427x427, 18K)

I produce something for the economy and I get paid 10 dollars.
Oh shit it's the next day and my 10 dollars is now worth 1 dollar.
Guess I have to keep working until I die.

If you think that is a good system, then you have a slave mentality. If you produce something, you should be able to exchange the value given to you to whoever you want WHENEVER you want.

Saving is good.

8000 tons of gold is only like $300 billion. A fraction of US military spending.

>Exactly, but under a sound monetary system, people can save their money and invest in large scales
see you just don't get it. saving removes the money from circulation it decreases the velocity of money it divides gdp restraints growth and investments and progress.

there is two kinds of loans and they work very differently. 1 loan to increase productivity. it's part of an investment strategy you want the productivity increase now instead of 5 years in the future because you can pay for it in a year and got 4 years of increased productivity.

consumer loans are a shit thing but completely opt-in nobody is forcing you to spend money you don't have that won't even increase your productivity. like buying a car on a loan to be able to get a much better paying job in the next town can be a good sound investment. while getting a loan out to replace your old car because you like shiny new things is the worst.

it's not the banks job to make you take good loans ad good decisions. they only care about risks and returns. as they should.

This. If you don't understand this, then you are just a debt slave serving your (((masters)))

Attached: 1514685567912.png (620x708, 589K)

You're talking about national spending. The federal reserve is a private entity despite its misleading name.

t. Keynesian

Attached: 1545683867911.jpg (1392x1063, 630K)

Thousands of years of kings debasing their coins, or it being melted down for its raw materials after its issuer was ousted.

you added nothing of value to this conversation

>We have thousands of years of evidence where economies grew using a stable, non-inflationary currency
actually they were inflationary currencies there was always more mined and minted.

They literally weren't though? This isn't even up for debate.
As an electrical engineer, I can tell you that the technology involved in Bell's telephone is nothing compared to what is necessary for cellphone communication. The difference is that far more people have worked on the latter than the former, which has allowed rapid advances in technology.

>there was always more mined and minted
because more gold was mined, but it was kept at a certain rate since it's very difficult to mine gold. On the other hand, printing money backed by nothing is extremely easy and so there is nothing to keep it at a certain rate. So of course even things like Bitcoin and gold have an inflation rate, but it's nothing compared to something like fiat currency which can be produced at a whim.

Attached: 1545319152401.png (1886x1238, 174K)

Of course, but without that first telephone, where would modern telecommunications be?

zero to one > one to many

>Saving is good.
no it's retarded and hurts the economy and our way of life.
the only acceptable form of savings is the one that has risk and thus have interest. it's called investment.

Yes.