Defend the Lightning Network

No bullshit, I’d use BTC to make purchases at any merchant just for the novelty sake. Makes no difference to me between using BTC vs using 2% cashback CC on small purchases.

this has more activity than 99% of alts

Attached: ln.png (1128x957, 740K)

So more activity than 0? Wow congrats

they could just raise the block size though.

a bunch of lines to time locked BTC
oooo the innovation
it is literally useless

if it has consensus
segwit gained it through softfork blocks average like 1.3mb with the updated transaction techniques blocks get over 2mb with a hardfork

buying stuff with bitcoin is fun

Attached: bit.png (1248x796, 52K)

without* a hardfork I didn't spellcheck
there's a new incentive structure locked btc can earn routing fees

>his thinking is so inelegant that he's willing to sacrifice the elegance and integrity of the next 200 years for better returns over the very short term

Attached: 1547057665202.jpg (720x573, 18K)

btc used to have complete 100% market dominance
how come it is near and under 50% now

check this out
stephanlivera.com/episode/65
SLP65 Nik Bhatia: Bitcoin Lightning Reference Rate and Node Accrual Rate

Attached: bit.jpg (640x640, 76K)

because unscrupulous actors realized they could extract enormous wealth from the uninformed investing public and governments were alseep at the wheel

are you like being serious
Jesus Christ

Attached: RC8PCT0K_400x400.jpg (381x381, 22K)

that's a bad statistic and basically means nothing
that supposed 100m bitcoin buy last week rose the market 20 billion
alts have little liquidity and created from nothing

what is Satoshi doing about that
get real BTC is the model T

I paid my friend back for splitting a restaurant bill in BTC back in 2014. Crazy to see that payment is now worth $200. I like BTC but things look bleak af right now. Can’t scale.

my couch was worth half the price of my house in late 2017
nothing can really scale opening throughput ruins the stability of the network
lighting is a solution but its' not really great to use right now

just use credit card bro
instant
contactless
secure
a bit centralized for your convenience

no blocksize limit is about as decentralized as credit company without the insurance

Is LN easy to set up? I only have college level programming skills but want to dabble in a LN node.

>next 200 years
BTC won't be a thing by that time.

on a home computer you can run 1GB blocksize mmmkay no problem at all
in addition only mining nodes actually participate in the consensus
mining nodes are servers that can handle 10gb blocks
also block are only as big as they need to be

now since BTC is unforkable you cunts had to come up with a plan
and your plan sucks

the only thing BTC has going on is price speculation and we are about to get that out of the way

yeah it's easy to set up but once you come across a bug it's a headache
my lnd got corrupted on my pi and I was using an older version without dynamic channel back ups or whatever so I had to take a risk re-syncing if I posted old channel data I could have got punished for "cheating" my peers
every version is getting better but it's dangerous and you can lose bitcoin
I set my fees to 0 and started routing people and my pi must have gotten overloaded and kept crashing and rebooting
but I'm a major noob so I probably made a mistake or two along the way
you can set one up for sure and test it but don't put a lot of bitcoin in channels
wait for AMP watchtowers and better autopilot

no, you're a moron and don't understand this at all

you don't get it
it is over
BTC has completion now
compete faggot

>now since BTC is unforkable
try and fork bitcoin when only miners are nodes and 10gb blocks are a thing lol
I'm sure the server operators will take your 2 cents seriously

>but don't put a lot of bitcoin in channels

Why do retarded bulls think LN is a scaling solution when it clearly isn't? It's not even secure enough to transfer more than pennies worth of Bitcoin.

BTC is unforkable
that is true
segwit is a soft fork that nobody actually uses
many BTC is timelocked in what you call channels
but nobody is using it
also there is no way to route transaction and they do fail
you are pathetic
literally BCH is better in every way, the btrash

Got it, thank you. I do think BTC’s future rests on LN so really want to learn and be part of it.

you missed my point you're a moron

bcash is only forkable for the node server room operators
bitcoin is forkable to everyone

you see who has the power?
bcash only miners and rich server operators
bitcoin everyone

by forking to unlimited blocks like a dumb shit you give up control of the network
this is why it did not gain consensus
if there is something that gains consensus everyone will have a say to fork or not
when you give up control of the network you have to either deal with craig or bitmain or leave
with bitcoin you don't have to bend to their demands

are you typing on your phone pajeet
are you that desperate

why do late adopters insist on clinging to the hope that lightning is somehow not going to work?

>he actually thinks "bitcoin dominance" is a statistic

BTC netwrok is emergent consensus of the mining nodes
Every single mining coin is like that

there is no democracy, no everybody, only the miners that compete matter to the netwrok

you are brainded if you thing running a non miner node matters at all

...how is typing on my phone in any way desperate? You should pause and think first before making off base assumptions.

if miners hold the control, why did s2x fail? why did bcash fail?
s2x has 95% signaling
it's almost like non mining nodes were an insurance policy against the miners
remember at that time a mining algo change was being discussed to fire the miners?
miners backed down and kept consensus for that sweet block reward
so doesn't that make them simply service providers?
if they had all the control surely their fork would have went through, right?

>if miners hold the control, why did s2x fail? why did bcash fail?
because if miners did the segwit2x they would have less fees, with a limited block the miners make more money, you cucks are paying them, that is why it is unforkable you cannot expect them to do against their interest and there is no satsohi to take change

> it's almost like non mining nodes were an insurance policy against the miners
miners will produce a valid block, the valid block that you will validate, but what is in the block is up to the miner, only competition between miners ensures fair play, your shitty node does nothing but maybe help seed the chain

the rest is nonsense

blocks mined out of consensus are rejected and are not propagated across the network
if some miner tried to mine a 15mb block and collect all the mining fees it would get rejected
your argument doesn't make any sense

if bitcoin's market wanted bigger blocks it gets bigger blocks and miners move to where the rewards are and they provide security
that's it man
you don't understand it but that's how it works

valid block is the block that has the solution to the previous one
in that block I can include whatever I want (that is valid according to the running wallet rules)

that is all

15mb limit, 1mb limit is a wallet rule, if miners decide to run with that rule, and the miners with the new rule have more hashrate, that is the consensus

there is no market
there are only mining nodes and hash
their interest is smaller blocks = more fees

the rest is coping with the noforkability of the situation

miners go after the money that's it
hashrate is a result of market activity, block rewards, coin price, etc.
nobody would follow a 15mb chain because it would have no value and therefore wouldn't maintain hashrate

the chain with the most hash is Bitcoin
the chain with the least hash is a fork

hash is king, why miners choose to run this wallet or that wallet is complicated, but again they will choose to stay with 1mb block because they get payed more in fees

and because of that certain choice
the desperate update is a soft fork
cuck wit

>they will choose to stay with 1mb block because they get payed more in fees
you are stupid man
if 2mb coin had more value it would have more hashrate
if 100mb coin had more value it would have more hashrate
consistent mining rewards through fees + block reward if what generates a larger hashrate

if nobody wanted a 1mb segwit bitcoin it would not have the most hashrate
nothing is forcing the market to stay on this consensus
the miners are selfish but they chase the most profitable chain
what makes it profitable is what matters

check and balances
cash.coin.dance/blocks
look at profitability in fiat terms

there is no market consensus you illiterate snowflake, there is hash and first mover advantage

check that statistic over time
bcash has a weird difficulty adjustment formula so it bounces around depending on the adjustment
fork.lol/reward/dari/btc

the less hash, the more reward
the more hash, the less reward
it is self balancing from profitability perspective

the hash of the top dog makes it the top dog, it does not mean it is more profitable at the moment

if lets say BCH becomes more attractive and price rises , hash will follow and try to dump it, if it fails and it is going up, more hash will come, then when BCH hash more than BTC. BCH is Bitcoin

but that is just a name

you're a fucking idiot I'm done wasting my time explaining this

cognitive dissidence

I don’t fully follow but that user seemed like he genuinely lost his patience over you lol, and he was very patient

my autism is unmatched
I will take all of you at once, because I am in the right

>the multi billion dollar scaling solution that doesnt work and will lead to the demise of btc is led by a woman

Attached: 1549360121401.jpg (227x294, 22K)

It’s not autism, it’s stubbornness

yeah I enjoy demolishing evil
feed me

Exactly. They refused to up the blocksize and implemented segshit. Miners are pissed and wont vote to hf when the solution already forked off a couple years ago.

Made your bed, faggots. Now sleep in it.

God. Could you imagine a crypto where you could just send peer to peer and avoid all this faggotry?

>bitcoin becomes a universal democracy and everything falls to shit

IMAGINE MY SHOCK

*angry npc noises*

Bump

So far nobody has actually managed to defend LN.

The only real hope LN has is if they can get Channel Factories working in a non stupid way. Pool 10 people in a channel, prevent trolls from joining/closing pooled channels, don't require a full watchtower node, and somehow batch rebalancing deposits.
That would greatly reduce hop distances. But it seems like a can of worms. you'd have to force the group to use a prebuilt api to only open ~3 group channels to other group channels. And I find it hard to believe no one in these large groups would ever want to withdraw from the channel.

as it stands, pic related is the biggest problem.

Attached: lightning-network-transaction-probability.jpg (534x422, 59K)

Rip

Let's say they manage to pull this all together. All these hubs have ip addresses. Couldn't a group of people who don't like Core just DDOS all their hubs, crippling the network and likely destroy funds in the process?

S-stop fudding. Why is crypto still so hopeless after all this time? Are we just degenerate traders from this point forward? I’m scared to mention bitcorn in public because people will laugh at me.

Attached: E1A9A76A-6A30-4DA9-9CB8-2FA03A3D7556.png (656x755, 39K)

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-04-05 at 7.52.27 PM.png (1104x448, 83K)

Just avoid Lightning, user.

Yikes, but not surprised.

But why are Blockstream, Twitter Jack, and so many other smart people working on it? Surely they see a solution in the end

funds don't get destroyed, and DDOS is not a huge issue as far as I can think of. If you peer with a group, they know your IP, and you have spent funds in the channel, they could maybe DDOS you for the entire anti-cheat timeframe so you can't stop them. But still if you have a frame of 3 days no one can DDOS you for 3 days. Reputation frameworks would also probably become a thing.

Spamming the blockchain with transactions after putting in a cheat transaction is theoretically possible, but economically unprofitable, and there's no guarantee you'd put in enough transactions to block their anti-cheat one in the time window.
For large amounts of money thats why you put in a longer anti-cheat time frame.

what you're talking about is a design consideration, but is solved at the conceptual level.