The Lightning Network

Should we lower blocksize to get more use on LN? Seems the onboarding process could be a little more streamlined. If blocks are smaller then people wouldn't even want to bother with transacting on chain and would move to LN faster.
Thoughts?

Attached: WBD109+-+Interview+with+Luke+Dashjr+(Banner).png (980x552, 123K)

Other urls found in this thread:

medium.com/@timevalueofbtc/the-time-value-of-bitcoin-3807b91f02d2
stephanlivera.com/episode/65
medium.com/@timevalueofbtc/the-time-value-of-bitcoin-and-lnrr-e0c435931bd8
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Yes

No op san. Lower or higher, it will fail nonetheless.

Why? LN is great. 1sat/byte transactions that are INSTANT.

lets go for 100 kilobyte blocks

Tbh if you could find a reliable hub, you could theoretically give them fiat and they give you a funded channel and never really have to deal with on chain again. Just leave that to someone else. It's much slower and more expensive than LN so I don't really even see the point in using it.

20 sec is not instant. less than one sec like in bsv is instant

wow
absolute state of commies

yo fag, why not simply use xrp which is not a crypto? why trusting nodes with your crypto?
what's the difference between lightning nodes and banks?

how desperate are you fags?

Instant relative to what BTC maxis are used to.

While I do support this move, but the thing about LN is its not legally compliant due to its money transferring method. Read Craig Wright's new blog post about this. Not shilling but what he said in the blog sounds true in real world. Most of crypto are literally taking advantage of tranferring digits here and there, but misses the "money" concept.

0conf is a meme

It's not a bank. They can't just "print" money out. It's still tied to Bitcoin, which doesn't scale so we need 2nd layers to handle large volumes of transactions and then settle batches on chain later on. This way the blocksizes are manageable so everyone is still capable of running a full node. If we don't have 70% or so of users running full nodes the security could be compromised.

i asked what the difference is and the fact is, there is absolutely no difference

LN is decentralized, banks are not. But also as I said, it's all beholden to btc. They cant inflate the currency. Bitcoin can't scale without this. Big blocks are far too simple which is why it's a dumb approach, especially since it causes huge centralization and literally nobody would be able to run a full node at home.

LN is decentralized? How? Having different nodes? Just like banks?

Anyone can run a LN node.

>instant

that's not what decentralized means. everyone can hold USD, is it decentralized?

you kids are so stupid

Me holding usd doesn't connect Alice and Bob together. Me running a LN node does.

not really, only if they decide to use you. you can be a trustee, like with usd. how is usd decentralized?

Usd isn't decentralized at all.

same like LN isn't.
thank you very much for confirming it

LN is a free market backed by the bitcoin blockchain (the most secure, decentralized, longest lasting, and fairly distributed chain ever)
every satoshi and channel is bitcoin locked in a multisig wallet providing liquidity for the network to work
lightning when it takes off is going to have the same effect as masternodes/PoS nodes sucking up trade able coins to earn interest in channels by providing a service
this will shrink the amount of available bitcoin's left up for sale and make the price go astronomical

lovely copypasta

Attached: 1518271468673.jpg (483x372, 19K)

I just typed that up
LN is going to be one of bitcoin's killer apps it just needs a few more efficiency upgrades to be widely used
I run my own LN node and study the game theory behind it
It works right now but to become global and retard proof it needs 4 or 5 key upgrades

>killer apps
Listen I'm in support of LN and Bitcoin but this stupid fucking meme term needs to stop.
>MUH KILLER APPS

like channel management is mostly a hands on thing right now, LN needs automation and while autopilot works it isn't optimized
the creation and closing of channels is clunky, every on chain interaction should be efficiently written with a submarine swap, a loop in loop out, etc.
the good thing is bitcoin has 3 main teams (eclair, LND, and c-lightning) plus some smaller groups working on LN all following BOLT spec which can be upgraded without needed on chain consensus so it's moving really fast
outside that core devs have made proposals on the upgraded segwit version which includes schnorr sig, taproot, graftroot, and this is in review in BIPs

for the world to use this I'd honestly say it's going to take another 2-3 years but when I say that I mean extremely efficient nodes routing balancing running behind a clean GUI

Blockstream itself warned people blockchains don't work.
So just use Liquid.

Attached: blockstreamlol.jpg (1125x1168, 117K)

Wait, so Bitcoin is becoming proof of stake? How much do you need to stake Bitcoin?

Attached: digitalsomething.jpg (362x646, 93K)

lighting routing generates fees by providing liquidity
so instead of staking and needing to watch the entire network, you create channels to active nodes and bitcoin is bounced back and forth through your node while you collect a fee
you only need to keep track of the latest state of the channel so this will be able to scale unbelievably
the thing is fees are dirt cheap on LN right now I couldn't even recoup my transaction fee I was routing for less than 1 satoshi a transaction (LN has 4 more decimals down to millisatoshi)
routing and providing liquidity will probably be a competitive game that average retards won't be efficient enough to compete
the good thing is it'll keep bitcoin's fees really low, and the network really efficient