5 ms·

I'm here to say the problems in selling games for Bitcoin are not the same for microtransactions. I'm the original developer of Bitquest[1], where we used to p

by phaser 9y ago

I'm here to say the problems in selling games for Bitcoin are not the same for microtransactions. I'm the original developer of Bitquest[1], where we used to process hundreds of micropayments smaller than 1 cent each day using 0 fee Bitcoin transactions. When the blocks started to fill up we had to move all transactions off-chain except when players send money to the game and cashing out. From the player's perspective, it's hard to justify paying $2 each time get Bitcoin in/out of the game. On the other side, there's no cut for Apple, Google, et al. who charge for as much as 30% cut for micro transactions. I'm now working on a similar game[2] that will take advantage of Segwit and Lightning Network. There's still miner fees involved to send money in and opening a payment channel, however there's no cut to a payment processor and the associated problems of compliance. I'm not saying it's perfect but there's still important advantages on Cryptocurrency for game transactions and I'm confident that Steam and others will get back to it after it's infancy. [1] https://github.com/bitquest/bitquest https://github.com/bitquest/bitquest [2] https://hammerco.in https://hammerco.in

solotronics 9y ago
do you know of any current implementations of lightning on the actual blockchain and not testnet (BTC or LTC)? thanks!
- bennyg 9y ago
  I believe some tests have been done on the mainnet: https://www.coindesk.com/lightning-last-test-shows-bitcoin-scaling-solution-almost-ready/ https://www.coindesk.com/lightning-last-test-shows-bitcoin-s...
- gtrubetskoy 9y ago
  Looks like the first mainnet transaction went through today? https://medium.com/@lightning_network/lightning-protocol-1-0-compatibility-achieved-f9d22b7b19c4 https://medium.com/@lightning_network/lightning-protocol-1-0... "As developers of the Lightning Network protocol, we’re excited to announce version 1.0 RC of the Lightning protocol specification along with a successful cross- implementation test on Bitcoin mainnet!"
shepardrtc 9y ago
Have you thought about trying Ripple? https://ripple.com/build/transaction-cost/ https://ripple.com/build/transaction-cost/
- swlkr 9y ago
  Could also try IOTA (https://iota.org https://iota.org), even though it's early days
runeks 9y ago
Indeed there are clearing protocols on top of Bitcoin, which can reduce fee-paying to only occur upon depositing and redemption. But the Bitcoin blockchain is still limited to ~20 million of such transactions per month[1]. Only if we remove the withdrawal transactions from the equation, and start trading unconfirmed transactions as regular bitcoins (confirmed transactions), can we get around this limitation (such that only the number of new users joining is limited to 20M per month). I’m somewhat skeptical this can work, though, since recipients of funds usually have suppliers to pay, so I assume that we need to settle on the blockchain at least monthly. [1] https://runeksvendsen.github.io/blog/posts/2017-10-08-no-bitcoin-based-protocol-can-handle-more-than-20m-users-per-month.html https://runeksvendsen.github.io/blog/posts/2017-10-08-no-bit...
- phaser 9y ago
  I agree that Payment Channels is a good step forward but there's the hard limit on how many channels can be open. I'm confident that there will be proposals similar to Poon et al. [1] to create a third layer for networks of payment channels where a Blockchain tx can be used only in case of uncooperative channel counterparties. [1] https://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/a20a865ce40d40c8f942cf206a7cba96/Scalable_Funding_Of_Blockchain_Micropayment_Networks%20(1).pdf https://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/a20a865ce40d40c8f942cf206a7c...
  - runeks 9y ago
    I’ve read that paper, and I don’t quite understand how it would work when you need multiple clients to cooperate for a single client to make a payment. I.e. if the funds of 100 clients is at some multi-sig address, you’d save blockchain space, but payment from any of these 100 clients would require simultaneous cooperation from the remaining 99 clients. I have a hard time seeing how this would work in practice.
- vertex-four 9y ago
  A Lightning Network transaction results in one of two things - a proof that a certain amount of bitcoins can be withdrawn at any time (minus some delay), or a proof of cheating. Surely a proof that you can withdraw a certain amount of bitcoins is more-or-less equivalent to that many bitcoins, and therefore any rational actor - including your suppliers - should accept it as such? This isn't equivalent to unconfirmed transactions - it's tokens of exchange which directly and provably represent bitcoins. Settling on the blockchain shouldn't even have to happen monthly. One of the other interesting things is that Lightning Network allows for payment in one cryptocurrency while you hold another by channeling it through a very simple, provable currency exchange. This could behave similarly to, for example, paying for something in USD when you hold GBP - practically automatically. So the lack of scalability in Bitcoin's blockchain might not matter so much - if something else turns up that's better for a given person holding money, they can start using it while still continuing to trade with all the people using Bitcoin. IMHO, cross-chain transactions like this are one of the most important parts of Lightning Network - suddenly, network effects around a specific currency don't matter so much, people can hold whatever they like - Bitcoin people can trade with Litecoin people who can trade with Ethereum scripts, and when something new that solves more problems turns up, people holding that can still buy VPSes with bitcoin.
aphextron 9y ago
For something like microtransactions, why would you need to use Bitcoin? Can't you just make your own blockchain and track BTC/USD?
msolujic 9y ago
Ha you considered using GAME coin instead? https://gamecredits.com https://gamecredits.com I is leading solution for gaming ecosystem Disclosure: I am part of the GameCredits team

by phaser 9y ago

solotronics 9y ago

do you know of any current implementations of lightning on the actual blockchain and not testnet (BTC or LTC)? thanks!

bennyg 9y ago
I believe some tests have been done on the mainnet: https://www.coindesk.com/lightning-last-test-shows-bitcoin-scaling-solution-almost-ready/ https://www.coindesk.com/lightning-last-test-shows-bitcoin-s...
gtrubetskoy 9y ago
Looks like the first mainnet transaction went through today? https://medium.com/@lightning_network/lightning-protocol-1-0-compatibility-achieved-f9d22b7b19c4 https://medium.com/@lightning_network/lightning-protocol-1-0... "As developers of the Lightning Network protocol, we’re excited to announce version 1.0 RC of the Lightning protocol specification along with a successful cross- implementation test on Bitcoin mainnet!"

shepardrtc 9y ago

Have you thought about trying Ripple? https://ripple.com/build/transaction-cost/ https://ripple.com/build/transaction-cost/

swlkr 9y ago
Could also try IOTA (https://iota.org https://iota.org), even though it's early days

runeks 9y ago

Indeed there are clearing protocols on top of Bitcoin, which can reduce fee-paying to only occur upon depositing and redemption. But the Bitcoin blockchain is still limited to ~20 million of such transactions per month[1]. Only if we remove the withdrawal transactions from the equation, and start trading unconfirmed transactions as regular bitcoins (confirmed transactions), can we get around this limitation (such that only the number of new users joining is limited to 20M per month). I’m somewhat skeptical this can work, though, since recipients of funds usually have suppliers to pay, so I assume that we need to settle on the blockchain at least monthly. [1] https://runeksvendsen.github.io/blog/posts/2017-10-08-no-bitcoin-based-protocol-can-handle-more-than-20m-users-per-month.html https://runeksvendsen.github.io/blog/posts/2017-10-08-no-bit...

phaser 9y ago
I agree that Payment Channels is a good step forward but there's the hard limit on how many channels can be open. I'm confident that there will be proposals similar to Poon et al. [1] to create a third layer for networks of payment channels where a Blockchain tx can be used only in case of uncooperative channel counterparties. [1] https://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/a20a865ce40d40c8f942cf206a7cba96/Scalable_Funding_Of_Blockchain_Micropayment_Networks%20(1).pdf https://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/a20a865ce40d40c8f942cf206a7c...
- runeks 9y ago
  I’ve read that paper, and I don’t quite understand how it would work when you need multiple clients to cooperate for a single client to make a payment. I.e. if the funds of 100 clients is at some multi-sig address, you’d save blockchain space, but payment from any of these 100 clients would require simultaneous cooperation from the remaining 99 clients. I have a hard time seeing how this would work in practice.
vertex-four 9y ago
A Lightning Network transaction results in one of two things - a proof that a certain amount of bitcoins can be withdrawn at any time (minus some delay), or a proof of cheating. Surely a proof that you can withdraw a certain amount of bitcoins is more-or-less equivalent to that many bitcoins, and therefore any rational actor - including your suppliers - should accept it as such? This isn't equivalent to unconfirmed transactions - it's tokens of exchange which directly and provably represent bitcoins. Settling on the blockchain shouldn't even have to happen monthly. One of the other interesting things is that Lightning Network allows for payment in one cryptocurrency while you hold another by channeling it through a very simple, provable currency exchange. This could behave similarly to, for example, paying for something in USD when you hold GBP - practically automatically. So the lack of scalability in Bitcoin's blockchain might not matter so much - if something else turns up that's better for a given person holding money, they can start using it while still continuing to trade with all the people using Bitcoin. IMHO, cross-chain transactions like this are one of the most important parts of Lightning Network - suddenly, network effects around a specific currency don't matter so much, people can hold whatever they like - Bitcoin people can trade with Litecoin people who can trade with Ethereum scripts, and when something new that solves more problems turns up, people holding that can still buy VPSes with bitcoin.

aphextron 9y ago

For something like microtransactions, why would you need to use Bitcoin? Can't you just make your own blockchain and track BTC/USD?

msolujic 9y ago

Ha you considered using GAME coin instead? https://gamecredits.com https://gamecredits.com I is leading solution for gaming ecosystem Disclosure: I am part of the GameCredits team