10 ms·

Lightning protocol addresses that. You can make millions of transactions per second [1]. Quite a lot of crypto sites are already supporting it and wallet suppor

Lightning protocol addresses that. You can make millions of transactions per second [1]. Quite a lot of crypto sites are already supporting it and wallet support is increasing too [2]. [1] - https://lightning.network https://lightning.network [2] - https://blog.bitrefill.com/top-11-lightning-network-wallets-bitrefill-328b5465b1b4 https://blog.bitrefill.com/top-11-lightning-network-wallets-...

ac29 7y ago
Why is an additional layer of complexity an improvement? Why not make bitcoin blocks 10x larger and 10x more frequent? The argument that "only large entities will be able to keep up with that" doesn't really hold - thats the status quo already.
- nullc 7y ago
  Why add TCP to IP or HTTP to TCP? It's sound engineering. Like in other systems by composing layers you can achieve the advantages of each component while addressing their costs, without creating insurmountable complexity... "have your cake and eat it too". Particularly, the central Bitcoin system is a global broadcast medium-- necessarily for its security. Global broadcast is inherently somewhat limited in its scalability (though less than some assume). Other layers effectively add "transaction switching" to Bitcoin, radically improving scalablity and performance with their own costs which are good trade-offs for their applications. As far as the status quo of traditional finance... If you're happy with the status quo! Use it! (I'm going to assume you don't mean the status quo of Bitcoin--because 28kb/sec isn't something only large entities can keep up with, it adds up over time-- but even cumulatively its managable) You could recreate the status quo of centralized finance with Bitcoin, but it wouldn't be obviously better: at least systems like visa and paypal are purpose build to do what they do. Bitcoin takes on a lot of costs and tradeoffs to achieve decenteralization. Bitcoin was created to be money that existed above and outside of the vulgarities of immediate human politics, just like how strong encryption made it effectively impossible for some sysadmin to just read your files based on some excuse. I think having that option in the world is extraordinarily valuable.
  - phillipsjk 7y ago
    Scaling with second layers instead of on-chain is NOT "sound engineering" The Engineering discipline relies on empirical studies. With constantly full blocks, you have no way to measure transaction demand. Fees are only a weak indicator of transaction demand because of substitute goods.
    - marcinjachymiak 7y ago
      A great empirical study you should pursue is initial blockchain download time with (full) 2000 MB blocks and low-grade consumer hardware.
      - freeAgent 7y ago
        People have already done this and it is quite fast! https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/ek0614/current_node_implementation_regular_quadcore_vps/ https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/ek0614/current_node_im... Flowee the Hub (Bitcoin Cash full node implementation) can sync the equivalent of 4GB blocks using just a cheap quad-core VPS.
        nullc 7y ago
        Amusingly enough ... The rates there are, in fact, significantly slower than what plain old Bitcoin developers. Bitcoin dev's probably should make the syncing status print the number of inputs per second being processed. But being able to barely keep up means that if you fall behind for even a moment (say, if your connection drops... or if miners get lucky and mine a bunch of extra blocks) then you will _never_ catch up. Operating anywhere near the limit of your processing rate is non-viable for that reason. You need to be able to process many times the network's capacity so that you can catch up in a reasonable amount of time.
        freeAgent 7y ago
        Sure, but OP said 2GB. A node able to process 4GB blocks would be able to sync at 2x realtime. Most people who run nodes will probably bootstrap new ones in the future anyway and most people don't need to run full nodes in the first place (the majority don't do so today and haven't since light wallets became available). To get back to reality, I don't think any sane person has advocated for anything close to a 2GB blocksize cap at any point in the near future. Bitcoin Core uses a maximum 4MB block weight and Bitcoin Cash uses a 32MB cap currently. This cheap VPS could sync the entire Bitcoin (Core) blockchain from 2009 to present in less than 12 hours. The biggest block size cap (not full blocks, the cap) being tested seriously is 1GB. I'm sure you know all this, though.
- cyphertruck 7y ago
  That’s not the status quo at all. You can buy a raspberry pi 4, a 1TB SSD, and have a perfectly functional bitcoin node, and lightning node and BTCPAY server all in one for close to $200. Secondly, Lightning isn’t “additional complexity” fir bitcoin— it’s taking complexity and putting it where it belongs— at the platform layer. TCP/IP doesn’t get faster by making packets bigger. Same with bitcoin. And the application layer should be kept separate from the transport layer.
  - nullc 7y ago
    > TCP/IP doesn’t get faster by making packets bigger. Technically larger MTUs can increase performance somewhat by reducing per-packet overheads... but the effect marginal and not that enormous with good nics and drivers. But still, probably not the best example. :)
    - etherael 7y ago
      Right, because no nic vendor was ever retarded enough to purposely cripple their product by restricting throughput to thousandths of actual potential theoretical physical capacity at the driver level like you and your toxic coterie did. In fact nobody has ever been this stupid in the entire industry period that I can think of except that coterie. Good thing for you it's in the interests of extremely rich and powerful people to see that your sabotage is well supported, and good thing for the rest of the world you have a containment chain where your stupidity is restricted from bleeding over to the rest of them, and every single other chain appears to be completely mercifully free of your idiotic philosophy.
      - scotty79 7y ago
        I don't get your argument. Block size is limited so fees can go up to pay the miners so they have incentive to mine. If fees are a barrier to you, you can make your transfer of value using any other traded cryptocurrency (or lightning whatever it is). Aim of bitcoin is not to be the fastest cryptocurrency but the most mined one (thus safest?).
- mikekchar 7y ago
  I can answer part of that question. You can't make it much more frequent because the amount of time for the difficulty has to be balanced against propagation time for blocks or else you will have lots of forks. Probably you can make it work, but there are a fair number of assumptions in the Bitcoin protocol about this and it would probably be better to start a new coin if you want to do that. The 10 minute update was chosen specifically to avoid common network partition events. As for block size, it's been ages since I looked into this stuff at all (and I've only ever watched out of the corner of my eye), but my impression is that the block size is currently limited for relatively arbitrary reasons. I don't think there is actually a lot of resistance to increasing the size sometime. It's just that the developers want to limit the size now to guide development in certain ways. And really, as far as I'm concerned that's totally fair. If you don't like it, fork the coin. Or start a new one. Or stick with Bitcash. The developers are in control because that's the whole point -- to guide development in the way that they think will work best. Not everybody is going to agree. So what? I think the only reason people get upset is because of the ludicrous amount of potential money on the line. And again: if you are controlling that ludicrous amount of potential money, you are able to vote with your feet -- to the extent that you can convince other people with ludicrous amounts of potential money to follow suit. If all that insane speculation and fraud were to vacate Bitcoin, the developers could happily code away and there would be nobody left to complain. Let's face it. If we believe that there are billions of dollars tied up in BTC, the owners of that coin could easily afford to hire programmers to fork the protocol. They don't do it because the politics of doing so is essentially impossible. Most people want to stick with the dev group. Again, I'm left with saying, so what?
  - statoshi 7y ago
    Indeed; the market has clearly chosen to prefer optimizing for low cost of full system validation (running a full node) over lost cost of transacting (cheap block space.)
  - DennisP 7y ago
    > You can't make it much more frequent because the amount of time for the difficulty has to be balanced against propagation time for blocks or else you will have lots of forks. The same problem also limits block size, since large blocks take longer to propagate. But that's why Ethereum went with GHOST, which was originally proposed for Bitcoin. Instead of choosing the block with the most hashpower behind it, you choose the block with the most hashpower in the entire tree after it, so that forks contribute to a block's security. The original paper calculated that this allowed both faster blocks and higher throughput, and it's the reason Ethereum has 15-second blocks. Here are a couple papers: https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/881.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/881.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/545.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/545.pdf
- bduerst 7y ago
  It's not. Don't believe the comparisons to other technology. Lightning is an IOU system that does not scale with users.
kain_niak 7y ago
Hardly, because building LN on the 1MB base layer is like building a pyramid upside down, it's unstable and creates more problems than it was meant to solve. Lightning was supposed to make tx fees low right? Well it technically has, but it also introduced the following problems that Bitcoin never had: - LN requires that both sender and receiver be online at the same time to transact. This never existed on Bitcoin. - If you're an LN merchant accepting payments, you must periodically topoff your side of the channel...just so you can keep accepting money. This problem never existed on Bitcoin. I can have an empty address on Bitcoin and receive any amount of money without any limits. - In Lightning when making a transactions you must always reserve the current Bitcoin onchain miner fee, so that if either channel party wants to close the channel it'll get accepted and mined by a Bitcoin miner. Well when Bitcoin fees hit $3 a few months ago, 60% of the Lightning network capacity was locked up in miner fees lol... defeating the purpose of microtransactions and the LN network - In Bitcoin my coins can only be stolen if I leak my private key. Well for LN your money can be stolen simply by not being online to monitor your money. In addition to stealing your LN private keys, a bad user can attempt to steal your funds when you're offline. Which is why LN requires a 3rd party service called Watchtowers to watch over your funds. Way more complicated than Bitcoin - The unsolvable routing problem. A good chunk of LN transactions will fail simply because the routing is weighted and chanes constantly. Compare that to Bitcoin's gossip network which doesn't require any weighted routing. FYI weighted routing is currently a mathematically unsolved problem. - LN is centralizing around LNbig.com At one point LNBig.com had over 70% of the entire LN network capacity. LN will continue to centralize around these big hubs, because they can offer cheap connections and low fees than a regular peer can. Welcome to Bank of America LN Hub TM. - With Bitcoin I can keep my money in a cold wallet. With LN it's either a hot wallet or cold wallet and I must close all my channels and pay the Bitcoin onchain fee just to close it. You're literally choosing betwen low fees OR security with Lightning, where as with Bitcoin you have both. - Both creators of Lightning Drya and Poon have publically stated LN was never meant to be a scaling solution for Bitcoin and show many problems that will simply never be solved. Like the race condition when a big hub closes and hundreds of users all attempt to race to transmit their transaction to miners. - In the Lightning whitepaper, LN requires AT LEAST 133MB+ blocks for global adoption for LN to work without congestion... And Blockstream blocked a minor 2MB increase. So good luck. So congrats to Lightning, for "solving" 1 problem and creating 12 new ones. There's many more, but these are the ones easily digestable by users without going into the deeper technical problems with LN. There's a reason Lightning is always 18 months away from completion....for 5.5 years now. While Bitcoin Cash just works.
DrCraigWright 7y ago
Funny.... you seem to be exaggerating by a factor of 100,000x... And, that is before all the issues. Oh well... When Lightning comes to an end later this year, you will have a new boondoggle thing I guess?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- nullc 7y ago
  > And, that is before all the issues. Oh well... When Lightning comes to an end later this year, you will have a new boondoggle thing I guess? Everyone was holding their breath for your prior fraudulent manipulation ( https://i.redd.it/lktxhvvvmny31.jpg https://i.redd.it/lktxhvvvmny31.jpg, https://i.redd.it/02oagc805u441.png https://i.redd.it/02oagc805u441.png ) has long since died from asphyxiation. I think you might need a new approach.
- statoshi 7y ago
  Ha! Another empty prediction that we'll happily call you out on once it expires. Remember when you predicted that Bitcoin would completely cease to exist by the end of 2019? https://twitter.com/lopp/status/1211707215620530176 https://twitter.com/lopp/status/1211707215620530176
FreeTrade 7y ago
Lightning requires that both sender and receiver be online at the same time to transact. Lightning was not ready when Bitcoin capacity was crippled by the aforementioned tiny cabal of developers in favor of Lightning. Lightning remains unready, forever 18 months away from the promised usable technology.
- DennisP 7y ago
  Lightning also requires funds recipients to monitor their channels continuously, to make sure they're not closed early with obsolete balances. At least you can pay someone to do that for you.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    Lightning is basically digital third-party checks. There's a myriad of reasons people don't buy things with third-party checks.
- alwillis 7y ago
  Lightning remains unready, forever 18 months away from the promised usable technology. This is provably false. Lightning is huge and growing: * more than $6 billion USD in liquidity * nearly 11,000 nodes * tens of thousands of transactions daily * a growing ecosystem (https://www.lopp.net/lightning-information.html https://www.lopp.net/lightning-information.html) You can see the real-time stats at https://1ml.com/ https://1ml.com/
  - leondavibe 7y ago
    6B Did you not mean Million Cause LN certainly does not have 800 000btc in liquidity A few months ago the biggest LN channel operator said average 200-300transactions a day netting him a profit per month of $20 Reality and dreams rarely meet
  - cedivad 7y ago
    *billion => million.
  - 7y ago
bufferoverflow 7y ago
Lightning doesn't address that, it's been broken for years and it's permanently "18 months till it's ready". Plus the design itself is flawed. You have to be online to receive money. No cold storage. Routing at scale isn't solved.

ac29 7y ago

Why is an additional layer of complexity an improvement? Why not make bitcoin blocks 10x larger and 10x more frequent? The argument that "only large entities will be able to keep up with that" doesn't really hold - thats the status quo already.

nullc 7y ago
Why add TCP to IP or HTTP to TCP? It's sound engineering. Like in other systems by composing layers you can achieve the advantages of each component while addressing their costs, without creating insurmountable complexity... "have your cake and eat it too". Particularly, the central Bitcoin system is a global broadcast medium-- necessarily for its security. Global broadcast is inherently somewhat limited in its scalability (though less than some assume). Other layers effectively add "transaction switching" to Bitcoin, radically improving scalablity and performance with their own costs which are good trade-offs for their applications. As far as the status quo of traditional finance... If you're happy with the status quo! Use it! (I'm going to assume you don't mean the status quo of Bitcoin--because 28kb/sec isn't something only large entities can keep up with, it adds up over time-- but even cumulatively its managable) You could recreate the status quo of centralized finance with Bitcoin, but it wouldn't be obviously better: at least systems like visa and paypal are purpose build to do what they do. Bitcoin takes on a lot of costs and tradeoffs to achieve decenteralization. Bitcoin was created to be money that existed above and outside of the vulgarities of immediate human politics, just like how strong encryption made it effectively impossible for some sysadmin to just read your files based on some excuse. I think having that option in the world is extraordinarily valuable.
- phillipsjk 7y ago
  Scaling with second layers instead of on-chain is NOT "sound engineering" The Engineering discipline relies on empirical studies. With constantly full blocks, you have no way to measure transaction demand. Fees are only a weak indicator of transaction demand because of substitute goods.
  - marcinjachymiak 7y ago
    A great empirical study you should pursue is initial blockchain download time with (full) 2000 MB blocks and low-grade consumer hardware.
    - freeAgent 7y ago
      People have already done this and it is quite fast! https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/ek0614/current_node_implementation_regular_quadcore_vps/ https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/ek0614/current_node_im... Flowee the Hub (Bitcoin Cash full node implementation) can sync the equivalent of 4GB blocks using just a cheap quad-core VPS.
      - nullc 7y ago
        Amusingly enough ... The rates there are, in fact, significantly slower than what plain old Bitcoin developers. Bitcoin dev's probably should make the syncing status print the number of inputs per second being processed. But being able to barely keep up means that if you fall behind for even a moment (say, if your connection drops... or if miners get lucky and mine a bunch of extra blocks) then you will _never_ catch up. Operating anywhere near the limit of your processing rate is non-viable for that reason. You need to be able to process many times the network's capacity so that you can catch up in a reasonable amount of time.
        freeAgent 7y ago
        Sure, but OP said 2GB. A node able to process 4GB blocks would be able to sync at 2x realtime. Most people who run nodes will probably bootstrap new ones in the future anyway and most people don't need to run full nodes in the first place (the majority don't do so today and haven't since light wallets became available). To get back to reality, I don't think any sane person has advocated for anything close to a 2GB blocksize cap at any point in the near future. Bitcoin Core uses a maximum 4MB block weight and Bitcoin Cash uses a 32MB cap currently. This cheap VPS could sync the entire Bitcoin (Core) blockchain from 2009 to present in less than 12 hours. The biggest block size cap (not full blocks, the cap) being tested seriously is 1GB. I'm sure you know all this, though.
cyphertruck 7y ago
That’s not the status quo at all. You can buy a raspberry pi 4, a 1TB SSD, and have a perfectly functional bitcoin node, and lightning node and BTCPAY server all in one for close to $200. Secondly, Lightning isn’t “additional complexity” fir bitcoin— it’s taking complexity and putting it where it belongs— at the platform layer. TCP/IP doesn’t get faster by making packets bigger. Same with bitcoin. And the application layer should be kept separate from the transport layer.
- nullc 7y ago
  > TCP/IP doesn’t get faster by making packets bigger. Technically larger MTUs can increase performance somewhat by reducing per-packet overheads... but the effect marginal and not that enormous with good nics and drivers. But still, probably not the best example. :)
  - etherael 7y ago
    Right, because no nic vendor was ever retarded enough to purposely cripple their product by restricting throughput to thousandths of actual potential theoretical physical capacity at the driver level like you and your toxic coterie did. In fact nobody has ever been this stupid in the entire industry period that I can think of except that coterie. Good thing for you it's in the interests of extremely rich and powerful people to see that your sabotage is well supported, and good thing for the rest of the world you have a containment chain where your stupidity is restricted from bleeding over to the rest of them, and every single other chain appears to be completely mercifully free of your idiotic philosophy.
    - scotty79 7y ago
      I don't get your argument. Block size is limited so fees can go up to pay the miners so they have incentive to mine. If fees are a barrier to you, you can make your transfer of value using any other traded cryptocurrency (or lightning whatever it is). Aim of bitcoin is not to be the fastest cryptocurrency but the most mined one (thus safest?).
mikekchar 7y ago
I can answer part of that question. You can't make it much more frequent because the amount of time for the difficulty has to be balanced against propagation time for blocks or else you will have lots of forks. Probably you can make it work, but there are a fair number of assumptions in the Bitcoin protocol about this and it would probably be better to start a new coin if you want to do that. The 10 minute update was chosen specifically to avoid common network partition events. As for block size, it's been ages since I looked into this stuff at all (and I've only ever watched out of the corner of my eye), but my impression is that the block size is currently limited for relatively arbitrary reasons. I don't think there is actually a lot of resistance to increasing the size sometime. It's just that the developers want to limit the size now to guide development in certain ways. And really, as far as I'm concerned that's totally fair. If you don't like it, fork the coin. Or start a new one. Or stick with Bitcash. The developers are in control because that's the whole point -- to guide development in the way that they think will work best. Not everybody is going to agree. So what? I think the only reason people get upset is because of the ludicrous amount of potential money on the line. And again: if you are controlling that ludicrous amount of potential money, you are able to vote with your feet -- to the extent that you can convince other people with ludicrous amounts of potential money to follow suit. If all that insane speculation and fraud were to vacate Bitcoin, the developers could happily code away and there would be nobody left to complain. Let's face it. If we believe that there are billions of dollars tied up in BTC, the owners of that coin could easily afford to hire programmers to fork the protocol. They don't do it because the politics of doing so is essentially impossible. Most people want to stick with the dev group. Again, I'm left with saying, so what?
- statoshi 7y ago
  Indeed; the market has clearly chosen to prefer optimizing for low cost of full system validation (running a full node) over lost cost of transacting (cheap block space.)
- DennisP 7y ago
  > You can't make it much more frequent because the amount of time for the difficulty has to be balanced against propagation time for blocks or else you will have lots of forks. The same problem also limits block size, since large blocks take longer to propagate. But that's why Ethereum went with GHOST, which was originally proposed for Bitcoin. Instead of choosing the block with the most hashpower behind it, you choose the block with the most hashpower in the entire tree after it, so that forks contribute to a block's security. The original paper calculated that this allowed both faster blocks and higher throughput, and it's the reason Ethereum has 15-second blocks. Here are a couple papers: https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/881.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/881.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/545.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/545.pdf
bduerst 7y ago
It's not. Don't believe the comparisons to other technology. Lightning is an IOU system that does not scale with users.

kain_niak 7y ago

Hardly, because building LN on the 1MB base layer is like building a pyramid upside down, it's unstable and creates more problems than it was meant to solve. Lightning was supposed to make tx fees low right? Well it technically has, but it also introduced the following problems that Bitcoin never had: - LN requires that both sender and receiver be online at the same time to transact. This never existed on Bitcoin. - If you're an LN merchant accepting payments, you must periodically topoff your side of the channel...just so you can keep accepting money. This problem never existed on Bitcoin. I can have an empty address on Bitcoin and receive any amount of money without any limits. - In Lightning when making a transactions you must always reserve the current Bitcoin onchain miner fee, so that if either channel party wants to close the channel it'll get accepted and mined by a Bitcoin miner. Well when Bitcoin fees hit $3 a few months ago, 60% of the Lightning network capacity was locked up in miner fees lol... defeating the purpose of microtransactions and the LN network - In Bitcoin my coins can only be stolen if I leak my private key. Well for LN your money can be stolen simply by not being online to monitor your money. In addition to stealing your LN private keys, a bad user can attempt to steal your funds when you're offline. Which is why LN requires a 3rd party service called Watchtowers to watch over your funds. Way more complicated than Bitcoin - The unsolvable routing problem. A good chunk of LN transactions will fail simply because the routing is weighted and chanes constantly. Compare that to Bitcoin's gossip network which doesn't require any weighted routing. FYI weighted routing is currently a mathematically unsolved problem. - LN is centralizing around LNbig.com At one point LNBig.com had over 70% of the entire LN network capacity. LN will continue to centralize around these big hubs, because they can offer cheap connections and low fees than a regular peer can. Welcome to Bank of America LN Hub TM. - With Bitcoin I can keep my money in a cold wallet. With LN it's either a hot wallet or cold wallet and I must close all my channels and pay the Bitcoin onchain fee just to close it. You're literally choosing betwen low fees OR security with Lightning, where as with Bitcoin you have both. - Both creators of Lightning Drya and Poon have publically stated LN was never meant to be a scaling solution for Bitcoin and show many problems that will simply never be solved. Like the race condition when a big hub closes and hundreds of users all attempt to race to transmit their transaction to miners. - In the Lightning whitepaper, LN requires AT LEAST 133MB+ blocks for global adoption for LN to work without congestion... And Blockstream blocked a minor 2MB increase. So good luck. So congrats to Lightning, for "solving" 1 problem and creating 12 new ones. There's many more, but these are the ones easily digestable by users without going into the deeper technical problems with LN. There's a reason Lightning is always 18 months away from completion....for 5.5 years now. While Bitcoin Cash just works.

DrCraigWright 7y ago

Funny.... you seem to be exaggerating by a factor of 100,000x... And, that is before all the issues. Oh well... When Lightning comes to an end later this year, you will have a new boondoggle thing I guess?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
nullc 7y ago
> And, that is before all the issues. Oh well... When Lightning comes to an end later this year, you will have a new boondoggle thing I guess? Everyone was holding their breath for your prior fraudulent manipulation ( https://i.redd.it/lktxhvvvmny31.jpg https://i.redd.it/lktxhvvvmny31.jpg, https://i.redd.it/02oagc805u441.png https://i.redd.it/02oagc805u441.png ) has long since died from asphyxiation. I think you might need a new approach.
statoshi 7y ago
Ha! Another empty prediction that we'll happily call you out on once it expires. Remember when you predicted that Bitcoin would completely cease to exist by the end of 2019? https://twitter.com/lopp/status/1211707215620530176 https://twitter.com/lopp/status/1211707215620530176

FreeTrade 7y ago

Lightning requires that both sender and receiver be online at the same time to transact. Lightning was not ready when Bitcoin capacity was crippled by the aforementioned tiny cabal of developers in favor of Lightning. Lightning remains unready, forever 18 months away from the promised usable technology.

DennisP 7y ago
Lightning also requires funds recipients to monitor their channels continuously, to make sure they're not closed early with obsolete balances. At least you can pay someone to do that for you.
- bduerst 7y ago
  Lightning is basically digital third-party checks. There's a myriad of reasons people don't buy things with third-party checks.
alwillis 7y ago
Lightning remains unready, forever 18 months away from the promised usable technology. This is provably false. Lightning is huge and growing: * more than $6 billion USD in liquidity * nearly 11,000 nodes * tens of thousands of transactions daily * a growing ecosystem (https://www.lopp.net/lightning-information.html https://www.lopp.net/lightning-information.html) You can see the real-time stats at https://1ml.com/ https://1ml.com/
- leondavibe 7y ago
  6B Did you not mean Million Cause LN certainly does not have 800 000btc in liquidity A few months ago the biggest LN channel operator said average 200-300transactions a day netting him a profit per month of $20 Reality and dreams rarely meet
- cedivad 7y ago
  *billion => million.
- 7y ago

bufferoverflow 7y ago

Lightning doesn't address that, it's been broken for years and it's permanently "18 months till it's ready". Plus the design itself is flawed. You have to be online to receive money. No cold storage. Routing at scale isn't solved.