5 ms·

I knew this would be posted. Such an absurdly stupid reasoning. You wanna pay for your coffee or buy car or whatever and the fee is slapped on top of the price.

by noxer 6y ago

I knew this would be posted. Such an absurdly stupid reasoning. You wanna pay for your coffee or buy car or whatever and the fee is slapped on top of the price. Who the heck would care about satishis per byte. Its % of the transacted value that matters. High fees means low value Tx are no longer "possible". >which to me says that it's becoming the settlement layer as expected. So it went from p2p cash to store of value to a settlement layer in just 10 years. What is it expected to be in the next 10 years?

rawtxapp 6y ago
In 10 years from now, everyone would have easy to use/intuitive lightning network wallets and all exchanges would have integrated it. Again, no need to keep track of every coffee transaction permanently forever on the blockchain, it's just not efficient.
- the_local_host 6y ago
  Why bother settling on the blockchain at all? The second-layer transactions could just float, like the dollar separated from the gold standard.
  - rawtxapp 6y ago
    For sure, you can keep channels open indefinitely. It won't be like dollars separated from gold though, it's still the same exact Bitcoin and the fund gets allocated at the opening of the channel.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - gruez 6y ago
    > The second-layer transactions could just float, like the dollar separated from the gold standard. You can't mint more bitcoins on the lightning network. There's a 1:1 relation between what's on the lightning network and what's on the blockchain. This is as opposed to fiat (zero relation, currency units can be generated at will), or gold standard in practice (the central bank only having enough gold for a fraction of the notes issued to be redeemed).
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - UncleMeat 6y ago
      Sure you can. Just mint some "lightnings" and move on. Nothing stops a large centralized processor from creating its own coin. L2 is also shit for actual distribution and censorship resistance. Imagine a future where BTC is 100x the current price and the people who got in early are rich as heck and nobody else can afford even a single transaction and must instead rely entirely on L2 services, never actually owning their own wealth.
      - gruez 6y ago
        > Sure you can. Just mint some "lightnings" and move on. Nothing stops a large centralized processor from creating its own coin. But that's literally not how the lightning network works? If some intermediary in the chain wants to accept IOUs in place of real bitcoins that's on them, but on both ends you're putting in and getting real bitcoins. By "real bitcoins" I mean they can be redeemed at any point in time by closing the channel, and there's no risk of a bank run (at least to the sender and receiver). If some intermediary decides to accept IOUs instead of real bitcoins, that's on them if it comes crashing down.
        UncleMeat 6y ago
        It isn't how the lightning network works... until everybody without vast sums of wealth have literally no alternative except to transact through approved L2 providers. Then we are right back at numbers in centralized databases with no restriction whatsoever.
    - devname 6y ago
      If you never close channels, you can print infinite Bitcoins. No one knows the true state of a channel until it is settled.
      - gruez 6y ago
- wmf 6y ago
  In one year from now there will probably be coins that can do >1,000 TPS on layer 1 with negligible fees with intuitive wallets and all exchanges will have integrated them.
  - noxer 6y ago
    These coins exists already since many years. See XRPL.org for the oldest "better bitcoin project". It has tested 1500 TPS and block time of a few seconds and on top of that a fully working second layer for high volume channels between 2 parties where the TPS is only limited by the speed of the hardware. It on average has more transaction per day than bitcoin ever had and it does that since years.
    - gruez 6y ago
      It's worth nothing those coins also took some liberties when it comes to establishing consensus. I believe the consensus model for XRP is "ask some trusted nodes what the state is and believe the majority".
      - pfundstein 6y ago
        Others however, just increased the block size to allow for more transactions per block and thereby lower fees. This is the intended purpose of the block size as set forth in the Bitcoin whitepaper.
        noxer 6y ago
        Its not solving the problems its just makes it less severe for a while. There is always an interest for miners to maximize Tx fees. You could make the block size infinite and there would still be no reason for a miner to add all pending Tx. Why would they If they can force people to pay a fee. The solution is to get rid of the fee. That's the only way you can have a system that wants the maximum throughput for the minimum cost, because no one makes money from it. Hence systems like the XRPL dont have real Tx fees they only have a tiny pseudo fee that isn't going to anyone its simply burned instead and only acts as a spam protection.
- CameronNemo 6y ago
  That is what I was told 3 years ago.
- noxer 6y ago
  The lightning network relies on looking up BTC which the user has to pay for. Its impossible to be dirt cheap because someone earns money on every Tx. Its the opposite or what p2p cash is supposed to do - it should remove the middlemen. It does not remove it, it just decentralizes it. Its still someone there sucking out value for something that should essentially cost the same as sending an email.
this_user 6y ago
The conundrum at the heart of BTC is that you have to introduce a second layer in order to work around the inherent limitations of the first. But at that point you may as well do away with that first layer, and then will have simply re-invented PayPay, which only goes to show how "blockchain technology" is almost entirely useless.
- gruez 6y ago
  >But at that point you may as well do away with that first layer, and then will have simply re-invented PayPay, which only goes to show how "blockchain technology" is almost entirely useless. the lightning network isn't going to freeze your funds for 180 days because they think your account is suspicious.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - castlecrasher2 6y ago
    No, it would have its own bullshit to deal with, we just haven't seen it yet.
  - singularity2001 6y ago
    I remember getting "this feature is currently suspended" messages on kraken when trying to pull my money out during the last bitcoin crash.
- noxer 6y ago
  That shortsighted. Blockchain tech isn't only bitcoin. There are solutions to the problems bitcoins has and they are working fine since years. BTW the link includes the transaction fees on the XRPL you probably didn't see it because the line is almost flat and almost at zero. Blockchains or rather DLTs are here to stay - bitcoin probably not.
- xur17 6y ago
  How has lightning network re-invented paypal? One is a custodial way to store and transfer money, another is a decentralized non-custodial way to store and transfer money. It couldn't be more different.

by noxer 6y ago

rawtxapp 6y ago

In 10 years from now, everyone would have easy to use/intuitive lightning network wallets and all exchanges would have integrated it. Again, no need to keep track of every coffee transaction permanently forever on the blockchain, it's just not efficient.

the_local_host 6y ago
Why bother settling on the blockchain at all? The second-layer transactions could just float, like the dollar separated from the gold standard.
- rawtxapp 6y ago
  For sure, you can keep channels open indefinitely. It won't be like dollars separated from gold though, it's still the same exact Bitcoin and the fund gets allocated at the opening of the channel.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- gruez 6y ago
  > The second-layer transactions could just float, like the dollar separated from the gold standard. You can't mint more bitcoins on the lightning network. There's a 1:1 relation between what's on the lightning network and what's on the blockchain. This is as opposed to fiat (zero relation, currency units can be generated at will), or gold standard in practice (the central bank only having enough gold for a fraction of the notes issued to be redeemed).
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    Sure you can. Just mint some "lightnings" and move on. Nothing stops a large centralized processor from creating its own coin. L2 is also shit for actual distribution and censorship resistance. Imagine a future where BTC is 100x the current price and the people who got in early are rich as heck and nobody else can afford even a single transaction and must instead rely entirely on L2 services, never actually owning their own wealth.
    - gruez 6y ago
      > Sure you can. Just mint some "lightnings" and move on. Nothing stops a large centralized processor from creating its own coin. But that's literally not how the lightning network works? If some intermediary in the chain wants to accept IOUs in place of real bitcoins that's on them, but on both ends you're putting in and getting real bitcoins. By "real bitcoins" I mean they can be redeemed at any point in time by closing the channel, and there's no risk of a bank run (at least to the sender and receiver). If some intermediary decides to accept IOUs instead of real bitcoins, that's on them if it comes crashing down.
      - UncleMeat 6y ago
        It isn't how the lightning network works... until everybody without vast sums of wealth have literally no alternative except to transact through approved L2 providers. Then we are right back at numbers in centralized databases with no restriction whatsoever.
  - devname 6y ago
    If you never close channels, you can print infinite Bitcoins. No one knows the true state of a channel until it is settled.
    - gruez 6y ago
wmf 6y ago
In one year from now there will probably be coins that can do >1,000 TPS on layer 1 with negligible fees with intuitive wallets and all exchanges will have integrated them.
- noxer 6y ago
  These coins exists already since many years. See XRPL.org for the oldest "better bitcoin project". It has tested 1500 TPS and block time of a few seconds and on top of that a fully working second layer for high volume channels between 2 parties where the TPS is only limited by the speed of the hardware. It on average has more transaction per day than bitcoin ever had and it does that since years.
  - gruez 6y ago
    It's worth nothing those coins also took some liberties when it comes to establishing consensus. I believe the consensus model for XRP is "ask some trusted nodes what the state is and believe the majority".
    - pfundstein 6y ago
      Others however, just increased the block size to allow for more transactions per block and thereby lower fees. This is the intended purpose of the block size as set forth in the Bitcoin whitepaper.
      - noxer 6y ago
        Its not solving the problems its just makes it less severe for a while. There is always an interest for miners to maximize Tx fees. You could make the block size infinite and there would still be no reason for a miner to add all pending Tx. Why would they If they can force people to pay a fee. The solution is to get rid of the fee. That's the only way you can have a system that wants the maximum throughput for the minimum cost, because no one makes money from it. Hence systems like the XRPL dont have real Tx fees they only have a tiny pseudo fee that isn't going to anyone its simply burned instead and only acts as a spam protection.
CameronNemo 6y ago
That is what I was told 3 years ago.
noxer 6y ago
The lightning network relies on looking up BTC which the user has to pay for. Its impossible to be dirt cheap because someone earns money on every Tx. Its the opposite or what p2p cash is supposed to do - it should remove the middlemen. It does not remove it, it just decentralizes it. Its still someone there sucking out value for something that should essentially cost the same as sending an email.

this_user 6y ago

The conundrum at the heart of BTC is that you have to introduce a second layer in order to work around the inherent limitations of the first. But at that point you may as well do away with that first layer, and then will have simply re-invented PayPay, which only goes to show how "blockchain technology" is almost entirely useless.

gruez 6y ago
>But at that point you may as well do away with that first layer, and then will have simply re-invented PayPay, which only goes to show how "blockchain technology" is almost entirely useless. the lightning network isn't going to freeze your funds for 180 days because they think your account is suspicious.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- castlecrasher2 6y ago
  No, it would have its own bullshit to deal with, we just haven't seen it yet.
- singularity2001 6y ago
  I remember getting "this feature is currently suspended" messages on kraken when trying to pull my money out during the last bitcoin crash.
noxer 6y ago
That shortsighted. Blockchain tech isn't only bitcoin. There are solutions to the problems bitcoins has and they are working fine since years. BTW the link includes the transaction fees on the XRPL you probably didn't see it because the line is almost flat and almost at zero. Blockchains or rather DLTs are here to stay - bitcoin probably not.
xur17 6y ago
How has lightning network re-invented paypal? One is a custodial way to store and transfer money, another is a decentralized non-custodial way to store and transfer money. It couldn't be more different.