12 ms·

What the normal people will use in the beginning is going to be non-custodial LN based solution like strike. Minimal fees, easy to use. If you get a bit more, m

• jasonlaramburu 5y ago
  LN still requires periodic on-chain transactions to close and open payment channels. So either these costs are being passed along to the users in El Salvador or the wallet provider is subsidizing it.
  • random_kris 5y ago
    I run 1 node and in a year I haven't yet had to reopen an existing channel. And 3 channels are good enough for most
    • jasonlaramburu 5y ago
      Are you buying daily essentials using LN, or running a small business? Also how could someone in El Salvador run a node without reliable electricity and internet? Also remember that the hardware cost of a full node is likely more than a month’s wages.
      • gruez 5y ago
        >Also how could someone in El Salvador run a node without reliable electricity and internet? A lightning node doesn't need to be on 24/7. To prevent your counterparty from stealing your funds you only need to be online every 2 weeks (or never if you use a watchtower service). Syncing is also fast, so 1 hour of internet access/electricity should allow you to catch up 2 weeks of blockchain history. >Also remember that the hardware cost of a full node is likely more than a month’s wages. Are there no thin wallets for lightning?
        • jasonlaramburu 5y ago
          Right but the node needs to be online anytime you transact, correct?
          • gruez 5y ago
            Yeah that's a fair point. You probably[1] need to be online to make a transaction, but you can potentially have a thin client setup where you communicate with a hosted node somewhere, but the signing and stuff is kept on-device. This allows you to make transactions in the case where power is out, but your phone still has internet access. I don't live in el salvador so I'm not sure what the frequency of power outages is relative to telecommunications outages, but at least in the US cell towers and landlines run on backup power so they're up even when there's a blackout. [1] For maximum convenience it's mandatory, but it's conceivable to update the state of a channel entirely offline. This would allow you to make offline transactions with a node you have a direct channel to, but multi hop transactions (ie. transactions with nodes that you don't have a direct channel to) would still be a hassle.
  • rawtxapp 5y ago
    Channel factories will eventually be able to bundle all these channel open/closes in a single transaction.
  • waynenilsen 5y ago
    One vision is that checking accounts are custodial LN solutions with savings accounts as cold storage. Discussion with the "Bitcoin Beach" people https://stephanlivera.com/episode/279/ https://stephanlivera.com/episode/279/
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  • gruez 5y ago
    While you do need to close/open payment channels if you want to move the funds off the lightning network, I don't really see why you'd need to "periodically" do it. Lightning channels can stay open indefinitely so you can theoretically park your money on there indefinitely.
    • KingOfCoders 5y ago
      I have no clue, so Lightning is Bitcoin without the Bitcoin and blockchain? Without the blockchain how is it different from a MySQL database table?
      • gruez 5y ago
        If someone sends me 1 BTC and the transaction is recorded in mysql, the database operator can revert the transaction and I have zero recourse. That's not possible with lightning. If someone sends me 1 BTC over lightning, then decides to reneg on it by trying to commit an older state of the channel (where they haven't sent me 1 BTC), then my recourse is to rebut that transaction with a newer one.
        • KingOfCoders 5y ago
          Thanks!
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
• briefcomment 5y ago
  I don't think LN is easy to use. Common trope is that most Bitcoin maximalists have never used it.
  • rawtxapp 5y ago
    The adoption is increasing (1ml.com) and there are many easy to use wallets (Phoenix wallet is my favorite so far).
• enlyth 5y ago
  I can see someone explaining to their grandmother about having to move her BTC to offline cold storage and storing her private keys securely or she could lose her life's savings in an instant with no recourse
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • aNoob7000 5y ago
    LOL! Very true.. Who the hell has time to figure out all this stuff? I personally think the day the digital US dollar is developed and can be stored in your IPhone. If I can take my locally stored digital dollar and then send it via imessage or whatsapp, then the game is truly over for Bitcoin.
    • pinkybanana 5y ago
      > Who the hell has time to figure out all this stuff? Nobody will have to learn this stuff, if the BTC economy develops there will be professional custodials for all levels. Eg. banks. But the importance is that there is always the option to self-custody if you want to. With fiat you don't have that option even in theory. I think the option for self-custody is what makes BTC powerful alternative, not necessarily how widespread self-custody is going to be.
      • acdha 5y ago
        > But the importance is that there is always the option to self-custody if you want to. With fiat you don't have that option even in theory. You mean that if you store cash it will magically disappear once you hit a certain quantity or age?
        • pinkybanana 5y ago
          Physical cash is ridiculously cumbersome and difficult to handle in larger quantities. I wouldn't probably be able to get $10k worth of cash from my local bank, and getting something like $100k would probably require days and lots of work. However if I have millions worth of BTC at some big exchange, I can move that amount to a secure self custody in 10 minutes without a hassle.
• hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  The idea that "normal people" will be able to use bitcoin at all without getting their private keys stolen is laughable. Think of how often online bank accounts get hacked in the US, except the difference now is that your money is gone, permanently.
  • acdha 5y ago
    … and the people who made that possible for the hacker will laugh at you and say it's your fault rather than admitting that the system they sold you is fragile.
    • mistercheph 5y ago
      But there is a fundamental difference in that you never need to identify yourself to anyone ever: unlike our present banks and institutions where "We will never ask you for your password" is a statement meant with 30 conditionals attached to it, and so is "Don't give out your social security number." Really grandma, never give anyone your private key, ever, and only write it down with pen and paper, never on the computer.
  • janeroe 5y ago
    > The idea that "normal people" will be able to use bitcoin at all ... is laughable. The idea that "normal people" will be able to use cash at all is laughable. The idea that "normal people" will be able to use gold coins at all is laughable. And yet, many use (or used to) and don't need a mommy state to tell them what to do.
    • jokethrowaway 5y ago
      I'm all for getting the government out - but cash or gold is way easier to use. If you have a political problem, you need to solve it politically. You can't hack it with a technical solution or politicians and their rich friends will just find a way to use it against you (like it's happening with btc, enjoy limitless tracking and the rich elite profiting from btc as much (if not more) than you) or ban it (like it happened to e-gold).
• chronicsunshine 5y ago
  You're telling us people that don't have bank accounts are gonna be using bitcoin in some abstruse way? Or are you saying some other entity (a bank) will help them with it? And if the latter, why would bitcoin be of help at all? A normal bank account would be simpler and less worrisome.
  • pinkybanana 5y ago
    Both. Some people (probably minority) will use self-hosted wallets. Majority will use custodials (banks). > And if the latter, why would bitcoin be of help at all? A normal bank account would be simpler and less worrisome. USD will still stay as the official currency of El Salvador. However now merchants have to accept also BTC. The hypotheses is that for example foreign businessmen will bring BTC in form of investments to the country, and people will send BTC via remittances. There is possibility that there isn't actual demand, but there is also possibility that El Salvador might get some serious economical boost because of this.
    • notafraudster 5y ago
      The original conversation was about how Bitcoin could help the 70% who are unbanked have access to something like a bank account. The proposed mechanism for this is "well, they can go to a bank and register something like a bank account, or else they can be a high-SES self-educated tech person who builds their own bank using computer hardware". I do not think this could help the 70% who are unbanked have access to something like a bank account. Whether or not it has spinoff economic benefits in terms of tourism or parking capital flight from other countries, you might be right, but that's not what was being discussed, right?
      • KingOfCoders 5y ago
        I'd also say it's easier to give everyone the right to an account as in Germany (if the reason is that they can't get one b/c of a missing/bad credit history and not because they don't live to a bank and have no phone), to solve the 70% unbanked problem instead of introducing BTC.
• shp0ngle 5y ago
  I don't know how do you expect people to understand two disparate, absolutely differently working payment systems (LN and BTC) with different threat models, and moving between them always costs a lot of money. But hey whatever works. I think this will work as well as Petro worked for Venezuela.
• mastax 5y ago
  My understanding is that Strike is already reasonably popular in El Salvador, because it's much better than taking a bus 2 hours to the Western Union, paying 10% to them, then paying 10% to the gang that hangs outside. Could a more "conventional" system do the same job? Probably, but I won't begrudge people a working solution.
  • HWR_14 5y ago
    Yes, it's far more efficient now. Now the gang will just take 10% of your entire savings (because it's all on your phone) every time they see you. Or 30% if they don't like you that one day. Because if it's one thing I try to do in a situation with lots of street crime, it's carry the maximum amount of my net worth on my person in the least recoverable form in case I get robbed.
    • eloff 5y ago
      In Latin America people kidnap you and take you around to ATMs at gunpoint until you've reached the withdrawal limit. This seems so much more dangerous with bitcoin wallets.
      • reedjosh 5y ago
        There are wallets that will show a fake lower balance in distress mode. Further, why walk around with all of your BTC available to you? If you really have enough to worry about gangs stealing it, put it in cold storage or on an exchange, but don't carry access to it around in your pocket the same way you wouldn't carry cash around in your pocket.
        • HWR_14 5y ago
          A fake UI screen? Wow, that's useful. Good thing there isn't an easily verifiable public ledger with the true value of the account that the criminals can check while holding you at gunpoint. Meanwhile, you expect people to have cold storage where? IIRC, they cannot just memorize a private key, but they need an actual file on a device.
• rebuilder 5y ago
  Is there some writeup with details on how El Salvador will implement things? One obvious option would seem to be a wholly custodial, national, off-chain payment system. So El Salvador would hold BTC reserves, while people would actually transact on a government-operated ledger, only interacting with the Blockhain when withdrawing or receiving actual BTC outside the system, if that will be allowed.
  • el-salvador 5y ago
    Not yet. The most detailed explanation was given by the president and his brother on a twitter space in English this midnight.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• thinkmassive 5y ago
  I think you have your custodial/non-custodial terminology mixed up. If you aren’t holding the keys that control your funds the entire time, it’s a custodial service. If USD is involved in any form besides paper cash in your own hands, it’s a custodial service.