4 ms·

well it does matter. you can't use the words "less efficient" or "more efficient" if there are no alternatives with similar properties.

arcticbull 5y ago
Thermal efficiency is an absolute - units of energy expended vs work achieved. There is an alternative: proof of stake. Or removing certain constraints on the problem space. A different approach to solving the problem is absolutely an alternative. Visa is an alternative. The extant banking system is an alternative.
- mikeblackson 5y ago
  You can't say how efficient it is without calculating how layer 2 scaling affects per transaction energy usage. You can do millions of layer 2 transactions that eventually settle as 1 transaction on the main chain.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    You can do “layer 2” transactions that settle on ACH or wire transfers, like Venmo or square cash, what’s your point? This is just more shameful greenwashing to pump up bag. You would have to do literally millions per on chain transaction using bitcoin to match ACH, visa or a proof of stake chain. This is of course after you consider opening a single LN channel for every human on earth would take 75 years and 300 billion dollars if the chain did nothing else. Like putting in a request for a Soviet phone line. LN has quadratic routing efficiency and is boat anchored to garbage.
    - mikeblackson 5y ago
      Difference is L2 BTC transactions are uncensorable, instant, and the BTC itself cannot be confiscated. >This is of course after you consider opening a single LN channel for every human on earth would take 75 years and 300 billion dollars if the chain did nothing else. This is completely wrong. Custodial wallets exist, side chains (liquid network) exist and if you need more security, wallets like Phoenix exist that allow instant dedicated channel opening for 3000 SATs (~$1.50, which is less than the 3% fee for a single $100 Visa/Mastercard tx). Don't forget, when the Bitcoin price 100Xs again, throughput of existing lightning channels will 100x as well (LN node with $50M of channel capacity will automatically turn into a $5B node with 0 intervention). You wrongly believe scaling is a lot more complicated than it actually is.

arcticbull 5y ago

Thermal efficiency is an absolute - units of energy expended vs work achieved. There is an alternative: proof of stake. Or removing certain constraints on the problem space. A different approach to solving the problem is absolutely an alternative. Visa is an alternative. The extant banking system is an alternative.

mikeblackson 5y ago
You can't say how efficient it is without calculating how layer 2 scaling affects per transaction energy usage. You can do millions of layer 2 transactions that eventually settle as 1 transaction on the main chain.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  You can do “layer 2” transactions that settle on ACH or wire transfers, like Venmo or square cash, what’s your point? This is just more shameful greenwashing to pump up bag. You would have to do literally millions per on chain transaction using bitcoin to match ACH, visa or a proof of stake chain. This is of course after you consider opening a single LN channel for every human on earth would take 75 years and 300 billion dollars if the chain did nothing else. Like putting in a request for a Soviet phone line. LN has quadratic routing efficiency and is boat anchored to garbage.
  - mikeblackson 5y ago
    Difference is L2 BTC transactions are uncensorable, instant, and the BTC itself cannot be confiscated. >This is of course after you consider opening a single LN channel for every human on earth would take 75 years and 300 billion dollars if the chain did nothing else. This is completely wrong. Custodial wallets exist, side chains (liquid network) exist and if you need more security, wallets like Phoenix exist that allow instant dedicated channel opening for 3000 SATs (~$1.50, which is less than the 3% fee for a single $100 Visa/Mastercard tx). Don't forget, when the Bitcoin price 100Xs again, throughput of existing lightning channels will 100x as well (LN node with $50M of channel capacity will automatically turn into a $5B node with 0 intervention). You wrongly believe scaling is a lot more complicated than it actually is.