3 ms·

> A volatile currency with direct transaction fees ranging from $0.05-60 [edited per FreeRadical - thanks!] You don't need to transact on-chain (i.e. settlemen

by jmstfv 5y ago

> A volatile currency with direct transaction fees ranging from $0.05-60 [edited per FreeRadical - thanks!] You don't need to transact on-chain (i.e. settlement layer). There's a lightning network, where transactions are instantaneous, and fees are a few satoshis. It's amusing how most Bitcoin critics focus on on-chain fees and pretend that lightning doesn't exist. > And why did it drop 50% in a month? Because the worlds 25th largest automaker decided it was a bad medium of exchange for buying electric cars. That wasn't the main reason. It was the China FUD and the lack of Grayscale's neutral arbitrage, which took out the biggest buyer off of the market.

arcticbull 5y ago
> You don't need to transact on-chain (i.e. settlement layer). You can use a lightning network, where transactions are instantaneous, and fees are a few satoshis. Sure, however LN is not sufficient because it requires an on-chain transaction to open a channel. To open a channel for everyone on earth would cost up to a third of a trillion dollars and take over 75 years, plus or minus deaths and births. Like getting a phone line in the Soviet Union. Further, complexity of routing is quadratic and will quickly exceed our patience. > It's amusing how most Bitcoin critics focus on on-chain fees and pretend that lightning doesn't exist. Well, that's because the underlying that LN is strapped to is so incredibly inefficient LN is a rounding error at the limit.
- copirate 5y ago
  > To open a channel for everyone on earth would cost up to a third of a trillion dollars and take over 75 years Not with the upcoming[1] "channel factories"[2]. [1] http://anyprevout.xyz/ http://anyprevout.xyz/ [2] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/67158/what-are-channel-factories-and-how-do-they-work https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/67158/what-are-c...
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    By how much do you think it would reduce the L1 load? That article suggests if you can get 10 people together it would reduce the load to 1/10, so still almost a decade. And that's iff you happen to find 10 people who fit the specific shape exactly. That's still wildly unacceptable if true, and also unbelievably unlikely. LN has always been a "but wait! we've got a solution just around the corner - please don't give up!" feature - but there's nothing around the corner. There never has been. Not to mention it does nothing to address the quadratic routing criticism.
    - copirate 5y ago
      > By how much do you think it would reduce the L1 load? That article suggests if you can get 10 people together it would reduce the load to 1/10, so still almost a decade. If I understand correctly the maximum number of people involved in a channel factory creation is the same as the maximum number of keys involved in a multi-signature transaction. The limit is currently 15 or 20[1] but with Shnorr signatures (that will be enabled in the protocol with taproot in November) I think there is no limit to that number. > And that's iff you happen to find 10 people who fit the specific shape exactly. I'm not sure what specific shape you're referring to. At the end they all need to sign a specific transaction but that transaction can easily generated by a wallet software or a service provider given all the participants' key and UTXO. They don't need to all send the same amount to the factory. > LN has always been a "but wait! we've got a solution just around the corner - please don't give up!" feature - but there's nothing around the corner. The problem itself (on-boarding the whole population) doesn't exist yet either. It doesn't look like a problem impossible to solve by the time it needs to be solved. And if it needs to be solved first then the whole population can probably wait for that to happen. [1] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/23893/what-are-the-limits-of-m-and-n-in-m-of-n-multisig-addresses https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/23893/what-are-t...
mschuster91 5y ago
> It was the China FUD It's not just FUD. It's been known for long that a lot of the Chinese interest in crypto is nothing more than evasions of China's capital export controls (see e.g. https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3098981/cryptocurrencies-help-chinese-evade-capital-and-currency https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3098981/c...).
ogogmad 5y ago
Reading this article (https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-lightning-network-vulnerabilities-not-exploited-yet https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-lightning-network-vulnerabi...) is one of the reasons why I sold my Bitcoin. There are at least four protocol-level security flaws in Lightning, which can cause the theft of funds. I also find it hard to believe that these are the only four. If you're in a restaurant and see a cockroach, you don't conclude that that's the only cockroach there. Being issues at the protocol level, these may be unfixable.

by jmstfv 5y ago

arcticbull 5y ago

> You don't need to transact on-chain (i.e. settlement layer). You can use a lightning network, where transactions are instantaneous, and fees are a few satoshis. Sure, however LN is not sufficient because it requires an on-chain transaction to open a channel. To open a channel for everyone on earth would cost up to a third of a trillion dollars and take over 75 years, plus or minus deaths and births. Like getting a phone line in the Soviet Union. Further, complexity of routing is quadratic and will quickly exceed our patience. > It's amusing how most Bitcoin critics focus on on-chain fees and pretend that lightning doesn't exist. Well, that's because the underlying that LN is strapped to is so incredibly inefficient LN is a rounding error at the limit.

copirate 5y ago
> To open a channel for everyone on earth would cost up to a third of a trillion dollars and take over 75 years Not with the upcoming[1] "channel factories"[2]. [1] http://anyprevout.xyz/ http://anyprevout.xyz/ [2] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/67158/what-are-channel-factories-and-how-do-they-work https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/67158/what-are-c...
- arcticbull 5y ago
  By how much do you think it would reduce the L1 load? That article suggests if you can get 10 people together it would reduce the load to 1/10, so still almost a decade. And that's iff you happen to find 10 people who fit the specific shape exactly. That's still wildly unacceptable if true, and also unbelievably unlikely. LN has always been a "but wait! we've got a solution just around the corner - please don't give up!" feature - but there's nothing around the corner. There never has been. Not to mention it does nothing to address the quadratic routing criticism.
  - copirate 5y ago
    > By how much do you think it would reduce the L1 load? That article suggests if you can get 10 people together it would reduce the load to 1/10, so still almost a decade. If I understand correctly the maximum number of people involved in a channel factory creation is the same as the maximum number of keys involved in a multi-signature transaction. The limit is currently 15 or 20[1] but with Shnorr signatures (that will be enabled in the protocol with taproot in November) I think there is no limit to that number. > And that's iff you happen to find 10 people who fit the specific shape exactly. I'm not sure what specific shape you're referring to. At the end they all need to sign a specific transaction but that transaction can easily generated by a wallet software or a service provider given all the participants' key and UTXO. They don't need to all send the same amount to the factory. > LN has always been a "but wait! we've got a solution just around the corner - please don't give up!" feature - but there's nothing around the corner. The problem itself (on-boarding the whole population) doesn't exist yet either. It doesn't look like a problem impossible to solve by the time it needs to be solved. And if it needs to be solved first then the whole population can probably wait for that to happen. [1] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/23893/what-are-the-limits-of-m-and-n-in-m-of-n-multisig-addresses https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/23893/what-are-t...

mschuster91 5y ago

> It was the China FUD It's not just FUD. It's been known for long that a lot of the Chinese interest in crypto is nothing more than evasions of China's capital export controls (see e.g. https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3098981/cryptocurrencies-help-chinese-evade-capital-and-currency https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3098981/c...).

ogogmad 5y ago

Reading this article (https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-lightning-network-vulnerabilities-not-exploited-yet https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-lightning-network-vulnerabi...) is one of the reasons why I sold my Bitcoin. There are at least four protocol-level security flaws in Lightning, which can cause the theft of funds. I also find it hard to believe that these are the only four. If you're in a restaurant and see a cockroach, you don't conclude that that's the only cockroach there. Being issues at the protocol level, these may be unfixable.