4 ms·

I was a bit too direct - it's true that officially bitcoin transactions must be accepted, and any valid bitcoin app would work - including anything based on Lig

I was a bit too direct - it's true that officially bitcoin transactions must be accepted, and any valid bitcoin app would work - including anything based on Lightning. But in practice, it's absurd to imagine that the population of a whole country will learn about lightning or bitcoin directly and create their own Lightning channels or bitcoin wallets (though doubtless some will). Instead, most will use an app that hides all the complexity from them, and since the government is advertising one particular app, that will likely see overwhelming use. And then, the official app or any other app will likely avoid wasting money on lightning or bitcoin to settle app-app transfers, and instead settle most transactions in their own centralized backend.

Karrot_Kream 5y ago
> I was a bit too direct You're just moving the goal posts. Here was your original statement: > Actually, they are not even using lighning wallets Here is your updated statement: > it's absurd to imagine that the population of a whole country will learn about lightning or bitcoin directly and create their own Lightning channels or bitcoin wallets (though doubtless some will) You started with what sounded like fact, then revealed that the justification is just the invocation of a thought experiment. There's nothing but speculation here. You're right this may happen, but a hyperbolic angry comment isn't the way to add to the discussion. This is why HN cryptocurrency threads are garbage dumps.
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  The two parts you quoted aren't as different as you claim, and are still more correct than the one they're responding to: >They are using lightning wallets. If your real intent is to improve discussion, maybe you should address that instead of erroneously invoking the "move the goalposts" fallacy. Moreover, I think both comments had substance to them, especially when compared to, again, the original comment about the lightning network.
  - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
    Do you know the ground truth about which apps, nodes, and Layer 2 protocols are being used by El Salvadorans right now? If not then all of these are just posts in a chain of speculation. I don't, and I'm not going to claim that I know what's happening. But invoking suspicion to make a strong claim isn't the way to have an effective or illuminating conversation.
- simiones 5y ago
  Yes, my original statement was too direct - I said "they are not using lightning wallets" in response to someone saying "they are using lightning wallets". The non-hyperbolic statement would have been "they will (99.99% certainly) not be using even lightning wallets". Still, while this is a forward-looking statement, it is more than idle speculation - the government is encouraging the population to install one specific app, even offering money to anyone that does. In contrast, running your own lightning channels is known to be very difficult to do, so it is a priori extremely unlikely for a large proportion of the population to run their own.
  - m00dy 5y ago
    deactive hn account pull the plug of your computer leave the metaverse

Karrot_Kream 5y ago

> I was a bit too direct You're just moving the goal posts. Here was your original statement: > Actually, they are not even using lighning wallets Here is your updated statement: > it's absurd to imagine that the population of a whole country will learn about lightning or bitcoin directly and create their own Lightning channels or bitcoin wallets (though doubtless some will) You started with what sounded like fact, then revealed that the justification is just the invocation of a thought experiment. There's nothing but speculation here. You're right this may happen, but a hyperbolic angry comment isn't the way to add to the discussion. This is why HN cryptocurrency threads are garbage dumps.

SantalBlush 5y ago
The two parts you quoted aren't as different as you claim, and are still more correct than the one they're responding to: >They are using lightning wallets. If your real intent is to improve discussion, maybe you should address that instead of erroneously invoking the "move the goalposts" fallacy. Moreover, I think both comments had substance to them, especially when compared to, again, the original comment about the lightning network.
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  Do you know the ground truth about which apps, nodes, and Layer 2 protocols are being used by El Salvadorans right now? If not then all of these are just posts in a chain of speculation. I don't, and I'm not going to claim that I know what's happening. But invoking suspicion to make a strong claim isn't the way to have an effective or illuminating conversation.
simiones 5y ago
Yes, my original statement was too direct - I said "they are not using lightning wallets" in response to someone saying "they are using lightning wallets". The non-hyperbolic statement would have been "they will (99.99% certainly) not be using even lightning wallets". Still, while this is a forward-looking statement, it is more than idle speculation - the government is encouraging the population to install one specific app, even offering money to anyone that does. In contrast, running your own lightning channels is known to be very difficult to do, so it is a priori extremely unlikely for a large proportion of the population to run their own.
- m00dy 5y ago
  deactive hn account pull the plug of your computer leave the metaverse