6 ms·

Lightning is a solution that does not do what it says on the tin. It requires an on-chain transaction to open a channel, which at current block size limits requ

Lightning is a solution that does not do what it says on the tin. It requires an on-chain transaction to open a channel, which at current block size limits requires about 75 years for everyone on earth to have one, and somewhere in the trillion dollar range in fees and the entire outstanding block reward. Factor in quadratic routing complexity, and even if you did onboard everyone it wouldn't work anyways. This is assuming that channels never close and of course that the blockchain doesn't do anything else at all except open channels. Even opening a channel for everyone in Bay Area requires the better part of a full month of the entire chain capacity's. It also has roughly speaking none of the guarantees of Bitcoin, and could really be used with any underlying asset. The only scaling solution is MySQL, just like the Bastion of Bitcoin, El Salvador is doing. Always was. Can we move on already?

lumannnn 4y ago
Not everyone needs to open a Channel. There are custodial solutions already. You just need some Satoshis and are good to go. Likewise, not everyone needs to create their own Visa or MasterCard. They may have their MySQL/PostgreSQL implementation where they scale and allow for many TX/s. But they don't settle all these transactions in real time. That's also done on a different, slower layer.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Custodial solutions offer zero benefits over putting your money in a bank - and have a ton of drawbacks associated with Bitcoin people only overlook because of those benefits - and the L1 is so slow that any subset that wants to open a channel brings it to its knees. It's not a real solution. It's something coiners distract people with whenever someone points out the obvious and glaring flaws of the L1. [edit] To me it's pretty telling that critics offer specific quantifications (X people requires Y time) and proponents say "only some people need it!" - how many, exactly? How full do you anticipate blocks being with other things? How long is too long to open a channel? Currently it sounds like a Soviet phone line - better put in a request now otherwise you might be in your 80s before it gets installed.
  - once_inc 4y ago
    I'd like to counter that with the opinion that for most people, controlling their own keys isn't a priority. These are the people that don't even know there isn't any gold backing the dollar, or where money comes from. For these people, Bitcoin offers the option of digitally native money that is well suited for a rapidly digitizing world. They won't feel any problems holding their bitcoin in a walled garden maintained by banks or money transfer companies, and won't consider the counterparty-risk as something they need to be worried about.
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      Why would the dollar be backed by gold? You know that ended in 1933 right? I'd say 89 years is long enough for folks to have figured it out, but I'm always open to surprises.
      - once_inc 4y ago
        Please re-read my post. I specifically speak of people using money without being aware of all the specifics. Noting that the dollar is not backed by gold. That ended in 1971 by the way, when Nixon ended the gold standard for the US dollar because the government needed money to pay for the war in Vietnam.
        arcticbull 4y ago
        Double-check what happened in 1971. FDR took the US off the gold standard in 1933. From this point forward until present, there was never again domestic convertibility of notes for gold. Nixon ended Bretton Woods (which started in 1944) - but that pertained solely to international convertibility of notes for gold in foreign exchange. It was not the gold standard. It was occasionally referred to as the 'gold exchange standard.' It's just popular to ascribe this to Nixon because you know, Nixon bad. Watergate, etc. But not everything a bad leader does is bad - Nixon gave us the EPA too. Stopped rivers catching on fire and everything. Money is already digital.
mhluongo 4y ago
> The only scaling solution is MySQL, just like the Bastion of Bitcoin, El Salvador is doing. Always was. Channel-based scaling is hard, sure. But optimistic and ZK rollups on other chains have both proven to be strong scaling alternatives.
shudza 4y ago
Some interesting points. IMHO, LN is far from THE solution. But it will help merchant adoption, more than end-user though. The fact is, most people would/will probably use custodial LN wallets, which is against some "crypto" postulates, and comes down to well known MySQL argument. The difference is MySQL on Bitcoin vs MySQL on USD (Paypal). As we will see in the coming months, fiat itself is a lot like a MySQL. So I would argue that there is nothing wrong with MySQL on Bitcoin, and in fact, is an upgrade on fiat.
- simiones 4y ago
  > So I would argue that there is nothing wrong with MySQL on Bitcoin, and in fact, is an upgrade on fiat. The fact that the USD didn't lose ~50% of its value in the last few months suggests the pro vs con is more mixed.
  - shudza 4y ago
    Well 'scuse me, Mr Privileged. Countries which are not US do in fact exist, and are not using USD. Check some other CBCs YoY against USD, and tell me how much they lost on average.
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      So they have access to USDC. I love how people pull out the privilege card the second you suggest that a so-called currency that loses 70% of its value in a year (BTC) might not be that good for poor folks. True privilege is being able to lose 70% of your net currency value in a single year without being on the street and advocating for it even after. For everyone else, there are better choices. I suspect somewhere along the bull run you lost perspective.
      - shudza 4y ago
        USDC != USD. We know what happened to UST, the rest will follow. Poor folks are also buying homes, which will drop, in some places maybe 100% in the next year, but nobody doesn't seem to have a problem with that.
saalweachter 4y ago
> The only scaling solution is MySQL, just like the Bastion of Bitcoin, El Salvador is doing. Always was. I don't know why the internet thinks they can convince the world to use a new/better currency when they can't even make anyone switch off MySQL.
gregwebs 4y ago
It's still a WIP. The new taro protocol that leverages Bitcoin taproot and Lightning can help address some scaling issues.

lumannnn 4y ago

Not everyone needs to open a Channel. There are custodial solutions already. You just need some Satoshis and are good to go. Likewise, not everyone needs to create their own Visa or MasterCard. They may have their MySQL/PostgreSQL implementation where they scale and allow for many TX/s. But they don't settle all these transactions in real time. That's also done on a different, slower layer.

arcticbull 4y ago
Custodial solutions offer zero benefits over putting your money in a bank - and have a ton of drawbacks associated with Bitcoin people only overlook because of those benefits - and the L1 is so slow that any subset that wants to open a channel brings it to its knees. It's not a real solution. It's something coiners distract people with whenever someone points out the obvious and glaring flaws of the L1. [edit] To me it's pretty telling that critics offer specific quantifications (X people requires Y time) and proponents say "only some people need it!" - how many, exactly? How full do you anticipate blocks being with other things? How long is too long to open a channel? Currently it sounds like a Soviet phone line - better put in a request now otherwise you might be in your 80s before it gets installed.
- once_inc 4y ago
  I'd like to counter that with the opinion that for most people, controlling their own keys isn't a priority. These are the people that don't even know there isn't any gold backing the dollar, or where money comes from. For these people, Bitcoin offers the option of digitally native money that is well suited for a rapidly digitizing world. They won't feel any problems holding their bitcoin in a walled garden maintained by banks or money transfer companies, and won't consider the counterparty-risk as something they need to be worried about.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    Why would the dollar be backed by gold? You know that ended in 1933 right? I'd say 89 years is long enough for folks to have figured it out, but I'm always open to surprises.
    - once_inc 4y ago
      Please re-read my post. I specifically speak of people using money without being aware of all the specifics. Noting that the dollar is not backed by gold. That ended in 1971 by the way, when Nixon ended the gold standard for the US dollar because the government needed money to pay for the war in Vietnam.
      - arcticbull 4y ago
        Double-check what happened in 1971. FDR took the US off the gold standard in 1933. From this point forward until present, there was never again domestic convertibility of notes for gold. Nixon ended Bretton Woods (which started in 1944) - but that pertained solely to international convertibility of notes for gold in foreign exchange. It was not the gold standard. It was occasionally referred to as the 'gold exchange standard.' It's just popular to ascribe this to Nixon because you know, Nixon bad. Watergate, etc. But not everything a bad leader does is bad - Nixon gave us the EPA too. Stopped rivers catching on fire and everything. Money is already digital.

mhluongo 4y ago

> The only scaling solution is MySQL, just like the Bastion of Bitcoin, El Salvador is doing. Always was. Channel-based scaling is hard, sure. But optimistic and ZK rollups on other chains have both proven to be strong scaling alternatives.

shudza 4y ago

Some interesting points. IMHO, LN is far from THE solution. But it will help merchant adoption, more than end-user though. The fact is, most people would/will probably use custodial LN wallets, which is against some "crypto" postulates, and comes down to well known MySQL argument. The difference is MySQL on Bitcoin vs MySQL on USD (Paypal). As we will see in the coming months, fiat itself is a lot like a MySQL. So I would argue that there is nothing wrong with MySQL on Bitcoin, and in fact, is an upgrade on fiat.

simiones 4y ago
> So I would argue that there is nothing wrong with MySQL on Bitcoin, and in fact, is an upgrade on fiat. The fact that the USD didn't lose ~50% of its value in the last few months suggests the pro vs con is more mixed.
- shudza 4y ago
  Well 'scuse me, Mr Privileged. Countries which are not US do in fact exist, and are not using USD. Check some other CBCs YoY against USD, and tell me how much they lost on average.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    So they have access to USDC. I love how people pull out the privilege card the second you suggest that a so-called currency that loses 70% of its value in a year (BTC) might not be that good for poor folks. True privilege is being able to lose 70% of your net currency value in a single year without being on the street and advocating for it even after. For everyone else, there are better choices. I suspect somewhere along the bull run you lost perspective.
    - shudza 4y ago
      USDC != USD. We know what happened to UST, the rest will follow. Poor folks are also buying homes, which will drop, in some places maybe 100% in the next year, but nobody doesn't seem to have a problem with that.

saalweachter 4y ago

> The only scaling solution is MySQL, just like the Bastion of Bitcoin, El Salvador is doing. Always was. I don't know why the internet thinks they can convince the world to use a new/better currency when they can't even make anyone switch off MySQL.

gregwebs 4y ago

It's still a WIP. The new taro protocol that leverages Bitcoin taproot and Lightning can help address some scaling issues.