4 ms·

> those transactions don't count They don't? Then surely you wouldn't mind sending me a few bitcoins over a lightning channel? Pretty please? > no one needs t

> those transactions don't count They don't? Then surely you wouldn't mind sending me a few bitcoins over a lightning channel? Pretty please? > no one needs to send 1000 transactions of single penny There is no such "single penny" limit. > then have the exact same problems as everyone else What problems?

eli 3y ago
I sent them over but I used a third layer network (a spreadsheet on my desktop)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- chrischattin 3y ago
  Can't tell if sarcastic or not. But, that's perfectly legitimate. You could do that and if everything is signed correctly, the network will accept it. I could write down a seed phrase on a piece of paper and hand it to you, and that's a completely offline transaction.
  - someplaceguy 3y ago
    But just to be clear, unlike the hypothetical "spreadsheet on a desktop" (even with signed transactions), Lightning has more cryptographic assurances than that. It prevents the parties of a transaction from double-spending balances behind each other's backs. It also doesn't require trusting the other party once a transaction has (almost instantaneously) completed.
  - eli 3y ago
    You don't need a network at all. Just email me who you want to transact with and I'll create a row for them.
    - someplaceguy 3y ago
      Ok, so can I now redeem the BTC that you sent me earlier please, so that I can spend them in the first layer (or the second one)? Given that nobody else seems to want to use your third layer. The fact that I even have to ask you already demonstrates how shitty your third layer is compared to Lightning, not to mention all the other obvious ways in which it's infinitely worse.
      - eli 3y ago
        Typical Second Layerist. This is the future of money we're talking about, but you'd rather live in the past.
        someplaceguy 3y ago
        I know you're trolling and I even found your comments somewhat humorous, but I hope you're not misleading yourself (or others) into thinking that you have a valid point here or that your "third layer" scenario is in any way comparable to Lightning in anything except the most superficial ways... In any case, seeing that I don't have a valid signed BTC transaction from you (because your 3rd layer suuucks), you don't want to allow free exchange between your layer and the upper layers, and I wouldn't want to bother with court litigation even if you were serious, well, have a nice day and good luck with your third layer lol
CyberDildonics 3y ago
I actually said: Except that those transactions don't count until they get on the main chain While you quoted me as: > those transactions don't count You lost some of my message. Maybe your are reading it through a lightning node and it went offline half way through. There is no such "single penny" limit. No one said that, but lightning's examples are always these nonsense situations of paying a single party a thousand times. What problems? A transaction rate that could fit over the bandwidth of a 28.8 modem. If you have to misquote people to make your point, maybe you're on the wrong side of the argument.
- someplaceguy 3y ago
  > You lost some of my message. So what's your point? Your point is that the balance will be reflected in the first layer after some time instead of being reflected after each and every lightning transaction? What does that have to do with what we were talking about? The point of this thread was how many transactions per time period you could do with Bitcoin, not whether the balance will be public information in real time? > lightning's examples are always these nonsense situations of paying a single party a thousand times. It's not a nonsense situation. Micropayments is something you can (trustlessly) do with Lightning but not with traditional payment technologies. It doesn't mean you can only do micropayments with Lightning. > A transaction rate that could fit over the bandwidth of a 28.8 modem. I just told you that Lightning can transact orders of magnitude more than that. You can do millions of Lightning transactions per Bitcoin transaction. You are complaining about Bitcoin's transaction rate limit but my whole point is that Lightning allows you to have an effectively limitless transaction rate (under certain conditions, at least), even if it requires occasional Bitcoin transactions to settle balances.
  - CyberDildonics 3y ago
    Lightning allows you to have an effectively limitless transaction rate Transactions that don't count and aren't useful to anyone until they become a bitcoin transaction, and that's still expensive and slow. No one cares about it because it is terrible technology that doesn't actually solve anyone's problems, because the people that made it made the problems in the first place.

eli 3y ago

I sent them over but I used a third layer network (a spreadsheet on my desktop)

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
chrischattin 3y ago
Can't tell if sarcastic or not. But, that's perfectly legitimate. You could do that and if everything is signed correctly, the network will accept it. I could write down a seed phrase on a piece of paper and hand it to you, and that's a completely offline transaction.
- someplaceguy 3y ago
  But just to be clear, unlike the hypothetical "spreadsheet on a desktop" (even with signed transactions), Lightning has more cryptographic assurances than that. It prevents the parties of a transaction from double-spending balances behind each other's backs. It also doesn't require trusting the other party once a transaction has (almost instantaneously) completed.
- eli 3y ago
  You don't need a network at all. Just email me who you want to transact with and I'll create a row for them.
  - someplaceguy 3y ago
    Ok, so can I now redeem the BTC that you sent me earlier please, so that I can spend them in the first layer (or the second one)? Given that nobody else seems to want to use your third layer. The fact that I even have to ask you already demonstrates how shitty your third layer is compared to Lightning, not to mention all the other obvious ways in which it's infinitely worse.
    - eli 3y ago
      Typical Second Layerist. This is the future of money we're talking about, but you'd rather live in the past.
      - someplaceguy 3y ago
        I know you're trolling and I even found your comments somewhat humorous, but I hope you're not misleading yourself (or others) into thinking that you have a valid point here or that your "third layer" scenario is in any way comparable to Lightning in anything except the most superficial ways... In any case, seeing that I don't have a valid signed BTC transaction from you (because your 3rd layer suuucks), you don't want to allow free exchange between your layer and the upper layers, and I wouldn't want to bother with court litigation even if you were serious, well, have a nice day and good luck with your third layer lol

CyberDildonics 3y ago

I actually said: Except that those transactions don't count until they get on the main chain While you quoted me as: > those transactions don't count You lost some of my message. Maybe your are reading it through a lightning node and it went offline half way through. There is no such "single penny" limit. No one said that, but lightning's examples are always these nonsense situations of paying a single party a thousand times. What problems? A transaction rate that could fit over the bandwidth of a 28.8 modem. If you have to misquote people to make your point, maybe you're on the wrong side of the argument.

someplaceguy 3y ago
> You lost some of my message. So what's your point? Your point is that the balance will be reflected in the first layer after some time instead of being reflected after each and every lightning transaction? What does that have to do with what we were talking about? The point of this thread was how many transactions per time period you could do with Bitcoin, not whether the balance will be public information in real time? > lightning's examples are always these nonsense situations of paying a single party a thousand times. It's not a nonsense situation. Micropayments is something you can (trustlessly) do with Lightning but not with traditional payment technologies. It doesn't mean you can only do micropayments with Lightning. > A transaction rate that could fit over the bandwidth of a 28.8 modem. I just told you that Lightning can transact orders of magnitude more than that. You can do millions of Lightning transactions per Bitcoin transaction. You are complaining about Bitcoin's transaction rate limit but my whole point is that Lightning allows you to have an effectively limitless transaction rate (under certain conditions, at least), even if it requires occasional Bitcoin transactions to settle balances.
- CyberDildonics 3y ago
  Lightning allows you to have an effectively limitless transaction rate Transactions that don't count and aren't useful to anyone until they become a bitcoin transaction, and that's still expensive and slow. No one cares about it because it is terrible technology that doesn't actually solve anyone's problems, because the people that made it made the problems in the first place.