3 ms·

> 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 refle

> 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.
- someplaceguy 3y ago
  > Transactions that don't count and aren't useful to anyone until they become a bitcoin transaction, I have no idea why you're making such an obviously false assertion. These transactions obviously "count" and are useful to the entities running those 15K Lightning nodes (many on behalf of multiple customers), which can all transact amongst themselves over the network, even without touching the Bitcoin network (or occasionally doing it just to settle balances). These transactions have almost exactly the same cryptographic and trustless assurances as normal bitcoin transactions, which are far superior assurances than those provided by traditional payment / money transfer technologies. > No one cares about it because it is terrible technology that doesn't actually solve anyone's problems I think you are confusing your own ideas and problems with other people's ideas and problems. Just because you don't care about it doesn't mean that other people don't (or that even you won't in the future, if your circumstances change).
  - CyberDildonics 3y ago
    which can all transact amongst themselves I can trade IOUs with a bunch of people in my local cult, but they aren't money until someone makes an actual USD transaction.
    - someplaceguy 3y ago
      > I can trade IOUs with a bunch of people in my local cult Lightning transactions are not based on IOUs. IOUs can be defaulted upon, while BTC received over Lightning cannot. Also, you need the cooperation of the other party to redeem IOUs. Lightning transactions don't require cooperation for settlement, they can be settled at any time by any of the parties. All of this means that the BTC that is exchanged over Lightning is just as valuable as any other BTC, unlike IOUs. > they aren't money until someone makes an actual USD transaction That's because your definition of "money" is USD, so your sentence is a meaningless tautology. It's like saying "raw beans aren't real food until someone cooks them". Uhm, sure, but does that mean raw beans aren't valuable or that you can't easily convert them into food if necessary? And what's your point even? This point is equally applicable to the first layer. BTC received over Lightning can easily be exchanged for USD if you want, or (even easier) for BTC in the first layer, so why does this point matter at all?
      - CyberDildonics 3y ago
        That's because your definition of "money" is USD, so your sentence is a meaningless tautology. No, btc is money too, lightning transactions are useless until you sync them with the main network. Skip the middle man that no one wants. It has been 10 years, no one wants this, it doesn't solve anything. Every other currency has bigger blocks and never had this problem in the first place.
        someplaceguy 3y ago
        > lightning transactions are useless until you sync them with the main network. This is absolutely false. Why do you even think this?? Heck, have you never seen people buying real world stuff with Lightning transactions in El Salvador? Are you aware that if you receive BTC over lightning, you can spend them over lightning, with a different party, without hitting the main network? > Skip the middle man that no one wants. What middle man? Is the middle man in the room with us? > no one wants this, it doesn't solve anything False and false. 15K entities want this (at least, i.e. not counting hosted wallets). And it solves the limited transaction rate, which you were complaining about. > Every other currency has bigger blocks and never had this problem in the first place. And when they get moderately popular, the size of their block history becomes prohibitively expensive to download and verify. All while not really fundamentally solving the problem, but rather only allowing a slightly faster transaction rate which would still not be able to compete with VISA (as an example).

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.

someplaceguy 3y ago
> Transactions that don't count and aren't useful to anyone until they become a bitcoin transaction, I have no idea why you're making such an obviously false assertion. These transactions obviously "count" and are useful to the entities running those 15K Lightning nodes (many on behalf of multiple customers), which can all transact amongst themselves over the network, even without touching the Bitcoin network (or occasionally doing it just to settle balances). These transactions have almost exactly the same cryptographic and trustless assurances as normal bitcoin transactions, which are far superior assurances than those provided by traditional payment / money transfer technologies. > No one cares about it because it is terrible technology that doesn't actually solve anyone's problems I think you are confusing your own ideas and problems with other people's ideas and problems. Just because you don't care about it doesn't mean that other people don't (or that even you won't in the future, if your circumstances change).
- CyberDildonics 3y ago
  which can all transact amongst themselves I can trade IOUs with a bunch of people in my local cult, but they aren't money until someone makes an actual USD transaction.
  - someplaceguy 3y ago
    > I can trade IOUs with a bunch of people in my local cult Lightning transactions are not based on IOUs. IOUs can be defaulted upon, while BTC received over Lightning cannot. Also, you need the cooperation of the other party to redeem IOUs. Lightning transactions don't require cooperation for settlement, they can be settled at any time by any of the parties. All of this means that the BTC that is exchanged over Lightning is just as valuable as any other BTC, unlike IOUs. > they aren't money until someone makes an actual USD transaction That's because your definition of "money" is USD, so your sentence is a meaningless tautology. It's like saying "raw beans aren't real food until someone cooks them". Uhm, sure, but does that mean raw beans aren't valuable or that you can't easily convert them into food if necessary? And what's your point even? This point is equally applicable to the first layer. BTC received over Lightning can easily be exchanged for USD if you want, or (even easier) for BTC in the first layer, so why does this point matter at all?
    - CyberDildonics 3y ago
      That's because your definition of "money" is USD, so your sentence is a meaningless tautology. No, btc is money too, lightning transactions are useless until you sync them with the main network. Skip the middle man that no one wants. It has been 10 years, no one wants this, it doesn't solve anything. Every other currency has bigger blocks and never had this problem in the first place.
      - someplaceguy 3y ago
        > lightning transactions are useless until you sync them with the main network. This is absolutely false. Why do you even think this?? Heck, have you never seen people buying real world stuff with Lightning transactions in El Salvador? Are you aware that if you receive BTC over lightning, you can spend them over lightning, with a different party, without hitting the main network? > Skip the middle man that no one wants. What middle man? Is the middle man in the room with us? > no one wants this, it doesn't solve anything False and false. 15K entities want this (at least, i.e. not counting hosted wallets). And it solves the limited transaction rate, which you were complaining about. > Every other currency has bigger blocks and never had this problem in the first place. And when they get moderately popular, the size of their block history becomes prohibitively expensive to download and verify. All while not really fundamentally solving the problem, but rather only allowing a slightly faster transaction rate which would still not be able to compete with VISA (as an example).