5 ms·

> 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 L

> 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
    What middle man? Is the middle man in the room with us? The middle man is a layer that no one wants and it is not in the room with us now because no one wants it. 15k "Entities" means a bunch of VMs spun on the same servers. And when they get moderately popular, the size of their block history becomes prohibitively expensive to download and verify. This is where the technical rubber meets the road with all the lightning sycophants. This is insanely untrue and it never has been. No one is ever able to prove this with numbers, they get out the playbook of dealing with a claim they can't back up. Bitcoin right now has the bandwidth of a 28.8 modem. At one point single transactions cost more than the space to store the entire chain. Normal people don't even need to sync with the main chain if they don't want to. The actual numbers of bandwidth and storage of this argument are so far removed from reality I can't believe people still say stuff like this. It's pure propaganda.
    - someplaceguy 3y ago
      > Bitcoin right now has the bandwidth of a 28.8 modem You're only considering the bandwidth to monitor/receive transaction confirmations in real-time and not the bandwidth to download the transaction history, which cumulatively grows over time, forever. It's already at more than half a terabyte, which you certainly can't download over a 28.8 modem. > At one point single transactions cost more than the space to store the entire chain. The problem has never been about space, it has always been about bandwidth. > Normal people don't even need to sync with the main chain if they don't want to. Sure, but you need to put some bounds on how fast the main chain can grow to ensure that anyone (even the people, say, in El Salvador or the Central African Republic, both poor countries where Bitcoin is legal tender) can verify it if they want to. > The actual numbers of bandwidth and storage of this argument are so far removed from reality I can't believe people still say stuff like this. It's pure propaganda. Or perhaps you are privileged and you don't even notice, and therefore you are incapable of empathizing with others who are less privileged than you (in this specific instance)? In any case, even if you were to ignore this, increasing the block size even by a factor of 100 would not fundamentally solve the problem. It would still be a pathetically low transaction rate compared to Lightning and it would also certainly constrain Bitcoin usage as it was intended (as a trustless currency/asset). That's not to say I would be against increasing the block size by a reasonably small factor, but I'm certainly not in a position to judge whether this should be done right now. I think it'd be better to ask the people in those countries, or even poorer ones who might one day make Bitcoin legal tender as well...

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
  What middle man? Is the middle man in the room with us? The middle man is a layer that no one wants and it is not in the room with us now because no one wants it. 15k "Entities" means a bunch of VMs spun on the same servers. And when they get moderately popular, the size of their block history becomes prohibitively expensive to download and verify. This is where the technical rubber meets the road with all the lightning sycophants. This is insanely untrue and it never has been. No one is ever able to prove this with numbers, they get out the playbook of dealing with a claim they can't back up. Bitcoin right now has the bandwidth of a 28.8 modem. At one point single transactions cost more than the space to store the entire chain. Normal people don't even need to sync with the main chain if they don't want to. The actual numbers of bandwidth and storage of this argument are so far removed from reality I can't believe people still say stuff like this. It's pure propaganda.
  - someplaceguy 3y ago
    > Bitcoin right now has the bandwidth of a 28.8 modem You're only considering the bandwidth to monitor/receive transaction confirmations in real-time and not the bandwidth to download the transaction history, which cumulatively grows over time, forever. It's already at more than half a terabyte, which you certainly can't download over a 28.8 modem. > At one point single transactions cost more than the space to store the entire chain. The problem has never been about space, it has always been about bandwidth. > Normal people don't even need to sync with the main chain if they don't want to. Sure, but you need to put some bounds on how fast the main chain can grow to ensure that anyone (even the people, say, in El Salvador or the Central African Republic, both poor countries where Bitcoin is legal tender) can verify it if they want to. > The actual numbers of bandwidth and storage of this argument are so far removed from reality I can't believe people still say stuff like this. It's pure propaganda. Or perhaps you are privileged and you don't even notice, and therefore you are incapable of empathizing with others who are less privileged than you (in this specific instance)? In any case, even if you were to ignore this, increasing the block size even by a factor of 100 would not fundamentally solve the problem. It would still be a pathetically low transaction rate compared to Lightning and it would also certainly constrain Bitcoin usage as it was intended (as a trustless currency/asset). That's not to say I would be against increasing the block size by a reasonably small factor, but I'm certainly not in a position to judge whether this should be done right now. I think it'd be better to ask the people in those countries, or even poorer ones who might one day make Bitcoin legal tender as well...