BITCOIN Lightning Protocol DONE

God by alt coins, it was nice seeing you.

You didnt...honestly think...you could defeat the king did you?

Explain

Cashie status = rekt

this is fucking HUGE. you guys do realize if they implement this any time soon, anywhere CLOSE to CME futures and shit, bitcoin is going to literally go to the oort cloud, right? it will suck alts completely dry.

all that will be left then is the privacy section that needs to be buffed with extra software. MAST is doing just that, research it.

Can they get a better UI? Only the most autistic autists can use it right now.

Looks pretty sexy desu, only needs to be a bit simpler for normies.

>"muh decentralized bitcoin"
>relying on a centralized, big-bank (((lightning network)))
Faggots actually support this?

>all that will be left then is the privacy section that needs to be buffed with extra software. MAST is doing just that, research it.

I agree but don't forget that lightning network is already increasing privacy. That said, there are also other privacy improvements beside MAST if I understood the latest developments correctly.

Yes, we need wallets that can do all the channel stuff behind the scenes.

>Cashies = buttblasted

When will be practically in use? It's a soft fork I presume?

BCashies getting desperate ayyyyy

Praise KEK, King Bitcoin is gonna stomp you out of your pitiful existence you miserable dungheap.

And yes, nobody cares about using a preloaded centralized service for buying coffee, it's pretty great.

Only idiots like you think a normal person would put their whole net worth on a mobile coffee-buying wallet

how new are you

>relying on a centralized, big-bank (((lightning network)))
LN is run by validating node (reminder, everybody can run a node and collect fees). for now bitcoin is run by 3 mining farms (reminder, not everybody can run a farm or buy shitton of ant miners to jihan)

It's not even that from what I understand, it's like a franken-wallet-app that has its own network for bundling transactions together and then putting them on the BTC blockchain as a single transaction.

>"centralization of a decentralized block-chain currency is fine"

Shitcoiners are coping that even their grandma is going to finally be able to use BTC to buy their fucking coffee.

go tell your decentralised daddy

This is pretty much correct as far as I understand.

>muh vapourware btfo
>muh 8mb blocks btfo
>muh 'true bitcoin' btfo

Eat a dick bcash cucks. Take your centralised garbage coin/network attack and fuck off.

>>"centralization of a decentralized block-chain currency is fine"
Continue gobbling up everything BCash promoters are telling you. Continue following Roger Bomberman Ver, Fake Satoshi, Pedo Pirate, Jihad Wu. You will make it.

>muh attack the feelsies attack isn't working, imma double down hurr durrr

It's still way more open than any other payment service on the PLANET, dumbo, and you have already worn the ass outta these two pathetic excuses of a FUD that you just spewed.

Wait, why am I arguing with a pay-for-clicker from a sweatshop in China?

Shoo idiot

We'll probably get schnorr in a few months. I think they have a paper that still needs to get peer-reviewed.

go easy on him, he's gonna tell his daddy

Lightning Network uses the smart contract capabilities of the Bitcoin Network. The actual transactions are signed and when applied to the smart contract it settles the balances on the Bitcoin Chain.

The technical details are not important for the enduser, important is that it's safe and does not pollute the main net with micro transactions.

>(reminder, everybody can run a node and collect fees)
Not in practice, no.
medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800
Quote:
Imagine Alice wants to send 1 BTC to Carol through Bob like so: Alice->Bob->Carol

In order to route the money, Bob has to have at least 1 BTC in his “balance” in the channel with Carol. Essentially, Alice is borrowing from Bob to pay Carol.

Bob transfers his 1 BTC to Carol in the [Bob->Carol] channel, and Alice transfers 1 BTC to Bob in the [Alice->Bob] channel. That’s how it works—Alice cannot “give” the 1 BTC to Bob to then pass along to Carol.

It really is a loan because the network uses timelocks to eliminate custodial risk: Alice can’t repay Bob safely until she’s sure Bob has paid Carol.

In fact, EVERY hop en route to a destination must have the funds available for each transaction. So, the more hops that are used, the more this lending burden is multiplied.

It's hilarious that BTC shills go "muh african 4 year old smartphones need to run nodes so we need to limit blocks to 1mb" yet are entirely fine with LN being pretty much shoved down everyone's through true forcing the main chain to be useless with the 1mb cap.

Check this out:
See you at $1,000,000

>The technical details are not important for the enduser

I do agree something needs to be done about the scaling issues but I do not think this is the right way to go about it. Perhaps faster block times like MONA, VERT, LTC is the answer

not everyone can run a bitcoin node, according to user bcash supporter
ok, he sure has a point

BTW anyone else think Ver's daddy may be the clowns in america?

He does fit the profile, became rich for doing illegal shit, should have gotten assblasted by the law, instead got left free to roam and magically made it through asset forfeiture without a fucking scratch.

Clowns or feds got him to sell them explosives (entrapment as they usually do these days), then got him on it and told him "we gonna let you go, but from now on you work for us".

And tadah he's the biggest supporter of bitcoin centralization in the world, even though that makes him lose money... And he's doing it because he "cares" about satoshi's vision?

Which story makes more sense?

It IS on mainnet

>all supporters of bitcoin cash are per definition wrong
How brilliant, that means you are right in every argument by default without having to even make a case. Wonderful.

>jonaldfyookball
Classic Mike Hearn tier losser.

I already knew (and downloaded) this video. The new one is even better.

The argument of BCash supporters is that it is of no relevance that people can use their own nodes.

>LN is conveniently working just now, guys!
>meanwhile in the real world, 90k+ unconfirmed transactions
I don't even hold bch, just tired of your bullshit you goddamn btc retards

Jihan will be trillionaire.

>I don't even hold bch, just tired of your bullshit you goddamn btc retards
And the Ethereum network has like 45k+ unconfirmed transactions because of fucking cats. Now kindly fuck off, retard.

This

LN forces users through channels and liquidity is limited by what current capital on the channel, channels are censurable. You faggots are destroying blockchain.

So it adds simplified proof of stake capabilities for BTC (The KING) as well??? Gee, this LN sounds even cooler by the minute!

So basically, if I have 500 african eurodollars worth of BTC I can set up a node that routes transactions for 100 coffes a day... Sounds like a great deal, honestly!

You just set up a node that will connect to local services (for one it will be faster) and the amounts that get routed are closer to that of your wallet balance.

>mfw I just bought .4BTC

The first LN transaction ever on mainnet was made today.

How autistic are you?

? And what does ether has to do with anything you stupid idiot? Do you even reading compehension?

>The technical details are not important
Seriously the audacity of these kikes...

just have a look at his article, then watch the pic you posted. also your post is a copy pasta, already seen that shit 3 times.
no argument, vaguely makes you think that LN = IOU and running node is pointless and for big business and banksters.

>It's hilarious that BTC shills go "muh african 4 year old smartphones need to run nodes so we need to limit blocks to 1mb" yet are entirely fine with LN being pretty much shoved down everyone's through true forcing the main chain to be useless with the 1mb cap.

that's literally bcash argument, bringing bitcoin to everyone as a humanitarian shit.

BCH will adopt this too

Its easier and cheaper to run a node on bcash than it is to support payment channels on LN. LN channels WILL resemble legacy banking institutions. LN is completely unnecessary and the antithesis to blockchain. If you want to do transactions off chain, use Coinbase or something like it.

The point is that Ethereum has much bigger block capacity in terms of throughput which proves that bigger blocks don't work as a scaling solution.

Join Bitcoin, or stay irrelevant forever.

>more nodes
A corporation running 1000000000 nodes is less secure than 5000 nodes ran by separate entities on their basement.

i'm sure they will, i wonder how they will explain it tho

Why the fuck use bitcoin if you're forced to use LN for it to be usable when you can just use stellar instead.

BTC shills are a special kind of retarded.

More of this is what BTC is in store for.
medium.com/@SatoshiPay/satoshipay-partners-with-stellar-org-4288ae0baa72

It will be left behind and LN is a retarded scaling solution that makes it (hypothetically) mildly usable of one trade (tx) and in return becomes shit at everything else.

does this mean LTC will moon soon

Why would it do that

>the end of blockchain
will happen when literally one man bank owns the code, the dev, the network (via mining operation) and the mind of its users (social media).

Why do we want to use Stellar, if we can use actual Bitcoin instead?

What specifically makes XLM faster? I'm guessing it's just that it's got no users currently.

Which channels will be censured? Those that fund terrorism, drugs, pedos, etc?

I'm ok with this. LN brings speed and legitimacy to the network.

The btc network can still be used without LN afaik, so you'll still be able to buy your cp, don't worry. Honestly though, you should probably use xmr for that anyway.

>corporation running 1000000000 nodes
yes like they would fuck up the money printing machine how restarted are you

It's not the actual bitcoin if the only usable mode of transfer is de facto both centralized and censurable.

Then fuck bitcoin, Going 100% xmr now

They solved the pending transaction problem?

So, I took a quick look at the Stellar Lumens page, and found this:

The Stellar servers communicate and sync with each other to ensure that transactions are valid and get applied successfully to the global ledger.

>For example, if you want to send $5 to a friend on the network, a list of trusted servers will begin a process to agree on the validity of your $5 payment to your friend. The majority of these servers will have to agree that you do in fact own $5 worth of credit on the network before they will mark the transaction as valid.

This is literally a centralized shitcoin. Have fun.

>censurable
How can it be censured when the intermediary node does not even know the endpoints? You have actually no clue how lightning works, right?

XLM has much more usage than BTC currently. You must be living under a rock. It's one of the few cryptocurrencies that are actually in meaningful use, whereas bitcoin transactions is largely just in and out of exchanges and to pay for weed.

lies.

This. This is the correct timeline.
>ULTIMATEKEKS

Learn how LN works you autist. You can open your own channel by paying an on chain transaction ONCE, so it's like loading a pocket wallet.

You put like 500 bucks on your own LN channel and then you can do micro super tiny transactions out of these 500 bucks out of that you autistic demon.

It makes sense for the centralised shitcoins to be mooning.

Old hands in the payment space like visa/mastercard have no way to compete with a decentralised network (Their revenue model just wont allow it).

So the only way they can fight back is by making faux decentralised coins that they can still control because of the CEO mentality.

Of course they will pump and dump their own coin

>The btc network can still be used without LN
>blocks remain at 1MB
>hardly usable in its current state, nevermind millions more users and the price of a bitcoin is 100k making the fees about 60 bucks a pop
>ahh goy you don't have to use our network that we stole from you and now we control information flow on

Its easy to talk about "muh criminal transactions" and pretend you have an argument. If they can censor those transactions they can censor yours for any fucking reason they like! You probably think that freedom of speech end where your feelings begin as well and that the shit you say today surely won't be illegal tomorrow!

Crypto was not ready for normalfags who don't understand bitcoin's true implications. Blockstream pulled a Kansas City Shuffle, now everyone believes second layer scaling is necessary. Worse yet they don't understand the massive compromises in security and decentralization that come along with it.

Intermediary nodes know the end point.
Seems like you don't know how lightning network works.

Is it just me or does it sound like they are basically reimplementing DNS for bitcoin?

This is great. I still think in the end something will still one day dethrone BTC (not BCH, fuck you cashies) due to the shitshow that happens from actually trying to make significant changes to BTC. It will never move off of PoW nicely

same copypasta bullshit LN uses bitcoin's scripting language (written by satoshi, yet he couldn't implement it), it's not a fucking proof of stake IOU bullshit, now get your fucking piece of shit articles written by ver's pal to /r/btc the real /r/eddit of the real bitcoin

They may as well be. Instead of broadcasting to miners/node operators your transactions over a distributed network, you'll be instead sending your transactions through payment channels with centralized hubs. Clearly there is no point of failure here.

>Intermediary nodes know the end point.
They only know the next hop, you irredeemable faggot.

What the hell are you talking about?

You can still pay a fee and make the transaction on chain. The fee should be much cheaper due to the majority of transactions occuring off chain.

I really don't give a shit if a 'central' LN node is needed for off chain transactions to buy coffee or McDonald's.

Most people don't run a full node as it is.

As I said before, you can still buy your cp and weed lmao on chain...

>Learn how LN works you autist. You can open your own channel by paying an on chain transaction ONCE, so it's like loading a pocket wallet.
>You put like 500 bucks on your own LN channel and then you can do micro super tiny transactions out of these 500 bucks out of that you autistic demon.

No, you learn how it fucking works. You pay to open channels to a specific other LN user. You aren't instantly connected to the entire LN by "setting up a channel". This is why people will spend money to open up channels to only one or a few other LN users, who will be the massive hubs that everyone uses. And you can only use the money tied to each user independently via each user you have a channel to as you pay through them to other people who are connected to them directly or indirectly.

>1 post by this ID

No numbnuts the whole purpose of Segwit and LN is to restrict on chain transactions, doing so is massively cost prohibitive. The blocks stay the same size but the fees grow exponentially over time. Meaning getting your bitcoin spent via a non approved method "LN" will cost you so goddamn much that you won't transact in anyway that isn't LN. Which is controlled centrally, which can be censored, which can trap your capital.

I shouldn't have to explain this to people in crypto ffs.

I can guarantee you once lightning gains traction BTC will go straight to $100k.

>the absolute state of nocoiners and bcashers
how do you not understand what LN does? lmaoooooo

It's far from done.

Tor-like capability is hypothetical and in development, not an effective reality. It also relies on more decentralization in hubs than is unlikely to happen given the mechanics of LN and user incentives.

>arbitrary censorship
>I'm ok with this
holy fuck
people who agree with speech laws are now killing bitcoin

*than is likely to happen.

Yet to be seen how the fees pan out, that's pure speculation, and will be based on supply/demand/network capacity.

The fees on chain aren't speculation. If blocksizes remain the same size, the only thing you can be sure of is higher fees. LN fees are something else entirely.

This is like complaining that gay people can't marry in a Catholic church... if you don't want to use LN, just transact on chain.

yes, goyim, 1MB blocks make sense, bitcoin needs additional layers for performance heh heh heh...

You'll be economically priced out of using on chain transactions.

Pure speculation. What if blocks are only half full because 99% of transactions take place off chain? That is a possibility.

If LN is a centralised as the big blockers would have us believe, then the number of on chain transactions should be extremely low.

Daily reminder, in order to scale to VISA level, 99.99% of tx MUST be off chain.

Visa scale node on chain would be $16 million in hard drive space today.

Even with moores law that won't go down significantly in 30 years.

mmmmhhh KYC to use the biggest bitcoin ln in europe or you cant buy anything. what you voted for that one party? sorry to tell you but you cant use our payment channel. do onchain transactions in 2020? oh thanks sir thats 80 dollars for transacting just wait for 3 confirmations in 72 hours.

fucking bullshit. i mean on the other hand ln will remove a lot of btc from the market which (((they))) have in their ligthning channels to provide liquidity. pathetic that people will want some kind of banking mechanism in bitcoin... not holding any bcash right now but i see what roger wants to keep. the true form of bitcoin how it is ALREADY working now. if we would let it just scale with the blocksize. (i understant that it might not be the ultimate solution to this problem)