Bitcoin Cash people say that the lightning network somehow benefits big banks.I'm not saying I agree with them...

>Think of this as a uber-cab war
not bad

Can't wait until the Uber-DAO war.

As I understand it lightning channels can basically be set up by anyone who has a chunk of btc because, you know, the network needs to know you're good for the number of transactions you can handle.

Critics don't have chunks of BTC lying around, just winnets of dried poo. To them, that's centralises because it excludes them from being a channel just because their ass is broke

You are dumb. Read my post

>in order to put money into your Lightning Node channel you will need to do 1 on chain transaction
This is wrong. The NODE will need to do the 1 on chain transaction, the USER does not. (And, by the way, a second 'closing' transaction.) That $100 charge is billed across potentially tens of thousands of users, so we're back to micropayments land again

everyone in the lightning network is a node you dipstick

you will have to do an on-chain transaction to get into the network

I read it and became even more dumb. That you manage to believe what you wrote and not require mechanical assistance breathing is a wonder to me.

Please explain what you think is wrong in my post so I can tell you why you are a brainlet.

This is correct. If people ever wake up to it bitcoin will instacrash (then ln will be removed in favor of some other solution but won't reach new heights in a very long time since superwhales would no longer have that incentive to put their money in btc).

So it would centralize bitcoins into the hands of those running lightning nodes? Bitcoin Cashers are correct then?

Correct me if I'm wrong please, but it seems like this is massively in the interests of big banks. If they are the ones running the nodes that is. Are they?

>Correct me if I'm wrong please, but it seems like this is massively in the interests of big banks

Of course it is dude. They get to charge transaction fees for being a massive node on the Lightning Network. Blockstream is funded by the banks who want to see a return on their investment. How else do you explain Cores insane stance on not raising the block size to even 2MB temporarily until LN is fully working. They are zealots.

BCH, bitcoin gold and many many others are correct.

It's not "the banks" or anyone, its just the way people like it.

You need to ask yourself one question about current times.

¿ How are businesses models evolving ?

The answer is, to get shit done for the customer, take away all his responsibility and doing things the faster the better.

There's no dictature other than the one imposed by the customer once a monopoly is over, and internet ofered a way for anyone to propose a diferent way of doing business.

So to answer your question briefly,

1-yes bitcoin is being centralized again
2-its not big deal as people want it to be fast over decentralized
3-its not a banking conspiracy or anything its just addressing the right problem, banks will have to compete with whatever comes glorious amongst cryptocurrencies. As of now, they could just say 10 min transactions from now on. and suddenly, they are in the game again.

IVE GOT IT GUYS!

Blockchain is the most interesting, disruptive, and useful technology created since the internet. So lets not use it! Lets pretend like we are though. We'll have the banks come in and THEY can use the blockchain for us and charge us for the privilege of transacting through their Lightning Network™! Isn't it great to have the banks looking after our interests :D!!! I mean this will only set back blockchain technology by a decade, but hey, I think the bankers know best and are most trustworthy!

>there is a point at all to owning a centralized crypto that doesn't even rely on the underlying technology
>fast decentralization isn't possible
>there isn't a banking conspiracy

Fuck off.

I may not explain myself correctly enough, sorry for that.

What i mean is that most part of the mortal population out there dont want nor can handle extre responsabilities, decentralisation means you are responsible of your own shit

While i'm a pro-decentralisation and a pro-self-governance it is my understanding that most people want things done for them, therefore they dont care if it's centraliced or not as long as it is fast, reliable and cheap.

And no there in no banking conspiracy around this as i tried to say, all they need to o to compete to btc is make banking transactions instantaneous, they allways could have done it, yet it was in their interest not doing it.

If people want centralized services because they don't want responsibility, they are more than welcome to utilize Coinbase or Bitpay or any other service like that. Centralization of the blockchain isn't even fucking blockchain, its just a database at that point. Segwit/LN bitcoin arguably isn't even a crypto currency.

To every bcash faggot in this thread, pic related.

You are cancer.

Oh and on bankers. Blockstream is funded by Bilderberg. The way they are going about seizing control of the network is exactly how they've cornered gold in the fucking past.

>just take this IOU goy

It's literally the same goddamn method.

Exactly, and they are doing it, most people just bought in coinbase and never moved their coins from there.

I'm not trying to debate obvious things with you, i know it makes no sense if you look at it from the technology standpoint but the truth is

When you explain to somebody new about bticoin and blockchain, the part about decentralization comes like BLABLABLABLABLA,

Now when you tell them instant transaction low fees and increasing valuation you get their attention as now banks give shitty transaction times, give shitty bounties and depending on where you want to move money extreme transactions.

The market we are discussing when we talk bank vs blockchain is not decentralization but a money managing service if you know what i mean

if lightning network does not deliver cheaper fees and faster transactions then nobody will use it

if it does deliver those things then I dont see how the "centralized power" is benefiting more than the miners benefit from the current situation

The shadiness is worse than you can imagine.

this thread has a smart user who lays it out pretty well

Although anons on this board pretend to be stupid, I am glad that the ones with money aren't actually stupid and never gave a fuck what you dumb faggots had to say.

You have been the best advertising campaign that Blockstream will ever have.

For people who aren't entirely fucking braindead:

medium.com/@rusty_lightning/the-three-economic-eras-of-bitcoin-d43bf0cf058a

That's all well and good, but fast transactions with low fees are already possible on chain and without kikes hijacking the network, literally just up the block size. Also remove Segwit/LN as they're worthless.

Most people in the future will likely keep their funds on a service like Coinbase, in fact most probably already do, so Segwit/LN or any other centralized service purposed by these kikes is already abundantly available and without changing fucking protocol.

Why do you retards bother shilling here? There is nothing you could say it would convince me to buy bilderbergcoin. Go peddle your centralized crap to normans.

>Are they in it to destroy it or profit off it?
profit, blockstream holds the patents on off chain solutions and are going to charge you subscription fees to use their centralized nodes

>be bank
>have lots of capital
>capital is required to run LN nodes
>as liquidity builds in btc the capital required to host grows and grows
>be bank

Draw your own conclusions. that's just to run a node, never mind the fact that the "bitcoin" being transferred isn't even transferred but instead an IOU.

Yes, that's how i see things coming up, decentralized for whoever want's it that way, but there will still be bank-like companies for your average wanker that doesnt want to take control of his own destiny

LN doesn't change protocol and is built on top of it.
It's also completely voluntary.

31 patents held by Bitmain:

patents.google.com/?assignee=北京比特大陆科技有限公司&num=100

Blockstream on patents:

blockstream.com/about/patent_faq/

Satoshi already outlined server farms in the future running nodes and mining, you're taking things out of context brainlet.

>hurr I'm going to create this blockchain technology
>make sure nobody can use it in the future

Not that I'm arguing for cash, but 8MB x a years worth of blocks is not cost prohibitive at all.

The fucking picture doesn't make any since at all since it shows Coinbase having fuck all to do with big blocks, when it will be places like fucking Coinbase that run LN nodes when you fucking can't. Fuck I hate everything!

>Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe
for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section 8) to check for
double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or
about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run
network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the
network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would
only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with
that one node.

satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/#selection-67.0-83.14

fucking kek. that screenshotted post was a reply to ME. you are a pretty bad paid shill. patents on mining hardware has literally fucking nothing to do with the problem at hand, which is blockstream forcing control of the BTC network. and you think I trust the chink miners or hold BCH? I don't hold a single fucking coin of theirs and wouldn't trust them taking my trash out to the curb. I've made over 100k (literally) on ether and I enjoy watching your two camps cannibalize each other.

Wonderful, so we can agree that Segwit and LN are hostile.

It's not when it costs too much to transact in anything but LN.

We can agree that that they aim to make their business, truth is no one is putting anyone a gun in hteir head to put their money on coibase, on their own wallet on btc or on bch, some are sheeps as they allways where and will go where the mouthbreathers follo. and some will seek further knowledge and will have the power to choose what suits them most, truth is there will be a market for both, but i am a fraid my friend that the bigest part of the pie is clueless money that will go STRAIGTH into the same hole.

Whatever happens tho, we customers will have transaction times and fees lowered considerably one way or the other.

>be me
>send a bitcoin to my friend
>wait hours for transaction to confirm and pay $20 fee to the miners

SURE I COULD HAVE DONE IT FASTER AND CHEAPER BY USING LN BUT AT LEAST THOSE BANKERS DIDNT GET THEIR HANDS ON IT HAHA

>It's not when it costs too much to transact in anything but LN.

bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/54589/will-lightning-network-efficiently-support-a-single-payment-of-25-cents

>patents on mining hardware has literally fucking nothing to do with the problem at hand

Don't get so upset about being called out on your BCash shill nonsense user. Jihan and his Pajeet programmers forked BCH to keep a BUG IN THE SOFTWARE. If that doesn't prove he is a complete untrustworthy scammy cunt then stop wasting our time with your troll nonsense.

Up the block size and read the white paper brainlets. These fees and transaction times are literally only because Core is controlled by Blockstream and they are limiting block size to promote (((off chain))) scaling. Try to keep up, okay champ?

you are bent dude. jihan can suck my fucking cock for all I care, he would probably sell his mother for a few extra bucks. I hope he goes insane and crashes both your precious blockchains into the ground. you guys are so deluded it's insane.

Also, reminder that the DCG was pro blocksize increase, Coinbase is pro blocksize increase, the (((corporations))) are pro blocksize increase and that S2X was buggy code that shat itself upon arrival.

The core devs are the open source linux heroes trying to keep Bitcoin decentralized. You fucks will never win.

Nick Szabo and Andreas Antonopolous are pro-core. That was what initially tipped me off to you cashies being full of shit.

you are both calling the other side jews
and it damages both of your arguments

fucking /pol/ never change

It's just a meme dude.

I've posted this link multiple times today to reach people who have a brain:

medium.com/@rusty_lightning/the-three-economic-eras-of-bitcoin-d43bf0cf058a

It is exactly what's happening. It's all about the tension between security and the velocity of money. Core is trying to keep Bitcoin decentralized and with a limited money supply. the more we hardfork, the more precedent it sets for the eventual social engineering attempts to change Bitcoin's inflation schedule. That's why Core is so conservative and why they want to keep the main chain uncompromised.

Satoshi himself said a hard fork should be the very last option and that all soft fork and off chain enhancements should be pursued first

first and foremost a cryptocurrency needs to be stable, and secure, and whimsy hard forks whenever you feel like making an upgrade or get busy hands are precisely how you scare mass adoption away and turn shit into a mess.

as soon a the network becomes centralized, the center will start charging fees. They'll make the fees as high as possible but not so high that the customers will all leave.
This will lead to transactions as costly as they are with credit card companies.

This negates the purpose of Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash does not offer a solution either. Visa averages 2000 tx per second, (peaks at 10k or higher) thats 86 GB per day. Hard drives cost 4 cents per gigabyte in bulk sizes.

In the last 10 years hard drive prices have dropped by 66%.

So today a node would cost an additional $1255.6 per year for storage. (Year 2 would cost $2500) (Efficiency increase in hard drives would only save $125 maximum, more likely $50)

Never occured you that that actual jews would try to muddle things calling the others "jews"? Basic psyop stuff mate.
As a consummer think what makes more sense to you. Paying a monthly quote to use bitcoin™ or paying less than 1 cent for on chain transactions.