Now that BTC is going to have a LN with zero fees, how are you going to compete? It's a killer app which will make your shitcoins obsolete.
Now that BTC is going to have a LN with zero fees, how are you going to compete...
Ian Ortiz
Benjamin Green
Average BTC transaction cost: $20
Average future BTC transaction cost if it continues to gain users: $200
Amount of on-chain transactions to pay with BTC through on-chain payment: 1
Amount of on-chain transactions to open and close a lightning channel: 2
Average future cost using onchain/lightning: $200/$400
Conclusion: Lightning will be even more expensive than on-chain for single payments unless you do hundreds of transactions using it . Grandma bitcoin just got an adrenaline shot but it doesn't cure his cancer. That's if lightning network gets adopted anywhere in the next 24 months.
Nicholas Taylor
LN release year: this year + 1
Adam Watson
> Conclusion: Lightning will be even more expensive than on-chain for single payments unless you do hundreds of transactions using it . Grandma bitcoin just got an adrenaline shot but it doesn't cure his cancer. That's if lightning network gets adopted anywhere in the next 24 months.
You are wrong. Some of the LN hubs will be on exchanges, which will have a massive amount of channels which mean most people won't ever have to close and open a channel again.
Josiah Howard
So it will be centralized, insecure and expensive? Ok, get it.
Landon Richardson
so now you're at the mercy of the hub, they'll start charging payments, because what are you going to do about it? lol
You'll never be able to receive payments either, as that requires the hub putting money into your channel
Mason Collins
The irony is flying over the heads of btc maximalists. Why do they have to stay emotionally attached to dinossaur technology?
Gavin Stewart
Because they are too dumb to do any research and think that every altcoin is just a btc clone. Bitcoin is the myspace of the crypto markets.
Jack Robinson
It's only as centralized as you make it to be, eventually there'll be many hubs.
You could still do onchain, and even that is still far better than fiat.
Henry Gomez
Holy fuck, LN is a huge failure
Jayden Cook
S H I T C O I N
H
I
T
C
O
I
N
Nicholas Long
>still far better than fiat.
Lol, still stuck in the past. Bitcoin is now WORSE than fiat. 40% of addresses don't have enough bitcoin to transfer a single cent out of them.
yeah, 12 hours is still faster than 3 day bank wires... barely.
Kayden Green
>"Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient."
-Hal Finney, Dec 2010
Jacob Rivera
Another thing is that for lightning network to work properly and scale it needs a significant blocksize increase, which blockstream doesn't want. So it will be centralized, expensive and will barely work.
Ian Perry
And this is supposed to be BTC’s ace in the hole to make it usable again? Kek
Have those faggot devs of theirs been working on anything else to make it not shit or just slinging shit at Roger Ver?
Jaxson Evans
If your outlook is so pessimistic why don't you short it with fiat?
Ethan Morales
It's a shame it's been 7 years and they still haven't been able to design a layer 2 network that works. Even if such a layer exists that doesn't compromise the trust-less decentralized nature of bitcoin.
Oliver Barnes
Bitcoin's only mistake was becoming too mainstream. Fuck this gay earth.
Michael Wright
>this thread
The absolute state of Veeky Forums
>not udnerstanding the removing transactiosn from the network will severely reduce the network load and therefore lower fees
>it will be centralized
Lightning has no control over bitcoin, its an optional extension layer,core bitcoin wont become more centralized and moving high frequency small transactions into a higher layer will reduce the fees
This is already happening whats your point
Veeky Forums seems to lack serious fundamentals lately, mainly critical thinking
Austin King
>even with LN it will be worse for the average user than LTC
The absolute state of BTCucks
Parker Stewart
nothing can save this shitcoin from blockstream... that's why the real bitcoin has forked away - bitcoin cash.
Anthony Collins
you mistake hearing the talking points of LN as understanding how it will work in practice.
LN is not "instant and free".
LN is just shared addresses, with cute mechanisms to determine who owns what percent of the shared address.
medium.com
This article is a good intro to what will actually happen.
Alexander Cook
I understand it perfectly, you seem to be missing the point that lightning can be used to offload high frequency transactions by larger players (exchanges etc). Not everyone needs to use it but removing the congestion from the network benefits everyone. Having a less centralized higher layers still doesn't change bitcoins fundamental decentralization.
Aiden Baker
So how's that going to work?
When customers deposit bitcoin, that's still on chain, because they don't have a channel set up.
I don't know how exchanges set up their wallets, but it'd only help internally.
Is that even 30% of bitcoin traffic?
Aiden Smith
>When customers deposit bitcoin, that's still on chain, because they don't have a channel set up.
Yes but they aren't competing with arbitrage bots transacting between exchanges, or coinbase moving 10000 transactions over to binance when shitcoin XYZ becomes top shit, therefore allowing them to use a smaller fee for their transaction
>Is that even 30% of bitcoin traffic?
Its a game of efficiency, even if lightning only reduces network congestion by 5% thats a win. Think of its like moores law.