Shills fuck off. If you have no technical debates then fuck off.
Give me a good reason on why BTC cash could be better then lightning network and vice versa. Why do I hear that BTC cash is also centralized? whats with all the aggresive shilling from core?
Other urls found in this thread:
lnmainnet.gaben.win
m.youtube.com
twitter.com
Nano. Feeless and near instant built in from the ground up. If all goes well it'll be the coin normies adopt.
>inb4 shitcoin, fud, it'll fail, look its price is going down, bagholder, faggot, retard, pajeet, shill, etc
btc merchant adoption is shrinking bch adoption is growing
there is not a single reason to cap blocks at 1mb (non mining nodes do nothing)
segwit destroys the mining nash equilibrium incentivising the collusion of miners to change the UTXO without owners signatures. You can only trust jihan and roger to not be doing this right now.
why introduce segwit before a blocksize increase when lightning network requires 133mb as specified in the lightning network whitepaper
why introduce segwit at all when it is not necessary for second layer solutions
lightning network will not be decentralized because to solve the routing problem would be to solve the P=NP problem (a millenium prize problem)
why would anyone want lightning network when it is not a decentralised ledger? the whole point of bitcoin is to scale on chain as that is what makes decentralised uncensorable money which can free all the people in the world from the financial repression of central banks
We need the dinosaur to evolve. Lightning Network is being forced on us by necessity and we can either get behind it and profit or die from a catastrophe.
>the P=NP problem
I had the solution but I burned it for humanity's sake.
segwit destroys the mining nash equilibrium incentivising the collusion of miners to change the UTXO without owners signatures. You can only trust jihan and roger to not be doing this right now.
explain this please?
If it becomes centralized and shitty whats the point? We are literally at the same point we were before. Also thats not to say that another alternative is there. Also, you added nothing about BCH. Explain BCH before talking about necessity of LN.
>he fell for the DAG meme
The point is to make Blockstream a lot of money.
user Im late abit to this debate but if bitcoin core gets fucked what will happen? Why not just hop on BCASH if LN is as fucked as it is?
Also Btc core could fuck up all of crypto with all the misinformation out there. That's not good desu if I'm getting the basics correct. Maybe BTC cash isn't the only answer but it is certainly better then Lightning network.
Bitcoin cash solves the capacity issue by
- removing unrequired validating nodes
- increasing blocksize to allow for more transactions (faster and cheaper)
- enabling the disabled features to enable scripting while keeping codebase simple
- strategically attempting to direct all hashpower at BCH by building other coins on top (not as sidechains which weaken security)
Encouraging businesses to take up miners, and non mining validators to be business led with high tx throughput (merchants). Argument is it will be decentralised enough this way.
Lightning attempts to solve it by
- using unfinished software on mainnet
- attempting to solve a problem that is NP Hard (similar to travelling salesman)
- requiring nodes to be always on (security, poor UE)
- limiting the amount that can be sent to small transactions (poor UE)
- may end up with nodes as being considered as money transmitters (requires license in some jurisdictions)
- possible to steal funds from payment channels when contracts close (security)
- risk of fees getting higher limits overall fungibility and ability to settle (small coin holders priced out of participating)
But - at least they allow useless validators and avoid a soft fork, so I’m undecided
LN is live on Mainnet right now and is completely unstable, losing users money. Not FUD, the Lightning devs themselves say this.
Good ideas don't require force.
BCH is simply bitcoin with scaling. That means no Segwit, no replace by fee transactions, the return of opt codes and colored coins.
"decentralized enough"
What do you mean by this?
Also the way you put it LN seems very poor in comparison and from other sources I see. Also open to regulations in the future. source sir?
Is Monero at all a good alternative? Or I should I just settle with BCH?
>ITT: mandatory cashie shill thread
You guys are relentless.
What was with all the FUD and attacks in a previous thread today about BTC core and BCH?
omni is simply a layer on top of bitcoin
omni is simply better.
How is this a shill thread when I have genuine questions and want to see how Veeky Forums feels about this issue? You sound more like a reverse shell desu
Were just pointing out the obvious, and are trying to help those BTC supporters who are relentless in their delusion, through their support of a coin which is unfortunately moribund
Decentralised enough - it doesn’t have a central authority that can censor transactions or reorganize the chain
Monero - I got some when it came out and haven’t used it.
1) have the nsa infiltrated it?
2) why won’t fluffy pony and the community support other wallets
Monero is a solid coin. Bch will be adding privacy features in the future but for now you can't go wrong with Monero.
This is the best argument you can hope for coming from core supporters OP. All their arguments fall on the bottom of the triangle.
Not sure what you mean.
Thanks user, do you have any info where I can read more? Perhaps if there is any new development anywhere?
>why introduce segwit before a blocksize increase when lightning network requires 133mb as specified in the lightning network whitepaper
but you can make lightning transactions right now? i dont understand
In the previous thread Core supporters were aggresively attacking BCH with out providing a direct argument in most cases besides basic FUD. I also noticed a similar thread on 8/biz/ discussing core vs cash but I cant find 8/biz./ anymore. The OP talked about a shilling campaign on 4/biz/ against BCH any time a thread popped up but i dont know what to think anymore. Maybe people just dont want to give up their BTC no matter what.
Surprised I'm not seeing any of the "$50 fees and 24 hour wait time!" posts that are usually in these threads.
>useless validating nodes
>"it will be decentralised enough"
>non mining nodes do nothing
Lol.
>LN is live on Mainnet right now and is completely unstable, losing users money
fake news. do your research.
Sure, you can also lose all your money doing it.
Here's a link to the Lightning explorer OP. Read the warning at the top. They avoid using plain English to warn users, just click "I don't understand". It'll link you to the CEO of Lighting Twitter clearly stating the shit doesn't work even on Testnet.
lnmainnet.gaben.win
Provide me some info since you know your stuff.
What do you mean about the fake news and non minding nodes
I'm all in on Bcash. I think it can flip bitcoin ( but then again nearly all coins will at some point kek)
SeeThe channels also have a pitiful amount of liquidity, which is required for lightning transactions. Also the only store accepting lightning payments is unironically Blockstream and all you can buy there are t-shirts.
what do you think are the top 5 contenders for a flippening?
"useless validators" are required for true decentralization. yeah yeah ln is centralized, but its entirely offchain. doesnt compromise decentralization of the blockchain where big movement of funds will remain. where as for bitcoin cash to scale to the level required for mass adoption and use, only corporate entities and governments will be able to run nodes. still not centralized but not very democratic.
i googled "lightning network mainnet missing funds" and the first article had a few edits clarifying that funds werent lost and are retrievable or something.. idk. seems to be a one off thing more the problem of those two individuals.
Ripple and Ethereum both have a good shot. If Raiblocks meets its specification it could very easily. Cash I already mentioned. 5th I'm not sure.
Right now I think Bcash will be the first. It's not so much these coins rocketing ahead but bitcoin shrinking into irrelvancy because of its numerous flaws
Hahahahaha good luck with mainstream adoption for your precious flippening
Original whitepaper and emails, bitcoincash.org, bitcoinabc bitcoin unlimited dev plans, r/btc
Just think it through.
Validators only help themselves.
You are right on most things apart from:
>why introduce segwit at all when it is not necessary for second layer solutions
From what I understand segwit allows you to keep channels open without having node always on.
>solve the routing problem would be to solve the P=NP problem
They're useless because they do nothing to secure or validate the network. Full nodes that run without hashpower have no effect on decentralization. All they can do is verify consensus rules are being followed, however with out mining power they cannot do anything about it.
Scaling to Visa levels TODAY would cost maybe $2000 in HDD. That's nothing for mining operations, who's mining equipment already costs in the 10s or 100s of thousands. This is also assuming Moore's Law isn't a thing and HDD costs will remain the same by the time we reach Visa tier adoption, which we are no where close to.
Monero has always been functionality over user friendliness, and that's a good thing for the time being. Even the GUI wallet is fairly recent
If youre going to have 133mb blocks anyway why not scale on chain up to 133mb first and then implement LN. 133mb would have more than enough capacity for years.
Its because they dont want to scale bitcoin they want to force you onto second layer solutions which is not a blockchain and not the freedom from financial repression bitcoin can be
Lightning network is not the only type of second layer solution.
Or perhaps give NANO a shot? God this bitcoin debate goes to no end
True, but solving a routing problem isn't the same as solving P=NP kek. Routing is NP hard
It's a DAG. There is a reason it won't replace blockchain.
Want to hear more on this sir? How does a 133 mb block fuck with btc in general? What \else are they doing to lightning network that generally sucks when they could just increase block size before LN?
Also when and how did BTC get slower and higher fees?
True. Either way lightning network is not something worth investing in, if its not onchain its not bitcoin
wouldnt BCH have a better shot then nano though?
It's blockchain. There is a reason it won't be able to compete with DAG.
Man, if only it were that easy
It's fucking obviouse that bch sooner or later will be the same dünosaur-tech compared to other coins.
Btc's role is not in this and never was.
So bch will not have adoption as
>muh store of value
And in no way it will not be adopted for everyday uses.
No place for bch
why will it be dinosaur tech sooner or later? sounds more on par that we need than anything else. anything can be dinosaur tech sooner or later.
There is nothing wrong with large blocks. I am saying the way core is claiming to scale btc is evidence they are trying to force people onto second layer solutions.
Im not saying anything bad about larger block size. I am asking what else are these second layer solutions adding?
Right now it's not the best one in privacy or speed.
So it is dinosaur already.
I don't even mention the upcoming projects.
>dag meme
>offchain meme
Waiting for another "memes" to come just to deny that bch is obsolete.
(Monero is already here btw and it is on a blockchain).
Btc was planned as a store of value, that's why it does not inflate.
Through atomic swaps people will store their wealth in btc, elastos is also binded to btc chain.
If hardforking btc would somehow produce the new "gold" it'd destroy all the sense.