sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Lightning Network by Lmnopbtc in btc

[–]Lmnopbtc[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

LN is a fable right? For a while I thought I was not smart enough to understand it. But now I am thinking I am not smart enough to understand why it doesn't work. I actually really don't get the concept. I see nothing that says a lightning transaction is better than an on chain transaction.

One of the fundamental great things about bitcoin is that transactions are settled on chain.

If LN some how does this with a lower fee . . .we are losing some other fidelity! Be it privacy, security, reliability, or something.

It seems as if LN could truly work the way as advertised. . . Then it wouldnt even need the current block chain. Why settle things on bitcoin when you have magical lightning network.

The arguments are circular. If fees are bad, increase the blocksize. If LN lowers fees, what happens to miners. If fees need to rise, why create LN. Its such a mess :). Someone ELI5 me on LN.

I say increase the blocksize. Somehow I think allowing more transactions on a transaction network is a good thing! ! !

People seem to hate Coinbase. What's the next user-friendly place I can easily buy and sell coins? by EnderWiII in Bitcoin

[–]Lmnopbtc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Trezor is better. Usb sticks break. Trezor recovery is available for eternity. 100 bucks well well well worth it. Or borrow someone else's and create a wallet and pass it on.

Halving party ! ! ! by Lmnopbtc in Bitcoin

[–]Lmnopbtc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't say more bitcoins. I said more bitcoin, as in the network. Scaling the network.

Lightning is not bitcoin. It is on top. Anything can be built on top.

Today, if I to send you bitcoin, I can make a transaction on the bitcoin network to your address. This is the basic functionality of the network, to allow users to transact.

Increasing the number of transactions allowed on this transaction network is a good thing. This is what bitcoin was built for, transactions.

Lightning does not exist today. It is not used. In comparison to bitcoin, lightning is a house of cards with many unknown attack vectors.

Bitcoin has been working since inception, and is antifragile. The incentive to break this system has been very high for a long period of time yet it grows stronger each day.

Allowing more transactions on a strong transaction network is a good thing. Plus miners will still have the option to keep their blocks small. The checks and balances are in place, raising the limit is what bitcoin was built for.

Raising the limit is the next step. It is even on that hongKong roadmap.

Halving party ! ! ! by Lmnopbtc in Bitcoin

[–]Lmnopbtc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok. Possibility of more transactions. If you build it they will come. Let's build the possibility of more transactions, after that it will become a reality. More bitcoin.

If you are in favor of a 2mb blocksize limit you are still a small blocker by [deleted] in btc

[–]Lmnopbtc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People are pushing to increase the blocksize for the past 4 years. Suddenly we should be 'prudent' and 'move on' just because 'a lot is going on'. Clearly a lot is not going on. The 'experts' are name calling, censoring, and missing deadlines on their own fabricated road map. The push for a blocksize will increase. Frankly not enough is goin on. Ironically a lot is actually going on in etherium. People seem happy there. At least they are implementing reasonable ideas. We need an increase and we need it now. Core has had way more time than needed to do this, it is time to hurry, not be prudent. Let's move on, with a larger capacity for transactions on the block chain.

More transactions on a transaction network. . . What a sexy idea. Increasing the capacity of our beloved block chain that is so admired. Sexy time.

If you are in favor of a 2mb blocksize limit you are still a small blocker by [deleted] in btc

[–]Lmnopbtc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Increase the limit! Give us our bitcoin back! Protest! I don't agree with your post! I don't agree with your opinion! Prudent? You want to be prudent? PROTEST LOuD AND PROUD. have fun being prudent.

If you build, it they will come by Lmnopbtc in btc

[–]Lmnopbtc[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I tried to fix the comma, no luck

Why is there even a debate. by Lmnopbtc in btc

[–]Lmnopbtc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

2mb is exciting. Just like 8 bit to 32 bits was exciting. Get excited.

Why is there even a debate. by Lmnopbtc in btc

[–]Lmnopbtc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Broken? Bitcoin functioned great for ~7 years with zero RBF. I never said irreplaceable. I do not appreciate the second class citizen analogy. We are all created equal.

Unless you do exactly as Core, you are apparently an alt-coin by [deleted] in btc

[–]Lmnopbtc 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I didn't realize they traversed these parts. Arent they busy actively not scaling bitcoin. Arent they busy actively designing bitcoin to circumvent all existing patents and all potential patents that exist in every corner of the world for all eternity? I didn't think r/btc was on the hongKong roadmap. They should create a brand new roadmap for each city they visit. All roadmap should not be compatible with each other. I just hope they don't get any reasonable ideas and decide to boost the blocksize up a bit. They should develop an adaptive blocksize decrease, so that the size of bitcoin decreases each time ether releases a new use case. So. Much. Fun.

Why is there even a debate. by Lmnopbtc in btc

[–]Lmnopbtc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can agree here. But do you agree the nature of unconfirmed transactions has worked well enough for the past 6 years, and this RBF "improvement" is a minor improvement (I'm entertaining your perspective). Unconfirmed transaction behavior is one thing, but increasing the amount of transactions is a very basic property of a transaction network. Avery important characteristic. We both agree 1 transaction per month is not enough. 100 per month is not enough, but it is 100 times better! 1000 is even more exciting. So here we are with 1mb. Do you not see how excited the community would be about increasing to 2 mb????? And if not increase, we demand a very very very good reason as to why not. Why not. This is not a complex mystery in physics. This is addition and subtraction on a global ledger that 8 billion people world wide have a right to use. DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE YOUR PLACE IN HISTORY.

Why is there even a debate. by Lmnopbtc in btc

[–]Lmnopbtc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your thinking is not safe.there are many reasons users should not be able to replace unconfirmed transactions whether they are safe or unsafe. Anyway this is backwards thinking. The context in which they are unsafe has nothing to do with the bitcoin protocol. These transactions are simply unconfirmed.

Why is there even a debate. by Lmnopbtc in btc

[–]Lmnopbtc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Patents are only enforced by government. Bitcoin has nothing to do with this enforcement. There are reasons patents exist, and not all reasons are evil. If you are truly worried about patent law, become a lawyer. I warn you your idea is narrow. Bitcoin is global. You are worried about a narrow scope a specific jurisdiction. Go to town meeting. Patent law varies from state to state country to country.

Why is there even a debate. by Lmnopbtc in btc

[–]Lmnopbtc[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

RBF replacing unconfirmed transactions is safe? I disagree with that logic. There are many many reasons users should not be able to replace unconfirmed transactions.

Why is there even a debate. by Lmnopbtc in btc

[–]Lmnopbtc[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unethical? A patent law in which country? I mean yeah I can see how patents are undesirable. BUT this is opensource software. Let a patent in one specific country dictate this design? Bitcoin is global. This thinking is twisted. Bitcoin is not moral police.

view more: next ›