Quote from: Anti-Cen on January 21, 2018, 08:39:39 PM

Quote from: amishmanish on January 21, 2018, 03:22:16 PM

Your posts are pretty much incoherent to analyse the argument except that it sounds like you are hell bent on kicking dust. I am sure most of the notable members on BCT don't want to indulge people like you who just want to come up with the worst-possible imaginary situations. So I'll try in whatever humble manner I can.

I like to deal in facts friend and will often backup what I say with links to articles or youtube and if you watched the video about Bob buying a coffee a day for a month from the same shop then I say that someone is presenting the "best-possible imaginary situations" so lets have some balance here.

Thanks for the better constructed sentences and thought out replies this time. I won't have to strain to understand you. This makes the discussion worth our while. The scenario of Bob buying his coffee is pretty simple. Its just a pessimistic, worst-possible imaginary situation because you have assumed that:
1. Bob needs to open a channel with everyone he deals with. Not necessary. He doesn't have to do that. The network does that for him.He just needs one payment channel with another node.
2. Bitcoin price decreases and he doesn't have enough finances. How is that not a negative scenario? Further, you are assuming that if fiat varies the merchant changes the amount in BTC. (which does happen, but then you miss the point that widespread adoption means BTC has its own value. As people keep repeating at the forum and elsewhere. 1 BTC is always 1 BTC.)
3. You assume that On-chain fees remain 30$. You again assume this ignoring the fact that the avg. fees have already come down to ~20$ https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html#3m and that with LN, a lot of transactions clogging the network will be gone.

Quite simply, you are imagining the worst cases because you are on the other side of the debate. Anyways, Moving on.

Quote from: Anti-Cen on January 21, 2018, 08:39:39 PM

Quote from: amishmanish on January 21, 2018, 03:22:16 PM

you make this argument about the settlement transaction. LN aims to enable micropayments and it does that quite well. The settlement transaction when closing the channel is a one-time cost which will not be the 30$ owing to de-congestion as smaller payments move to LN.

That is an assumption you are making and does not take into account inter banking settlement between the large banking hubs that will be added to the BC and what do you make of this from the white-paper

Multiple transactions for the cost of one transaction. This is a big positive for individual users. Or do you imagine a utopian situation where we will have visa-level transactions on a decentralized, secure, trustless network and there won't be any fees?

Quote from: Anti-Cen on January 21, 2018, 08:39:39 PM

Quote from: amishmanish on January 21, 2018, 03:22:16 PM

You won't need to open channels with every individual/ store you want to transact with. It'll be a multi-hop transaction as explained in the videos quite well. You will anyways have a channel with some major hub whenever you make your first purchase. Depending on how that services you, you can always change it to someone else when you settle your transaction and open a new channel.

Yes I sign up with a large banks who charges fees and interest but I am free to leave and pay $30 BC Tx fee and join another bank so why the Bob and the Coffee shop story is just fantasies just like I said

Major hubs are not the same as today's banks, no matter how much you want to continue beating that drum. You are not trusting them with your money. It stays in a multi-sig wallet and only the latest updated state of payments can be broadcast to the main chain.

Quote from: Anti-Cen on January 21, 2018, 08:39:39 PM

Quote from: amishmanish on January 21, 2018, 03:22:16 PM

Segwit adoption is still low due to which its positive effects are not being felt. This is a community project and of course the "üser" community needs to do its part. Bitcoin developers don't owe anything to anybody. They give you an elegant solution and you don't use it. Its not on them to market it like Mr. Ver and form a circlejerk of Bcash tipping idiots.

Elegant when changing a back end database does not include telling everyone that they not only need a new telephone number but they need a new telephone (Wallet in this case) too. Lets not start blaming others for the mistakes of the past I say.

You only need to use the Segwit address as a user. Use an Electrum wallet and there are enough instructions available to make a Segwit enabled wallet. Here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Electrum/comments/7llnll/here_is_how_to_create_segwit_bip49_wallets_and/
I do agree that bitcoin hasn't yet evolved to suit the most basic user who just want to install an app and start payments. To be honest, bitcoin's awareness has gone from the slightly tech oriented to everyone's grandma now. There is a lot of catching up to do in terms of user experience. How LN will incorporate all the underlying details is yet to be seen.

Quote from: Anti-Cen on January 21, 2018, 08:39:39 PM

Quote from: amishmanish on January 21, 2018, 03:22:16 PM

Same repeated argument. You want to use keep using the fear psychosis of "Banks". With funds committed to an LN channel, EVERYONE is a BANK. Everyone is in it together. Of course some will be bigger, some medium and some smaller.

I have already addressed the question of Bob being a bank/hub for Alice so please go back and read it because the argument falls flat on it's face and poor old Bob ends up going without his morning coffee at the end of the week.

Seems to me that you have no technical argument to present here and just want to be rude in case people cotton on to the facts that
Lightning attempt to solve the scaling issue is by introducing banks to Bitcoin which is not quite as bad as starting CPU-Wars all over
the internet between miners to solve the problem of generating new coins which others have managed without having to burn out CPU's

Once again, my being rude to you has only to do with your constant harking on "its a bank". And maybe also because you seem to have an agenda to fill the forum with such posts. "others have managed without having to burn CPU/GPU/ASICS?". Are you talking about IOTA etc. I have no intention of being an apologist for LN. I truly believe that such innovative methods are a better answer than relying on unlimited block sizes.

Quote from: Anti-Cen on January 21, 2018, 08:39:39 PM

Quote from: amishmanish on January 21, 2018, 03:22:16 PM

Are you a developer? Do you have a working code for this "Idea" you are proposing? If yes, you are welcome to go join the github and propose it there. If you can't do this and have only thought of this in some algorithmic way then how are you talking about Pointers to collection of nodes??!! All nodes are supposed to be equal. What are you even doing here if you think that its okay for only a few masternodes to process the block data. There's SPV wallets for that.

Yes developer, no not Linux based but I will offer up this one line of code
public static money MaxFees =1.50 // 20,000 miners not need to process 7 TPS, too little work to pass around to feed all of Africa
Nodes doing distributed processing can all be the same, part of smaller group processing 1/50th of the BC so not sure what your going on about "All nodes are supposed to be equal" because some are running $300 hardware and others are running $50,000 hardware anyway

C'mon. You said "Pointers to blocks of data" and now you come up with this argument of capping maximum fees. You just changed the goalpost. All nodes should be able to verify the chain for themselves and take part in accepting or rejecting a new block. Your idea to only have a few super-nodes that carry the burden of verifying the blockchain is nowhere near what bitcoin is supposed to be.

Quote from: Anti-Cen on January 21, 2018, 08:39:39 PM

Quote from: amishmanish on January 21, 2018, 03:22:16 PM

Yeah, sure. Coming from someone who cannot form more than a couple of coherent sentences, this is good advice /s

I know when I have won a debate when the other side feels the need to use insults but what about the "green crypto mining ICO" " under your name because 20,000 miners on Bitcoin doing CPU-Wars is not green so forgive me when I say it looks like you will say anything that you are being paid to say

This was in response to your statement:

Quote

"Here is the white-paper https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf needs chucking in the bin if you ask me and I am far from being alone in saying th"

Its easy to say things like that when YOU are not the one coming up with the solutions. I called you out only for showing such disregard to someone else's hard work.After doing that, you don't get to be the victim by saying things like "people are being rude" or that "they need to use insults" .
About the "green crypto mining ICO", You are welcome to check it out. Its a signature campaign. PoW isn't going anywhere for a long time. What you can try is to make it green by efficiency and using Renewable energy sources. I think its a good idea.