Re: Does lightning network really solve the scalability problem?
will become just another banking system that is just as bad as what we already have.
Now you catching on to what they planned from the beginning.
LN was never about scaling ,
it was about introducing a network that could add offchain fractional reserve Banking to Bitcoin while pretending not to.
The LN network may have a quite a few issues, but there is no way to make it a fractional reserve. Each tx on the lightning network must be able to generate a valid closing tx on the blockchain(s). I suppose that you could do atomic swaps with some other coin that is supposedly redeemable for BTC 1 for 1. However, if people fall for that, they a stupid.
Offloading Bitcoin Transactions to Gift Cards or Exchanges do a better job and are easier to use than LN.
And just to be clear LN used incorrectly actually increases BTC onchain transactions instead of decreasing it.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5124663.msg50330030#msg50330030
And just to be clear LN used incorrectly actually increases BTC onchain transactions instead of decreasing it.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5124663.msg50330030#msg50330030
With gift cards and debit cards, someone is just going back to the fiat system. We all know the perils of using an Exchange for a wallet. If the exchange doesn't care for your particular transactions, they can just freeze your account and make you go through a bunch of red tape to get your coins back. Also, exchanges are big target and hackers like to go for the big score.
For your consideration:
If I said the Bus was overloaded and that by you taking a Taxi,
that you increased the scaling capacity of the Bus, hopefully you realize that is bullshit.
Because the actual seating capacity of the Bus did not change, the person just used another form of transportation.
I'm not certain why you chose LN to be the taxi and the blockchain to be the Bus, rather then the other way around. The other way around seems like it makes more sense. However, you probably couldn't get your analogy to show your point if you did that. If I said the Bus was overloaded and that by you taking a Taxi,
that you increased the scaling capacity of the Bus, hopefully you realize that is bullshit.
Because the actual seating capacity of the Bus did not change, the person just used another form of transportation.
But yet, the people here ,
claim that by offloading transactions from Bitcoin to the LN network , that Bitcoin scaling is increased.
When the actual Number of the BlockSize was only increased to a max of ~1.7Mb from 1 Mb when no further plans to increase more.
In effect , limiting the future growth of the blocksize to intentionally force high fees to force greater acceptance of LN offchain to those too poor to afford onchain transactions on a regular basis.
Offloading is not the same as Scaling.
claim that by offloading transactions from Bitcoin to the LN network , that Bitcoin scaling is increased.
When the actual Number of the BlockSize was only increased to a max of ~1.7Mb from 1 Mb when no further plans to increase more.
In effect , limiting the future growth of the blocksize to intentionally force high fees to force greater acceptance of LN offchain to those too poor to afford onchain transactions on a regular basis.
Offloading is not the same as Scaling.
OK, I'll start calling it offloading then. In any event, it will allow people to make more transactions and they can be rest assured that when the close the channel, they will posses every satoshi entitled to them, less the miner fee and less the extra millisatoshis.
Scaling implies Bitcoin itself could handle the volume,
offloading mean LN can handle the volume and bitcoin can't.
What do you suggest BTC do? Have a contentious hard fork every year or so to increase the blocksize? As we can tell, just having a softfork creates tension, much more a hardfork. I suppose BTC could just have one hardfork to obliterate the capacity cap all together. However, I am not certain miners are going to appreciate the low transaction fees that will result. The only solution will be for the miners to set their own minimum fee and ignore all the other transactions. offloading mean LN can handle the volume and bitcoin can't.
LN is a 3rd party network that can work using any segwit coded coin,
Bitcoin has no monopoly on LN future plans , as litecoin with LN is to have even cheaper fee structures than btc with LN.
https://cryptobriefing.com/litecoin-lightning-network-100-nodes/
Bitcoin has no monopoly on LN future plans , as litecoin with LN is to have even cheaper fee structures than btc with LN.
https://cryptobriefing.com/litecoin-lightning-network-100-nodes/
Quote
Charlie Lee suggested (and Crypto Briefing reiterated) that the comparatively high price of funding Lightning channels with Bitcoin made Litecoin a competitive alternative.
I don't see how this is a liability at all. If people prefer to use an altcoin rather than BTC, than that's their freedom to choose.