Replies (102)
Its good to see nostr growing out of a bitcoin echo chamber and being used by other coins.
Why I'm so hyped to see how there stuff will do better using nostr 🫠
Yeah love to see many more build there tools and so with Nostr .. Let's see what works best ✊🥲
This is probably the first time since 2017 they bitcoin cashers and bitcointer have united for something.
doing everything onchain only makes sense if they stay small forever, so maybe its fine for them since they will never be at global scale
The more groups on Nostr the better.
unfortunately mental illness is still widespread
Everyone should be able to build on an open and permissionless protocol.
Replace defeat with educate. The purple pill helps the orange pill go down.
go back to reddit
I agree; but that particular group doing that particular thing is insulting since they spent years declaring that lightning doesn't work, so you need BCH.
Lightning is probably the worst thing that has happened to Bitcoin.
Sadly, because in theory it is super cool the first time you hear about it, 10 years ago.
i don't find it insulting. i just don't care. they're using nostr. they're building. would i like them to use lightning for zaps? yes, definitely! however, it's more important to have them here, than to not have them here. this way we can bring them into the conversation. the purple pill helps the orange pill go down.
i wasn't around in the trenches during the blocksize war. im a failed class of 2009 and then 2013 and then a final graduate of class of 2020. i did read the book however... great book. anyways, i just look at it as an opportunity. look for the positive. going after the negatives literally doesn't help me achieve my goals of growing nostr.
I know the argument but I disagree. Unless someone invented a way to made On-chain payments scale without the centralizing tradeoffs, Bitcoin had no other way to make it to visa-level TX activity. Now we've surpassed that, and as a lightning node runner it's given me an income, too.
I know it took some time to get here but lightning is great now. Not quite perfect, but millions use it every day around the world and it's now proven tech.
Millions use it every day? Of course not. What kind of bogus statistic is that?
Also no, you don't know my argument, I'm not a big blocker, I want blocks to be smaller than they are today.
Someone did invent a way to scale payments without the centralizing tradeoffs: it's called Drivechain.
Here's the simplest way to scale payments using Drivechain:
Sidechains for Scaling -- Thunder Network | Truthcoin.Info
I don't like it, because it looks so dumb, but it's infinitely better than Lightning.
There are other ways, though, like Shielded CSV: but all of these methods require a bridge to a parallel network, and only Drivechain can provide a decentralized bridge.
We could have had this 10 years ago if it hadn't been for Lightning or the blocksize war. It's sad that these two things happened, both could have been prevented. Still, if we activate Drivechain today we can prevent wasting the next 10 years.
That explains a lot. Every day of 2017 was a day of bitcoiners suffering psychological attacks on every level from the mainstream media to our own "trusted" companies like Coinbase & BitGo. They took over forums like bitcointalk and r/btc. These guys were all so pernicious it felt like a real war at times, because they could just not act in good faith. That kind of focused energy against you takes a toll.
All of that split off into bitcoin cash and we were so happy for them to fork away into their own insignificant coin... Until, of course, they started declaring that Lightning is dead to everyone who would listen. And that trend has lasted several years now, typically as a tactic to swell BCH's ranks.
at the end of the day, look at all of the circular economies around the world using lightning. look at all of the businesses around the world rolling out lightning for retail payments.
now compare that adoption to bitch cash usage around the world.
11 fucking transactions LMAO
lol at my typo bitch cash
Nostr was created in 2020 and lightning was only implemented in the protocol in 2023.
All of the communities at
FBCE
FBCE
Explore Bitcoin Circular Economies with FBCE, dedicated to promoting sustainable crypto practices and community engagement.
use lightning. It works great for these people, as well as every schoolkid in El Salvador who learns it in their classrooms. It works great for Steak & Shake, where I can walk in and buy anything on their menu in seconds. Why don't you go test that one out for yourself if you don't believe it.
I don't know what your problem is with lightning but to claim that Drivechains would have been better makes you sound like you have no clue what bitcoin devs had to do to scale BTC while keeping it sovereign.
They have more blocks...
Bait the BCH people into bringing more real life people on nostr. All else will work out over time...
Have you checked the merchant stats?
I mean, I know you have not because your claims are verifiable bullshit.
LN is a nice extension to Bitcoin, but we shouldn't have sacrificed everything to partially make it happen 10 years after it got invented.
Custodial LN with zero privacy works great, indeed!
In comparison to where Bitcoin was 10 years ago with adoption from Expedia, Dell, Microsoft, Steam,.. I am quite certain that LN was the biggest failure in Bitcoin history.
So were they really wrong?
I do agree that zero privacy custodial LN works well today and I'd use it over a traditional banks every time but it is not what we signed up for. 99℅ of people will use LN exactly in that way. Sad but true.
You suffer because you bother too much about (stated) opinions by others.
Life is a miracle. Enjoy it. Learn from it.
check out cashu
miners come together every year to decide which drive chains to turn on and off?
Custodial cashu with privacy. I am all for that (in small amounts).
Else I use Monero.
those people are, by and large, not using Lightning, they are using custodial wallets like Chivo and you have no proof that the majority of the transactions actually resolve on the Lightning network. When there is a custodial-to-custodial transfer, the custodians can settle up the difference however they please. It’s just a cell of fiat in a database at that point.
If any significant body of people were running their own Lightning nodes, the failure rate would be massive and it would crater the reputation. You’re not touting the Lightning network’s success here, you are touting the success of simple transaction writes to SQL databases. Those are indeed very stable and useful. But they aren’t Lightning.
first and foremost, its open source so don't get angry when others use it in ways you do not like. No gatekeeping nostr
second, the how is obviously click farms to me. It is a huge industry in all SE Asia. Some Btrasher is paying for these accounts to be generated.
Yes i noticed this when going through the #bch hashtag which the client seems to tag every post with.
Lightning isn't a very satisfying solution
Depends on the usecase. For instant and final settlement between businesses and institutions its pretty rad. As self sovereign consumer tech? Nothing beats onchain ux for that.
Exactly, so it's silly to insult said group for wanting more transactions on-chain
I think its ok to insult because they are not thinking about the longterm picture. The engineers who actually care about an actual global solution are not going to suggest onchain payments because it will break when it starts taking off and then bitcoin would be scarred forever and won’t be taken seriously by normies
Why would it break? Genuinely tho. Just too much to store?
blockchains are one of the slowest databases in the world…
plus blocksizes are limited to ensure decentralization and so everyone can run a node if they choose to. No way could it handle all the txns on earth. You need offchain payment protocols
XMR BCH all other groups arrived
only thing matters who are active or who selling papaganda
since the invention of the centralized exchange, I have never seen anything drag more trusted third parties into the ecosystem and destroy more sovereignty than the lightning network. every year it grows a new cancerous tumor so people can keep pretending it works. it has been a complete waste of time.
there are definitely multiple ways to do sidechains on bitcoin. I don't think bip300 is necessarily the best way and I'd really like bitcoin to get covenants, but I am still definitely going to play with paul's ecash. I am thinking about how many sats I can shove into a trezor before activation day, so I can have as much of it as possible.
the only reason why people FUD drivechains, or covenants, or string concatenation, is that there is now a whole ecosystem of companies running some kind of centralized, parasitic, lightning flavored scaling on top of bitcoin. one little opcode would put these companies out of business. they have to FUD the sidechain idea and freeze opcodes so they don't die. this is a form of capture and it is sad that you can't tell it is happening.
I’ve bought the drivechain idea. I understand you have issues with miner involved governance, and I admit that these are problems, but at the very least the planned desired drivechains for geographic scaling and zk-Snarks can be set up early on the eCash fork when there is very little miner involvement outside of really committed people.
In a way, the necessity of involving miners in governance might be good, because miners could have served as a check on the retarded and corrupt behavior of Core but have abdicated from this responsibility. So demonstrating to miners that there is potential ecosystem value in being more involved in governance is potentially a great thing.
Regardless I feel the issues are nuanced beyond my understanding. I am not certain drivechain will work! Your criticism seems potentially legitimate. I am, however, certain that Lightning is not the solution we need and it is time to de-ossify Bitcoin, specifically clear out the dysfunctional parasites suckling on the teat of venture capital who have sabotaged it, and put new people at the helm of the ship. Even if the new people completely fail at the assigned task, getting rid of the people that have so catastrophically failed and wasted so much time and wealth is a virtue in itself. Ineptitude should be punished.
Lol, no. The problems you think lightning has are way overstated. If you think it's parasitic in nature, then you are calling me a parasite for collecting fees on my node.
I guess you're not big into free markets and entrepreneuralism, huh?
it is impossible for a large number of people to run their own nodes. not just difficult, actually impossible. almost everyone on lightning is using an IOU system to borrow channels being operated by a business. they are not using their own nodes. lightning was invented to reintroduce banking into bitcoin. it is the reason why these companies exist. if lightning works, why do these companies need to exist?
In that case you are better off (IMO) using BCH that has all Opcode's available for drivechains.
There is value in one super conservative project like BTC. I don't understand why it needs to capture all value though.
Just use BCH or ETH if your use case requires it. Use Monero if you need digital cash.
Without maximalism solutions are plenty.
I see what's going on here. You are convinced that if bitcoin users use lightning, they are no longer self-sovereign because of the 2nd-tier custodians. I guess there was a time when I would have argued that point too, maybe back in 2016.
But you lose sight of the goal with this argument; We are trying to make money that the government can't stop us from using. Uncensorable cash. That's bitcoin's reason to exist. Lightning extends that goal for everyone, although it's not completely private for everyone. Privacy is great, but not the goal here.
Think of privacy as a secondary goal for bitcoin that anyone at all can achieve under certain circumstances, but just isn't easy to deploy on a global scale. Those who tried to do that before forked off into Monero and 50 other privacy coins.
The real goal is hard enough and Satoshi somehow, against all odds, delivered it and privacy all in one package. And then as bitcoin grew popular all the normies wanted to keep their coins on exchanges and other custodians for speed's sake, and even that doesn't scale enough so we needed something like the lightning network.
So do I think something better than Lightning can be created for the sake of offering privacy? Sure. You betcha. But just that took 10 years, and you sure as hell aren't going to get me to use it if there's the faintest whiff of that network sacrificing uncensorability.
it needs to capture all value because of the emission curve and the dwindling block subsidy. it needs to devour other altcoins and take their fee revenue or it won't be able to pay for its own network security. this might not even work and I agree with you I am comfortable on ETH and XMR today. but BTC cannot just do nothing and everything so far has not worked. the fee market is collapsed.
The fee market idea was brain rot in 2017. Big blockers rightfully called it out as economic unviable.
They claimed it will either result in a spillover effect (enshitcoinification) or centralised SQL DB aka custodians settling offchain.
Well, we got both.
So a bunch of normal people who have been mislead by bcash scammers? sad
No, the criticisms of largeblockers were correct at the time. Plus Ver was not much different from Luke, in that he is on video comparing people who issued fair criticisms of him to Antifa, which is a listed terror organization. It’s maybe not bad as claiming Core is engaged in a conspiracy to distribute child pornography, due to being somewhat less lurid, but “my opponents are the terrorists” is logically not any different than “my opponents are the pedophiles.”
“You’re better off using BCH” just brings Bitcoiners back to the initial debate against the large blockers, where they were trounced. The problem is that everyone transferred the correct and accurate refutation of large blockers into fallacious excessive support for Lightning. Just because Lightning is wrong does not mean we should now support a theoretically unlimited blocksize on the main chain.
With normies storing coins (IOU) on CEX you are back to fractional reserves and price suppression. All that because Bitcoin is not dangerous enough for states to delist it from exchanges.
As someone who entered Bitcoin I'm 2010 I know your position very well, but you never bothered updating the talking points of the early days to the reality in 2026.
Back then before Bitcoin got the NGU CEX KYC approval we knew what we were fighting for and because we discussed all the privacy enhacjng tech (that later only got implemented in Monero) we rightfully believed Bitcoin could become fungible money.
You miss two points. Privacy is a prerequisite for mathematical (not by decree) fungibility which is an essential money property. And you seem to miss that (private) property depends on the state to be enforced. So the only private property you really can enforce yourself needs privacy at its base.
Back in the day we also believed that Bitcoins pseudonimity is enough because we didn't anticipate regulatory acceptance. The state is not fighting transparent Bitcoin though. It doesn't care if there is another store of value next to Gold that is easily taxable. It fights Monero, Bitcoin's earlier destiny the OGs that came before you signed up for.
Get back on track.
Now I don't say there is no value in Bitcoin as is. It's just that you are riding a dead horse. Bitcoin can't become private cash as envisioned by cypherpunks, not with LN and neither wiith cashu.
Enjoy what works for you, but don't build your Bitcoin maximalism on the weak thesis that everybody has the same needs as you.
Personally as an OG Bitcoiner I'd make a fool of myself or even endangering my family if I wouldn't store the majority of my holdings in Monero and only spend in the most private ways possible.
You are either naive (paying the bill later) highly technical (for never fucking up coinjoins in the future nor the trade partners of yours) or you missed out on the biggest gains despite being early.
Afterall there were only two kinds of Bitcoiners early on. Cypherpunks that understood everything that is wrong with fiat and the privacy erosions in society and those that needed some Bitcoin to buy drugs on the Silkroad a use case that is now fully dominated by Monero because Monero means save transactions.
Exactly what I said.
Use and keep Bitcoin with small blocks - it's a protection.
Use Monero as digital cash.
Use Ethereum/BCH where it serves its purpose.
Ver was a late comer to BCH because he stupidly believed that one could argue and agree on certain things with Core/captured Blockstream, he then moved on stupidly endorsing the hijackers from the controlled opposition (you even citing CSW unlimited blocks is a testament for it).
Through buying Bitcoin.com and the @bitcoin handle Ver destroyed a lot of credibility.
I appreciate your effort to educate me.
“safe transactions” not “save transactions” right?
Let’s check back in a few years from now. Hopefully we’re both right.
Monero is still at 2010 prices.
Didn’t porn and video games decide who won between blue ray and dvd? You probably know the story better than I do.
Is there a reason everything must ride ontop of Bitcoin?
Valid point
Valid
Thanks, yes. Already corrected it.
I do think porn would choose Monero. That said the next revolution will be about weeding out weak states of mind that get easily seduced by it.
And one can find arguments why Bitcoin (transparent confrontation) or Monero (neutrality) are better at it or maybe you need both.
The argument for bitcoin always has and always will be that it is mankind's one single shot at trying to separate money from state. The challenge is that money itself, the very concept of it, is a network good, meaning that it lives & dies by the network effect. The more people that trade their dollars or altcoins or any other tokens in for bitcoin, the stronger it becomes, and the more successful we are at separating money from state.
Humanity is only going to get exactly 1 chance at doing that. Governments will see us coming miles away next time. They already see us, but bitcoin is too large for them to stop. Not so with any other coin. So if Bitcoin fails, for any reason, you can expect CDBCs to be the new definition of money for tens of thousands of years.
bitcoin is not scaling properly. when most people must use lightning through a trusted third party (like lightspark) it behaves identically to a CBDC. the bad thing is already happening right now! some of us have recognized that lightning cannot work at scale without depending on these bad companies and we are suggesting to do sidechains instead. if you still don't understand this we cannot understand it for you.
The only chad move then would be implementing the privacy changes that were prepared for Bitcoin, but only got implemented on Monero.
Let Monero be the test bed. How many more years do you need before implementing in Bitcoin?
This was the original definition of Bitcoin maximalism, before jerkoffs like Saylor and today’s Core sabotaged Bitcoin’s future. Altcoins were supposed to be demos that, when proven reliable, were to have their features integrated into Bitcoin. Instead Bitcoin’s entire “utility” became a bag to pawn off to retirees, useful idiots, and pension funds.
That's not a chad move, That's getting bitcoin banned in every jurisdiction like monero is. Meanwhile, bitcoin is extremely private if you know how to use it well. (Such as self-custodial lightning or eCash.) No need for monero once those are better implimented.
If you think Saylor and even core devs like Zhao have "Sabotaged bitcoin's future" then you think far too little of bitcoin. It's more resilient than you imagine, and has only gotten stronger each day of the last 17 years, not weaker.
Saylor has added a (very annoying) layer to bitcoin's interface to wall street. I wouldn't own that crap, but wall street traders, hedgefund managers, and others who play that game can appreciate. I'm very annoyed at it and all that ETF money moving the price of bitcoin around, but how does any of that change or weaken bitcoin's ability to produce a valid block every 10 minutes?
It doesn't, therefore bitcoin will succeed one day.
I can't image why you think "people must use lightning through a trusted third party (like lightspark)" First of all, who is lightspark? Never heard of them. Secondly, assuming your point is about custodial lightning solutions, why not use liquid, or eCash like Cashu? Or run your own lightning node and be your own custodian? Or just stay on chain for now because the cost of a TX is almost always 1 sat per byte these days.
The greatest thing about bitcoin's scaling solution is that it's not set in stone... It's a free market where anyone, from you to JP Morgan can add their own "layer 2 solutions" to make bitcoin payments practical. Many have, and the market will decide in time which everyone wants to use.
And by the way, liquid is a sidechain.
liquid is a completely fake thing. you give real bitcoins to a closed secret club of private companies, then they give you fake bitcoins on their own separate UTXO ledger which doesn't have proof of work or even proof of stake.
I can't tell if you're a bot or if you are just too stupid and lazy to read the documentation and figure out how things really work underneath all the marketing gloss. you're a useful idiot
By the way, you said: "Altcoins were supposed to be demos that, when proven reliable, were to have their features integrated into Bitcoin."
I bet you can't find a source from the old documentation (pre-2017) on that. I'm pretty sure that's a narrative invented by altcoiners and just repeated enough to gaslight bitcoiners.
Ossification is a VERY desirable property of a monetary system.
I was there, asswipe. everyone believed this
ok I guess I'm the idiot for talking to a bot for two days
And yet, it's a sidechain. You keep advocating for them.
I personally have nothing against federated custodianship like liquid and Fedi, but I trust bitcoin more so my money stays there. In theory it's far, far more reliable than the federal reserve since all of the companies invited to be a part of that federation are self-interested to protect bitcoin. (Their businesses would lose revenue if they harmed it.)
What would be your ideal sidechain?
How does Bitcoin losing value weaken Bitcoin’s ability to produce a valid block every ten minutes? How does people using other blockchains for literally every real world application of blockchains weaken Bitcoin’s ability to do so? It doesn’t! As long as Bitcoin produces a valid block every ten minutes it wins! Therefore, by your logic here, Bitcoin can fail in every conceivable manner, it can lose every single product application, but still “succeed” because you can jerk off to the current hashrate and block height. Well, most people want their money to do something other than be a masturbatory math problem.
In terms of Saylor specifically, he openly says Bitcoin is *done*. That it doesn’t need a security budget. That it doesn’t need any additional features. That LN works perfectly and needs no further work. And he specifically has sabotaged research grant orgs like OpenSats under this logic, going to their patrons and aggressively demanding that they withdraw their pledges of *free financial support* towards further Bitcoin development. Note that I have been in Bitcoin since sub-$5 and most OG Bitcoiners aggressively dispute Saylor’s ideas here:
X (formerly Twitter)
Eric Voskuil (@evoskuil) on X
More cringe every day.
X (formerly Twitter)
FRANCIS ⚜️ BULLBITCOIN.COM (@francispouliot_) on X
Pack it up everyone, no need to build anything anymore, we have already won. Governments are on our side and stablecoins on altcoin chains are goin...
Saylor is poisonous to Bitcoin’s success, unless you define Bitcoin success as merely more blocks being solved. Which, I agree, Bitcoin will continue having valid blocks, and the fee market will continue to be a fucking ghost town because people will continue to not use Bitcoin and the blocks will be fucking empty.
Lopp was also there, and he also says this was the real history openly:
X (formerly Twitter)
Jameson Lopp (@lopp) on X
For the first ~7ish years of Bitcoin, the prevailing narrative for why altcoins were doomed was that they were test networks. The idea being that B...
You can also find a ton of statements to this effect on OG Bitcoin-talk threads if you want to waste time searching. But I think from here this discussion is obviously over, because this “Luke” person was clearly either not there or is intentionally deceptive. He’s either a fucking idiot running his mouth or a liar, and I don’t have time to entertain either.
Then I'm guessing you were there to shitcoin. All the bitcoin maximalists I followed in those days would have argued against this narrative, excepting, of course, Roger Ver & Erik Voorheez, who later went on to shitcoin themselves.
The shitcoin-promoted narrative is the exact opposite. Luke Dashjr promotes an insane narrative that any steps to further the utility of the Bitcoin blockchain will make it a conspiracy to distribute child porn. Of course, the board of his company is run by shitcoiners. Shitcoiners own all the equity in the company that employs him.
"they would have completely agreed with my narcissistic jerkoff vision of Bitcoin” is hilariously solipsistic
>what would be your ideal sidechain
scroll up nigga. I'm done talking to you
But it's not a ghost town, sorry. You're just wrong about that. I think that just because you don't see all the different uses yourself you imagine that they don't exist at all. Even in the country of Peru alone I bet there is more bitcoin traffic than your mind would accept as a global number.
Meanwhile, taking the time to go search for this, even in the age of AI, wouldn't fit your narrative very well. How much would it hurt you to ask ChatGPT to compare bitcoin's global traffic, including all 2nd layers, to say, visa's traffic in terms of total money and transactions? I'm guessing it would only hurt your pride.
Adoption is a little ugly right now as it always is during the low part of the 4-year cycle, but not beneath the normal low point... Meanwhile new apps, communities, circular economies, and even network layers are being created at a more than encouraging pace.
& I don't care what Saylor thinks, I'm no MSTR fanboi. If he said it's done I'll be surprised, but he certainly hasn't sold many of his 840,000 BTC so even his own words are insignificant to his actions.
> But it's not a ghost town, sorry. You're just wrong about that.
Thankfully we can simply look at Bitcoin’s present-day fees and know that I am tangibly right and you a retarded liar. Fees are low because nobody is using Bitcoin.
LOL! You think that the present day fees are representative of bitcoin's TX throughput? ;p
Your assumption must be that lightning, liquid, eCash, Fedi, and other L2 solutions have all failed and didn't move any traffic off-chain. That's pretty pathetic, seriously.
You are tangibly wrong and the only retarded liar here.
It's exactly the other way round. Ossification had been invented 2014-2017 to establish a permanent capacity limit.
Nobody would have accepted the obvious downsides in Bitcoin (non fungible "money) in 2010-2012 if there would not have been a prospect to fix them.
Maybe you are only half the OG you claim to be, when you don't know about altcoins to be a test bed for Bitcoin things.
Bitcoin had 95% dominance until the blocksize debate heated up.
Ossification is a sign of mistrust in the ruling forces behind honest consensus- that have always been social. It fixes nothing. Allowance to fork (even by bad actors) makes this a permission less system.
I have my mistrust as well. I believe Bitcoin has long been captured. So what does ossification serve then, when it furthers BlackRock and the state?
No process to stop the universe doing its thing no matter how hard you want to ossify - learning and integrating by going through anticipated shit times is the norm.
Lol. Back in the day there were no shitcoins.
The first major shitcoin was Ripple and everybody in the space agreed on it.
Nobody would have dared to call Litecoin, or Peercoin or Namecoin a shitcoin. Maybe Feather as the only project that tried to build in demurrage.
Long term effects of fractional reserving means they control mining incentives. The very thing Bitcoin security is built around.
Read control plane capital if you want to understand more about how capturing a system in general works ( through long term incentives) and how Bitcoin got derailed.
You think our criticism is because we are haters. Lol, when I understoodBitcoin I shifted my whole life purpose to support the idea behind it. It's just that I don't see those ideas represented in Bitcoin anymore. Monero is what I thought Bitcoin would become by now.
Show us the numbers.
You can search merchants that publish their stats.
Usually Monero ranks first with a wide margin and it has 30k tx per day which is a factor of 100,000 times smaller than Visa.
Now LN makes up not even 5% of what Monero. So outside of very small informal communities where most people prefer "stableshitcoins" LN is only used to zap here on Nostr (same with fedi and cashu) and more recent to pay KYC Square terminals from mostly custodial LN wallets.
LN is a failure as is and it derailed Bitcoin adoption for 10 fucking years. 10 years the states needed and used to weaponise the system against cryptocurrency.
So you claim Bitcoin is not anti-fragile?
You are exposing little by little the larper you are. Early on we always assumed that the Bitcoin idea would end in a huge confrontation with the state.
We assumed that Bitcoin needs to make it in the underground first without regulatory approval. Why would the state invite its enemy?
But then everything changed. Bitcoin got embraced (kiss of death). While the state moved on to fight Monero.
In other words you fear for the fiat value you put into Bitcoin that now needs regulatory protection else NGL.
Thanks for clearing up your stance.
It is kind of parasitic in that way too since transactions happening on lightning don't pay miners transaction fees to secure the blockchain. If most transactions are supposed to happen on lightning in the future, and block subsidy is going away, who is going to pay miners?
Lightning works for now, but a Drivechain future seems more symbiotic and sustainable.
> LOL! You think that the present day fees are representative of bitcoin's TX throughput? ;p
Yes. The numbers are very obvious about this. In early 2022, there was over 83k LN channels. Today there is half that. The number of LN channels that are associated with CEX/swap services have increased massively as a percentage. Nobody is organically using LN. There’s also a thousand less BTC available as liquidity. A sixth of the network’s liquidity has disappeared as people head for the exits. All available data shows that LN capacity was not organically driven by real consumer usage, that capacity and liqudiity were established using unsustainable VC bonfires, and that virtually nobody is using Lightning regularly for commerce, there’s just not enough L1 activity of channel activity to make this giant LN economy in shitholes you claim real.
Bitcoin Visuals
Lightning Network Statistics - Bitcoin Visuals
Bitcoin lightning network dashboard with charts and statistics on nodes, channels, capacity, distance measures, completeness measures, clustering m...
they literally believe that the price of bitcoin will just keep doubling forever, or people (banks obviously) will pay huge fees to open and maintain lightning channels. that's their plan, in both the core and knots camps. they are both the same. and they get extremely angry at anyone who doesn't want to do this plan. they never want to talk about the security budget problem. it unravels the whole thing.
Yes, let's quote the organization behind bitcoin cash about lightning statistics. That'll surely win me away from lightning!
"All the available data" you are quoting here is hilarious. I already told you how to figure it out for yourself instead of listening to its' haters. But you won't, you're a poser.
And now you're muted. Have fun with your shitcoins.
Bitcoinvisuals.com is not behind Bitcoin cash. You can also just scrape the data for open lightning channels off the L1 blockchain right? This is not secret data.
Well yea isnt' it obvious?... it's working right now even when the mempool is empty because there is still a block subsidy
1. Using drivechains is optional though. People who don't trust it can completely ignore it. They never have to expose any of their funds to it and can continue using on-chain, lightning, ark, ecash, etc. Bit of irony considering the last three have a lot more trust assumptions than drivechains, but people are still okay with them.
2. You won't literally have to wait 3 months to get your coins if you don't want to. You can swap with other users on-chain or use services like Boltz that there will surely be a market for like every other coin. I think there is even a drivechain for decentralized exchanges already.
3. Honestly, I don't really have a strong opinion on this. It's kind of already shitcoinified isn't that the whole contention with BIP110 vs Core right now? At least with drivechains the incentives push people to do that off the L1. Most people already associate Bitcoin with crypto in general and use them interchangeably.
4. True
I don't think drivechains will likely happen either.
drivechain is happening in about a month and a half from now. it's just implemented to cause a chain split. core could copy and paste it later, or do covenants instead just to be different. I think you can accomplish merge-mined sidechains using covenants instead of hashrate escrows and some of their properties will be different/better
Yea I meant it's likely not happening on BTC. You're talking about Sztorcs Ecash right? Definitely interested in checking it out when it drops
I am rearranging my funds so that I can maximize my paul ecash airdrop... but I really think bitcoin should just get back on track with covenants and find a way to do it that way. paul can play with his hashrate escrows
You're talking about exceptional days with a lot of traffic though. I'm hardly surprised they were thriving. Kind of my point that miners will need a lot of traffic to make it worth their time once block subsidy fades away. Not once in a blue moon spikes. Where is all that traffic going to come from if it is expected that most users are going to transact off-chain on lightning, ark, ecash, etc in the future?
I need to think more about your last two paragraphs. Not sure if intermittent mining with excess energy would be enough to offset all the other hashrate that would be lost that would no longer feasible.
people who use altcoins were born on those days. people who think touching bitcoin L1 is a very very bad idea were born on those days. they never want to pay bitcoin miners again.
To keep roughly the same current total hashrate/security (or more) on only intermittent and excess energy? No, it's not so obvious to me why that would be the case. But sure if we make big optimistic assumptions I could see why you would think so (ALL energy producers in the world, no alternative more profitable uses of that energy, high transaction activity on-chain, etc)
