"There's no reason to accept on-chain payments for retail"
High-follower-count npubs are not your friends.
View quoted note β
View quoted note →
Login to reply
Replies (75)
People should use this template more for my notes too. π€£
Iβve seen the full spectrum of P2P transactions and retail must have instant settlement. Onchain transactions can happen daily, or weekly, but theyβre not going to be ideal for most vendors outside substantial size transactions.
Micropayments will not happen onchain, not on BTC.
Didn't ask
Yeah, I really don't understand how people don't get this. With a 10m block time, Bitcoin was never intended for typical retail... BY DESIGN!
It is P2P, not retail. Certainly some retail applications could easily use it... like buying a car. But, most couldn't. No one is going to stand in the grocery store at the register, waiting 10m to a half hour or more, for their grocery purchase to clear. It doesn't matter if the fee were only 1 Satoshi.
This is the reason every attempt so far has failed. BCash. BSV. Any other on-chain shitcoin. No measurable retail adoption.
I don't think the example was a grocery store.
Did you mean to change the subject to how you're against Bitcoin grocery stores (which you correctly assume I support), or are you just going along with a the thoughtlessly-harass-whoeverlovesDigit bandwagon?
Typical whoever stalks Digit response:
βDonβt debate me on the topic, everyone is harassing me!β
Digit is our token retard. Village idiot.
This is actually the same reason that stablecoins on-chain will ultimately fail. If they ever have to scale to the ultimate demands of real mass-adoption, they will be bottlenecked by blockchain limitations and rising transaction (gas) fees.
Lightning solves this.
My Bluesky ban was based on accusations of me singlehandedly doing harassment on my own, with one Bluesky account
I think a horde of people coordinating to gang up on me with retarded gaslighting and shit counts
If it doesn't, then surely one person arguing doesn't either, so have you made similar complains to Bluesky on my behalf for fairness' sake, or are you banned from Bluesky now too?
That was where we first met, remember, and I remember you siding with the gangstalkers there too
There's more than one blockchain, believe it or not
Lightning doesn't solve this
Doggie coin, Monero, and critical thinking solve this
Nope
I'm a highly intelligent person who gets targeted with harassment and gaslighting because I'm a threat to the global military industrial complex and associated deep state arms
And Digit is a friend I met on wallstreetbets who's even smarter than me (but not as sane, seemingly)
And Digit is a friend I met on wallstreetbets who's even smarter than me (but not as sane, seemingly)
View quoted note →
A layer two solution that handles all the micro payments throughout the day, with an on-chain settlement at the end of business (daily/weekly) is very feasible and one node can handle all the micropayments of a massive shopping mall
My main point from the original thread is still the most important one, which is that if you want to accept lightning and not Bitcoin, then don't call it Bitcoin.
Lying to me about accepting Bitcoin makes me much more likely to avoid your business
Ah yesβ¦when all else fails, the shitcoins come out! 
Or maybe⦠
Doggie coin and Monero aren't shitcoins
Lightning is an absolute shitcoin
I don't see how this answers what I said
That seems to be a trend with your replies
Please try again
Weak gaslighting attempt, glowie
Yeah, and that is really how most businesses operated up until things went digital. Someone went to a bank, and got a bunch of change and put in cash drawers and their vault. Then, settled up with the bank and their accounts. Repeated each day.
That's not good
Except now they donβt need the bank.
In China, they transact via QR code and personal wallets with no need for a bank. Nobody has cash or credit cards, even old people and poor people transact with their phone - everyone has one.
The technical infrastructure is already there, but bitcoin will make the process decentralizedβ¦ so you canβt be debanked.
Because they can use a proof of work blockchain instead of lightning or a checking account
For ultimate settlement. Not small payments. This is not a hard concept to understand.
I use proof of work blockchains instead of lightning or a checking account regardless of the size of the payment
This is not a hard concept to understand
Accepting lightning without Bitcoin might make me a little more likely to avoid your business even if you're honest about it
But lying about it definitely makes me a lot more likely to avoid your business
Good for you, buddy. This is why youβre special.
There is also pphil or pphrank or whatever his name is who goes around telling people Bitcoin will never work.
No, I'm special because I've met Digit
It still doesn't seem like you've given a proper response to this btw - might as well mute me if you can't handle responding properly to everything in a discussion
My Bluesky ban was based on accusations of me singlehandedly doing harassment on my own, with one Bluesky account
I think a horde of people coordinating to gang up on me with retarded gaslighting and shit counts
If it doesn't, then surely one person arguing doesn't either, so have you made similar complains to Bluesky on my behalf for fairness' sake, or are you banned from Bluesky now too?
That was where we first met, remember, and I remember you siding with the gangstalkers there too
View quoted note →
Damn Bitcoin. Get a job!
That's literally what the thread you're in is doing while they accuse me of being the "village idiot" you fucking retard
Yeah, it has flaws, but worked for hundreds (thousands?) of years. We can now do much better with digital and eliminate some of the flaws.
The problem, I think, with saying now that we're digital, we'll just bypass the above model, is that there are tradeoffs. If we just do everything direct, then we run into that chain-bloat situation.
Going to a somewhat parallel model to the 'cash drawer' (like Lightning), solves the chain-bloat problem, but has to accept a few tradeoffs.
And while they call me Digit even though she's even smarter than me, why the fuck conflate us? She doesn't even like me. Disrespectful as fuck
Imagine basing your entire online persona around somebody who never wants to hear from you again.
Soft money never worked usefully, it only worked for harming and killing
I don't have to imagine
Weird how you're telling me to imagine my real life while you can't handle imagining it yourself
You also still haven't properly followed up on your statement about "harassment" here - might as well mute me if you're just going to keep spamming new bullshit without following up on any of it
My Bluesky ban was based on accusations of me singlehandedly doing harassment on my own, with one Bluesky account
I think a horde of people coordinating to gang up on me with retarded gaslighting and shit counts
If it doesn't, then surely one person arguing doesn't either, so have you made similar complains to Bluesky on my behalf for fairness' sake, or are you banned from Bluesky now too?
That was where we first met, remember, and I remember you siding with the gangstalkers there too
View quoted note →
Nah, Iβm not going to address all your compounding grievances. Thatβs what therapy is for.
First thing you're making me repeat:
Weak gaslighting attempt, glowie.
Second thing you're making me repeat:
might as well mute me if you're just going to keep spamming new bullshit without following up
Both with 1 reply, after making me repeat myself a bunch of times already in other replies
You're truly bad at reading
View quoted note β
Lightning is not actually Bitcoin. You're the one whose understanding isn't right, here.
Lightning can be inflated, but is valued as much as Bitcoin, which can't be inflated, as long as it continues to be redeemable for Bitcoin, which it inevitably can't always do because it can be inflated
On-chain Bitcoin doesn't get its value from being redeemable for a currency it undermines - unless you're swing trading it for USD
Oh shit so lighting is essentially like an IOU for Bitcoin?
The same way cash was an IOU for gold before the gold standard got dropped?
For some users at least
I don't know if it's like this for people that run their own node, the issue for them is just that they need to maintain a constant internet connection as far as I know
But lightning promotes custodial wallet usage, which results in inflation, and sometimes average users like me lose money
My technical understanding is limited too, but it seems like lightning requires a constant internet connection for custody, and a lot of people are forced or pressured into using third-party custody and sometimes losing money
Thatβs completely false. Lightning has a unilateral exit on-chain. Ecash and custodial wallets are IOUs, though.
I'm going to have to look up what that means
I don't think so
As far as I know, lightning is basically impossible to fully self-custody (unlike Bitcoin), due to requiring a constant internet connection, and thus it forces people to use third-party custody and sometimes lose money
Of course it's kinda pointless to reply to you when you just spam abusive bullshit without following up on your own statements
My Bluesky ban was based on accusations of me singlehandedly doing harassment on my own, with one Bluesky account
I think a horde of people coordinating to gang up on me with retarded gaslighting and shit counts
If it doesn't, then surely one person arguing doesn't either, so have you made similar complains to Bluesky on my behalf for fairness' sake, or are you banned from Bluesky now too?
That was where we first met, remember, and I remember you siding with the gangstalkers there too
View quoted note →
Repeatedly timing out for me
If you use some trash VPN that doesn't get blocked by shitty websites, you should use archive links before blindly having people go to whatever URLs you can access
Checked an archive link and still don't see your point
Makes sense, you've already established your intent to just spam bullshit you can't handle properly following up on
My Bluesky ban was based on accusations of me singlehandedly doing harassment on my own, with one Bluesky account
I think a horde of people coordinating to gang up on me with retarded gaslighting and shit counts
If it doesn't, then surely one person arguing doesn't either, so have you made similar complains to Bluesky on my behalf for fairness' sake, or are you banned from Bluesky now too?
That was where we first met, remember, and I remember you siding with the gangstalkers there too
View quoted note →
No, I'm sorry, it's definitely redeemable for Bitcoin
You don't have any on chain Bitcoin until you've redeemed lightning balance with an on chain transaction
Again, it seems to mainly be a result of lightning's constant internet demands making it impossible to fully self-custody
It's not self-custody if it requires a constant internet connection, and many people don't have constant internet connections so they end up with fully third-party custody. These are problems with the thing itself. Bitcoin doesn't have these problems
And if you want to have these problems, fine, but if you want to try to force me to have the same problems by confusingly calling your thing the same name as my thing and polluting search results, that's not fine
True, your Satoshis in your Lightning wallet need to be moved on-chain (from your perspective) to end up in your on-chain Bitcoin wallet. But, behind the scenes, they were Satoshis which were taken into a multi-sig situation to be made available to Lightning network accounting.
The point, though, is that Lightning isn't some other coin or token being redeemed for Bitcoin. If you use that language, it becomes confusing. The accounting is being done off-chain, but it is for real Satoshis in real Bitcoin wallets.
No, calling Bitcoin lightning is the confusing language
At this point you're being disingenuous willingly
I have never seen proof of a self-custody lightning node existed
I'm guessing yours is self-managed custody via (and relying on) the internet, not self-custody
*existing
Not really... custody doesn't mean something is real or not. If I have a bar of gold at my home, or a bar of gold in some bank vault, they are both gold.
And they are not both self custody
And a piece of paper representing the gold in the vault is not the same thing as a piece of gold
I haven't used any terms incorrectly here.
You can call it "lightning," thats its name.
I'm fine with calling it "Bitcoin lightning," especially if you're careful not to forget the "lightning" in contexts where that will make people confuse it with actual Bitcoin.
I can even forgive mistakes, if you're not the kind of person who keeps making the same "mistake" willingly to be confusing on purpose.
I can even recognize the self-awareness of a liar who accepts criticism for lying, instead of deflecting it with false accusations of the critics being the ones using terms "incorrectly" or "confusingly."
I never compared Lightning to ETH, as you imply I did - and if I had pointed out that both are not Bitcoin, that wouldn't even be incorrect.
I never called redeeming third-party-custody lightning for actual on-chain Bitcoin "using an exchange," as you imply I did - and if I had, that wouldn't even be incorrect.
I definitely never called redeeming self-hosted lightning for Bitcoin "using an exchange," as you imply I did - that would arguably be incorrect.
Stop being so fucking sick.
It's still not self-custody, it's self-managed internet-reliant custody
Bitcoin can be self-custodied by basically anyone
It is the same because it pressures people to use third-party custody where they don't know if the custodian has 100 of the bitcoins they deposited or 0
But if you're only looking at people who self-host, it's more like knowing the bank has 100 minus whatever you know has been taken away, but not knowing if the bank is keeping that amount or going down to 0, or anywhere in between, depending on how reliable your internet connection is. Something like that. Not quite sure, but definitely not the same as simply having a piece of gold
I have used all those terms exactly correctly and everything I've implied with them is true.
Now you're acting like I brought up "people with no internet"
You're never going to understand if you keep trying not to understand
I'm glad we agree on that last part, which you hinted at earlier and I should have noticed
I guess I just disagree there. Those terms all imply something other than accounting practices are going on with Satoshis. They are terms we use when talking about other aspects of crypto, which many Bitcoiners are somewhat opposed to.
As mentioned, I have no issue if we're just using them in casual conversation. But, I think they can imply something is going on that isn't, especially if the argument is that Lightning isn't Bitcoin.