Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ending Bitcoin Support

stripe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 659 posts

Re: Ending Bitcoin Support

#171

Post by exit »

ActsJuvenile wrote: post #105
nvk wrote: post #8

They should have replaced it with Lightning Network, is amazingly fast and cheap and works on top of Bitcoin. I'm running a test node, this stuff really works! > Lightning is a decentralized network using smart contract functionality in the blockchain to enable instant payments across a network of participants. In case you are curious https://lightning.network and another good resource here https://www.reddit.com/r/B…

Lightning needs two additional transactions to load and unload payment channels, maximum transaction amount is 0.04 BTC, and it is at least 1 year away from maturity for large scale deployment. Current price bubble will bust long before that, and no one will care about LN anymore.

> maximum transaction amount is 0.04 BTC

really? i haven't seen this anywhere before. can you cite a source?

Re: Ending Bitcoin Support

#172

Post by IncRnd »

nvk wrote: post #45
wyldfire wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article does mention it. > We’re interested in what’s happening with Lightning and other proposals to enable faster payments. Please be careful about promoting LN. It's great tech, yes. > this stuff really works! * yes, but please don't actually use it with money yet. [1] [1] https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning#project-status

I think they are being over cautious (other implementations are not as concern), but yes still in testing. There are over 100 nodes, doing a bunch of transactions no money lost.

Has there been a threat model performed by a security person (not a developer)?

Functional testing only goes so far and stops at the assumption that the code and design are correct.

Re: Ending Bitcoin Support

#173

Post by schoen »

criddell wrote: post #130
nxsynonym wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I hate the comparison of crypto to gold or any other "value asset'. Houses are lived in. Stocks act as a cashflow for companies. Even if the world economy collapses you can still use a solid gold bar as a blunt instrument to kill an animal and eat it. Cryptocurrencies have exactly 0 secondary uses.

What's the secondary use of all the shares of AMZN one might have in their eTrade account? That's also just data, right?

I guess their secondary use is offering them in support of a prospective acquisition (or dissolution) of Amazon, in exchange for which the acquirer or trustee would offer some other value at that time.

These events both seem very unlikely right now, but they provide a last-resort value for an ownership interest in Amazon.

(I don't mean to support other people in this thread who are criticizing cryptocurrencies for their lack of inherent value, but stocks do have a particular basis for their value that cryptocurrencies commonly don't.)

Re: Ending Bitcoin Support

#174

Post by emodendroket »

EnFinlay wrote: post #164
nulagrithom wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What future does an asset have if people don't actually buy stuff with it? I look at it (maybe naively) like a solid gold bar. You're not going to walk in to a convenience store and pay with a bar of solid gold; you might flee the country with one though. Beyond that, I totally agree with your read on the post. Linking the pull request[0] was especially backhanded. It feels like there's some underlying frustration…

Reading your comment finally made it click to me why cryptocurrencies (specifically Bitcoin) are distinct from a gold bar or other non-currency stores of value. A gold bar is going to remain a gold bar forever, people's perception of its value will change even though the supply will remain mostly steady, but it will stay a gold bar no matter what. Bitcoin may change in value based on perception, it's supply will rema…

To be fair, people could also stop thinking gold is worth much. Maybe a modern-day alchemist finally figures out the formula. I don't know. Probably far less likely than the Bitcoin scenarios though.

Re: Ending Bitcoin Support

#175

Post by emodendroket »

marshray wrote: post #119
0xcafecafe wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gold as a metal has an inherent value though. If not only for jewelry, it also has important uses in electronics. The value associated with bitcoin seems purely sentimental.

Very little though. If the demand for gold were merely industrial it would not need to be mined in such quantities as it has throughout history. I would put jewelry in the 'sentimental' category as well. Not only is Bitcoin purely sentimental, it represents has huge costs in the form of raw energy. Bitcoin's only claim to value is that it is an artifact of an act of ritual sacrifice. One might imagine a precedent in…

> Not only is Bitcoin purely sentimental, it represents has huge costs in the form of raw energy.

> Bitcoin's only claim to value is that it is an artifact of an act of ritual sacrifice. One might imagine a precedent in some system of tokens issued by some ancient priesthood.

I mean, in this respect the analogy to gold is not an awful fit.

Re: Ending Bitcoin Support

#176

Post by PKop »

underwires wrote: post #140
Klathmon wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A full-scale LN needs one transaction to get on the network, then loading and unloading can happen entirely on the network, as well as keeping the channel open indefinitely. Obviously getting to that point will take quite a lot of work, but there is no reason why you ever need to close a payment channel unless someone is trying to break the rules (and if that happens, you'll be happy, because you'll end up with all o…

But (correct me if I'm wrong) payment channels are connected to particular sets of recipients, but not necessarily any and all recipients. Your money is locked into that channel until you close it. You might need to open a different channel to reach your actual recipient.

This is why the Lightning network is something more than just payment channels. If you have 2 or more channels open on the network, you are a node that can have payments routed through.

Same with trying to pay someone on the network whom you do not have an open channel with: the LN's purpose is to facilitate a network of channels.

Certainly hubs will form, but there should be many of them, and if there's a path to your recipient, you don't need a dedicated channel with them.

Re: Ending Bitcoin Support

#177

Post by sillysaurus3 »

criddell wrote: post #144
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The incentive can also be funded with transaction fees. If the output value of a transaction is less than its input value, the difference is a transaction fee that is added to the incentive value of the block containing the transaction. Once a predetermined number of coins have entered circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation free." It's the design, folks. Re…

Of legacy electronics payment systems and their need to be mediator, Satoshi says this: > The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions If enabling small casual transactions was one of the goals, then they've failed terribly on that point.

BS. Bitcoin had small casual transactions up until recently. It was one of its main selling points.

Again, people don't like Satoshi's endgame vision. This is working as designed. Bitcoin was designed to evolve into this. It was not intended to stay static; it's in the whitepaper.

Break out of the groupthink. It's worth realizing when everyone around you is being irrational.

Re: Ending Bitcoin Support

#178

Post by a13n »

montrose wrote: post #15

This reads a bit like the sort of things people say when breaking up so as not to upset the other person too much. You're a great person, but you're just more of an asset than a medium of exchange, and what I need in my life right now is a medium of exchange. What future does an asset have if people don't actually buy stuff with it? That is not a purely rhetorical question; cryptocurrencies change things a lot. But t…

I think they're being careful not to signal a negative sentiment towards crypto, because they're still bullish on crypto being the future of payment infra. Just bearish of BTC.

Re: Ending Bitcoin Support

#179

Post by emodendroket »

Goladus wrote: post #170
moduspol wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What future does an asset have if people don't actually buy stuff with it? Lots of assets have value without people buying things with them. Gold, houses, stocks, etc. The more interesting question is how long Bitcoin will remain top dog merely as a store of value if other cryptocurrencies solve this on-chain / off-chain scaling problem better / faster. There's definitely some amount of value in the name alone, and…

> Lots of assets have value without people buying things with them. Gold, houses, stocks, etc. That value is predicated on the notion that they're worth something to the holder apart from their market price. Gold can be used for jewelry and electronics manufacturing. In that sense it is a natural resource. Stocks are shares in a company that runs a business or multiple businesses that could be profitable. Companies h…

Besides that, there's a certain shifting of the goalposts going on when people who used to talk about Bitcoin replacing all the world's currencies instead start talking about the rising value of Bitcoin.

Re: Ending Bitcoin Support

#180

Post by madeofpalk »

freeone3000 wrote: post #148
avenoir wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With South Korea trying to regulate anonymous trading on Korean exchanges, makes me wonder how long we have before regulations become more widespread. And if this happens do you think privacy coins even stand a chance?

Well, the problem with regulating anonymous transactions is you don't know who's doing them.

You don't have to regulate the transactions, you just have to regulate the usage of them.
Post reply on HN