First Lightning mainnet release

Post by nosuchthing » Thu, Mar 15, 2018, 6:40 PM UTC

brendanw wrote: post #38

jgeerts wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we ever want Bitcoin to evolve from a store of value to an actual payment method we have to come up with something that does at least better than VISA's 8000tx/s and that's just not solved with going from 7tx/s to Bitcoin Cash's ~62tx/s. We have to be able to compete with every payment method out there and we should be able to handle peak throughput during sales period. Another important factor is the 10 minutes c…

It exists. It is called nano: no fees and instant transactions through the block lattice. https://nano.org/en/whitepaper I am surprised more folks on HN are not familiar with nano considering it is one of the few teams in crypto with endorsements from familiar faces: Zack Shapiro on the core team (ex-Product Hunt), Garry Tan (YC, angel investor in Coinbase), and Charlie Lee (former director of engineering @ Coinbase)…

  The initial distribution of XRB was performed through 
  "manual mining" limited via a captcha. 
  The distribution rate was 
  17 XRB (Raiblocks) per hour per ip4.

Post by gruez » Thu, Mar 15, 2018, 6:40 PM UTC

Erlangolem wrote: post #53

darawk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why trusted intermediaries like banks will arise. They will be responsible for monitoring the channels, and they'll do a good job of it. The important distinction, however, is that you will still have the option of broadcasting transactions to the main blockchain for a fee. Which means that you still have ultimate sovereignty over your funds.

So like banks, but with a much darker recent history of taking the money and running, none of the stability, and none of the insurance. All traded for the dubious benefit of broadcasting transactions to the blockchain, which seems like an empty sop to principle. I don’t care how many times “ultimate sovereignty” gets thrown around like it means anything important outside of a few narrow circles. As a currency Bitcoin…

Post by Erlangolem » Thu, Mar 15, 2018, 6:41 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #63

Erlangolem wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So like banks, but with a much darker recent history of taking the money and running, none of the stability, and none of the insurance. All traded for the dubious benefit of broadcasting transactions to the blockchain, which seems like an empty sop to principle. I don’t care how many times “ultimate sovereignty” gets thrown around like it means anything important outside of a few narrow circles. As a currency Bitcoin…

>but with a much darker recent history of taking the money and running there's nothing to steal. nobody is "holding" your money for you.

Post by gruez » Thu, Mar 15, 2018, 6:43 PM UTC

blattimwind wrote: post #49

siwatanejo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but using a "virtual" money that doesn't have counterparty risk, and cannot be counterfeited by anyone.

Since when eliminates Bitcoin counterparty risk? Also, counterfeit notes may be an issue, but counterfeit transfers are not.

Post by tlrobinson » Thu, Mar 15, 2018, 6:50 PM UTC

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #9

Serious question, why does HN seemt o be in favor of lightning over BCH’s approach of not neutering the block size? LN has so many drawbacks. Have to always be online, need to hold hot walkets, need liquidity provided at both ends (kyc/aml)...