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

The Lightning Network: Turning Bitcoin into Money

papers.ssrn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 448 posts

Re: The Lightning Network: Turning Bitcoin into Money

#81

Post by tvink »

azangru wrote: post #77
Hamuko wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bitcoin is the equivalent of gold That definitely wasn't the original goal of Bitcoin though.

> That definitely wasn't the original goal of Bitcoin though. What was the original goal of gold?

To quote the Bitcoin Whitepaper:

>A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution

It's fine that we've moved the goalpost as we've come to understand the limitations of this kind of blockchain, but it's also fine to highlight that "store of value that you can't directly transact with" was not what bitcoin was designed to accomplish, originally.

Re: The Lightning Network: Turning Bitcoin into Money

#82

Post by teekert »

Grumbledour wrote: post #80
teekert wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chris indeed pushes it hard, I think indeed too hard, I agree. But it's reducing and moving to other shows (like OfficeHours.hair). To him this is the response to centralization of podcasting and I see that. As a member (I do 8$ a month, supporting 1 show but listen to all) I also see the imbalance in the attention that 2ct boosts get. It will go 1 of 2 ways I guess: 1) Boosts become the main income and keep getting…

You are right and i should not even have mentioned him, because i don't support him (though i wanted to once) and so really have no grounds to complain. I let my annoyance get the better of me and it seems just mean now when i reread it. It also just undermines my skepticism and dislike of the podcasts 2.0 thing, which should have been my main point.

Well, fwiw, imho it's good criticism and skepticism is warranted and I agree with it. But it's early days.

I always warn here on HN that we should not throw the baby away with the bathwater, meaning, don't kill (or over-regulate) blockchain before it can grow into something nice (from the monster it is now). Imho these are the seeds of something nice, but it's not there yet. I can feel it coming though, because of things like Podcasting 2.0.

But again, podcasting 2.0 also enables (as you probably heard many times by now ;)) life streams right in the podcast app. It just displays a badge that your fav podcast is now life-streaming and you can participate. I think that is just really cool.

Using the blockchain again though, you can make instant donations through BTC lightning, and have your value 4 value boosts live-read as you listen. I mean, that is at least a bit cool right? The equivalent of throwing some cash... Hmm, this is going in the wrong direction again...

Re: The Lightning Network: Turning Bitcoin into Money

#83

Post by cowtools »

RileyJames wrote: post #58
Hamuko wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bitcoin is the equivalent of gold That definitely wasn't the original goal of Bitcoin though.

And surveillance capitalism wasn’t the original goal of the internet, yet here we are. What’s your point? A technology should achieve its founding goal or GTFO?

Goalposts moved.

Re: The Lightning Network: Turning Bitcoin into Money

#84

Post by kevinak »

FabHK wrote: post #56
teekert wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not on the receiving end, but to me this seems like the law is behind reality. Micropayments are coming, perhaps using blockchain, perhaps not, probably in a number of different ways. I guess this is a good question for the hosts of the podcasts that use these features (Like Linux Unplugged, and other shows from Jupiter Broadcasting or the No Agenda show by Adam Curry and John Dvorak.) Perhaps this is not answere…

> Micropayments are coming, perhaps using blockchain Blockchain is remarkably ill-suited for micropayments.

The subject of this thread is the literal solution to micropayments using “blockchains”. And it works amazingly well! “

Re: The Lightning Network: Turning Bitcoin into Money

#85

Post by TradingPlaces »

koheripbal wrote: post #74
TradingPlaces wrote: post #68

“We can make the blockchain actually work for payments if we take payments off the blockchain.” Sounds about right.

It's essentially a form of sharing, with lesser secure channels for less important transactions.

You say “less important;” I say “vast majority.” How is this better than Visa or MC?

Re: The Lightning Network: Turning Bitcoin into Money

#86

Post by kevinak »

TekMol wrote: post #48
DennisP wrote: post #44

One drawback of Lightning is that if you want to receive funds, and you don't have a direct channel to the payer, then you have to be online. It's an interactive protocol, you can't just publish an address and check it later. Since most people don't run their own servers, LN is pretty much going to be a custodial system.

If you have a lightning channel to the custodial service you use, you can transfer the funds to yourself any time though. So in contrast to a fiat bank, where you keep your funds permanently, you could use a "lightning bank" just to hold last nights payments and transfer them to yourself every morning. Or you automate the withdrawl to take place every hour. And: Couldn't your phone be your server? The way I understan…

Here’s a wallet that runs a node on your phone: https://blixtwallet.github.io

Re: The Lightning Network: Turning Bitcoin into Money

#87

Post by victorvosk »

TradingPlaces wrote: post #68

“We can make the blockchain actually work for payments if we take payments off the blockchain.” Sounds about right.

BTC and a lot of other chains are Level 1 (L1). Final settlement layers for transactions. To compare that to normal banking, your credit card is like an L5. Tons of things go on in-between your CC transactions before its actually settled even if it appears to be instant and final to the end user.

Truth is crypto enthusiasts have been overly ambition in this space, insisting a single L1 chain will come along and be the solution.

The average user A) Doesn't care and B) needs a higher level transaction layer that is flexible, where charges can be reversed or funds restored in the presence of theft or fraud. That stuff happens all the time in real life.

There is no way to improve the blockchain as currency UX without a centralized mediator(s) for average people. People get scammed all the time despite there being dozens of safety nets in place. How is that going to work when an attacker just needs your crypto keys to steal your entire net worth?

Re: The Lightning Network: Turning Bitcoin into Money

#89

Post by WinstonSmith84 »

tvink wrote: post #81
azangru wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That definitely wasn't the original goal of Bitcoin though. What was the original goal of gold?

To quote the Bitcoin Whitepaper: >A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution It's fine that we've moved the goalpost as we've come to understand the limitations of this kind of blockchain, but it's also fine to highlight that "store of value that you can't directly transact with" was not what…

Quote to take maybe with a pinch of salt. Having been smart enough to invent Bitcoin, one could assume that Satoshi knew that waiting 10 minutes for a block time to be finalized along with a speed of 7tx/s was not going to be practical to go shopping ... regardless of tx fees. Something had to be invented, and this was just not there at the time of this whitepaper

Re: The Lightning Network: Turning Bitcoin into Money

#90

Post by cowtools »

protonbob wrote: post #49
TekMol wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you handle the tax implications of streaming sats? As far as I know, every payment with Bitcoin triggers a taxable event? Do you record a gazillion log entrys "Paid $0.0000145 for listening podcasts, Paid $0.000142 for listening podcasts ...", crunch all the numbers and then at the end of the year put that gigantic list into your tax declaration?

I think this is one of those circumstances where you just don't tell the IRS. Just like running a garage sale or a lemonade stand.

lemonade stands do not keep an easily accessible eternal log of their payments
Post reply on HN