Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or asteroid mining
Asteroid mining would disrupt the market for many rare elements, but I think it could be less chaotic than people think. It's not going to be like the Gold Rush where a deposit was found and prospectors flocked to it. It'll be a massive undertaking, almost certainly with multiple nations working together to achieve. The time between the project becoming public and the resulting mined resources being delivered would g…
Ending Bitcoin Support
311–320 of 659 posts
Re: Ending Bitcoin Support
#312They 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…
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
The routing of transactions just won't work in a fully peer-to-peer network. Inevitably large "Tier 1" hubs, interconnected together, will surely be needed.
Djikstra or Bellman-Ford type algorithms won't scale to where they need to for anything else, likewise users won't maintain enough funds in channels to make potential routes usable.
Re: Ending Bitcoin Support
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I could certainly connect my own lightning node to the endurance lightning hub, but no one could pay me through that hub because the hub would first have to commit its own funds to its side of a payment channel with me. It won't do that... "hubs" are incentivized to open channels, because they can charge fees for any transactions that go "through" them. Locking up some BTC for a short amount of time (roughly 3 days…
Could you give an example of how to do what you're saying with the current testnet lightning network? Let's say I've installed the client, connected to the endurance hub (or to someone who has a connection to it) .. okay, now what do I need to do so I can get paid through the hub? If I understood you correctly, you seem to be missing the fact that a hub has to separately lock up money with every node that it's connec…
I don't think any of the main software setups right now allow increasing or setting a fee without recompiling it. They are getting the basics down still, and aren't working with fees really for the time being. At the moment, there are more than enough people willing to lock up their bitcoin for the testing of the network.
>If I understood you correctly, you seem to be missing the fact that a hub has to separately lock up money with every node that it's connected to
yes, but only "directly connected to"
>if that node expects to be paid through the hub.
no.
Think of it like a TCP/IP network. You don't need 20,000 connections to your house to browse the web, you need one connection to a hub, which has a handful in your own house, which connects to a bigger hub, which connects to another hub, which connects to another user/website.
>That is an absolutely stunning amount of money for any popular lightning hub.
I think the meaning of "locked" is wrong in this discussion. When you "lock" up money with a channel, it is only unavailable on the blockchain. The money in that channel is fully available to be spent in lightning network.
If we open a channel together and put in .5 BTC each, we can both spend that .5 BTC to other people on the network.
>Even if the hub is super-rich and super-benevolent, I have no way of asking it to lock up some funds on our channel
Again, the software does. You can set your "hub" to have a chunk of BTC that it is willing to "lock up" and allow it to accept channel open requests with anyone that has your address. And because that money is only "locked" for a few days (unless you want to prolong it), it's not a big deal because you can "get out" pretty quickly (even instantly if both parties are onboard).
>If anyone tries to pay me, they'll just get a "no route found" error message even if a route exists, because that route is not funded at every edge.
it's not a route unless it's funded. If there is a way to link a single line between you and who you want to transact with, it will work. More likely there will be several routes that it can take, and the network will optimize for the cheapest and least amount of hops.
The idea of an "unfunded channel" isn't really a thing, if I want to spend $500, i can "lock up" that $500, spend it, then keep the channel open for free forever. If at some point someone pays me $250, it can go right through that channel, and I can spend it later.
>A single buyer opening a channel with both me and the hub doesn't help unless the hub has funded its side of the channnel with that buyer, AND the buyer has funded his side of the channel with my coffee shop.
The act of "funding" a channel is opening one, so if there is a route, it's funded.
Also, another cool thing that is possible is the idea of "channel factories" where a bunch of people can open a "many to many" channel with one another, then from there can open and close channels in LN without touching the blockchain. This makes your worry obsolete because they can (again, without counterparty risk) open and close hundreds of channels a second if they want within their group, making it so they can open, receive, close, reopen with someone else, receive, close, etc... as much as they want.
That most likely won't happen for quite a while, but it's possible and will further reduce the cost of opening a channel in the first place to about 10% of an on-chain transaction for each party.
Re: Ending Bitcoin Support
#314Another day, another HN title changed without any clear rationale. Was the original "Stripe ends Bitcoin support" really so bad that it had to be changed to "Ending Bitcoin Support"?
Most of the time this is either an improvement or (as in this case) neutral.
I do wish they'd allow a little more editorializing, quite frankly. The linked title is not _always_ an improvement.
Re: Ending Bitcoin Support
#315I don't have any place to criticize at all but this seems pretty short-sighted. The primary criticism is low tps and fees… but that's exactly what lightning was invented to solve (edit: as I now see someone else mentioned)… and it's already working, in testing phase. Isn't it more effort to remove support then add it back again soon than just to wait a few months? So it /seems/ either something else is going on or th…
There is also no guarantee LN will ever see required adoption and scale to the level to solve the problems.
If they were smart they'd just move on to an altcoin and leave Bitcoin, at least till LN is up and proven working at scale on mainnet.
Re: Ending Bitcoin Support
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the problem with regulating anonymous transactions is you don't know who's doing them.
That's not a problem at all; just ban them. For example, I would predict that Coinbase and Gemini will never support Monero or ZCash.
Re: Ending Bitcoin Support
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not entirely convinced, although I’m partway there. When you “have” a Bitcoin, that means you have the private key to a wallet which the blockchain says has such-and-such amount in it. You can have that even if the miners all disappear. You can still use it to sign transactions, although they won’t get confirmed. You can even confirm them by mining a new block yourself with your transactions in it. (If all the mi…
> If all the miners are gone, the difficulty has hopefully dropped precipitously AFAIK there is no mechanism for the difficulty of new blocks to fall. And if the only use is creating transactions between yourself and yourself, well you can also collect gravel. > This doesn’t sound super useful, but it sounds about as useful as a bar of gold in a world where nobody considers gold to be valuable. Even in a sub-industri…
Re: Ending Bitcoin Support
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Has the ritual sacrifice angle been explored elsewhere? Would make for good video.
Re: Ending Bitcoin Support
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the problem with regulating anonymous transactions is you don't know who's doing them.
> the problem with regulating anonymous transactions is you don't know who's doing them Every government has departments of agents adept at tracing cash transactions. Bitcoin offers the advantage of total transactional transparency. Shady wallet? Trace back until you find a known wallet. An exchange, vendor, et cetera . Subpoena, find their counterparty, rinse and repeat. Best case: you find your guy. Consolation: mo…
By that same argument, the US could round up every illegal immigrant and deport them, or every casual drug user and lock them up for life. We don't do that because it'd be ruinously expensive (not to mention immoral) and transform us into a police state.
The combination of privacy coins + tumblers + crypto + VPNs + TOR will make it very hard for a government to punish motivated individuals short of extremely draconian measures, and changes the strategic calculus for the society as a whole.
Re: Ending Bitcoin Support
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Consider aluminium. At one point it was more expensive than gold (due to mining+refining challenges). When those were overcome the cost plummeted to it's current "cheap" level. Personally, I think a better comparison is to the diamond trade. Through a series of machinations (price fixing, artificial supply constraint, marketing) diamonds are deeply overvalued if you consider just the fundamentals of them - aka they'r…