71–80 of 216 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
Whoever is running my node 24/7 is, if I want the convenience of money. If I’m using a paper wallet and a bank vault, I might as well buy platinum, for which demand is more than a phantom.
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…
So it has to go from 7 tx/sec to 7k tx/sec or it's not worth doing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but routers aren't responsible for keeping my money safe. If you don't constantly monitor all your LN channels, the other party can just steal your money by issuing fraudulent messages to the network.
Someone can setup "watchdog" services that you can give your revocation transactions to and they can watch the blockchain for any attempts to "steal" your money and if any are found they can instantly broadcast the revocation. Doing it this way you don't give the "watchdog" service any control of your BTC, just the ability to broadcast countersignatures, which means there is still no counterparty risk here. You could…
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…
If you don't think it means something, then Bitcoin is not for you. But to basically all of the investors in gold, this is the property they care about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)…
Nano and other non-linear/DAG chains are interesting, but it seems more difficult to reason about the consensus properties. Have any (neutral) 3rd parties done thorough analyses of them? I saw Charlie Lee's reddit post asking questions about Nano ( https://www.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/80c6fg/questi... ). Did he follow up with an endorsement?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whoever is running my node 24/7 is, if I want the convenience of money. If I’m using a paper wallet and a bank vault, I might as well buy platinum, for which demand is more than a phantom.
Yes, but there will be a liquid market in such nodes. Finding them will never be a problem.
How? You need to trust those nodes to provide not only a secure but also reliable service that will be online 24/7. A single outage, even if its only a minute long, can possibly lose you all your money in all channels. This means that centralization will happen almost immediately as high-availability is a very complex topic that is not achievable by amateurs. Especially when you are talking about more than 5 nines and actually mean 100%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't speak for anyone else, but for me personally I just don't like the approach of trying to solve the problem by throwing more disk space at it. It feels... inelegant, and probably unsustainable long term. Imagine for a minute a future where Bitcoin goes mainstream and needs to process ~2k transactions per second. (A reasonable estimate of the world's current credit card transaction rate, and 3 orders of magnitu…
This is a really bizarre rational, disk space is insanely cheap and simply storing the blockchain does nothing to actually validate transactions or contribute to the network. 8000GB drives cost about $150 now. Storage is getting cheaper. Why not change the PoW hash algo to avoid costly ASICs and help decentralize the more important aspect of blockchain transaction verification?
That's enough to handle the blockchain size increasing by one order of magnitude. I just talked about a scenario where it could conceivably increase by 3.
Storage is indeed cheap, but not _that_ cheap. Unless you're envisioning a scenario where only large stakeholders like miners and exchanges ever have to store a full copy of the blockchain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whoever is running my node 24/7 is, if I want the convenience of money. If I’m using a paper wallet and a bank vault, I might as well buy platinum, for which demand is more than a phantom.
Yes, but there will be a liquid market in such nodes. Finding them will never be a problem.
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…
> I don’t care how many times “ultimate sovereignty” gets thrown around like it means anything important outside of a few narrow circles. If you don't think it means something, then Bitcoin is not for you. But to basically all of the investors in gold, this is the property they care about.
Most people who diversify into gold are not entertaining the fantasy that their governments don’t still control their fates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it has to go from 7 tx/sec to 7k tx/sec or it's not worth doing?
No, but if you're someone who wants to see Bitcoin succeed then you probably don't want to use a scaling solution which only works if you assume Bitcoin will never achieve mainstream adoption.
But, that's exactly what happened with segwit. Why is that worth doing but increasing the block size is not?