Tell me how it wont
Discussion
It's really simple math...
Zap me 21 sats with zero fee.
bc1qjtgh7dsta6824r84pzgwg6zjxvfqgam44tcntg
Exactly my point.
On chain is the way to go.
If the fee environment ever got so bad you couldn’t make a transaction on the main chain you wouldn’t bother opening up a lightning channel.
I’m still waiting for my on-chain zap. Going to sleep now, I’ll check for it when I wake up and see if it ever confirms.
https://mempool.space/address/bc1qjtgh7dsta6824r84pzgwg6zjxvfqgam44tcntg
Keep avoiding my question.
And by the way with xmr you can send as much as you want for the price of a zap (practically)
Send some and find out
8A8rKP1bDtvC7HYhedPidPHxJU6tfWtM9EPPzhMntia858UmHh4FnfmRLnokbcddEdiSgWWveftcyQAJttTGhWBkAyjB4Dv
I’ll be waiting….
This isnt a reasonable comparison, one processes and stores far more value than the other. If monero had the userbase bitcoin did, with your dynamic block sizes, running a full node would be difficult and a centralizing force.
Also:
+non interactive
+no hot wallet necesary
+no routing problems to deal with
+can send any arbitrarily large amount without failing
+don't have to make sure you have enough capacity to recieve a payment
+truly private
All this while remaining completely non custodial, p2p, and permissionless
You would, because lightning channels allow you to connect with almost anyone on the market, send and receive with low fees. Of course lightning itself wont scale to billions of people in its current state either, its like the double entry ledger to the physical movement of gold (on chain transactions).
Lightning in practice is not p2p. Due to it's nature it consolidates into massive nodes people must route thru if you want the cheapest fees and transactions that don't fail.
LN limits the value you can transfer.
Arguably not final settlement (Nothing is until on chain)
You can be force closed making you pay on chain fees anyway.
npub169n9eaf0t20j0nefwqlqtnqcpsym22k2nw6e3tevtrrru4et7wrsh5w47v
And ~96% of users are on custodial wallets because of its terrible sovereign UX.
Many other problems besides these...all of these sacrfices to be able to scale and it still can't scale. What a bad trade.
Its a layer, it has different persumptions and provides different features. It is a final settlement, given the assumptions of lightning the bitcoin in the channel is owned by whoever has it in their balance, theres no need for a layer 1 transaction to take custody of it because its not in your counterparties vault, its in a channel with an enforceable claim; layer 1 transactions will be relegated to shifting liquidity, not final settlement. Maybe that doesnt provide the space for 8 billion lightning nodes, which most people are never going to run anyways, but it does provide room for millions/tens of millions of lightning nodes. I know you want a perfect digital bearer asset that can be sent like a text message without counterparty risk or scaling issues, with perfect security and privacy, that is absolutely scarce like bitcoin with google level UI, and I know you want it yesterday, but 1. Monero provide that either and never will, and 2. this is a problem thats plagued humanity for millenia and we are going about as fast as we can, so strap in.
As long as you have an active node and channel state backups or trust another person to do it. The potential to be rugged by your peers or channel host is always there after you make a transaction. This caveat doesn't exist for L1. Once the transaction is sufficiently confirmed you can't be rugged. It is final. Maybe there is a different term for it.
Worse, in practice, most lightning users don't even use it this way. They use it custodially.
I'm willing to entertain trade offs. But we're throwing away major value props of Bitcoin for scalability. The few things that differentiate it from fiat.
Defeats the whole purpose.
Once funds are received by lightning they cant be rugged unless you are using a custodial wallet or your node is disconnected for an extended period, which even then can be mitigated by watchtowers keeping an eye on your peer issuing an old channel state. Different terms for things, yea, I think the way a lot of this is playing out pushes our understanding of how money works to ite limits, I really dont think layer 1 should be considered settlement, it works today for those purposes but everyone using bitcoin today could be using lightning self custodied today as well, as it scales into the future I think l1 will be unusable for anything but moving liquidity and we will call lightning transactions as settlements.
note18t6hguahqekus8nmhz6gpft67244gnfql9k2uddj90es7p74km8salcv5z
1. Then it wont be a problem, but its unlikely fiats will be favored by the masses over time judging by their trajectory.
2. Yes, that would be the conclusion of praxeological economics when studying money by hardness through history, when cultures collide the one with the harder money is able to outproduce the weaker money and trade it away in exchange for all the goods of the culture with the weaker money.
3 and 4 are somewhat condradictory on the axis of arbitrariness. I am not inherently against a different model for block sizes, but that should take effect after we have layer 1 perfected, and determining a block size that supports transaction fees without overly constroctong activity seems like a tough question.
Bitcoin blocks only carry a few thousand transactions every ten minutes. Even if we amp that up with more advanced scripting like cross input signature aggregation we wont be able to fit everything in 1+3MB. If we had 8 billion people on chain that would translate to every person making a transaction once every 30 years. You could increase the block size, but then you would need something on the order of 30GB blocks being sent every 10 minutes, data storage for almost anyone would be impossible so only a select few would be able to run nodes, killing our decentralization. Further, what would be the incentive to not keep increasing the block size and starving the miners of fees? You would end up with a very easy network to attack, be it nodes censoring or hashpower attacks.
I dont support daniels take, i think its great you are here, i hope you guys find a way to use monero over nostr or something. Just laying out some of the facts of creating a global monetary system.
He's right. Bitcoin can't build on the base layer because it handicapped itself. They're forced to build on L2s that compromise core value props of Bitcoin that bring us back full circle to the very problems it was trying to solve.
dont think handicap is the right word here. its just trasnsparency by design
I'm not talking about transparency argument. That is another topic.
I'm talking about hard limiting the blocksize. Current limit revolved around conumer tech from 2000s. It is a handicap if your goal is to scale L1 value props to every user.
the blocksize dilemma will be a forever debate. lol
whether you scale today or you scale tomorrow, no blockchain will ever scale enough to adapt to ever increasing consumer needs.
the only solution is lateral scaling through L2.
but to humour you up, yes, bigger blocksize would have been "cuter". bch undeniably processed more transaction on average than btc (i was suprised by this fact myself) and yet has less backlog than btc mainnet. but value is not translated by efficiency. and thats is where the price of both coin is talking.
in another vein, which coin has the 2nd best value track record since 2021? i give you the hint : tron
So, I always find several implied assumptions when it comes to scaling.
1) That everyone on the planet is going to be using crypto.
+won't be a black/gray market niche
2) That everyone on the planet will use a *single* crypto.
+won't be a range of different cryptos that provide differing utility
3) That it can't scale given a slow enough rate of adoption.
+consumer tech advances (Moore's law)
+protocol scalability improvement (Monero tx size shrinking by 80% since inception)
4) That decentralization is binary and not a spectrum.
+otherwise why not 0.1MB blocks instead of 4MB? It's unlikely and seems pretty convenient the 4MB blocksize just so happens to be the "cut off" point for being considered decentralized.
1. Agreed
2. Agreed
3. Agreed
4. The original 1mb hard cap was supposed to be removed so bitcoin could scale with adaption and as technology advances-
I don’t think that true. #eCash has a roadmap to scaling to billion users on-chain. We shall see if they succeed. #XEC #Crypto
Y’all don’t want to hear it that’s all it is.
Will you listen to some like him instead of me?
Probably not.
https://x.com/fiatjaf/status/1700537798204301516?s=46&t=__Y2CtKt0vRsYfiUUwR5tQ
I’m not an expert in scaling #blockchain tech but I’d like to see a rebuttal of the #eCash approach (the #BitcoinCash fork not the Fedimint token) as well as #Radix approach. Maybe those techs aren’t in the radar of the author.
#XEC #BCH #XRD #Crypto
Key point to take away is "IT THE BASE LAYER CANT SCALE NOTHING ELSE SCALES ON TOP OF THAT".
Plain and simple.
Not that hard to understand.
Have you look into #eCash and #Radix scaling proposals? The author doesn’t seem to have considered these in his analysis hence until I see a solid rebuttal of these (which I haven’t yet) I have no reason to believe that these are not possible (whether or not these projects will be successful is another question).
#XEC #XRD #Blockchain #Crypto
#eCash and #Radix proposals are on-chain scaling not second layer…
Ecash is L3 built on lighting or liquid network.
https://thebitcoinmanual.com/blockchain/ecash/
And the only shit I could find about radix (rdx) was it’s a shitcoin.
That’s not the #eCash I’m referring to. As I said, I’m referring to the #BCH fork from the former lead #BitcoinCash developer. https://e.cash/
Ah……. Another shitcoin……. Come on really?
Have we learned nothing yet?
What’s your definition of shitcoin? Every coin that isn’t BTC? Okay I get it. Of course on-chain scaling isn’t a notion you’d be open to consider…
You may want to do a bit more research before calling a #crypto you don’t know a shitcoin. Here is a place to start for #Radix. There is also good technical interviews series of the founder on Youtube. https://www.radixdlt.com/blog/cerberus-infographic-series-chapter-i
#XRD
note18t6hguahqekus8nmhz6gpft67244gnfql9k2uddj90es7p74km8salcv5z
fiatjaf is fun, but his opinion changes with the wind. He usually provides no arguments or evidence to backup his opinions either.