Maybe liquid instead of lighting becomes more popular for the average person that should help prevent this first issue? the liquid federation has control so its not trustless, but there are lots of safeguards already in place to prevent a rug pull scenario that are cryptographically sounds, redundent, ect. because members are businesses, exchanges, asset managers, ect they have a reputation to protect, rather than just a peer to peer lighting transaction. to your other point, I 100% agree we need to have transactions on the base layer. security reasons for sure, and just to incentivice miners to continue to hash even when the block subsity shrinks and eventually disappears. I'm not to worried about this for a few reasons: consider how many bitcoin transactions happen now with such low adoption. what happens when bitcoin is the global means of exchange? demand will be so much higher. and even still, extrapolate how many people will be on earth in 50+ years and they are all using btc.
maybe its just wishful thinking, but I think we are just so fucking early here that there will be so many more solutions to all of these current and future problems. if you were looking at the creation of TCP/IP back in the 70s, could you really understand then that it would evolve into the internet, AI, ect?
but I thought you had to print more currency to meet the demand of a growing economy.... dumb af
to your first point, I think the most common reason people put forth is layer 1 will just cost too much to transact in in the future. nation states doing business, large corporations settling layer 2 payments a couple times a week, ect. similar to how I don't want to pay a 25 dollar fee for my cup of coffee but maybe for my down payment on a house because i need final settlement. I'm unfortunately not as familiar with watchtower, but to your point about trustlessness, I just don't think its that much of an issue because the base layer is trustless, anyone can default to it if that is the most important feature to them (I think nation state to nation state trade is a great example here). the more layer 2 solutions we have, the more competition there will be, and more of am incentive for them to act honestly. i think at these higher layers, its going to be more about different features that can be provided to the end user that will be most important to the average person. privacy for example is going to be a big one.
i partly agree that owning on-chain btc will be rare in some distant future. stablecoins will likely be common for a while but I think that will also fade just because all the fait backing them will die. long term, I think most people will be using and holding funds in some layer 2 bitcoin solution.
with the repeal of SAB 121, I think this will soon be a non issue. banks can now custody digital assets profitably so I think this will soon become commonplace and there will be many different highly regulated and generally trusted institutions, that will offer custody and lending services like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs. not saying this removes counterparty risk by anymeans, and self custody is the way, but this will definitely mitigate the honeypot issue
nothing to see here... move along plz
i feel like this is actually genuine. asking norms out there in the real world, they don't understand crypto or the overall scammy game that is being played here. sounds like this guy took advantage of her fame. she just seems ignorant. if she gaves the money to charity, I give her a pass in my book
got to have people to remind you. wouldnt want to let it slip you're a pedophile right Bill?
not going to lie, the fiat that is still left in me bought shares of MSTU today to chance a nice run after market. if not, oh well but I think the oda are pretty good after they report insane earnings because of the FASB changes
hahaha agreed! the autism and trolling is off the charts!
worlds richest man. likely retarded yes
change the192.168.50.1 ---> 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1 which I'm assuming is what it says if you checked your Ethernet LAN IP, which they should look the same. if it is not 192.168.1.1, then just change it to whatever it says.) save the settings and give the router a reboot. confirm your Ethernet can still hit the internet and see if your WiFi devices all got a fresh IP address in the 192.168.1.X network.
assuming the IP addresses of your devices begin with 192.168.0.X, the first three numbers (192.168.0) must all be the same for them to be all on the same LAN and can talk to eachother. the last octet (the last number in the IP address) will be a number between 1 and 254. for example, if a device connected by Ethernet has a 192.168.0.10 and a WiFi device had a 192.168.1.10 IP address, they cannot talk to eachother on the same LAN
no no that's perfect! is there page that shows all your devices and their corresponding IP address? and when you find it, do you see your WiFi devices there and do they have an IP address associated with them?
sounds like your WiFi and Ethernet are on a different subnets. more than likely if your router IP dhcp pool is default, all of the IP addresses on your network will be a 192.168.0.1-192.168.0.254, and your subnet mask will be 255.255.255.0 or /24. if they are not, setting your dhcp pool to it's default as described will fix this when your devices are reassigned a fresh IP reservation. if this likely default is not what you have and don't want to see it that way, then I would recommend a quick 10 minute video of YouTube to understand subnetting which will teach you the basics. you do not need additional hardware like others have suggested! a switch doesn't deal in IP addresses but MAC addresses