Money scales in layers. This question is akin to: "how do make sure everyone has gold and can transact quickly with it at a pace they are used to?"
The answer is: you don't.
You create a bearer bond that has a claim to the gold that is able to reach transaction velocity.
With Bitcoin, you do the same bearer bond but it's digital so, you have a smart contract that is a claim to real bitcoin. This would be a robust second layer that has plenty of competition. Lightning is one such solution. E-cash/cashu is a more custodial version where you trust an organization to issue claims against bitcoin. There are other ways with OP_codes and HTLCs that allow different structures to build layer twos. The first layer two to construct multi-input/output HTLCs would probably deprecate lightning. Point being, that no Forks are necessary to scale. The coders just need to learn more about finance to have insight into the kinds of instruments that would suit scaling best.
Yeah, that's why I thought percentage would be more apt. 30% spend capacity could mean 30k or 3mil but it would signal to the network that it prefers to receive while routing. Again, I'm not a dev but this feels too obvious to have not been thought of or at least considered.
My opinion is that "2-way pegs" are incoherent to economics. Money scales in layers not lateral pools. The asset is pegged to thermodynamics and physics. The coupon/currency is pegged to the asset. And credit is pegged to the currency. Drive chains misunderstand the nature of the asset by creating their own existent ledger outside of the timechain. Writing one transaction to the timechain to account for multiple transactions on the same chain by "correcting the record" assumes all subsequent transactions were valid. Which the timechain seeks to verify.
Now, I don't know if this is a good argument but the proposition seems ripe for folly.
Maybe channel states could work like counting cards? Max capacity, minus X% equals +1 get over 5-6 and you become an "Outbound preferred" channel? I dunno if that is possible I'm not a code guy buy channel mode preference might be smart.
Human bodies are all different. I lost 100lbs from keto and fasting. I still fast 4 days a week. I would say it's about finding A thing that works AND it's something that you can maintain. A friend of mine just eats rice , pork, and beans. He's muscular and fit. I can't do it like that but he also can't go more than 8 hours without eating. You are both right, for yourselves. If you aren't lying to yourself about your results and your progress, of couse.
If it breaks encryption, the internet itself breaks. That's what I'm saying. This is like saying "If you shoot me and the bullet goes through me and hits my window, I'll have to buy a new window!"
Reading Man, Economy and State for the second time. Only like 500 more pages than human action it feels less poetic, if I can use that term.
Honestly from my perspective it always made more sense to me that lightning would have a more federated model. Small group of channels with the wealthiest member (or a pooled fund for outbound funds) connecting to each adjacent economic group. Then larger actors would connect adjacent towns, Then adjacent cities, and so on enveloping the world. Routing would nearly always go [Individual-Group-Town-State-State-Town-Group-Individual] for the longest hops. Maybe I just think to much like an econ guy and not enough in the practical limits of the code.
I figured once banks were free of the regulatory nightmare surrounding bitcoin they would naturally become LSPs. They have the vendor, and intrabank connections and they LOVE taking transaction fees every five minutes so, it's a match made in financial heaven. The one down side is they have similar (though not complete) control over transactional freedom like they have now. The ability to close channels on people they deem undesirable suck but you could always go one hop away and connect through a friend who has a channel with them.
I am more of an economic nerd than the cypher punk variety but I do have an affinity for code and privacy. But it feels like more of these coder nerds need to read some Rothbard and Mises before commenting on the monetary aspects. (Not so much you but the "Needs more features" crowd)
I get mad when other bitcoiners have money to buy when they KNEW I wanted that bitcoin!
Hold the vanadium icon, then select and hold the "new incognito tab" icon then drag to home screen.
Just make sure you don't mention Monero. Those guys are tenaciously adamant that it's harder than nuclear fusion to run a lightning node.
I believe Saylor said that on the Impact Theory podcast just yesterday.
Prison black markets ARE literally the worlds largest black markets. I don't see how that is ridiculous. My point was that monetary tool (ramen) is popular in the largest black market though it would be insane for people outside that ecosystem to use it as money. White markets in the US are mainly subject to those stipulations but as BTC is a global asset, I don't see that as a lasting problem. Geographic arbitrage gets rid of those regulations very easily. As far as black markets are concerned, I can and have bought things with bitcoin, anonymously and psudononymously, using both mixed coins, payjoins, and Lightning. Where is the hurdle?
Look into Bitaxe and home solo mining. The hashrates there are actually quite surprising. Running a few Bitaxes in your home would decentralize the mining space quite a bit. I myself run a few miners just for heat during the winter.
Yes. They are shortsighted cronyists that beg at the table for China's favor. I am saying, the fact that even in a controlled, KYC'd, regulated environment, they would rather mine Bitcoin than miss out on the opportunity. Smart people don't dox themselves. (Least of which to governments like China)
I can't see that site. Maybe screen grab
Imagine seeing China, one of the most censorious regimes in the world, with one of the most regulated economies mining your coin due to FOMO and you seeing that as a negative. Wild stuff. When the privacy cypher punks learn about real economics and game theory, they are going to be mind blown at what Bitcoin has accomplished.
I don't think you know what I am saying. The current and recent quantum announcements have been "Quantum benchmarks" which is literally esoteric to the quantum field. Meaning it has no actually computational logic. It just turns on and off and is on and off simultaneously to create existence feedback. NONE of that has any application in computation. This is the equivalent to being able to activate/deactivate a light a faster speed than thought possible. While, very cool, has no application yet. How do you register the light? What carries the signal? How does it interoperate with current tech? What's the latency? All of these questions are far from answered. But realistically if quantum computing becomes viable the first thing it does is mine bitcoin, not try to break it.
Damn, ya got me. The Anime girls are really moving in on the petroleum markets. I should definitely have thought of that.