7 ms·

just curious, have you heard of lightning network ? try things out, try breez wallet. you can pay with lightning at McDonalds, Starbucks in El Salvador rest of

just curious, have you heard of lightning network ? try things out, try breez wallet. you can pay with lightning at McDonalds, Starbucks in El Salvador rest of your claims about blockchain, privacy etc - are correct the "Crypto" and "web3" is all scams

defaultprimate 5y ago
LN is mathematically guaranteed to end up centralized.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- whoisninja 5y ago
  how so? also it doesn't impact Bitcoin, you can self-custody most of your wealth. Put what's needed to transact on lightning (checking account)
  - defaultprimate 5y ago
    https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800 https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-... In short, if it didn't (it does), then we've proven P = NP and the very foundation of Bitcoin itself crumbles. Self custody of bitcoin is not self custody of wealth. Not your fiat not your wealth.
    - whoisninja 5y ago
      when you realize this author makes money from shitcoin content: https://news.bitcoin.com/author/jonald/ https://news.bitcoin.com/author/jonald/ drink the kool-aid , rather than trying the software itself. good luck
      - whoisninja 5y ago
        fyi before downvoting: this article's author works at bitcoin.com which is run by Bitcoin-cash people, it was an attack on Bitcoin that failed read the book: the blocksize wars
        988747 5y ago
        It is a logical fallacy to focus on who the author is. You either can point out where the error in his reasoning is, or not. Because it sounded pretty convincing to me: to participate in routing a payment you need to have at least the paid amount tied in the lightning network, which favors people with a lot of spare cash, who can have more channels open, and process more payments.
        danlugo92 5y ago
        No, this is FUD. Most people will only open one channel ever in their lifetime. Your scenario is correct only if you will only send, most people won't, most people will first receive (get paid) then send. Say someone wants in, he opens a $20 channel, maybe he wants to pay for some small stuf at first so $20 will do. But then this person will get paid for his work, say $1k.. his channel isn't constrained to those first $20, this channel is now "widened" to $1k.
        defaultprimate 5y ago
        Ok now show the mathematical proof or demonstrate the error in his. Everything that doesn't carry the coiner narrative of "number go up" is FUD
        danlugo92 5y ago
        Mathematical proof? This is code we're talking about. I don't have to show mathematical proof, but in fact, the code is open source, so you can go and see for yourself what I said is true and immutable.

defaultprimate 5y ago

LN is mathematically guaranteed to end up centralized.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
whoisninja 5y ago
how so? also it doesn't impact Bitcoin, you can self-custody most of your wealth. Put what's needed to transact on lightning (checking account)
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800 https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-... In short, if it didn't (it does), then we've proven P = NP and the very foundation of Bitcoin itself crumbles. Self custody of bitcoin is not self custody of wealth. Not your fiat not your wealth.
  - whoisninja 5y ago
    when you realize this author makes money from shitcoin content: https://news.bitcoin.com/author/jonald/ https://news.bitcoin.com/author/jonald/ drink the kool-aid , rather than trying the software itself. good luck
    - whoisninja 5y ago
      fyi before downvoting: this article's author works at bitcoin.com which is run by Bitcoin-cash people, it was an attack on Bitcoin that failed read the book: the blocksize wars
      - 988747 5y ago
        It is a logical fallacy to focus on who the author is. You either can point out where the error in his reasoning is, or not. Because it sounded pretty convincing to me: to participate in routing a payment you need to have at least the paid amount tied in the lightning network, which favors people with a lot of spare cash, who can have more channels open, and process more payments.
        danlugo92 5y ago
        No, this is FUD. Most people will only open one channel ever in their lifetime. Your scenario is correct only if you will only send, most people won't, most people will first receive (get paid) then send. Say someone wants in, he opens a $20 channel, maybe he wants to pay for some small stuf at first so $20 will do. But then this person will get paid for his work, say $1k.. his channel isn't constrained to those first $20, this channel is now "widened" to $1k.
        defaultprimate 5y ago
        Ok now show the mathematical proof or demonstrate the error in his. Everything that doesn't carry the coiner narrative of "number go up" is FUD
        danlugo92 5y ago
        Mathematical proof? This is code we're talking about. I don't have to show mathematical proof, but in fact, the code is open source, so you can go and see for yourself what I said is true and immutable.