Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[AdrianX]

I saw a similar projection on r/bitcoin a long time back, I can't find it anywhere.

so I've tried to recreate it form another projection I found online.

What I want to do is adjust the red column to project the block subsidy with a dollar value based on transactions per second, the dollar value being the block reward * the projected BTC price based on a projection of the number of transactions as per @Peter R Metcalfe's Law reference.

Does anyone have that data or can someone give me an estimate of price per transactions per second based on teh historical Metcalfe's Law projection so I can adjust the red column, to reflect the revenue miners could make on the reward alone as BTC increases in value as the reward drops.

 

[Domrada]

Lombrozzo continues to chomp at the bit. leave my money alone dude. these fuckers can't keep their hands off all our value.

and here's the bad news:

A final possible use case for the Lightning Network that may come as a surprise to some is decentralized exchanges of digital assets. During his talk, Eric Lombrozo noted:

“[With the Lightning Network], you could have peer-to-peer order books and atomic, cross-chain swaps.”

The idea of using something like the Lightning Network to create a decentralized exchange has also been discussed by Amiko Pay Developer C.J. Plooy. According to Plooy, Lightning Network channels have the ability to route payments between different blockchains. This means transfers and atomic exchanges between sidechains, which could contain different assets, can take place instantaneously.

Lombrozo ended this portion of his talk by adding:

“You can have a way of doing all this stuff with minimal cost, which makes it really, really effective.

https://www.coingecko.com/buzz/eric-lombrozo-7-use-cases-lightning-network
[doublepost=1460396972][/doublepost]/u/josephpoon is a snake. he changed his post after i submitted my reply. i can't remember his exact wording but he was AdamBackTracking on LN's ability to buy coffee and donuts:

Actually Cypherdoc, look a little closer at this idea. I have read the white paper and everything, and cross-chain swaps are possible. Basically, a P2P Shapeshift is possible for coins that support payment channels. That being said, it seems to me this is the ONLY feasible use case for all of this LN nonsense. No one is going to prepay for 6 months worth of coffee. There will be 0 scaling benefit from all this. Just the opposite, in fact, the need for block space will increase.

 

[Richy_T]

Why do Lombrozzo's cross chain swaps sound suspiciously like credit default swaps?

It's sounding more and more like Ripple to me.

 

[Norway]

 

[cypherdoc]

i love this guy. he has the patience of Job and hits on all the little details we do here in this thread:

 

[cypherdoc]

heads up. we haven't seen this kinda wall asymmetry in a long time:

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

That's three major indicators of imminent price action, two of which are classic signs of imminent UPWARD action.

- Long period of high price stability

- Giant wedge coming to an end

- Wall asymmetry (bid wall dominant)

In pictures:

EDIT: Also, how could I forget, only 3 months til the Second Halvening.

 

[Dusty]

Once Bitcoin use has been abolished and the blockchain has been turned into a settlement system between btc-denominated banks, those banks are going to start to wonder why the ever need to settle at all - why not ignore the blockchain and just keep the Lightning transaction going forever?

I thought of that as well. Also note that if on chain fees are too high, even if technically one could move his funds on the blockchain it would not economically viable to do it, hence forcing him to keep them in the LN.

There are many advantages to never closing the channel. In particular, a channel that is never closed has no reason to strictly adhere to all the Bitcoin protocol's rules (especially concerning the supply of Bitcoins).

I can't see a way how this could happen: since LN transaction are normal bitcoin transactions (otherwise you could not redeem them on the blockchain when the party closes the channel without warning), you can't use invalid inputs.

 

[Lee Adams]

It's sounding more and more like Ripple to me.

Actually a non-premined and open source version of Ripple would be a good thing IMO.
[doublepost=1460452228,1460451594][/doublepost]

That being said, it seems to me this is the ONLY feasible use case for all of this LN nonsense. No one is going to prepay for 6 months worth of coffee.

This is how I understand how paying for coffees would work with LN. Please correct me if I am wrong.

1) I open some sort of channel to the LN and load some funds on it (Similar to taking cash out of my insured bank account and putting it into my uninsured physical wallet).
2) I pay for my coffee, lunch, etc. all to different merchants using LN (Similar to handing over cash)
3) When I run out of funds in LN I reload.

This is as opposed to prepay for 6 months worth of goods to every single merchant.

 

[freetrader]

I open some sort of channel to the LN and load some funds on it
...
When I run out of funds in LN I reload.

I certainly won't if (Bitcoin blockchain fees + LN fees) is not competitive at that stage with those of many existing electronic payment methods out there already.

So I see LN as having a major uphill battle ahead of it against existing payment methods, because if that's the supposed model then I don't see the major benefits over other centralized services, many of whom will no doubt adapt their fees to compete with cryptocurrencies that will grow freely.

I can see a use case for a solution that offers working microtransactions, but that again is fundamentally a scaling issue, and I'm not convinced LN solves it yet.

 

[Dusty]

I can see a use case for a solution that offers working microtransactions, but that again is fundamentally a scaling issue, and I'm not convinced LN solves it yet.

In my opinion LN does not solve any actual problems, it just adds new possibilities for new kind of business opportunities, but we can't tell if they are viable until it's running and working correctly.

 

[Domrada]

Actually a non-premined and open source version of Ripple would be a good thing IMO.
[doublepost=1460452228,1460451594][/doublepost]

This is how I understand how paying for coffees would work with LN. Please correct me if I am wrong.

1) I open some sort of channel to the LN and load some funds on it (Similar to taking cash out of my insured bank account and putting it into my uninsured physical wallet).
2) I pay for my coffee, lunch, etc. all to different merchants using LN (Similar to handing over cash)
3) When I run out of funds in LN I reload.

This is as opposed to prepay for 6 months worth of goods to every single merchant.

How many people do you know that prepay for 6 months worth of anything? The market figured out a long time ago that the time tested solution for small purchases is credit. If bitcoin fees rise, they'll just go back to using Visa. The fantasy of LN for coffee will never materialize beyond the novelty stage.

 

[Dusty]

One missing piece in the scheme above is that LN channels are bidirectionals, so you can't just spend your bitcoins, but also receive them.
Not that usually one receives a lot of small payments, but this could lengthen the channel life for some kind of usages/people/activities.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

I can't see a way how this could happen: since LN transaction are normal bitcoin transactions (otherwise you could not redeem them on the blockchain when the party closes the channel without warning), you can't use invalid inputs.

You're not looking far enough ahead.

Right now there is a multi-pronged attack on the infrastructure that allows individual users to transact directly.

One prong is to simply bribe the developers and take them out of the game. The going rate for selling out the banksters is $100-$300k/year.

The second prong is segwit forcing the remaining wallet developers to rewrite their software.

At the same time, LN is being released and everybody is being encouraged to adopt it.

The purpose of this attack is to kill the cash-like aspect of Bitcoin and force everybody back into holding bank liabilities and transacting through intermediaries again. Bitcoin wallets will be gutted and replaced with banking apps.

The initial version of LN may indeed allow individuals to do their own thing, but it won't last any more than that phase of Ripple lasted. Once the infrastructure for direct transaction has been dismantled, the Bitcoin banks will be consolidated into a handful that are all part of the same cartel.

Using the block size limit and other available measures it will only require a modest investment to make sure that only cartel members are able to transact on the chain.

Once they are confident that the their infrastructure takeover is complete, the banks no longer need LN to settle between themselves. They can swap that part out for any settlement system. Since by this point the cartel is the only ones paying for mining, when they decide to stop using it the miners are instantly bankrupt.

The miners who didn't manage to secure a golden parachute before this happens will be out of luck, because even if they try to reboot Bitcoin they'll find that all the work that's been done on multi-currency wallets and instant exchanges will be used to instantly bail in all the former bitcoin users into a new unit of account, while the btc exchange rate drops to zero. Most people will probably thank their benevolent overlords for saving them from the btc crash.

 

[cypherdoc]

oh my. today's candle poking over the top of the most pessimistic upper trendline:

 

[AdrianX]

How many people do you know that prepay for 6 months worth of anything? The market figured out a long time ago that the time tested solution for small purchases is credit. If bitcoin fees rise, they'll just go back to using Visa. The fantasy of LN for coffee will never materialize beyond the novelty stage.

I actually prepay for many services for 1 hole year in advance. The big difference is my service provider actually gets the money to work with in their business, and in return they give me a discounted rate.

LN is for me locking up my capital or savings as a guarantee to pay. It's nice and all but it's a fantasy. LN is good for people who want to pay for sundries like coffee.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Reading this article The Sugar Conspiracy, I was struck by how similar the political tactics in nutrition science are to Core/Blockstream tactics. It's all there: the comforting chain of authority figures, the misuse of evidence, the intimidation through complexity, the twisted justification of censorship, the circular logic, the dogmatism, the moving goalposts, the holing up in establishments and building of moats, even the irrelevant signees to statements of consensus. Gregory Maxwell is Bitcoin's Ancel Keys. Mike Hearn is Bitcoin's John Yudkin.

 

[Lee Adams]

How many people do you know that prepay for 6 months worth of anything?

Like I said, I do not consider it a prepayment. I consider it cash in my wallet ready to spend. Until I authorise the release [e.g. in exchange for a coffee], it is still my cash and I can put it back in the bank at any time.

 

[Domrada]

Most people resent having to a pay a fee to withdraw or deposit their own money. This is my main point. Bitcoin is still very young, in competition with other payment networks like Visa and Paypal. The case for using Bitcoin is good if it's faster and cheaper than the alternatives. If a fee is required to load cash into a spendable form, that's a friction that the competition doesn't have, so it becomes more efficient not to use Bitcoin at all. Now, Lee Adams can do whatever he wants, but the sane, rational consumer will not use LN for small purchases.

 

[freetrader]

Like I said, I do not consider it a prepayment. I consider it cash in my wallet ready to spend.

My wallet doesn't charge me for putting cash in it