Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
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.
yes, core dev and small blockists, in general, have this idea that everyone should be charged fees every step of the way. hence you hear Trace Mayer talk about "what are you willing to pay to hire Bitcoin?" point being of course, is that being geeks with an intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the code, they will be able to exploit fee making activities like smart contracts, LN hubs, consulting fees thru Blockstream, building of offchain solns like LN & SC's, etc, etc. the strategy couldn't be more clear.

as a result, their new mantra is Bitcoin as an expensive "settlement network". what happened to all the talk i used to hear and espoused to that Bitcoin will be brought into the world by the unbanked 6 billion ppl on this planet who don't have access to western banking? Andreas should be livid at this hijacked new direction. instead, he's bought into the siren song of "innovation" thru extensible smart contracts and wide open scripting systems. you see this attitude all the time on the Slack Channels where apparent poor folk like Depesh (Indian i presume) get slapped down by the core trolls who enter the channel espousing that "Bitcoin was never meant to be cheap or for the masses", "never was for coffee or donuts", "never meant for widespread adoption" and other such bullshit. never mind the whole idea of a settlement network won't even work.
 

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
Actually a non-premined and open source version of Ripple would be a good thing IMO.
My abiding memory of Ripple was Tradefortress telling someone he was going to rip him off with a Ripple transaction, the someone not believing it and doing the transaction and then Tradefortress ripping him off with the Ripple transaction.

LN starts and end with a Bitcoin transaction but what happens in between is *not* Bitcoin and thus does not and cannot have the protections and security of a Bitcoin transaction. I'm into Bitcoin for the promises that Bitcoin offers, not for Paypal extended with Back's frustration at his failure to get into Bitcoin when he was offered the chance
 

molecular

Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
372
1,391
@Justus Ranvier did a good interview with Amanda:
(It was really good, thanks Justus!)

When asked specifically how a world in which LN is prevalent could lead to fractional banking on BTC he had a hard time, slowing down considerably. I had the same problem on german btctalk subforum. It's rather easy to understand that fractional reserve banking will very likely happen if on-chain friction ("blockchain native fees") is too high because that allows (or necessitates) the use of money substitutes with less friction. (I think Peter Surda argued this well in his first bitcoin-related paper: http://dev.economicsofbitcoin.com/mastersthesis/mastersthesis-surda-2012-11-19b.pdf). On the other hand it's hard to tell a credible story of how it could happen (especially involving lighthing network). It seems such scenarios can easily be dismissed by saying: "you can always settle the coins to the blockchain and they are locked in the channel anyway, so where's the fractional banking?"

Can someone try to "draw a picture" in which use of LN somehow leads to (possible quite opaque) fractional reserve banking and/or use of money substitutes?

On another note: Justus said that a blocksize limit is good for people who want to stop the monetization of bitcoin. I have a hunch it's true, but can someone argue that? It's down a similar alley: are LN-balances really BTC-substitutes?
 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
Oh shit, they're putting Bitcoiners in Guantanamo already?

(referring to the somewhat less than optimal title pic from the Daily Decrypt vid above)

Seriously though, awesome interview @Justus Ranvier , thanks for doing that.
Pity the sound quality was not entirely what it should have been, there was at least one word that got wiped out completely which I was interested in.
 

Dusty

Active Member
Mar 14, 2016
362
1,172
You're not looking far enough ahead.
Well, I try to do my best :p

Right now there is a multi-pronged attack on the infrastructure that allows individual users to transact directly.
This is quite clear, and it's why we are on this forum, I think.

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.
That may be true, but there is no shortage of developers and they can't buy them all.
While I agree that the level of developers needed to design a complex thing like the LN is certainly difficult to obtain, mantaining the existing bitcoin codebase and extending the block size is much simpler.

The second prong is segwit forcing the remaining wallet developers to rewrite their software.
Even if all wallet developers implement segwit, I fail to see how this would stop the bitcoin network to work. The problem is not segwit, it's an artificially limited block size.

At the same time, LN is being released and everybody is being encouraged to adopt it.
Everytime a new altcoin borns everybody is being encouraged to adopt it, but that's not enough for it to succeed.

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.
I agree, but the only thing they can do to force that is limiting the block size: LN, segwit, sidechains and whatever else would be valued only by its merits and not as a way to transact in bitcoin because one could not do it directly on the blockchain.

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.
why?

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.
To dismantle the direct transaction system you need to artificially limit the block size: any other tech like LN is not relevant.
 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
I hate quoting Peter Todd most days, but this brings joy to my heart. Todd talking about hard forks:
Todd said there is a small chance this process could go badly.

When I say ‘badly’, I essentially mean that we end up with two different economically relevant currencies,” he said. “You end up getting some miners on one coin and some miners on another.”
It's as if he's taking things seriously. Perhaps the gravity of the situation is starting to dawn on him.

The rest of the article is the usual Kyle Torpey spin though:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/peter-todd-worried-about-those-willing-to-fork-bitcoin-at-all-costs-1460475488

Of course we see they're going to accuse everyone whose not acquiescing to their roadmap to be some paid shill hired by Coinbase etc. And at the same time they don't feel ashamed of calling everyone else conspiracy theorists.

My strength lies solely in my tenacity.
- Louis Pasteur, quite a honeybadger himself
 
Last edited:

satoshis_sockpuppet

Active Member
Feb 22, 2016
776
3,312
It's as if he's taking things seriously. Perhaps the gravity of the situation is starting to dawn on him.
I wouldn't care what he thinks, I can't remember where Peter Todd ever contributed something of value.
He is some kind of Greg Maxwell light, the same narcissistic personality minus the skills and knowledge.
Or the other way around, Maxwell is Peter Todd extended with actual skills.
 

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
That may be true, but there is no shortage of developers and they can't buy them all.
They don't have to buy them all, just the ones with their hands on the levers.
[doublepost=1460501590][/doublepost]
Can someone try to "draw a picture" in which use of LN somehow leads to (possible quite opaque) fractional reserve banking and/or use of money substitutes?
Bear in mind that it's not gold that gets inflated, it's the promisary notes.

I think LN is to Bitcoin more like Fort Knox is to gold. So think rehypothecation and Germany being unable to get access to its gold.

So buying Bitcoin will be too much of a hassle so you'll go to an "exchange" (possibly going by another name) and you'll deposit some filthy fiat and get a "Bitcoin balance" which you will be able to spend through a channel (likely funded by the exchange and shared by other exchange users). This will be a disaster for decentralization of course and everyone will have forgotten MtGox because we've washed out all the bad actors and the major company in charge of LN guidance is not at all headed by a self-confessed scammer.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
Last edited:

albin

Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
931
4,008
This thread is an epic fail for /r/bitcoin moderator community manipulation:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4egnvh/peter_todd_worried_about_those_willing_to_fork/?sort=top

Apparently it was sorted controversial, in which case I got the top spot, but then once they went back to "top", Gavin had the top spot. A real rock and a hard place for the astroturfing moderator crew.

Also side note, read how proactive the infamous brgtroll is in running damage control all over the thread, and tell me this guy isn't on somebody's payroll.
 
Last edited:

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
Now if only you could coordinate to link to each others posts in those posts...
 

adamstgbit

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2016
1,206
2,650
This thread is an epic fail for /r/bitcoin moderator community manipulation:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4egnvh/peter_todd_worried_about_those_willing_to_fork/?sort=top

Apparently it was sorted controversial, in which case I got the top spot, but then once they went back to "top", Gavin had the top spot. A real rock and a hard place for the astroturfing moderator crew.

Also side note, read how proactive the infamous brgtroll is in running damage control all over the thread, and tell me this guy isn't on somebody's payroll.
MY GOD
the fight rages on...


gavinandresen:
end result will be an over-saturated network, busy doing nothing productive.
he's right... everyone thinks that its bitcoin birthright to be the settlement layer that big banks use.
WAKE THE FUCK UP PEOPLE
big banks have said pass and are dev.ing there own blockchains.
if they said pass to bitcoin, they'll say fuck no to Cripple coin.

The sad part is there's nothing gaivin can really do.
I mean look at the army the Core trolls have amassed!
thymos was right, censorship F'ing WORKS!

Everyone will buy the dream of LN + settlement layer, and then sell it down to 0 once they realize how pathetic bitcoin has become.

a Settlement layer no one wants to use and a Lighting network thats impractical to use.
VS
ShitCoin4000, with 10,000 nodes ran by poeple willing to pay 5000$ a year to run them
but hey bitcoin will be more Decentralized!

lol.

dumb fuck core supports deserve to buy us up to 3200$