> because we have no practical way to handle purchases.
It's not cryptos fault when laws are designed to discourage use. The answer is massive adoption--get to the point where they have to make the laws non-burdensome.
I think they already are under massive pressure to do that. Remember Pompeo accidentally saying that the state departments highest priorities was something and something and blockch... and then he stopped himself.
MartinD738Redditor for less than 6 months2 months ago
They really are making bitcoin a lot more complicated than it needs to be.
Yes u pay a fee to the Watchstander of the Bank of America watchtower. I will happily be creating a watch tower in hopes to make money. And when this new fee gets too high we will be going to layer 3. And have new miners/watch towers
So if you wanna introduce someone to BTC. You tell them to create a wallet, and to make transactions cheaper you gotta introduce them to the lightning network. Then to make funds safer you gotta tell them about nodes and watchtowers which at this point they probably already left the bus the first time you mentioned the LN or they're only interested still because the names low-key sound like something from D&D.
Meanwhile, over at BCH you just tell them to create a wallet and copy and paste an address and viola.
Although, tbh addresses being hashes make things a bit complicated and too much for some people. Can wallets be attached to emails or something like that? Like I'll send 1BCH for example from "firstname.lastname@example.org" to "email@example.com", people will be able to type it by memory much better. Honestly the only bummer is that I can't really type address by memory which is why I don't use CoinText.
Are you still losing your money in bitcoin,while ignorance they say is a disease while information is the key to sucess you need to make profits with your bitcoins, email or contact me and i will show you how to make alot profits with your bitcoin
the team is looking into a way for making these payments to watchtowers more private. To that end, they’re looking into creating a “sort of ecash token.” Ecash is the anonymous currency created by cryptographer David Chaum in the 80s
Being a pre-Bitcoin design, Chaum's system has strong privacy but relies on centralized banks.
Today we have several decentralized cryptocurrency schemes with strong privacy, all in production. I'm sure I don't have to point out reasons Blockstream might prefer a centralized solution.
Interestingly, mesh payment networks that require live recipient and routing nodes is also a pre-Bitcoin design. Compared to the old ones, Lightning has an advantage of having a decentralized notary at its disposal, but the design was superseded by Bitcoin in the UX context as well.
> I'm sure I don't have to point out reasons Blockstream might prefer a centralized solution.
No, you do have to point it out. Over and over and over.
There are billions of people waiting to casually read about cryptocurrency for the first time, and the truth needs to be more prevalent than the lies spread by blockstream to give them a decent chance of seeing it.
Thank you for your submission - Please feel free to re-submit your post to our dedicated fun subreddit r/cryptocurrencymemes.
Memes and Comedy posts are now considered low quality content on this subreddit and will be removed, except for on the weekends (UTC time). Repeated attempts to post this type of content on r/cryptocurrency will lead to a subreddit suspension and possibly a ban.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
It's a poorly written article and most people in this sub are happy to jump to conclusions with something like this. A much better article, with a direct quote from an lnd dev regarding the tokens, can be found here [https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/watchtowers-are-coming-lightning](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/watchtowers-are-coming-lightning)
And accept more centralization at the block chain level? No thank you.
I want the base layer to be as secure as it can get. Without that nothing is a safe solution.
And no matter the block size the blocks will be full. Veriblock et al would just fill it up.
>And accept more centralization at the block chain level?
That's a blatant deception and lie. Increasing the blocksize, even significantly does not increase "centralization" until you get orders of magnitude larger blocks than 1MB.
>I want the base layer to be as secure as it can get. Without that nothing is a safe solution.
The words of a saboteur preventing Bitcoin from scaling.
>And no matter the block size the blocks will be full. Veriblock et al would just fill it up.
Great. More transactions means more users and adoption. So fucking what? Increase the blocksize and incrementally improve Bitcoin's ability to scale as hardware and software improve, you dick.
> That's a blatant lie. Increasing the blocksize, even significantly does not increase "centralization".
As a thought experiment, what if there was only one full node? I know that’s ridiculous but for the sake of argument do you accept that 1000 full nodes are safer than 1?
And more general, do you accept that more full nodes are safer than fewer nodes?
> do you accept that more full nodes are safer than fewer nodes?
Sheer number doesn't mean much. What you are after is political heterogeneity. However, since this is almost impossible to measure and people tend to look for certainty, they focus on numbers, which makes using node-count metric a security risk in itself. Assuming a correlation between node count and decentralization can be dangerous, and is essentially useless beyond thought experiments (e.g. what you infer from "1 node versus 1000" does not project to "1000 nodes versus 1000000").
Political heterogeneity is of course fundamental in mining distribution (e.g. if most hashpower is coming from a single miner, it is even more dangerous than most nodes being run by the same entity) and in other areas (Lightning nodes, shuffling partners and so on), but peculiarities of non-mining nodes makes the situation even less straightforward. A few thoughts in no particular order, some of which you probably will not agree with:
* Running nodes is cheap for an attacker (you can run a single node and pretend to be a thousand) while being relatively costly (per-node) for an actual user.
* Businesses have plenty of conflicting interests, but coinciding interests also arise regularly. Numbers are not of issue here. We can't leave the complete operation of the network to a narrow range of operations (miners, payment processors, etc.), even if they were of vast number.
* Datacenters can be targeted at the state level. The network needs to always have enough nodes to operate even if all of them went down.
* Casual users running nodes would be detrimental to decentralization because they lack the required attention, which leads to them aggregating around particular software distribution channels and prominent information channels. They are steered easily, they do not react flexibly and accurately in emergencies, and so on...
* Normies are never going to run full nodes no matter what you do, which somewhat limits the "casual user" demographic.
So essentially, both stalling adoption to target casual user's spare hardware and targeting business datacenters are folly. The Bitcoin network was always operated by enthusiasts and businesses together, and that has been optimal.
The idea was to see whether the guy asking for polite discussion he was calling for, would actually go for it.
Regarding your "bullshit" remark, I vehemently disagree. You need to be able to discuss what creates political heterogeneity without having a way to measure it objectively. Hiding your assumptions beneath a ton of truisms and unjustified generalizations do not work. You can at most discuss soundbites like "what is the right sized block" with no clue about what your goal is. Have at it, but you won't go further than a dead horse.
The answer to your questions is super simple. The block size should be right sized. No one can just pick an arbitrary number to stop at. That's not science. That's ideology. You could just as easily say 1k is the ideal block size without doing any experiments.
Bitcoin Core devs have never tested what the right block size should be. That would hurt Blockstream. Bitcoin Cash devs have done those tests. I remember seeing a paper about it a while back. Ask around and someone will be able to point you to it.