Create account

x2dm
replied 129d
x2dm
The only problem is, the Core people are using it wrong. They want LN to pretty much replace Bitcoin's functionality, which it cannot possibly do.
x2dm
replied 129d
Networked payment channels could be a great supplement to Bitcoin. They're useful for very small microtxs (on the order of <1cent), especially recurring txs, e.g. paying for pageviews.
x2dm
replied 129d
Even with the very low fees we now have on BCH, there is no need to do EVERYTHING on-chain. Very small txs are impractical even with 1 sat/B fees.
x2dm
replied 129d
Imagine the LN, if nobody ever dreamed of using it for moving more than a couple of cents. There would be no liquidity issues, ever. Anyone with $10 could be a "liquidity provider"...
x2dm
replied 129d
High-degree, high-liquidity hubs would be far more decentralized. You wouldn't need watchtowers, since the risk of channel theft would be meaningless when channels contain just cents.
x2dm
replied 129d
Now couple that with low on-chain fees, so channels could be opened and closed much more easily and frequently, and the risk/liquidity barriers become quite negligible.
x2dm
replied 129d
LN has limited use-cases, but is not inherently flawed. I hope we will have it on BCH one day, because here it can actually work!
replied 129d
It is inherently flawed on a ***crippled blockchain***
x2dm
replied 129d
Ok, turns out we do agree! I thought you were aiming at LN in general, but you did say "LN on BTC"...
replied 129d
Interesting view. I'm starting to think more positively about LN.
replied 129d
LN is good for nano/micro-payments on non-limited blockchain.

The Coretard LN project is pure retardation.