Bitcoins/Litecoins/Virtual Currencies

what was the offshoot forum with even weirder shit than usual, I think it came after rerolled.

wormie said:

My point? Your post seemed like bullshit but since you were posting about it, I thought maybe I was incorrect due to ignorance. Which is why I asked what you meant by "qualified" (seems its "extremely qualified" now) as that seems redundant when put in front of "math". Now do you think you raging about this instead of offering an explanation supports my initial reaction or disproves it?

Click to expand...

So you have no point, you just don't understand perfectly acceptable English or the fact that math can be abused and twisted to promote a completely false narrative, i.e. Lightning can replace SWIFT. Of course I'm going to call you retarded, if I quoted some perfectly acceptable English and said what the shit is that to you, I'd expect the same back.

James said:

So you have no point, you just don't understand perfectly acceptable English or the fact that math can be abused and twisted to promote a completely false narrative, i.e. Lightning can replace SWIFT. Of course I'm going to call you retarded, if I quoted some perfectly acceptable English and said what the shit is that to you, I'd expect the same back.

Click to expand...

Bitcoin + layer 2's can replace SWIFT. I never said Lightning would do so alone. I think its possible, but certainly not in its current state. I also don't think it happens tomorrow, obviously

Flobee said:

Bitcoin + layer 2's can replace SWIFT.

Click to expand...

Not without significant improvement on Bitcoin L1, it's literally impossible for all of the reasons Vitalik already laid out. If you think Bitcoin can achieve that improvement with no singular vision guiding them, you're nuts and I'm not going to pretend you're not.

How do people feel about Coinbase Pro? Why would you buy anything on normal Coinbase if you can move back and forth between them?

Am I going to graduate to not using these things anymore to purchase and store crypto?

James said:

Not without significant improvement on Bitcoin L1, it's literally impossible for all of the reasons Vitalik already laid out. If you think Bitcoin can achieve that improvement with no singular vision guiding them, you're nuts and I'm not going to pretend you're not.

Click to expand...

Bitcoin as a settlement layer only requires that L1 transactions take place when finalizing settlements between two L2 entities. A braindead example being Visa and Paypal are interacting in their own systems with users trading Bitcoin (this is layer 2 transactions for this use case) and they settle the final balance on a set interval. That interval being the only time that a L1 transaction is taking place as value moves between Paypal and Visa. Hence no high TPS requirements

This principal is identical to transaction on the Lightning network and payment channels. L1 transactions only take place when a payment channel is closed between two node, thus settling the balance. Yes, if you want to have complicated smart contract interactions then your point from Vitalik's write up makes sense. He was specifically arguing about L2 scaling for smart contracts. If you're just talking about settling L2 spends then you do not need your "qualified math".

SWIFT is literally just moving database values from one institution to another. Bitcoin could replace SWIFT today on that single use case if you allow for centralized entities like Visa and Paypal to be Layer 2 rails (which you shouldn't). If you want decentralized rails we're getting closer but probably not there yet.

EDIT:
If this doesn't make sense watch the below. He explains how off-chain transactions are stored and verified. You can keep a payment channel open indefinitely as long as both parties consent. Same concept will apply with Paypal/Visa technically assuming trust

Flobee said:

Bitcoin as a settlement layer only requires that L1 transactions take place when finalizing settlements between two L2 entities. A braindead example being Visa and Paypal are interacting in their own systems with users trading Bitcoin (this is layer 2 transactions for this use case) and they settle the final balance on a set interval. That interval being the only time that a L1 transaction is taking place as value moves between Paypal and Visa. Hence no high TPS requirements

This principal is identical to transaction on the Lightning network and payment channels. L1 transactions only take place when a payment channel is closed between two node, thus settling the balance. Yes, if you want to have complicated smart contract interactions then your point from Vitalik's write up makes sense. He was specifically arguing about L2 scaling for smart contracts. If you're just talking about settling L2 spends then you do not need your "qualified math".

SWIFT is literally just moving database values from one institution to another. Bitcoin could replace SWIFT today on that single use case if you allow for centralized entities like Visa and Paypal to be Layer 2 rails (which you shouldn't). If you want decentralized rails we're getting closer but probably not there yet.

Click to expand...

No, Vitalik's point was in regards to total computational/data complexity. As L1 power increases, more people will do obviously want to do more complex things with it -- a programming language is a natural step in that paradigm, not just some software functionality that needs to be developed and supported. In fact, the post entirely dismantles the Lightning narrative by proving it's entirely insufficient support such a paradigm, which you'd know if you took the time to actually read and digest it. Here's the whitepaper to an even better version of Lightning, which Vitalik also dismisses: https://www.plasma.io/plasma.pdf

You're being sold a bill of goods by techno boomers in order to justify a perverted narrative that ignores fundamental research in this area.

I'd like to know where you'd be if you never moved anything around after buying it.