Sure? I think Lightning Network can’t be implemented without Malleability Fixes and that is the principal feature of the SegWit soft-fork.
This is the problem…
Lightning creator Joseph Poon also stressed SegWit’s importance as a way to pave the way for the off-chain transaction network.
“The most significant benefit of Segregated Witness isn’t about transaction capacity – it’s to solve Satoshi’s biggest known yet unresolved bug, transaction malleability,” he said.
And don’t think exist an easy solution.
Lightning Network uses payment channels with Hashed TimeLock Contracts. Both of those things are currently usable on Bitcoin mainnet without segwit, so LN is possible without segwit.
However, without segwit or another malleability fix, LN channels have to deal with situations where transactions get mutated (“malleated”), which makes them get stuck at various steps. Preventing them from getting stuck permanently requires either introducing trust (which we don’t want to do) or setting some annoying timeouts that limit the efficiency of channels.
I’m completely against SegWit, and LN. It leads to more centralization ecosystem. Bitcoin is already centralized, and now they want to centralized even further by taking off the blockchain.
I think bitcoin and the blockchain is dead in the waters. It is design to fail from the start, just like clearnet, gov, and socialist policies. They knew the intent, and still precede.
lol, that’s a completely lie. There is no problems with transaction until blockstream core intentionally ruined it. Then propose a solution a problem they created. The same tactics as gov does. Whenever gov creates a problem, blames on free market, then propose a solution ontop of that non-existing problem.
Actually when I first read about Unlimited I liked it most because it gives the decision into the hands of the people and miners so the network throughput can be changed on a democratic way.
Actually it’s (Unlimited) creating another competition among miners to set the correct variables and earn most transaction fees this way.
Maybe it’s too dangerous and other approaches are more subtle but it’s definitely more decentralized.
//beginning of rant
The main issue is that a fee market does not work in any meaningful way. What fee market means is simply that the people with the most money will pay the least fees percentage-wise.
If you are transferring 100 btc, you dont care about 60cent fees, but if youre paying back a friend 0.005 btc for the beer last night, it does. Those who argue like Satoshi “the larger the transaction, the higher the fee” and “yay fee markets are freedom” haven’t thought it through imo.
If there’s no “fee-free” way of transferring Bitcoin, the blocks will have to get bigger and bigger. How is Unlimited going to address that? I’m not aware of everything they have planned, but seriously, how are they proposing to reach 100 or 1000 transactions per second?
And why can’t we have both? 2MB blocks and segwit and lightning? Why do self-proclaimed speakers always have to swing their dicks and can’t have a productive talk?
//end of rant
Ahh that was good
Once BTC hit 21M the earnings for the miners will come from the fees only.
What incentive will miners have ?
You said it: fees, those are the incentives. If you haven’t noticed, bitcoins fees have been raising steadily. In the beginning the bitcoins were marketed as a free transaction network, not anymore.
After the miners subsidy got halved 3 times already, the minimum fee to get a transaction on a block is about 0.0001 BTC, otherwise it can take days or weeks to get it confirmed.
The next halving will definitely increase the fees again.
It will not be as cheap as it’s been touted originally, but still hopefully cheaper than what the banks charge.
If throughput rises fees will go down because being first won’t be that important anymore.
There will be a fee hunt in unlimited between the miners. They need to set the correct variables to earn more fees.
If they set blocksize too big then there won’t be enough blocks to mine and only few miners earn fees from those, thus setting a lower blocksize then gives them more blocks…
Bigger blocks is more transactions and more fee earned for miner, but not if you can’t get a block
Bigger blocks = less fees.
Think as in terms of bus picking up passengers. The people who pay the highest fee, will get in the bus. Since there is limited block space, this created a fee market. So the bus only can carry up to 20 people. That’s it.
With BU, this eliminates the problem, and removes fee market. Each bus driver can decide how much it wants to pick up.
Fee market is intentionally created by blockstreamcore.
This is one of the many reasons why safecoin appeals - resources needed to transact in them is tiny relative to what a blockchain needs.
Anonymous, instant and easy to use and keep safe is also nice too. Ofc, they need implementing first though!
bigger blocks = more forks = annoyed miners who don’t get paid
Bigger blocks take more time to propagate across the network because the larger number of transactions that need to be verified introduces additional latency, and the bigger size results in longer transfer time. All this leaves more time for a competing block to show up. We already have forks, but it’s fine as long as they are rare enough.
The point is, it’s not possible to just increase the blocksize (or decrease the time between them) and expect everything will keep working the same. Unless we get rid of the linear structure of the blockchain (how to do that in a robust way, I’m not sure) we can only get worse than linear improvement: blockchains don’t scale.
Actually, this is why SAFE is awesome: we won’t have the same kind of bottleneck.
I don’t think it can stay cheap and get widely adopted. Bitcoin has these possible futures:
- it stays irrelevant, because it won’t handle more than a tiny fraction of the global volume;
- transaction amounts grow huge and fees become prohibitively high for the average user;
- well, anything in-between, but there’s a strong relationship between transaction fees and adoption.
Bitcoin’s adoption and fees are related the following way:
- there are more and more transactions (“adoption”)
- there’s not enough space, so miners pick the ones with higher fees
- higher absolute fees make lower amounts increasingly inefficient
- the average transaction is now bigger (“oops”)
Basically, as the blockchain limits transaction frequency, adoption can’t grow without pushing the fees higher. If bitcoin gets globally adopted, it will still only be able to handle the same number of transactions (or a little more, if they try very hard), so the fees and, with them, the average transaction amounts, will be humongous. Or, it can stay the insignificant fringe curiosity that it is today, and then the fees will stay small, too.
There is no problems with transaction until blockstream core intentionally ruined it.
This is incorrect. The malleability issue goes way back and is a bug. It was the cause of many millions lost from mt. gox as a user (hacker) that had discovered it back then was hitting mt. gox up for withdrawals, changing the tranaction ID (using the malleability bug) and than mailing them back saying he never recieved the bitcoins.
They were such a bucket shop they kept resending them. Only later was it discovered that this was causing this issue, I guess they didnt know.
blockstream core intentionally ruined it.
Is completely false. Please read up more on the code to understand. Its a very long running issue.
This is exactly why I think jumped ships as soon as I learned about MaidSafe, it is so elegant and infinitely scalable by default that it made me feel like the Blockchain was a hack. The scalability problem in the Blockchain is unfixable unless sidechains and the lightning network are implemented.
Sidechains move transactions over to other systems, so they are not actually scaling bitcoin, but reducing it to a settlement system. Which is cool because that’s what it’s meant to be, not the “digital cash” most people think it is.
As for the lightning network, I still have to go through that paper to fully understand how it works. As far as I can see, it promises solving the scaling problem while maintaining the same level of security, and it’s doing it similar to one of the ideas about divisible safecoins, by using prepaid balances. Except, these “microchannels” would belong to predetermined addresses, which means it helps reducing the load only when there are repeated transaction between the same parties. But it sounds interesting. And again, it uses bitcoin for settlement, which is the right direction.
Even if the scalability issue is handled (I doubt calling it solved, I wonder if it will ever) there is this thorny issue about their mining centralization, and the energetically wasteful PoW.
11 entities (companies and pools) control 89.6% of the hashing power. And 57% of them are Chinese.
F2P Pool, China 12.2%
Antpool, China 17.2%
Bw Pool, China 6.1%
BTC.top, China 6.2%
ViaBTC, China 5.9%
HaoBTC, China 4.8%
BTC.com, China 4.6%
Just with this sample, they have an aggregate hashing power of 57% of the network.
If the Chinese political power decides to interfere, they can single handedly have the power to disrupt and destroy it they wished the Bitcoin network.
This miner centralization and th absolute lack of rewards for fullnodes are to me signs of a failed project.
So a question from a newbie, but what is Segwitt exactly? I saw it also on some mining pools, it said “ready for segwit”. But haven’t got a clue what it is.
Can you provide some links to show that?
I was under the understanding that Bitcoin was originally an experiment to prove the concept and it took off from there. Nothing I knew about the origins of bitcoin said it was purposed to be digital gold.
Sia coin is not doing too well these days. it says it is decentralised but sure they had some sort of central index server, anyway, looks a bit on the ropes too me, I tried it a while ago and didn’t like the setup and way you stored files, plus it is only storage so perhaps not revolutionary enough to survive…
I’m not sure this is what Audity was referring to, but it’s about the limited supply with diminishing rewards, which supposed to mimic how the mining of a physically limited resource works. Gold as an analogy is mentioned in Satoshi’s original paper actually:
The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending
resources to add gold to circulation.