110 sats \ 6 replies \ @NetWt1oz 21 Aug 2022
LOL. This 4+ year old video aged like milk. Don't waste your time watching this. The FUD within has been disproved multiple times over.
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @moneroshill OP 21 Aug 2022
care to take a shot at it?
reply
471 sats \ 4 replies \ @NetWt1oz 21 Aug 2022
sure.
This seems like a relic of "The blocksize war" (https://www.bitrawr.com/bitcoin-block-size-debate-explained) when some folks thought bitcoin should have larger blocks, and then bitcoin cash was forked off. It failed.
claims:
time: 1:07 - $15 transfer fee to send on-chain transactions. I have never paid more than 1sat/vByte for an on-chain transaction. You have control of this when you use a self-custody wallet. Since this video was recorded while there was a suspected active attack on the bitcoin network with massive transaction spam, this point is moot. In any case, you can see the history of the average fee here: https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee Note, that even if the average is high, you can always set minimum fees.
3:36 - All channels between sender and reciever must have the full amount to route payments. This is false. Multi-path Payments are now widely supported by all major LN implementations.
4:50-6:ish - Centralized "HUBS" and all the FUD around legisislation. You can run your own "hub" for near free on a rasberry pi or old laptop. It runs completely over TOR, so good luck identifying what country its in, let alone try to censor or regulate it.
5:05 - broadcasting old history allows someone to "steal" bitcoin. This is not a risk if you open channels with entities you trust. If you are wanting to run a routing node with lots of untrusted connections, this risk is also eliminated with the use of watchtower technology. https://lightningnetwork.plus/watchtower Again, for the usecase of an average user making small purchases, this is a non-issue.
6:30-7:ish - blocksize is being crippled by developers/blockstream - more old blocksize war fud. Bitcoin devs propose changes. its up to the full concensus of the community to make the decision.
7:56 "fees have exponentially risen, confirmation times have grown from minutes to days" - lul: https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @moneroshill OP 21 Aug 2022
Sure, but the current fees hovering around a dollar aren't great, and looking at this graph it seems like fees blew up again around the 2021 bullrun. Sure, you can set your own maximum fee, but who knows when that transaction will finally go through?
Sure, but you still need paths with enough liquidity in the right direction in order to make a lightning payment, which goes into the next point:
It doesn't matter that you can technically run your own hub, you need a lot of liquidity and connections in order to have an effect on the network. That's a major centralizing force: more major than any proposed blocksize increase. If you have a lot of money in one place and you're trying to act as "hub" for transactions, the government can find you through a sting operation. This has been true for every major DN operation.
as far as I understand, this means you need to be constantly online.
"This is not a risk if you open channels with entities you trust."? Huh? Double-spending is not a risk if you only trade with people you trust. The whole purpose of bitcoin is to facilitate trade with less trustworthy peers.
If the bitcoin network has a ton of traffic, who knows if you will be able to close your payment channel properly? Surely LN would be complimented by a greater block-size.
The full consensus of the community? What community? It seems like a legit concern considering that blockstream's whole grift is based on selling services, they clearly benefit from gimping bitcoin and they obviously intend to "cash in" at some point.
Again, the same story happened with the second bull-run. How can the bitcoin network become mainstream if there isn't enough bandwidth to accommodate new users? Surely the blocksize will eventually need to be increased.
reply
210 sats \ 2 replies \ @032f871641 22 Aug 2022
I think it’s pretty ironic that you’re arguing support of a video with a message of “lightning cant succeed” on a Platform that shows its success.
If this video was right, we’d be using bcash instead of Satoshis.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @moneroshill OP 22 Aug 2022
I mean you could just use bitcoin cash or something, it would be easier and more secure than this.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @NetWt1oz 23 Aug 2022
Why don't you build a platform like this that used monero or bcash? If it survives, I'll check it out.
reply