> on top of bitcoin you can build the arsenal of tools.
Which shows again that you didn't read the article, or read it and didn't understand a single argument in it.
> Lower value transfers got priced out because fees that previously were low in dollar terms have become high in dollar terms because Bitcoin was previously $1 and now it’s $50,000.
So, both the article and me were correct about transfer fees.
> Payments in payment channel are settled as fast as your internet latency
Once again, payment channels are required due to inherent limitations of Bitcoin. So, in order to combat the absolutely real and valid issues raised in the article, you dismiss them out of hand, while... advocating for additional systems built on top to valiantly combat these issues. smh
--- start quote ---
Only two transactions are settle on the Bitcoin blockchain. the first transaction and the last. The first transaction is used to open the channel by locking the funds, and the last one to close channel and get each participant his final balance back. So in a typical payment channel, only two transactions are added to the block chain but an unlimited number of payments can be made between the participants.
--- end quote ---
So, all transactions are happening outside bitcoin in a completely separate system just because Bitcoin can't handle all this.
> so for all intents and purposes transaction capacity in bitcoin payment channels is infinite.
Of course it's not :)
It's two transactions in Bitcoin, so the actual transaction time of the actual assets in Bitcoin that people care about will be (10 to 30 minutes) times 2.
And it's the capacity of the payment channel, and that depends on the implementation.
And on top of that the actual true transaction time and transaction capacity will depend solely on when the payment chain will commit those transactions to blockchain.
Oh, yes. They still don't solve the actual use-case of "micropayments": receiving multiple "micropayments" from multiple people. So, a cafe would get flooded with "micropayments" from dozens of people during rush hour. In payment channel terms this will be two transactions per person with a micropayment on a blockchain with unknown fees and waiting times. Perfect.
> Payment channel systems are already built and they don’t require centralisation.
Of course they do. It's a separate system built outside of bitcoin that aggregates multiple transactions between users. Aggregation simply by definition implies centralisation.
> You obviously know next to nothing yet you keep arguing trying to pretend to be smart and knowledgeable.
These ad hominem attacks sure do make you look smart and knowledgeable.*
Indeed, and that's the source of many issues.
> on top of bitcoin you can build the arsenal of tools.
Which shows again that you didn't read the article, or read it and didn't understand a single argument in it.
> Lower value transfers got priced out because fees that previously were low in dollar terms have become high in dollar terms because Bitcoin was previously $1 and now it’s $50,000.
So, both the article and me were correct about transfer fees.
> Payments in payment channel are settled as fast as your internet latency
Once again, payment channels are required due to inherent limitations of Bitcoin. So, in order to combat the absolutely real and valid issues raised in the article, you dismiss them out of hand, while... advocating for additional systems built on top to valiantly combat these issues. smh
--- start quote ---
Only two transactions are settle on the Bitcoin blockchain. the first transaction and the last. The first transaction is used to open the channel by locking the funds, and the last one to close channel and get each participant his final balance back. So in a typical payment channel, only two transactions are added to the block chain but an unlimited number of payments can be made between the participants.
--- end quote ---
So, all transactions are happening outside bitcoin in a completely separate system just because Bitcoin can't handle all this.
> so for all intents and purposes transaction capacity in bitcoin payment channels is infinite.
Of course it's not :)
It's two transactions in Bitcoin, so the actual transaction time of the actual assets in Bitcoin that people care about will be (10 to 30 minutes) times 2.
And it's the capacity of the payment channel, and that depends on the implementation.
And on top of that the actual true transaction time and transaction capacity will depend solely on when the payment chain will commit those transactions to blockchain.
Congratulations, you've invented classical banking.
Oh, yes. They still don't solve the actual use-case of "micropayments": receiving multiple "micropayments" from multiple people. So, a cafe would get flooded with "micropayments" from dozens of people during rush hour. In payment channel terms this will be two transactions per person with a micropayment on a blockchain with unknown fees and waiting times. Perfect.
> Payment channel systems are already built and they don’t require centralisation.
Of course they do. It's a separate system built outside of bitcoin that aggregates multiple transactions between users. Aggregation simply by definition implies centralisation.
> You obviously know next to nothing yet you keep arguing trying to pretend to be smart and knowledgeable.
These ad hominem attacks sure do make you look smart and knowledgeable.*