pull down to refresh
Nation-states understand Bitcoin perfectly well. Since they understand it, they don't want to use it — it "kinda sorta" demonetizes them. They'll accept it, but I bet they'll put up their own alternatives for "the reserve currency."
Just like how once upon a time it started on a mailing list, bTC adoption is bottom-up. Just like it outfought competitors in the 2010s, it'll have to outfight more (bigger) competitors in the near-term future.
On Michael Saylor:
In my opinion, he understands Bitcoin and what it ultimately means. I think he is extremely intellectual, and has as good of understanding as anyone, of what the future may hold in the Bitcoin era.
I do not think he actually believes all the statist bullshit about regulation being good, taxation, and the US dollar continuing to exist. It’s too bad he doesn’t speak freely about it, but the position he is in prohibits him from being truthful about this. Him telling people that Bitcoin will destroy the state is not necessary or helpful when explaining Bitcoin to people who haven’t seen the rabbit hole yet-it will only turn off their brains. I’m not sure if he could be voted off the board, but nothing good would happen if he is 100% honest on this point. In the end, none of this has anything to do with the value proposition of Bitcoin.
You don’t yell a war cry as you jump out of the Trojan Horse. You sneak out at night and slit the throats of your enemies while they sleep.
Saylor is just a man, who has an engineer mind and an excellent way of distilling what Bitcoin is. Study his ideas and metaphors, and as always, DYOR.
You know me well enough:
- I respect and follow the Natural Law that says very clearly: do not steal.
- My personal values are way more up than some few thousands sats.
- I have enough BTC to live my life without taking what IS NOT MINE!
- If I would see in my user balance such a high change, I will contact immediately contact @k00b (as I did several times in the past).
- Just because I shit on shitcoiners it doesn't mean I will steal from such a nice bitcoin project!
- FUCK YOU ALL THOSE THAT THINK IT WAS ME! Shame on you that you didn't read ALL my posting history on SN to know me better.
I am really starting to get tired of the bitcoin isn't an inflation hedge, lol it stops you from dilution IN THE BITCOIN network, it doesn't control whats going on in secondary markets, gosh everytime I have to explain that one it does my head in lol
As someone not in the western world (South Africa) bitcoin looks so good, I literally have no other way to save, every financial instrument is impaired when you do the real return calculations and the currency is not doing you any favours
Bitcoin is MEANT to redistribute wealth and its only going to do that by allowing those who didn't get much out of the fiat game to get in first
<hr>
Side note: The way you formatted this post, top stuff man, appreciate the time you took to use the mark ups
So all lightning channels exchange signed transactions each time a channel is used (when creating or fulfilling an htlc for example.) The commitment transaction can be broadcast to chain at any time because it already has the necessary signatures of both parties to make it a valid transaction.
Normally, a node would just hang on to this commitment transaction and wait to use the channel again and that's what happens the vast majority of the time. The trouble comes if your peer goes offline and you want to be able to spend these funds. You can only do this if the transaction is broadcastable. When the feerate spikes, this may no longer be the case unless you and your peer update the tx with a higher feerate - this is normally done cooperatively with both peers online. If they are offline though, you may be better off settling before the feerate gets too out-of-hand and you're stuck with an unspendable channel.
Anchors solve this problem in a nice way, allowing a channel participant to bring their own output to spend a channel's anchor and CPFP here at a higher effective feerate even though their peer may be missing.
The other problem is the time-sensitivity of htlcs. Suppose you're routing a payment; as the deadline approaches for your incoming htlc, you're faced with it becoming unspendable. Meanwhile, the outgoing htlc you offered a peer on another channel can still be claimed by that peer if they receive the preimage. It's not safe to not resolve this timed out htlc because you could be left on the hook for the difference. If your peer is offline, the only way to resolve it unilaterally is to now force close the channel.
I may be missing others cases, but these are two of the prominent issues, and I think anchor channels along with using an increased cltv delta are two of the remedies to consider.
https://imgprxy.stacker.news/VC33NB2vYTrtB9_4qLn5mDLTSQ-GgDeEFOWnR7jJ1_M/rs:fit:600:500:0/g:no/aHR0cHM6Ly96dXBpbWFnZXMubmV0L3VwLzIzLzMxL2lsNm8uanBn