I am not sure this is how it works 100%, but I think you have some of it right.  I felt the same way you did so I came up with http://cpay.today screenshots on facebook -> https://www.facebook.com/cpaytoday/   All support is appreciated.

My main goal is for instant free sending of crypto currencies.

Interesting take on the Lightning Network. Based on what I have read, there seems to be a decrease in fee, but not in a big magnitude (it seems the fee reduction to be in the range of 10% to 50%).

Waiting for the 2nd part

Transaction fee is one major thing which is preventing bit coin to be used more commonly and widely. The current transaction fees are very high (For eg: For doing a transaction of 0.002000 BTC, the transaction fee is 0.000500 (1/4th of the amount being sent). I wanted to learn the ropes of cryptotrading and started with a small amount of ~40 USD. But due to the high transaction fee, it is just laying idle without being transferred to a cryptocurrency exchange like Binance!

I'm confused, who pays the miner fee for opening/closing the channel? Isn't this split according to the funding ratio?

Regardless, even if they'd split the fees, it's quite expensive.

When I realized how Lightning Hubs works, I thought of the same thing too.

If they all want Bitcoin to be used in purchasing coffees, use/integrate/partner with a 3rd-party wallet that was designed for micro transactions.
Designed to send and receive (without using the blockchain) funds within their system.
It is meant for small payments so, you only need to send some funds to that wallet to be used for buying coffee or something else.
Find a coffee shot that accepts "that" payment method and Voala! no transaction fee micro-transaction.

Bitcoin needs improvements in the system not in this type of usability options.
To minimize conflicts, keep Bitcoin as it is while improving the transactions and let the world develop services above it.

Like today's web programming, binaries are in the bottom and CSS/HTML as the front-end.
Let bitcoin become the foundation (the binaries) of future services.

Fees of $30 is not far of the current price and no one with a brain cell is doing micro-transactions using Bitcoin just now
unless you consider $100 as being micro payments instead of a few cents so I cannot agree with you here.


Playing with block size and timings like ETH has done can improve the network and in theory Segwit should had
helped but in practice fees continued to increase since its introduction so we must all be using the currency wrong.

What the developers are doing here is saying the car engine is broken, you need a new one that runs on "Banks"
instead of "gas" but really the old engine just needs fixing and they need to apply distributed processing to the
block-chain itself and brake it down into manageable sized chunks.

Block headers are quite small and are connect like a linked list to each other but instead of containing the block
itself it could just become a pointer to a collection of nodes that process the block data or we could have block ranges
in the header like is used in Whois

This approach for sure would turbo boost the network way above IOTA speeds but would still be kicking the can down the road
because the headers would become too big in time if we all start sending $0.01 to view VIP web-pages but all
spending over say $0.99 should be on the public BC or we may as well not have one in the first place and if other
networks can present a public view of a large block-chain then so can we without using banks

Here is the white-paper https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
needs chucking in the bin if you ask me and I am far from being alone in saying this






 

Your posts are pretty much incoherent to analyse the argument except that it sounds like you are hell bent on kicking dust. I am sure most of the notable members on BCT don't want to indulge people like you who just want to come up with the worst-possible imaginary situations. So I'll try in whatever humble manner I can.

you make this argument about the settlement transaction. LN aims to enable micropayments and it does that quite well. The settlement transaction when closing the channel is a one-time cost which will not be the 30$ owing to de-congestion as smaller payments move to LN. That will become clearer from the state of mempool once LN starts to be used by exchanges/ merchants.

You won't need to open channels with every individual/ store you want to transact with. It'll be a multi-hop transaction as explained in the videos quite well. You will anyways have a channel with some major hub whenever you make your first purchase. Depending on how that services you, you can always change it to someone else when you settle your transaction and open a new channel.

Segwith adoption is still low due to which its positive effects are not being felt. This is a community project and of course the "üser" community needs to do its part. Bitcoin developers don't owe anything to anybody. They give you an elegant solution and you don't use it. Its not on them to market it like Mr. Ver and form a circlejerk of Bcash tipping idiots.


Same repeated argument. You want to use keep using the fear psychosis of "Banks". With funds committed to an LN channel, EVERYONE is a BANK. Everyone is in it together. Of course some will be bigger, some medium and some smaller.


Are you a developer? Do you have a working code for this "Idea" you are proposing? If yes, you are welcome to go join the github and propose it there. If you can't do this and have only thought of this in some algorithmic way then how are you talking about Pointers to collection of nodes??!! All nodes are supposed to be equal. What are you even doing here if you think that its okay for only a few masternodes to process the block data. There's SPV wallets for that.


Yeah, sure. Coming from someone who cannot form more than a couple of coherent sentences, this is good advices

Thanks for the better constructed sentences and thought out replies this time. I won't have to strain to understand you. This makes the discussion worth our while. The scenario of Bob buying his coffee is pretty simple. Its just a pessimistic, worst-possible imaginary situation because you have assumed that:
1. Bob needs to open a channel with everyone he deals with. Not necessary. He doesn't have to do that. The network does that for him.He just needs one payment channel with another node.
2. Bitcoin price decreases and he doesn't have enough finances. How is that not a negative scenario? Further, you are assuming that if fiat varies the merchant changes the amount in BTC. (which does happen, but then you miss the point that widespread adoption means BTC has its own value. As people keep repeating at the forum and elsewhere. 1 BTC is always 1 BTC.)
3. You assume that On-chain fees remain 30$. You again assume this ignoring the fact that the  avg. fees have already come down to ~20$ https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html#3m and that with LN, a lot of transactions clogging the network will be gone.

Quite simply, you are imagining the worst cases because you are on the other side of the debate. Anyways, Moving on.


Multiple transactions for the cost of one transaction. This is a big positive for individual users. Or do you imagine a utopian situation where we will have visa-level transactions on a decentralized, secure, trustless network and there won't be any fees?


Major hubs are not the same as today's banks, no matter how much you want to continue beating that drum. You are not trusting them with your money. It stays in a multi-sig wallet and only the latest updated state of payments can be broadcast to the main chain.


You only need to use the Segwit address as a user. Use an Electrum wallet and there are enough instructions available to make a Segwit enabled wallet. Here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Electrum/comments/7llnll/here_is_how_to_create_segwit_bip49_wallets_and/
I do agree that bitcoin hasn't yet evolved to suit the most basic user who just want to install an app and start payments. To be honest, bitcoin's awareness has gone from the slightly tech oriented to everyone's grandma now. There is a lot of catching up to do in terms of user experience. How LN will incorporate all the underlying details is yet to be seen.

Once again, my being rude to you has only to do with your constant harking on "its a bank". And maybe also because you seem to have an agenda to fill the forum with such posts. "others have managed without having to burn CPU/GPU/ASICS?". Are you talking about IOTA etc. I have no intention of being an apologist for LN. I truly believe that such innovative methods are a better answer than relying on unlimited block sizes.


C'mon. You said "Pointers to blocks of data" and now you come up with this argument of capping maximum fees. You just changed the goalpost. All nodes should be able to verify the chain for themselves and take part in accepting or rejecting a new block. Your idea to only have a few super-nodes that carry the burden of verifying the blockchain is nowhere near what bitcoin is supposed to be.


This was in response to your statement:

Its easy to say things like that when YOU are not the one coming up with the solutions. I called you out only for showing such disregard to someone else's hard work.After doing that, you don't get to be the victim by saying things like "people are being rude" or that "they need to use insults" .
About the "green crypto mining ICO", You are welcome to check it out. Its a signature campaign. PoW isn't going anywhere for a long time. What you can try is to make it green by efficiency and using Renewable energy sources. I think its a good idea.

Quite simply your arrogance is off-putting and even if you did have valid arguments, your “superior intellect” failed to understand that this is, after all, a forum dedicated to bitcoin occupied by lots of people who are invested in it, so doomsayers like yourself will naturally be treated with scepticism, since most of their “arguments” are rooted in the fact that they themselves have failed to ride the wave (and for some reason, still refuse to grab opportunies) and so (fueled by envy?) don’t want to see bitcoin do well.

I appreciate your input but like I said above, will treat it with scepticism.

You are free to read the white paper yourself


The tone of your voice needs to also be called into question too before you lecture me about how to
act in a forum so lets try sticking with facts and deal with the source please