• Feddyteddy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      The only people that think this is correct are ones that learned about crypto 5 years ago and never thought to update their information. The lightning network allows for tiny bitcoin transactions with sub one cent transaction fees. In addition to that, the transactions happen in less than a second.

      • TheOneCurly@lemmy.theonecurly.page
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        As long as you have a channel with that person preconfigured and funded right? Otherwise you need to do an on chain transaction with on chain fees to set up that sub one cent transaction.

        • Feddyteddy@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No. I have opened up exactly 1 channel with 1 other person years ago, and it was done automatically when I installed the app. Since then I have been able to send and receive bitcoin to anyone I’ve wanted to instantly and for a miniscule fraction of the amount that I have sent. I am really surprised, I had no idea that so much misinformation was being passed around amongst people who have never even decided to try it themselves or even look into it deeply at all.

        • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          Shhhh, don’t point out how there has to be a large pool of the currency sitting in someone’s account and that the person often disappears with it all or spends it. That upsets their narrative. No regulation or oversite is GOOD.

          • Feddyteddy@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is absurd. It is impossible for anyone to disappear with the money, nothing like this has or even can happen. Please post any source even claiming this. I am baffled that it would even cross your mind to even make such an absurd claim. Please post a source.

            • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Here’s the most widely known and published case:

              https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.com/crypto/2023/02/24/ruja-ignatova-cryptoqueen-onecoin-murder-bulgaria-crime-boss-yacht/amp/

              Supposedly she’s dead now but who knows. The current biggest news scam is the FTX shit. That was a crypto exchange. They stole like a billion dollars. Is it better because he didn’t disappear after fleeing to the Bahamas?

              This is what I love about you crypto techbros. You just claim everything that doesn’t support your beliefs isn’t real. Please invest all your retirement savings into digital currencies. You’ll show us.

              • Feddyteddy@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                You misunderstood what was being discussed completely, we were talking about the technical side of the lightning network, not whether or not people kill each other for money. Yes, absolutely people murder each other to take what they want, but believe it or not this happens with every currency in the world and happened even before currency existed. I can’t even imagine what must go through the head of someone to think that murder/theft is something that bitcoin introduced to the world.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s also centralized and just a bandaid over an issue that could have been solved if Bitcoin had stayed true to its original intention, i.e. digital cash, not a fake store of value.

        • Feddyteddy@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is absurd. Anyone who has the slightest idea of how it works knows that it is in no way centralized. It isn’t hard to learn how it works.

              • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                Oh sorry if I don’t keep up to date to the daily movement of Bitcoin… I mean, I wouldn’t have because it’s a store of value and the basic principle of a store of value is the ability to use it and be guaranteed to have what you put in or close to it…

                • Feddyteddy@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Don’t apologize, just use your time to learn instead of wasting it and everyone else’s by talking about things you don’t care to learn about first.

                  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Oh I know how the shit works, I just don’t put blindfolds preventing me from seeing how flawed it is 🙂

                • SwingingKoala@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  it’s a store of value

                  Sigh, you’re wrong again, bitcoin has the potential to be a store of value, it’s not one yet as it keeps going up long term until the market will have found a fair value.

                  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Well, if it’s a bad peer-to-peer electronic cash system and it’s not a store of value, what’s the point then? 🙂

              • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                So is saying that everyone who bought Bitcoin cash lost money considering today isn’t all time low.

                It’s not as if I was here to defend Bitcoin cash, I’m here to point out that Bitcoin and lighting network is flawed though.

                • explodicle@local106.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  split date != ATH

                  The rhetoric you’re repeating is straight out of that scam. And you linked to their subreddit.

                  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You’re the only one who talked about split date and if we go by that argument, whenever there’s a hard fork the people who were there before will never be losing because they suddenly own both without having purchased one of them.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            At least Bitcoin cash stayed true to the goal of Bitcoin. A peer-to-peer electronic cash system.

            • explodicle@local106.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That was also untrue. Electronic cash doesn’t imply no/low transaction fees. Basically everything they told you was a lie.

              • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Show me where in the whitepaper does it mentions storing value, please.

                No/low transaction fees and ease of transaction is the main point of cash vs barter, Bitcoin abandoned that, now you have to go through the trouble of using level 2 to have small fees and quick transactions, what’s the point of Bitcoin then?

                • explodicle@local106.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No. I’ve had this exact argument enough times that it was a relief to finally bet on it.

                  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. **The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions**, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non- reversible services.

                    Right in the introduction to the whitepaper.

                    Maybe you should start with reading it so you would see where things went wrong.