> A triangle ABC of lightning nodes opens a channel with 1 bitcoin between nodes. 3 bitcoins total.
>Each node can have a state with a total of 2 bitcoins. That's 6 bitcoins.
Well, no. If you want a channel between A and B with 1 BTC capacity in either direction, you'll need to deposit 2 BTC to fund the channel. Therefore there's 6 BTC total that's locked up. As for the rest of your comment, it's not really clear how it's "separated" from the on-chain value.
uhh what? It's true that nobody knows what the state of the channel is, but the capacity is known. so they know it would conclude with either party A getting 0.1 BTC (for example), party B getting 0.1 BTC, or somewhere in between.
That's great to hear. I was following BCH back when their transactions were just a trickle. I was afraid the Craig Wright nonsense was going to completely end the chain. Refreshing to know that they are not just surviving, but thriving.
Not really decentralized when people have to rely on third party apps like Strike to open channels for them, or they have to open the channels themselves while both users are online. It’s a mess from a usability standpoint.
> ...or decentralized settlement networks like LN.
Not very, though. Lightning recentralizes the Bitcoin blockchain to improve efficiency.
"10 percent of [Lightning] nodes control 80 percent of funds on the network." — Bitcoin’s Lightning Network Is Growing 'Increasingly Centralized,' Researchers Find[1]
Speculating here, but my observations of Dorsey/Square is that they see more long term value in being an exchange for fiat to cryptocurrency rather than (only) being a settlement house for payments. I see them acting as both exchange and clearing house (and debit and credit provider, and payroll service, and...), which, sure, Visa could too, but Square has/is building the infrastructure for those mutual use cases, and Visa is mostly playing catch-up.
Of course, it's the loudest voices that always get heard and are oft repeated, but I'd say most of us in the industry realize that cryptocurrency will never be a 1:1 replacement of traditional fiat currency--barring some significant breakdown of society and government. It's more of a complementary thing. Something more like internet and radio (i.e. both are still used today, one did not completely replace the other). Not the best example but you get the picture. And then there is 3rd and 2nd world countries where crypto can be used as a sort of stop gap solution until a viable form of government and banking can be situated.
They are leveraging their massive reach to increase the value of private crypto holdings. This isn’t allowed for regular stocks and shares so crypto is an opportunity.
The energy usage is for mining new bitcoin and collecting fees, not "7 transactions per second". Newly mined bitcoin will be used for infinite future transactions.
If you want more settlement with same store-of-value properties, use Bitcoin Cash.
> The energy usage is for mining new bitcoin and collecting fees, not "7 transactions per second".
I think you've misunderstood. The mining fees you cited are for those 7 transactions per second. Miners collect fees for processing those transactions.
Focusing on the dollar amount of those Bitcoin or how many times a Bitcoin can be re-used is irrelevant. If anything, it's bizarrely wasteful that Bitcoin requires the energy consumption of a medium sized country just to continue confirming that your balance hasn't changed.
Or, to put it more strongly, if no-one mined bitcoin tomorrow, you literally can't transact anymore. Bitcoin PoW /needs/ the energy consumption to function at all.
