Unpopular opinion: Bitcoin mixers and the Lightning network are bullshits of bullshitters.

@arashi Made my own research. Wasn't too hard but I understand if people have no time to do it.

@arashi The exact reason is these are just bullshits. You send 0.56 BTC into a mixer, in an other wallet it appers and you say it's not traceable? You send 0.56 BTC into a shittier mixer and it sends back to your own wallet the same amount with different utxos and you think it's untraceable? Wtf. Also. Why do Bitcoin need Lightning? Bitcoin don't need it. Bitcoin need the devteam who want to make it work and not a layer2 bullshit. It's not for that just a vulnearibility. But it's pretty complex.

@ChYJtNvw I only have experience with Wasabi - it produces indistinguishable UTXOs for round participants in groups of about 100, you can also do multiple rounds to increase anonymity sets. It also uses chaumian algo over Tor which makes participants anonymous even to the coordinator. I'm still not clear on what your exact issue has been, but maybe it's isolated to the particular software you've been using?

@ChYJtNvw lightning is needed because the real benefits to hyperliquid markets will come when we hit millions of transactions per second - which is physically impossible to handle on broadcast networks (especially Blockchain-based ones).

@arashi Yeah. True. On Raspberries is impossible to do so... Did you hear about that it'd last 72 years to put every Bitcoin to Lightning? Lightning needed for exchanges not as a payment system. It's not Bitcoin that's clear? Did you hear about Monero's dynamic block size?

Follow

@ChYJtNvw Monero has some great concepts in it, but unfortunately has scaling problems that are an order of magnitude more difficult than scaling Bitcoin. Just compare tx size and tx verification time between Bitcoin and Monero. That's at least a 10x problem right there. Another problem (that might have been solved since the last time I checked) was poor auditability of supply due to how range proofs work. Monero also cannot scale at layer 1. No blockchain can.

@arashi This is what bitcoiners do. Bullshitting. Lying to everyone. That's the problem with your whole cummumity.

@arashi The lie is that a 5950x can not make 1.000.000 transaction/second but a Raspberry what even can not run Ubuntu well will. Not like 1.000.000 tps needed since Visa makes less than 30.000 tps. Bullshits.

@ChYJtNvw let's break this down. A 1-in 2-out tx weighs 220 bytes (even with taproot). 1000000 txs would weigh 220MB of raw data, which means you'd need a 2Gbps downlink to keep up, and preferably twice as much to propagate transactions to other nodes. Also a 5950x is able to verify ~5000 ecdsa signatures per second depending on the curve and implementation. A far cry from a million.

Who said RPi can do better?

Think twice before calling someone a liar.

@arashi I don't understand why would someone mine horshit on raspis if they have a working onchain product.

@arashi @ChYJtNvw You put here 2 numbers and 2 ideations what no one understands and do you think everything solved and you can make more money on the biggest ponzi of the century? I'm not an idiot like Hayes.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Bitcoin Mastodon

Bitcoin Maston Instance