Bitcoin isn't good for making little purchases, firstly because it takes so long to get confirmations, if each block is 10 minutes and you need like 3 blocks to consider it confirmed that's 30 minutes. But that ties into the second issue which is that you probably don't want millions of tiny transactions on the Blockchain, you want them processed off-chain and then settled in bulk (to the Blockchain) periodically as a single transaction.
this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2025
471 points (97.8% liked)
World News
33191 readers
803 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Finally someone who knows what theyre talking about, with an actual valid criticism.
Bitcoin is great for little transactions if you use the lightning network. Sending on the lightning network means instant payments with no confirmation required and absolutely tiny fees. And the only thing that shows up on the blockchain is the transactions to initially start using lightning network and to take your coins back off the lightning network. Transactions made over the lightning network aren't recorded anywhere other than maybe by the people transacting.
"Bitcoin is great if you don't use the block chain"
That's what you just said. So why even use it in the first place?
the lightning network still uses the blockchain, just less. it's acts like an immutable public bar tab you can't default on. once you have spent enough with another person that it is worth them conducting the transaction on chain then it does it. usually when fees are low too.
That is an extremely simplified explanation of how it works though, it is more complex than that.
Edit: another analogy i have just read is it's like cashing in at a casino. you put some money in the house (the blockchain) and get some chips, you go in and transact with loads of people, then when it's advantageous you can cash out and get your BTC on chain; to the house that is two transactions, cash in and then out, rather than a transaction for everyone you exchanged with on the network. that's probs a better analogy than the bar tab one... but again, oversimplified
bar tab is more accurate, casino is easier to understand.
the actual functionality doesn't really matter to the layperson though. basically, you put some of your bitcoin on the network (minimum amounts apply), and then you can spend that with very fast transactions and low fees. when you're ready you can send what you have back to the chain
load more comments
(4 replies)
You still use it as a settlement and security layer. The lightning network is made up of pairs of people that both lock money in a new account with a transaction. Both people get a fully signed copy of a second transaction to reclaim the money, but they don't publish it immediately. If they need to make a new transaction between each other, they just replace the second fully signed transaction with a new one that divides the money according to the new balance. They can do this as many times as they want for as long as they want, and they only have to make two transactions: one to start and one to stop. If anyone tries to cheat, the only thing they can do is publish an older version of that second transaction that favors them, but you have... I think a day or three, I forget, to publish a newer version that proves they cheated, and if you do, you get ALL the money even if some was owed to them, so cheating won't go well. The down side is you need a node that's always online or connects to the network frequently so you can be ready to catch a cheater.
To make a network, they use some fancy cryptography to send money to someone if and only if they send it (minus very, very, very small fees) to the next person in line towards the destination. If anyone in the chain refuses or fails to commit, the transaction fails and no money moves at all. Because it's all secured by the blockchain, you can trust that everyone both can and will complete the transaction exactly as requested, or the whole thing fails and nothing happens.
You realize "it's so energy and time consuming that we had to create a secondary layer to try and make it actually usable" isn't the defense you think it is, right?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
i got back into bitcoin recently and decided to move the contents of my old wallet to a new SegWit one and look into using lightning.
To open a lightning channel i have to stake £170 up front though which is crazy, how are people in poorer countries supposed to do that?
or even here. poverty is on the rise, a lot of people are living hand to mouth and just having that kind of money lying around isnt a thing.
i like the idea of bitcoin but i worry it doesn't scale well.
Add to that that virtually nowhere accepts it. The value of bitcoin comes from its use as a currency. if it doesn't have that then it's entirely speculation.
oh well, i have £2k in there and i'm not turning it back into fiat. I'll spend it if i can or ride it all the way to 0 if that's the way it goes
edit: if BTC does hit $1m a coin as the hodlers hope then that would amount to $2000 to open a lightning channel (or more realistically $2400 as electrum wouldnt let me open a channel with the supposed minimum 0.002 BTC, i had to make it 0.0024). I hope that the minimum amount to open a channel will be updated long before that happens though, but i guess we'll see
if it doesn't have that then it's entirely speculation.
You are very close
load more comments
(2 replies)
Sounds like you can steal or fake things
IIRC, a deposit is made by two parties to create a lightning network channel that's enough to cover all transactions (kinda like a multi-sig escrow), and both parties have to sign-off on their balances after every transaction (the last balance signed by both parties is the only valid state). I think most people would use a custodial wallet where the custodian already has channels set up, and this would require trust in the custodian. Lightning networks didn't exist, and wasn't fully spec'd out the last time I looked into it though.
load more comments
(1 replies)
They could’ve solved that by making the block size larger, but instead did some weird ass replace-by-fee system.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Let's not get astray here.
The reason El Salvador stopped using Bitcoin as a legal tender is not because it's some sort of failed experiment (it had issues, but still), but due to continuous pressure of IMF interested in maintaining a US dollar-centric economy.
El Salvador is reliant on US dollars in its economy, which puts it under heavy US influence. Knowing Salvadoran currency wouldn't be strong, Nayib Bukele suggested an alternative option - risky, volatile, but free from pressure of other countries and strongly appreciating in the long run. IMF didn't like it, and that's where we are.
So, when you cheer Bitcoin not being legal tender anymore, you also cheer US and IMF projecting power over the country.
Its even funnier. They just straight up promised them a billion dollar loan on the condition that they abandon bitcoin.
In December, the government struck a $1.4 billion loan deal with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that scaled back its bitcoin embrace after the lender urged officials to limit its exposure. The lender specifically advocated making acceptance of bitcoin voluntary for the private sector, which is spelled out in the hastily-approved law.
Hot damn why is this not the headline we are seeing
Thats what im wondering, because thats the blog post headline i first saw.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Exactly. The title is misleading af
They were forced to stop using Bitcoin as legal tender by external parties. The question people should be asking is why? And the answer is not that it was a failed experiment.
The experiment was to move beyond external parties. They were not able to do so and returned to using external parties. Ergo "the experiment failed".
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Well, also, they just cut a deal with Marco Rubio to be America’s prison, so they must’ve figured that was more lucrative than Bitcoin and continuing to agitate the US by challenging the dollar was creating unnecessary friction.
load more comments
(1 replies)
"This is good for bitcoin."
Honestly with the Trump government right now and the pending trade war, this might be good for Bitcoin. It's supposed to be a store or wealth that you use to buy other cryptos like monero to spend.
This is not good for the environment because crypto mining is second only to AI model training in useless expendenture of natural resources and pollution.
But ironically, and I say this with no joy. This could be good for Bitcoin and that's bad for us all.
Bitcoin price movement seems to follow the US stock market, so I wouldn't bet on it.
The IMF wouldn't give them a credit unless they stopped forcing people to accept Bitcoin as payment, which almost no one was using anyway.
officials ensure that the government will continue betting on this cryptocurrency, whose price currently exceeds $100,000.
I had a Libertarian try to tell me that this was going to revitalize El Salvador just a couple of weeks ago, lmao.
Not the greatest idea to transition to a currency where every single transaction requires the same amount of energy to power a mansion for a week.
Not promoting just saying that this is misinformation. Transactions are done in bulk and on the lightning network at a tiny fraction of what you suggest.
Edit: BTC itself can only process 8 or so transactions per second(hence the high energy demand per transaction), the actual number of monetary lightening network transactions (grouped up into a these large BTC transactions) is close to a million.
Didn't know it was that bad. Knew it was bad, but that's depressingly bad.
It’s absolutely bonkers to me that Libertarians think BTC is a better option that fiat bills.
This shit has the have been astroturfed or otherwise psyop’d.
Well their reserves doubled in value
I generally keep out of crypto discussions as I do not sufficiently understand it. But this event is very easy to understand. In the beginning of the article itself:
... approved last Wednesday a confusing reform to the Bitcoin Law at the request of Bukele’s government, which had no other option to receive the $1.4 billion credit agreed in December with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Thus, this move was forced on El Salvador by the IMF.
“Forced” is doing a lot of work here. I think it was El Salvador that decided it was worth to ditch btc in favor of getting actual rescue money.
Edit: it makes sense that Bukele just told Rubio they’d be happy to be the US’ offshore prison system. Seems they really need the money.
Who could have predicted this
Looking forward to them establishing monero as a legal tender
The government, she assured, will continue buying bitcoin and having reserves in this cryptocurrency. According to the National Bitcoin Office, El Salvador has 6,050 bitcoins worth $634.8 million. “President Bukele continues buying bitco
They are still keeping the mass reserves just not forcing it to be accepted as legal tender in stores. Before if someone wanted to pay in Bitcoin you had to accept it, now you don't have to.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Why isn't this being discussed on any of the crypto subreddits? This is all I could find. Somebody's not telling the truth:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1ihd9ek/el_salvador_buys_11_more_bitcoin_boosting/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1iflbk5/the_satoshi_statue_has_arrived_in_el_salvador_en/
Mods are probably preemptively blacklisting this article and similar articles to avoid inconvenient information reaching the cryptobros. From a cursory glance, both of those subs seem pretty overwhelmingly biased towards being pro-crypto.
load more comments
(1 replies)
the buttcoin sub is decent
The problem with any new kind of currency no matter what it is will always be controlled and manipulated by the wealthiest individuals who will flood their wealth into that new system.
Strike the word new.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The only surprise here is that they stuck with it for as long as they did.
Crypto is a massive scam. It has no value. It is just used to obscure fraud.
I mean neither does FIAT currency, U.S. currency is based on taxes , there is nothing that backs it. Majority of GDP is just finance. We need more education on what and how a currency actually works.
Nothing backs US currency?
I’d argue the US military backs the US dollar.
Violence based currencies are not sustainable in the long term. That's why the petrol-dollar has been steadily decreasing in global reserves. It's why the IMF has to outlaw bitcoin instead of competing with it.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Bitcoin has gone up by at least 40k in the last three months, surely that must have made El Salvador a few pretty pennies.
load more comments
(4 replies)
The government, she assured, will continue buying bitcoin and having reserves in this cryptocurrency. According to the National Bitcoin Office, El Salvador has 6,050 bitcoins worth $634.8 million. “President Bukele continues buying bitcoin, we have a Bitcoin Office, we have the Bitcoin Law, bitcoin can be used in El Salvador.
They're going to have the US by the balls like Saudi Arabia when bitcoin crosses $1mm/coin
BUT I WAS TOLD THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUTTCOIN AND REAL MONEY, WHAT THE HELL?!?11?!
Who could have ever seen this coming other than anyone who thought about it for the briefest amount of time?
view more: next ›