btc-proves-its-still-not-ready-for-mass-adoption

BTC proves it’s still not ready for mass adoption

Many cryptocurrency fans are excited about the recent jump in price of Bitcoin Core (BTC), which jumped from $4,190 on April 2 to its current price of $4,925 at press time on April 3. Proving it hasn’t changed much from its peak in late 2017, this jump in price has brought with it a few major headaches.

At the moment, 60,000 BTC transactions are sitting unconfirmed. If it weren’t the BTC blockchain, this would be incredible news, but somehow it’s not that shocking. Sticking to small blocks has meant that this influx of new money has done nothing but create congestion in the network, and the blockchain is struggling to keep up with demand.

As a result, BTC transaction fees have soared. According to coin.dance, the average cost of a BTC transaction has increased from $0.47 to $1.83. That’s just an average as well; it will cost much more to get a transaction prioritized and sent in any reasonable amount of time.

For comparison, Bitcoin SV (BSV), which has pursued massive scaling and big blocks to be ready for mass adoption, is currently sitting at under 50 unconfirmed transactions, all likely to be handled in the next block, and current transaction fees sit at $0.0034.

This is all despite plenty of time to develop the long touted Lightning Network. Either because of a lack of adoption or lack of preparation, this side chain is doing very little to alleviate the BTC from the congestion causes by increased adoption its currently seeing.

They had over a year to prepare for this breakout from the bear market, and they still aren’t ready. One MIT panel recently could not say when a Lightning Network app would be ready for mass consumption.

After a Bloomberg analyst criticized the jump in price, saying there was no good news to warrant the pump, another outlet pointed to recent good news for BTC, specifically in the Lightning Network, as reason for crypto investors to be excited. Don’t believe the FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt), they say.

Considering the poor performance of BTC and the Lightning Network at a return to nearly $5,000, they should be welcoming any FUD they can get. High costs and slow transactions are going to drive away long term adoption and hurt the cryptocurrency world as a whole. For that reason, BTC can use all the FUD it can get.

No surprises there: Infographic explores Bitcoin Cash triumphs

No surprises there: Infographic explores Bitcoin Cash triumphs

Contrary to what BTC trolls would have you believe, Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is thriving and continues to rise to even greater heights. In the more than eight months since Bitcoin BCH was created, the community has seen increasing development activity that coincided with the rapid development in the technical infrastructure underpinning BCH—the true remaining Bitcoin as envisioned by the Satoshi Nakamoto whitepaper.

In the last 24 hours, Bitcoin Cash experienced over 5% increase with the coin trading at $1,380 level and looking to test the $1,400 soon. Analysts expect the price to hit the $2,000 mark in May.

Is Bitcoin Cash dying?

Yours.org user Sere recently debunked BTC camp’s belief that Bitcoin Cash is dying using an infographic that compared the changes in the BTC and BCH networks over the past six months. The infographic showed what the BCH community has always known (and most BTC supporters have feared)—that Bitcoin BCH has triumphed in “a couple of critical success criteria.”

Using data from BitInfocharts and lnmainnet.gaben.win, the infographic showed that since late October, not only did the BCH price grow “at a higher rate” compared to BTC, but the usage of the BCH network has been growing faster while BTC “is actually shrinking,” thanks to the Lightning Network which “added virtually no additional capacity to the BTC network in the past six months.” In addition, “relatively more mining hashpower has chosen BCH over BTC.”

The success of Bitcoin Cash can be attributed to the community, which has been relentless in making sure that the network scales to greater heights and that the cryptocurrency is actually utilized. Unlike most BTC owners who store their coins and wait for them to add value, BCH owners find ways to use their coins in their day-to-day activities.

On May 15, Bitcoin Cash will go through a second capacity upgrade to increase its block size to 32MB and to re-activate smart scripting capabilities that were in the original Satoshi Nakamoto white paper.

To date, a growing number of institutions and companies around the world have started supporting Bitcoin Cash. In April alone, BitOasis, a cryptocurrency wallet and exchange platform in North Africa and the Middle East, and Singapore-based CoinHako announced their support for BCH, while BitPay expanded its Bitcoin Cash support, allowing merchants to accept the cryptocurrency on its Checkout point-of-sale (PoS) app.

Note: Tokens on the Bitcoin Core (segwit) Chain are Referred to as BTC coins. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is today the only Bitcoin implementation that follows Satoshi Nakamoto’s original whitepaper for Peer to Peer Electronic Cash. Bitcoin BCH is the only major public blockchain that maintains the original vision for Bitcoin as fast, frictionless, electronic cash.
Rods

Rods, abacus and payment channels: Youtuber breaks down Lightning Network—visually

There have been a number of solutions offered to help ease the Bitcoin’s network congestion issues, which would lead to lower fees. These include the Lightning Network (LN), which, on its website, promised to “create a secure network of participants which are able to transact at high volume and high speed.”

Put simply, a transaction on the LN is not a transaction between two individuals. It is the creation of a communications channel that ultimately becomes a complete network of communications channels to conduct a single transaction. As reported on Coingeek, a simple bet between Roger Ver and Felix Weis didn’t produce the anticipated results, with an LN transaction, the purchase of a small amount of goods, never being fulfilled.

A new series of videos is being produced and uploaded to YouTube seeking to provide a better explanation of the LN. They’re being produced by Don Wonton, and his channel is called ‘Decentralized Thought.’ Wonton has been a regular on various cryptocurrency forums, and is an active poster on Reddit.

In the first video, Wonton defines the LN as a network of routed payment channels. The video concentrates on payment channels and to provide an overview of how they work. Wonton explains the LN as being like an abacus—two ends with a thin rod connecting them, with beads sliding along the rod between the two ends. The rod is the LN channel, and the beads are the SegWit-Coin BTC (also referred to as Bitcoin legacy or Core). A SegWit-Coin BTC user simply slides the cryptocurrency across the rod, with no way to add more SegWit-Coin BTC without completely dismantling the beads, or channel.

Wonton does a good job at trying to create a real-world example. A SegWit-Coin BTC user, ‘user A,’ finds out that a local grocery store is now accepting crypto payments. User A cannot simply go to the store, select the items and pay with SegWit-Coin BTC. He has to open a payment channel with the grocery store, and put the cryptocurrency on the “abacus.” When trying to pay for the groceries, user A finds that the payment was rejected, and that the SegWit-Coin BTC didn’t exist on the channel.

Between the time of putting SegWit-Coin BTC on the channel and paying for the groceries, user B, a friend of user A, had gone to the store, and made a payment that was routed through the channel that users A and B had. It doesn’t mean that the cryptocurrency is lost; it means that it isn’t accessible on the channel between user A and the grocery store.

It’s an interesting video that does a good job of explaining the flaws of the LN. It’s only 4 minutes and 18 seconds, with a lot of information crammed into the space. The remaining videos have proven to be just as enlightening. Check out Wonton’s other videos at his YouTube channel, Decentralized Thought.

Note: Tokens on the Bitcoin Core (segwit) Chain are Referred to as BTC coins. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is today the only Bitcoin implementation that follows Satoshi Nakamoto’s original whitepaper for Peer to Peer Electronic Cash. Bitcoin BCH is the only major public blockchain that maintains the original vision for Bitcoin as fast, frictionless, electronic cash.
Roger Ver wins bet: Lightning Network fails at simple task

Roger Ver wins bet: Lightning Network fails at simple task

Everybody wants them. Faster transaction times, smaller fees, lesser blockchain congestion. Some might even say they want a lightning-fast cryptocurrency payment system. Unfortunately, a recent demonstration designed to show why Lightning Network (LN) is positioned to revolutionize SegWit-Coin BTC (also known as Bitcoin legacy or Core) transactions only fizzled—no lightning, no thunder.

The LN would allow smaller transactions to be conducted on sidechains, and not on the main SegWit-Coin BTC blockchain. This would purportedly allow for less congestion and, in theory, faster processing times. Nodes would govern the sidechains and would help to create additional decentralization across the network.

The demonstration started with a bet. Felix Weis, a known BTC enthusiast, ran into Bitcoin Cash (BCH) proponent and Bitcoin.com owner Roger Ver at the recently held Bloomberg conference in Hong Kong. The story goes that the two met at Hong Kong’s Genesis Block, an over-the-counter trading floor in the city, when Ver offered Weis a small wager. The task was simple, and should have been a sure-thing win for Weis. All he had to do was prove that the LN was able to perform the task for which it was designed.

For the bet, Weis would have to purchase a few items from the Blockstream eCommerce site. Blockstream is commonly used by SegWit Core supporters to test developments of the blockchain. The purchase would tally up to no more than $9, and Weis would use SegWit-Coin BTC and the LN to complete the transaction. If Weis won, Ver would be stuck wearing a BTC shirt; if Ver won, Weis would be the one sporting a BCH shirt.

Weis accepted, and the challenge began. Weis selected his items, made sure the purchase followed the guidelines of the bet and completed the transaction. At no time was Ver involved with the transaction, to ensure that he couldn’t manipulate the results. The pair waited for the transaction to come back as approved, and waited, and continued to wait. The transaction only got as far as ‘Pending,’ without ever registering as being approved.

Ver won, and Weis donned the BCH shirt. In a tweet, Weis told his followers: “Paying my gambling debt to @rogerkver. A bet is a bet. Congratulations.”

The exercise proved that the LN still isn’t quite ready for prime time. Meanwhile, BCH is pushing forward, and continues to gather strength among cryptocurrency enthusiasts. With its bigger blocks, faster speed, and lower transaction fees, BCH represents the truer vision of Bitcoin as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system.

Note: Tokens in the SegWit chain are referred to as SegWit-Coin BTC (inaccurately called Bitcoin Legacy or Core by many) and SegWit Gold (SWG) and are no longer Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the only true Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper.  Bitcoin BCH is the only public block chain that offers safe and cheap microtransactions.
bitPico claims responsibility for DoS attack on Lightning Network

bitPico claims responsibility for DoS attack on Lightning Network

A shadowy developer, known only as bitPico, has claimed responsibility for the latest DoS attack to hit the lightning network, according to reports.

bitPico posted the claims on their Twitter feed, as part of what they described as a ‘stress tool’ for the beta Lightning Network software. According to their findings, there were as many as 22 different attack vectors uncovered.

The DoS, or Denial of Service, attack has been the subject of much speculation over the last two weeks, with developers worldwide taking an interest in the efforts of the previously unidentified attacker.

The attack has revolved around mass requests to open payment channels, which could ultimately be used to attack user funds. While there is neither an apparent suggestion of a financial motive, nor any suggestion that user funds have been compromised, the attack has nevertheless highlighted some of the remaining security issues with the software.

bitPico remains an anonymous and somewhat unknown developer, which could either be an individual, or a group of developers working in consort.

Previously, bitPico came to attention when it announced it would execute a hard fork to SegWit2x, after the time when those primarily involved in the fork had withdrawn their support, citing a lack of consensus for the fork.

However, while the suggestion proved controversial at the time, bitPico did not follow through on their intentions, and subsequently went quiet on social media. When the group re-emerged in March, it was to announce their work on the Lightning Network, which has ultimately led to the claims of responsibility for the latest round of attacks.

Despite the claims, it remains uncertain whether bitPico is behind the attacks, and to what extent they or other contributors are involved. While Lightning Network’s technology remains in beta, efforts like those of bitPico will serve to shed light on issues surrounding the project.

Note: Tokens in the SegWit chain are referred to as SegWit-Coin BTC (inaccurately called Bitcoin Legacy or Core by many) and SegWit Gold (SWG) and are no longer Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the only true Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper.  Bitcoin BCH is the only public block chain that offers safe and cheap microtransactions.

source: https://coingeek.com/bitpico-claims-responsibility-dos-attack-lightning-network/

Bitfury secures government nod for $35M data center in Norway

Bitfury secures government nod for $35M data center in Norway

Norway’s government has signed off a request by Bitfury to build a data center in the country near the town of Mo I Rana. The data center will have a price tag of about $35 million (274 million kronor) and will bring around 30 new jobs to the area. No date was given for the completion of the data center.

Bitfury bills itself as a “leading full service blockchain technology company,” creating platforms based on blockchains that give companies the means to digitize their assets and to transact them over the Internet. The firm is behind the Lightning Network protocol, which promises to scale BTC “to billions of transactions per day” off chain using a network of micropayment channels.

Bitfury, with offices in San Francisco, Washington, DC, Amsterdam, Hong Kong and London, already operates two data centers, one in Iceland and the other in the Republic of Georgia.

In a new Medium post, Bitfury’s CEO Valery Vavilov touted the planned data center’s high efficiency and Norway’s importance as a center for blockchain technology growth. The data center is expected to run off of 350 gigawatts of power from 100% renewable sources that Bitfury will purchase from Helgeland Kraft, the energy supplier in the area. In light of the current atmosphere surrounding energy-hungry cryptocurrency mining operations, the data center will certainly raise a few eyebrows and cause repeated scrutiny to ensure that it is, in fact, energy efficient.

Vavilov went on to say, “Norway is a perfect match for Bitfury’s focus on innovation and growth. We look forward to identifying new customer relationships and designing the products and solutions they need to make their enterprises run more securely and efficiently.” Norway’s Minister of Trade and Industry Torbjørn Røe Isaksen supports the data center, saying that it represents a major breakthrough for Norwegian businesses.

Norway is no stranger to blockchain technology. In 2016, AiSpot, a Norwegian technology company, signed on with New York-based Loyyal to offer a customer rewards program. Loyyal is based on blockchain and smart contract technology, and offers loyalty and rewards platforms to businesses across many sectors. The AiSpot applications are designed to help local governments improve their retail and tourism programs in an effort to increase loyalty.

Note: Tokens in the SegWit chain are referred to as SegWit1X (BTC) and SegWit Gold (SWG) and are no longer Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the only true Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper.  Bitcoin BCH is the only public block chain that offers safe and cheap microtransactions.
Core Dev Peter Todd admits Lightning Network has issues

Core Dev Peter Todd admits Lightning Network has issues

It takes a lot for a staunch advocate of a technology to question its capability. Very recently, Bitcoin Core developer Peter Todd, made an admission that Lightning Network is full of holes.

Praised by many as being the scalability fix for the Segwit chains’ scaling woes, Lightning Network has indeed come short on many fronts, and many people are beginning to question if it really is up to the task, including one prominent contributor to BTC’s code.

Core Dev Peter Todd admits Lightning Network has issues

“Segfaults” (or Segmentation faults) are generally quite common when programming in C. But the more complex a program, the more chance of there being such instances of these bugs.

Segfaults are generally caused by a badly written program that tries to read or write to memory locations that are out of range. A common segfault for example is an out of bounds array, or a variable that has not been declared properly.

The problem with coding in C++, is that it is an extremely powerful language that gives full control of the mechanics of the application to the developer. This can be a very good thing, but it can also be terribly dangerous. The compiler assumes the developer knows what they are doing, and it will not try to ‘guide’ the user, as is the case with modern programming languages.

On one hand, Peter Todd is right. “Writing it in C, is a notoriously dangerous language”. But on the other hand, we have to question the logic both ways. If the coding language of choice was right, then why are there so many holes in the application, which are apparently very difficult to identify and resolve? If the coding language of choice was incorrect, then how much faith should we be putting in the leadership of this project?

Lightning is still far from ready on all accounts, many have already lost funds in testing Lightning Network on the main. In the same thread, Peter mentions that he’s lost funds testing “Éclair” – an android, “lightning ready Bitcoin wallet”.

He goes on to mention “As for the Lightning protocol, I’m willing to predict it’ll prove to be vulnerable to DoS attacks in its current incarnation, both at the P2P and blockchain level… While bad politics, focusing on centralized hub-and-spoke payment channels first would have been much simpler.”

Let’s ignore the ‘centralized hub-and-spoke’ comment there…

In my other life I am a business analyst and a developer. A BA role entails identifying business needs, and determining solutions. One of the most common project management methods out there is known as PRINCE2. It is used across a multitude of industries for the delivery of projects. But one interesting concept that I find myself drawn to regarding PRINCE2 is the tenet of “continuous justification”. If at any point of the project lifecycle, the outcome can no longer be justified, then the project is dropped.

As far as LN is concerned, at no point have we seen those steering the ship, reassess the viability of the project. In PRINCE2, one of the initial documents coming out of the process is the business case itself. Let’s suppose for a moment, that the Lightning Network whitepaper fills this gap. The paper identifies Bitcoin’s scalability problem, and makes a proposal for off-chain channels that can be settled on the Blockchain afterwards.

At some point after, it was then identified that it cannot scale to the desired level, and that there are some fundamental problems with the funding of channels. So then a ‘third layer’ was introduced, to scale funding capability of channels.

Another problem still open is how channel updates can be broadcast to everyone, particularly at a global adoption level. At 1 million channels, things can get very ugly.

The problem we are facing, is that this is patch work, after patch work, after patch work… At what point does project leadership, take a step back and reassess the viability and feasibility of LN as a global scalability solution?

Entities like Blockstream who are in part sponsoring the development of Lightning Network, have a lot to lose. There’s a reason that PRINCE2’s “continuous justification” principle became a thing…  there are indeed many businesses that are guilty of throwing more and more money at a project in an attempt to save it, than to go back to a drawing board. Some people just want to save face.

Eli Afram
@justicemate

Note: Tokens in the SegWit chain are referred to as SegWit1X (BTC) and SegWit Gold (SWG) and are no longer Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the only true  Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper.  Bitcoin BCH is the only public block chain that offers safe and cheap microtransactions.
Lightning Network scalabity woes

Lightning Network scalabity woes

Had Lightning Network not been forced down our throats, we might have come to really like the technology. But like many things in life, it comes with a politically burdened narrative. Lightning Network in its essence is not a bad thing, and can have some excellent use cases, particularly for HFT (high frequency trading) -like transactions between big entities.

For the average, and ordinary user, it is a far cry from the simplicity, and ease of use that BTC had many years ago.

Today the majority of Bitcoin users wouldn’t even know what to compare Lightning Network to. The migration to off-chain solutions has been done in the most patient, and calculated of ways.

There are many problems that BTC has today, that have been artificially created and introduced to the system over the years. Scratch the surface and you’ll find that this has been one long intentional method to skew the road map, introduce problems for which supposedly LN and sidechains can fix in future.

The first and most obvious claim that LN makes is that it resolves the Bitcoin scalability issue. The second is for instant transactions. Both of these were non-issues in the beginning. Bitcoin was able to both scale, and perform virtually instant transactions. In fact, Satoshi Nakamoto himself in 2009 stated “The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling”.

The scalability issue for Bitcoin has been concocted artificially, and introduced into the system over time, deliberately to stall progress. In fact, the Bitcoin Unlimited team, together with nChain last year proved that the real limitations on block propagation is not hardware at all, but rather the Satoshi codebase. With some tweaks and changes, the throughput can be increased substantially. BU were able to mine and propagate 1GB blocks across three continents in a sustained effort, achieving VISA level scaling. At that point, the limit is still software related, and not hardware. By making further changes to the model of the processing infrastructure, we can achieve much higher throughput still.

It’s important to note that 1GB blocks were mined and propagated using very ordinary 16GB RAM, 4 core machines, with good internet. Despite this, there is still a propaganda at play that says Bitcoin should run on raspberry pis. It’s time we start taking the Bitcoin project seriously and understand, that in order to be a competitor, as a global currency, with global adoption, we should not expect the network backbone to run on hobby computers. Satoshi very much predicted and anticipated that server farms with specialized hardware would eventually do all the mining. VISA doesn’t run on a 286 machine, and we shouldn’t expect Bitcoin Cash to do so either. This means dedicated services, cloud, and ASICS (which are by definition “specialized hardware” as Satoshi put it). The bigger Bitcoin gets, the more decentralized it gets. The higher the price, the more competition, and the more miners join to compete for a piece of the pie. Nodes that don’t generate blocks contribute nothing to the decentralization of Bitcoin, only miners do. So, by this regard, a bigger Bitcoin that is allowed to grow, and isn’t artificially handicapped, actually ends up being more decentralized, than a small one.

With scalability being a non-issue, and an entirely fabricated one, the one thing LN has left is fast transactions. Once upon a time, BTC actually used to do transactions very quickly. In 2014 and prior, you could pay for items in a virtually instant manner. Again, false propaganda was spread that said unconfirmed transactions were unsafe. This was another lie invented designed to de-rail the roadmap, and skew the objectives of the system. Research has already been done to confirm that by querying a number of nodes, we can heavily reduce the probability of a double spend. 0 confirmation payments (tech-speak for fast payments) were very much safe, and many merchants relied on such things for smaller payments. In fact, 0-confirm (instant payments) on BCH are safe up to the order of at least a couple of thousand-dollar transactions. Beyond that, it would be advisable to wait for a confirmation. And of course, if you were to purchase a house with your BCH, then perhaps wait out for several confirmations. The bigger a transaction, the more incentive a criminal has to attack, and consequently, the more incentive a merchant has to ensure they receive an acceptable number of confirmations.

Today 0 confirmation payments on the BCH network, work like charm. Try loading up a few dollars at cashgames.bitcoin.com and have a game of roulette. But take note of just how quickly, you can deposit some coin and start playing, and how quickly you can withdraw your winnings. Literally almost immediately.

Lightning Network has a use case indeed – and it’s not for scalability. This is the problem. First it was Segwit that was touted as a scalability fix. Now, it is LN that is touted in the same way.

Here’s the blow: LN assumes every user has a Lightning Network Node, and that it has been connected to the rest of the network of connected users, by opening a channel to a well connected node. The assumption is that, over time, more and more nodes will connect to the network and create large clusters of connected nodes all of which are interconnected, allowing anyone to pay anyone by routing a payment through a set of nodes. Joining the network requires an on-chain transaction (to establish a channel), and your node needs to remain on. We know already, that as BTC becomes more and more popular, $100 transactions are not unusual (it’s already happened). And this would be the cost for opening and closing a channel. This seems like a costly exercise with a lot of friction. Time. Effort. Money.

All in all, it is extremely difficult for the 3rd world to embrace the Lightning Network. You literally cannot pay a poor person, unless they pay an on-chain transaction fee to open a channel to the network first. Sure, you can pay the on-chain transaction fee yourself to open a channel directly to them, but then, doesn’t that defeat the purpose? The idea of LN is that you don’t have to open a channel with every single person you want to transact with…

Where Lightning Network wins is with major corporate entities that require dedicated channels between the two for fast, efficient payments, that can be settled on chain at close of day. In such a scenario the distance would be d<3 and could be deemed safe from a Sybil attack. LN has use cases. I stand by that. But to call it a scalability fix would be an abomination.

Any scalability fix should work holistically. It should not cater to some and not others. If Bitcoin today works for both rich and poor, then a scalability fix for tomorrow should not simply cater for the rich. That’s not a fix, that’s a hack.

Today, BTC has what’s known as an unspendable wallet problem. That is, there are currently countless number of wallets out there, which have less money in them, than the minimum fee required to make a transaction. These are dead wallets, with money that cannot be moved. With Core’s “full block policy”, this problem won’t go away. And at times of heavy use (such as during the peak of the All-Time-High earlier this year), the number of unspendable wallets blows up to dramatic numbers. A simple blocksize increase fixes this problem in its entirety. Lightning Network does not. Unspendable wallets remain a fact of the system with LN, since an on-chain transaction is required to open and close a channel.

Off-chain transactions are not at all harmful to the system. But forcing the majority of users to use it, makes it stink. Yes, we’ve heard, it’s “opt-in”. But is it really? Do users have an economically sound choice when they are forced to pay transaction fees on-chain because of an artificial lever that developers control?

These off-chain transactions are a clever use of Bitcoin script, creating a bunch of unconfirmed transactions that sit there until close-out. Essentially, these transactions are a form of what many in the in the crypto space now refer to as “smart contracts”. But for Bitcoin, smart contracts should be the exception to the usage of the system, and not the rule. Core have decided to switch that right around.

Eli Afram
@justicemate

Note: Tokens in the SegWit chain are referred to as SegWit1X (BTC) and SegWit Gold (SWG) and are no longer Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the only true  Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper.  Bitcoin BCH is the only public block chain that offers safe and cheap microtransactions.

Lightning Network can’t scale, needs another layer

Devs propose yet another layer to save the legacy chain.

Correction: Jameson Lopp’s analysis of the Lightning Network were incorrectly interpreted in the original post. These have been removed.

How the Lightning Network works

In the Lightning Network—Bitcoin Core’s scaling solution of choice for the legacy chain, users do not transact on the blockchain directly. Two users open a “payment channel” and transact through that channel or second layer (Lightning Network) on top of the blockchain. The only time anything is recorded on the blockchain after opening this payment channel is when these two users are done transacting for the time and “close” the payment channel, at which point the final balances of the two parties are recorded on the blockchain, using it only as a “settlement layer.”

Such a system would off-load regular transactions between two parties to the Lightning Network and take off some of the load from the blockchain. It also saves users from having to pay transaction fees over and over. But this only works economically if the two users intend to have multiple or repeating transactions, otherwise, they’re better off just transacting on-chain for one-time transactions. Why?

For a one-time transaction with a user who does not have a direct connection or open payment channel with you, one can pass through or “hop” through their connections’ channels or “branches” to get to their intended recipient—provided that each of the users between you have enough balance to pass on the funds. It’s not as simple as money passing from one hand to another, however. It’s actually a simultaneous handoff: the person who has an open channel with the intended recipient has to send him the funds and sort of get “reimbursed” the exact same amount from the original sender.

Imagine a row of people and I’m trying to pass $100 to a person sitting five people away from me to my right. Instead of asking people to simply pass my $100 bill to him, each person between us will have to take out $100 from his own wallet, and simultaneously pass it on to the person to their right while also receiving $100 from the person to their left. They all end up with $100 except for me, the original sender.

So in such a scenario, a user is better off saving himself the trouble and just transact on-chain, since they would still need to “open” and “close” a channel—both instances would take time on the legacy chain to be confirmed, as opposed to simply sending their funds directly to each other and just having to wait once for that transaction to be confirmed, paying only one transaction fee as well.

Lightning Network can’t scale on 1Mb blocks

In mid-2017, Electron Cash wallet developer Jonald Fyookball posted a mathematical proof debunking the Lightning Network as a decentralized scaling solution.

Lightning Network can’t scale, needs another layer

 

According to his post, at one million users LN becomes an “unworkable system,” where the only way it could work is either everyone deposits more money than their anticipated transactions into the channels (so they can also route other users’ transactions), or everyone relies on large centralized hubs.

“To reach anyone in a big network with a series of branching channel connections, you either need a large number of channels, or a large number of hops.

Both are a huge problem. A large number of channels means users have to divide up their funds and can’t do anything except tiny purchases. And a large number of hops means everyone’s money will be tied up routing everybody else’s money.”

Jonald Fyookball cites Lightning Network’s promise as a scaling solution:

“using a network of these micropayment channels, Bitcoin can scale to billions of transactions per day”

And goes on to say that the promise fails to mention a major detail:

“What it doesn’t tell you is that this can only be accomplished by using large, centralized ‘banking’ hubs.”

Since then, a simulation of LN with 10 million users has been conducted, and it shows that it is technically possible—but it would require 200 million channels and at least 1,400,000 BTC locked up in the payment channels for routing at a given time. But if there are more transactions going on, more funds would need to be locked up. And some argue that the longer the routes are, the more vulnerable it is to attack.

The case for Lightning Network is further weakened by this problem: Blockstream core tech engineer Christian Decker himself admitted that there is a limit to the number of payment channels that can be made on top of the legacy chain, which ultimately renders Lightning Network’s promise (above) false.

Talking about how many payment channels can be built on the legacy chain’s 1Mb per block limit, he wrote:

“It turns out, it’s not that many. It’s a few million every week, which is still a long ways from serving the full Earth’s population.”

Moreover, Lightning Network does not relieve the skyrocketing transaction fees, as Decker’s message to the mining community reveals. In his effort to appease miners, Decker committed the same fatal error majority of HODLers are guilty of: he simultaneously alienated users by focusing on high profits in fees for the miners—which will be coming out of users’ pockets.

In case many have forgotten, these users are the entire population Bitcoin was made to primarily serve.

Lightning does not reduce the fees that the miners may collect, it increases their reach into transactions that they could not otherwise serve.

The transaction fees are high because an on-chain payment requires a lot of resources, i.e., storage, processing and bandwidth. These applications suddenly become possible with L2 protocols, so this adds to the reach of Bitcoin itself.

…On the other hand Lightning requires strong guarantees that the transactions will be settled in a certain timeframe, for its security. Hence, Lightning will always attach higher than average fees to the on-chain transactions for setup and settlement of its channels. This is okay since coins on these channels may have been transferred hundreds if not millions of times back and forth, so the these high on-chain fees have been amortized over time, and we happily pay them.

With the (1) extension of Bitcoin’s reach and (2) the higher than usual fees for setup and settlement, I’m absolutely convinced that miners will have a net gain when Lightning rolls out. Lightning is not cutting into the miner’s profit, it opens up new possibilities. Christian Decker on the mailing list.

In the message above, he goes on to explain why transaction fees are high. Although it’s hard to justify how storage, processing and bandwidth (plus electricity) that blockchains incur would trump the expenses of the traditional banking industry and lead to equal or even higher transaction fees. And it definitely defeats the main purpose of the blockchain—quick, cheap, trustless transfers.

Still no block size increase, but an entire additional layer—and the same high fees (possibly more)

Instead of conceding to the need for both on and off-chain scaling, Core devs are persistent in doing everything and anything but upgrade the core infrastructure—the blockchain that is the backbone of all these.

To solve the problem, Decker along with ETH Zurich researchers Conrad Burchert and Roger Wattenhofer released a new paper, proposing an entire new layer to be added between the legacy chain and Lightning Network, bumping LN from being “layer 2” to being “layer 3.” And this new layer would supposedly enable up to 15 users to be in the channel so any two of them can transact on the now higher layer, Lightning Network.

In a Medium post, security researcher Egor Homakov criticizes the Lightning Network (LN) and its Ethereum counterpart, the Raiden network. According to Homakov, although the Lightning Network is definitely not vapourware, the economic incentive to use Lightning Network is in fact, non-existent.

With Bitcoin’s original protocol, as Dr. Craig Wright wrote in his paper, Proof of Work as it relates to the Theory of the Firm, the security mechanism is not just cryptographic but economic. There is economic incentive to use the system and keep it secure, whereas attacking the system is too expensive and has very little benefit. To amass enough hash rate for a 51% attack, one has to spend billions of dollars on processors, electricity, and other overhead expenses, and will gain very little from the attacks they can instigate. Most importantly, if someone theoretically was willing to spend billions of dollars to gain that percentage of the network, it would be exponentially more profitable to just use that hash rate to mine the Bitcoin blockchain rather than attack it. Efficiency and security in the Bitcoin blockchain (or its original state, at least) results in bigger rewards for miners. It is this economic incentive that helps direct the motivations and actions of actors within the Bitcoin ecosystem, and therefore keep the blockchain secure.

We have yet to delve into the entirety of the new layer proposal—what the topology of the legacy chain will look like with the new layer—because it most definitely will not look anything like the distributed, peer-to-peer network envisioned in the original Bitcoin white paper.

Ultimately, from a mass adoption point-of-view, the main thing that matters is how fast this process is, how secure, and how much it costs. On top of that, how soon will all this be deployed? With several blockchains and cryptocurrencies on the race, every month of delay makes a huge difference.

Note: Tokens in the SegWit chain are referred to as SegWit1X (BTC) and SegWit Gold (SWG) and are no longer Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the only true Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper.  Bitcoin BCH is the only public block chain that offers safe and cheap microtransactions.

Lightning Network can’t scale, needs another layer

Devs propose yet another layer to save the legacy chain.

Correction: Jameson Lopp’s analysis of the Lightning Network were incorrectly interpreted in the original post. These have been removed.

How the Lightning Network works

In the Lightning Network—Bitcoin Core’s scaling solution of choice for the legacy chain, users do not transact on the blockchain directly. Two users open a “payment channel” and transact through that channel or second layer (Lightning Network) on top of the blockchain. The only time anything is recorded on the blockchain after opening this payment channel is when these two users are done transacting for the time and “close” the payment channel, at which point the final balances of the two parties are recorded on the blockchain, using it only as a “settlement layer.”

Such a system would off-load regular transactions between two parties to the Lightning Network and take off some of the load from the blockchain. It also saves users from having to pay transaction fees over and over. But this only works economically if the two users intend to have multiple or repeating transactions, otherwise, they’re better off just transacting on-chain for one-time transactions. Why?

For a one-time transaction with a user who does not have a direct connection or open payment channel with you, one can pass through or “hop” through their connections’ channels or “branches” to get to their intended recipient—provided that each of the users between you have enough balance to pass on the funds. It’s not as simple as money passing from one hand to another, however. It’s actually a simultaneous handoff: the person who has an open channel with the intended recipient has to send him the funds and sort of get “reimbursed” the exact same amount from the original sender.

Imagine a row of people and I’m trying to pass $100 to a person sitting five people away from me to my right. Instead of asking people to simply pass my $100 bill to him, each person between us will have to take out $100 from his own wallet, and simultaneously pass it on to the person to their right while also receiving $100 from the person to their left. They all end up with $100 except for me, the original sender.

So in such a scenario, a user is better off saving himself the trouble and just transact on-chain, since they would still need to “open” and “close” a channel—both instances would take time on the legacy chain to be confirmed, as opposed to simply sending their funds directly to each other and just having to wait once for that transaction to be confirmed, paying only one transaction fee as well.

Lightning Network can’t scale on 1Mb blocks

In mid-2017, Electron Cash wallet developer Jonald Fyookball posted a mathematical proof debunking the Lightning Network as a decentralized scaling solution.

Lightning Network can’t scale, needs another layer

 

According to his post, at one million users LN becomes an “unworkable system,” where the only way it could work is either everyone deposits more money than their anticipated transactions into the channels (so they can also route other users’ transactions), or everyone relies on large centralized hubs.

“To reach anyone in a big network with a series of branching channel connections, you either need a large number of channels, or a large number of hops.

Both are a huge problem. A large number of channels means users have to divide up their funds and can’t do anything except tiny purchases. And a large number of hops means everyone’s money will be tied up routing everybody else’s money.”

Jonald Fyookball cites Lightning Network’s promise as a scaling solution:

“using a network of these micropayment channels, Bitcoin can scale to billions of transactions per day”

And goes on to say that the promise fails to mention a major detail:

“What it doesn’t tell you is that this can only be accomplished by using large, centralized ‘banking’ hubs.”

Since then, a simulation of LN with 10 million users has been conducted, and it shows that it is technically possible—but it would require 200 million channels and at least 1,400,000 BTC locked up in the payment channels for routing at a given time. But if there are more transactions going on, more funds would need to be locked up. And some argue that the longer the routes are, the more vulnerable it is to attack.

The case for Lightning Network is further weakened by this problem: Blockstream core tech engineer Christian Decker himself admitted that there is a limit to the number of payment channels that can be made on top of the legacy chain, which ultimately renders Lightning Network’s promise (above) false.

Talking about how many payment channels can be built on the legacy chain’s 1Mb per block limit, he wrote:

“It turns out, it’s not that many. It’s a few million every week, which is still a long ways from serving the full Earth’s population.”

Moreover, Lightning Network does not relieve the skyrocketing transaction fees, as Decker’s message to the mining community reveals. In his effort to appease miners, Decker committed the same fatal error majority of HODLers are guilty of: he simultaneously alienated users by focusing on high profits in fees for the miners—which will be coming out of users’ pockets.

In case many have forgotten, these users are the entire population Bitcoin was made to primarily serve.

Lightning does not reduce the fees that the miners may collect, it increases their reach into transactions that they could not otherwise serve.

The transaction fees are high because an on-chain payment requires a lot of resources, i.e., storage, processing and bandwidth. These applications suddenly become possible with L2 protocols, so this adds to the reach of Bitcoin itself.

…On the other hand Lightning requires strong guarantees that the transactions will be settled in a certain timeframe, for its security. Hence, Lightning will always attach higher than average fees to the on-chain transactions for setup and settlement of its channels. This is okay since coins on these channels may have been transferred hundreds if not millions of times back and forth, so the these high on-chain fees have been amortized over time, and we happily pay them.

With the (1) extension of Bitcoin’s reach and (2) the higher than usual fees for setup and settlement, I’m absolutely convinced that miners will have a net gain when Lightning rolls out. Lightning is not cutting into the miner’s profit, it opens up new possibilities. Christian Decker on the mailing list.

In the message above, he goes on to explain why transaction fees are high. Although it’s hard to justify how storage, processing and bandwidth (plus electricity) that blockchains incur would trump the expenses of the traditional banking industry and lead to equal or even higher transaction fees. And it definitely defeats the main purpose of the blockchain—quick, cheap, trustless transfers.

Still no block size increase, but an entire additional layer—and the same high fees (possibly more)

Instead of conceding to the need for both on and off-chain scaling, Core devs are persistent in doing everything and anything but upgrade the core infrastructure—the blockchain that is the backbone of all these.

To solve the problem, Decker along with ETH Zurich researchers Conrad Burchert and Roger Wattenhofer released a new paper, proposing an entire new layer to be added between the legacy chain and Lightning Network, bumping LN from being “layer 2” to being “layer 3.” And this new layer would supposedly enable up to 15 users to be in the channel so any two of them can transact on the now higher layer, Lightning Network.

In a Medium post, security researcher Egor Homakov criticizes the Lightning Network (LN) and its Ethereum counterpart, the Raiden network. According to Homakov, although the Lightning Network is definitely not vapourware, the economic incentive to use Lightning Network is in fact, non-existent.

With Bitcoin’s original protocol, as Dr. Craig Wright wrote in his paper, Proof of Work as it relates to the Theory of the Firm, the security mechanism is not just cryptographic but economic. There is economic incentive to use the system and keep it secure, whereas attacking the system is too expensive and has very little benefit. To amass enough hash rate for a 51% attack, one has to spend billions of dollars on processors, electricity, and other overhead expenses, and will gain very little from the attacks they can instigate. Most importantly, if someone theoretically was willing to spend billions of dollars to gain that percentage of the network, it would be exponentially more profitable to just use that hash rate to mine the Bitcoin blockchain rather than attack it. Efficiency and security in the Bitcoin blockchain (or its original state, at least) results in bigger rewards for miners. It is this economic incentive that helps direct the motivations and actions of actors within the Bitcoin ecosystem, and therefore keep the blockchain secure.

We have yet to delve into the entirety of the new layer proposal—what the topology of the legacy chain will look like with the new layer—because it most definitely will not look anything like the distributed, peer-to-peer network envisioned in the original Bitcoin white paper.

Ultimately, from a mass adoption point-of-view, the main thing that matters is how fast this process is, how secure, and how much it costs. On top of that, how soon will all this be deployed? With several blockchains and cryptocurrencies on the race, every month of delay makes a huge difference.

Note: Tokens in the SegWit chain are referred to as SegWit1X (BTC) and SegWit Gold (SWG) and are no longer Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the only true Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper.  Bitcoin BCH is the only public block chain that offers safe and cheap microtransactions.

Did Satoshi Nakamoto want Side-chains for Bitcoin?

A week ago, I found someone online spouting that Satoshi encouraged side-chains and lightning network. Anyone who has been around the Bitcoin community for the last several years knows very well, that both the Lightning Network and Pegged Side-chains are relatively newer concepts within the Bitcoin paradigm.

So my natural response, was to challenge this person, to present the evidence, that Satoshi did make mention of side-chains. I also stated that I would gladly retract my own statements if I was wrong – I was certain I wasn’t.

Sure enough, this user was quick to post 3 links. One of which did in fact have evidence of Satoshi Nakamoto himself, mentioning the term “side chains” and how it could work with Bitcoin.

Did Satoshi Nakamoto want Side-chains for Bitcoin?

Purely on a technicality, I lose this one, because the words “side chains” were mentioned. What bothers me about this is that those who refuse to delve into the detail, would buy into this social trickery that Blockstream’s fanboys love to play on.

Anyone who decides to look into it however, will find that Satoshi was never referring to the same side-chains that Blockstream are obsessed by. In fact the modern, and seemingly accepted definition for side-chains are the pegged side-chains as described in the paper by Adam Back et al, titled “Enabling Blockchain Innovations with Pegged Sidechains”.

The two way pegged system envisioned by Blockstream and co describes the side chain as “a sidechain whose assets can be imported from and returned to other chains; that is, a sidechain that supports two-way pegged assets.”

Figure 1: from the paper illustrates the two way peg protocol:

Did Satoshi Nakamoto want Side-chains for Bitcoin?

This now takes us to the BitDNS project. For those who are not familiar with BitDNS, this was an idea for a project to provide a domain name service, to support transactions for registering, updating and transferring domains. This project later became an altcoin known as “namecoin”.

But how did Satoshi envisage this would work? In his words he stated that BitDNS could be:

“…completely separate network and separate block chain, yet share CPU power with Bitcoin.  The only overlap is to make it so miners can search for proof-of-work for both networks simultaneously… The networks wouldn’t need any coordination.”

Satoshi had mentioned in his “side-chain” reference was a form of merged mining which would could be used with the BitDNS initiative. There is no ‘pegging’ here. It’s stated in his comment “the only overlap is to make it so miners search for POW”, and “the networks wouldn’t need any coordination”.

On BitDNS, Satoshi also stated “independent networks/chains can share CPU power without sharing much else”.

The pegged side-chain solution as described by Blockstream and company is chalk and cheese when compared to what Satoshi was talking about.

Scratch the surface, and trolls and shills are always exposed for what they are.

The trouble is, some people do fall for this manipulation of context. The same way many fell for the Segwit narrative… and now where are we at? What has Segwit really given? So the goal posts move again, and we get people screaming that wallet providers need to enable Segwit transactions. Even if the entire eco-system adopted Segwit transactions, the benefit would be trivial from a scalability point of view. Don’t fall for it. But even if Segwit solved all the world’s problems, why on earth would it be released as a soft fork, thereby, Core, placing themselves in a position where they have to ‘beg’ the entire eco-system to adopt it… The whole point of the soft-fork in this case was that it was not mandatory. A hardfork, would have made it mandatory.

Given the technical debt the soft-fork introduces, I’m left to believe that the only fathomable reason Core did not hardfork Segwit, is because it would have risked Bitcoin splitting into two (if not all miners jumped onboard), and with their limited blockspace (and mining power), would have sent fees spiralling out of control, while the other chain which would have engaged bigger blocks, would have dealt with the slower transactions with ease. Their bluff was called however, and Bitcoin Cash was born. The split happened in any case.

I agree with many early adopters, Bitcoin Core is headed into a hurricane. Yes, that means, that the economic majority on this, are wrong.

In fact, smart money, is usually with the economic minority.

The 2008 global financial crisis, and events unfolding in the Bitcoin world lately, have very firmly led me to believe that the economic majority, does very often, tend to be wrong.

How can people, who invest so much money into things, many of whom, you would assume to be mightily intelligent, be so wrong on so many things?

I believe the answer lies in the blinding shine of the bling-bling. It’s a psychological thing, but humans are very prone to get excited over money, and when money is coming in thick and fast, people would rather look at what’s coming in, rather than what can potentially fall out. Granted not everyone ignores the devil in the detail. Michael Burberry was one such man, who did one thing that everyone else seemingly did not in 2007. He looked.

So anyone that actually bothers to look will know that Bitcoin Core (BTC), with its failure to scale, is doomed. Not because BTC was incapable – it was very capable, but it chose not to scale and grow. So now the price and trajectory will overshoot, and will result in a calamity that will make the MtGox saga look like it was nothing.

Eli Afram
@justicemate

Note: Tokens in the SegWit chain are referred to as SegWit1X (BTC) and SegWit Gold (SWG) and are no longer Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the only true  Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper.  Bitcoin BCH is the only public block chain that offers safe and cheap microtransactions.

Did Satoshi Nakamoto want Side-chains for Bitcoin?

A week ago, I found someone online spouting that Satoshi encouraged side-chains and lightning network. Anyone who has been around the Bitcoin community for the last several years knows very well, that both the Lightning Network and Pegged Side-chains are relatively newer concepts within the Bitcoin paradigm.

So my natural response, was to challenge this person, to present the evidence, that Satoshi did make mention of side-chains. I also stated that I would gladly retract my own statements if I was wrong – I was certain I wasn’t.

Sure enough, this user was quick to post 3 links. One of which did in fact have evidence of Satoshi Nakamoto himself, mentioning the term “side chains” and how it could work with Bitcoin.

Did Satoshi Nakamoto want Side-chains for Bitcoin?

Purely on a technicality, I lose this one, because the words “side chains” were mentioned. What bothers me about this is that those who refuse to delve into the detail, would buy into this social trickery that Blockstream’s fanboys love to play on.

Anyone who decides to look into it however, will find that Satoshi was never referring to the same side-chains that Blockstream are obsessed by. In fact the modern, and seemingly accepted definition for side-chains are the pegged side-chains as described in the paper by Adam Back et al, titled “Enabling Blockchain Innovations with Pegged Sidechains”.

The two way pegged system envisioned by Blockstream and co describes the side chain as “a sidechain whose assets can be imported from and returned to other chains; that is, a sidechain that supports two-way pegged assets.”

Figure 1: from the paper illustrates the two way peg protocol:

Did Satoshi Nakamoto want Side-chains for Bitcoin?

This now takes us to the BitDNS project. For those who are not familiar with BitDNS, this was an idea for a project to provide a domain name service, to support transactions for registering, updating and transferring domains. This project later became an altcoin known as “namecoin”.

But how did Satoshi envisage this would work? In his words he stated that BitDNS could be:

“…completely separate network and separate block chain, yet share CPU power with Bitcoin.  The only overlap is to make it so miners can search for proof-of-work for both networks simultaneously… The networks wouldn’t need any coordination.”

Satoshi had mentioned in his “side-chain” reference was a form of merged mining which would could be used with the BitDNS initiative. There is no ‘pegging’ here. It’s stated in his comment “the only overlap is to make it so miners search for POW”, and “the networks wouldn’t need any coordination”.

On BitDNS, Satoshi also stated “independent networks/chains can share CPU power without sharing much else”.

The pegged side-chain solution as described by Blockstream and company is chalk and cheese when compared to what Satoshi was talking about.

Scratch the surface, and trolls and shills are always exposed for what they are.

The trouble is, some people do fall for this manipulation of context. The same way many fell for the Segwit narrative… and now where are we at? What has Segwit really given? So the goal posts move again, and we get people screaming that wallet providers need to enable Segwit transactions. Even if the entire eco-system adopted Segwit transactions, the benefit would be trivial from a scalability point of view. Don’t fall for it. But even if Segwit solved all the world’s problems, why on earth would it be released as a soft fork, thereby, Core, placing themselves in a position where they have to ‘beg’ the entire eco-system to adopt it… The whole point of the soft-fork in this case was that it was not mandatory. A hardfork, would have made it mandatory.

Given the technical debt the soft-fork introduces, I’m left to believe that the only fathomable reason Core did not hardfork Segwit, is because it would have risked Bitcoin splitting into two (if not all miners jumped onboard), and with their limited blockspace (and mining power), would have sent fees spiralling out of control, while the other chain which would have engaged bigger blocks, would have dealt with the slower transactions with ease. Their bluff was called however, and Bitcoin Cash was born. The split happened in any case.

I agree with many early adopters, Bitcoin Core is headed into a hurricane. Yes, that means, that the economic majority on this, are wrong.

In fact, smart money, is usually with the economic minority.

The 2008 global financial crisis, and events unfolding in the Bitcoin world lately, have very firmly led me to believe that the economic majority, does very often, tend to be wrong.

How can people, who invest so much money into things, many of whom, you would assume to be mightily intelligent, be so wrong on so many things?

I believe the answer lies in the blinding shine of the bling-bling. It’s a psychological thing, but humans are very prone to get excited over money, and when money is coming in thick and fast, people would rather look at what’s coming in, rather than what can potentially fall out. Granted not everyone ignores the devil in the detail. Michael Burberry was one such man, who did one thing that everyone else seemingly did not in 2007. He looked.

So anyone that actually bothers to look will know that Bitcoin Core (BTC), with its failure to scale, is doomed. Not because BTC was incapable – it was very capable, but it chose not to scale and grow. So now the price and trajectory will overshoot, and will result in a calamity that will make the MtGox saga look like it was nothing.

Eli Afram
@justicemate

Note: Tokens in the SegWit chain are referred to as SegWit1X (BTC) and SegWit Gold (SWG) and are no longer Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the only true  Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper.  Bitcoin BCH is the only public block chain that offers safe and cheap microtransactions.