News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Lightning Network Skepticism by freework on Friday December 25, 2015 @04:26PM (#10792403)
> who pays for this whole network in 30 years?

Why pays to seed torrents? Who pays to run NTP servers? Who pays for running game servers? Its is wrong to assume that something has to be profitable in order for it to exist.

Re:Lightning Network Skepticism by maaku on Saturday December 26, 2015 @12:15AM (#10793359)
Running the Bitcoin mining network costs millions of dollars per day in electricity costs alone. Who's going to to pay that when the subsidy goes away?
Re:Lightning Network Skepticism by mrb on Saturday December 26, 2015 @04:54AM (#10793765)
You are wrong about mining costs. Miners are estimated to consume 100-200 megawatt. Most of them pay below worldwide average electricity prices, being located in Iceland (KnC), WA state (BitFury), etc; maybe around $0.05/kWh. So the miners' daily costs would be $120 000 to $240 000.
Re:Lightning Network Skepticism by oafitupa on Saturday December 26, 2015 @01:24AM (#10793475)
The block reward only halves, it doesn't "go away". Unless you are talking about when it can't halve anymore because of the 8 decimals limit, which we could just remove, just like Satoshi wanted (same situation as with block size limit).
Re:Lightning Network Skepticism by supermari0_ on Saturday December 26, 2015 @02:34AM (#10793579)
If we keep the 21M limit, subsidy will be insignificat at one point.
Re:Lightning Network Skepticism by tdryja on Friday December 25, 2015 @04:37PM (#10792425)
If both transaction fees and the coinbase are zero or negligible, there is potential revenue in mining: to reverse transactions and rip people off.

Altruism certainly exists, but assuming that altruistic actors (rather than self-interested actors) will expend more resources than attackers is a very different security model than what Bitcoin is designed upon.