Bitcoin Forum

Why does Core call everything an 'alt' but their wildly variant version of Bitcoin gets entitled to be 'the Bitcoin'? 

Don't be fooled: SegWit is the alt.  Lightning is the alt.  These radical changes are being forced into the network because Blockstream has been able to convince a few Chinese miners (not decentralized) to follow their stupidly dangerous plan.

Segwit and Lightning both transact Bitcoins, on the Bitcoin network.

You're relying on your audience being too stupid or too lazy to check this for themselves. That's not a very good strategy, anyone can check for themselves, and confirm you're talking nonsense.

agreed LN in its blockstream concept is an alt.

the 'payments' performed within blockstreams LN are not bitcoin compatible.
the units of measure are different. so a signed LN 'payment' cannot be simply broadcast into bitcoin.

it requires rounding the altcoin to then be measured as a satoshi equivalent and then resigned. which only happens on closing the channel.
some say that its bitcoin due to using the same privkeys.
but then we come to the contraversial forks which use the same privkeys. so again an altcoin.

unless an LN concept uses the same units of measure any the LN 'signed payment' can at anytime be broadcast to bitcoin without needing to create a new tx just to close the payment session.. its an altcoin



segwit however is within bitcoin..


as for carlton.. ignore him he knows nothing about LN

as proven

Omni transacts Bitcoin on the Bitcoin network.  Counterparty does too.  Your definition is completely fucking stupid.  Nearly all of your responses are similarly so.  

Lots and lots of possible alts 'transact Bitcoins, on the Bitcoin network. '

LN is WILDLY different that the original protocol.  SegWit is VERY different than the original notion of signature.  These are enormous changes being marketed as 'Bitcoin tweeks'.  They are actual not Bitcoin, and they are not tweeks.  

Blockstream proposes a very different cryptocurrency - and the control commit access to make it appear to be 'Bitcoin'.


Blockstream is not Bitcoin.


as for carlton.. ignore him he knows nothing about LN
Carlton is a moron best ignored in all his fanatic Blockstream defenses.  Does Blockstream pay him?

I fail to see how a bunch of waffle about channel closing and unit rounding means that the Lightning transactions are not sending Bitcoin.


It starts as Bitcoin.
Then it gets to the recipient as Bitcoin.


Your desperate word-salad is not going to work

For me, anything aside from the original godly Satoshi work is bad and need to be stopped since it will lead to further corruption.

blockstreams LN concept the same concept as locking bitcoins into an address and then playing with millisat coins for payments using a totally different node.
millisat coin transactions cannot be broadcast to bitcoin,
there needs to be a conversion of the millisatcoins back to bitcoins and then signed before broadcasting to bitcoin.

the only thing carlton forgets or doesnt know is
millisatcoin is a 1:1000 peg to bitcoin ... a peg, not an actual bitcoin
a different node not actually bitcoin node.
a memool not an actual blockchain

Do it. Go back to version 0.1 (satoshis "original godly work"). Have fun.

Every crypto-currency that was created after Bitcoin, is automatically an altcoin.
Altcoin means that it is an "alternative coin" to "Bitcoin", since Bitcoin was the first.

SegWit is not an altcoin since it is still the Bitcoin blockchain.
All that SegWit does is split the single Bitcoin merkle root, into two Bitcoin merkle roots.

Lightning Network is not an altcoin since there is no PoW, blockchain, or etc.
LN is just a relay network that relies on, is pegged to, and exists on top of the Bitcoin blockchain.
It is a rapid bitcoin clearance facilitator layer. It is basically a bitcoin backed escrow layer.

No it's not. Show me the part of the Lightning design documents where it says Lightning "units" need to be converted to and from Bitcoin. You're making it all up.

Great, then Omni/Mastercoin is also Bitcoin and CounterParty is also Bitcoin.  


SegWit is not the Bitcoin Blockchain.  The bitcoin blockchain is enforce by the protocol.  SeqWit is an alternative protocol.  

Millibits. Hmmmm. I wonder why they're called that......

No, you are redefining known terms and systems.

Omni/Mastercoin are separate coins with separate blockchains that are mined and secured by non-bitcoin miners.
These are altcoins.

SegWit is a Bitcoin protocol proposal.
Bitcoin protocol is not static and changes with each new version.
Protocol does not equal an altcoin.
An altcoin is a competitor.

you know its millisats. you know they are not compatible with bitcoin.. you did not gain amnesia in the last 48 hours.
so all i can assume is your just baiting another debate because you have nothing to do with your life.

have a nice day

learn LN or dont talk about LN

I do.


No, that sentence doesn't even make proper sense. Millisats can't exist on the blockchain until the Bitcoin code allows that amount of granularity, so there are no millisats to be incompatible with. And no, deflating the monetary base is not the same thing as inflating it, for the trillionth time ::)

a bitcoin in mined in 2009 can be spent on the post segwit blockchain should it be activated in my mind that means it's not an alt. if enough people agreed on bitcoin unlimited or whatever they're spewing out right now then that would be the chain and it wouldn't be an alt either.

a non alt is the longest bitcoin blockchain used by the most people.

Exactly. Satoshi himself could spend the Bitcoins he mined in 2009-10 to launch the Bitcoin network, using either a Lightning channel or a Segwit address. And if he wanted to send that BTC back to a traditional address, he could do that too.



OP is a shit talking idiot, QED

much like saying monero can't exist on the blockchain until the Bitcoin code allows it. so there are no monero to be incompatible with. And no, deflating the monetary base by adding monero is not the same thing as inflating it, for the trillionth time

satoshis code is that there are ever going to be 2,100,000,000,000,000 units of measure called satoshi's(in code) and then ONLY FOR GUI PURPOSES will an allotment of 100,000,000 be defined as a bitcoin. again only at GUI level.

adding more units does multiple things. it extends when mining for a blockreward will cease. (from 2141 to 2181)
please learn things before defending blockstream using their PR. because their PR lacks realistic facts.

all you seem to do all day is defend blockstream while saying bitcoin needs to get screwed around with to fit blockstreams vision

You've got the insider knowledge on this one Franky, do tell us:

How many millisats will Blockstream be adding to the Bitcoin monetary base? How many, what number? :D

we both know ur just trolling.
here is the conversations we both know about

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1642269.0

no point repeating your failed arguments

How many millisats will the Bitcoin 21 million limit be inflated by? It's zero, isn't it?

as discussed before..
bitcoin should not even propose to extend the units of measure.

it is however ONLY YOU that is trolling to suggest bitcoin should extend.

but staying in reality!!!
while bitcoin does not have any extra units of measure and where i and thousands of others agree should never change.
a blockstream LN signed payment is not compatible with bitcoin.

have a nice day

What, the thousands of people who have you on ignore? :D


How many extra BTC, millibits, satoshis, or millisats are going to be added to the 21 million maximum? How can they possibly be added if they're for an altcoin, as you claim further up the thread? You've lost it, Franky lol

How in the world is it that the mods don't ban you? 

You are garbage man.  Pure, unadulterated stinking garbage. 

How about if you argue the science instead of calling names?

bitcoin has
2,100,000,000,000,000 units of measure called satoshi's
at the front end GUI (human decision after the fact) humans call
100,000,000 units...  1btc (one bitcoin) but this is just GUI display. not codebased

blockchains LN has
2,100,000,000,000,000,000 units of measure called millisats
at "instant payment" level LN calls
100,000,000,000...  1btc (one bitcoin) but this is just GUI display. not code based

signing an LN payment to give someone 100,000,000,000millisats which LN deems to be 1btc
ends up with a signature and txid that is not the same as a bitcoin tx of 1btc

thus it gets rejected

EG
on bitcoin you deposit
100,000,000sats (called 1btc)
then using a totally different node you are credited with
100,000,000,000millisats (called 1btc but this is just GUI display. not code based)

you trade and sign transactions in millisats. knowing that those signed transactions will get rejected by bitcoin.

the only way to settle back on bitcoin is to create a bitcoin compatible transaction by destroying the millisats and then separately agreeing to satoshi amounts the peers think each other deserves from the earlier bitcoin deposit done before even using LN. and sign it as a bitcoin transaction

again playing with millisats on a different codebase/node, which blockstreams LN is. where its promised a 1sat:1000millisat peg
is the same as playing with moneros codebase/node, where someone promises you a 1btc:1000monero peg

I checked Carlton Banks paid Blockstream shill

See, you've been working on that post for a whole hour, haven't you?



Problem: there are no LN miners to mine this imaginary Lightning blockchain that you're making up. 2nd layer != different chain



And I love the early part of your post where you (in effect) admit your BS: any increase in granularity is not going to inflate the supply. Increasing the divisibility of a money is called monetary deflation.

So, Franky, the Bitcoin supply will increase by exactly zero, just like I said. Any more bullshit?

Show us the link you checked.

This pretty much explains why is an asshole like the whole bunch of those idiots at Blockstream trying to own bitcoin via the liquid bullshitery.

i made no mention of mining.. are you that deluded to not even read the content of posts!!
LN is just about SIGNING
Liquid is an altcoin. and guess what there is no mining involved in that
Ripple is an altcoin.. and guess what.. yep, again no mining
NXT is an altcoin.. and guess what.. yep. again no mining


really wonder what drugs ur taking.. to even think mining even ever came into the debate about LN

and as for the inflation/deflation.. you have again lost the plot..
adding more units into circulation is called inflation... renaming a certain allotment of units to hide the more units in circulation doesnt change anything.

wake up!!

and its only been you that has shown desire to add more units of measure..
sorry but go play with infinity coin if you want more units of measure.

smart people dont want to screw with bitcoins unit of measure cap (coded as 2,100,000,000,000,000 satoshis)

You imply a separate blockchain for Lightning transactions in your waffle, so try not to mention such things if you don't want them to be led to their illogical conclusion, lol



How

Many

Units

Will

Be

Added

Answer

The

Question

Franky

How many extra units will be added to the 21 million maximum, o' font of Bitcoin knowledge Lord Franky Nakamoto?

paid shill with finger in blockstream's $55 million

Link your evidence.

i said altcoin. you said miner
i said altcoin. you said blockchain.

there are MANY altcoins without needing mining
there are MANY altcoins without a blockchain

LN is an altcoin because the units of measure do not match thus making signatures not match and txids not match.
if you compared a bitcoin tx measured in sats to a LN tx measured in millisats.
they do not match they are not compatible just like monero and bitcoin are not compatible.

no one of any intelligence and coding knowledge is proposing to add any units. so LN payments are not compatible, thus LN is an alt.
with btc hodled on bitcoins blockchain people are credited with and play around with millisats using a different codebase/node.

it was only you that suggested it would be compatible if bitcoin added some units



by the way i laugh when your own words ruin your own argument

How can the different units be "incompatible altcoins" AND constitute monetary inflation. You're going to need to pick one or the other, because they cannot both be true at once.


(hint: they're both false, lol)



Right before that, I said that any notion of "compatibility" doesn't make any sense before change to the codebase. That's not called "incompatible", that's what's known as "impossible".

And of course, once any change to the unit granularity is made, there won't be any question of  compatibility then either, as Lightning is just a different type of Bitcoin transaction. No more, no less.

1. REALITY: bitcoin wont accept more units because it screws the maximum possible units that are minable within bitcoin
   REALITY: bitcoins stay in one place onchain and on a different codebase people play around with something they have been credited with (an altcoin)
   REALITY: a LN payment dual-signed to show: A owns XXmillisats and B owns XX millisats will get rejected by bitcoin.

2. THEORETICAL SCENARIO: in your dream where you had millisats included in bitcoin (not going to happen, but talking about your dream) it would be inflation

Qualify any of those statements with facts lol. Off you go to en.bitcoin.it Franky, see you back here in an hour, huh (Franky's doing his homework :D). You might need to get dictionary.com ready in another tab, lol

A negroloid telling others to get a dictionary, lol.  Hey 'thug', how's life?

https://i.imgur.com/9Kg12.jpg

Interesting arguments from both sides, Carlton versus Franky and the OP, about LN's "currency" being an altcoin or not. For me technically it could be but it is not. But then again it could really be. What some see as bad, I see opportunity here. I view the Lightning Network as something like a pseudo bank account in which it can be made and used as a bridge between blockchains. Like a decentralized exchange.

Thank you OP for pointing out that LN could be really an "altcoin" because it just opened the possibilities of what it really is. I am very excited on how this all works in practice.

thats the right way to think about it
have an open mind and think about all possibilities good and bad
good: to benefit users
bad: to suggest solutions to benefit progress which benefits users
bad: to know it could divert security (hashpower / node counts) away from bitcoin.

:D
keep that open mind and think of all possibilities... dont become close minded like carlton

[1]though its not a LN feature but a bitcoin a smart contract feature, you are also correct that when locking bitcoins into a multisig can lead to many possibilities.
such as
[2]you are then credited with units pegged at 1:XXXX in a different network or node to then use in a different system, the smart contract feature is the mechanism planned to be used for things like side chains, LN and other protocols in conception and production right now.

and like you say, these altcoins and sidechains and offchain payment systems can have different possibilities, but also some flaws and limitations. which is what the devs need to work on before making a public release.

The more and more I understand the Lightning Network the more I can see its similarities with the Ripple Network. Also it is better because it might have all the functionalities and none of that XRP tokens that are mostly held by the founders and the company behind it. The system on how to send value in the network is also better in the Lightning Network. Ripple uses financial institutions as gateways to transfer value to the network while LN uses its payment channel system.

Reaction after reading title and first post:
https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Computer-Guy-Facepalm.jpg

---

Segwit has nothing to do with "altcoins". It is the same chain, because it IS Bitcoin. Anyone claiming otherwise is either a paid troll or delusional. For something to be an altcoin, it would need to have its own chain, right? LN is a 'collection of payment channels' in a sense, not an altcoin.

I don't think you understand how Counterparty and Omni work. They don't have their own blockchain, I believe they use OP_RETURN data on the bitcoin blockchain to create assets and transactions of those assets. So, they're not separate blockchains. Whether they are altcoins or something else is semantics I guess.

quoted for preservation

When will people understand that we need to build on top of Bitcoin otherwise we will never properly scale? Did people back then complain that stuff was being built on top of the TCP/IP and therefore that was not Bitcoin? This is getting ridiculous with those trolls.

What is Segwit and what is LN?

What is the purpose of this thread?

Why do you care about Segwit and LN?

Well, it's not an inability to understand. Given that the Bitcoin trolls are only ever interested in trying to scare non-techy Bitcoin users away, it's highly likely that the trolls are actually paid shills.

For instance, Franky1 almost certainly has more than one person using the account; there's one Franky that can spell, speak good English, type like they're sober etc.... and then there's another Franky (who turns up around 4-7 PM GMT) who doesn't have complete English grammar, can't spell, can't type etc.

When you consider that Franky posts all day long, for a constant 24 hours, I don't think there's much doubt. I put this to "him", he claimed he doesn't sleep at all, lol. And this is aside from his uber-troll false arguments, that's a whole other ball game.

carton fails to provide a reason why blockstreams LN is not an altcoin, even where:
it uses a different node
contains no bitcoin blockchain,
uses a different unit of measure,
uses a signed instant 'payment' method incompatible to bitcoin consensus(thus gets rejected if they tried broadcasting the 'payment')
requires deleting the 'payment' and setting up a hopefully ethical agreement when signing a bitcoin tx when settling(much like withdrawing exchange balance)

so he then meanders to attack the people that even dare to highlight the reality of stuff blockstream create.

i defend bitcoin(open financial system), carlton defends blockstream(dictatorship desiring corporation)

now my point.
its best to call a spade a spade and actually accept what a spade can do
and cannot do. then while remaining with reality realise that a spade is a useful tool for some people and able to clearly show what a spade does.

unlike some people who pretended NXT was bitcoin 2.0 and other things. which helped no one but purely done to defend and promote the business behind the concept rather then highlight the advantages and disadvantages of the technology/altcoin

lauda is correct segwit is part of bitcoin.
sidechains and blockstreams LN however is an altcoin, that is crediting users via a peg that suppose to represent bitcoin at certain ratios.

the funny thing is, if revealing the honest truth hurts. then there is something those hurt by the truth want to hide.

if you feel the technology is sound then be honest and show what it can and cannot do. rather then circle jerk the utupian dream of perfection purely to give some rep' points to the business conceiving it.

i personally do see the positives of where LN can be useful. but i also see the flaws.
there is no point "selling" the usefulness before its even usable, but highlighting the flaws can help fix the issues to make it useful.
and there is definitely no point "selling" the utopian dream of perfection to honour a business. its open source after all. the business should not matter

Lightning uses Bitcoins. On the Bitcoin blockchain.

That's where all the money going through Lightining channels is coming from, and going to. The Bitcoin blockchain.

Ergo, Lightning is not an altcoin.



Franky seems to think that his massively overcomplicated "explanation" is actually going to convince anyone who is worth convincing.

lightning is OFFchain tech.. 'payments'/'trades' are not done onchain.. and thats the point of LN


LOL
lets word it a different way,
exchanges accept bitcoin but while an exchange holds the bitcoin, they separately allow users to play with their 'balances'(mysql database) to make orders.
exchanges are not bitcoin, they are a SERVICE/BUSINESS layer at the edges of bitcoin, but it is not bitcoin.
the trades do no appear on the blockchain. the trades are incompatible with bitcoin consensus
only the deposits and withdrawals are part of bitcoin. not the service offering itself.
LN is just a service layer.

even blockstream admit LN is a second layer.
even blockstream admit LN is OFFCHAIN.

seems carlton needs to go back and get retrained by his leaders

lets word it a different way.
exchanges are part of the community. but not the protocol of bitcoin
LN is part of the community. but not the protocol of bitcoin

atleast be honest and call a spade a spade. then be realistic about what a spade can do and cannot do

Yes, that's your only weapon in this argument: playing with semantics, lol



All Lightning transactions are validated by all Bitcoin nodes, before they can be accepted at all as an open channel by the Bitcoin network. Opening a Lightning channel involves making a Bitcoin transaction, and all the units are BTC.

The fact that the units are being carved up a thousand times smaller is completely irrelevant, Franky is essentially trying to say that $ 1,000,000 dollars is one currency, but  $0.000001 cents is different currency completely, purely because the accounts system that deals with millions can't do 6 decimal places of accuracy.

Part of the point of Lightning is to make smaller denominations of Bitcoin usable; a transaction with less than 5430 satoshis of outputs is either invalid or non-standard right now, Lightning would enable 1 satoshi (or less) to be used. This will be needed if Bitcoin becomes worth $10,000-1,000,000, as it would only be possible to use Bitcoin to send a minimum of $1000 without.

This is such a simple, easily refuted lie, and it can only be a lie, not some kind of mistake or oversight. Trolling, in other words.

your semantics are about the deposit and withdrawal. not LN itself.
it seems you fail to understand. so it requires wording it differently to hope you understand. but you instead just put your fingers in your ears and plead ignorance to everything

so how about go watch the demo video. read the details. that way you learn directly from your leader and probably wont have your fingers in your ears.
the guy made a payment ON BITCOIN(deposit). and the separately used the LN node for payments.
the payments within the LN node are NOT accepted by bitcoin. go watch the video
only the settlement (withdrawal) is accepted because a process is done to create a bitcoin transaction when the channel closes.

seriously carlton. watch the video, read the documentation and understand LN.


i know you admitted you have no understanding and blame your lack of desire to research LN on other people rather than yourself. but you are only failing yourself

Wrong, individual Lightning payments are validated by Bitcoin nodes, as Bitcoin transactions. Each and every one.


No, all Lightning payments are validated by Bitcoin nodes. They're validated in the mempool. Not on the Blockchain. Until the channel closes, when the net result of the transaction is stored on the Blockchain. Not as an altcoin, as you falsely claim. Stored as Bitcoin, and trnsacted as Bitcoin.

But that means that every Lightning transaction is validated in the mempool of every Bitcoin node.



To conclude:


Every Lightning transaction is validated in the mempool of every Bitcoin node. That's how it works.

LN payments in bitcoins mempool??

prove it. show me bitcoin-core code.
show me code in bitcoin core where millisat payments are logged in bitcoin-cores mempool

show it.
if you wont or cant. you have nothing more then empty arguments to get laughed at

i guess you forgot the LN node was not a bitcoin node
i guess you forgot the LN node had to connect to IRC to locate other peers, rather then using the bitcoin network IP discovery process
i guess you forgot LN uses millisats that are not sats
i guess you are stuck in a lucid dream.

wake up, deal with reality, not the dream you were sold

Don't need to, it's how everyone understood Lightning from the start (like, 2 years ago)

And Lightning specifics are not merged yet, so you're asking me to do something you know is impossible anyway, lol





Every Lightning transaction is validated in the mempool of every Bitcoin node. That's how it works.

because LNs millisats are not part of bitcoins sat
they are different nodes.

again lets do the theortic dream of yours of bitcoin changing its units of measure to include millisats
bitcoin miners right now produce 1250000000 units of measure per block. FACT (check the code)
USERS call this measure at the GUI, conversation end 12.5btc. but not at protocol/code/consensus level

in your dream scenario
bitcoin miners would produce 12500000000000 units of measure per block. DREAM
making miners stop producing units of measure as a blockreward in atleast 2181 instead of 2141 (screwing the production/rarity mechanism)
USERS call this measure at the GUI, conversation end 12.5btc. but not at protocol/code/consensus level

anyone can rebrand how many units a BTC is measured as.
last year people were proposing without even adding more units of measure. to call a btc just 1000 sats.
the community decided to leave a btc at 100,000,000 units and instead just use a different term 'bits' which is 100 units of measure

what people call a btc has no relevance to mining, no relevance to code.

WAKE UP!!!

how many Millisats will the Lightning "node" money supply be inflated by?

(note that this question doesn't even make any sense, I'm just using Franky's non-logic against him, lol)



You cannot provide a straight answer to this (or any) question, huh?

you fail to show knowledge of the concept of blockstream LN. you cannot even be bothered to look into it, and instead you bait an offtopic question involving the front end market of speculation.

which no one can predict speculation accurately. all that can be learned is that changing the units of measure WILL change how people perceive it.
and it WILL affect things.
just like trying to rebrand a btc as 1000units does the same change to peoples perception of rebranding a btc to 100,000,000,000units

afterall you cant go back and rehash all the 7 years blocks to give users 100,000,000,000units instead of 100,000,000 to keep them on par with still having 1btc. (so your dream is flawed) due to older users losing out.

extending the reward creation cap from the year 2141 to 2181+ does has ramifications too
the best answer there is to your question
its inflation hidden by a rebranding of the metric to pretend there is no inflation.. but smart people will see through the ruse

but we all know you want to screw with bitcoin. because you dont care about bitcoin. you only care about is the dream of corporate dictatorship and control for financial profit.(you have no libertarian ideals nor ideals for protecting peoples assets against corporations)

how about instead of meandering off topic.
how about instead of crying that answering people is a waste of time
how about instead of crying that researching facts to answer people is a waste of time

you instead just do the research for your own understanding and your own benefit. then you wont be wasting your time failing each time

Exactly, you're trying to affect people's perception of what a change like that would mean, using overcomplicated, vague and inaccurate descriptions deliberately contrived to lead people to think "well, I don't totally get it, but maybe something funny is going on". The only funny going's on is your warped description, though.

and you pretend nothing will happen because your dreams tell you to think of fairy utopia's that corporate dictatorship is the solution to bitcoin, without understanding bitcoin
the funny thing is that carlton wants to screw with bitcoin to make LN compatible rather than making LN compatible with bitcoin.. (facepalm)

now thats settled your off topic question

back on topic,
prove with code, documentation and knowledge that LN signed payment can be broadcast to bitcoin and be accepted

remember
A)the deposit (prechannel) is not LN
B)the LN payment (in channel) on the LN node is LN
C)the withdrawal (post channel) is not LN

demonstrate (B)
stay on topic and talk about (B)


comparison
A)the deposit (pre-exchange trading) is not exchange trading
B)the LN payment (exchange trading) on the exchange is the exchange trading
C)the withdrawal (post exchange trading) is exchange trading

demonstrate a exchange trade-order can be broadcast to bitcoin
stay on topic and talk about exchanges and trade-orders

That's not what I said. When you offer a reply to a question that the other party didn't ask, that's called a strawman argument.



I said: Every Lightning transaction is validated by the mempool of the nodes on the Bitcoin network.

ok ill edit
prove it..
you cant because you dont even know what an TN transaction is
but you you suggest you do know what a LN transaction is
PROVE IT

This is a false analogy. While you do not own the Bitcoins on a exchange, which is a service, you very much own the coins locked within a payment channel (with or without LN). *Nobody* can take these away from you, which is not the case with exchanges.

the coins locked within the multisig require dual signatures. thus its not all your property. you require the second party to sign too..

prove any of that.


You're the one with a long, long history of inventing nonsense claims about Bitcoin, the onus is on you

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
not a single line of code deals with LN transactions
job done
not a single line of code deals communicating with LN nodes
job done
not a single line of code deals with storing inchannel payments on bitcoins mempool
job done
not a single line of code deals with LN's millisats
job done

Correct. This, however, does not change the fact that no one can take these coins away from you regardless of whether the secondary party chooses to properly interact with you or not.

by the second party not signing. first party cant have them back, they remain locked. because it requires dual signing to release
by this i agree the second party cannot simply "take it from you" without your signature, because they remain locked, but you cant take it without theirs either

here is the point..
they can blackmail you to sign X over to them just to get an agreement. thus
taking it from you via extortion (they win)
or
locking you out of ever getting them back (no one wins, but second party feels good about screwing first party)

IIRC there is a timeout period after one party initiates the closing of a payment channel. Please take this with a grain of salt, as I'm unsure and this would be a *stupid flaw* to enable the possibility of indefinite state of irresoluteness. I'll do some research on this once I find more time.

well, you proved a strawman, well done!  (and you know you didn't check anything)


I've said already today: nothing used for Lightning is merged into mainline yet, apart from Segwit (merged a day or two ago).

thank you for doing research
to help you
the timeout. is just a timeout. signatures still need to be signed.
hopefully a ETHICAL pre-channel transaction (the reset) was signed initially so the deposits can go back out the same way they came in.

but that can be then abused the other way.
EG previous post was party A deposits 1btc, B deposits nothing.. B can extort funds with UNETHICAL pre-channel transaction (the reset)

and flipping it to this new scenario
previous post was party A deposits 1btc, B deposits nothing..ethical reset created where A gets funds back. then A-B trade goods and services.
now A has the power. A refuses to sign unless he gets the majority back. and eventually A gets the whole thing back and keeps the goods because of the reset is released.

now the problem and flaw carlton is missing.

signing a transaction of 100,000,000,000units
results in a different signature AND TXID compared to
signing a transaction of 100,000,000units
bitcoin will reject it as an invalid tx.

also B cannot just broadcast an in-channel tx based on blockstreams current demonstration as the settlement tx onchain due to in-discrepancies.

LN only works if LN is measuring in sats.
LN will only work using milisats if (in carltons dream) bitcoin is measured in millisats

proved yourself wrong
go research. atleast lauda seems awake to atleast try finding the truth. follow his mindset and atleast try

lastly


ive read the code.
ive checked the code.
ive understand the code.

have a nice day

This is really where Franky comes into his forte, because I just can't be bothered to check this right now, it would involve taking Franky seriously


But as I've said: listen to Franky's propaganda at your own risk. He's the most blatant propaganda pusher on the board, and has a long long history as such.

carlton you have since 21 hours ago. be saying nonsense and avoided checking, learning, researching..
21 hours and you are still no further forward then you were yesterday

next time dont wast your 21 hours with baseless non factual dreams.
and instead
sleep for 9 hours.
wake up
do 2 hours of research and then using logic, documentation and facts to make a valid point.

which means IF you actually done some research you would have had a valid point HOURS ago, thus not wasting time.
by not researching and not making valid points you are only wasting your own time.

the funnier part is carlton has been tryng to make a point about LN since the 11th of the month on several topics.(4 days)
failing each time, getting no further forward then he did before.. learning not one extra thing to make a valid point.

i even suggested he take a break and try to learn something, to really think about it and try making a valid point.
kind of a shame he wastes his own time trolling and not learning

You're posting in a thread calld "SegWit and LN are altcoins", and you've tried already (and abandoned) to establish Segwit is an altcoin, when it isn't any kind of separate coin at all.

So this fake persona you present of an honest technical researcher is a total joke. You've been arguing easily refuted technical garbage already in this thread, and this is what you do all day every day. We all know, I'm just trying to warn newbies.

i didnt try to establish segwit as an altcoin

segwit debate over,
but nice try on diverting away from your lack of LN valid points.
care to take a break and research for an hour, to make a point...or waste an hour not making a point
your choice.
you really should learn though. id love to see a valid point backed up by research. within the hour
your only wasting ur own time if you just keep posting pointlessly within the hour

Lol nice edit job Franky


@Mods: remove Franky's ability to edit his posts, or keep a copy of every edit. I'd suggest doing the same for the other known Bitcoin trolls trying to sabotage the project

Thank you for doing that.  I hate when they delete my messages.  Assholes. 

I suppose Segwit and LN were introduced as overall improvements to bitcoin... let's see how they will fare.

LN's biggest problem is that it increases money supply. Notice that money supply means the available money in the market, not the base money supply, thus modern economy theories seldom use M0 to measure money supply, since a large part of the M0 is sitting there collecting dust without contributing to the economy activities

Comparing two cases:

1. you have 1 bitcoin to pay a merchant, when this 1 bitcoin is in transaction, it is unavailable for anyone else, so the money supply decreased by 1 bitcoin until the merchant received your coin and spent it. If he did not spend it in time, next time you must find a new bitcoin to pay him, this will create new demand for bitcoin

2. you have 1 bitcoin to pay a merchant, but your wallet operator and merchant's wallet operator opened a payment channel between them, and then you and the merchant can do any amount of trades without more bitcoin, because the amount of incoming and outgoing transactions are roughly the same between your wallet operator and merchant's wallet operator, thus their transactions basically cancel each other and no real settlement is required between them, the channel can be left open forever. As a result, you get some salary from your boss through another payment channel, and you pay the merchant through this payment channel, everything happens in payment channel, no real bitcoin is needed

So once payment channel and especially routing is established, all the bitcoin transactions can be done with a fraction of the total amount of required bitcoin, that will dramatically reduce the amount of bitcoin demand on market and cause the value to crash

Increased money supply always cause reduced money value, or inflation. Notice that not only new coins can cause inflation, any schemes that could increase the utility of the same bitcoin by multiple times is essentially another form of inflation, this includes payment channel, fractional reserve banking, and other forms of similar schemes

You are partially correct.
After review, it seems that Omni/Mastercoin relies on the bitcoin blockchain for security.
So it is a protocol layer on top of the Bitcoin system.
But the original discussion was about whether SegWit is an altcoin to bitcoin's blockchain.

Omni & Counterparty have their own tokens that can be purchased in exchanges (mastercoin was also crowdfunded).
The LN token, in theory, only exists within the LN network and is not exchangeable outside that system.
The LN token is a proxy for BTC, it does not fall under the normal purpose of an altcoin.
The LN token, in theory, would not compete against BTC, since it is "escrowed locked BTC".

So, it is true that Omni/Mastercoin is in theory, not an altcoin and is a protocol layer. But the fact is, they are not
used for Bitcoin/bitcoin directly, but are protocol layers on the bitcoin blockchain for their own selfish enrichment.
I would call them "Bitcoin layered Altcoins", for lack of a better term. So, simply altcoins and not protocol layers.

So, if the LN token does become a coin traded on altcoin exchanges, it will become an altcoin.
Otherwise it is just a LN internal token for accounting of btc settlement txs.

Every LN token is backed by its equivalent in BTC locked in multisig.

Where is this extra money coming from?
Who is the entity that is transferring the single BTC twice?
Who is the entity that loses their BTC when the settlement only goes to one of the two parties?


You are arguing that BTC will become more valuable over time if we keep 1MB blocks forever
and never create second layer systems? You are arguing "Velocity of Money" is bad with "digital gold".

what i feel johnyJ might be theorising is.
using LN people can "replay" doublespend to get goods whil other person is playing with LN tokens and the scammer has moved out the real bitcoins.


knitpickers: my next scenario has some assumptions
this is not about blockstreams current release of LN(very flawed) but how things are still not sussed out conceptually even in a more release worthy version.
this is not a blockstreams current release of LN with 1:1000 pegged LN tokens, instead its 1:1 LN tokens to allow instant signing of tx's that would get accepted by bitcoin

here goes:
imagine the date is: blockheight 450,000 (bitcoin doesnt care about calenders)

when Scumbag A and merchant B form a multisig. scumbag A deposits 1btc.
at first they both sign the reset transaction where A gets his 1BTC back.(rightfully so) date stamped to only be accepted at BlockHeight:460,000 (10 weeks from now)

then within LN A and B set up the channel and scumbag A is credited with the LN tokens, to represent 1btc
they do some trades and using the LN tokens. scumbag A gives some tokens to Merchant B for.. lets say a TV.
B gets A to sign a real bitcoin tx wher the outputs now give the merchant some bitcoin for the TV. date stamped to only be accepted BlockHeight:459,999 (9 weeks 6day, 23hours and ~50minutes from now)

but A doesnt care about the second TX, he cares and keeps the reset(a:1btc) tx and thats all he cares about
they keeps the channel open as if A and B will trade more next week.(meaning B does not broadcast the second tx)
later.. they keep trading, blah blah blah to keep the channel alive.
later..
10 weeks are nearly up they agree to extend the channel for another 10 weeks by signing a TX for blockheight 470,000.
merchant B thinks scumbag A deleted old tx's and is only holding the latest one of blockheight 470,000, wher merchant gets some btc.
scumbag A has never cared about the latest tx's and still has the first reset tx

so the channel carries on and they date passes block height 460,002
scumbag A broadcasts the reset transaction without telling merchant B and gets confirmed
merchant B was unaware and couldnt send out his latest one because its date stampted for 470,000
now all merchant B is left with is a hand full of LN proxy tokens, no TV, no bitcoin.

issues that have to be resolved.
1. using the time locks, limits the "infinite transactions" because each transaction needs to be one blockheight less than the other to remain most valid.(eg a 10k gap limits it to 10,000 transactions)
2. by suggesting a "channel never needs to close" means that trust is needed that the party with most at the start wont transmit that initial transaction to get back everything he first had, once time passes the time lock due to naive trust the party with most to lose didnt close in time

dont get me wrong. the time lock concept is good. but then saying a utopian dream of "never needs to close" and "unlimited transactions" reveals that the time locks can be used to scam, just by being patient and persuasive to keep the channel open beyond the first time lock

LN tokens are not real, they are a temporary place holder for the BTC, prior to the BTC settlement.
All that matters is the settlement. If the scammer "moved out the bitcoins", there are no LN tokens.



With each new tx between User A and merchant B on the LN, I think a new reset must be created that invalidates the prior reset.
So Scumbag A can not use the first reset tx after performing hundreds of tx with that hub.
Scumbag A can only reset his most current tx, is my understanding.

read the whole scenario again.. i explained this.
i made the quote below bold to emphasis when user A can spend the old tx. based on the promotion of "never closing channels" by describing how it would be possible to never close the channel even when the time was up. HINT: mutual /naive trust of each others honour, to have deleted old tx's


invalidates the previous how?
right now the only concept of invalidating it, is the newest TX has a date lock one block less than the previous tx's lock.. as explained.
EG
tx1: possible release 460,000
tx2: possible release 459,999
tx3: possible release 459,998
so that when bitcoin has solved block 459,997. someone can broadcast tx 3 and have it accepted in 459,998 but cant broadcast tx1 as that wont be accepted for atleast~30 minutes.

this raises the importance of closing channels ontime BUT.
but then read the issues at the bottom of the last post. where that concept falls apart based on the "utopian" promotion of infinite transactions and never closing channels.
(mutual agreement based on naive trust of each other to make a new transaction for 470,000 and trust no one holds the tx's of releases 460,000 or 459,000)

i personally feel that when the latest tx (most soonest locktime) actually gets to the blockheight. it should ALWAYS close the channel, thus not allowing older tx's a chance to get broadcast when they finally get to their time.

which then although securing possible double spending to get a TV and bitcoin back. limits how long a channel is open for and how many tx's can be done within the channel before it needs to close.

True


There is almost infinite money can be used in the payment channel, as long as the channel is open, and the money going from A to B is roughly the same as the money going from B to A every day

In bank settlement, although there are millions of transactions happened between Bank A's clients and Bank B's clients, at the end of the day, they typically cancel each other and make very small +/- for the amount to be finally settled between these two banks. Same thing happens between large LN hubs like online wallets, payment processors and exchanges

I always support increase the block size depends on the technology capacity, since on-chain transactions require real bitcoin. But second layer systems will always increase the money supply, that is a fact thus should be avoided if possible, because it destroys value

If User A, receives the product from Merchant B but then broadcasts the original tx for a refund,
then User A stole from the merchant the same way Credit Cards do charge backs. My understanding,
which is limited, is that the merchant has the ability to push a corresponding tx that says that he sent
the product without getting paid, and the whole tx exchange falls into a new type of escrow negotiation
contract phase. I remember hearing some weird aspects where the merchant can be paid a % in the event
that the two parties can not come to an agreement, but this is beyond my knowledge, which is limited.



When a new purchase is created within the same  LN Hub, the prior LN tx will be overwritten.
The only tx that is important is the final LN to BTC tx that settles back to the bitcoin blockchain.
All the unbroadcasted txs you are referring to, I think, only exist within the LN.
When those txs are agreed or disputed, then it executes the "master tx" that settles the account.
This is my understanding. I am not an expert nor claim to be.

I don't understand.

Can you explain the money creation aspect in detail as it relates to this, in simple terms.
I still do not see how 1 BTC can become 2 BTC from your statement.

Are you arguing that prior to the USA leaving the gold standard, that the USA was always using fractional reserve banking anyway?

but now you are taking the control away from peer-to-peer and needing a middleman controlling the keys to mediate transactions and be the only one that broadcasts a tx to bitcoin. which is no different then bank accounts or depositing funds into middlemens permissioned services



will be over written? if i make a tx. i can copy it out of the LN mempool and keep it. even if the node deletes it, i still have it.
The only tx that is important: is the TX that gets accepted by a mining pool and confirmed in a block first.
When those txs are agreed or disputed, then it executes the "master tx" that settles the account. (the first reset tx)

i understand and have no complaints about you, and im not complaining, i actually feel you are willing to learn and think about scenarios and are trying to learn.

all im saying is LN is not a utopia of perfection some fanboys think it is. it still has flaws and people thinking about LN should recognise some limitations.

LN has got some good usecases, but should atleast admit to its limitations to reduce risk, find flaws and solve bugs. to then have something that will be useful for the usecases.

anyway ive digressed.
in the concept of LN being unlimited transactions (flaw due to locktime protection) and never needing to close(flaw of broadcasting older tx once X time passes) that it is possible to double spend. by a user having a TV and his btc back. leaving the other person with neither.

Its programmed within the LN code, so it is essentially like saying that all Ethereum
contracts and actions are also middleman controlling the keys.
LN is an automated escrow contracting system.



I'm not sure, but I think the LN tx system is not the same as Bitcoins.
It would have other aspects besides the proof signatures.
I think there are programmable functions that must be fully met before the tx can validate.

I think the unbroadcasted LN tx system is contingent on unfinalized agreements.
If the two parties create a new agreement or update the agreement, the prior tx doesn't execute
correctly and would send back an error that says the agreement terms are new or updated.

When all conditions are met, then they are "finalized" and then the tx can broadcast and be validated.
I don't know what the truth is, this is what my basic understanding was.

But I agree in part, that this type of system will never be as trustless and secured as Bitcoin p2p.
I think the LN Devs admit that there are issues and problems, especially with trust and don't consider it "perfect".
But it is still worth experimenting and attempting to solve these problems.


Edit: As a reminder, I was always told that this system is for small exchanges, so a TV, depending on the price,
might be too risky in the LN system. A TV worth 500 USD should stay on the bitcoin blockchain, IMO.

They are not improvements to bitcoin.  They are altcoins designed to enrich Blockstream - a privately owned company.

So TKeenan what solution do you propose? Do we want to boycott both Lining Network and SegWit because these solution are not exactly a pure breed of bitcoin?
Do we have real options to enrich BTC without these upgrades? At some point bitcoin needs to be upgraded...

Speaking of flaws there could be another potential shortcoming in the system. Since the Lightning Network requires the locking of Bitcoins to open payment channels and then unlocking or "withdraw" them when you a channel, would this not send a heavier load on the blockchain and it might even cause a bottle neck? For example LN reaches a half of Visa's transaction and then for some reason a panic selling in the markets start and thousands of payment channels close at the same time to unlock people's Bitcoins.

In that scenario, what kind of strain will it bring to the whole Bitcoin network? Will it clog it and make it unusable for an "X" amount of time?

I have read somewhere in the forum that the lock out time if in case there is an uncooperative channel is 2 weeks. It would be stupid of the developers not to put this feature, making it possible for your coins to be locked forever. I would suggest that the person opening the channel should be able to choose how long the minimum time out is as long as it is not less than 24 hours. I believe that would be better.

Simple.  Make 4MB blocks tomorrow.  Still Bitcoin.  Always Bitcoin.  4MB will let the network expand for another 3 years maybe.  During those 3 years, we should work on some nice alternatives to scaling.  But for now, 4MB is a very conservative little adjustment.  Only a few lines of code to remove a limit that was put in long after the genesis block anyway.

This is my opinion on the scaling debate. There are certain individuals or group of individuals that have their own agendas and their own self interests threatened by how slow the Bitcoin economy is growing. Those people have invested in Bitcoin companies and only to see them become stagnant. So they blame that the Bitcoin economy is not growing fast enough because it cannot scale, so there is the need for larger blocks and that the immediate effect to this is an expanding Bitcoin economy. But is it really that simple? Maybe those individuals are right but maybe they are also wrong. Why? A hard fork comes with great risk. Ethereum is a very good example of this.

I also believe that up to a certain point, the people who want bigger blocks want control over the development of Bitcoin.

So, will you be selling all your SegWits then, ROFL? You'll be rich when you sell all your Lightning coins, Franky and jonny think Lightning inflates the money supply (although so far, the closest they've got to proving that is when Franky said "people will perceive the money supply growing"). Yeah, people that don't understand the difference between adding and dividing. ::)

Lightning might add some extra decimal places, but saying that's adding to the system is incorrect. It is dividing the money supply.

The more you people hang on to these bizarre attempts at propagandising Bitcoin development, the more obvious it will be to even the most non-techy people out there. When do you ever get anyone chiming in with the trolls who's actually someone real in Bitcoin? The IRL contingent in favour of the trolls is tiny; it's basically Roger Ver and all his pedophile celebr-itarian friends.

they would kill bitcoin since they steal mining fees and pocket it for their investors. This leaves miners without fees, and it would kill bitcoin in the long run, once block rewards become too small to cover the expenses for miners.

Um, you're relying on your audience being too stupid or too lazy to check this for themselves. That's not a very good strategy, anyone can check for themselves, and confirm you're talking nonsense.

There is nothing anywhere in any Lightning design document that says "mining is cancelled, Blockstream investors are the only miners allowed".

Your trolling is terrrrrrrible. And desperate.

if the locktime was 2 weeks thats only 2016 offchain payments are allowed
if the locktime was 24 hours thats only 144 offchain payments are allowed,
ill explain
EG imagine we are at block 450,000 right now
make a TX with 24 hour locktime = 450,144
make a 'payment' offchain, locktime = 450,143 (to keep newest relevant)
make a 'payment' offchain, locktime = 450,142 (to keep newest relevant)
make a 'payment' offchain, locktime = 450,142 (to keep newest relevant)

issues
1) not unlimited.
2) if you make 140 payments in 30 minutes (current block 450,003 - payment lock now reduced to 450,004)you have to close channel and broadcast newest payment quick before previous tx become able to release funds
3) you and peer go offline/sleep. then its a game of who wakes up first and transmits the best tx in their favour, that has passed the timelock.
4) it is not a trustless system, it is a system based on mutual agreement.

atleast talking about the flaws will help develop solutions or users knowing the limitations to make smart choices about how when and why they would use it. rather then pretend its all utopia and every tx should be done on it, always and forever

@Shills


Will regular Bitcoin transactions still be possible, once the altcoins are released? (just trying to see how demented your fantasies really are)

I meant to say is that the lock out time only when there is an uncooperative channel is 2 weeks. Otherwise the channel can remain open as long as the individual at the other end is cooperative.

As for item no. 4 in your post, I agree the system is not trustless but it is better than what something like the Ripple network is proposing. Ripple is all depending on trust that a gateway will not go away with your money. For me it is good to explore all possible avenues for scalabilty. Make the hard fork to bigger blocks the last resort because it is risky.

@ Shills


No comment, huh?

So, if you accept that regular Bitcoin is still possible after Segwit/LN are introduced, and that Segwit/LN are altcoins, here's what I suggest you do:


Don't buy any Segwit "coins" lol
Don't buy any Lightning "coins" lol

Problem solved? :D

right now miners are not reliant on tx fee's. the miners income is over 97.6% reward:2.4% fee (12.5btc:0.3btc) (reward:txfee) it will be a long time before the flip occurs where miners are reliant on tx fee's and by that time the 'popularity' of bitcoin should have improved enough to have lots of opening and closing of channels to pay the miner fee's.
todays 0.3 fee total becomes 50:50 after the year 2024 (2 reward halvings) but before 2028
changes in bitcoin valuation and also blockcapacity also change/delay when the flip will occur.

lets say we are in the future where 1btc is $6000 and say miners want $10k in just fee's (as oppose to ~$7,500 in reward now) per block..
they will require blocks capable of 166,666tx ONCHAIN at ~6cents a tx(<70mb block)acceptable bloat in 20 years, acceptable fee
they will require blocks capable of 8,500tx ONCHAIN at ~$1.20cents a tx(<4mb block)acceptable bloat in 8 years, not acceptable fee

im not going to bother calculating the 70mb block scenario of 20 years.because although the spread of fee's is cheaper its just going to make the blockstreamers knitpick the blocksize debate. rather than the point about fee's

now lets deal with the finer details
its worth noting
the average person uses a debit/credit card only 20 times a fortnight in the real world, which breaks down as 12cents a LN tx if the same usage occurred offchain within LN to cover the combined $2.40 open/close transactions per fortnight
so the presumption is for LN to remain open for longer to reduce overall cost of use per offchain tx.

which if people were doing the 20tx a fortnight. means that based on a 4mb block in 8 years time
UPTO 2125 channels open per block(2peers tx pay in=1channel), 4250 channels close per block(both paid out in one tx)
a fortnights lock of 4250 people. which equates to a POSSIBLE 8 million people using LN MAX (at 12cent/tx for their usual 20tx a fortnight).
a months lock of 4250 people. which equates to a POSSIBLE 16 million people using LN MAX (at 6cent/tx for their usual 40tx a month).

ofcourse, of block capacity was 8mb in 8 years the onchain fee per tx would be $0.60 to give miners $10k (allowing upto 32mill users using LN)
ofcourse, of block capacity was 16mb in 8 years the onchain fee per tx would be $0.30 to give miners $10k (allowing upto 64mill users using LN)

summary:
i see it as possible to work but thats assuming that
8-16mill active bitcoiners exist
8-16mill people will be happily even want to lockfunds in.
8-16mill people will be happily do 20tx a fortnight-month usage to equate to 6-12cents each LN tx, to cover the combined $2.40 open/close tx
miners want only $10k - if they want more fee's get higher and timelocks need extending to keep overall cost of use down
bitcoin valuation is $6000 - if its lower fee's get higher and timelocks need extending to keep overall cost of use down


and now lets wait for the mindless, unbacked up, unresearched blockstream defender rants that blockstream desire to cause fee war in 2017 instead of 2024-2036 so that offchain/sidechain are the permanent peg utopian future and eventually no one should use bitcoin onchain transactions because they see large fee's are a good barrier of entry to use bitcoin and a ploy to get people to go offchain. (usual bitcoin killing mantra)

I am confused. Where will this extra LN.BTC come from when the amount locked to open the payment channel is all there is represented in the Lightning Network, no more no less. Please explain what you are trying to say a little better by giving another example.


But hold on. Let us assume you are correct with the inflation of the LN.BTC in the network, but do not forget that in order to participate and have funds in LN you should buy Bitcoin. If LN is successful then the demand for real Bitcoins will only go higher. Now this is where the problem of fungibility comes in as I mentioned before. Real Bitcoin's value will go up due to demand but LN.BTC will suffer from variance and in your argument of inflation in LN.BTC it might go down. The effect will be the opposite of what you are thinking because people would prefer to hold real BTC because now it is very clear in its value than lock them in LN when there is no need.

Tx a lot to the OP AND to bitcointalk.org + mod to have this kind of thread w/o too much deleting, we all can learn a lot about bitcoin and scaling and tech and politics and insulting. Good.

What is the final outcome now ? Or it is up to definition or semantics ?

And how many posts got deleted for both sides pls?

Learning about tech is pretty hard going in a thread where both sides don't agree on what the tech is/does. You'll learn alot about false arguments being presented as the truth, however.


Are there only 2 sides? I wasn't aware of any deletions, just a bit of convenient post editing after the fact from Franky

Thx. So from you I can learn all the rest than, exept tech, because no deletions needed....

 ;D

From the most slanted dick in the entire forum.