Bitcoin Forum

I like to know more about things that are necessary to be known before I ever use them, and so, whenever I hear from anyone saying "USE LN", a question strikes my mind every time that where there are some advantages beneficial to the community, there would be flaws as well in this network (as IMHO, nothing comes flawless and so doesn't LN). I wish to discuss more about such flaws (ever recognized) and their intensity levels as to what extent they may harm the decentralized part of this invention.

As franky1 explained me in a different thread (post quoted below):


It's worst flaw is that the complete output of all the input will remain centralized as those who are average people and don't really have such high technical knowledge, either need to pay higher fee or be forced to use centralized hubs which, IMO, completely expels the idea Bitcoin and the whole crypto is made for. Is there anything we can do to use this network but not by bypassing decentralization?

Also make me aware of some more flaws you're aware of LN.

Before you take franky1's side, you should be aware that he is a Bitcoin Core, the developers, hater, and he might be a closet Bitcoin Cash supporter. It might be something that he would deny, but most of his debates are aligned to the ideas of people like Roger Ver.

Nothing wrong with it, and it's his right. But sometimes he uses gaslighting, like Roger Ver, to confuse the newbies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

Whoever tells you to just use LN without warning you that LN is in testing mode, that it's risky to use LN and that you should really use LN for now only on testnet is incorrect (to say it nice).
I was also overconfident at some point and somebody shocked me telling that LN needs years to become commercially useful. Now I know that LN still needs tests and improvements. Badly.

On the other side, indeed, Franky is Bcash supporter and doesn't waste any opportunity to tell people how bad Bitcoin is. And while omitting that LN is early-beta, he will tell you (pretty correctly documented) all its flaws.

I'm not too much familiar with the LN, but I have heard predictions that it will be fully operational by the end of next year. As far as I understand it, one of the main problem is routing. There are estimates that without improvements, using the current protocol, the LN can scale to millions of users (https://blog.lightning.engineering/posts/2018/05/30/routing.html). I believe there is also an implementation on the mainnet right now.

https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/lightning-network?orgId=1

https://1ml.com/statistics

We shouldn't rush it, because when it comes to money, it's better to be safe than sorry.

There is actually no flaw in the scenario described and no weakness.

After the attacker sends 0.15 btc to his me2 channel through you and closes it, you still have 0.3 btc in channel 1.  What this scenario suggests is that the attacker then convinces someone else on the lightning network to set up a channel/channels with you and send him 0.3 btc through you.  That's fine and that will then deplete channel 1 to a balance of you having 0 in it, and him closing it out.  But two other things had to happen, and the most important of those is that you now have 0.3 btc in a channel or multiple channels with other participants of LN.  You are out nothing and have lost nothing.  The second thing of course is that the attacker had to get someone to send him 0.3 btc.

The accounting behind LN channels balance routing is very easy.  You only transfer some money to another person in a channel you are in if you receive the same amount in another channel (and you can even charge a fee for doing so). 

Diligence is a virtue.

As with basically anything else, technological progress, i.e. the development of Wallet Software that hides this complicated functionality under a user-friendly interface, will mend the problem.

In short: give it some time, and using LN will be just as simple as using Bitcoin itself.

The major "flaw" of LN is that it scales transaction numbers, but actually reduces the number of possible users of the network.
That, too, will most likely be overcome with technological progress, but for the moment it renders the LN basically useless for its intended purpose of taking Bitcoin to mainstream usage without the need for centralization.

There's also a game-theoretical, macroeconomic effect that might lead to Bitcoins "in" the LN being less valuable than Bitcoins on the mainchain. But that's hard to prove and calculate. It, too, will most likely be overcome with technological progress, but it might always remain true to a certain extent.

Can it also be done with least fee or even fee-less? I mean, I've got to heard and learn about LN that we don't really need to pay anything unless and until we close a channel we do our transactions in, so is it possible? As well, doesn't the network charge a fee and is it user-defined? Can LN technology ever be implemented in exchanges once the testnet is done with their tests?

I think that LN will eventually be an important part of the overall ecosystem, but there are some downsides:

First, the biggest downside of LN is that the recipient has to have their LN node online and listening at the time of the transaction in order for the transaction to occur. This is fine for payments to web stores etc., but I think that it will largely preclude usage of LN for more peer-to-peer transactions (eg. forum trades). It would not be good if people were expected to use only LN, since that would result in almost all individuals using trusted-third-party wallets in order to accept payments.

Second, LN often does not integrate easily with existing BTC payment systems. For example, I would have to almost completely rewrite the bitcointalk.org payments system in order to make it work with LN. (Someday I'll do it, but not soon.)

Third, it's possible that the network will end up excessively centralized. If 90% of LN channel-value goes through a small handful of nodes, then that would be a real problem. That sort of centralization could lead to: 1) a lot of people getting their funds locked up for a long time; 2) possibly a slippery-slope to further centralization, eg. "gatekeepers"; and 3) possibly even losses if too many unilateral channel-closes are necessary at one time network-wide. However, the degree of centralization in your channels is completely controllable at your end. If you want to avoid channels which go through a certain highly-popular node, you can do so (possibly at higher cost), and then you will be immune to problems related to that node. You can never be forced to accept centralization with LN. So ultimately this ends up being a software problem of properly informing end-users of centralization and risk. Depending on how the network ends up looking, this might or might not be a difficult problem to solve.

In a few years, the majority of transactions will probably go through LN, but I think that it's currently a bit over-hyped. LN can only be part of the overall picture, and it'll take quite some time to figure out how to get it to fit smoothly and safely into everyone's lives.

I find all this talk about centralization very strange, if you actually run a lightning node you'll quickly end up with 5-50 payment channels. Both incoming and outgoing. I've had a node running for a couple of weeks and already have 25 payment channels, most of them created by others connecting to me. This is extremely decentralized. Look at the network topology and how it's evolving, most nodes has a lot of channels in both directions and it's growing rapidly.

One of the major reasons why LN might lead to centralization is:
This could lead to a situation where most users will actually prefer an online-wallet that also handles their respective LN-channel(s), just to spare them the hassle of running something themselves.
Of course, that's the overall trend with any online software (e.g. email being used over gmail etc.), but LN kind of encourages that kind of delegation from the user's side to service providers.
On the other hand, users are free to run their own Bitcoin and LN nodes, just the same as with running their own SMTP-sever, so it's effectively more a kind of "concentration" rather than real "centralization".

Yeah, that is some good analogies you make there. Same as with exchanges, most users use coinbase and other online wallet/exchanges to store and use their bitcoin. How many actually download bitcoin core and run a full node? A very small percentage I think. On your phone you can't really run a full node either, has anyone a full bitcoin client with 200 GB of blocks stored on their android phone? no. But do people say bitcoin is centralized because of this? of course not.

Even with most users using a "light wallet", the network itself will be decentralized and yes, maybe we will have a thousand "big" nodes that have much more channels and much higher balance than the average users, but it will still be extremely decentralized.

The most common problems i have observed in LN are

1. Compatibility issue as theymos stated earlier, when we have an up gradation there are always some compatibility issues, although it can be eliminated with time but still it is one of the major issues.



2. Limitation of funds transfer through channels, unfortunately LN will not support big/bulky transactions, you have to rely on your active channels and their capacity.

That's ok because the "vision" for the Lightning Network is to accomodate your day to day micro-transactions, which is not practical to do on-chain, with "unfairly" cheap fees.

But if you want to send $1,000,000 of Bitcoin, then doing it on-chain should be the only way in my opinion.

Yeah, this is an issue now, but it this will likely become less and less of a problem as more channels with higher capacity are added to the network. In my experience lnd works better the smaller the transaction is. For sending extremely small transactions it works great.

I believe there is also plans for splitting transactions and sending several small transactions through different routes at the same time.

I have already asked this question.

There are 'penalty' in LN for those who're trying to cheat. But who is The Referee to decide who is a cheater and who is setting up a counterparty as a cheater?
In other word, who or what prove/certify the last LN transaction from A to B was N and not N+1, which B has just dropped in order to set up A as a cheater and therefore steal coins of A as 'penalty'?

You and whoever you are transacting with are both the referees.  You keep each other honest.  It's explained here (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/74191).


In essence, they can't trick you into spending from an old channel state because you both have to agree on what the current state is.

Also, there's apparently going to be less reliance on this penalty method as Lightning matures.  People are already talking about eltoo and achieving the same result without needing penalties.

That is no longer true. It is sufficiently safe to play around it with the suggested amounts (up to $40) on mainnet. Heck, some people almost insist that you pay them only via LN for any smaller purchases now (even though on-chain fees play no role currently).

Aren't we already there though? Given how many people use: a) SPV wallets (which are not connected to their own node). b) Online wallets. c) Exchanges and other services as their wallets; I don't see this as a real argument here. However, it is indeed quite inconvenient that you can't use LN without an active node. Watchtowers should help.

It's rediculous to require to be trustfull in trustless environment, isn't it?

It's actually quite clever game theory, you don't need to be honest, but if you try to cheat you will lose money.
So it's in your best interest to be honest.

So come again: who/what decide (i.e. judge), is cheating A who claims his last transaction to B is N+1, or B who claims the last transaction he received from A is N?

Cryptography. Use Google:

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/63073/lightning-network-are-decrementing-timelocks-used-in-bi-directional-channels

Cryptography is the judge and you are the executioner.

Once your counterparty tries to cheat you by trying to enforce a stale state the protocol provides you with everything you need to withdraw both your and your counterparty's coins from your shared multisig address.

There isn't an N+1 unless both parties agree that there is an N+1.  Otherwise N is the current state, regardless of what anyone "claims".  In this example, B can withdraw their funds from N without a penalty.  There's no cheating involved, because no one is trying to spend from an old state.  N is the current state.  

However, it's worth pointing out that B does have a financial incentive to agree to N+1, because it sounds like A wants to send them more BTC.  It's a strange example you're using.  I assume in your example you are positioning A as a malicious actor attempting to trick B to steal their coins?  If so, A won't have much luck with that.

N+1 can only become the current state if A and B both lock N+1 with a new key and have also sent each other the old keys for N to revoke payments from that state.  Once payments have been revoked from N, if either party then attempts to spend from N, that's where a penalty would come into play.

I think the problem you might be having is that you associate the word "transaction" with a one-sided push payment like it works with regular on-chain transactions.  Once you've sent it, it belongs to someone else.  In Lightning, however, a transaction involves the other party effectively approving the transaction.  If you send a payment, it only belongs to the other person once they've accepted the latest state and revoked payments from the old state.



But it's not "trust" keeping people honest, it's "consequence".  Play by the rules or risk losing funds.

The version 1 Lightning Network does indeed force honest behaviour, as otherwise your funds can be taken by the other party.

It also requires both parties keep track of quite a bit of data, different and private data for each party, so you are ready to penalise your counter-party if they do misbehave.

I am going to be a little cheeky, and say that this may be considered a small 'Flaw'.

I only say this as it is so nicely FIXED in Eltoo. A drop in replacement for the Bi-directional channels in L¹.

You can't really misbehave, as the other party can always claim what is theirs and send you what is yours. Even if you do misbehave that's the worst that can happen. And you don't have to store any specific data each, you both keep a copy of the same final state transaction. Much easier.

I do hope the next soft-fork to enable L² will go smoother than the last..   { crosses fingers.. and toes.. }

The OP_SIGHASH_NOINPUT soft fork (i.e. that will make eltoo possible) can be introduced the flag day way, apparently. Satoshi's vision, lol (soft forks in Satoshi's era were done that way, although there were only 1 or 2 of them IIRC). It's not feasible to obstruct if the soft fork is activated that way.

Come again and again: who or what certifies this both-parts agreement?
A claims he sent his 'agreement' to B. B claims he has not recrived any agreement from A. Who or what will decide who is cheating, A or B?
Nope.
Every transaction (by definition) has to be either commited or rolled back.
But yes, in one-sided transaction this singe side takes full control over transaction integrity.
Which is not the case for two-sided transaction (otherwise you are about to say the Byzantine generals problem is a myth and all the mining stuff is useless and a monkey business).

What can we expect from a technology that are only a couple of years old and still highly experimental.  ??? I do not know of any "out of the box" solutions with zero flaws. Most technologies has to go through Alpha/Beta testing before it can go live and even after going live, flaws are still found.  ::)

The concept is solid, but the implementation is still a bit messy and complex, but we will eventually get there. Most of the debate is currently between 2cnd layer solutions and Block size scaling and these people will never agree on one solution.  :P

I'm honestly not sure how else I can explain it.  Neither A nor B are cheating in this scenario.  No one needs to "decide" or "judge" anything.  Your premise is flawed because you've made an incorrect assumption about how it works.  

Read this explanation (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/56768) to understand the process involved.  "Agreement" only happens once both parties have revoked the previous commitment state.  One party can't "send an agreement" and then accuse the other party of cheating if they "claim" they haven't got it.  It doesn't work like that.  No one can make "claims" about anything.  It's a binary outcome.  Either both parties have agreed, or they haven't.  If they haven't, that doesn't necessarily mean someone is cheating.  It only means the commitment state doesn't change.

Again, in your example, N is still the current state and neither party can take the other party's coins.  There are no penalties involved, as no one is attempting to spend from a revoked commitment state.  If B hasn't sent A the key to revoke payment from N, there is no N+1.  If Party B has not agreed to N+1, they won't send Party A their key for N.  Party A is therefore unable to agree to N+1 if they don't possess party B's key for N.  N+1 cannot exist unless both parties have revoked N.

sorry to butt in. and i expect usual insults for pointing out flaws
"only happens once both parties have revoked the previous commitment " - incorrect

above poster doesnt realise that the beauty of a blockchain is that rules are set by a communtiy audit that destroy something if it doesnt forfil the community consensus.

LN has no community consensus. users can change their nodes code. and not do something or do something different to others. meaning B can change the rules. and so can A

EG
you think in a network where a man has to put out his hand first and wait for a lady to hold it. thats it, thats the rule and no one can abuse that. you would be wrong
in a public network. that can be true as the community can see if a lady acts firsts, the community can shun her and throw her out the community.

but in a non community audited world the lady can decide to do things differently such as put her hand out first or refuse to put her hand out entirely.
so she can decide and say she will or wont do something unless...
 and thus the man has to decide to obey or close off communication with the lady ...
EG the revocation key. the guy hands his key first. but the lady does not offer her key

nothing on the planet will make the lady forced to hand her key over simply because the guy did

LN does not solve the byzantine generals rule. people can tweak their node to not do key handshaking in a certain order. thus gain an upper hand.

if the guy doesnt like it. all they have is an old state they can transmit but now the lady has the revoke key to that

LN has flaws.
devs know it
they actually warn people to not deposit funds people are willing to lose.
sorry but LN is not perfect and people have lost funds.

it why blockchains exist and every transaction needs community validation. to solve the byzantine generals rule. LN does not solve it

The above is not true, is posted by a known troll, and should be generally ignored. Especially not the part regarding why the developers do not currently recommend the use of LN with a lot of funds (which has to do with software maturity, not any made-up flaws).

Ugh... that's not even a word.  Why does anyone take you seriously?  



Sounds remarkably like Bitcoin itself back in the day.  In fact, even people today are still losing funds because they're sending forked coins to BTC addresses and vice-versa.  You shouldn't move funds into any crypto if you aren't willing to risk a small chance of losing them.  The idea of development is that it gets incrementally better.  And it will.  No one is claiming LN is "perfect" right now, so stop pretending otherwise.

You should be nicer with franky1, he got vision and his post above (that I merited by the way) has an excellent analogy and his general idea about the necessity of consensus and blockchain worth special attention. I admit that he has gone too far in the last paragraph but who cares? Many people do this, kinda dramatic style in finishing a post, not a big deal.

Honestly, I have not checked his post history but as of his recent activities on this forum, I could hardly find such a label, troll, to be just adequate.

And the fact that you frequently decry Lightning has nothing whatsoever to do with your support for franky1?   ::)

But you're not wrong about the "special attention" part.  You both deserve plenty of that.  I'll be watching your posts very closely...

Good news you follow my posts. I write here for the same purpose.

As of LN I'm not decrying it as a "flawed" project. It is very unlikely for LN to be a worthless naive project with obvious flaws, I guess. Anybody could check the list of devs and the amount of time they've spent on it to think otherwise. My problem with LN started from the point when I realized these guys have given up on bitcoin potentials to improve and overcome its scaling issues and they are asking us to put all the eggs we got in LN basket.

It doesn't need more "investment".  It just needs time to mature.  And no matter how much you try (in vain) to derail it, it's going to get that time.  When people say that Lightning is a solution, they don't mean right this second and that everyone should use it now.  As usual, you're twisting the narrative to suit your agenda.  



The community DO want this code.  If you recall, we had a whole civil war about this.  It's decided now.  I think what you mean to say is you want the devs to develop the code YOU want them to develop.  That's clearly not happening.  You learn consensus.

---

Except that's not even remotely true.  Merklized Abstract Syntax Trees, Schnorr Signatures and other things are being actively developed right now.  No one has "given up" on anything.

Except that bitcoin Core has no official roadmap to help with performance and almost every single dev refers you to LN whenever you ask about scaling bitcoin. Let's be "frank" , this community weighs too much on LN and this is not ok.
LN, matured or not, shouldn't be categorized as the ultimate scaling solution for bitcoin.

In your opinion.  And considering that I disagree with just about every "improvement" you've ever suggested for Bitcoin because they're all so poorly conceived, if we're being frank, your opinion isn't worth anything to me.

You disagree with just about every improvement anybody have ever suggested for bitcoin, no matter what, no matter who. Your main argument always have been "this won't get enough support, so forget about it" and your secret mission is fighting against any technical debate by accusing people of spreading FUD, ... you are kinda anti-FUD bot in this forum.

Cool down, I said frank not rude.

LN does not solve the byzantine generals problem so pretending that things cannot happen in LN is a fruitless task.

to those on the edge ready to hit the reply button with a off-topic insult. take a breath. then use your time more wisely to learn the basic principles of:
byzantine generals problem
LN factories
consensus
multisig


P.S i emboldened the important content.
if your reply directs towards me personally but doesnt address the important content or doesnt talk about LN flaws or mention the above 4 listed concepts,  but does just address the grey stuff or mentions an insult. you have only just wasted your own precious time typing a reply.

I yawn at the typical insult reply when they cant rebut how LN works.
but ill bite...

il let them insult all they want. all it proves is they cant rebut the flaw so resort to insults.
after all no one on this planet has a birth certified name of "franky1" so the insults are aimed at no one.

anyway.

have a nice day

Pretending that anything you say or do is going to derail future development to minimise risks in LN is also a fruitless task.



You think multisig is the same thing as custodial (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3909008.msg37975558#msg37975558).  Why are you telling others to learn the basic principles of multisig if you haven't managed to do that yet?    

Serious question though... in what regard does the Byzantine General's problem apply to LN? There's no collective consensus to be achieved, it's just single parties keeping each other in check? Obviously the Byzantine General's problem needs to be solved at the settlement / on-chain level but I don't see what this has to do with two parties maintaining a legitimate channel state?

About "people can tweak their node to not do key handshaking in a certain order" -- that really interests me, got any further reading material on that? To my understanding things like handshake order are usually protocol inherent, with any deviation from the specified order leading to a failed handshake and thus an aborted connection. It may be different with LN of course, so I'm curious about that.

And this is the problem! Without a (PoW based) consensus protocol, we have no established game-theoretic fundamental support for what is rational and what is irrational behavior of adversaries, hence we are left with programmers (I'm a programmer myself, for the record) and what they think is enough for our security.  

I'm not saying it is insecure or what, I'm just feeling bad about the lack of the scientific model and reliance on software. Software is not a self-descriptive science, it is a reflection of science, you can not build a computerized monetary system with software and just with software. You need conceptual and descriptive models backed by mathematics and socio-economics.

Comparatively, consider, Butterin's stupid 'Slasher' proposal for mitigating N@S attack in PoS. It seems to be practical: if a player simultaneously played in two forks, punish him by seizing his deposit. We have coins that have implemented such a tactic, ... still, there is a theoretical hole and nobody dares to claim such a trick as the ultimate solution for N@S range of attacks to PoS and if he does, he is not a serious advocate and theorecian, because you can't fill a socio-economic hole simply by putting an if clause (if he_is_generating_blocks_elseWhere then punish_him(); ) in your code because it ends to a series of new problems and you should add more ifs and so on. Buterin proposed it in 2014 and an army of programmers are busy implementing it with no working binaries. Compare it with bitcoin, the whole system (and not only the consensus part) implemented in like 6 months by a single person(I believe).

For off-chain second layer solutions, we will have a same hole no matter how many hashed time lock contracts are involved and how sophisticated you design your protocol, they remain vulnerable to more sophisticated adversarial behaviors, unlike bitcoin that is mathematically provable to be secure, by the virtue of Byzantine General's Problem.

That being said, unlike @franky1, I don't think LN is totally useless or a stupid piece of software. I just don't believe in it as a serious scaling solution for bitcoin, hence I think we have a lot of work ahead.

AFAIK Bitcoin's consensus built on a lot of prior approaches, most of which were based on cryptography and mathematics, none of which went very deep into economics and game theory. Most papers regarding the game theoretic implications of PoW as used by Bitcoin seem to have come after the fact, although I'd love to be introduced into directly related preliminary work, if there was some.

That being said, I'm still not quite sure where the issue lies. One may argue that the Byzantine General's problem is better understood than a direct interaction between two untrusted counterparties (if that is indeed the case, seeing how it took until just a decade ago to solve part of the puzzle with PoW I'm not sure whether even the Byzantine General's problem is all that well understood) -- but how is that relevant if it's not the problem at hand?

Maybe it is the problem at hand -- hence my question -- but as of know it seems to me that the problem that LN is trying to solve is a different one from what is described in the Byzantine General's problem?

Obviously PoW based consensus models are more secure and reliable than what LN is offering -- otherwise we wouldn't need an underlying blockchain to begin with. What I'm trying to understand is the aforementioned part of franky1's argument.

I agree but it does not make a big difference. Bitcoin is provably secure in a trustless, permissionless and decentralized multiparty network, because of its consensus algorithm. I don't expect developers to start from game theory or any mathematical model but it is where they should eventually end.

Actually it is the problem at hand.

Issuing and transferring money is not a trivial problem and participants are worse than Byzantine generals. They are greedy and selfish and more than enough untrustworthy. We have just one provably fair solution to regulate interaction between players of monetary game as of now: PoW.

It is what I have pointed out earlier about LN: It is a competitive alternative to bitcoin rather than a complementary add-on, at least the way its enthusiast present it: an ultimate scaling solution. According to what they are championing for, bitcoin is supposed to maintain a reserve currency while LN is used as the actual consumer grade cash transfer system.

This still doesn't explain how the Byzantine General's problem relates to LN.

Untrustworthy participants alone do not constitute the Byzantine General's problem. That's just one of the premises of game theory in general.

To my understanding the Byzantine General's problem only applies to n > 2 participants (ie. the minimum requirement for majority consensus in case of a participant defecting) while each LN payment channel is series of 2 player games (in the game theoretical sense) with each transition between channel states representing a singular game.

In other words, with the problem of consensus between n > 2 participants solved (ie. a PoW-consensus-based blockchain), layers on top of the settlement layer -- LN or otherwise -- can move onto a different problem space to solve. In the case of LN that's 2 player games. Which is different from the Byzantine General's problem.

So while one may debate whether LN's channel state games will work out as intended, I'm rather confused what our Byzantine friends have to do with it. Hence my question.

Even if we can establish how the Byzantine General's problem relates to LN, it still doesn't change the simple fact that LN is not custodial in the same way as an Exchange is.  It is unequivocally more empowering to users than leaving funds totally under the control of a third-party.  For all the people out there who have completely surrendered control of their funds to a webwallet or exchange, they have little-to-no recourse if those funds suddenly vanish.  People can make all the arguments they want about potential flaws with Lightning, but surely anything has to be better than a fully-custodial "service".  

Using webwallets and exchanges to store funds is the real "banking 2.0" and it's a problem that Lightning can help mitigate once it matures.  We're now open to a potential future where services won't have irresponsibly vast troves of BTC stored in a single hotwallet ready for hackers to steal;  A future where users don't automatically forfeit their money en-masse when such hacks occur.  This is what progress looks like and there's no denying it with manipulative wordplay about Bitcoin "trying to go full circle and back under a currency control where people need other people authorisation to make payments (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5039970.msg46284577#msg46284577)".  Even in completely unrelated topics, malicious actors are attempting to derail the progress that is being made with their FUD.  Don't let them.  

Being able to authorise your own payments is undeniably better than a service (or an attacker of that service) making the sole decision over what happens to your money.    

Monetary system (issuance and transfer of cash) is a social problem with billions of participants involved.

When I pay you by a paper printed note, paper money, you check the authenticity of the bill you receive from me by examining its signature (put it this way) and we are done. But when there is no famous signature, (cryptocurrency problem domain) the whole society is involved and should confirm my balance and your ownership afterwards. There is just one monetary game playable by 2 participants: physical payment of cash over the counters, other scenarios fall in the most sophisticated and sensitive game played in the world ever: monetary systems.

Are we clear? The whole Bitcoin network is trying to solve a single transaction between 2 participants. It is because the 'thing' that is being transferred is a social phenomenon: part of a balance which is the result of a long history of other transactions.

I don't believe reduction would help, for instance, you can't solve Byzantine Generals problem by adopting something like LN and reducing the problem to finding a mechanism for 'pairs' of generals, suggesting that eventually all of them are covered in such a hub and spokes topology and so on. At least I have not seen a formal representation of such a solution yet.

Our programmers tell us that we are safe because of this or that consideration they have made but when there is no cost to attack, adversaries have a billion and one tricks to try, you need a more simple and abstract model before going to implementation details.

right now in LN there is no single rule. its a mish mash of different concepts. people can easily add eltoo. or other concepts. add litecoin add other coins add loads of features there is no only activate if everyone agrees

yes i know doomad will only se the utopia. but with a critical mind it just shows people can change/tweak their node to do hand shaking in a different order or request data that normally not requested in that order.
if funds are locked. the partner either has to obey to the request or close the channel.

EG if you know the 2016 concept is that X hands over their private key first. and is expecting an automated reply from Y with Y's private key.
why can edit thir node to stop at th X hand key.. so that why gets it. but then does not hand Y key

its like any contract negotiation. whomever signs first is usualy the one worse off. because the second party can then renegotiate the terms before agreeing to sign

it why most contracts are not treated as valid until both parties sign. and its been notorised by witnesses

i understand doomad is an optomist and he likes to see the bright side of life. but promoting other networks that are not built yet to a reasonable level, and yet not care about how it is shifting utility and innovation away from the bitcoin network, and surprisingly being preferential that people should want to use LN instead of scaling bitcoin.. is not what a true bitcoiner should be like.
those wanting bitcoin to just be a currency that is used on different networks where it all gets locked up into addresses that need other peoples authorisation is not what bitcoin is meant to be.
even going to the extent that if someone doesnt like bitcoins onchain stagnation that the critics should just go make their own network.. is th mindset of those that think apartheid history was a good thing.

---

as for the "custodian" thing. .. im laughing
coinbase, offers its "vaults" bitgo offer their services that both the service and the user co-sign..
and thats where they are declared as custodians

if the service had 100% key privelidge they are not custodians. they are owners
"if you dont have keys to the funds, the funds aint yours"

funny part is. if having 100% control of a legacy address makes you a custodian (under doomads mindset) then we are all not owners of bitcoin we are all custodians and so we all need to KYC ourselves.. lol

custodians are key holders to others property.
is a school custodian(thefloor sweeper) a school owner. or does he just have keys to access the school and do things with the school and has some authority/ control over it. but not full control

What are BOLTs (https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/blob/master/00-introduction.md) (Bases of Lightning Technology) for you then if not rules? Ease of adding new features should be considered as a huge advantage. Eltoo is an alternative to the current penalty system and it won't replace it completely. Users are free to negotiate between themselves how they are going to settle transactions between themselves as long as their software is compatible. I don't get the second part of this quote. Do you blame the Lightning Network for being too complex?

they are policies.. but LN has no enforcer. a rule is only a rule if its enforced and final

people can tinker with them. its actually happening every day. people are tweaking with the code and not needing soft/hard forks. BOLTS is just one concept and anyone can edit their node to stop the handshake/communication mid flow. nothing on this planet forces someones node to comply to all operations of bolt.

EG
imagine bolt was
1. male puts out hand
2. female puts out hand
3. hands shake

anyone can stop their code from doing 2. and then know they have seen the guys hand. and take advantage of it.
nothing forces 2 or 3 to occur.

you said it yourself
"Users are free to negotiate between themselves how they are going to settle transactions between themselves as long as their software is compatible."
me: i wont shake your hand unless..
you: my node cant do that.
me: "well change your node or close the channel using your old state. by the way i have the private key to that old state, so its less risky to comply to my code edit by editing your node to follow my new policy. than it is for you to close channel"

LN is not fixed in stone and never can be because its not a byzantine generals rule network.

as for some thinking LN is only used for bitcoin and is a sole bitcoin feature.
you know those that hate it being called a second network

https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/blob/master/02-peer-protocol.md#the-open_channel-message
"The chain_hash value denotes the exact blockchain that the opened channel will reside within. This is usually the genesis hash of the respective blockchain. "

LN can function without bitcoin because its not reliant of bitcoin. the chainhash can be for litecoin or other coins.
EG LN is an island but it can continue even without bitcoin inhabitants.
right now its mainly bitcoin inhabitants walking around it so its giving the island some bitcoin fame. but that does not make it a bitcoin island. its a multi-nation island

Precisely which "terms" are you able to "renegotiate" in Lightning with this supposed attack, then?  Please elaborate and be specific, because I'm sure we'd all love to hear some more totally made-up nonsense.  Don't just say "the second party can then renegotiate the terms" without explicitly describing what you mean, because otherwise you are clearly spouting FUD and not describing an actual attack that can be successfully performed in Lightning.

Even though I'm going to totally dismantle everything else you just said, I want an answer to this above all else.  



I understand you don't seem capable of comprehending the fact that no one is suggesting that Lightning is ready for mass adoption right now.  What we are "promoting" are the future benefits.  We all recognise it's not finished yet and there is still much work to do.  



In your bizarre-o-world where Bitcoin somehow isn't allowed to have Lightning _{<cough>fascist</cough>}, the thing that would actually shift innovation and utility away from the Bitcoin network is every other coin being interoperable and compatible with each other when they all implement LN and atomic swaps, while leaving Bitcoin totally isolated.  Great idea!   ::)



You are in no position to judge what a "true bitcoiner should be like" because you openly advocate preventing people from developing the off-chain technologies they want to develop.  You only like developers that are making things you want them to make.  Which, as far as I can see, is precisely ZERO of them because your ideas aren't as good as you like to think they are.  



There is no "onchain stagnation" in Bitcoin.  That's just a lie you like to perpetuate.  



Says the person who doesn't want Bitcoin to be interoperable with other networks.  Almost as though you wanted to segregate them...  Keep those different networks apart.   ::)

You're free to leave if you don't like it here.  You're also free to stay and continue to be ridiculed for spouting nonsense.  That's not apartheid.  If you think it is, that's yet another concept you don't understand.



Sounds great, I'm okay with that.  Freedom and choice for everyone is a good thing.

Why do you hate multi-nation islands?  Does it have something to do with your fascist tendencies?  



That has no correlation whatsoever with what we're talking about here.  If you think it does, start again because you don't understand Lightning.  "Vaults" work like this (https://support.coinbase.com/customer/portal/articles/1612208-the-coinbase-vault-).  That is categorically not how Lightning works.  Thank you for once again proving beyond doubt that you are not in a position to comment on anything even remotely related to LN.



Definitely keeping this quote handy as further evidence that you are 100% misinformed.  If you ever manage to figure out why what you just said is totally wrong, let me know.

doomad you got m wrong on so many levels

1. i've highlighed LN flaws for them to be fixed. my issue is not LN's existance. its the treating it like bitcoins sole solution for bitcoins future. just because i dont kiss devs asses when i highlight issues does not mean anything. i highlight flaws to highlight flaws.

2. people need to be aware that LN is not bitcoin so they are aware it is not the same security model, not the same 100% self control model. not the same push transaction model, not the same recipient gets paid even if offline model. not the same in many ways as what bitcoin network offers.

3. promoting LN is like promoting ripple. you lock your bitcoin up. you play with other tokens that represent it and then at the end you can with someone elses authority withdrawal real bitcoins by broadcasting a 8 decimal valued transaction back onto the bitcoin network.
(ln use 12 decimals so payments are not actual bitcoins, before you spout out that its a bitcoin token being used inside LN)

4. as for you main question. because there is no community consensus to reject/orphan off them 12 decimal tokens people play within within the channel. person B can edit a node to ignore bolts or pause bolts command list of what suppose to happen at any point. and instead do other things.
LN devs think they have helped reduce the risk by having certain penalties for not following bolts. but they havnt. penalties of X millisat for delay/no response from B are useless if B is just going to take the whole funds from A anyway
its like you can charge me $1 a day but if i then take $20 which includes all them $1 a day.. the issue aint solved

5. continuing on..  the not solving byzantine generals is indeed a risk because i can send a tx that has a slight different opcode. and when your node signs it. i can then manipulate things. the LN devs know this because when they see people using mobile wallets with just GUI's and no ability to go into it and see the raw tx data. and because these LN mobile apps are all autopilot they get signed unchcked.
other people in their channel that do tinker with the protocol. can tinker.. and guess what.. PEOPLE HAVE LOST FUNDS

.....
now getting back to the bitcoin network. segwit has not helped anything.. there are less transactions occuring. fee's are more then they were in 2015 and the tx/byte of real hard drive usage has shown segwit is worse than legacy. all segwit has done was fake the numbers with x4'ing legacy to fake how many bytes legacy actually uses/costs. and then cuts segit transactions apart to hide segwits actual byte usage/cost. like i said wishy washy hurpa durp code.

they admit they done the wishy washy hurpa durp code to get around needing to hard fork.. but in they end they done a hard fork anyway in august because not enough people voted for segwit. oh and before you reply with the script that bitcoin cash instigated a hard fork. sorry but check the blockchain. segwit first activated the ban node/reject non conforming blocks before.. cash didnt even come into existence until hours later.

you can try flip flopping the social finger point games all you like. but maybe read some code first. read some stats, read some blockdata. read the latest LN concepts and read that things are not as you seem

lastly you think that i am trying to coerse the network... um conversations are not code

i know you are desperate for me to release code. not to review it. not to see what mine does compared to others.. but just to join the troops that REKT anything that is not the reference client.
sorry im not playing your social drama games of 'REKT it cos it aint core'.

But there still is a 'penalty'.
A 'penalty' without proper 'judgement'. Good idea for horror trash movie... ooh, seems I have already seen one, something like The Purge or so...

Some people use 'binary' (some other use 'cryptography') in sense of the ancient people used 'magic': an absolute power to do and to explain everything.

Whatever you call it: 'commitment', 'revocation', etc. - one has to send some binary data to another and then it has to be known (confirmed) somehow if this counterparty has surely received the same binary data.

In blockchain it is 'confirmed' (or 'sealed' once the target hash is 'solved') by PoW difficulty (so no need for confirming by recipient).

In two-party scheme you will need a confirmation from your counterparty. Who needs in turn a confirmation that his corfirmation reached the goal (and was taken into account). Et cetera.

you might want to use LN yourself first... but not with the utopian 'i shall follow the rules' and make one payment the way it was intended. but with a 'lets see if i can tinker' mindset.
it will shock you

did you even read the disclaimers LN dev keep highlighting.
LN nodes "should" "must".. if you knew the byzantine generals. you would realise those words do not mean nodes will.. it just means 'please try to'

That's exactly what am I talking about.


Not really.

The N>2 participants may always be considered as (N-1)! pairs. And a single one-to-many transaction could be split to many one-to-one. Thus, the Byzantine General's problem for N>2 can always be reduced to (N-1)! two-participant's solutions, if one ever existed.

This is correct, the metaphor is that many generals surround a city and all have to agree when to attack. When there is no possible way to completely trust that the message you send or receive is correct. Bitcoin solves this by agreeing on a common ledger that is impossible to change. To adapt the metaphor for lightning. Lightning is two generals meeting privately and coming to an agreement, this agreement is then published to all generals and impossible to change.

Since we already have the Byzantine General's problem solved in bitcoin, this is also solved in lightning that is built on top of bitcoin.

Not in the scenario you've described.  If B doesn't acknowledge A, the only consequence is that the commitment state is not updated.  There are no penalties involved.



I'm not talking about sending someone "binary data" like 1s and 0s.  I'm saying it's like a 'true or false' statement where there are only two possible outcomes.  

"A binary outcome is a general term that implies there are only two possible outcomes to a certain situation."

Either the commitment state is updated because both parties agree, or it isn't updated because one party doesn't agree.  One party can't just claim that it's updated and then ask for a judgement about it.  It doesn't work like that.  

You appear to be suggesting that A can send B a payment and then penalise B for not accepting it.  I'll repeat it again:  If B doesn't acknowledge A, the only consequence is that the commitment state is not updated.  There are no penalties involved.

---

I said "be specific".  Saying that person B can "instead do other things" is not specific.  What "things" can they do, franky1?

If this really was an attack vector, where can we download this supposed modified client?  Surely if there was a way to steal peoples' money, detractors of Lightning would be all over that action.  They'd have already proven by now that Lightning wasn't a viable concept.  Why aren't you bringing down LN one node at a time if it's so easy?

I'm not sure how the above relates to the Byzantine General's problem.

PoW-based-consus is not about "solving a single transaction between 2 participants". It's about deciding on the "correct" transaction if there are multiple conflicting ones, ie. solving the double-spend problem. Money as a social phenomenon has nothing to do with it.




What does treating counterparty-pairs like singular market participants have to do with how a pair of market participants negotiate a channelstate between themselves? We're still talking about solving a 1:1 game. The above sounds like breaking down the Byzantine General's problem into a bunch of Byzantine dudes with inner conflict caused by multiple personality disorder.




That's usually the part where you leave the second party standing because who the hell does business like that ;D

Which is also how I'd expect LN clients to react when a counterparty breaks protocol (eg. during the handshake, as per your scenario) -- to abort the handshake and hit the blockchain for settlement.

This might be too simplistic an assumption though and I'd love to hear more about your point of view -- so how would an adversary take advantage of breaking protocol?

And what's the problem about LN deferring the Byzantine General's problem to the blockchain?

What the mistery entity the 'commitment state' is? Where is it kept? Who is responsible and guarantee for it's consistency and actual state?

I steel feel some smell of magic.

You missed completely the point.

If there is no Byzantine General's problem for N=2 Generals - there is no such a problem at all for any N.

Which is not true.

If it's such a mystery for you, why don't you just read how it works?

Just read the documentation https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf (https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf)

Come back after you have read and studied those 60 pages carefully and it will all be very clear for you..

OT fyi:

Spelling words incorrectly is probably part of the MO for these trolls, a psychological tactic to piss you off further. Many trolls have been doing this on bitcointalk.org for many years (implying they're either conferring on tactics or studying each other's output)

I see, but why doesn't these trolls get banned? Spreading false information on purpose would result in a ban on most forums.

It's very difficult to stop them just joining up with another email address.


I think Bitcointalk needs micropayments per post (that cheapen as you rank up), that would go furthest to solving the problem (ironic that this is meta-pertinent to a "Lightning Flaws" thread). That's way OT though.

Original thread on micropayments as an anti-spam/troll mechanism (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3345485.msg35012104#msg35012104)

It IS NOT mystery for me unlike those who use it as holy grail and philosopher's stone to argue anything.

Oбычнoe дeлo: дoкoпaтьcя дo гpaммaтичecкoй oшибки, кoгдa нeт дpyгиx apгyмeнтoв.

What's the point in treating any 2 player game through the lens of the Byzantine General's problem though? With the amount of 2 player games available as game-theoretical source of inspiration it seems kinda silly to treat it as a problem that is effectively unsolvable for n = 2.



Why bring it up then?



*why don't these trolls get banned ;)

...sorry

Because it just exists (and moreover, the whole blockchain\crypto-blabla stuff is built around it).
Because so many people use buzzwords like 'cryptography', 'algorithm', etc. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5031079.msg46196610#msg46196610) in sense of it.

There is no magic involved.  Both participants know what the current commitment state is because they both have to update it each time.  They are both responsible.  I'm going to attempt this one last time and if you still can't grasp it then I'm afraid there's nothing more I can do to help you.
  

Here are some checkboxes representing the previous and current commitment state.  Both A and B have revoked payments from N-1.  If either party attempted to spend from N-1, the other party could penalise them because B has A's key for N-1 and A has B's key for N-1.  If either party close the channel and broadcast to the blockchain, there is no penalty involved and N is the commitment state which gets broadcast:

N-1)	A: ☒  B: ☒
N)	A: ☑  B: ☑

Then A sends a new transaction which B has not yet accepted.  Because B has not accepted N+1 yet, N is still the current commitment state.  There is no way for A to claim or pretend that B has accepted N+1 because A does not have B's key for N.  They will only have B's key for N if B has given it to A as part of revocation.  If either party close the channel at this stage, there is no penalty involved and N is still the commitment state which gets broadcast to the blockchain:

N-1)	A: ☒  B: ☒
N)	A: ☑  B: ☑
N+1)	A: ☑  B: ☐

If B accepts N+1, they will give A their key for N.  A will also give B their key for N.  This revokes payments from N and N+1 then becomes the new current commitment state.  Neither party can spend from N without being penalised because N has now been revoked.  If either party close the channel at this stage, there is no penalty involved and N+1 is now the commitment state which gets broadcast to the blockchain:

N)	A: ☒  B: ☒
N+1)	A: ☑  B: ☑

If it still doesn't make sense, read it again more slowly.  If that doesn't work, keep reading it until it does make sense.  Or read the whitepaper.  Or read any other website where someone else has explained it.  But there is categorically no magic involved.

Double spend is solved by PoW based blockchains like Bitcoin with transaction ordering i.e. maintaining the ledger which also includes coinbase transactions (issuance of money), hence a whole monetary system with multiple participants.

No P2P transaction is considered valid unless it is stoned in the ledger and it won't get there if it is double-spend (or violates other network rules) . I maintain that only simple hand-to-hand cash transfers fall into the category of 2 participants monetary problem.

It is a reductionist approach to monetary systems which is radically different than bitcoin that uses Byzantine Generals problem/PoW based consensus for modeling/managing them. The question would be: Does it deserve to be considered a legitimate approach comparably useful as bitcoin?

Obviously, using a trusted escrow for securing a single 1:1 cash transfer is possible. So one may suggest a escrow based model/solution for monetary systems (instead of Byzantine/consensus) e.g by stacking up some supplementary techniques to eliminate routing challenges, etc.

Actually, we have banks already as an implementation of such a solution in which central banks act as top level escrows for intra-bank clearance procedures.  

For LN you have bitcoin and htlc as the escrow system. It could be considered an improvement compared to traditional banking, escrows are replaced by a trustworthy decentralized system and it works somehow (if not now, may be in the future, after it becomes matured).

But is it really enough to be more secure than banks? Is it what people really need and would take it as an alternative to their banks? I don't think so.  

Bitcoin's primary incentive to approach monetary system by Byzantine problem model and PoW based consensus solution is NOT security considerations.  It is decentralization and resistance axiom.

Folks who have joined bitcoin recently or have lost their faith in it gradually, have no idea about what resistance axiom is and why it is time for setting money free both from debt/inflation and from censorship/surveillance and state control. Trojans like Vitalik Buterin has gone that far to claim it almost impossible to have a system both decentralized and secure and at the same time with acceptable performance. (Check his ridiculous trilemma shit).

LN won't get mass adopted because security (against compromised banks) is not an urgent priority for people to convince them for transition. And it has roughly, nothing to offer for decentralization and resistance.
On the contrary, routing (you need finding a path to your peer) and liquidity (you need money to deposit/block for every channel) problems  leave no space for decentralization. A lot of literature exist out there discussing centralization implication of LN you are welcome to check them.

So, this is it. We have an alternative approach to p2p electronic cash systems (other than Bitcoin and its Byzantine model) while being a bit more secure than traditional banks (still, less secure than bitcoin) but eventually resembles a similarly centralized hub and spokes topology just like them.

No problem, as long as we are not counting on it as a serious proposal/solution for scaling bitcoin.  It degrades the same bitcoin features that are of vital importance in the specific period of time we live in: decentralization and censorship/surveillance resistance.

il spell it out for you
THERE .. ARE.. MANY.. THINGS
ill also spell this out
there is no supposed modified client... ALL CLIENTS CAN BE MODIFIED
there is no pirate party group that have a downloadable client.
its individuals all with their own variants. in short

YOU MODIFY YOUR OWN CLIENT AND FREE YOURSELF TO DO MANY THINGS because of lack of byzantine generals rule
its not like there is a team that has a download that you can social drama REKT. its all individual clients that play with their nodes in many fancy ways

many have already lost funds/gained funds.. not lost or gained but reported the ability to do so.
maybe now that you have suddenly been motivated by a chance of free money. you might put a critical hat on and try LN and play with it with the attempt to see the flaws.

people are doing game plays that abuse the routing (raiding channels)
people are doing code changes to lock others funds up by not just autopiloting agreements. (blackmail)
they are sending out transactions with different opcodes to sign so they can mess with destinations and inputs
people are setting up multiple channel lines so they can multiply their fees
people are

go play with LN

?me bring down LN one node at at time?
again i point out the flaws but i dont have the lack of morals/ethics to steal other peoples funds. your narrow view of things and people think that if someone say something is wrong they are the kind of people who want to destroy it.  is totally wrong

what i find strange is that you want to promote the hell out of LN but you act like you have never tried it and afraid to try it
how about use the testnet, alter some code.

LN devs know loads of flaws. maybe its time you learned them. instead of sticking with the positive utopia
why do you think the concepts are changing and moving the goal posts.

GO PLAY WITH LN

The problem with LN haters is that they always shit on everything devs do, but don't bring up any solutions to the table, unless they consider bcash a solution? because that would prove they've got the game theory wrong, as they should understand by now that hardfork consensus cannot be reached when a project is actually decentralized, it will always lead to splits. Who gets to decide what end continues being "Bitcoin"? And their scaling model depends on continuously hard forking into bigger blocksizes.

I agree with some of what franky1 says. Obviously using proper peer to peer Bitcoin is not the same security model as LN, however, tell me anything out there that's better in design than LN for small OTC transactions? because all I see is scams. Bcash this, Ethereum that, IOTA this... really?

I wouldn't mind using bitcoin lightning network to get some coke for instance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Fb6Xww2P7c

Seems safe enough for the task. Sure, im not trusting LN for any relevant transactions, but I think that's the point of LN. The problem will be when most people cannot afford on-chain transactions because most of the block usage will be LN-transaction filled blocks as LN becomes more mainstream. Can this even be avoided? some argue it's the ways things will go, only the rich will transact on-chain when BTC is the world reserve currency worth millions a coin, everything else will go off-chain.

And with altcoins would be even worse, since centralization happens at layer 0 and is irreversible, so Bitcoin remains the best choice.

go play with the internet  
you act like you've never tried the internet  
there are many ways to break the rules and cause people to lose their funds.  the internet isn't perfect and it doesn't solve the Byzantine Generals problem... ALL BROWSERS CAN BE MODIFIED  

lots of people are aware of the flaws and the goalposts are moving.  

the internet isn't utopia
many have already lost funds  
stop promoting the internet
its not the sole solution  

GO PLAY WITH THE INTERNET    :D

---

Ugh... I feel like I've killed some of my braincells writing like that.  I honestly don't know how you do it all the time.  Your "arguments" are ridiculous.  I accept that Lightning isn't perfect and I accept that there are ways in which you can lose funds.  I only wish you were actually capable of having a decent enough understanding of LN to explain the genuine flaws (and not the totally made up ones, like the one quoted in the first post in this topic) in a way that wasn't so utterly painful to read.  When real flaws are discovered, people will be hard at work on fixing those flaws.  Until the technology matures, LN is currently just for micropayments and should still be treated as highly experimental.  

No one is saying Lightning is the sole scaling solution right now and no one will be saying it's the sole scaling solution even once it has matured, so I suggest you stop claiming otherwise unless you genuinely want anyone reading this to think that you are a liar (assuming they don't already think that).  

Also, duplicitous much?


You tell me I should try to break LN, but you've never attempted it yourself?  Worthless troll.

i dont need to break it or rip people off. i just need to tell an LN dev of an exploit.

anyway
you can spend your own life trying to social distract people informing the flaws to counter your narative that its a service people need and why its worth wasting years waiting for LN instead of getting devs to grow bitcoins network.

but how about concentrate less on these other networks designed to make devs and their private investors behind their salaries returns on their investments. and instead care more about the bitcoin network

the reason i say actually use something. is because you seem more about promoting the positives. than someone that spends time using the thing they want to promote positively.

you need to learn how the routing works to actually understand the scheme quoted in the first post.
you need to learn about byzantine generals to learn about other exploits.
you need to actually use LN to know its limitations, how it functions

but trying to explain to you the faults without you doing the basic understanding of certain things is like trying to explain to a person that ha never driven or seen a car engine why a car wont start.
in other words if you have nevr driven a car and not seen engine. dont get involved in discussions about cars. and dont start insulting people that say cars have flaws. because all your doing is turning a discussion about car faults into a discussion about social dramatising the people talking about it.

again try learning the things. try using the things. and then you will get shocked.
coz so far it just seems all you are learning is PR positive promoting.

either way. your dramatising things and insulting is just distracting the content away from the content...
and just turning things into a kardashian drama over who hates who. rather than a what's wrong with a technology that has caused so much delay, and will cause even more delay due to the flaws. and why we should now re-concentrate efforts on the bitcoin network and just let LN be what it is a separate network that some devs can sort out while bitcoin devs actually start concentrating on bitcoins network again

EG the paid devs that want to say bitcoin cant scale.. let them go play with LN
and those that want bitcoin to be innovative and grow. actually concentrate on making bitcoin grow.

actually i and others have given solutions to problems. even solutions to segwit too.
 but those that see me bringing up flaws or see me offering solutions dont think about the flaw/solution. they just see the hate and then dramatise it into a finger pointing game of social distraction to meander the content away from talking about the flaw..

yea i know. you core positive PR guys that poke the bear. and then quoting when the bear bites, that the bear bit.. is just your ploy. more wasted time talking about social distractions

anyway.
LN is a separate network with flaws. now if anyone cares about bitcoin. start concentrating on bitcoin. not advertising core devs and their features that are made to make investment returns.

we are just waiting time with other networks and social distractions. and less time getting devs to innovate the bitcoin network.
LN wont be ready any time soon. so no need to promote it. put your wasting time to actually trying to innovate the bitcoin network.

Is that before or after you tell them they have to work on solely on-chain stuff to make Bitcoin better?



Yeah, "4MB for everybody"!   ::)


That's not a "solution".  Try again.  If the Bitcoin network couldn't find consensus for 2MB legacy with SegWit, what makes you think people will jump at the chance to have 4MB legacy with SegWit?  Maybe try saying "learn consensus" without a hint of irony a few more times just to make everyone laugh a little bit harder.

Now we're talking :)



Even decentralization is just a means to an end, namely for permissionlessness and network resilience.

I think everyone here can agree that nothing beats on-chain transactions at any of this (including security). As it stands however LN seems to offer a better trade-off than a simple on-chain scaling approach.

Put differently, I think increasing transaction throughput on-chain to the levels that LN could achieve, would come at a higher cost in terms of network resilience and by extension permissionlessness than LN itself. So far I've read nothing that would convince me otherwise (links are welcome).

Solving the Byzantine General's problem for decentralized monetary transfers was just one piece of the puzzle. What to do with the past decisions of our Byzantine friends is the challenge we are currently facing (ie. storing everything on-chain as-is vs delegating transaction sequences and merely storing the end result vs sharding).




If there are so many things it shouldn't be so hard to provide some references :3

So far these are all I found:

User trying to manually recover from a corrupted payment channel database loses their funds due the out-of-date state triggering the penalty transaction
https://www.trustnodes.com/2018/03/26/lightning-network-user-loses-funds

Users accidentally locking up their funds due to a channel closing bug
https://www.ethnews.com/lightning-network-users-report-losing-bitcoin-due-to-bugs

And... that's it. What else has been reported so far?

you already know that the 2mb legacy with segwit was just a ploy. by the same group that just wanted segwitx1. it was always just a bait and switch to try getting the numbers up.. many seen that. hense why UASF was also needed to push segwit through

but letting bitcoins network expand in a efficient byte for byte transaction for transaction is not their roadmap.
because who would want LN if bitcoin could handle the transaction flow for 2015-2020

its why they have the wishy washy hurpa derp code of x4. its why they had to do a hard fork mascaraed as a UASF and then point fingers at another group as the instigators..
its all just social drama just to keep things running along a roadmap that is designed to make investors of devs money. and not to innovate and expand bitcoin byte for byte/transaction for transaction

funny part is segwitx1 only had 40% consensus. but without segwit. devs would not have fulfilled their private investment contracts to get their $$  so had to employ such tactics of UASF and finger pointing. to get it done.

anyway.
all i care about is innovating the bitcoin network. you can point your fingers that i must be another coin lover because im not ass kissing devs all you like.
you can try thinking the only solution is other networks and if i dont like the devs i should play with other coins. but thats just the mindset of people that think the only option is other networks.
if thats your mindset. maybe you should move to the other networks you want people to concentrate and look at so much

anyway back to talking about the flaws. and hopefully no more insulting social distraction attempts.

look into the opcodes. they even want to rename an opcode to make it visibly shown its a risk(hint. its a risk for one and secondly reintroduces malleability)
look into why factories/watchtowers are being conceived
look into why having just a couple channels aint enough for full random pay anyone
look into how the byzantine generals issue applies
look into the 6degree of kevin bacon plays out
look into the funds of channels and the % of operability the more 'kevin bacons' are involved
the list goes on

WHAT?  No, I don't "know" that.  And neither do you.  It's just another one of those things you like to repeat over and over again, hoping that some gullible idiots will believe your absurd conspiracy theories and total re-writes of history.  Total conjecture.  Just for once in your dismal existence try being reasonable and rational.



Anyone who wants to see atomic swaps implemented via LN?  Anyone who wouldn't want to risk centralising layer 0 if tx volumes increase, thus making it more costly to run full nodes?  Anyone who is trying to ensure we can go well beyond 2020?  In short, lots of people with foresight (which naturally excludes you).



Who are "they"?  No one has enough individual control over Bitcoin's network to "do a hard fork" (*facepalm*) and make everyone else on the network like it.  What world are you even living in?  I can't tell if you need to take far more or far less medication for whatever it is that's wrong with you.  Stop pretending developers have so much control they can force miners and users to fork against their will.  It's total lunacy and you are unhinged if you believe that.  I think we're all running out of patience with you now and have had quite enough of your paranoid fantasies and delusions.  Use facts, not franky1 la-la-land fairytales and campfire stories.  

A little more concreteness would be appreciated.

Obviously not every argument can be broken down easily, but for example which opcode are you referring to specifically?

Also how does the Byzantine General's problem even apply to LN payment channels? What I've learned so far is:


...which wasn't very helpful, and...


...which seems to support my conclusion that LN is approaching monetary transactions from a different problem space which may be modelled in other terms than the Byzantine General's problem.


So what's your take on this? What's the relevancy of the Byzantine General's problem on how two counterparties manage the state of their payment channel?


Also initially I was actually more wondering about concrete examples of this:

hre we go again. distracting the conversation again away from LN flaws.....


then go back and learn about the NYA


here you go again treating lightning as a feature of bitcoin and part of the bitcoin network...
by talking about
"layers" (facepalm)
with so many calling lightning layer 2 is the same crap as years ago when people called NXT bitcoin 2.0

LN is not a layer
LN is separate network. ("chainhash"is asking for any chain of coins. its not locked to monitor bitcoin.)
EG. what if i said ripple was bitcoins layer 2.. i bet you would scream that it aint.


you think people have to like the rules for things like mandated activation and node bans and block reject threats to push an agenda..... (facepalm)
sorry but nope. 2017 ploy was not to like the rules but you give no other choice but accept it or to go "f**k off to another network"

i know i know.. i expect the usual reply social drama narrative that "blah blah it was bitcoin cash that forked"..
but no thats is you rewriting history. you might want to check the blockchains. it was segwit that initiated a change first.. and enforced the node ban and block reject protocol. cash wasnt created until hours later.

and here is the reason i want you to actually go learn things. because i am not your mom that should spoon feed you.
you dont want to listen anyway and you dont even care what is being said. so the only way you will learn and accept things is if you actually go use them and learn for yourself.

again i get it you dont want me telling you things. so why keep asking just to then stick your head in the sand and shout insults.. maybe try using the things your questioning and learn first hand if you hate second hand input so much

anyway this topic just shows alot of the usual suspects wanting a social drama session.

now those that do want to know the flaws can go use LN and experience them themselves.. i would say read code. but many treat that as me attacking them

so until those that want to reply about LN flaws have actually used LN.. you might want to try using LN first so that you can atleast start to understand conversations about LN.. unlike some who just prefer to cause social drama, but just hitting reply to just argue and insult and not address LN issues

to explain it all involves the whole big 3 decade debate of decentralised money and how the whole 2009 blockchain solution called bitcoin became such a big hit as it solves the problem of decentralised money.

after all if 2 party channels could work where people could leave LN nodes open indefinitely and use factories to recycle funds all off chain to take funds out of channels at close and put in new channels without broadcasting back to a blockchain... then blockchains are never needed.. which brings back the 3 decade debate about the whole point of blockchains. and if satoshis revolution was ever needed..

seems a few think that once inside LN its utopia. and blockchains were never needed and never will be needed again as factories(larger mutlisigs) are the solution satoshi should have come up with in 2008-9

its like the oldest and longest debate of all in regards to digital distributed/decentralised money
(requires long explanation.)

. but knowing theres a few people here who just ignore the content. and just here to insult and put finger in ears.. its probably best most people take the subtle hints and DYOR(do own research) and play around with LN (even on testnet) as they wont be happy being told the issues by people that are not in their circle of friends

OK, no magic, then how do they have it? I do not see any other then magical way to get it from nowhere.
Otherwise, I see only two ways:
1) One can 'guess' this key. So what prevent him from guessing it and taking all coins at any moment?
2) One should send his key to another. -> classical Byzantine Generals' Problem.


But A of course is not going to give B their key.

If you can successfully guess a key signature, you deserve every last satoshi you get.   :D
You've probably got more chance of winning the jackpot on two different national lotteries on the same night.



Then the transaction isn't finalised and N+1 doesn't exist.  N is still the current state and can't be revoked until A hands over their key for N.  Again, keep reading that post or find somewhere else that explains it in a way you can understand.

---

The only thing I can find is this discussion from 2015 (https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-November/011821.html).  If that's what franky1 is soiling himself over, then I'm pretty sure the issue isn't quite the catastrophe he's making it out to be.  If that's not what he's alluding to then he needs to be more clear and link to whatever it is he likes to pretend we should be so alarmed about.  If he wasn't a troll, he simply would have provided the source of his claims rather than making such a big song and dance about it.  He's incapable of simply providing the technical details and then letting users decide for themselves how serious the risks are.  He can only weave tenuous and highly exaggerated narratives to portray things in the worst possible light.  Blatant scaremongering and FUD.  Every time you ask him for specifics, he just gives you more absurd conspiracy theories.  Not even remotely acceptable behaviour for someone with the 'Legendary' rank.

I've put it exactly for you laugh.
But you missed the second point.


Again, who decides the state of the transaction?

A has the key from B. From A's point of view the transaction is commited.
(A even pretends to have his key sent to B. But unfortunately the packet has been dropped somwehre in the depth of Atlantic Ocean. Well, actually who knows where is his key now, who owns it... may be it's B, who's cheating now?)

nope your not even close

i would give you a subtle hint but all i see is that you put noinput into critical issues. apart from insults.
so keep researching, keep learning. and when it dawns on you. then you can atleast be at peace that you found out about it without me, and maybe you will accept it

At this point I'd appreciate clear answers over subtle hints though.

I assume the part about receiving insults refer to DooMAD and not me, so I once again respectfully ask you to further illuminate your arguments. Merely vaguely referring to aspects where you are seeing potential for problems does not help the discussion. Quite the contrary, it only muddles any line of reasoning as there is no clear argument being made. There is no content to build the discourse upon.


So once again, do you have any concrete examples of these:



And what op_code do you believe could reintroduce malleability?


Those are very simple questions that will hopefully not require to roll up decades of discourse.

No, it doesn't support your conclusion by any means. Issuance and transferring money IS the problem space. Bitcoin successfully models it by Byzantine Generals problem and solves it by PoW and consensus but LN tries to approach the same problem space using a different model (reducing it to 1:1 handshaking across a route).

We need to understand and establish this point before proceeding anymore: LN is an alternative approach to the same problem that bitcoin is meant to approach, hence a competitor for bitcoin. It is true for any off-chain scaling solution, otherwise how should it help off-loading anything from bitcoin blockchain?

Is it feasible for any off-chain solution to compete with bitcoin and its huge mathematical support, without a established mathematical model ? I doubt it.

As of now, I have to reject the feasibility of any off-chain solution for offering the same quality of service (at least) that bitcoin provides in terms of privacy and censorship resistance besides performing an order of magnitude better, until somebody could present me by a solid model comparable to Byzantine Generals.

If someone knew of a serious risk to Bitcoin's network which they believed was genuine, but then deliberately withheld that information from other members of the community so that they could analyse the risks for themselves, you'd have to ask yourself if they really did care about Bitcoin as much as they say they do.    

Good news, though, pretty much all the people who believe this opcode is an issue are totally discredited.  

I see why franky1 won't provide a source now for his claims now.  I also see why I didn't find this "issue" while searching, because I deliberately ignore search results from the following sources.  If franky1 had posted a source, he would have to end up quoting something written by anonymint (another prolific troll who wouldn't shut up about ANYONECANSPEND right up to the point they got banned from the forum), something written by Craig "fake satoshi" Wright (no explanation required for that one), something written on bitcoin.com (definitely no credibility there), or he would have to link to something legitimate that I would pay attention to, which completely debunks the supposed risks of ANYONECANSPEND.

Or... he'd have to link to this quote, which is rather telling and explains SO, SO MUCH about his behaviour:


Is this the point someone hurt your feelings and prompted your little vendetta, franky1?  You've been carrying this little grievance of yours since April 2016?  Ever since then you've been taking shots at developers because they don't take you seriously?  Aww, diddums.  

I honestly never knew a human being could actually be this pathetic.

1. the opcode. the devs already know about it. its no secret. but you seem to not know. although many hints were given for you to DYOR

2. the anyonecanspend (separate issue) the devs found the work around. once it finally twigged on them that it was an issue,
again the hints are there its no secret infact the work around become highly visable.. if you knew.

but it seems your not getting the hints.
you dont want me to spoon feed you.. i get that
you want to ignore me.. fine hit that ignore button.
 or atleast DYOR
i know you dont like people telling you to learn
but if you are so adamant to not want to get information from me. then im not going to spoon feed it to you.(bite the hand that feeds you. you stop getting fed) leaving the only option as for you to DYOR

ill just leave it for others who can see the hints to do their research and become aware.
i tried being nice, i even tried to be subtle. but this has just got to a point where all you wanna do is sling mud.

as for the opcode.. well the devs do know of that issue. its no secret. but you have already been given enough hint to DYOR and i have asked you to DYOR but you just wanna sling mud. so no more hints for you

so go have a nice day.

You claim that you have solutions to bitcoin scaling (which are none of what I pointed to, including delusional hopes of having a schelude in which we magically reach consensus to hardfork into bigger blocksizes without ending up in a split with 2 surviving coins and a lot of drama)

Can you please point to your code which is better than anything Core or altcoins have to offer? (because we are talking about scaling bitcoin, not starting from scratch, only to end up in the same point)

i know you only replied to poke the bear into another off topic social drama discussion about something not related to LN flaws

ill bite.. but remember you, like others are the ones that love to distract the narrative. so dont cry after

firstly. in consensus. things only should upgrade when the network has consensus. (no altcoin creation)
secondly the only reason you think things end in coin splits of altcoins is because you have only seen cores bypasses of consensus but fell for their PR.

the only reason why we didnt have it happen in 2015 as consensus is because core devs refused,
then pretended to agree then backtracked, then got a few of their devs and buddies to fake an alternative choice just to get those who were not blindly following cores roadmap off the network. and they got their investors to make a NYA plan to PR a possible chance of onchain scaling but only under terms of activating cores roadmap first, to the back peddle that NYA plan too...

by the way you can flip flop and spin all the social drama you like. but there are actual lines of code and block data, and stats that show the real series of events. so no point playing the social drama PR game to defend cores actions.

as for is there any code thats not core adoration/following.. well there would be if it wasnt for the REKT/mandatory campaigns over the last 3-5 years

anyway,
im finding it funny the same few names pop up trying their dang hardest to defend a WHO(core devs) instead of a what (bitcoin innovation). even as going as far as defending those devs OTHER NETWORK stuff.

You are trying too hard to make the Core developers look like the Bilderberg group. Hahaha.

Plus no one in the community wanted the NYA except for a minority of Bitcoin merchants, miners, and their shills. It was dead the day they signed the agreement.

IMO,  :)

LN Flaws (which others call features.)

Time Locking Required /Excessive time delay before Final transaction confirmed (Payout on the actual blockchain)
Overly Complicated to the point , Normal People will always require 3rd parties to monitor and maintain channels  (IE: Centralized Banking Cartels)
Price for LN offchain transactions (Promissory Notes) will still cost more than using many Altcoin's onchain networks.

LN is acting as a Bank by offering notes redeemable in bitcoin or litecoin,
at some point at minimum all LN Hubs will have to register as money transmitters or at worse be required to hold a banking license,  (Major Flaw)  :P

 

Lightning transactions are instant, you can do more transactions per second in one channel than most other blockchain can handle in total.



The Internet is much more complicated, but see, you are using it! A car engine is complicated, but one can still drive one right?! This is a bad argument, we are able to make user friendly wallets and software that will enable your grandmother to use lightning. In time.


Price to get a bitcoin transaction confirmed within 10 minutes cost a few cents yes, but you don't need to have it confirmed quickly when you create channels in the background. Segwit and batching transactions has also shown that bitcoin will overcome bottlenecks.


This is just some weird conspiracy theories. Not even going to comment on this.

But the evidence today is showing that LN fees are very cheap. Cheaper than Bitcoin Cash.

Plus while Bitcoin Cash nodes become more and more centralized, Bitcoin will always be scaling out.


This is gaslighting at best. LN is software that anyone can use without permission for decentralized off-chain, peer to peer transactions. It is not a bank, it does not work like a bank, and will never act like a bank.

Have you reported the Lightning developers to the FBI? Hahahaha.

Cheap? I run the site https://www.lightningslotmachine.com/ (https://www.lightningslotmachine.com/), most transactions, maybe 75%. Both sending and receiving payments have 0 satoshi as a fee.

A lot have 1 satoshi as a fee. The most I have ever seen is 8 satoshi. That's 0.0005152159 USD

I think is fair to say that Bitcoin is now the blockchain with the lowest fees.

Reread before you comment in error again.
Final Transaction is onchain, and that can be up to 2 weeks using LN.  :)



Those user friendly options are the ones that will be maintained by 3rd parties.
How many Linux Nodes does your Grandma currently run.  LOL!!  :D :D :D

@Wind_FURY
LN Fees are currently cheap because many hub operators are operating at a LOSS.
Dummies can only give away things for free for so long until they have to raise the price.  ;)

I see your vocabulary now includes gaslighting,
the fact you confuse it with anything I say , shows you have a long way to go before you truly understand economics or logic.
Good Luck in your personal growth.  :)



LOL, :)

Nope many alts have cheaper transaction fees.

IE:
Zeitcoin Transaction fee is   $0.0000025  US
Mintcoin Transaction fee is  $0.0000129   US

* Also coin network only charge the single transaction fee,
LN network will charge a transaction fee per every hub required to send funds,
meaning you could pay 4X your LN fee per transaction as 4 hubs might be needed to complete it. *

Multiple other altcoins have fees lower than LN's 0.0005152159 USD
All one has to do is look.  :)

FYI:
LN Fees will increase when hub operators decide to stop taking losses and actually make a profit.
So current fees will increase as time goes on and dramatically if LN ever becomes popular.

The LN was tried with a purposeful DDOS exertion, which caused the loss of 20% of hubs. Be that as it may, an ongoing analysis likewise noted different imperfections in the system, beginning with the way that the whole number of hubs is little contrasted with the Bitcoin Core system of hubs. The biggest number of LN hubs stretched around 1,000. In the meantime, Bitcoin Core hubs have developed in the previous months, to 9,277, from around 7,000 amid the season of the SegWit2X discusses.

Also, even with a developing number of hubs, the wasteful channels between them imply that the Lightning Network is fairly disarranged and eccentric in taking care of exchanges. The central issue is finding a reasonable course between beneficiaries, notwithstanding the little broad limit of the network. Indeed, even with in excess of 1,100 hubs detailed, the network does not deal with exchanges above $35, and the general every day stack is worth around $50,000.

How can they be operating at a loss if they're saving money by cutting down on their own on-chain transaction fees?  Something tells me you need to research this stuff a little more before you go saying stuff that sounds pretty dumb.



As a proportion of the coin's value, that's hardly an impressive achievement.  Those crapcoins you're talking about are only worth a tiny fraction of a penny.

$0.000129 USD is the current value of a single Mintcoin.  That means you'd have to spend 0.1 mintcoin as a transaction fee.  Imagine if Bitcoin's fee was 0.1 BTC?  Not exactly what a sensible person would call good value for money.  Go back to hyping up your worthless Shitecoin in the altcoins subforum and leave the LN discussion to the grown-ups.

Something tells me your ridiculous LN fanaticism makes you too stupid to comprehend.
Input Costs Matter, ignoring them is why many farmers go out of business.
And if LN hubs are to earn a profit, enough to maintain a decent/secure infrastructure their prices are going to increase.
What you have now is a bunch of hobbyist playing at maintaining a network.




Hate is all you have, No wonder you are such a pathetic debater.  :-*

Math does not lie.  Sad your comprehension skills are so weak.

FYI:
I Said MANY ALTs have cheaper transaction fees, I only list two.

FYI2:
Bitcoin can never truly be a Global Currency as it is too scarce making even the 8 digit below zero nonsense cost too much for the majority of the world populace,
Zeit & Mint both have a large enough quantity to be global currencies and both already exceed bitcoin's onchain capacity.
And there are other alts that also exceed bitcoin in multiple aspects, I guess the truth is too much for you.  :D    

FYI3:
LN is a 3rd party offchain payment system , it is in no way limited to bitcoin only. (all it needs is a segwit infected blockchain)
LN can also use Litecoin or Groestlcoin and their offchain transaction fees would be much cheaper than using bitcoin,
when it actually needs to be usable by the public and not just a hobby experiment like it is now.

Zeitcoins and Mintcoins? Why would I trade my very valuable Bitcoins to use those illiquid, no-value altcoins? That is a stupid counter-proposal to discourage LN usage. Hahaha.


Unfairly cheap.

Hmm,  I can think of 1 reason.  :D
Zeitcoin has outperformed bitcoin in price growth from Sept 2014 until Today.
As of today, ZEIT is over 60X it's Sept 2014 value, while Bitcoin is only ~15X it's Sept 2014 value.
&
Well Mintcoin has over $217600 US Dollars on 1 Market in liquidity, I doubt you could exceed that.

I could care less if you use LN, but don't lie and say it's transaction fees are cheaper than altcoins when they are not.
You also totally missed the fact that using litecoin or groestlcoin would most likely be cheaper than using bitcoin with LN.
The fact that LN hubs can work with any coin that activated segwit seems to elude you.

It hasn't eluded us.  We're looking forward to enhanced interoperability between chains without having to deposit funds into an exchange.  It's a feature, not a bug.



So instead of being completely worthless, it's now only almost worthless?  Don't worry, I'm sure it will be back to completely worthless soon enough.

"LN is cheaper than any decentralized altcoin that sees some actual usage"

There.

It's easy to keep transaction fees low if either a) the coin sees very little to no transactions, b) currency issuance and consensus is centrally controlled or c) decentralization is being sacrificed to blockchain bloat.

And yet you appear clueless to the fact that an LN Hub will require at minimum a money transmitter license because of it.
In the US , Like of Kind Exchanges between Crypto is now a Taxable event , every time,
so those LN Hubs that operate with even a single channel will be required by US Law to turn over all records to the US Tax Authority.
Enjoy your feature.  :)


I could say Bitcoin will be back to completely worthless soon enough also.

Difference is Bitcoin Network will Collapse if the price per bitcoin does not exceed production cost of over $3000 per bitcoin.
ZEITCOIN Network is resistant to such economic factors and can continue indefinitely.
Time will show which coin has the Ultimate Design.  :D
 

FYI:   :)
(Both Money Transmitters & Banks follow "Full KYC/AML" regulations . )
For those like doomad that don't know.

Zeitcoin volume of all transactions last 24 hours was 75 USD. What a joke.
I'm guessing it's a grand total of one user that use this coin. I guess that is you.

Why do you even post in this forum, it's a discussion about Bitcoin and lightning. Nobody cares about your shitcoin.

True. And all of them are way less secured than bitcoin.

I'd rather pay a few cents to have a transaction being secured, than paying the fraction of a cent to have 0 protection.





1 satoshi is too expensive ? Currently that's 0.00006481 $.
Also, making the minimal unit smaller only requires a softfork (e.g. to divide 1 satoshi into 1.000.000 units). This can always be done when necessary.

Those shitcoins are both worthless. A coin without any use (security = 0) can never be a 'global currency'.




3rd party ?
It's called open source development. Anyone is free to contribute.

Additionally, LN is just ONE implementation of HTLC's.




This.

If he wants to derail this Lightning thread to say how much better his shitcoin is, perhaps he's merely extending an invitation to all of us to derail his shitcoin thread with how much better Lightning is?  We can play that game if he wants.   ;D



So first it was "full KYC/AML" for Lightning hubs, but now it's only "at minimum a money transmitter licence"?  I wonder what it'll be next month when you walk it back a little further each and every time.   ::)

(Both Money Transmitters & Banks follow "Full KYC/AML" regulations . )
For those like doomad that don't know.

---

New Flaw in LN Network ,

Wu & Antpool have just recently started refusing to include segwit transactions in their blocks.
Since they are a major player this can delay the onchain redemption of bitcoins and
INCREASE the potential for the LN funds to be stolen by a counter-party.
* Interestingly enough they could potentially cause segwit transactions to cost more than normal onchain transactions. *  ;)
* As LN begins stealing more transaction fees from the onchain miners, you can almost guarantee the other onchain miners will follow suit to protect their transaction fee profit from the LN offchain network. *

If more miners join them and they reach 51%, they can effectively kill the LN offchain network!

FYI:
It is a brilliant move on the part of Wu, to eventually make segwit no longer cost effective compared to the normal onchain transactions.
Effectively killing his offchain competition for bitcoin transaction fees.
The only real question is how long before the other bitcoin onchain miners get smart and follow his lead.
(As their monetary best interest is in onchain fees and not offchain fees which they see no profit.)

* No one can stop him unless, there is a Hard Fork to take away the miner's ability to pick transactions. *
Good Luck with that.  :D

Technically, it's on-chain flaw where miners can choose specific transaction to be included/excluded.


Where's the source? There's no such information on twitter or reddit. Even if it's true, i doubt they would do that for long since it's MAD scenario since they could lose value of mined Bitcoin since people might be panic (unless they don't care about wasting money or losing profit).

But AFAIK when there's 2 valid conflicting transaction which have different height timelock, the transaction with lower height timelock included on-block.

Reddit Source : https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/9sex11/jihan_no_longer_includes_segwit_transactions_last/

---

No argument there allowing the miners to pick and choose which transactions are included per block
that can be used against the users was always a bad idea instead of just processing all available transactions that would fit.
But that was added by the bitcore dev team, and the only way they can remove it is a Hard Fork, but that also destroys the fee structure almost guaranteeing spam transaction could clog and kill the onchain network without fee increases to prevent it.
In the meantime they can use it to kill the LN offchain network, and so it becomes The Major Flaw in LN!

 

Except that around two hours ago, AntPool mined this block (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block-height/548154) which, at 1026.434 KB, must include at least some SegWit transactions.  

And around 18 hours ago, AntPool also mined this block (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block-height/548051) which, at 1157.285 KB, must also include at least some SegWit transactions.

It's really not hard to actually verify this stuff.  It's all there in the open to see.  Any more Redditard drivel you'd like us to debunk?

The fact they mined 4 blocks in a row , and ignored all segwit transactions escapes you.

Your entire LN network is depending on the ONChain Miners to include segwit transactions, if they do the unthinkable to you and just ignore all segwit transactions , they can kill their offchain competitor without breaking a sweat.

Whether it was done on purpose or accident , the truth is now apparent,
the Onchain Miners can kill LN at any point they so choose and you can't stop them, without a Hard Fork, which they won't agree too.  :D

It is now LN Most Major Flaw, because at some point transactions fees will matter more and more to the Bitcoin Miners with each halving.

Enjoy your LN house of cards, by the way Jihan and 3 others can set it on fire anytime they like.    ;)

The fact that your claim was immediately proven wrong but you still keep talking shit escapes you.  Sometimes miners prioritise the block reward over the fees and don't include many (or any) transactions in their block.  It's hardly a new phenomenon.  And when they do include a small number of transactions, they naturally choose the ones with the highest fees (i.e. not the SegWit ones).  So thank you for once again demonstrating that users generally pay lower fees when they use SegWit.  It's nice of you to show your support in this way.  The more you highlight the advantages, the more users are likely to adopt SegWit and start saving money.

The same applies to Bitcoin, doesn't it? This kind of attack would be used for revising already confirmed on-chain transactions with far higher amount of BTC rather than for manipulating channels which have a maximum capacity of about 0.16 BTC.

True on the danger to onchain,
But causing the segwit transactions to require higher fees than normal onchain transactions could be done with less than 51%.

Untrue on the capacity limit of .16 btc .
If the miners blocked all segwit transactions ,
they destroy access or allow to be stolen by counter-parties the Entire Amount of Bitcoin stored in LN.
All Channels would be at risk upon expiration.


Difference is this ,
if the miners 51% attack their onchain transaction , they kill their own network and their own ability to make money.
(This hurts the Bitcoin Miners directly.)

If the miners 51% ignore all segwit transactions, they kill an Offchain COMPETITOR that was stealing fees that could have been theirs.
(This kills LN and has no effect on their onchain profits, except an increase in their transaction fees.)
(If you ran a Business and you could put your competitor out of business next door by merely ignoring them,
therefore increasing your own Business Profit and assuring market share, you be kind of stupid not to ignore them.)

Jihan & other onchain miners are alot of things, stupid is not one of them.

FYI:
I now so dub this potential LN Flaw: The 51% Ignore Segwit Attack

This thread is devolving into flaming each other. Thus it will be locked.