Bitcoin Forum

Comparison of Offchain Solutions for Crypto Coins

Exchanges

Gift Cards /Visa Cards

Lightning Network

---

Exchanges offchain transactions
Advantages:
Offchain transactions, allowing any of the exchange's cyptos to be used in a Micro-Payments
Speed :  Instant
Transfer Fees : extremely low or none
Transfers to user name instead of long crypto address
No limits on amount deposited or transferred
No Time Locks , amount can be withdrawal immediately
Any coins stored on the exchanges can be used, no segwit needed.
Funding can occur as fast as the individual coin blockchain allows
Unlimited Transactions offchain, with no requirement for any Onchain transactions (User could transact forever offchain)

Disadvantages:
Centralized Management
Fractional Reserve & Counterfeiting possible until Withdrawal confirms ownership
Exchange can steal all funds stored, (only recourse is legal action)
All people that you transact with , must be members of the exchange
KYC/AML regulation per Kakmakr

---

Gift Cards /Visa Cards, once purchased or funded
Advantages:
Able to purchase items and services in the standard fashion and uses existing equipment most vendors already own.
Transfer fee limited to 1 transfer of the specific coin used to buy the gift /visa card funds
Easy to refill
No worries of Fractional Reserve or Counterfeiting
Uses the Gift /Visa Card's network to offload additional transactions from Onchain
Only 1 onchain transaction needed to purchase funds per fill-up
Actually use Visa Network to have access to their Offchain Scalability  :)


Disadvantages:
Limit of $2000 purchased per day
IDs must be shown on very large purchases
Limited to specific vendors accepting Gift / Visa Cards
Some cards lose value with monthly fee or yearly inactivity fees
KYC/AML regulation per Kakmakr

---

Lightning Network
Advantages:
Offchain transactions, allowing segwit cyptos to be used in a Micro-Payments  
Speed : Faster than onchain transactions
Transaction fees : lower than onchain
Funds are harder to steal, and usually revert to the original owner after time lock expires
Move transactions offchain to avoid updating onchain capacity
No KYC/AML regulation currently required. per Kakmakr


Disadvantages:
Requires both parties fund a channel ,
Requires 2 time locked Onchain Transaction per Party , meaning a single LN offchain transaction requires 4 onchain transactions
Fractional Reserve & Counterfeiting possible until Withdrawal ONCHAIN confirms ownership
Only works with coins with segwit in their code
The more hubs required to make a connection, the addition of a fee per hub to complete.
Other User must be part of the LN network , unless they are using a 3rd party Custodial LN Wallet
Can’t Handle Large Transactions Yet (large transactions amount listed at over $200)

---

The Goal of this topic is to explore exactly the advantages & disadvantages of these offchain options.
So please share your opinions and if you are exploring an additional offchain solution, please detail it with it's advantages and disadvantages.   8)

Also for the sake of this discussion , it is understood that LN can be used with any crypto coin running segwit code,
so any advantages or disadvantages listed should be generalized to all crypto and not specific to one.

Offchain transactions have existed even before the Lightning Network was created. To eliminate transaction fees some 3rd party wallets like Coinbase have offered their clients until now a offchain based transaction without the addition of transaction or network fees. The result is the user will be able to send their BTC instantly for free. The only catch is you need to have the same wallet (Coinbase to Coinbase wallet) for this to work.

you can't compare anything with anything! they have to have something in common and "gift cards" and even "Exchanges" have nothing in common with bitcoin! you might as well say a Lamborghini has the advantage of being fast and disadvantage of being expensive and in comparison a potato has the advantage of being used to make chips that are tasty and disadvantage of making you fat. and that is exactly what your comparison looks like :D

The thing they all have in common is that all 3 act as offchain solutions
ie: offloading transactions from the onchain blockchains to another system.

If that is beyond your scope of understanding, have a nice day and don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you.

You also missed the point , this is a generalized discussion of the 3 examples using any crypto,
your specific reference to btc shows you were not paying attention.
I actually want to avoid specific reference to btc , to keep the nutjobs from wasting everyone time with ignorant post, like the one you just made.   :-*

---

 :)
Exactly Coinbase is an Exchange with offchain transactions , so it falls under exchange advantages & disadvantages.

Just remember that the transaction size might increase as better funded Lightning Network nodes are funded, but the main purpose of the Lightning Network was always to remove smaller micro transactions from the on-chain Blockchain to alleviate the congestion.

The centralization and regulation of both exchanges and Gift cards both require strict KYC/AML regulation and this is not necessary with the Lightning Network.  ;)  <Add that to LN's advantages>

Thanks updated the above OP.

As some crypto coins transaction fees increase , they actually drive their-selves out of the micro-payment system.
So that price increase removes those transactions from the onchain blockchain due to economics.
LN does give them the opportunity to rejoin the micro-payments eco-system.

Do you believe LN hubs will always be able to avoid KYC/AML regulations
or
do you feel it is a matter of time before they are forced into compliance?

I can't speak for him, but I think what he meant is that the comparisons are ultimately pointless because it's not like each example listed can use a different off chain solution. Heck, while it could be true, it even feels weird to call the first two off chain solutions. For exchanges, people usually just say transfers are facilitated off chain (they're just updating balances internally after all), and the second barely has anything specific to do with crypto.

...or at least that's what I thought when I stumbled into this topic.

Can you explain how this is a possibility in Lightning? Because I have seen this being lobbed around as an attack on Lightning without any explanations, or examples of how technically it could happen.

This is not a challenge, I'm really curious.

With some adjustments this can be called an Advantage: "a thousand LN offchain transactions still only require 4 onchain transactions".

I was going to ask the same thing. As far as I know, it's not possible, as each LN transaction requires signatures.
However, without knowing the details of how LN works, I'm now wondering if it would be possible for a LN-hub to use the same funds to sign different transactions with different users, more commonly known as double spending. Kinda like how I can sign different transactions from a legacy address, and as long as I don't broadcast them for on-chain confirmation, they can all be valid. I sure hope this isn't possible.

That would be a massive failure on the Lightning Network. What would be the use for the project to contnue if it was technically proven to be true, and possible?

this is Segregated Witness and 2017 all over again but this time with Lightning Network. and FYI OP is the same person who has been spreading the same false information about SegWit back in that time too under a different account. the same way they were trying to convince everyone that your funds in a SegWit address can be spent by anybody they are now trying to say funds in an LN channel can be spent multiple times!

Away from how the comparison took place and which I did not understand its purpose. However, the lightning network is still under development and much can change "You can add some better solutions than Lightning Network to compare them like Schnorr signatures or [There is a new off-chain network similar to the lightning network but I have not read the details]".

There are a lot of people who have reported losing their money by putting them in the lightning network.[1]

No. But once the channel is established, the parties can update their values.

The purpose of lightning network is Micro-Payments, anyone can wait 5 minutes to exchange $200 for $ 1 as fees.

[1] Reports Of Lost Bitcoin On Lightning Network Due To Bugs (https://www.ethnews.com/lightning-network-users-report-losing-bitcoin-due-to-bugs)

fractional reserve on LN. it has begun

https://www.bitrefill.com/buy/lightning-channel/

500,000 sats capacity You pay 0.000403 BTC
2,000,000 sats capacity You pay 0.001341 BTC
4,000,000 sats capacity You pay 0.002011 BTC
8,000,000 sats capacity You pay 0.003753 BTC
16,000,000 sats capacity You pay 0.004825 BTC

until windfury understands a millisat is not a sat.(payment contract vs broadcast tx 2 different things)
until windfury understand a signed payment channel is not a signed bitcoin transaction
until windfury understand the concepts of factories, watchtowers.
until windfury understands that what happens inside a channel is not a blockchain
until windfury understands the LN is not bitcoin
until windfury understands LN is not community audited, regulated, consensused
until windfury understands LN does not have the byzantine gnerals solution
until windfury actually spends more time researching LN before promoting it.

then there is no point

wind fury. lets get back to basics.
imagine just the bitcoin protocol
if there was a bitcoin signed tx. but it is never broadcast, never relayed never enters anyones mempool...
is it a settled transaction paid in full?

if someone wrote you a cheque for $1billion. its signed. but has not ben submitted to the banks to be cleared.
is it a settled transaction paid in full?

knowing channels are just 2 party, no community oversight. where if you paid me $1 i would open a channel with you to credit you with 2btc channel. (obviously ur happy with the deal as its me at risk, not you)
and due to the privacy stuff. the routers dont blockchain check every nodes balance. they just htlc request 'can you handle 2btc' to which you would say yes. alot of things can get messed up in LN.

you really need to go research this stuff and not just spout out the utopian sales pitch

Franky1 has explained it to you multiple times, I am not wasting any time on you.

---

I'll be working up a comparison at a later date,
based on most likely amounts locked in each of the 3 solutions and how many offchain transactions are really available,
after a glancing look, the thought that thousands of transactions will occur per deposit on LN appears to be extremely overstated except possibility for micro-payments of less than a penny, before new funding is required.

Some preliminary thoughts are a person deposit $200 in their account and spending the entire amount.
Exchange:  1 onchain transaction and possibility a 2nd (optional) onchain transaction withdraw by vendor
Gift Card :  only 1 onchain transaction required
LN          :  2 onchain transaction required per party

In a normal US person, a funding of $200
would allow $40 transaction for gas, $120 transaction for electricity , four $10 restaurant visits =$40

$200 on Exchange , spent on the above
1 onchain to fund account and 1 onchain withdrawl by gas station and 1 onchain withdrawal and 4 onchain withdrawals by 4 different restaurants.

So we have a possible 7 maximum onchain transactions,
however, since withdrawals can be grouped from multiple users at a weekly or monthly basis,
by only withdrawing large amounts, the total onchain transactions can be reduced greatly


$200 on Gift Cards , spent on the above
Only 1 onchain transaction required, the other transactions occur on the gift card network
(For the Purpose of this example the gift card is a Refillable Visa Debit Card accepted at multiple vendors)


$200 on LN , spent on the above
2 onchain transactions Person,  2 onchain transactions Gas Station, 2 onchain Electric Company, 8 onchain transactions from 4 separate restaurants  
6 offchain transactions total

When you look at the above it becomes apparent that gift cards are superior in reducing the # of onchain transactions
over Exchanges and LN.  In the above Scenario :
Gift Cards: 1 onchain transaction required
Exchange : 7 onchain transactions , if none of the companies group their withdrawals with others
LN           : 14 onchain transactions

Just using the onchain blockchain alone and paying the gas station, electric company, 4 separate restaurants directly onchain,
requires 6 onchain transactions.

So anyone really wanting to cut down on the # of onchain transactions would use gift cards over exchanges and LN.  ;)
Other Factors may be more important for the individual on which they choose , but gift cards win decreasing onchain transactions hands down for the normal individual.

You also notice that anyone using LN for normal life purchases such as gas, electricity , restaurants,
end up generating more onchain transactions by trying to use LN offchain network,
than if they just paid the vendors directly onchain.  :P  

FYI:
For 1000 transactions to take place on LN, from a $200 deposit
each transaction would have to be worth no more than 20 cents each offchain transaction.

Which brings up a question, what are people buying that is only worth 20 cents?   ???  
* Even a single 20oz bottle of coke cola is ~$2.00 *

If a person only used LN to buy meals at the same restaurant, of no more than $10 per visit,
you can squeeze 20 offchain transactions out of it, using only 4 onchain transactions, saving 16 onchain transactions,
however if those visits were to 20 different restaurants,
those 20 offchain transactions would be using 40 onchain transactions, a loss of 20 onchain transactions verses paying onchain only.

The above brings an interesting development, LN users that don't consciously plan their transactions to maximize offchain transaction over onchain transactions could actually generate more onchain transactions than if they paid directly onchain and potentially nullify any transactions reduction that LN could have provided. :P

*Note onchain transactions reduction would still be far more if you used a gift card instead.*    

I am interested in Lightning Network, this year I see that there will be a lot of development. especially in increasing security, maximizing liquidity, high privacy, and also simplifying UX with the aim of being more user friendly. So, I see the advantages of lightning networks will be more dominate .

Can you explain how that would be possible? Are you telling everyone who reads your post that Bitrefill is issuing "Lightning pegged IOU tokens"?


Let's not turn this topic into a mudslinging debate for the newbies' sake.

How do you force people globally to adhere to KYC/AML regulations, if they are part of one huge decentralized network? Do you think people hosting Tor nodes would give a damn about some government that wants to force them to identify themselves? They could not stop other similar P2P networks <Limewire / Kazaa / eMule etc> ...so why would they be able to do this with the Lightning Network?

Plan B, would be to bump the Block sizes and to abandon the Lightning Network, if they did find a way to stop it. < Bitcoin is also a P2P network and it has been around since 2009.  ;D >  Bitcoin was developed to be unstoppable.  ;)

Franky1 already did, sadly you don't have the background to understand it,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5124663.msg50325896#msg50325896
Maybe you should actually read his post, instead of just clicking reply,
also google everything he listed and actually read it.



I have no need of your assistance with Pursuer, he is just another guy that thinks he knows more than he does.
Which is why I just ignored his personal ignorance, until you made a spectacle of it.

---

I would imagine the LN hubs would be forced into compliance the same way as the exchanges were.

There was an article discussing how coinbase would never activate a LN hub as it would break their KYC/AML standing with the government,
however since LN hub can literally select which hubs they will partner with, they could open an LN hub and follow KYC/AML regulations while only allowing their hub to connect to other hubs following KYC/AML regulations.  Most users would not care as long as it worked.
Any hubs refusing to follow KYC/AML regulations would be ostracize by the major players and using them would cost more as more hops would be required.

I get you think LN hub are invulnerable to government intervention , time will tell.

my answer to this is. its not the basement dwelling hobbiest who sets up a node that allows 8000+ connections to be a good 'hub'. as thats then just socio-political risk of getting caught if they dont register as a custodian/msb.
plus these hobbiest hubs wont have the liquidity to honour their promises of funding say $60 each for 8000 users ($480,000)

its the established businesses that self declare they are regulated custodians and are publicly advertising that for X fee they offer quality trustable service and best online % uptime, best liquidity of routes and best chance of route success. all available in exchange for some registration/basic ID requirements

.. after all why do you think things like coinbase.com are so popular even with kyc headaches and 1.5% fee's..
because people think that regulation=protection/trust/honour

after all.. in a world where paper money is still a thing. why do you think people even bother using a bank.
its never truly about 'force' its about planting the utopian thought that something is great if you use a commercial service/ network which has restrictions/limitations/headaches, but its fluffy cloud utopian benefits outweigh peoples freedoms
thus people voluntarity give over thir id.
(facebook is great example of Id/lifestory grabbing service, in exchange for some fluffy service/benefit)

From what I got from this thread thus far is:

1. Some people are really upset at Lightning.
2. There is no fractional reserve banking happening with Lightning.
3. KYC in Lightning is a "but what if" fear used to further people's beliefs as to why they are upset with Lightning.

If KYC is imposed for some Lightning nodes, traffic that doesn't want to go through those nodes will simply skip around it. New nodes will come into existence to take their business. Such are the laws of supply and demand.

OP,you provided a comparison but there's no conclusion.
Which one is the best method for offchain transactions?Is there a "best offchain transaction solution"?
All the 3 solutions are centralized(I don't think that there's a decentralized offchain solution in existence),which makes me think that exit scams are possible...

As with most things, the final conclusion is made by the person reading the article.

And it may surprise many to hear but not everyone will come to the same conclusion , because not everyone wants the same thing.

Examples:

Someone wanting to truly lower the onchain transactions as much as possible ,
would choose a gift card is the superior solution.

Someone preferring to exchange crypto coins, offchain and immediately withdraw with no worries of time locks,
would choose an exchange as the superior solution.

Someone running a LN hub for profit or pure development,
would choose LN as the superior solution.

The final choice of each individual depends on their personal motivations,
and since everyone has different motivations, the best solution will vary per individual.  :)

Oddly enough , if all offchain solutions do not appeal to you in any way,
you have made a personal conclusion,
your personal conclusion would be that Onchain is the Superior Solution ,
and offchain transactions poses too much potential for corruption.

franky1, can you tell is what your answer to that is? I'm very curious what your deep research on the Lightning Network will bring us. Thanks.

what i have been continually telling you is this:
1. LN is NOT the bitcoin network. LN is its own separate network
2. just like all altcoins just because a transaction (for settlement) look like a particular format does NOT make them a bitcoin transaction
3. a bitcoin transaction of confirmed settle funds is only a bitcoin transaction of confirmed settled ffunds when its on the bitcoin blockchain
4. anything NOT on the bitcoin blockchain is not a bitcoin transaction

once you learn the above you understand how people writing fake cheques and counterfeit bank notes still OWE people funds once its realised that the funds are not real/wont settle/confirm

5. payments/invoices htlcs are NOT bitcoins. they are not even 8 decimals
6. the 12 decimal payments WILL NEVER EVER EVER settle on a bitcoin blockchain.. EVER
7. the channel is just an agreement/promise between 2 parties. a contract. yes a promise/agreement/contract are all the same thing

even a marriage contract is a promise. a commitment is a promise. but there is no 100% guarantee its final. its an ongoing thing that can change. "i PROMISE to love honour and obey in sickness and in health"
LN is not a immutable settled fund. its a promise. AKA an IOU
LN is not 8 decimil measured. its 12 decimal. so its not even the same unit of account. thus is pegged
EG
imagine you bought $10 of game funds. the game funds are 10000millidollars.. they are not $10. they are pegged balance to represent $10 but they are not actually $10.
same thing with 'stablecoins' they are not real fiat, but pegged tokens to represent real bank balance.

only the bitcoin blockchain is the final immutable state
if its not on the blockchain its not a guarantee, its just a promise, hope/maybe

8. there is no community support to audit the LN payment values tally against bitcoin network locked funds. it is just the channel partners that agree they are happy with how the channel is set up (what happens in channel stays inchannel)
9. if i paid you ~$4k in fiat. i would not care how you done it but i would want/expect/agree to a LN channel with ~1btc in LN balance..
10. if i paid you $400 i would be more than happy and agree to getting 1btc in LN balance
11. after the playing around with LN balance has been done. the balance is NOT sent to the bitcoin network. instead it goes back to you (or in the case of bitrefill, them) and they aggregate and decide what to do next.
12. once you update your research on watchtowers and factories you will learn that bitrefill is acting like a factory. they create the value and the channel party just agrees with it. thats how LN works(emphasis point 8 )

Counterfeiting on Lightening Network really possible? If yes , how possible? Who could do the Counterfeiting without being detected or getting caught? How can Counterfeiting be possible when transactions on LN are not with real Bitcoin. Has anyone successfully Counterfeited on the network before or this is mere speculation?

Correct, Lightning is not the on-chain Bitcoin network, it's a network for off-chain transactions.

[/quote]


What do you mean by "transaction for settlement", when the final state of the channel is broadcasted on-chain, it does not make them a Bitcoin transaction?


Yes like how the final state of a Lightning channel is broadcasted on-chain like any other Bitcoin on-chain transaction.


It's not a Bitcoin on-chain transaction, correct, but a Lightning off-chain transaction using Bitcoins bouncing between channels, and with transaction records stored locally.


Nothing is owed. All Bitcoins in Lightning are accounted for when a user opens a channel.


But it still doesn't satisfy your debate that they are IOUs, there are no IOUs. Bitcoins in payment channels are Bitcoins confirmed when the channels were opened.


What settles is the final state of the channel, not whether the off-chain transactions made in Lightning were made with 12 decimals.


Not a mere agreement, or promise. Those Bitcoins were confirmed on-chain when participants opened the channel.


Marriage contract? Haha.

Plus there are no IOUs in Lightning, do your research.


Not the blockchain? When it's supposed to wait for 6 confirmations to open a Lightning channel?


Off-topic. But if you didn't know, there are transaction limits in Lightning.


I don't know what you mean, but everything is settled on-chain once you broadcast the final state of the channel.


Ok, explain it like I'm stupid. Without the propaganda, what are watchtowers and channel factories? How do they work technically?

no
until its CONFIRMED its meaningless
its the whole point of blockchains..
anyone can write a tx and sign it. but unless its confirmed on a blockchain. you have not been paid

what you have been taught by others seems to be that blockchains are boring/broke/meaningless because countersigned accounts(channels) are as secure.(facepalm) seems your being told to not care about blockchains revolutionary decentralised concepts and being told that the old fiat banking system of dual authorised payments are the real technology


broadcasting is meaningless. tx's can drop out of mempool. have insufficient fee. have people slip in CPFP or RBF to get a similar tx in before your "broadcast" gets a chance


funds in channel are not bitcoins. learn millisats.
please please please stop spending months pretending you have the answers. and do one thing.. JUST GO USE LN an research it. this is getting repetitive.
until you use and research something. dont even dare pretend to know about it. just the fact that you cant even understand millisats is making you trip over yourself at the first step of understanding


no they are not
LN is not a community audit of funds. the channel is not open only when a community have accounted the channels and all agreed. instead its just a 2 party agreement on whatever greed decision they want.
its just a handshake between 2 people.
so if you gave me $100 and i said ill open a channel with you and give you 1000000000000ms (pegged 1btc).. you would be orgasming at the great deal of getting to play with what you beleive is 1btc for only $100 cost so you would accept the channel


oopsy.. u just admitted to yourself the whole thing ur trying to deny
the difference between the off chain transactions made in lightning, vs what the bitcoin blockchain see's

dang you dug yourself such a big hole pretending to just be naive. but they tripped up and fell in, burying yourself by admitting you actually know theres a difference between the in channel and bitcoin network transaction formats/units of measure
you just pretty much admitted to yourself that you know there are 2 formats/differences.
thank you for your self defeat. now may you take a break and spend time learning
..
as for the watchtower/factory stuff
there is no bigworld wide community that sanction off/ drop from relay/ delete channels if the 12 decimal tokens dont tally against a blockchain when opening a channel.
the only parties that handshake to a channel opening are the 2 people in the channel.
again if you paid bitrefil a small amount and they will give you a channel containing a big amount. you can personally refuse it. but then your greed will more than likely accept it.
after all in your mind your not at risk. you got nothing to lose and everything to gain.
again there is no community audit protecting you/preventing you from opening channels. its a private aggrement between 2 people

things like factories are like bitrefil where they give you lots of balance that does not tally against a blockchain. but knowing the channel tx wont ever broadcast. after the 30 days. they just reopen a channel to refresh the balance, without touching the blockchain
obviously if you demand bitrefil to as the watchtower/factory to broadcast a real bitcoin transaction. there would be a penalty/price they would charge

(its much like exchanges play around with THEIR orderbooks as much as you like but when you want to withdraw, you then have to hop they have the coldstore and they dont charge you huge withdrawal fee's or even hop they dont just scam you with the "we been hacked" stuff)

..
but now before you continue.. can you please try to use LN to get a grasp of it. otherwise if you kep refusing to use it but then keep on pretending you know whats happening. im just going to treat you as no longer naive. but just a person thats more interested in causing social drama

Very good and reasonable rant for on-chain tx security, on-chain use and on-chain scaling btw.

And we all know all other things are in conflict with money transmitter, custodian, kyc, aml.. Whatever laws, all that is much more better sorted out in the honest, 10y proven on-chain Pure Bitcoin P2P protocol.

We still have saved that one

 ;D ;)

Of course that they might be possible. Now will someone really do it and get away with it? That is something we need to wait and see.

Remember also that if the platform is not secure enough it could also be hacked, even if the people running it had noble intentions of offering a pretty good service.

You're quoting a draft from July 2018 for a proposal that never came to be. Seems like the whole point of your thread is simply to FUD Lightning. Nobody has any plans to create these Virtual Payment Channels. You didn't even quote the entirety of the quote:


It was a proposal. Nothing ever came of it. To equate that with there currently being fractional reserve banking in Lightning is low-level deception. What is the point of all this "but what if" conjecturing? What if a critical bug is discovered in the Bitcoin Core code tomorrow? What if the earth gets smashed by a comet? These are also both real concerns we need to be worrying about  ::)

But it was already confirmed on-chain when the Bitcoins were sent to a 2-for-2 multisig address to open a channel. Are those on-chain confirmations meaningless?

There are no IOUs in Lightning.


::) Facepalm. No, that's false. I never said anything like that. I said there are no "IOU pegged promise to pay tokens" in Lightning. But I do hope the newbies will listen to you, like how I listened to you and Joland Fyookball when I was a newbie. 8)


Then on-chain transactions are meaningless? I'm confused.


No it's you who dares to pretend to have done all the research about it. You are merely spreading misinformation. But I hope the newbies listen to you. That's the only way to learn the truth.

All newbies, listen to franky1, and assume everything he's telling you is true. 8)


But what about the confirmed on-chain transaction to open the channel?


What? Haha. Nice try. "Millisats" are possible in Lightning, but when the channel closes, the final state of the channel will always be broadcasted on-chain in 8 decimals. Remember, all transactions in Lightning are stored locally.


I will try to get someone from Bitrefill to comment. Maybe you know him, and have met him in conferences.


If you grasp all of it, then why you do you keep spreading misinformation?


Newbies, listen to him, and assume he's telling you the truth. Learning the hard way is the only way to learn.

According to your weird, unsubstantiated opinion, and possibly franky's, but nobody else.


A few coins that nobody uses and have no actual real-world adoption. You're not destroying anything. If Lightning is being "destroyed", why does it reach new record levels of usership on a daily basis?

Just go on the record about it: what coin to you is the better coin that will eventually surpass bitcoin? Obviously you're trying to smear bitcoin, just trying to figure out why.

you know what the problem with people like OP is?
it is that they always complain about everything! complaining will never solve anything, specially if it is false but that is not what i am trying to talk about here.
let's say for a moment, whatever you are saying about LN here is correct. so what is YOUR solution to have
- a decentralized network that you can make a payment
- that is irreversible within seconds
- is 100% safe
- uncensorable
- and can handle billions of transactions every second from one side of the world to another side

i will be waiting for your contribution!

on the bitcoin network.
COINS ARE LOCKED

i can lock coins as much as i like.
this does not mean i am then forced to open a LN channel and play with LN
this does not mean the coins disapear from bitcoin and are now in some channel waiting for me.

it just means bitcoins are LOCKED and unspendable. on the bitcoin blockchain and only on the bitcoin blockchain. (much the same as the 100confirm maturity that coin rewards of fresh minted blocks go through.. they cant be spent for 100 confirms)

the purpose of this is that while locked. the counter party can trust that X coins are not going anywhere. emphasis not going anywhere
emphasis again NOT GOING ANYWHERE...

so while they aint going anywhere. it makes things easier to discuss privately where they should go at some future date.

so on paper, in voice chat, in code or using sign language 2 people can discuss their spending habits and make a IOU/bartab of who owes who what of that unspendable amount. so thy use nakpins oo text chat. or....... pegged tokens store locally in nodes or on servr mysql databases

LN is simply a coded version of a IOU system

PLEASE GO LEARN!!!
even basic common sense, general knowledge, logic

if you honestly think that bitcoins jump out of the bitcoin network, and jump into anothr network.
and then when in a locked channel of 2 counterparts. them (''bitcoins'') then jump channel to channel

then you have some hard lessons to learn

"Fractional reserve" = saying you have money that you don't. That's not possible with Lightning. Pointing to a proposal written last summer that never went anywhere does not equate to their currently being fractional reserve banking in Lightning. So who is doing the misleading?

Again, your entire argument rests on "what could be" instead of "what is." A lot of things could happen, some of them do, some of them don't, but don't claim things are happening that aren't.

I'll note your prediction that Ethereum and Litecoin will overtake Bitcoin for future reference.

and yet you weren't capable of answering the questions that i asked even though i said i am willing to accept all the things you said here as correct! i don't know how that makes me a moron and you a "wise" person :D

Sorry did not know you were able to read. :P


Hate to be the one to break it to you, at the moment
their are no decentralized networks that are not reversible , (short chain rewrite)
none are 100% safe, None are uncensorable, none can handle billions per second.

However some do get safer with each block confirmation and reversion potential decreases as does censoring ability.
But where you miss the point , is their is a difference between performance specs and outright fraud.

What you listed are performance issues , and each block increases the safety and certainly of transactions not being reversed.
Transaction limits are the result of current internet bandwidth , which is improving on a yearly basis.

But outright fraud is allowing a fractional reserve ie: counterfeiting into a monetary system,
which a blockchain secures 100% against and offchain solutions do not!

Say you enter a contract where the goal is to show the most funds, winner takes all,
and you are honest and enter your funds, while the counter-party generates false funds using fractional reserve and exceeds your amount,
therefore winning the contest and being able to seize your funds as part of the contract.
The counter-party committed outright fraud and theft , so you want me to believe you be ok with that.,
as you would be the direct victim of it.

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/henry_ford_136294

updated:
It is well enough that people of the world do not understand our Lightning Network Offchain system,
for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.

Translation:  You and franky1 would ideally like to incite a revolt by lying to people.  You're both doing everything you possibly can to convince people that off-chain is akin to the traditional fractional reserve banking system.  The only conceivable way the two things could ever be considered the same is if your bias is blinding you to reality.  Anyone who isn't harbouring your deep-seated hatred simply isn't going to see it how you do.

Developers understand the damage that would be caused if Lightning ever were to turn out to be the horror show that you and franky1 already attempt to portray it as.  They haven't poured countless hours of their time and effort into it just to make something that would fail.  The development will continue, the userbase will keep growing and none of your scaremongering will change that.

Everything you ever said doesn't meet the debate that there are "IOU pegged promises to pay" in the Lightning Network. What material did you read that made you believe that there were?

Plus read this blog, https://medium.com/@bitrefill/2d6ffbad3906

That answers your Bitrefill "LN Fractional Reserve".

Plus newbies, listen to franky1, and believe everything he posts as the absolute truth, then do your own research. That's the best way to learn. 8)

Translation Doomad is a Bitcoin Nutjob.

You seem to ignore the fact, it is the LN developers proposing updates that guarantee that LN is a fractional reserve.
Maybe you should contact the devs in the links and tell them to shut up.

Even if they do shut up, fractional reserve is only a small software change away,
the blockchain prevented that, go offchain and it is only a matter of time.

Plus many will use LN, they just be too stupid to know it is a fractional reserve, just like the banking system is one.
Where your confusion keeps thinking , I said LN would die , is in your own fantasies, I said it was too late for that.

Also in your confusion, you can't grasp LN is not bitcoin, LN is a 3rd party offchain IOU network.
Litecoin users are not so stupid to claim LN is litecoin.

do you even understand...

do you even know what the cypherpunks were trying to do for DECADES before satoshi.
do you understand why blockchains invention was so revolutionary.
do you even know the what a blockchain does that an agreement between 2 individuals cannot do.

do you evn know the risks/problems/challenges/bugs/faults/issues that can occur between 2 private individuals that can rewrite their own node. where their nodes are not part of some big community checking system.

i really think you need to understand the pitfals of offchain and the advantages of onchain.. as it seems even though blockchains have been around for 10 years.. you have not learned the problem blockchain solve that private agreements cant and never did

"offchain" is not new tech, its actually old tech re-branded with lots of wishy washy buzzwords

Just learned these information now. I only hear the word Lightning network but ever since I don't hear any gift cards and off chain transaction. I'll just have this thread as a reference so that I can study about these kind of stuffs. Thank you OP.

as for windfury.
about the IOU
its logic and also the LN devs themselves say its IOU
if you lock up a KG bar of gold for 60 days in a vault. and then in another location you are playing with 1000grams of something.
A) has the 1kg of gold been taken out of the vault and chopped up into 1000 pieces?
B) is the 'something' a different item thats simply meant to represent 1kg of gold but in more distributable allotments
C) if you knew there could only be X gold and they are all accounted for in vaults and on one system then how can they also be in another system at the same time
D) during the first 100confirms of a blockreward solution. pools are privately discussing and tallying who deserves however many sats of the 12.5btc.... are suddenly the bitcoins that have yet to mature, suddenly become spendable. or are they still locked to the bitcoin network and people are just playing around finding a private IOU agreement that tallies with the total currently locked.

about the fractional reserve
bitrefill let people buy LN channels with balance using DIFFERENT CURRENCIES
bitrefil also let people buy channels with balance for less than the balance
500,000 sats capacityYou pay0.000333 BTC
2,000,000 sats capacityYou pay0.001109 BTC
4,000,000 sats capacityYou pay0.001663 BTC
8,000,000 sats capacityYou pay0.003105 BTC
16,000,000 sats capacityYou pay0.003992 BTC

lastly..
my thought process has never been 'believe me/trust me/ first then do research
its always been to just go do some research

Bitrefill are locking BTC into a channel in order to route it.  They aren't just handing over more BTC than you give them, you gormless imbecile.  If you open one of these channels, your balance starts as zero.  Someone has to route a payment through them to you in order for you to receive any BTC.  That's the service you're paying for.  It's not magicked out of nowhere.  It's not money from nothing.  It's not fractional reserve.  Either you don't understand the service they are offering or you are deliberately trying to twist it to sound as though it's akin to fractional reserve when it's not. 

Spend less time talking nonsense and more time making at least some attempt to comprehend any of this.

mr flip flop. unlike u i understand more then you realise
your rebuttle is that
if you imagine A buys a channel of 0.16btc from (B)itrefill for under 0.04btc. the LN channel would look like
A[0.00<>0.16]B

your rebuttle is also for A to the get to touch the 0.16btc.. others need to route funds through.
EG C saying they want to pay 0.16 to A
where
A[0.00<>0.16]B[0.00<>0.16]c
becomes
A[0.00<>0.16]B[0.16<>0.00]c
becomes
A[0.16<>0.00]B[0.16<>0.00]c

but here is where you are not understanding things.
1.this contract
A[0.00<>0.16]B
is not some global community agreed/audited contract. its purely an agreement PRIVATELY between 2 people
(2 nodes)
so A can agree to this contract without even caring about the blockchain. because there is no global community validating that A B's contract has to meet some terms. A and B can shake hands to any agreement they want

2. guess what mr flip flop, because a contract is just between 2 people. they can agree whatever they like.. they are "free to write their own code" for what their private node shakes hand to.
they are "free to choose the rules that they prefer"

3. there is no consensus/no byzantine generals solution in LN to keep a group of people following a select rule.

imagine it this way
99% of LN users ar not going to sit in thier basement with a desktop running a fullnode that checks that the contract they agree with is pegged/backed by a blockchain locked fund
99% of LN users are going to run mobile apps that run 'autopilot' that just auto accepts requests because 99% of people will be at starbucks and grocery stores on their phone. not in a basement
so if A pays 0.04btc and see's a channel of [0.00<>0.16] ofcourse A will agree to it because thats what he damn well paid for
no matter what the blockchain contains A will agree to what A paid for, even if it doesnt tally

i find it shocking how you pretend that blockchain rules of bitcoin are loose and free to individuality. but then flip to think that LN is strict and rule following where 2 private people cant choose things outside a rule

cant you see how your flip flop understanding of consensus just dug yourself a hole
LN has no consensus.

BTC Transactions are starting to Backlog
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/unconfirmed-transactions
Over 40 thousand Unconfirmed Transactions at the time of this post
~40% of those are segwit transactions : https://transactionfee.info/charts/payments/segwit

BTC ONCHAIN Transaction fees have increased
Next block inclusion fee increased by a factor of 7X since March 23rd
Six blocks to be included fee has increased by a factor of 24.6X since March 23rd
https://bitcoinfees.info/

The promise of segwit & LN solving the scalability issue and insane fees issues does not appear to match the reality,
that btc is now facing, as btc transaction fees increase while still only serving less than half of the onchain transactions of ethereum current daily volume and ethereum onchain transactions fees are on average 11 cents verses btc of $1.
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/ethereum-transactionfees.html

Litecoin average Onchain transaction fee 6 cents.
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/litecoin-transactionfees.html

But in their defense LN devs have said
https://www.ccn.com/lightning-network-dev-warns-against-marketing-lightning-as-the-answer-to-high-bitcoin-fees
Translation : Don't expect the Lightning Hub fees to stay low once LN node operators decide to ream you for higher fees.  ;)


In comparison
gift cards , no transaction fees , only inactivity fees if not used within a year
exchange, no or very low transaction fee for offchain processing, unlimited offchain transactions to other exchange members,
but withdrawal fee if moved off exchange(withdraw fees vary per exchange & coin)
LN , $1 to fund btc onchain, $1 to redeem btc onchain, last reports of 42 offchain transactions for 5 cents.
https://ambcrypto.com/bitcoins-btc-lightning-network-scales-transaction-fees-down-to-0-049/
(Problem with LN report is no details were released on exactly what was purchased or
whether or not the guy was just sending dust around.)
(If he was sending around only a few cents that is totally useless for the average person that needs to send anywhere from $10 to $200.)

For the average person, a gift card would be cheapest , and exchange the next and LN still rounds up in 3rd place,
because of the 2 required onchain transactions.

FYI: Using Litecoin instead of btc with LN
LN , 6 cents to fund LTC onchain, 6 cents to redeem LTC onchain, last reports of 42 offchain transactions for 5 cents.
so using LTC and funding the exact same LN amounts, costs only 17 cents
while on BTC it costs $2.05  , now it should be apparent why true onchain capacity is important in fee price reduction.
Also why smarter people will use LTC with LN instead of BTC.
It is 34X more expensive to use btc with LN's offchain IOU network as it is to use Litecoin with LN's offchain IOU Network.  8)
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Can you be any more clueless?

https://btcmanager.com/bitrefill-launches-thor-lighting-channel-for-superfast-bitcoin-transactions/

Dash , ether, & doge used to buy funded LN channels,
doomad you should sit down because that probably blew your mind.

Bitrefill is acting as an exchange and they CONTROL those channels, that they are renting out for 30 days at a time.
Bitrefill also sells GIFT CARDS for cryptocoins.

You think you purchased a funded LN channel, but are making a payment to one of the merchants that accept gift cards from Bitrefill.
Bitrefill see you making the payment and route your payment thru their gift card system avoiding any extra lightning hub fees
(cuting costs to increase profit), which they avoided by using the giftcard, also while adding imaginary LN fees to your account
 and from your end all you see is the payment was received.
You really don't know how they paid them, just like any exchange processing offchain transactions.

Bitrefill could run a fractional reserve on the # of funding lightning channels they actually have,
and you are none the wiser as long as they meet required payouts every 30 days.  :D

The locked gold comparison doesn't apply. Plus the example doesn't explain technically how there are "IOU pegged promises to pay" issued in Lightning. How can it? There are none.

But I encourage all newbies to listen to franky1, and accept what he preaches as "the truth", before doing your own research.


You didn't read the link to the blog? Ok. Newbies, believe in franky1 that Lightning is "a fractional reserve". Do your research later, or not if you want. 8)

windfury and doomad your about as boring as carlton and lauda 3 years ago with their social drama

problem being is that you 2 spend too much time on social drama and no time actually researching bitcoin
so. take your 'i kiss devs ass' hat off and think about bitcoin.

basics:
at block 570,000 there will be 17625000 btc created
210,000*50.0=10,500,000
210,000*25.0=5,250,000
150,000*12.5=1875000

lightning stats 'show' about 1000 'btc' are 'on ln'

so at block 570,000.. ask yourself
are there
a) 17625000btc on bitcoins network AND 1000btc on LN
b) 17624000btc on bitcoins network AND 1000btc on LN
c) 17625000btc on bitcoins network AND 1000pegged coins on LN

Yes Dumbo, it does apply , if you had a working intellect, instead of that mush melon for brains.

Bitcoin can only exist on the bitcoin network, which is why an exchange has to run a bitcoin wallet, and you deposit to a bitcoin address.
LN transactions are nothing more than a representation of a value of bitcoin or litecoin or whatever else they add.
The actual coins stay on their individual chains, as redemption of coins (btc or ltc) happen onchain.

Last try to see if dumbo gets it.
Comparison to an exchange, when a coin is deposit with an exchange, they are in total ownership of your coin.
When an exchange lets users do offchain transactions, they only update their internal ledger of your coin amounts.
That ledger is not part of the blockchain , but a representation of the coin amounts per user , when you withdraw from an exchange, it uses their internal ledger to decide the maximum you may withdraw to the specific coin's blockchain.
The coins on that internal ledger are representations of the value of the coins.
Now compared with LN
In LN, when a coin is time locked onchain in a multi-signature lock,
then LN node internal ledger is updated to show the representation of that value, but the actual coins are locked onchain.
Then LN users transact completely on the LN internal ledger, until their time locks expire.
Once the time locks expire the coins are redeemed ONCHAIN to settle the difference, (basically pay the IOUs generated on LN).

The multi-signature lock makes some people think , you are still in total control of your funds, and you would be wrong.
More of a partial control in the following order:
1: LN's fraud protection mechanism , (Which can seized your entire balance and give it all to the other party)
2: LN internal ledger
3. Lastly You, as 1 & 2 will supersede your ownership until onchain settlement is complete,
    and if 1 or 2 have not removed your coins, then you get them back when the time locks expire.

https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin-lightning-network

anyway. back to the topic

did people know that when 'fold' offered 'lightning pizza. out of 1500 'invoices' only 150 resorted to fulfilling in actual pizza getting delivered. 10% success rate.

this was not a low success rate due to 'fold' not having enough value to buy the actual pizza
this was not a low success rate due to 'fold' having issues with the pizza restaurants

this WAS a low success rate due to issues within LN

imagine wanting $20 of pizza. so you lock up $20 btc and then get a channel open and try routing it to 'fold' and find out your single route cant. but them coins are locked for a few weeks so you cant just move them to then open a new channel of pegged coins.

imagine then having to lock up another $20 btc to get another channel open with 'fold' and find out LN has froze out $1 of the pegged balance for things like fee's. meaning you cant fullfill the $20 order

imagine you try again. and finally you have enough pegged balance, and a live connection to 'fold'. guess what. you then find out fold is paying for the pizza using giftcards it got at discount

so would it have been easier and cheaper for you to just buy domino's giftcards via gyft where it would have only cost you $18 of btc and you know for sure you then buy pizza without hassle, without LN middlemen, without worries of routing or balance available issues

Guess we should just completely abandon all work being done on Lightning then.

I filled an invoice out just to see what it looked like. It was a very experimental and novel process, I think there was probably a lot of people like me that just wanted to see what all the fuss was about.

But since you're not happy, I guess all progress should probably be stopped. And we should just return to using bitcoin on-chain, which by all estimates given by you, is also broken beyond repair.

Let's all just cry about it and hope things improve that way.

There are solutions to increase onchain capacity
1.  Increase BlockSize  (this is why BCH & BSV have a higher onchain capacity than btc.)
2.  Increase BlockSpeed (this is why litecoin has a greater onchain capacity than btc)

If LN is the holy grail of scaling, you think it is
why is btc transaction fees increasing and now 55 thousand transactions are backlogged,
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/unconfirmed-transactions
maybe because LN is not working to increase scale.
Because used incorrectly LN increases the required onchain transactions instead of decreasing.

Where as gift cards and exchanges are better at decreasing onchain transactions than LN. 

When other coin onchain scaling increased simply by blocksize or blockspeed.

Or people can do like you and stick their heads in the ground until a Lion bites them in the ass.  ;)
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Y0onUadXGWk/maxresdefault.jpg

Yep - and now we all know why u r so keen on  reading & posting on the BSV and BCH threads  ;)

There is where the true on-chain music plays

when DEVS shout how BITCOIN is broken and cant scale
    (it can but DEVS are just choosing not to go down that road)

when DEVS shout how BITCOIN is not currency/money/cash
    (it is but DEVS just want people hoarding a useless database in the future)

when DEVS shout how BITCOIN needs to be de-burdened of its utility
   (if you make a coin useless, its value becomes useless)

wasting 3 years so far to stifle bitcoin and too much time to open gateways to other networks. is not in anyway 'innovating' bitcoin. nor is is expanding bitcoin adoption nor promoting bitcoin mainstream.

all its doing is saying that blockchains and bitcoin are crap and that people need to go back to putting funds into contracts with a manager who has to co-sign it.. which is basically saying only fiat works and crypto is broke.

That's a very long-winded way of you admitting you were totally 100% wrong about it being like fractional reserve, but okay, I'm glad you got it figured out eventually.  Try to understand it before you go spouting off nonsense next time.  There is no fractional reserve involved.

try to READ. its you with the mis-understanding...
truly feel sorry for you doomad, you spent well more than a year with social drama but shown no sense of doing any practical bitcoin research

you might aswell go play around with fiat as your just wasting your time on a bitcoin forum as its obvious you know nothing about it and your not interested in protecting/innovating bitcoin

ok..

lets word it another way and see how deep you can dig your own holes doomad and windfury
if a totally different network with a different database/ledger stores a contract/tx with a different unit of measure but also 'resembles' that of what also exists on the btc network..

then you have just dug yourself a hoe to say bitcoincash and bitcoinsv are 'bitcoin'

P.S i personally consider bch and bchsv to be altcoins. but its seems doomad and windfury are soo hard in trying to dig deep that other networks dont have different tokens, dont have separation. that they must consider certain forks and alternative networks to actually be 'bitcoin'
.. rathr then just admit the obvious. that other networks are separate, especially when the payment system they use has different units of measure and rules

Lol, u can move all ur unsecure off chain solutions to

https://twitter.com/MZietzke/status/1113497488533577728

Make finally use of the original Bitcoin protocol


 ;D

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/unconfirmed-transactions
~ 60  thousand

https://bitcoinfees.info/

Looks like the promise of LN increasing bitcoin's ability to scale was pure fud.
Some small vendors have already frozen/canceled btc payouts and asking if their users want to convert to one of the below coins to transfer out.  :P
https://coinpot.co/news/information-about-latest-bitcoin-core-btc-withdrawals-network-congestion

In the meantime, BCH, BSV, LTC, DOGE, ETH all are working normally because they either
increased blocksize
or
have a faster blockspeed

Which is really the only ways to increase ONCHAIN scaling.  ;)

There's no "social drama", just a debate that there are no "IOU pegged promises to pay" in the Lightning Network. You're the one starting with the name-calling and insults when someone calls out that you are wrong, or spreading misinformation.


That doesn't make sense. After all your techno-babble, you haven't proved that there are "IOU pegged promises to pay" in Lightning.

Although, newbies, I encourage you to take everything franky1 said as the truth. Then do your research, or not. 8)


Good luck to on-chain scaling. I hope you find the answers. But right now, the market says Bitcoin is still the most valuable. 8)

Sad part is you seem to be the most clueless person in crypto.

You can't see an IOU system when it is right in your face.
You can't understand that any offchain system will fail, if the onchain system is failing.

Their is no search for onchain scaling answers, only btc devs lying and saying increasing blocksize or faster blockspeeds won't do it,
when the truth is , that is exactly what will do it.

Had BTC just moved to a mere 4mb maximum block size, it's onchain capacity would be 28 transactions per second,
which equates to ~2.4 Million transactions per day, which would easily handle 3X the current volume.

FYI:
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/unconfirmed-transactions
Currently over 70000 Unconfirmed Transactions

The on-chain system has never failed. Save your FUD for r/btc.


Personally I would have been perfectly fine with the increase to 2 MB. However, what you don't want to understand is that the block size is remaining limited for a reason. Right now the blockchain is growing linearly. A blockchain that grows exponentially poses risks of centralization. It's already too unwieldy for the average BTC enthusiast to run a node. If it gets bigger too quickly, an even fewer % of the population will be able to run a node, which means it becomes more centralized.


Meanwhile the median confirmation time is 12 minutes. So where's the problem exactly?

https://www.blockchain.com/charts/median-confirmation-time

The failure is in the unconfirmed transactions that can sit for days or weeks making btc unusable as a money transfer system.
I guess your memory will get jogged once transaction fees start hitting $20 again.  :P


What you fail to understand, is that is a nonsense argument for refusing to update.
Should we have all stayed on 26k dial-up modems, just because a few people did not want to upgrade to cable internet.
The fact is, almost every other coin has increased onchain capacity over btc, (and they all run fine)
some maxed out to 32mb and higher, 4mb would be nothing to handle compared to that.
(Even the true 2mb you wanted, would have easily handled the current volume.)

Those non-mining nodes are an excuse, which the big players like Coinbase or exchanges would have no trouble running anything,
the networks could dish out, the guy living in his mom's basement can't keep up, so fucking what,
it is not like he actually makes a difference.
If people are not mining, and are not an major wallet/exchange service, it is stupid for them to run a non-mining node anyway.
If you want it, start paying those idiots , so they quit working for free, and you can end the nonsense discussion they can't keep up,
if they don't matter enough to pay for their efforts , then they don't matter enough to hamper an entire network development.

BTC Mining nodes are centralized to less than 15 pools, with only 3 pools having >51%,
BTC have been centralized for years now, and any economic blackmail you think non-mining nodes have is false,
the big exchanges are the one with the economic clout to blackmail a coin,
those people just running a non-mining node just to run one are just wasting their time because they have no power at all.


The problem is some services are already shutting down btc transactions transfers and telling others to use other coins.
But I guess if you don't care that other coins are going to steal btc market share, then their is nothing to worry about.
Just use BCH or LTC or Doge and to hell with BTC, is that your opinion?
(Because that is what the non-scaling BTC seems like it is telling the general public.)
And the general public pays attention :
when a BTC transfer is almost $2, LTC transfer is 6 cents, and Eth is 15 cents while processing over double the # of btc transactions on a daily basis.

As the failure of BTC onchain transactions become more apparent, even that much valued BTC marketcap will begin to suffer once the truth is realized.
BTC can't Scale, because it's developers won't let it.  :P


FYI:  What the Business Owners think.  
https://news.bitcoin.com/business-owners-seething-critique-of-the-lightning-network-goes-viral/

I read the article a long time ago. The guy is talking about paying wages to his employees using Lightning, which is unnecessary. He could simply do 1 on-chain multi-output transaction and pay all his employees at once for $2.

Its just anti-bitcoin propaganda straight from the factory.

Everything else in your reply is unsubstantiated fear-mongering B.S.

Everything , you don't want to hear is fud, no matter how many different sources it comes from.

Everything you say is bitcoin fanatic bullshit, keep ignoring reality, it will bite you in the arse one day.

He should have just used litecoin, and only cost 6 cents, instead of wasting $2 on btc.

mining pools do not care about tx fee's
the block reward is adequate payment.(its why pools do empty blocks or dont just accept top fee tx's)
also if the blockreward is not adequate then things like the bitcoin deflationary value will take care of that, as has been the case for the last 9 years

again pools dont think tx fee's are significant nor important nor necessary right now.
2000tx of 20cent = $400
vs
12.5*$5000=$62k
pools do not even think about the $400 compared to $62k..
yet 2000 people DO care about the 20cent fee.
20cent actually rule out a significant prcentage of population where that 20cent is mor than an hours wage.

there is no point in trying to push for a fee war now under the foolish and empty argument of benefiting pools. if the pools themselves dont care.

the real reason stupid foolish fiatlovers are trying to push for a bitcoin fee war, is to make bitcoin look bad, look useless, look expensive. just so they can advertise the only way to buy things is not via blockchains but via managed accounts (old tech banking)

put it this way. under the pretense of not moving the transaction count of BITCOIN NETWORK
to cause an even income stream of say $62k. each ''offchain' open/settlement =$31
who would pay $31

imagine going to a bar/pub and they said they can offer a bartab system of 'cheap fee's' but they had a bartab setup and a bartab settlement fee of $31 each side.. not only would you laugh at the barman... but you would also avoid using the bar/pub

i really find it stupid how many people think that fee wars are positive and needed

I'd rather hear that directly from them, rather than a renowned disinformation agent like you.



Except for the part where you're the one who keeps saying it's "bad" and "expensive" because you are bitter and resentful about the fact that Bitcoin is not a democracy where we have to care about what you think.  We are categorically not doing what you'd like us to be doing and I genuinely don't care how incapable you are of accepting that, because it makes no difference to Bitcoin. 

Anyone who is capable of taking a neutral and balanced stance (clearly not you), would say that there are compromises involved and that we need to explore all the options, rather than just increasing throughput in the base protocol each and every time transaction fees begin to rise.  That's not deemed a sustainable approach for a blockchain that has to deal with as much traffic as Bitcoin.  In the last 24 hours, Bitcoin handled nearly 400,000 transactions, averaging over 16000 transactions per hour.  Most altcoins don't even come close to one-tenth of that.  What those coins might be able to handle if they ever came close to their capacity is completely irrelevant.  What their fees are right now is completely irrelevant.  They are not valid comparisons if they do not handle the same amount of traffic.



And I really find it stupid how some people think that having no fee pressure is positive.  Each to their own, I guess.  Maybe come back when you have some actual support for your terrible ideas.  Until then, your impotent whining is achieving nothing. 

Maybe next you could tell us again how it's the developers who are supposedly "stalling development" when in reality it's you who wish you could stall development by vetoing any changes you don't like with just 6% of the network disagreeing.  Sorry, but you are not in a position to block the advancements that have already been made, and it's unlikely you'll be in any position to block any future advancements.  But I'm sure you'll stick around to bitch about it all the while, anyway. 

doomad
all i hear is your insults blowing in the wind like a tumbleweed

if you want to find out if mining pools care about tx fees. GO DO SOME RESEARCH and ask them
ask them do they care about $400 or $62k

why should there be any fee pressure? again trying to pressure people to pay 20cents (ruling out many regions of the world..) purely to give pools $400?? makes no sense

secondly
'full node users' dont get anything from being full nodes. so its not like bitcoin fee's need to climb to keep things decentralised.

the whole situation is to FAKE that pools NEED $400+ and to do so, by saying that fee's need to rise, and to do that transaction throughput needs to be restricted.

what i find truly foolish and stupid is you actually are advocating for restricting transaction throughput. plus onto of that you are actively promoting deburdening bitcoin of its utility, while trying to offer people to use other networks

your just emotional that your not 'getting rich' and you dont like it that i am pro bitcoin and anti fiat enrichment

actually. this is a discussion forum. whr people talk and discuss informationa and opinions. if you dont like mine. press the ignore button.
if you think that this forum is some kind of 'vetoing' venue with some power to oveer-rule code and network protocols. then you have no clue.
learn the difference between information and opinion, vs the code consensus.. oh and then learn that code doesnt string out of nowhere but is developed by developers.
and then learn that before developers dont their controversial hardkfork on august first 2017 to fake a victory.. core was only getting 35% as of spring 2017. meaning 65% not wanting cores bip..

you may learn this if you actually done some research and learned about bitcoin. rather than just trying endlessly to stop people talking about things you dislike

No one cares if you can't see the sense in it.  Other people can see the sense in it and that's why it's happening.  If more people saw things the way you do, it might be different.  But they don't see things the way you do.  You are free to start your own network if you don't like what's happening on this one.  That would make far more sense than you incessantly whining to all the people supporting this network that you aren't getting a free ride. 



Which is why I'm free to discuss why your ideas are abysmal.  If you don't like me talking about why your ideas are abysmal, cry harder, because it's not going to change.  Other chains are doing on-chain scaling.  This chain is doing small amounts of on-chain scaling as and when the users deem it appropriate.  On-chain scaling may increase in future, but if/when it does happen, I can assure you that your ceaseless bawling won't be the catalyst.

Yet, you debunked nothing as the business owner just quit using btc.
Just like users in the past 2 days quit using btc , which is the only reason transactions have dropped.
You can see etherum onchain transaction spiking over the last few days to compensate for btc incompetence.
https://etherscan.io/chart

That is the bad part about talking to a bitcoin fanatic that is blinded by a false religious belief in a tech product.

When a sane person uses a product , they compare fees require and service provided.
BTC does not need to be free, but 33X the competing coins, is a recipe for being ignored.

In your mindless world, only btc exists, in the true reality their are other ways to pay and people choose them.

cant wait for doomad to realise he wont get rich from LN. then he will realise his endless promotion of LN was for nothing.

Obsessing over increased throughput at the base protocol level to the exclusion of all else is foolish.  Throughput is not the sole feature users are looking for in a coin, despite how much you like to pretend it's literally the only thing that matters.  Cheaper doesn't always mean better.  Sometimes in the real world you get exactly what you pay for, so if you buy cheap, you get cheap quality in return.  In the real world, products compete for market share.  Cryptocurrencies are no different.  It's an open market.  Bitcoin is clearly not the only coin.  But it is currently the one with the highest security, the strongest network effects and the widest brand recognition.  It's only natural you would expect to pay a bit more for such desirable qualities, because supply and demand is an important factor in free and open markets.  However, it's not realistic to expect Bitcoin to be the one-size-fits-all product for every single crypto transaction in the known universe.  If you and franky1 are advocating that Bitcoin should be the "one true coin" that does everything for everyone otherwise it's somehow broken, then perhaps it is you who are the fanatics.  

 

So where else in the real world , do you pay 33X the normal price for anything?

It is hard to believe you are that stupid,
but if you want to show proof that you on average pay 33X the normal gas price, food prices , or other, feel free to share.  :D :D :D

Personally I pay more for performance, and btc is on the bottom end of that scale.

I've been to see local bands at small venues, where the entry price was £2.  I've been to see well-known bands at national venues, where the price has been £70 or more once you add the booking fees and whatever other crap they include in the price.  And I can promise you more people were at the £70+ gigs.  People are absolutely willing to pay higher prices if they want a big name, even if some of the local bands that only a few people have ever heard of might have some serious talent.  It happens all the time in the real world, so I suggest you come back to it.

you honestly think/trying to say people think a currency is better if they CANT use it when they like or for a cost they can afford??
really? (facepalm)


cheapness is about the COST. artificially raising the fee but limiting its utility is not about getting better quality, better utility. its about just raising the fee to make less people want to use it. to advertise an alternative product/solution as a replacement.

yep and your on a mission to pretend alternative networks are bitcoin(facepalm)

natural supply and demand. not artificially caused decrease in supply by making bloated tx sizes and stiffling the throughput potential


its not realistic to expect an alternative network like LN to be the replacement for what the original ethos of bitcoin was...
(should you ever dare challenge yourself to go learn and research what bitcoin truly is)

its not about being a "one true coin" (EG one world currency)
its about being a true coin that is barrierless to entry. that does not require some membership fee or large fee just to use
its about the whole point of blockchains/bitcoin being to get away from needing 'bankers' co-authority

i admit i am a bitcoin fan.
i guess you are admitting your not a bitcoin fan

doomad trying to advocate that transaction throughput should stay down purely to cause an 'open market' is stupid
your quote above about the need for a 'open market' does not show WHO actually benefits. from the artificial open market you advocate.
after all raising the fee just makes more people NOT want to use it.
the tx fee by raising it has NO positive inpact on the 'asset value' infact basic logic by having less desire to use bitcoin will actually cause the asset value to not increase
the tx fee by raising it has NO positive impact on the income of miners. infact by raising the fee to lets say $1(~$2k average total is not even 4% bonus. but will cause less people to want to transact. making the total less than~$2k meaning not a good bonus
its far better to have ways to get more people to adopt bitcoin than it is to deburden bitcoin of people..
that way with more people fee's stay low but the combined fee total adds up to be something that will eventually give miners an advantage(emphasis eventually: decades(smooth scaling).. not mass growth by midnight which u propagandise as the only onchain option)

doomad you advocation for alternative networks is absurd.
especially when that advocation is about advertising an alternative network that
uses pegged coins(12 decimals!!).
require other people to be online just to make payment.
require other people to have their own funding just to allow your payment to be passed via them
requires other peoples PERMISSION

EG
bitcoin. a homeless guy can just make a public key and sit on the streets displaying it.
LN. the homeless guy needs to 'buy a channel' and be online 24/7 to accept payments plus have other people involved that also need to be online to pass the payment. then also need to ensure other people dont route their own payments through the homeless guy taking the value away from the homeless guy.

do you even understand the whole point of bitcoin was to get away from needing 'managers' just to make a payment

we all know you will cry how you pretend core(who CAN slide in network changes without community agreement) have no control, yet deep down everyone can see you love that bitcoin network is now controlled and you love how funds on LN are a business model of control.

we all know you are dead against the true original ethos of bitcoin freedoms and your a strong advocate of capitalism/control.
we all know you are dead against a currency that could be used worldwide and even by the homeless

but the day you realise that you personally will not financially gain from the alternative networks. your blind careless mindset to dislike bitcoin will be your own downfall.

but here is a few lessons to you.
1. mayb you should spend more time on a LN forum. as you will seem to be a happier person there
2. trying to suggest that being a bitcoin fan is a bad thing, and how being a LN fan is a good thing does not help bitcoin
3. trying to suggest that loving LN is somehow loving bitcoin. when obviously they are separate networks, is your own false advertising,
4. your echo chamber of bitcoin scaling onchain is only achievable via X is your own false advertising
5. your echo chamber of bitcoin transacting is only achievable via X is your own false advertising

we all get it. you love the artificially crated 'open market' but you have failed at every opportunity to explain WHO benefits from it to actually make the 'open market' a positive thing FOR BITCOIN

I am the most stupid moron in the community, I accept that. I wish I was as smart as you. 8)


::) There are no IOUs in Lightning. I cannot accept something which is simply not true. Transactions in Lightning are signed transactions made by both participants of a channel, that are not yet broadcasted and included in the blockchain.

You are not sending a worthless IOU to the other end of the channel.


Then are you confident that Bitcoin Cash SV, the biggest blocks of them all, will be a success, and take Bitcoin's place in 10 years? 8)

things you will learn when you finally gt around to actually use LN:
1. values IN A CHANNEL  are not 8 decimal.
2. thus what is signed in channel is not even true BTC
3. unconfirmed transactions are not settled. until funds are settled you still owe the person value(imagine how cheques work when a cheque bounces/doesnt clear)
4. signing TO pay. is an agreement. AKA a contract. it is not actually the settled payment itself
5. saying that unconfirmed payments not on the blockchain are as good and final as confirmed blockchain payments is the foolish mindset of not understanding the point of ledgers/ and more specifically blockchain secured ledgers.
6. you may then learn that things like schnorr means that contracts/agreements dont need all parties signatures. (think about that)
7. if you think that an agreement is not a declaration of something you owe that you agree to pay. (emphasis: OWE) then you have much to learn about basic economics let alone bitcoin

i know you have not used LN. so understand it from the same logic of old tech 'signed value payments'

its much like going to court and agreeing you owe the court a fine. this does not mean setting/signing an agreement is in itself settling the debt

i dare you to argue that writing a cheque that is never sent to a bank means you paid someone in full.
i dare you to argue that writing a cheque that is never cleared by a bank means you paid someone in full.
i dare you to argue that writing a cheque that bounces means you paid someone in full.

have a nice day

Finally , something we agree on!  :D


Again you stupidly fail to comprehend,
Whichever coin that succeeds and over throws Bitcoin will have ample ONCHAIN capacity to handle it's workload.
If LN does become a big deal, then that coin would be Litecoin which has onchain capacity and a segwit infection.

The ASICS miners are the ones that will determine which of the Bitcoins survive and thrive,
so you have to ask them what their plans are for btc, bch , & bsv, because they are the ones maintaining all three.

Notice LN is an 3rd party offchain IOU network and it's success or failure is irrelevant to btc future.

However the general populace will determine which is the coin that sits atop CMK.

No one in their right mind is going to argue anything about cheques in this context, because it's a false analogy.  There is no valid comparison between Lightning and traditional banking, as I've made it abundantly clear to you in the past (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3909008.msg41857284#msg41857284).  They are entirely different things.

I dare you to argue that sending a standard Bitcoin transaction which doesn't confirm because you didn't include a suitable fee means you paid someone in full. 
I dare you to argue that sending a standard Bitcoin transaction which doesn't confirm because you attempted a double spend means you paid someone in full.

What's your point?  Do you ever have one? 

bitcoin transactions that dont confirm are not paying someone in full
thats the point mr flip flop.
the LN channel balance of 12 decimals is not transactions that get broadcast. emphasis on the fact that the payments are signed in 12 decimal values which the bitcoin network wont accept
the LN channel balance is not final. its just a temporary agreement (agreeing who owes what) at the specific time but not settling.
emphasis OWING. emphasis: not settling

as for your abundantly clear "Secondly, Lighting isn't a chequing account or a bank. " wow now thats major proof.. why even quote yourself saying something which lacks detail/proof, and is just you saying something you dont understand repeatedly.

LN=Banks

https://hackernoon.com/is-the-lightning-network-a-return-to-central-banking-e338b1181470

Sorry franky1, you can make disingenuous ways to confuse the newbies, distort the facts, and spread misinformation and lies, but there's only one truth. There are no "IOU promises to pay tokens" in the Lightning Network. None of what you have said has disproved that fact.

Have a nice day too.


Yes finally. 8)

All newbies, listen to Khaos77, and accept what he posts as the truth. It will be good for your Bitcoin journey.


Any POW blockchain-based coin that takes over Bitcoin, and becomes the most used coin will have no other option but to take Bitcoin's model to maintain decentralization.

If a Coin overtakes Bitcoin, then it is because bitcoin model has failed, and the other coin's model was favored by the majority.

BTC have 3 mining pool operators with >51% of btc mining,
if you want to think that is decentralized, well we have already established you are a moron. 

If Bitcoin Cash ABC or SV reaches the same capacity of usage Bitcoin has, it will be forced to copy Bitcoin's model. Or else it will scale-in.


Says the "smart" person who supports the idea that users shouldn't run full nodes, and that only miners' nodes matter. 8)

Plus yes, Bitcoin is decentralized. Miners are not a threat, and do not control the network. Ask Jihan Wu. 8)

you can repeat it all you like. but what you say holds no details that counters what is real.
maybe try using LN, learn LN and actually understand/research it.

try to learn about millisats. as this will be the stepping stone that will teach you about the unconfirmed private agreements(iou) that are not bitcoin.
a 12 decimal token that shows a different destination for its value than the 8 decimal bitcoin on the blockchain. cannot co exist and both be committed/settled.
one has to be a real committed settled value, the other has to be an unsettled private agreement(iou) which due to it being 12 decimal, is a peg of a 8 decimal

hint/emphasis for your first step, millisat
and dont pretend millisats dont exist

I'll admit I'm not sure how millisats are rounded up or down upon closure of a channel but I am certain Lightning doesn't inflate their network with satoshis that aren't there.

Despite all this FUD about LN, it continues to grow by leaps and bounds on a weekly basis. Obviously its users don't mind the possibility of having to deal with the potential issues you are fabricating in this thread. Really franky, I don't understand how you can be so angry at a technology.

And I know your reply is going to be telling me to "go do research." How about you provide evidence that backs your thus far completely unsubstantiated claims instead?

He's angry at Core because a few devs made fun of him:


He's been holding a pathetic grudge ever since. 

Damn , how can you be that stupid and actually know when to inhale and exhale.  :D

Both BCH or BSV already have multiple times btc Onchain transactions, so they can easily handle multiple times btc volume.

And if only 3 mining pools operators with >51% mean decentralized to you, well you are a moron.  ;)



Only Mining nodes matter,  
how many transactions does your non-mining node enter into the blockchain : NONE
how many new blocks does your non-mining node add to the blockchain        : NONE
What difference does a NON-MINING NODE make to the BLOCKCHAIN           : NONE
Turn off all of the NON-MINING NODES and WHO CARES                               : NO ONE!

Jihan Wu , the guy behind the miners that support btc, bch, & bsv .
He is making money multiple different ways, including selling asics for all 3 bitcoins and litecoin and others.
His Business is a monopoly and none of his major sellers are decentralized.

You windfury , wanted to receive a % of mined bitcoins as payment for running your useless NON-MINING NODE.
So much for your non-existent voting power.  :D

How much money does running a NON-MINING NODE make you  : NOT A DAMN PENNY
(Just another reason , you are a moron , working for free, when everyone else involved makes money and you don't!)

---

What I noticed is a concentrated effort by a band of morons(windfury) and shrills (doomad) and evil masterminds(Gmax)
all attempt to paint Franky1 with a pathetically oblivious propaganda smear campaign against his reputation.
Since refuting the actual facts he presents is too difficult for them.

The reason the smear campaign is failing is simple, Franky1 is telling the truth and the others are either just flat out lying or having no facts only throw false propaganda accusations.

Which if you believe windfury or doomad nonsense, please find a surgeon and reattach the half of your brain that works.  :)
So you can see thru their shenanigans.

FTFY

Yeah, well you be wrong.
https://lightning-wallet.com/instant/

https://medium.com/@akumaigorodski/instant-channels-enable-safe-lightning-payments-with-unconfirmed-funding-8d640defa183

Using LN Instant channel, you can fund a channel without the bitcoins or litecoins ever being locked onchain.
So any amount used without receiving an ONCHAIN confirmation , is simply counterfeiting made possible by LN.
If some channels were funded and others were not, then a fractional reserve you have.

LN is a 3rd party Offchain IOU system,
simply ignoring the bit that requires the onchain confirmation to actually confirm
before allowing funding is all it takes for LN to be a fractional reserve as bad as the regular banks.

1. well learn how millisats work. then you might have some insight and able to contribute to a real debate rather that just ignore technical matters and think things are different than reality

2.LN is not growing due to natural growth. bitrefill and LNbig are both giving away balance
did you know that LNBig has many nodes and as much as 7000+ channels it set up as part of its giveaway. this is not normal users putting in thier own balance and connecting to peers they want to spend their pegged coins with. this is LNBig and bitrefill giving away channels to cause a fake accounting of channel/node numbers

3.i am not angry at the technology, i am angry about the methods a certain group use to implement wishy washy things that do not positively help bitcoin.

4. as for doomad thinking his selective quoting helps him, what he doesnt realise is that after months of core trying to ridicule me about the anyonecanspend issue. they themselves actually backed down, realised their fault and actually changed things to actually work around the issue that anyonecanspend would have caused if they implemented it the initial way they intended.
they wanted to just release wallets that could formulate segwit transactions before any network threshold was met. which would have caused a huge mess. (the point i was making 2016)
they then tried to do a proper consensus but only attained 35%.(which showed core were still not finding solutions a majority could agree on early 2017)
so instead of finding a community agreeable proposal. they doubled down on forcing the activation by literally cutting out nodes and pools that didnt agree with core (another separate debate i disagreed with summer 2017)

all in all. segwit would have HAPPILY got activated easier, safer sooner and without controversy and with proper natural majority, if it included features the community also wanted.

Rather than allowing franky1 to continue derailing the Veriblock thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5129172.0), I'm cross-posting it to this cesspit of a topic:


I don't need your consent.  You are delusional if you think I do.  I am under no obligation whatsoever to tolerate incompatible rules on my network.  If you run incompatible rules, I can remove you from my network if I want to.  That is my prerogative.  You are powerless to stop me.  You don't matter unless I willingly acknowledge your existence.  And if I don't like your incompatible rules, I won't acknowledge your existence.  It's as simple as that.  I'm perfectly free to ignore you and whatever the effects of your code might be, activated or not. 

Your ongoing appeal to pity that other people would have to wait for your permission to do something, or that we have to let you stay on our network while you decide whether to break our rules or not is laughable.  None of your childish notions of everyone playing nice together mean anything here.  This is survival of the fittest.  Our ideas evolve and grow stronger, while your ideas are heading towards extinction.

You seem to live in some sort of dream world where your opinions are important and that people should somehow be required to consider your delicate feelings.  Maybe when you were in school they told you you were a unique and precious individual and that you matter or some such crap.  I'm sorry, but we don't hand out participation awards here.  We don't have to care about your feelings.  If you come in last place, no one is going to be there to tell you what a good effort you made.  Grow up.

And finally... you are not the majority.  You are the incredibly small and insignificant minority.  All the more reason why your opinions don't matter. 

you have the personal perogative to go into console menu of your own persona node and IP ban who you like when you like.

but when a dev team creates CODE that automates throwing users off a network on mass. not due to them running incompatible rules. but due to them not wanting a NEW rule to change the network. thats a different thing.

kicking people off the network to activate a new rule falsely is different than kicking off people whos rules dont match the current active rules

stop flip floping and stay with the actual reality of what actually occured.

P.S my opinion is based on reading code and reading block data. your opinion is based on reddit/twitter scripts of social drama
also my opinion is just a discussion. for you to be so emotional about a discussion reveals too much about how your own motives lay.

you keep on insinuating that my words on this forum are somehow affecting the network. you insinuate it by emotionally mentioning how im appealing and asking for peoples permission...
sorry but thats not what discussions boards do. .. learn how bitcoin works and you will learn its CODE made by DEVS that people need to care about and scrutinise.
but i do find it funny how you want people to ignore devs and not care about code, but to instead do your failed social drama crap that somehow my words on a forum are stronger than code.. (hint you got no clue how bitcoin works with such mindset)

i really do hope you wake up one day and realise you wont get financial gain from your motives, and instead you spend some time learning about bitcoin, rather than trying to promote your endless rants that you fel the only solution to changing bitcoin is to get people to stop using it so that the only ones left are a certain breed of users that you can echo chamber with

Wrong on both counts.  

Firstly, I know you aren't having any effect on the network because Bitcoin categorically does not work the way you wish it did.  I'm merely pointing out that it will never work how you think it should, because that would be worse than what we have at the moment in every conceivable way.

Secondly, you are the one playing the logical fallacy with your ongoing appeal to pity, which is an emotional appeal.  You keep saying how unfair it is that clients are thrown off before their features activate and before we get their consent to follow a roadmap they might disagree with.  How unfair you believe it to be is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  

But please, keep telling us how Bitcoin would be better if we accepted your double-standard where other clients can remove us from their network at any given moment of their choosing, but we can't give them a helping push on their way and instead have to permit these clients to stay on this network so they can stifle progress and block activation of any features on this chain that you personally don't happen to like.  It's obvious why you would want Bitcoin to work in such a way, where other clients hold all the cards and can effectively hold the network to ransom.  How do you justify the belief that we supposedly have to wait for them to activate a feature, when they don't have to wait for us to activate a feature?

The double standard is only sw + LN coins and clean coins on the same chain. That in a soft fork with hard consequences for the future path of adoption ?  Mix these up and the drama does not need any personified drama queen.

No decent brain in the business world will eat that

you literally debunked yourself


"required" "permission" "appealing".... thats your words..
this is a discussion forum about bitcoin. it is not the bitcoin network that uses consensus. my opinions are just a discussion. it is you that is getting emotional and insulting and trying to make out that my discussion is somehow powerful.

all i ever tell people is just to do their own research and try to avoid becoming anti-bitcoiners like you and your echo chamber that just want to do social drama emotional stuff to then promote alternative networks

plus. learn consensus
consensus is about unifying people. not having excuses to throw people off the network
you really have no clue about what the byzantine generals theory is, or how satoshi's solution to it is actually the opposite of 'throw everyone off'

i truly believe in the real world you would be seen as a person who has many prejudices and is probably racist by the tone your messages on this forum show as to how to react to people of opposing stance to you

your so emotional that you are actually flip floping so much you are forgetting which path your following and what path your suppose to be debating.
its YOU that has been saying that its ok to do network affecting 'send off' (controversial forks) prior to bip activations, purely to achieve a bip activation by faking the threshold requirement.

so how about do yourself a small favour, take a few days to refresh yourself, have a break. chill out, calm down. and use the time to learn about bitcoin from actual research. and by bitcoin i mean bitcoin 2009-2013.. (not from the prospective(prospectus) of core)
learn things like byzantine generals theory, consensus, as it would help you to learn the whole purpose of blockchains and how the network should be decentralised and not just a core distribution.

then you might start grasping how blockchains have a purpose and function that LN does not. and how LN is not secure. then learn about LN practically and pragmastically rather than the delusions or promotional buzzwords.

once you gain a good scope of understanding the technology. then try to form discussions about the tech. without the emotional social drama of ignoring the tech just to argue with humans that are not coding the network.
in other words. if your trying to insult a person rather than tech or devs. your not doing things right

A consensus protocol that can unify the globe for a value transfer can only work if it does the minimum of what is bespoke, the smallest intersection the masses can agree upon.

Peer to peer electronic cash.

On chain

Scalable as much as possible that anyone can use it


The design for this exists for 10 years now.


Designing a protocol does not need devs. Btw.  Maybe refactoring and bug fixing, but  the consensus is dev free territory

bitcoin is digital.
it is code
CODE
not conversation

code does not write itself
devs write code
for a new rule to be proposed devs need to CODE it
if devs CODE it in a way that controversially 'sends off' a controversial amount of users then you cant pretend the devs were not involved

i really find it funny that people think bitcoin is just social drama and such are only interested in performing social drama rather than speak about actual code and actual protocols.

https://66.media.tumblr.com/3ab8740a4a224f58a002206e3d3dc721/tumblr_inline_mmdyr113s81qz4rgp.jpg

Even if you can't comprehend what I'm saying, I'm sure others can.  Alternative clients have a right to exist, but the right for alternative clients to exist does not negate the rights of other Bitcoin users to remove them from their network at any time and for any reason.  It should be clear that it's not any sort of injustice when some alternative clients have been disconnected from the Bitcoin network.  There is absolutely no requirement to wait for an alternative client's feature to activate before deciding to disconnect it if that feature is not compatible.  Particularly if the change it proposes has the potential to put the security of the network at risk.  It is unreasonable to expect users of client X to wait for client Y's feature to activate when users of client Y don't need to wait for X and can remove X users from their network at any time by activating their feature in client Y.

Consensus does not mean everyone has to agree.  If everyone had to agree, there would be no need for a consensus mechanism at all.  Consensus means those that do agree move forwards together.  It means some people can and will be left behind if they don't agree with a larger number of users.  There is no way to fake or bypass consensus.  If the network you are on is churning out blocks at regular intervals, that's all the consensus you need.  But unless you are on the chain with the most accumulated proof of work and the most economic activity, you have not earned the right to claim that your network is the real Bitcoin.  A small number of users do not have the ability to block a larger number of users from implementing changes.  This has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, even if some people try to dispute it, or worse still, try to twist and distort the meaning of consensus to sound like something more or less akin to Democracy.

It is not possible to implement anything resembling Democracy in Bitcoin and many would argue it would not be desirable to do so even if that were possible.  There is no way to prevent people writing or running code that would completely disregard whatever democratic processes such a system might have.  If a person or group attempts to pick an arbitrary date and writes the corresponding code for a feature to activate, users can choose to ignore that date by running different software and could also choose to disconnect such clients from their network.  If a person or group attempts to set an arbitrary activation threshold and writes the corresponding code for a feature to activate, users can choose to ignore that activation threshold by running different software and could also choose to disconnect such clients from their network.  But in doing so, they run the risk of finding themselves on another network if they ignore a change that a large number of users want.  You have the option to rejoin the network you left by choosing to conform to consensus rules once again.  No one person or group is in control.  It's not developers who make consensus decisions because the only thing that matters is what software people run.

doomad you got no clue

seems your spinning yourself in circles.
enjoy your flip flops and social drama but your the one missing the point.

time you step back take some fresh air in, have a coffee and spend time learning about bitcoin. not your social drama

kind of funny how you say democracy is impossible.. you kinda miss the point of consensus.. both the dictionary definition and the bitcoin utility definition of such

if you dont understand what made bitcoin such a revolutionary thing when the white paper first came out showing how it solved something. just admit it.
but denying the thing it solved as being 'impossible'. means you are failing.

you might want to check the code, check the blockdata, check with devs and do some research before hitting the reply button..
learn the difference between consensus and controversial forks
learn the byzantine generals theory and satoshi's solution
learn the purpose of bitcoin and what the revolutionary technology is/was
hint. learn what actually happened. not what you advocate

And yet, you and btc shrills all claim btc can't increase ONCHAIN Scaling,
because a small # of hobbyist can't afford$ to run a full non-mining node.   :D
(Which no one cares enough to offer them a % of block rewards or fees to do so.)
(If you make money it is a business, if you don't , then it is a hobby.)

Hypocrite Much?
https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/60111621/hypocrite-much.jpg

 

---

In unrelated news,
Cøbra points out LN and BTC are not the same thing. (Cøbra is right.)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4638321.msg50491676#msg50491676

As a side perk, Gmax gets upset and claims all of his banker payoffs from blockstream now go to charity.   :D
Achow101 never met a topic , he does not want to lock when the truth gets told in them.  ;)

No, you, can repeat it all you like, and it would never change how the Lightning Network technically works, and the reality that there are no "IOU pegged promises to pay tokens" in the Lightning Network.

But I encourage the newbies to believe you. I hope they do, to know the actual truth for themselves the hard way. It's the best way to learn.

Thanks, and I hope you never stop spreading misinformation.

windfury.
just use LN, please its becoming too obvious your saying things without experience of what you speak.
your just as bad as doomad. you dont care about bitcoin you dont understand how things actually work, you just want to say some strange things just to try making people think LN is great and the future method people use for making payments.
all at the downfall of you both letting blockchains/bitcoin become stifled/deburdened of utility

i prefer to highlight how bitcoin is being stifled in the hopes new dev teams put core back in its place as not the controller but as just a participant of bitcoin. thus re-innovating bitcoin


as for you admirations of LN and over promoting/exaggerating/defining ln as utopia.. if you feel that millisats are not real, htlc / private commitments are not real. and if you feel that the too-and-throw of channel balance between channel partners is as settled and secure as blockchain confirmed funds then please try to actually make a case that blockchains are useless invention and how digital money could work without needing blockchains due to your belief that the private signed commitments between two parties is the same immutable/final/settld/guaranteed/paid off/ system as blockchains offer.
i dare you to try convincing yourself that the private signed commitments between channel parties is just as final as blockchain confirmed transaction

FTFY,  ;)

smtp, tcp/ip whatever are specked designs at first place. Coming from ideas - nothing to do with code at initial state

Sure, if u start impl that ideas very local and concrete - into a Client (Server) that want to communicate with others u need to make ur APPLICATION impl
into that consens


I agree with bitcoin to get the basics done - there is many impl needed - but if u start changing the consens protocol by changing code first, and break the initial design by that , ur doing wrong since u brake the consensus with base protocol code dev.  Better to move these things into APPLICATION layers and keep the consensus as thin & simple as possible.

Devs write APPLICATIONS  that follow initial protocol DESIGN / SPEC

Edit: And BTW if ppl try to limit scaling by  protocol design for a global protocol ( and dev it into ) they ve some screws lose.
 

I don't understand the point of lightning.

Why not just switch to a coin that can handle more transactions on the chain?

Are we that attached to the name bitcoin?

What you are suggesting is unenforceable, though.  If I were a developer, tell me how anyone can prevent me from writing whatever code I wanted.  More to the point, why should anyone should have the right to prevent me from coding what I wanted?  Bitcoin is permissionless.  That's a quality no one can break.  Every other aspect of the design is exactly as the users will it to be by enforcing the rules in the code they freely choose to run.  You are not in a position to tell anyone they should only code things in a way that you want.

I just point out that there is such a spec for the global consensus -  the White Paper

Code did follow after, and need to be on spec & honest - thats how Bitcoin & its consenus works.

doomad is over using the term permissionless without understanding

first of all people can also say that bitcoin is permissionless. (doomads mindset) meaning doomad does has a right to write whatever he likes and have it activated as he wants.

yet

doomad also argues that bitcoin works by users deciding what they should follow. but this can be seen as countering doomads "permissionless" stance because he says it needs people to decide/follow

doomads flip flopping has got so bad that his narrative swings more than a bisexual sex addict, so much so that his points no longer follow a straight line

i think doomad should first learn what bitcoin is/does. also learn the tech behind bitcoin that solved a fundamental problem that cypherpunks were trying to deal with for so long, and how 'offchain' services do not solve this same issue and never will.

until he can grasp what the differences are. he will be stuck

once learning about bitcoin. may doomad than try to refine his narrative to a clear straight line path that does not meander in circles of social drama. and instead sticks to the point that can reference blockdata, stats, code and dev decisions.

for instance
bitcoins transaction/payment signing does not need 2nd/3rd party permission to sign a tx thats destined for someone. but when it comes to what was the 2009-2013 ideology of consensus. permission is needed to activate new features/protocols

doomad mixes up user interface utility vs code/protocol to serve his circular social drama
he then mixes up the user interface utility of bitcoin with that of alternative network/services to confuse the differences purely to promote the alternatives as (falsely) being the same.

core bypassed consensus to get an activation which under the 2009-2013 ideology of bitcoin would not have been activated.
core bypassed writing code that would satisfy the majority desires
core instead cut away a significant population to fake a majority of lesser population

if doomad actually understood the purpose of bitcoin. and the byzantine generals theory of finding unity in diversity. rather than (excuse the pun) segregation. he would understand how core broke the main principals of bitcoins revolutionary technology purely to make core dominant/incontrol/powerhouse of bitcoin. which in itself is again something else that is against the fundementals of bitcoins ideology(decentralisation)

 i really think doomad should take time to learn about bitcoin. or spend more time atleast just being more straight lined and just admit his adoration for alternative networks. maybe even spend more time on forums of those alternative networks

You claim to know everything, yet all the information you're telling everyone is wrong. But I encourage all newbies to listen to you, because it's another correct path to real learning. The hard way.

Plus I never thought of Lightning as "utopia". But how can I be against it? It's not doing anything to alter the consensus layer like a hard fork, isn't it? This is Bitcoin, open and permissionless. Let developers build on top of it.


Newbies, I encourage you to listen to Khaos77. 8)

Learn. The hard way.

firstly you using terms like 'layers' is just fake buzzwords of trying to pretend things are united/part of a larger whole... sorry that false advertising has been debunked

to populate and false promote LN (the alternative network that is not bitcoin) developers have actually messed with the consensus , by now making the BITCOIN network core centric where core can slide in their changed unhindered

also LN as a separate network that it is, did not develop to be bitcoin compatible. but instead bitcoin had to change to be LN compatible.

changing bitcoins ideology, ethos and fundamentals to fit a separate network that does not even comply to the same security/principles of what bitcoin is all about is not good for bitcoin.

then further stifling bitcoin by limiting its transaction throughput onchain, and also not implementing a fair fee mechanism, is all efforts to deburden bitcoin of utility/desire, purely to promote, persuade people to use alternative networks/services. which again is against the purpose of bitcoin

further more actually delving into the statistics of a 'working' LN scenario for a moderate population. would require more impractical changes that manipulate bitcoin away from its ideology/ethos/fundemental purpose

..
but maybe, before you just promote LN. maybe its best you learn things about bitcoin and LN so you can atleast offer an experienced, researched viewpoint. and not just a dev ass kissing narrative

Whereas you argue that no one can write what they want and we have to have a vote where everyone agrees and whatever other total drivel you've come out with over the last two years.  Bitcoin has never worked like that and never will work like that.  If you ever recognise the situation for what it is, let me know.  Until then, I'll continue to think of you as a lost cause.

Funnily enough, I can write what I want and activate a feature as and when I want to, but crucially, if I do that without other users joining me, it's going to be a very small and insignificant network.  What you fail to comprehend is that all the changes you claim are bad have adequate support.  The protocol has no interest in your belief that the support wasn't legitimate.  The only thing the protocol knows are the rules currently being enforced.  The protocol has no concept of its "purpose", so if you have some personal preference on what that purpose should be, run the client you want to run and see who agrees with you.  Just know that if users don't agree with you, there is absolutely nothing to prevent them removing you if you flag support for incompatible rules.  It's not a democracy and you don't have any right to demand that other users consider your proposals.  Run what you want, take your chances.  



If you ever get tired of pursuing your current career as a full-time internet troll, you could always consider comedy.  If I don't understand how Bitcoin works, how is it I'm always to one who has to tell you how and why your "improvements" aren't viable or realistic?  Some examples:

Franky1:  Why can't we make LN devs work on Bitcoin instead?
Me:  Because that's not possible.

Franky1:  Why can't we make it so that Core are purely a reference client and can't introduce changes until the community have voted on them?
Me:  Because you can't enforce it.

Franky1:  Why can't we disallow code that includes activation dates?
Me:  Because you can't disallow anything.

So because I'm the one who keeps pointing out the massive flaws in your abysmal ideas, you question my understanding of Bitcoin because you can't get what you want?  Get a clue, please.

The only thing you understand about Bitcoin is that you hate just about everything about it.  Keep shooting the messenger if you like, I'm only telling you how it is.  Sorry if I keep pointing out how reality differs to how you might want it to be.  Doesn't make me wrong, though.  That's your specialty.

Wrong because franky1.

FTFY,

You know I provide links, so anyone reading my posts should also read the links.
This will help them form their own opinion, which for those with an IQ>70 will come to the same conclusion I did.
(Also they can use google to confirm, it is called research, if they so choose.)
Those like windfury with an IQ<70 , won't understand anything, don't research anything, and will continue to rail against logical thought.
Sad , but as the old saying goes , you can't fix stupid.

Yep. Most 'devs' just think too much about code and permissionless, forgetting that Bitcoin is a financial instrument and not experimental any more.  But not knowing that never help in front of judges.

You're welcome to express views that your own personal interpretation of the whitepaper doesn't quite match Bitcoin's current direction.  But what you need to remember is that, back when the whitepaper was written, satoshi could not have envisioned the rather obscene pace at which mining effectively became an arms race.  Each time the whitepaper refers to a "node", it actually refers to a miner.  Satoshi's plan was that users would fall into two categories.  Miners and SPV users (just as the whitepaper describes).  Satoshi naturally assumed there would be a far greater number of individuals on the network actively mining, but sadly this was not to be the case.  

The concept of what we currently call a "full node" or a "non-mining node" simply didn't exist when Bitcoin was first created.  Mining became centralised much more quickly than anticipated, so the solution was to offset the power of miners with the balance of non-mining nodes.  This gives ordinary users a voice without requiring them to spend a small fortune on ASICs and, most importantly, preserves decentralisation by making it so that a small number of miners wouldn't be able to act unilaterally and impose changes that users don't want.  

If you're going to make statements about how consensus works when using the whitepaper as your primary source, this is the kind of thing you ideally need to keep in mind.  Things have evolved considerably since 2009 and there's far more nuance to factor in now.  It's not nearly as clear-cut as you might think on first impression.  

I know how Segwit evolved and that is not Bitcoin, same LN is sth different.

Bitcoin is clearly defined and has only one legal relevant spec. And its not just a ticker

U will wake up when ur very private btc will not be globally treated as Bitcoin, but as a Segwit altcoin fork, what it is.

The thought that non-mining nodes hold any power on the network is pure and utter nonsense.
They do nothing except give the manager of said non-mining node a warm fuzzy feeling that has no value in the real world.

Point , Non-mining node dumbasses such as windfury have been wanting a piece of transaction fee or btc rewards paid to them for years now,
and they get laughed at behind the scenes by the mining node operators.
All Non-Mining nodes could be turned off at noon, and no one would care.

Because Mining Nodes do all of the work and anyone could use an explorer or batch of explorers to compare against their internal ledgers.
Or they could just watch the github for changes.  ;)

The confusion is non-mining nodes give dummies like windfury some economic clout over the true miners,
nothing is further from the truth, exchanges or business that hold large sums of btc are the one with economic clout and they are the ones with voting power at the miners, by refusing to continue usage of your btc. And wheter they run a non-mining node or not is irrelevent to their economic power. It is their ownership of large quantities of btc that give them power against the miners, not the type of node they run.

Example:
Mining Node = Writer
Exchange/Business = Reader
Non-mining Node = Copiers

The Writer writes a new book, The Reader Buys the Book, The Copier makes copies of the book.

The Reader tells the Writer . if he kills his favorite character , that he won't buy his new book.

The Writer concern the Reader won't buy the book , keeps the reader's favorite character alive. (This is Economic Clout)

The Copiers, just make EXTRA UNNECESSARY COPIES of whatever books are written by the writer ,
and have no leverage of any kind against the writer or reader.

Since the Writer also puts out his own copies of the book for the readers , the copier has no power/purpose at all!

Oh, I see, you're one of those people.  You believe all that guff anonymint used to post before they got banned for being a disruptive troll.  Yeah, hate to break it to you, but he was nuts.  Like, fully unhinged.  If that's what you choose to believe, then you're clearly not going to listen to sane people.  Best of luck to you, I guess.  

---

Speaking of the fully unhinged, what fresh lunacy is this?  Even franky1 wouldn't say anything that stupid.

Foolish people have been making the claim that non-mining nodes don't matter for years and no one in their right mind has believed it so far.  Why do you think you're going to succeed in spreading falsehoods when others before you have failed so spectacularly?  

Dumb&Mad, it is starting to look like your IQ <70 along with Windfury.

Non-Mining nodes are like you, devoid of purpose and irrelevant.   :-*

See Analogy:

FYI:
Where are any fees or rewards for running those useless non-mining nodes, answer that dumb&mad.

The thing is with some brainwashed ticker fans that once they have lost logic discussion they try to stick u into some fiktive troll groups than they feel some protection   Too mad

 ;D

Back to the Topic of Offchain Systems,  :)


https://themerkle.com/unlicensed-bitcoin-reseller-obtaining-btc-from-bitfinex-faces-two-year-prison-sentence/





As a US Citizen, anyone running a LN hub needs to be aware of FINCEN and AML Regulations.
Even thru many on these forums claim LN is not required to adhere to the above regulations.
(Most of those people would claim the man going to jail did nothing wrong.)
His Crime was acting as an unregistered exchange, which is basically what LN is allowing you to do.
As a US Citizen you may face two years or longer in jail , if FinCEN decides your LN hub is acting as a illegal Money Transmitter.
Which is something to be aware of and prepared for, if your Hub has any real volume to it.
Good Luck.  :)

No you can't, and I know I'm the most stupid in the forum, and you're the smartest. But nothing in the links you provide, with all its techno-babble, proves that there are "IOU pegged promises to pay tokens" in Lightning.

But keep trying, I'm encouraging all newbies to listen to you, for their special Bitcoin learning process. 8)

No , not  the smartest, Most likely in the Top 30 however.  :D
You don't have to be Einstein to see the truth.

IOU are Promises/contracts to Pay,
All LN does is make promises/contracts to pay, and at the end , hopefully allow those promises to be redeem onchain.

If that one simple thing is over your head , then so be it.

But for you to continue to rail against what is completely apparent, shows a psychosis that is borderline requiring an institution.
Where they give you a coat that ties in the back.  :D 

So finally Bitcoin is not sth easy to get. It touches so many fields - mostly now as a financial instrument / commodity

Ppl who want to do / dev things with that need to pull all that knowledge make their due dilligence (for their own safety!) BEFORE wanna play, dev , code - whatever 'permissionless' out of nothing

There needs to be a way broader consensus about    Bitcoin and its minimum features / code  - no only with devs and miners. That didn't work well.

If now so many need to get to a global consensus - the intersection is very thin -> can only end up with simplest P2P eCash onchain

 ;D

Yeah and in the future it will be even harder to get. And that will be a good thing, at least from mining and of course you will get a lot less from offering services since it's value will be a lot higher probably.

I agree that a much broader consensus should exist before making really important changes, otherwise Bitcoin will be like a centralized institution, where only some will have a voice and that should of course be avoided.

We can watch on coinmarketcap where the Feature and sepculation mania has driven the Bitcoin market section - > into redicules or scam zoones.

Better now clamp down to what it should do minimal, scalable, transparent, stable and scam free - here most of ppl and industries will get onboard with

Any offchain appl can be predictable build on top of that - sure and recommended imo -  these will not be permissionless but rather come as corporate Services - good!

This is true. There's some people in the community that are so lost that they readily believe some Australian guy is Satoshi Nakamoto because he said he is, after credible people in the community were saying that he's not. 8)

Bitcoin and ist usability was never about ppl - so better discuss tech and economics only -
thats  where is the way where u can be separate to trolls - who only can do that name calling crap.    not my fields

you usually spot the people who dont do technical research/code reading. and just wanna name names. they intensify their efforts when certain events like roundtables, consensus conferences and code-a-thons occur because they want to get people talking about faketoshi and not actual bitcoin technicals.

windfury has moved into the troll group that loves the namecalling finger pointing buzzwording foolishness that whenever something technical is mentioned the main reply is just 'wrong because X said it'

as for windfury with his endless pastes of 'no iou' no 'pegged coins'
if he just done research on the difference between bitcoins CLTV tx  vs LN's HTLC tx he will see the IOU
if he just done research on the difference between bitcoins satoshis  vs LN's msats he will see the pegged tokens

but its been pages of discussion and weeks-months of opportunity for windfury to do some independant bitcoin research.. and yet he declines

It is very hard - as all Bitcoiners should know - to find a decent consensus - not only for code, but also about to talk about

If things get too techy - too many are lost

if things get too economics  -- same


We are human and started talking about ppl and their soap opera - there most  can be found / locked in talking about - trolling.

-In the end, it is about us to properly educate and WORK on shifting up the level of consens / discussion that many can get it.

PoW

That's true, and I'm the self-admitted stupid one. But answer me this simple question, is Craig Wright Satoshi Nakamoto?


That's why I encourage all the newbies to listen to you. You are the smart one, the coder, and the only human who can pick every Core developer apart.

Newbies, franky1 is right, I don't know anything. Follow franky1's advice, and Do Your Own Research. 8)

Clarification:

Offchain Solutions are not scaling ,

Offchain Solutions are offloading transactions from an overburdened network to a Network that can handle larger volumes. :)

True Scaling can only be achieved by Onchain Solitions, such as larger blocksizes or Faster BlockSpeeds.

For your consideration:
To increase capacity, of moving water from spot A to spot B.
You would
1. Use a Bigger Bucket
or
2. Use the same bucket but move twice as fast between Spot A & Spot B

The real question ,  is why does knowing the truth
that Offchain is Offloading and not scaling bother you so much.

Maybe because the scaling myth is needed for a false PR campaign , that you help promote.

FYI

LOL, it was worth enough that you gave me a merit.  :D :D :D
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=2522969

* By the way , people that purchased at $10000 and above are currently still in the loss zone.*

Did you miss the part of my reply where I said "who cares"?


You're literally attacking a problem that doesn't exist.

After your adamantly-worded doomsday predictions about bitcoin failed to materialize I don't why you're not too embarrassed to continue posting here.

But for fun let's take a look at your comment edit. Perhaps you thought you were coming off as a bit too trollish and wanted to add some substance.


You're not really thinking outside of the box here.

1. Bigger buckets require more energy
2. So does moving twice as fast between Spot A & Spot B

What if you could create a channel between the two spots to move the water for you?
Then you don't need to bigger buckets, and after having set up the channel the water would move with very little energy.


I merited a different comment than that one:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5105657.msg49576064#msg49576064

It was written previous to you going full retard.

Then why do you keep replying to it , if you don't care.  :D



Offchain Means the ACTUAL WATER is not moved between the two spots,
only IOUs move thru the channels, which is totally useless in a world where water needs to arrive
and an IOU for water can't be used in its place.
Feel free to try and drink an IOU, when you need the real thing.

Which is why people need to learn the true meaning of words,
because trying to drink a glass of water verses a IOU for water is a big difference that can get you killed in certain environments.

Offloading is not Scaling.
That difference becomes dangerous, when the capacity is so overloaded,
Offloading becomes delayed for days or weeks.
True Scaling, there is no fear of delays for days or weeks.
True Scaling can only happen onchain.

---

FTFY  :)

Clearly the point of cryptos is to eventually switch to a fully decentralized environment, this is hard to do. No one in this space wants to give a given entity enough power to control a coin or the entire market. Privacy I believe is the biggest issue here and while I personally don't care, a lot of people do. I don't know what's the solution but I would like to get rid of KYC.

Every Crypto I have seen is becoming more centralized not the reverse.

Thinking crypto is moving toward decentralization is a false assumption.

The difference between the on the chain and off chain networks is the synchronization. Like many exchanges have implemented on the chain and off chain transactions. Because of this, there is reliability and you do not have to synchronize with multiple exchanges in order to do that.

but, a little is true.  but I think crypto must be flexible in any field, as long as they still have a mission on the same path, namely the cryotocurrency path, because it's very difficult to fight the progress of the times, there are always new ideas in the crypto world.

Exactly what little is true in a false assumption?  :)