|
Title: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: LoyceV on January 06, 2022, 07:24:55 PM I create this topic because I challenged (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380036.msg58919433#msg58919433) franky1 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=65837) to join a civil discussion with all arguments in one place:
@franky1: If I create a self-moderated topic (Lauda called me Switzerland for being neutral; I won't delete any of your posts, but I will call you out if you go off-topic), are you willing to engage? I expect it will be "you vs a couple of other users", but from what I've seen, you can handle yourself. I would like to discuss your points on LN that I've seen in far too many different topics, and it would be nice if we can reach consensus on at least part of the discussion. My invitation was accepted by franky1:i can engage. Anyone else than franky1: I will delete unfriendly posts, and I will delete off-topic posts. See my unedited archive (https://loyce.club/archive/topics/538/5380215.html) when that happens.and out of respect i will even take my own advice and step back from the computer between posts and take some breathing time between posts, and avoid (as i see other do)just hitting reply to rage reply. if others can do the same. and answer without shining their bias/advertising PR stance of utopia, and respond rationally and thinking outside their small box. then great it could actually lead to some proper dialogue. Please keep this topic civil. Please keep the discussion only here, and not in other topics. If there's something worth reading in another topic, quote it here instead of posting a link. Try to limit the scope: I want to add this as a condition: We'll speak of one topic at a time. Scalability? Scalability. Lightning's protocol? Lightning's protocol. Consensus? Consensus. This way we can clarify which are our interlocutor's disagreements and constructively (& friendly) correct them. Read everything before responding. Try to avoid duplicate replies.Newbies: read more, post less, and create an informed opinion. To consider: I removed franky1 from my ignore list. I think that's only fair considering the topic I started. To start: I use on-chain Bitcoin, and I use Bitcoin LN. Bitcoin can work with or without LN, LN can't work without Bitcoin. I don't like high fees, as it limits adoption. I would like to see Bitcoin grow in value, userbase and number of transactions per second, and I think we need all three of those for Bitcoin to grow. How, that's up for debate. LN is a different network for a reason. it has its own usecase and niche and utility that differs from bitcoins. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: LoyceV on January 06, 2022, 07:33:31 PM Reserved. I may make summaries later.
Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: LoyceV on January 06, 2022, 07:33:35 PM Reserved. I may make summaries later.
Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: LoyceV on January 06, 2022, 07:33:39 PM Reserved. I may make summaries later.
Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: bitmover on January 06, 2022, 07:40:41 PM To start: I use on-chain Bitcoin, and I use Bitcoin LN. Bitcoin can work with or without LN, LN can't work without Bitcoin. I don't like high fees, as it limits adoption. I would like to see Bitcoin grow in value, userbase and number of transactions per second, and I think we need all three of those for Bitcoin to grow. How, that's up for debate. LN is a different network for a reason. it has its own usecase and niche and utility that differs from bitcoins. I will not talk about LN directly, but about off-chain solutions in general. When Binance came to Brazil, it dominated the crypto market nearly completely. It is by far the best, most trusted and cheaper exchange. Nearly everyone who works with cryptocurrency in Brazil has a binance account. Recently I made a small job and I was paid in Bitcoin. For some time I have been selling some of my stash at the begining of every month, like a Dolar Cost Averaging, but for selling. I was going to sell some bitcoin in the next few days, and I gave my client my binance address. He immediately asked if I could be paid in BEP2 chain (Binance chain, using a BTC pegged token). I accepted, as it is a free and instant transaction and I was not going to hold that bitcoin for long. Now, is a BTC pegged token bitcoin? It is not, but i guess it is useful for bitcoin adoption and awareness. So, to summarize: Off-chain solutions are already happening. They are useful. LN is the best off-chain solution, but people do use it all the time yet. LN would be good for my transaction? Well, I think not as good as the BEP2 solution, but it would work. I believe that we should support LN and use it, otherwise we will soon be forced to use a worse off-chain solution from time to time. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 06, 2022, 07:45:43 PM I accept to take part in this discussion and not be biased towards franky, but I want to add this as a condition: We'll speak of one topic at a time. Scalability? Scalability. Lightning's protocol? Lightning's protocol. Consensus? Consensus. This way we can clarify which are our interlocutor's disagreements and constructively (& friendly) correct them.
My opinion regarding the Lightning Network can be interpreted by the following example I've written; Picture it as following; bitcoin is a type of metal and you ought to store it in a safe place. However, you can't pay with a metal for everyday transactions. Thus, you go to a guy who's willing to give you the option to give him a portion of your bitcoin in exchange for the ability to create agreements with other people who have also given their bitcoin this way. Now you can transact without touching your metal at all. It's faster, cheaper and smarter way to transact. That being said, add that this guy cannot cheat or lie to you in any way. You've handed out your coins, but they can't steal them from you. You're free to withdraw their promise for BTC anytime you want without their permission. (Which means that, essentially, it's not a promise) Fuckin' genius I'll say. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 06, 2022, 07:56:58 PM To start: I use on-chain Bitcoin, and I use Bitcoin LN. Bitcoin can work with or without LN, LN can't work without Bitcoin. I don't like high fees, as it limits adoption. I would like to see Bitcoin grow in value, userbase and number of transactions per second, and I think we need all three of those for Bitcoin to grow. How, that's up for debate. LN is a different network for a reason. it has its own usecase and niche and utility that differs from bitcoins. ok i must start with the first fatal flaw. LN CAN infact work without bitcoin. LN's function allows it to peg to different blockchains. its usability of LN is not fixed to only work with bitcoin. nor is it under any condition that the another altcoins can only work on LN if LN is pegged to bitcoin at the same time LN has no network wide audit/consensus that checks that all nodes/channels are all connected to the bitcoin network. some LN users right now only have channels/nodes pegged to litecoin My opinion regarding the Lightning Network can be interpreted by the following example I've written; Picture it as following; bitcoin is a type of metal and you ought to store it in a safe place. However, you can't pay with a metal for everyday transactions. Thus, you go to a guy who's willing to give you the option to give him a portion of your bitcoin in exchange for the ability to create agreements with other people who have also given their bitcoin this way. Now you can transact without touching your metal at all. It's faster, cheaper and smarter way to transact. That being said, add that this guy cannot cheat or lie to you in any way. You've handed out your coins, but they can't steal them from you. You're free to withdraw their promise for BTC anytime you want without their permission. (Which means that, essentially, it's not a promise) Fuckin' genius I'll say. to this he is very much expressing how bitcoin is like gold. and LN is like bank notes. however there are many ways to cheat the joint bank account partner. many devs and LN users have lost funds. even with "punishment" clauses attached. as for the "free to withdraw their promise anytime without permission". the LN millisat promise is a separate promise from the bitcoin sat denominated commitment. both of which need the signature of the other party if a HTLC "secret" reveal is not sent ontime. problems start if the other party does not sign the settlement commitment on time. problems start as for the "cant cheat".. the whole punishment clause is because cheating can happen and activating the punishment clause when cheating has happened, involves the victim noticing the cheating fast enough Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 06, 2022, 08:05:01 PM many devs and LN users have lost funds. even with "punishment" clauses attached And many have lost their keys, have misused a wallet software, have set an unbelievably high transaction fee. Does this make things not work or is it just a poor treatment of reality?Yes lots must have lost money in the way you described but there are solutions to avoid it (watchtowers). In other words: This time the cheater is discouraged to cheat. It's a huge step to move from a completely trusted debt-based monetary system to a trustless one. Agreed? Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 06, 2022, 08:09:29 PM Yes lots must have lost money in the way you described but there are solutions to avoid it (watchtowers). In other words: This time the cheater is discouraged to cheat. It's a huge step to move from a completely trusted debt-based monetary system to a trustless one. Agreed? watchtowers.. ok now you are creating bank managers. so now people have to trust their channel partner to not cheat. and then trust a bank manager to watch that the partner has not cheated. and hope the watchtower server does not glitch out and go offline one day, thus not able to watch and activate punishments. oh and watchtowers can only intercept and change ownership if you trust them to have the keys to do these interceptions on your behalf.. so where is this trustless system you mentioned? in short my keys my coin. not my keys not my coin. multisig requiring third party signing is not trustless independence, definitely not permissionless giving others your keys is not trustless useful advice: by now admitting that cheating can happen and maybe can be discouraged via other features. please try to say cheating can happen but can be discouraged.. rather than saying "they cant cheat" utopian fantasy advert of PR: "they cant cheat" honest, risk aware PR advert: "they could cheat but it can be discouraged using other 'trust' features" Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 06, 2022, 08:19:16 PM franky1, please stop editing your posts and make new ones instead. It's really difficult to keep up with you when you edit the same post over and over again.
LN has no network wide audit/consensus that checks that all nodes/channels are all connected to the bitcoin network. The only reasons why you need to be connected to the Bitcoin network are: 1) you need to check if the funding transaction has been confirmed 2) you need to process new incoming blocks and check if the other party didn't broadcast a commitment transaction 3) the other party might request a fee update to the latest commitment transaction; if your response is too low or too large then your peer might close or temporarily disable the channel Currently, the third point enforces connection to some Bitcoin backend, but I could see someone modifying their client to use some third-party source for fee estimates. However, this would put them at a risk as someone could close the channel and keep using it. The modified node would keep singing new commitment transactions even though their inputs could have been already spent which would make all of those transactions invalid. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 06, 2022, 08:22:08 PM Alright, so we're now talking about the protocol.
so where is this trustless system you mentioned? Can you be responsible for not allowing you others to cheat you? Then it's a trustless system. Now if it's easy or not to protect yourself this way is another thing to discuss. I take the fact that before I couldn't do a thing, but now I have an extra option.multisig requiring third party signing is not trustless independence, definitely not permissionless When you want to close your channel? You've already got the signatures before you even open it.by now admitting that cheating can happen and maybe can be discouraged via other features. please try to say cheating can happen but can be discouraged.. Of course and cheating can happen. This is true for everything. Someone may also rip you off in the Bitcoin network by maliciously gaining access to your keys. It can happen with physical cash too. The fact that they're discouraged to do so (hopefully) makes it safe.When you're more encouraged than discouraged to play by the rules is when things work properly. I have never been cheated by my lightning partners, have you? Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 06, 2022, 08:28:38 PM When you're more encouraged than discouraged to play by the rules is when things work properly. I have never been cheated by my lightning partners, have you? You don't have do it on purpose. Accidents happen. Someone could run an old backup and close the channel using their (outdated) commitment transaction. oh and watchtowers can only intercept and change ownership if you trust them to have the keys to do these interceptions on your behalf.. Watchtowers do not hold any keys. They only store pre-signed penalty transactions in an encrypted format. See LND's altruist watchtowers (https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/docs/watchtower.md#private-altruist-watchtowers). Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 06, 2022, 08:31:32 PM when i want to be paid on bitcoin. i see the coin confirm.. its mine. game over. no debate, its mine. finito.
when using LN and see the promised millisats. its not yet settled as being mine for good. there are many things that can take that value away from me. if i want to settle. i have to wait for the other party to sign. yes this may be automated to happen a millisecond after a HTLC secret is revealed. but even if a partner reveals the HTLC secret(LM millisat promise). he then has to sign off on the commitment(separate contract). and due to no network wide consensus. a partner can edit his own node software to break the 'autopilot' code to not auto update commitments straight after HTLC secret reveals but even then, even if he did not break "autopilot" its not yet confirmed on bitcoin. and he can easily still send his older state commitments before you. and so you have to watch for his cheating and you then have to intercept and activate the punishment soo much to do just to hope cheating does not happen. so much trust is needed to risk not having to watch 24/7 yes you have choices to discourage cheating. to ensure your promised payment eventually becomes your free and clear days later. . but with each extra choice to add extra safeguards requires more trust by other parties. meanwhile, on bitcoin. when someone sends me value. its confirmed. finito. its mine, no takesy backsy's, no third party watchtower, no co-signer needed. no punishment. its just mine. done Of course and cheating can happen. This is true for everything. Someone may also rip you off in the Bitcoin network by maliciously gaining access to your keys. It can happen with physical cash too. The fact that they're discouraged to do so (hopefully) makes it safe. in bitcoin you are not forced to have your keys in your node. active on the internet 24/7. in LN you cant take your keys out to then use in another wallet. people have lost access to channels when they tried. when setting up a channel you have to put keys in even if you are just watching balance. those keys are needed actively all the time. even if you are not buying anything for yourself and instead just routing.. this flaw might be fixed in later wallets . but is a flaw right now. a big one. that puts people at higher risk of hackers due to it Watchtowers do not hold any keys. They only store pre-signed penalty transactions in an encrypted format. See LND's altruist watchtowers (https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/docs/watchtower.md#private-altruist-watchtowers). because there is no network consensus on LN. although LND's variant of watchtower might be altruistic. there are other brands less altruistic. for instance watchtowers that are based more on the "factory" concept (fed reserve hub) methodology LN has no network wide audit/consensus that checks that all nodes/channels are all connected to the bitcoin network. The only reasons why you need to be connected to the Bitcoin network are: 1) you need to check if the funding transaction has been confirmed 2) you need to process new incoming blocks and check if the other party didn't broadcast a commitment transaction 3) the other party might request a fee update to the latest commitment transaction; if your response is too low or too large then your peer might close or temporarily disable the channel Currently, the third point enforces connection to some Bitcoin backend, but I could see someone modifying their client to use some third-party source for fee estimates. However, this would put them at a risk as someone could close the channel and keep using it. The modified node would keep singing new commitment transactions even though their inputs could have been already spent which would make all of those transactions invalid. LN can work with litecoin and other coins. you are not sanctioned to only handle bitcoin when using LN. many users right now use LN but do not bridge to the bitcoin network. there is no need to monitor bitcoin by all LN users some users are even using LN with a completely different token privately agreed with just themselves. this token has no blockchain at all anyway lets skip ahead a few debates and just get to some talking points finalised/rated to see peoples understanding so far ill number them and you can quote them and put a * mark in which box you agree or disagree with 1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things agree[ ] disagree[ ] 2. LN promises (payments inside LN) are denominated in picocoin(11decimal) also known as msat/millisat agree[ ] disagree[ ] 3. LN promises (payments inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction agree[ ] disagree[ ] 4. bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued promises agree[ ] disagree[ ] 5. LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network agree[ ] disagree[ ] 6.LN wont work without bitcoin agree[ ] disagree[ ] [moderator's note: consecutive posts merged] Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on January 06, 2022, 09:50:20 PM 1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things agree[ ] disagree[ ] They do different things. However, it's not accurate to say they are "separate". There's clearly a connection between the two. They are arguably symbiont networks. 6.LN wont work without bitcoin agree[ ] disagree[ ] This is a loaded question. Litecoin's Lightning network won't work without Litecoin. Bitcoin's Lightning network won't work without Bitcoin. The fact that LN can be built on top of multiple blockchains does not diminish the utility it can offer users of the underlying blockchain. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 06, 2022, 10:16:24 PM i actually (for once) tried to keep the post short.. meaning tried to not load the questions..
by making them short and simple to not have extra waffly clauses included (usually you argue i load posts by waffling. now you say i load them by avoiding waffle) so lets do the waffle version, explaining my thoughts and using examples i can run a lightning wallet right now and it is not fixed to only work on bitcoin. LN is not symbiotic(life depends on it) with bitcoin. LN can symbiosis with other networks.. also without having to download a different lightning wallet, i can bridge to litecoin or other crypto. which is different than bitcoin or litecoin software which only works with their respective network. (EG like litecoin electrum is a different software than bitcoin electrum) (EG like litecoin core is a different software than bitcoin core) (where litecoin core and litecoin electrum only work on litecoin.. and bitcoincore and bitcoin electrum only work on bitcoin) one piece of software is inter-changeable with different networks, but not sub-servant. reliant to any of them so using the same lightning wallet software i can set up a channel with many crypto networks. i can run the same lightning software and have litecoin and a different crypto channels both active. at the same time. without the need to also have to bridge to bitcoin just to make LN work in LN i can (with only litecoin bridge) communicate with lightning partners that bridged to bitcoin* because the peer-to-peer structure of LN is not a handshake that requires both to use bitcoin. lightning network can work without bitcoin even when partnering with users that have bitcoin channels maybe by admitting to this you might be able to explain the positives of such, like highlighting atomic swaps LN is its own network. there is no litecoin LN network and LN bitcoin network. thats just a user interface error in thinking. not a separation at code level that prevents such communication between peers. again maybe if you see why LN is different and how inter-operable/bridgeable it is with other blockchain networks, whilst not being those blockchain networks, and not needed to only function with one blockchain, you could use it as a positive PR *i personally havnt held LTC since 2014, but i have used ltc testnet with LN and done this with LN nodes bridged only to bitcoin. (as one of my many tests of LN to look at how well it plays/fails and what its good and bad points are(found many flaws)) .. hmm useful advice: if you now want to distinguish that LN is not one network. but a bunch of networks of same name, each dedicated to each bridged coin.. im guessing you should use the plural lightning networks, instead of the singular lightning network. maybe have a lil fun with it. with a Z instead of a S .. lightning networkz (z=lightning bolt shape) i know you maybe ready to itch a scratch and say that within the LN island, there are separate towns like bitcoinLN and litecoinLN .. and then try to justify it that somehow bitcoinLN town is actually the bitcoin network but bitcoin is a completely different continent. and you can to bridge to it. but LN island its not the same fixed land as bitcoin which cant move or be independent of. reality is it is its own island. and with the right PR that can be seen as a good thing so be more realistic that nodes can communicate with different peers no matter what the bridged blockchain they have (if your wallet cant do this then, your behind the game.. all you need is a nodes public key and IP.. nothing more) whereby you can highlight this feature as a PR spin for atomic swaps. where people dont already need to have bitcoin to get bitcoin in trade for their litecoin Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: pooya87 on January 07, 2022, 06:09:00 AM I was going to sell some bitcoin in the next few days, and I gave my client my binance address. He immediately asked if I could be paid in BEP2 chain (Binance chain, using a BTC pegged token). I accepted, as it is a free and instant transaction and I was not going to hold that bitcoin for long. That is a terrible and irrelevant example.Now, is a BTC pegged token bitcoin? It is not, but i guess it is useful for bitcoin adoption and awareness. So, to summarize: Off-chain solutions are already happening. They are useful. LN is the best off-chain solution, but people do use it all the time yet. LN would be good for my transaction? Well, I think not as good as the BEP2 solution, but it would work. Binance chain has nothing to do with bitcoin at all, there is not even a weak link between the two chains. Binance chain is a completely centralized chain that is 100% controlled and owned by Binance. If some day Binance vanishes (like when government shuts them for money laundering), the Binance chain vanishes too alongside any tokens you had there or your balance in your Binance account. In comparison LN is not only directly linked to bitcoin, it relies on bitcoin. Nobody can shut down LN since it is a completely decentralized layer without any central authority. Additionally in order to transact in LN you don't need to convert your bitcoins to another coin with an exchange rate (even if it is 1:1 rate), you directly open your channel and enter this second layer. But in order to transact in another chain like Binance you have to convert your bitcoins to and from that token with an exchange rate that may change in the future. For example they may pay you 1 bitcoin for every 10 binancebitcoin you had. Just as they can print more tokens on that chain since there is nothing stopping them from doing so. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: NotATether on January 07, 2022, 07:03:22 AM Think of it this way:
There are several different tokens that can be called "USDT". So off the top of my head, I can list "USDT (Omni) which runs on the Bitcoin network", the "USDT (TRC-20)" on Tron's chain, and finally the one everybody actually seems to call "Tether" but they are most of the time referring to the ERC-20 token that runs on Ethereum's network. I said "most of the time" because a lot of those people don't have the slightest clue what is actually meant by Tether but this is the token the Tether company is referring to as it. My point is that Tether is a loaded term that people refer to different tokens by. In the case of LN, most people do know that they are referring to the LN that runs on Bitcoin's network, when they shorten the term to just "Lightning Network". Of course, there are instances of the protocol running on other networks as well, but they are way less used, which is what's contributing to people thinking that Lightning Network is tech that's only used on bitcoin (even though there are a small number of people using it on other networks). As for LN being able to exist without Bitcoin - well the technology can't run by itself without an underlying chain. It isn't designed to do that. So you can't host a LN that is not connected to any coin's network, you need some like of L1 whether that be Bitcoin or something else. The takeaway here is that LN is a loaded term just like Tether that refers to the different L2 networks running on top of Bitcoin-derived coins. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 07, 2022, 07:48:12 AM in bitcoin you are not forced to have your keys in your node. active on the internet 24/7. If you're trying to tell me that you're more confident of being secure in the Bitcoin network, I can easily agree. Lightning is a far more complex term and therefore, requires more awareness from the user's side. However, I can't unsee the fact that you're still, after all, discouraged to cheat me. because there is no network consensus on LN. although LND's variant of watchtower might be altruistic Can I have a little bit more context? What does consensus have to do with an implementation of LND's altruist watchtowers? Why is it required?1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things Yes, they're different networks. However, the Bitcoin's Lightning network can't work without the Bitcoin network. The Lightning network can't work itself without a first layer. 2. LN promises (payments inside LN) are denominated in picocoin(11decimal) also known as msat/millisat Yes and no. The transactions are made in msats, but the force-close transaction (which is what distinguishes from other debt-based systems) is in BTC.3. LN promises (payments inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction I guess “inside LN” means those after you've opened your channel and before you close it. Yes, agreed.4. bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued promises Of course.5. LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network Yes, however there's no reason I can think of to use it in Litecoin. 6.LN wont work without bitcoin Theoretically it can work without Bitcoin. Honestly, though, in practice it wouldn't have another reason of existence. I wouldn't use it in an altcoin. It's the decentralization of Bitcoin that makes it unique, IMO.Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 07, 2022, 09:36:53 AM because there is no network consensus on LN. although LND's variant of watchtower might be altruistic Can I have a little bit more context? What does consensus have to do with an implementation of LND's altruist watchtowers? Why is it required?i am not the one that mentioned LND's altruist watchtowers as an example of how LN 'cant' have watchtowers that hold keys i am not the one insinuating that LND watchtowers are the default thing/part of some strictly ruled consensus i am not the one saying LN requires consensus to enforce that watch towers dont need keys i clearly said that due to lack of consensus means LND's altruist watchtower is not the default policy regarding watchtowers 1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things Yes, they're different networks. However, the Bitcoin's Lightning network can't work without the Bitcoin network. The Lightning network can't work itself without a first layer. oh, but it can.. as we have just agreed, the lack of need of a consensus, means that peers can happily communicate with many networks and with no other blockchain due to the lack of network wide audited policy. are you going to now flip flop about the lack of consensus.. ? the lack of ned for consensus majority to implement features means people can connect together via just the requirement of a publickey and (ip/tor address)... and then once connected . then set up channels with their desired other network, or private internal token. again a smart PR person could use this as a advert for the benefits of LN in regards to atomic swapping, evolving network without consensus conflict hindering progress the ip/tor address connection.. and the subsequent public key, handshake does not lock peer partners to a specific blockchain. that public key and formation of joint multisig can be used on multiple blockchains, or no blockchain at all and just some private token they invent together. the lack of consensus allows this 2. LN promises (payments inside LN) are denominated in picocoin(11decimal) also known as msat/millisat Yes and no. The transactions are made in msats, but the force-close transaction (which is what distinguishes from other debt-based systems) is in BTC.number 2, is specific about the inside LN payments.. yet you want to confuse this ln payment. with the separate contract to the 'force-close' transaction you also mention. if you cannot tell the difference. please look into it. dont confuse the two seems you still cant separate things. and want to cause confusion by pretending they are the same. here ill give an example of how to separate things.. a condom is not a penis. a condom is not essential for a penis. and a penis is not essential for a condom. people can have sex without a condom and people can use a condom as a balloon or a waterproof cover for a rifle nozzle. although sometimes a condom is put over a penis. and in those times a woman only feels a condom inside her when the penis is inserted.. but at no time is a condom a penis do you get the common sense of knowing the differences between a condom and a penis. that they have two separate functions. one locks in seamen.. one releases seamen the LN htlc promises.. denominated in msat are a different contract than the funding contract transaction and a different contract than the settlement contract. and yes even the funding contract. and the settlement contract may be the same format. they are still separate contracts. EG imagine on the bitcoin blockchain. you paid me with one confirmed transaction. and i paid loyce with another confirmed transaction.. the transaction to loyce is not the same contract as the one you paid to me. LN payments are not only separate contract to a 'force-close' contract. but also in a very different format. making them significantly more different than each other. if you want to confuse the matter by saying that litecoin contracts are the same as bitcoin contracts. then try to get an ltc transaction to confirm on bitcoin and then try to get a msat promise to confirm on bitcoin.. point is the msat promise(LN payment) wont ever be understood nor able to confirm on the bitcoin network,.. because.. the LN promise msat promise(LN payment) is not a bitcoin transaction. so dont pretend its the same thing i know if i read your responses to points 3&4 you then backtrack to then acknowledge the difference. but i thought its worthy of highlighting your ignorance at this point, to then highlight your contradictions and flip flop acknowledgement in the next responses can you please just stop flip flopping and just understand the differences in things, and stick to acknowledging them 3. LN promises (payments inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction I guess “inside LN” means those after you've opened your channel and before you close it. Yes, agreed.4. bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued promises Of course.an LN payment (in msat) is not a fixed format that is only used as a mirror of a bitcoin 'force close' settlement contract the LN payment when rounded and value 'associated to consider what value to settle on can be settled in different blockchain coin denominated contracts. there is no consensus or network wide audit at the point of rounding up/down a valuation of a LN payment and creating a subsequent blockchain formatted contract. scammy partners can mess with this and not sign a settlement contract to update the promise value into something more tangeable the victim can use to settle his promised value 5. LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network Yes, however there's no reason I can think of to use it in Litecoin. thats your personal opinion. not a physical, hardware or software restriction. just because YOU dont use it for altcoins. doesnt mean the network cant 6.LN wont work without bitcoin Theoretically it can work without Bitcoin. Honestly, though, in practice it wouldn't have another reason of existence. I wouldn't use it in an altcoin. It's the decentralization of Bitcoin that makes it unique, IMO.thats your personal opinion. not a physical, hardware or software restriction.. just because you might only want to use a condom as a replacement of party balloons, does not mean thats its only function. other people have other uses of condoms. trying to sell it as only to be used as a party balloon is a naive concept. where as a smart PR person can 'sell' a condom as many functions. did you know in the military on tours of duty.. . more condoms are bought as a waterproof cover for their rifle nozzle. than bought for a soldier to cover his penis. sex is (discouraged in the military tour of duty) does that mean the US government that funds soldiers waterproof budget should make TV adverts about condoms to be used only as waterproofs for guns? Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 07, 2022, 10:33:42 AM Since i didn't find word "size", "block size" and "hard fork", i'll ask these question to @franky1 1. Do you think increasing block size limit is the only option for scaling (since you're not fan of SegWit, Taproot and LN)? 2. How should Bitcoin community determine block size limit? Arbitrary number (4MB, 32MB, etc.)? Based on hardware/internet growth? Based on cost of running full node (e.g. maximum $500 for initial setup and $25/month for operational cost)? 1. there are many ways to increase transaction counts. a. reducing the tx_signops_limit. dis-incentivizes big corps from filling blocks with just a few hundred transactions, b. using the now allowed 4mb 'quota' removing the still existent 1mb wall. and the cludgy math that goes with it, allows full 4mb utility rather than constraining transaction data to the 1mb limit c. also changing the fee formulae to make 'spam transactions (those that spend multiple times a day/every block, just to bloat blocks) more expensive will cut down the amount of needless transactions, giving more room to genuine spenders 2. we are not in 1999 days of floppy disks and dialup. in 2010 average internet speed was 1.9mbs (https://www.webanalyticsworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Akamai-2010-Q4-Average-Measured-Connection-Speed-by-Country.jpg) in 2022 average internet speed is 58mbs (https://www.speedtest.net/global-index) thats a 30.5x scaling of internet speeds hard drives are now 4tb and within your range of costs(~$100 ~£75) a raspberry pi and a 4tb is within your $500 spend limit as is a $400 desktop with a 4tb hard drive upgrade as for your monthly internet cost.. without even considering if an average american uses bitcoin.. just to get good internet for real life entertainment the average american spends $61 (https://www.broadbandsearch.net/blog/internet-costs-compared-worldwide) on the internet.. so i think you have set a very low bar for monthly costs of $25.. heck it costs an average american $25/month just to have their lights, tv and computer on (normal life stuff) but converting YOUR $25 low bar to UK£ .. yes i can get more then 60mbs for £20 internet with no monthly cap so lets say people upgrade their computer every 6 years meaning ~600gb a year. is about 11mb per block.. now im not saying lets jump to 11mb a block now because hardware and internet can cope with it.. im just saying.. internet and hardware can cope with it so people need to drop the 1999 internet/hardware spec propaganda and realise its 2022 as for what the community wanted in 2017 was a 2mb base atleast. i would now say thats about 4mb base block as a acceptable way to go. and that can be achieved by just removing the 'weight' miscalculating cludgy code and just having the maxblocksize as 4mb straight and open for full transaction utility. along with a new fee formulae and sigoplimit reduction to avoid bloaty spam. as for things like taproot and segwit. though segwit promised more transactions and cheaper fee's segwit has had 4 years and by the looks of the transaction count charts and the block bloat charts.. the efficiency of transactions per Xbytes have not flourished as promised. as you can see the average transactions in last 3 years https://api.blockchain.info/charts/preview/n-transactions-per-block.png?timespan=3years&h=405&w=720&daysAverageString=30D downward trajectory.. but the bloat is in an upward trajectory. https://api.blockchain.info/charts/preview/avg-block-size.png?timespan=3years&h=405&w=720&daysAverageString=30D meaning the transaction per XXXbytes is becoming less efficient due to all these new "smart contract" bloat. oh and one other segwit promise was the 4x discount of transactions. yet code reveals its not legacy /4 = segwit prices. its instead segwit * 4 = legacy prices. they did not discount segwit. they instead increased legacy static const int WITNESS_SCALE_FACTOR = 4; (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/7fcf53f7b4524572d1d0c9a5fdc388e87eb02416/src/consensus/consensus.h#L21) // New feerate uses satoshis per virtual byte instead of per serialized byte CAmount feerate = weight ? (txfee * WITNESS_SCALE_FACTOR) / weight : 0; (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/4ada74206a533e14312477f36d5443da5caebba0/src/rpc/blockchain.cpp#L2193) if train tickets were $10, and there was a promise of 4x discount you would think train tickets would be $2.50. instead though the station decided to make standard seats $40 and new carriages $10 maybe taproot might help change this smart contract inefficiency.. but lets see.. because so far segwit has not helped, even though that was a promise..(as was the NYA 2mb base that triggered(reached threshold in days) allowing segwit to activate).. and we all can see that didnt happen Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 07, 2022, 11:57:01 AM Since i didn't find word "size", "block size" and "hard fork", i'll ask these question to @franky1 1. Do you think increasing block size limit is the only option for scaling (since you're not fan of SegWit, Taproot and LN)? 2. How should Bitcoin community determine block size limit? Arbitrary number (4MB, 32MB, etc.)? Based on hardware/internet growth? Based on cost of running full node (e.g. maximum $500 for initial setup and $25/month for operational cost)? 1. there are many ways to increase transaction counts. a. reducing the tx_signops_limit. dis-incentivises big corps from filling blocks with just a few hundred transactions Wouldn't it prevent custodial service from creating batch transaction (where batch transaction use less block size compared with creating a transaction for each user request)? no, it wont prevent batching. it will prevent spam over batching by performing the legacy linear sigops attack. currently there are ways to 'fill a block' using just 5 transactions with 16,000 tx sigops each static const int64_t MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS_COST = 80000; (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/623745ca74cf3f54b474dac106f5802b7929503f/src/consensus/consensus.h#L17) static const unsigned int MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIGOPS_COST = MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS_COST/5; (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/623745ca74cf3f54b474dac106f5802b7929503f/src/policy/policy.h#L30) this could be brought down.. not to just 1-2 like you are thinking, but to say 50 or a few hundred, thus still allowing batching but preventing a max sigops attack of blocks with only 5 transactions using up the block limits c. also changing the fee formulae to make 'spam transactions (those that spend multiple times a day/every block, just to bloat blocks) more expensive will cut down the amount of needless transactions, giving more room to genuine spenders Since coin-age priority was never part of Bitcoin protocol, 1. Do you think it's possible to enforce it on Bitcoin protocol? Currently miner/pool can mine empty block and choose any transaction. 2. Most miner/pool will be hesitant to support this change. and also miners in the first few years did obide by a different fee formulae than the current weight cludge enforcing it is the same as how pools obide by the weight (vbyte vs byte) formulae 1. miners do already have a 'fee' formula.. i already explained that they obide by the x 4 legacy rule.. you can tell because legacy transactions are more expensive and so if pools only followed greed of 'more sats the better' they would only accept legacy transactions. and ignore "cheap" segwit. the very reason they deem a segwit "cheap" the same 'value' as a legacy 'premium' is becasue they do follow the x4 calculation of value per byte/vbyte 2. again they already do support fee formulae. but.. guess what. code is great. you can actually make rules to force support too. thats what code does, it makes rules as for what the community wanted in 2017 was a 2mb base atleast. i would now say thats about 4mb base block as a acceptable way to go. and that can be achieved by just removing the 'weight' miscalculating cludgy code and just having the maxblocksize as 4mb straight and open for full transaction utility. along with a new fee formulae and sigoplimit reduction to avoid bloaty spam. I see, but we know it's more than removing the "weight". Since it require hard fork, it'll force many people to upgrade their software and another activation signal which will take some time (IMO at least 6 months is required) and attract another controversy (such as cutting backward compatibility). backward compatibility.. ? how many people are actually running nodes from pre 2017.. i bet its not 5% of network also the march2017-august 2017 proved that mandated activation can happen. (bip148 and bip91) oh and because the consensus.h rule is maxblocksize 4mb. the hard block rule is 4mb. its just the cludgy soft code after that limits some transactions to not utilise it. so all the majority nodes of 2017+ dont need an upgrade. blocks wont be rejected for being 4mb Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 07, 2022, 12:53:44 PM Wouldn't it prevent custodial service from creating batch transaction (where batch transaction use less block size compared with creating a transaction for each user request)? no, it wont prevent batching. it will prevent spam over batching by performing the legacy linier sigops attack. currently there are ways to 'fill a block' using just 5 transactions with 16,000 tx sigops each static const int64_t MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS_COST = 80000; (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/623745ca74cf3f54b474dac106f5802b7929503f/src/consensus/consensus.h#L17) static const unsigned int MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIGOPS_COST = MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS_COST/5; (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/623745ca74cf3f54b474dac106f5802b7929503f/src/policy/policy.h#L30) Could you show any example? I don't care whether it's on mainnet, testnet or signet. https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/364422 its just 1 transactions and filled the block and took the nodes a heck of a long time to validate due to the bloat of soo many signatures. that prompted a change to sigops /5.. but even thats too high with the increased blocksize, so needs reducing again Since coin-age priority was never part of Bitcoin protocol, also coin-age is part of code. its a simple: current blockheight - utxo blockheight = coin age1. Do you think it's possible to enforce it on Bitcoin protocol? Currently miner/pool can mine empty block and choose any transaction. 2. Most miner/pool will be hesitant to support this change. and also miners in the first few years did obide by a different fee formulae than the current weight cludge enforcing it is the same as how pools obide by the weight (vbyte vs byte) formulae While coin-age was part of code, it was never part of Bitcoin protocol. See https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/54583 (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/54583). the thing is though. it is not rocket science to do current height - utxo height. it does not require a PHD in cryptography to master it. I see, but we know it's more than removing the "weight". Since it require hard fork, it'll force many people to upgrade their software and another activation signal which will take some time (IMO at least 6 months is required) and attract another controversy (such as cutting backward compatibility). backward compatibility.. ? how many people are actually running nodes from pre 2017.. i bet its not 5% of network also the march2017-august 2017 proved that mandated activation can happen. (bip148 and bip91) I'm aware about low percentage of node which use client that doesn't support SegWit. My point it'll be one of reasons against hard-fork. if there are less than 5% using old nodes that dont like 4mb. then there is no hard fork controversy Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 07, 2022, 12:55:23 PM i clearly said that due to lack of consensus means LND's altruist watchtower is not the default policy regarding watchtowers No, so what's bad about that?oh, but it can.. as we have just agreed, the lack of need of a consensus, means that peers can happily communicate with many networks and with no other blockchain due to the lack of network wide audited policy. By that reasoning, SPV servers' network doesn't require blockchain 'cause there's lack of network wide audited policy. are you going to now flip flop about the lack of consensus.. ? Depends on how you understand consensus. The current rigmarole that has started with you and my ban request (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380036.0) is caused because we both have different understandings of the word “consensus”. In the Lightning Network everyone does whatever they wish, they don't have to come into an agreement for their implementations. There are different sets of rules (different protocols), but each participant follows the same rules with their co-participants. the ip/tor address connection.. and the subsequent public key, handshake does not lock peer partners to a specific blockchain. that public key and formation of joint multisig can be used on multiple blockchains, or no blockchain at all and just some private token they invent together. the lack of consensus allows this Of course and they can. However, in LN it's not just an invented token. Each participant holds signatures which can be used to unlock outputs from the blockchain where there is consensus. Hence, the consensus of Bitcoin is connected with the Lightning Network.if you cannot tell the difference. please look into it. dont confuse the two I don't confuse them, I'm just telling you that whether you make a Bitcoin transaction or a Lightning one, in both cases, you carry a signature that can be used to move funds from the blockchain.just because YOU dont use it for altcoins. doesnt mean the network cant Didn't say the network can't. just because you might only want to use a condom as a replacement of party balloons, does not mean thats its only function. other people have other uses of condoms. Didn't restrict their use, stop making things up.Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 07, 2022, 03:01:59 PM Depends on how you understand consensus. The current rigmarole that has started with you and my ban request (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380036.0) is caused because we both have different understandings of the word “consensus”. your interpretation is flip floppy. you first (and mainly) pretend that consensus is devs can do as they like and if users dont like it they can fork off. then you flip flop that users cant propose anything because they are not worthy then you flip flop that upgrades cant happen without the community where devs cant mandate then you flip flop that no one can implement an upgrade because no one will every agree unanimously then you flip flop that bitcoin is open and anyone can propose my interpretation is simple pre 2015 consensus required any user to propose and if enough devs 'ack' and it gets put into code. and enough users then download that software release implementation, it activates pre 2017 consensus required mining pools and nodes to have consensus of devs chosen rule before an upgrade would activate post 2017 devs can upgrade the network and force users/pools to upgrade or be thrown off the network In the Lightning Network everyone does whatever they wish, they don't have to come into an agreement for their implementations. There are different sets of rules (different protocols), but each participant follows the same rules with their co-participants. i am not in disagreement with you at all in this. i was not the one saying that LN has to work network wide with bitcoin. i wasnt the one suggesting LN is reliant on bitcoin the ip/tor address connection.. and the subsequent public key, handshake does not lock peer partners to a specific blockchain. that public key and formation of joint multisig can be used on multiple blockchains, or no blockchain at all and just some private token they invent together. the lack of consensus allows this Of course and they can. However, in LN it's not just an invented token. Each participant holds signatures which can be used to unlock outputs from the blockchain where there is consensus. Hence, the consensus of Bitcoin is connected with the Lightning Network.oh boy.. my comment is on the peer connection.. not the locked output of funds vs token promises.. its the public keys used purely at the peer connection stage.. that those keys.. SEPARETLY at a later stage can be used to bind together to create a multisig. and separete stage again later then that multisig can be used to fund locks. on different chains. the public keys are just random generated priv->pub nothing about the keys force it to a certain blockchain at the peer connection stage its not like a channel is funded. and then keys are produced to then use to node_connect to a peer.. (time doesnt travel backwards) so lets deal with your obvious confusing in 2 stages, or what appears as being a mish-mash of different parts of the network protocol done to confuse the issue 1. peer connection the gossip: node_announce section of handshaking with a peer.. is a completely different process to that of discovering the channels and which bridged coin a node has. you cant work out how many chain_hash channels a partner has BEFORE joining the partner(time moves backwards) you can join the partner to THEN find out what chain_hash his multiple channels might have (time and action moves forward) meaning. a litecoin bridged node and a bitcoin bridged node are not separated on different LN's. they can peer connect on the same LN. and then agree on some atomic swap of their different chain_hashed bridged channels lets just use the flimsy 'bolts' as an example (working backwards, seems the direction you prefer) 4. nodes 'shouldnt' send a channel_update notifying the network of a chain_hash locked channel until funding_locked 3. nodes 'shouldnt' send do funding_locked unless they have funded the multisig 2. nodes 'shouldnt' send funds unless they have shared public keys, made multisig, agreed which chain_hash 1. nodes 'shouldnt' agree on a public key until they are peer_connected what you learn is this paradox you pretend exists where there are different 'lightning networkz'... does not exist YOUR VIEW: you cant connect to a node1 without a channel4 designating which blockchain its on. my response: but then you cant connect to a node1 to then create a channel2 in your paradox. the reality is though. there is no paradox. you can connect to a node without a pre-existing channel and then inspect what channels they have. being able to connect to nodes without a channel.. is not a paradox which you hint at, where nodes need to have assumed some chain_hash locked channel with funding already provided before even connecting.. please please please understand the difference betwen peer connection.. being different to channel locks (i think you separately know it. and just said some weird mixing of different aspects just to be silly and cause irritation) 2. locked funds of funding_tx vs LN promise.. and their signatures seems as part of you rmish-mash of aspects of the network. you want to impose your opinion that the signatures of a peer connection are that of the same signature as a established channel with locked funds signatures of a series of bytes(message) which includes value of msats. wont match a series of bytes(message) of a contract measured in sats. not a series of bytes(mesage) that contains an IP, port and public key i think you might want to learn the association between what signatures sign. EG you cant take a litecoin transaction signature over to a bitcoin transaction message and make it fit purely because the use the same public key. the message(contract wording/node data) have to match too what you find is that a there is no single signature that lasts for the duration of all things LN many signing processes happen. signing different things .. a couple signing processes happen in the payment part. one for the LN payment(mast) promise and another for the commitment(sat). at GUI level you dont see it happen. but at code level it does. and a malicious attacker can mess with is via delays in signing. just because you dont see the signing stages happen for their respective things. doesnt mean they dont happen, so try not to confuse it. and definitely dont try pretending a signature for one message can be used on multiple messages that sounds a bit faketoshi to me. taking an old signature and pretending it refers to a new message if you cannot tell the difference. please look into it. dont confuse the two I don't confuse them, I'm just telling you that whether you make a Bitcoin transaction or a Lightning one, in both cases, you carry a signature that can be used to move funds from the blockchain.but you seem to be meandering away from the actual initial debate now. you dont need to have an active channel with funds locked just to peer connect to a node.. thus you dont need to be locked to bitcoin with funds locked to talk to other peers. just because YOU dont use it for altcoins. doesnt mean the network cant Didn't say the network can't. just because you might only want to use a condom as a replacement of party balloons, does not mean thats its only function. other people have other uses of condoms. Didn't restrict their use, stop making things up.as for your final two points.. you debate that the nodes of different bridged blockchains cant communicate together. and then at the end flip flop to say you never said they cant and you never restricted their use (facepalm) so because some altnetters want to contradict themselves, flip flop. and confuse even themselves with what they are saying lets try this one more time. the questions are made simple to avoid any extended waffly clauses, its simply to get flip floppers to finally pledge their opinions to agree or disagree with certain aspects ill number them and you can quote them and put a * mark in which box you agree or disagree with 1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things agree[ ] disagree[ ] 2. LN promises (payments inside LN) are denominated in picocoin(11decimal) also known as msat/millisat agree[ ] disagree[ ] 3. LN promises (payments inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction agree[ ] disagree[ ] 4. bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued promises agree[ ] disagree[ ] 5. LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network agree[ ] disagree[ ] 6.LN wont work without bitcoin agree[ ] disagree[ ] its not complicated. just simple quote the 6 questions and put a * into the box that fits your opinion. an opinion you will not flip flop out of or contradict yourself later. [moderator's note: consecutive posts merged] Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: LoyceV on January 07, 2022, 06:09:20 PM off-chain solutions in general. ~ Binance chain I wouldn't call a custodial made-up token an off-chain solution. Binance tries to trick people into using their own centralized chain, pretending it's Bitcoin.Quote Now, is a BTC pegged token bitcoin? It is not, but i guess it is useful for bitcoin adoption and awareness. I think it's terrible for Bitcoin adoption, as it goes against everything Bitcoin stands for. Note that Binance could just as well have implemented LN on their exchange, so that their withdrawals are compatible with the rest of the world, but that wouldn't have inflated the value of their own made-up centralized chain to 75 billion dollars.I'm not against centralized solutions for adoption, but Binance has different interests than Bitcoin (users). Quote I believe that we should support LN and use it, otherwise we will soon be forced to use a worse off-chain solution from time to time. True. It serves as a good warning of what the alternative can be.I want to add this as a condition: We'll speak of one topic at a time. Scalability? Scalability. Lightning's protocol? Lightning's protocol. Consensus? Consensus. This way we can clarify which are our interlocutor's disagreements and constructively (& friendly) correct them. Added to the OP. This is what I meant by "Try to limit the scope", but you explained it better.ok i must start with the first fatal flaw. Agreed. I assumed we were talking about LN on the Bitcoin network, but indeed, it can be applied broader.LN CAN infact work without bitcoin. LN's function allows it to peg to different blockchains. Quote LN has no network wide audit/consensus that checks that all nodes/channels are all connected to the bitcoin network. True. But as far as I know, those LTC-LN-nodes won't interact with a BTC-LN-node, so even though they all use some form of LN, they won't mix up transactions.some LN users right now only have channels/nodes pegged to litecoin Quote many devs and LN users have lost funds. even with "punishment" clauses attached. LN is still experimental, right? People have lost on-chain Bitcoin too, and I have no doubt people have lost their coins through LN. However, for future growth, I'm more interested if this can be improved up to the point where the chance of losing coins becomes small enough to be acceptable. Let's face it: people lose their physical wallet with cash too.watchtowers.. ok now you are creating bank managers. I must say I like this system: if you don't trust the existing watchtowers, you can run your own. It's like creating your own bank managers! And if enough people do that, there will be enough watchtowers to rule out being offline when you need one.so now people have to trust their channel partner to not cheat. and then trust a bank manager to watch that the partner has not cheated. soo much to do just to hope cheating does not happen. I agree with you here! I (still) don't understand all the technical details of LN, but from what I've seen, it is indeed complicated. Much more complicated than signing a simple on-chain Bitcoin transaction. But, and that's why I like LN: when implemented and used correctly, it has the potential to make secure transactions abundant.Quote so much trust is needed to risk not having to watch 24/7 This, however, I don't agree with. For example: rebooting your LN node and being offline for a while isn't enough for your channel partner to broadcast an old channel state and steal your funds.Quote meanwhile, on bitcoin. when someone sends me value. its confirmed. finito. its mine, no takesy backsy's, no third party watchtower, no co-signer needed. no punishment. its just mine. done Agreed. But: say you sell coffee, and say you accept many small amounts of Bitcoin per day. Consolidating your funds will be expensive because all those small inputs increase your transaction size. LN doesn't have that problem, and I haven't even started yet about limited blockspace.For me, it's quite simple: if you buy a car with Bitcoin, pay on-chain. If you buy a coffee, use LN. Both have their pros and cons depending on the situation. For receiving: If I receive a payment worth $1000, I prefer Bitcoin on-chain. But if I receive 1000 payments of $1 each, I prefer Bitcoin LN. Quote when setting up a channel you have to put keys in even if you are just watching balance. those keys are needed actively all the time. even if you are not buying anything for yourself and instead just routing.. Agreed. Do you mean the risk of having your node compromised and your keys stolen? That is indeed a risk because you can't use cold storage in LN. My workaround is to lower the risk: I don't use LN for large amounts.Quote 1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things agree[ *] disagree[ *]Assuming we're talking about LN on the Bitcoin network, I ticked both boxes. I agree, because LN and Bitcoin indeed use different networks, and are meant for different circumstances. But I also disagree, because the transactions are linked and LN-payments can eventually be settled on-chain. Quote 2. LN promises (payments inside LN) are denominated in picocoin(11decimal) also known as msat/millisat agree [ *] disagree[ ]I agree on the msat. I ignore the pico, that would be 10-12, not 10-11. But even though I'll never get the fractions of a satoshi back on-chain, I don't worry (nor care) about it. Exchanges or stock brokers also use dollars or euros up to 3 or more decimals for their internal accounting, and everyone accepts that. Quote 3. LN promises (payments inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction agree[ *] disagree[ ]Obviously, this is different. Quote 4. bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued promises agree[ *] disagree[ ]Also true. Quote 5. LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network agree[ *] disagree[ *]I ticked both again: it depends on the implementation. If I install a simple Bitcoin LN wallet, it won't work on any other chains. But it can be implemented, just like Bitcoin Core can be adjusted for many different altcoins. Quote 6.LN wont work without bitcoin agree[ *] disagree[ ]Assuming we're talking about LN on the Bitcoin network, I agree. There is no LN Bitcoin without on-chain channel opening and closing. And that's a huge threat to LN if on-chain fees rise. lightning network can work without bitcoin even when partnering with users that have bitcoin channels This is new to me. But (I think) my earlier point stands: my Bitcoin LN wallet can't transact with for example a Litecoin LN wallet, because the transactions needed for on-chain settlement aren't compatible, hence the transaction on the LN-side can't be accepted.maybe by admitting to this you might be able to explain the positives of such, like highlighting atomic swaps LN is its own network. there is no litecoin LN network and LN bitcoin network. thats just a user interface error in thinking. not a separation at code level that prevents such communication between peers. Quote i know you maybe ready to itch a scratch and say that within the LN island, there are separate towns like bitcoinLN and litecoinLN .. That sounds reasonable :)Does it make sense to limit this topic to the discussion about LN in relation to Bitcoin, and forget about the possibility of using LN on altcoin networks (at least for now)? a condom is not a penis. See:I will call you out if you go off-topic there is no consensus or network wide audit at the point of rounding up/down a valuation of a LN payment and creating a subsequent blockchain formatted contract. I think this is correct. But: I think the node's rules on fee for onchain settlement are a much larger concern. Why would I bother about a fraction of a satoshi if the node sends thousands of satoshis as on-chain fee? It's just a rounding difference.I assume all these details will be explained in the fine print of large nodes in the future, or you can set your own preferred fees on your own node. Quote scammy partners can mess with this and not sign a settlement contract to update the promise value into something more tangeable the victim can use to settle his promised value Are we still talking about a fraction of a satoshi, or about something bigger? If it's bigger, it might be nice to put it to the test: open a channel with someone's node, and see if you can actually scam them. My guess is it won't work, but if it does work, that's huge!as you can see the average transactions in last 3 years I don't think the average transaction size went up because of smart contracts, but it's because more users (and especially large users such as online casinos and exchanges) have finally realized batching transactions is more efficient in terms of blockspace and thus transaction fees than sending separate transactions for each individual withdrawal.https://api.blockchain.info/charts/preview/n-transactions-per-block.png?timespan=3years&h=405&w=720&daysAverageString=30D downward trajectory.. but the bloat is in an upward trajectory. https://api.blockchain.info/charts/preview/avg-block-size.png?timespan=3years&h=405&w=720&daysAverageString=30D meaning the transaction per XXXbytes is becoming less efficient due to all these new "smart contract" bloat. so because some altnetters want to contradict themselves, flip flop. and confuse even themselves with what they are saying I'm not a native English speaker, and it's kinda hard to understand what you mean if you talk about "altnetters", "flip flop", "waffy clauses" and "flip floppers".lets try this one more time. the questions are made simple to avoid any extended waffly clauses, its simply to get flip floppers to finally pledge their opinions to agree or disagree with certain aspects Please keep this topic civil. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on January 07, 2022, 06:18:24 PM Consensus (and open-source) related post:
devs can upgrade the network and force users/pools to upgrade or be thrown off the network I notice a small but crucial step missed out. Devs can create and release code. There's no 'automatic update' in any Bitcoin client I've ever used. Ergo, upgrades can only occur if people freely choose to run that code. So no, devs can't upgrade the network. Only those securing the chain can do that. Also, regardless of how you choose to interpret consensus, the only counter proposal you've ever expressed is that devs shouldn't be allowed to code things you don't approve of. That's not something anyone can enforce, even if anyone did happen to agree with you that it was the correct course of action. Which leads me on to the next point: devs can do as they like As we've already established, they can't upgrade the network unilaterally. But beyond that, yes. I will state it clearly and with emphasis because it's empirically true: Any developer can create any code they want. No one can stop that in an open-source source environment. You might take issue with that statement, but can you provide any evidence to the contrary? Further, I feel it's one of the most vitally important features of crypto and I'm baffled as to why anyone would want the opposite. //EDIT: Does it make sense to limit this topic to the discussion about LN in relation to Bitcoin? Oh, sorry, heh. Did you want to start another topic for consensus-related matters, then? Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 07, 2022, 06:34:16 PM Consensus (and open-source) related post: devs can upgrade the network and force users/pools to upgrade or be thrown off the network I notice a small but crucial step missed out. Devs can create and release code. There's no 'automatic update' in any Bitcoin client I've ever used. yet another flip flop.. did you forget previous talking points where by you have said that bitcoin doesnt require USERS to upgrade clients 'because backward compatibility'.. remember where you script hymn sheet 'bitcoin doesnt need you it can move on without you' As we've already established, they can't upgrade the network unilaterally. But beyond that, yes. I will state it clearly and with emphasis because it's empirically true: Any developer can create any code they want. No one can stop that in an open-source source environment. You might take issue with that statement, but can you provide any evidence to the contrary? Further, I feel it's one of the most vitally important features of crypto and I'm baffled as to why anyone would want the opposite. i guess you forgot the other implementations that got treated as opposition and told to fork off.. oh wait it was you telling them to fork off. because you wanted core to be the sole brand of reference client. and no dont try refering to very old mindset before your switcheroo.. i used to respect you in the days of 2015 and before.. but you have switched over to sound more like a centraliser and altnet fan in recent years Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 07, 2022, 06:45:07 PM [...] Sorry, but I can't answer this nonsense, with all the respect. It's just impossible to understand a sentence and I'm really tired to try hard at the moment.I'm not a native English speaker, and it's kinda hard to understand what you mean if you talk about "altnetters", "flip flop", "waffy clauses" and "flip floppers". True, franky, don't use phrases such as flip floppy, I've firstly no idea what they mean (and as it seems it happens to others too) and secondly, keep the atmosphere of the discussion calm. I agree with you here! I (still) don't understand all the technical details of LN, but from what I've seen, it is indeed complicated. I recommend you to read the lnbook (https://github.com/lnbook/lnbook).ill number them and you can quote them and put a * mark in which box you agree or disagree with What you fail understanding is that some of those questions can't be answered with a simple True or False. For instance:1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things Yes, they're separate networks obviously, but they do the same thing. They allow you to transact bitcoins. The transaction structure and the contracts are different, but the purpose remains same.Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: LoyceV on January 07, 2022, 06:55:13 PM Does it make sense to limit this topic to the discussion about LN in relation to Bitcoin? Oh, sorry, heh. Did you want to start another topic for consensus-related matters, then?Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on January 07, 2022, 07:38:32 PM I notice a small but crucial step missed out. Devs can create and release code. There's no 'automatic update' in any Bitcoin client I've ever used. did you forget previous talking points where by you have said that bitcoin doesnt require USERS to upgrade clients 'because backward compatibility'.. remember where you script hymn sheet 'bitcoin doesnt need you it can move on without you' It can move on without you. No one single person can block or filibuster a proposal if the majority agree. We don't need your individual approval. It's about collective approval. But the fact that you're still using Bitcoin means you do approve (if reluctantly). And yes, it is sometimes possible to introduce changes in way that is backwards compatible, so that users who don't want to take advantage of new features can still take part in the network on their own terms. But why would you oppose that? It gives you more freedom, not less. And again, your only counter proposal would be to tell devs what they can't code. We've established that notion is unworkable. As we've already established, they can't upgrade the network unilaterally. But beyond that, yes. I will state it clearly and with emphasis because it's empirically true: Any developer can create any code they want. No one can stop that in an open-source source environment. You might take issue with that statement, but can you provide any evidence to the contrary? Further, I feel it's one of the most vitally important features of crypto and I'm baffled as to why anyone would want the opposite. i guess you forgot the other implementations that got treated as opposition and told to fork off.. oh wait it was you telling them to fork off. because you wanted core to be the sole brand of reference client. and no dont try refering to very old mindset before your switcheroo.. i used to respect you in the days of 2015 and before.. but you have switched over to sound more like a centraliser and altnet fan in recent years Apologies, but I didn't ask about my mindset or what I've said. I asked you to provide evidence to the contrary. Do you have any? I'd love to see it. If not, kindly concede the point. You cannot prevent devs coding what they want. There isn't a way to do that unless you are suggesting we make Bitcoin closed-source and put you in charge of the code repository. Is that what you are proposing? Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 07, 2022, 07:40:25 PM ok i must start with the first fatal flaw. Agreed. I assumed we were talking about LN on the Bitcoin network, but indeed, it can be applied broader.LN CAN infact work without bitcoin. LN's function allows it to peg to different blockchains. oh and its not "about LN on the bitcoin network" its the LN network bridging to a network. LND does not function on the bitcoin network. EG LND requires a blockchain full node that bridges to LN or a LN lite cellphone app just works on the LN network without touching a blockchain network LN has no network wide audit/consensus that checks that all nodes/channels are all connected to the bitcoin network. True. But as far as I know, those LTC-LN-nodes won't interact with a BTC-LN-node, so even though they all use some form of LN, they won't mix up transactions.some LN users right now only have channels/nodes pegged to litecoin LN peers(nodes) can connect together and have different blockchain bridged channels. .. its why atomic swaps is a feature many devs and LN users have lost funds. even with "punishment" clauses attached. LN is still experimental, right? People have lost on-chain Bitcoin too, and I have no doubt people have lost their coins through LN. However, for future growth, I'm more interested if this can be improved up to the point where the chance of losing coins becomes small enough to be acceptable. Let's face it: people lose their physical wallet with cash too.EG when i get a confirmed payment on bitcoin.. the sender is not going to punish me somehow and double spend my coin. nor can he. yet these smart contracts add in new clauses that allow delays in confirmation to invoke punishments (much like fiat chargeback scamming is a bane of merchants lives, so will these punishment clauses become) watchtowers.. ok now you are creating bank managers. I must say I like this system: if you don't trust the existing watchtowers, you can run your own. It's like creating your own bank managers! And if enough people do that, there will be enough watchtowers to rule out being offline when you need one.so now people have to trust their channel partner to not cheat. and then trust a bank manager to watch that the partner has not cheated. meanwhile on bitcoin even offline someone can pay me. no need for me to sign for it. no need to watch or hire a bank to watch to make sure the sender doesnt refund himself. its mine. done. clear. end of story LN is different and riskier and the LN PR people need to make people aware of the risks instead of just saying its bitcoin 2.0 and has same security as bitcoin soo much to do just to hope cheating does not happen. I agree with you here! I (still) don't understand all the technical details of LN, but from what I've seen, it is indeed complicated. Much more complicated than signing a simple on-chain Bitcoin transaction. But, and that's why I like LN: when implemented and used correctly, it has the potential to make secure transactions abundant.this is what i mean by needing to explain the risks. you loosely wrote: when implemented and used correctly, it has the potential to make secure transactions abundant but even that is sweeping the risks under the carpet. like its not a big deal and pretends to be "secure". there are more flaws then you might think. or more flaws than others had bothered to make you aware of so much trust is needed to risk not having to watch 24/7 This, however, I don't agree with. For example: rebooting your LN node and being offline for a while isn't enough for your channel partner to broadcast an old channel state and steal your funds.with honest partners. no big deal. but we all know from all the bitcoin scams mentioned on this forum. you cant trust someone not to want to take their funds out if they see an opportunity to garner more then they deserve. again going offline thinking partner wont do it, requires trust meanwhile, on bitcoin. when someone sends me value. its confirmed. finito. its mine, no takesy backsy's, no third party watchtower, no co-signer needed. no punishment. its just mine. done Agreed. But: say you sell coffee, and say you accept many small amounts of Bitcoin per day. Consolidating your funds will be expensive because all those small inputs increase your transaction size. LN doesn't have that problem, and I haven't even started yet about limited blockspace.For me, it's quite simple: if you buy a car with Bitcoin, pay on-chain. If you buy a coffee, use LN. Both have their pros and cons depending on the situation. For receiving: If I receive a payment worth $1000, I prefer Bitcoin on-chain. But if I receive 1000 payments of $1 each, I prefer Bitcoin LN. i dont have a problem with LN being advertised as a nice service for micro payments.. the issue is when its described as bitcoins solution to everyones every day payment needs. when its described as bitcoin2.0. when its described as the replacement to not need to scale bitcoin or widen its 'limited blockspace' seeing as you brought it up. ill just quickly say the limited blockspace is not limited due to any technical reason. its limited by commercial politics reason, of creating a demand for a altnet that can fill a niche when setting up a channel you have to put keys in even if you are just watching balance. those keys are needed actively all the time. even if you are not buying anything for yourself and instead just routing.. Agreed. Do you mean the risk of having your node compromised and your keys stolen? That is indeed a risk because you can't use cold storage in LN. My workaround is to lower the risk: I don't LN for large amounts.1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things agree[ *] disagree[ *]Assuming we're talking about LN on the Bitcoin network, I ticked both boxes. I agree, because LN and Bitcoin indeed use different networks, and are meant for different circumstances. But I also disagree, because the transactions are linked and LN-payments can eventually be settled on-chain. again once you understand that atomic swaps and connecting nodes is separate comms than creating channels, it may become clearer for you 2. LN promises (payments inside LN) are denominated in picocoin(11decimal) also known as msat/millisat agree [ *] disagree[ ]I agree on the msat. I ignore the pico, that would be 10-12, not 10-11. 5. LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network agree[ *] disagree[ *]I ticked both again: it depends on the implementation. If I install a simple Bitcoin LN wallet, it won't work on any other chains. But it can be implemented, just like Bitcoin Core can be adjusted for many different altcoins. you cant obviously already have a channel where you already have funds locked in a partnered multisig, just to be able to establish you are a bitcoin only bridge, to then connect to a peer to then create a channel to then fund into the partnered multisig .. thats a paradox Quote 6.LN wont work without bitcoin agree[ *] disagree[ ]Assuming we're talking about LN on the Bitcoin network, I agree. There is no LN Bitcoin without on-chain channel opening and closing. And that's a huge threat to LN if on-chain fees rise. i will respect you may not know about the peer connect process is separate to the channel establishing process. so ill just mention paradox again. and also mention atomic swap and also LTC bridge lightning network can work without bitcoin even when partnering with users that have bitcoin channels maybe by admitting to this you might be able to explain the positives of such, like highlighting atomic swaps LN is its own network. there is no litecoin LN network and LN bitcoin network. thats just a user interface error in thinking. not a separation at code level that prevents such communication between peers. This is new to me. But (I think) my earlier point stands: my Bitcoin LN wallet can't transact with for example a Litecoin LN wallet, because the transactions needed for on-chain settlement aren't compatible, hence the transaction on the LN-side can't be accepted. much like many that are already thinking that 'pruned nodes' are still full nodes and archiving data to provide new peers with IBD is not part of the decentralisation feature of bitcoin i understand your wallet doesnt do atomic swaps, nor any decent node interrogation of channels.. nor able to handle other blockchains.. but thats not to say the lightning network cant/doesnt Does it make sense to limit this topic to the discussion about LN in relation to Bitcoin, and forget about the possibility of using LN on altcoin networks (at least for now) nah, lets not play into the game of making LN sound like its bitcoin 2.0 by only talking about a limited scope.again LN peer connection does not require channel establishment first to 'fix' users to a specific bridged blockchain (the paradox) 1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things Yes, they're separate networks obviously, but they do the same thing. They allow you to transact bitcoins. The transaction structure and the contracts are different, but the purpose remains same.LN allows the payment promise of millisats. the bitcoin network allows the confirmed immutable settlement of sats i know at GUI level you cant tell the difference. but at code level there is a difference. much like you wish to argue that binance sidechain is not real bitcoins. I notice a small but crucial step missed out. Devs can create and release code. There's no 'automatic update' in any Bitcoin client I've ever used. did you forget previous talking points where by you have said that bitcoin doesnt require USERS to upgrade clients 'because backward compatibility'.. remember where you script hymn sheet 'bitcoin doesnt need you it can move on without you' It can move on without you. No one single person can block or filibuster a proposal if the majority agree. We don't need your individual approval. It's about collective approval. "backward compatibility" made it so, by not requiring users to upgrade.. But why would you oppose that? It gives you more freedom, not less. And again, your only counter proposal would be to tell devs what they can't code. We've established that notion is unworkable. its not about saying what people cant code.its about what they do in their PR campaigns promising one thing but giving another. overhyping something as being something else. As we've already established, they can't upgrade the network unilaterally. But beyond that, yes. I will state it clearly and with emphasis because it's empirically true: Any developer can create any code they want. No one can stop that in an open-source source environment. You might take issue with that statement, but can you provide any evidence to the contrary? Further, I feel it's one of the most vitally important features of crypto and I'm baffled as to why anyone would want the opposite. i guess you forgot the other implementations that got treated as opposition and told to fork off.. oh wait it was you telling them to fork off. because you wanted core to be the sole brand of reference client. and no dont try referring to very old mindset before your switcheroo.. i used to respect you in the days of 2015 and before.. but you have switched over to sound more like a centraliser and altnet fan in recent years Apologies, but I didn't ask about my mindset or what I've said. I asked you to provide evidence to the contrary. Do you have any? I'd love to see it. If not, kindly concede the point. You cannot prevent devs coding what they want. There isn't a way to do that unless you are suggesting we make Bitcoin closed-source and put you in charge of the code repository. Is that what you are proposing? i guess your still forgetting the other implementations.. maybe "REKT bitcoinXT" campaign.. remember now? how about bitcoinclassic how about bitcoinunlimited how about all the topics where everyone says bitcoin-core is THE reference client. how about the rhetoric where all bip submissions and stuff has to go through their approval process [moderator's note: consecutive posts merged] Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: tertius993 on January 07, 2022, 08:42:29 PM I'm not a native English speaker, and it's kinda hard to understand what you mean if you talk about "altnetters", "flip flop", "waffy clauses" and "flip floppers". Please keep this topic civil. I can assure you that even native English speakers find it difficult to understand franky - his language and spelling is frankly atrocious. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on January 08, 2022, 11:17:40 AM I asked you to provide evidence to the contrary. Do you have any? I'd love to see it. If not, kindly concede the point. You cannot prevent devs coding what they want. There isn't a way to do that unless you are suggesting we make Bitcoin closed-source and put you in charge of the code repository. Is that what you are proposing? bitcoinXT bitcoinclassic bitcoinunlimited It appears you're providing me with examples which support my assertion that devs can code what they want. Despite the part where some people found those clients to be divisive or objectionable, developers were still free to create them. People had the opportunity to run those clients. A few people are still running some of those clients even today. If Bitcoin were a closed-source project with one person having exclusive control over the code repository, then perhaps those clients wouldn't exist. But Bitcoin is open-source, so anyone is free to use that code and create something new. Any time someone on the forum has claimed that other developers had no right to use "Core's code" as a base for other clients, I have challenged that. I stand by the stance that anyone is free to use that code to create other clients. As far as I'm concerned, everything works as intended here. I'm happy with that. You say you're not happy, but again you don't seem to be able to propose a viable alternative. PR campaigns REKT Now this is where things get interesting. We're into the subject of social engineering. This one is an absolute hornet's nest. Mostly due to the part where it's a human flaw. And I'm going to be completely honest with you. I don't have an answer for you. Sometimes people lash out and make petty attacks against things they don't approve of in the hope that they can convince other people to feel the same way. And this has happened quite often when devs create new features they would like to see implemented. There's no way I'd deny that. It absolutely happens. But the thing is, it's all completely subjective. What are we supposed to do about it? One person's ideal might be another person's heresy. So it's inevitable that people will attack new ideas if they don't like them. I don't have the slightest clue as to how to change that sort of petty behaviour and I suspect you don't either. But I do have an important question for you: Can you highlight any distinction between the behaviour of those people who made "REKT" campaigns against those implementations like XT/Classic/Unlimited and your behaviour with your ongoing "REKT" campaign towards LN? Because I'll be the first to admit that I can't see any difference (aside from the part where your campaign has been remarkably less successful). You claim you are vehemently opposed to that sort of conduct, but one could argue you're doing exactly the same thing. Lashing out and attacking a concept you don't approve of. How are you acting any better than they were? Is it a revenge thing? They did it first, so you're justified to do it now? Help us to understand it. There's clearly something getting lost in translation here, because none of us can figure out what it is you're actually trying to achieve. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 08, 2022, 11:26:46 AM the difference is:
im not the one doing a hinder bitcoin to promote altnets im not the one trying to get people to exodus bitcoin 'because altnet is the solution' im not the one trying to say bitcoin cant/shouldnt scale because altnet is the direction people should move to im not the one advertising an altnet thats already separate to become defined as being bitcoin2.0 im not oppose to freedom and choice and opinion. im oppose to people saying bitcoin is limited, broke, unscalable, useless, not a currency. to promote their other network as al of those things, while also trying to take over brand bitcoin oh and im not the one trying to ban people because of their opinion Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on January 08, 2022, 12:08:18 PM the difference is: im not the one doing a hinder bitcoin to promote altnets im not the one trying to get people to exodus bitcoin 'because altnet is the solution' im not the one trying to say bitcoin cant/shouldnt scale because altnet is the direction people should move to im not the one advertising an altnet thats already separate to become defined as being bitcoin2.0 im not oppose to freedom and choice and opinion. im oppose to people saying bitcoin is limited, broke, unscalable, useless, not a currency. to promote their other network as al of those things, while also trying to take over brand bitcoin oh and im not the one trying to ban people because of their opinion Okay. So you believe you possess some sort of moral high-ground. Great. Now what? Are we supposed to "see the light" that apparently only you can see and convert to your way of thinking? Because I can guarantee to you that's not going to happen. I don't think any of us believe that we are "hindering" Bitcoin. That's just your opinion. We appear to be at an impasse. We've got what we want. You don't have what you want. You have nothing to offer us. Meaning there is no incentive for us to change. This sounds like a "you" problem. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 08, 2022, 12:17:46 PM note to moderator:loyceV
as you can see Doomad poked the bear, without using any data, code, references to bips, to just talk about me as a personality. he poked the bear. so dont blame me Okay. So you believe you possess some sort of moral high-ground. Great. Now what? Are we supposed to "see the light" that apparently only you can see and convert to your way of thinking? Because I can guarantee to you that's not going to happen. I don't think any of us believe that we are "hindering" Bitcoin. That's just your opinion. We appear to be at an impasse. We've got what we want. You don't have what you want. You have nothing to offer us. Meaning there is no incentive for us to change. This sounds like a "you" problem. its not a moral high ground. i dont care about merit circles or people being my friends, or ass kissing.. my opinions are about bitcoin. and how its being abused to serve other networks agenda's i dont want to form a little club of friendship partners to exchange tokens of many forms im a bitcoiner, and proud of it. heck i even tried to get people to answer just 6 simple non invasive, short non-waffling(no wall of text) questions to button them down to key opinions they want to categorically state as their stance.. to avoid any contradictions(flip flops/change of opinion/meandering) .. and yet they avoid it and try meandering and confusing the answers. if you cant stand by your opinion by just answering agree or disagree without adding in some silly rhetoric of maybe. then your opinion obviously is less refined or strong, thus you dont want to stand by a opinion without fears of contradicting it later. my opinion does not waver, does not contradict itself, does not change. because its backed up by code, bips, blockdata and quotes from devs themselves. can you say the same about your opinions.. nope. i backup my statements. but all i see from your side is "franky is wrong because [insert insult]." you can insult me all you like. but dont then play victim after poking a bear, if the bear then bites you. and by the way, your "us" vs "you" is very transparent that you believe there is a 'pretty boys club' you belong to. but that club, circles around the altnet support group. not the bitcoin group. and if you think i am the only one that wants BITCOIN scaling. how come there are thousands of BITCOIN scaling topics with loads of people asking about scaling BITCOIN. which your club invades to endlessly advertise an altnet people should exodus to instead 'as a solution to scaling bitcoin' (facepalm) oh, and i actually did give some advice that if you changed your PR strategy to instead of pretending LN is bitcoin, but instead explain the differences, you might actually have a better campaign by being able to explain those differences as the niche use-case feature people might want. but it seems im the bad guy for ruining the "LN is bitcoin2.0" PR campaign Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on January 08, 2022, 01:25:06 PM heck i even tried to get people to answer just 6 simple non invasive, short non-waffling(no wall of text) questions to button them down to key opinions they want to categorically state as their stance.. and yet they avoid it and try meandering and confusing the answers. if you cant stand by your opinion by just answering agree or disagree without adding in some silly rhetoric of maybe. then your opinion obviously is less refined or strong, thus you dont want to stand by a opinion without fears of contradictions But you haven't addressed any of the concerns that we've raised with your questions. You just repeat the questions because you want us to admit to something that isn't true. Let's take a look: 1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things agree[ ] disagree[ ] Neither. They are connected networks, not separate. Misleading question. 2. LN promises (payments inside LN) are denominated in picocoin(11decimal) also known as msat/millisat agree[ ] disagree[ ] Again, misleading. I would dispute the use of the word "promises". You are adding your "silly rhetoric" here because you are biased. I won't mindlessly agree to misleading words. 3. LN promises (payments inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction agree[ ] disagree[ ] Again, "promises". You can't help yourself. 4. bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued promises agree[ ] disagree[ ] You really like the word "promises", don't you? 5. LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network agree[ * ] disagree[ ] Oh good. Something that I can actually answer without accepting any misleading rhetoric. LN does function on top of other blockchains. And that's a positive quality, not a negative one. If other networks are deploying LN to allow people to transact off-chain, then it must have some useful purpose. My view is forever locked in. I can now never deny that other altcoins can use LN. Although I can't think of a time where I ever tried to deny that. So, congratulations, I guess? What did you hope to achieve by this? 6.LN wont work without bitcoin agree[ ] disagree[ ] Misleading. Either can be correct depending on the circumstances. If I have an amount of bitcoin and I want to use LN to transfer that value to someone else, who wants to receive bitcoin, then yes, it won't work without Bitcoin. If I have an amount of altcoin and I want to use LN to transfer that value to someone else, who wants to receive the same altcoin, then no, it doesn't need Bitcoin to work. These are not "simple non invasive" questions. You are being deliberately calculating in your choice of wording in an attempt to trick people into agreeing with your rhetoric. And even if we had fallen into your not-so-subtly prepared trap, it still doesn't detract from the utility offered by this technology. and yet they avoid it and try meandering and confusing the answers. if you cant stand by your opinion by just answering agree or disagree without adding in some silly rhetoric of maybe. then your opinion obviously is less refined or strong, thus you dont want to stand by a opinion without fears of contradictions my opinion does not waver, does not contradict itself, does not change. Then you'll happily confirm without equivocation that:
Or can you highlight any reason why you believe any of these statements to be misleading? I believe these statements to be true and feel that I have justified them in the posts I have made in this topic. In fact, I would invite anyone, not just franky1, to challenge any of these statements. I want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly and that I'm not just preaching arcane beliefs like a religious follower despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Please correct me if I am mistaken or nonfactual in any regard. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 08, 2022, 01:54:48 PM the difference is: Clarify me this: Why is this a bad thing? Why is promoting of networks that don't follow the Bitcoin's consensus rules bad? If something happens outside the network, but it does satisfy a decent percentage of Bitcoin users, why does this annoy you? The networks are indirectly connected. No one forced anybody to use any of those and the Lightning Network hasn't damaged Bitcoin in any way. Contrariwise, it has made the chain weight less. You're paying less in fees due to the existence of it, whose usage is optional!im not the one doing a hinder bitcoin to promote altnets Also, what's an altnet, exactly? Wanna give me a description? Are forks (such as BCH) altnets? Or is the definition just interest-based? 'Cause if they are, then your proposal will lead to another altnet. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 08, 2022, 01:55:34 PM heck i even tried to get people to answer just 6 simple non invasive, short non-waffling(no wall of text) questions to button them down to key opinions they want to categorically state as their stance.. and yet they avoid it and try meandering and confusing the answers. if you cant stand by your opinion by just answering agree or disagree without adding in some silly rhetoric of maybe. then your opinion obviously is less refined or strong, thus you dont want to stand by a opinion without fears of contradictions But you haven't addressed any of the concerns that we've raised with your questions. You just repeat the questions because you want us to admit to something that isn't true. Let's take a look: 1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things agree[ ] disagree[ ] Neither. They are connected networks, not separate. Misleading question. 2. LN promises (payments inside LN) are denominated in picocoin(11decimal) also known as msat/millisat agree[ ] disagree[ ] Again, misleading. I would dispute the use of the word "promises". You are adding your "silly rhetoric" here because you are biased. I won't mindlessly agree to misleading words. 3. LN promises (payments inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction agree[ ] disagree[ ] Again, "promises". You can't help yourself. 4. bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued promises agree[ ] disagree[ ] You really like the word "promises", don't you? 5. LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network agree[ * ] disagree[ ] Oh good. Something that I can actually answer without accepting any misleading rhetoric. LN does function on top of other blockchains. And that's a positive quality, not a negative one. If other networks are deploying LN to allow people to transact off-chain, then it must have some useful purpose. My view is forever locked in. I can now never deny that other altcoins can use LN. Although I can't think of a time where I ever tried to deny that. So, congratulations, I guess? What did you hope to achieve by this? 6.LN wont work without bitcoin agree[ ] disagree[ ] Misleading. Either can be correct depending on the circumstances. If I have an amount of bitcoin and I want to use LN to transfer that value to someone else, who wants to receive bitcoin, then yes, it won't work without Bitcoin. If I have an amount of altcoin and I want to use LN to transfer that value to someone else, who wants to receive the same altcoin, then no, it doesn't need Bitcoin to work. i did respond when loycev answered the 6 questions. but lets respond to your contradicting misunderstandings 1. connecting to peers on the LN network involve just a public key and IP/tor .. the public keys ip/tor requirements of connecting, are not coin/chain_hash specific. people can use the public keys to then make litecoin multisig or bitcoin multisig or other token stuff you dont have a channel with funding lock to then connect to a peer.. instead you connect to a peer and [separation] choose which chain_hash to agree on for the creation a multisig to then fund and then commit to the channel. LN can be used to choose to create a channel for litecoin(without bitcoin) or other altcons or even agree on creating a channel using their own private token. node connection is not fixed to stay on one chain_hash, as nodes can atomic swap using different chain_hash channels 2. LN promises. are not the same as commitments. you may not like that i do not buzzword to your favoured language and instead use a more descriptive word that explains the function. but id rather use words that explain function than use words that have meaningless connection to function. EG channels buzzworded to 'edge' by altnetters. but i prefer to describe them as 'joint-accounts' either way if you only disagree due to grammar. you have just made yourself look foolish. because you used a silly grammar argument to avoid the question about '(payments inside LN) are denominated in picocoin(11decimal) also known as msat/millisat' as you can see i actually had a bracketed explainer of my term 'promises'. to avoid the confusion, which you actually then seemed confused by.. without realising that i pre-empting your grammar confusion by including the bracketed explainer. 3.4 again avoid answering because of buzzword/grammar nazi excuse (boring) 5. 6. funny part is. that you said in point 1 you wanted to define LN as not separate to bitcoin. and thus you deem it as bitcoin. yet at point 5.6 you avail yourself of first opinion and contradict yourself of that opinion. but admitting it can be used without bitcoin. thus again..you full circle back to my point that LN is not bitcoin lets try again. this time ill make the questions even clearer to appease your grammar nazism of ignorance also appease the 'bias' excuse by asking the question in the opposite form (avoid social drama tactic that are used to evade answering/sticking to a certain opinion) 1.a: lightning network is not the bitcoin network. agree[ ] disagree[ ] 1.b: lightning network is the bitcoin network. agree[ ] disagree[ ] 2.a: lightning network is a separate network that does different things than bitcoin agree[ ] disagree[ ] 2.b: lightning network is always linked to the bitcoin network that does what bitcoin does agree[ ] disagree[ ] 3.a: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in picocoin-1 (11decimal) also known as msat/millisat agree[ ] disagree[ ] 3.b: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in btc agree[ ] disagree[ ] 4.a: LN "payments" (inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction agree[ ] disagree[ ] 4.b: LN "payments" (inside LN) are same format, to a bitcoin transaction agree[ ] disagree[ ] 5.a: bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format agree[ ] disagree[ ] 5.b: bitcoin network does understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format agree[ ] disagree[ ] 6.a: LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network agree[ ] disagree[ ] 6.b: LN is tethered to only function on the bitcoin network agree[ ] disagree[ ] 7.a: LN wont work without bitcoin agree[ ] disagree[ ] 7.b: LN will work without bitcoin agree[ ] disagree[ ] [moderator's note: consecutive posts merged] Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on January 09, 2022, 02:42:08 PM Moving this discussion here, as it does not belong in Meta:
i actually do want consensus. the true consensus of 2009-2016, as invented by bitcoins inventor. not the bastardised mandatory upgrade 'backward compatibility' non-consensus thing that was used in 2017 where users did not need to upgrade their node before activation is allowed.(backward compatibility" = no vote at node level) nor is true consensus where the miners were threatened to change a flag else get your block rejected before activation(to fake 100% vote) before miners were even given software that would accept the feature if it would activate.(they just needed to change a flag, not their software) Anyone is free to have the opinion that 2009-2016 consensus was the "true consensus" at the time. And anyone is free to run a client from that era which does not contain backwards compatible code. However, it is factual to state that the current consensus does allow for backwards compatible code. Enough users are running code to make that possible. Anyone who wants to take advantage of the security and network effects of Bitcoin, which are only made possible by everyone working in agreement, is accepting the current consensus rules. It's possible to create a client which rejects blocks containing transactions using SegWit format addresses. If such a client existed, would you run it? Then you could have the "true consensus" you claim you want. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 09, 2022, 02:59:14 PM If such a client existed, would you run it? Then you could have the "true consensus" you claim you want. Besides that, according to franky, there can never be a change even in a “true consensus” based system, 'cause there'll always be people who may disagree with it. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 09, 2022, 03:13:08 PM If such a client existed, would you run it? Then you could have the "true consensus" you claim you want. Besides that, according to franky, there can never be a change even in a “true consensus” based system, 'cause there'll always be people who may disagree with it. thats why consensus is not 100% but instead majority.. i never said true consensus needs 100% agreement. i said majority. seems doomad and now blackhatcoiner have been propagandising the misinformation of how consensus 2009-16 worked, as well as pretending mandatory activation was still the same consensus. but then contradicting to say the new consensus is different i just said majority of true desire, is the consensus of how things get activated.. .. not threats of rejection if not flagging (new mandatory version of activation) funny part is segwit 2016 (bip9+141) didnt reach that 'majority' all the way through to july 2017 its why they needed to brutalise consensus by changing things from consensus to 'mandatory activation' oh and before we run back down the ignorance of blackhatcoiner and doomad's propaganda scripts, which is to say bip9+141 was not replaced by bip91+148.. i can show you quotes from theymos (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2017191.0) and pieter wuille (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/56994) that say they were replaced and used. and the flags are shown in the immutable blocks. and the bips themselves say they are mandatory activations by using block rejection to get their thresholds met https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0091.mediawiki Quote While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required will be rejected. .. By orphaning non-signalling blocks during the BIP9 bit 1 "segwit" deployment, this BIP can cause the existing "segwit" deployment to activate without needing to release a new deployment. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki Quote Title: Mandatory activation of segwit deployment .. It is hoped that miners will respond to this BIP by activating segwit early, before this BIP takes effect. Otherwise this BIP will cause the mandatory activation of the existing segwit deployment before the end of midnight November 15th 2017. and if they want to continue arguing it wasnt. they can take that argument to them Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: LoyceV on January 09, 2022, 04:28:53 PM I'm taking this post from BlackHatCoiner's topic in Meta (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380036.0) here:
anyone advertising LN as bitcoin. as bitcoinL2 as bitcoin2.0. as bitcoin scaling. as anything pretending to be the bitcoin network. should think deeply about their advertising stance of confusing people. and then realise the N of LN means its not the same network as bitcoin, and just avoid advertising it as being part of the bitcoin network. I'm still amazed how much you dislike LN, and I still don't really understand why. From the above, it sounds like it's mainly about the terms used. I prefer to say "Bitcoin LN" when I mean a LN-transaction tied to the Bitcoin network. In other words: a LN transaction that can ultimately be settled on the Bitcoin blockchain. And I always thought "Bitcoin LN" was clear for everyone to understand what I mean.Quote bitcoin-core. the reference client (which altnet groupies also love describing as the sole place feature upgrades should be allowed via) does not have code that support LN millisats nor LNs peer connection gossip protocols. nor the invoice format You seem to suggest that's a bad thing, or something that makes LN a bad thing. I think it's the opposite: it's great! That means the Bitcoin network can't be touched, can't be damaged, can't be hurt and can't be stopped by Bitcoin LN. And it's why people say LN runs on top of Bitcoin. If it's about nomenclature, I think we should be able to figure out something that works for everyone.Quote and so because its not part of the reference client of the bitcoin network protocol, its not part of the bitcoin network If it's about terminology again, it doesn't matter much to me. All I know is that my (non-custodial) Bitcoin LN transactions can and will eventually be settled on-chain, after paying a more or less uncertain transaction fee. There's certainly room for improvement, but I think the potential is too good to completely dismiss.Quote EG its the same as saying a exchange is not "bitcoin" but a niche service I think we can all agree that exchanges are not Bitcoin. Even though they'll probably let you withdraw your funds, you're completely at their mercy if they decide otherwise. That's not the case when your funds are locked in a LN wallet: you know you can get your funds settled on-chain.if people cannot comprehend the simple task of separating the wording of the function of an exchange from the wording of the function of the bitcoin network. then they need to resist trying to say an exchange is bitcoin Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 09, 2022, 05:24:23 PM when LN is being advertised as a solution to bitcoin, yet LN is not fit for purpose as a solution to bitcoin because LN cant cope if everyone was to use it. (yes liquidity bottlenecks/route fails happen ALOT on LN. even with small payment value requests) imagine the headache if larger payments bigger then micro-transactions became a daily thing. LN would bottleneck more often
when LN is being used as the reason not to scale bitcoin because they say LN is the thing people should use instead of bitcoin when LN is used to scapegoat why bitcoin shouldnt scale by suggesting bitcoin cant cope with LN transaction numbers. even thou LN average user count and transactions per day are not that much (ignoring the payments done as route, rebalancing which are just needless transactions not needed to be done on the bitcoin network). yep if you actually count the payments where LN users are actually paying for a good or service. that volume of payment count is not going to saturate bitcoin. bitcoin does not need 100mb blocks or 2gb blocks like the altnetters suggest as their melodrama excuse to not want to scale bitcoin their desire to hinder bitcoin scaling just to advertise an altnet, its not actually helping evolve bitcoin. its purely ends up being an advert for an altnet i dont mind people advertising niche services for niche use cases if they explain the risks and what makes it different to actual bitcoin network stuff.. my main gripe is the promises of bitcoin scaling but then saturate posts with adverts about features, other network stuff, that ends up not scaling and just some other thing to side step people out of using bitcoin daily and into something that doesnt work 100% guaranteed without risk/permission from another party. if you want a simple list of my issues with LN and its supporters: 1. PR campaign advertising LN as bitcoin (pretending security/feature similarities) 1.a: brand tagging bitcoin into a different network to fake trust/loyalty/fanbase 1.b: brand tagging the trust of bitcoin to hide the risks of the other network 1.c: avoid clarifying the differences of LN payments vs funding/settlement commitments 1.d: avoid explaining the permission required payments/commitments vs the permissionless broadcast of just commitment 1.e: avoid temporality of LN payments vs the immutability of confirmed bitcoin transactions i already said many times if they're honest. they could actually use the differences as positive spin for their niche use case 2. using LN as an excuse not to scale bitcoin 2.a: saying bitcoin doesn't need to scale now LN exists, as if LN could cope with routes for large value/all value(facepalm) 2.b: LN flaws means LN nodes need to perform more 'events'(payments) even when they are not personally buying things 2.c: pretending their high 'event' count is a sign of high utility of LN of people buying things 2.d: pretending the high events is a sign bitcoin couldn't cope with amount of events if those events were blockchain tx's 2.e: pretending LN solves bitcoin scaling, and is there for all users, all value, and 100% payment success 2.f: pretending bitcoin needs to scale to Visa by this month, but cant so LN can and LN will handle Visa amounts 2.g: pretending LN is dependant on bitcoin and thus bitcoin is dependant on LN 3. saying bitcoin is broke or trying to break bitcoin just so they can say 'LN is perfect' 3.a: saying miners(asics) cant handle 'big blocks' (although asics dont even touch tx data) 3.b: saying people use 1999 tech and cant store or relay bitcoin (sorry average internet is 59mbs not 0.5mbs) 3.c: saying people shouldnt initial block download, 'its to big and meaningless', use LN phone app with an exchange channel 3.d: saying pruning is safe, everyone should do it. blockchains aren't needed. blockchains aren't part of decentralisation 3.e: saying litewallets and pruned are full network feature nodes. lite/prune still support the network 100%(facepalm) 4. not wanting to evolve bitcoin as digital cash 4.a: wanting bitcoin fees to be high with lame excuses like pools need high fees 4.b: not wanting more tx's for less fee's (where 5k tx of $0.50 is better than 2k of $1) because lower fees = less LN niche 4.c: telling people what not to buy using bitcoin "dont buy coffee with bitcoin" 4.d: telling people bitcoin is not a digital cash for the unbanked (goes against the whitepaper) 4.e: telling people bitcoin is a 'rail' / reserve network for the elite whales that can afford to use it for batching custodial tx's i am a whale, but i also see that bitcoin should be useful for the little guys 5. even the usability of LN is not childs play 5.a: needing to lock funds but have to predict how much you plan to spend days/weeks/months ahead 5.b: needing to plan chances of route success and split funds over different 'accounts'(channels) in preparation 5.c: needing to find a channel partner you know will be online when you are to sign permission for your payment 5.d: needing to know he has enough routes/channel possibilities to help ensure payment success 5.e: needing to ensure he is not being used by others too much so that liquidity remains for you to route via him i could go on but thats just the thoughts at the top of my head Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: suchmoon on January 10, 2022, 03:59:56 AM Quote LN has no network wide audit/consensus that checks that all nodes/channels are all connected to the bitcoin network. True. But as far as I know, those LTC-LN-nodes won't interact with a BTC-LN-node, so even though they all use some form of LN, they won't mix up transactions.some LN users right now only have channels/nodes pegged to litecoin Wasn't there a big selling point of LN during the whole block debate shitshow that among other things it will enable atomic swaps? TBH I'd be far more excited about that than merely pushing sats around - even though it doesn't fit the "BTC über alles" spirit of this forum but let's face it, shitcoining exists, and shitcoin<->BTC conversion is big business currently almost entirely monopolized by KYC and DeFi nonsense. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 10, 2022, 07:12:03 AM Quote LN has no network wide audit/consensus that checks that all nodes/channels are all connected to the bitcoin network. True. But as far as I know, those LTC-LN-nodes won't interact with a BTC-LN-node, so even though they all use some form of LN, they won't mix up transactions.some LN users right now only have channels/nodes pegged to litecoin Wasn't there a big selling point of LN during the whole block debate shitshow that among other things it will enable atomic swaps? TBH I'd be far more excited about that than merely pushing sats around https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/02-peer-protocol.md Quote The chain_hash value denotes the exact blockchain that the opened channel will reside within. This is usually the genesis hash of the respective blockchain. The existence of the chain_hash allows nodes to open channels across many distinct blockchains as well as have channels within multiple blockchains opened to the same peer (if it supports the target chains). worth noting that using chain_hash happens AFTER peers connect, it can be used to then interrogate what channels a peer already has. it can be used to ask if that node wants to/can can create channels of those blockchains it can be used to create channels if they both want to use that blockchain for pegged value the separate peer connect part that comes WAY before channel interrogation or channel creation. is not blockchain specific. the nodeID uses public key for its ID along with an IP/tor domain. the nodeID is a public key(bech32) but is not prefixed to a blockchain. EG not bc1q for bitcoin, ltc1q for litecoin. instead its just ln1q for LN node id when using channel creation they can then decide which blockchain they want to both be bound in for that specific channel in which they then change the prefix to the supporting prefix of their desired/agreed blockchain nodes can have a LN node id, and then many channels within, where some of those channels can for bitcoin, bitcoin testnet segnet regtest, litecoin and its testnets segnets regtests and other blockchain networks. and even private mutually agreed tokens Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: LoyceV on January 13, 2022, 08:32:09 AM I'm taking this here from the other topic (click the quote for full context):
There is a lot of complexity as to why we should or should not have LN I think in the long run it will hurt BTC but then again maybe not. If LN would be able to kill Bitcoin, Bitcoin deserves it! I believe it's the exact opposite: Bitcoin doesn't care:@ franky1 on every ln thread you should simply say you think the ln network will kill off btc in the long run. I'm taking this post from BlackHatCoiner's topic in Meta (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380036.0) here: bitcoin-core. the reference client (which altnet groupies also love describing as the sole place feature upgrades should be allowed via) does not have code that support LN millisats nor LNs peer connection gossip protocols. nor the invoice format You seem to suggest that's a bad thing, or something that makes LN a bad thing. I think it's the opposite: it's great! That means the Bitcoin network can't be touched, can't be damaged, can't be hurt and can't be stopped by Bitcoin LN. And it's why people say LN runs on top of Bitcoin.Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 13, 2022, 12:43:22 PM I'm also replying to @philipma1957:
There is a lot of complexity as to why we should or should not have LN I think in the long run it will hurt BTC but then again maybe not. The intelligent technology of Lightning doesn't care what the majority wants. It's something that runs on top of Bitcoin, without anyone's permission and approval. Even if lots of users didn't want it, they could do nothing to prevent it. There'll always be some who find it satisfactory.As for if it's damaging in the long term: I strongly disagree. It's what I call the solution to scaling. I'm not going back to paying 10-100 cents and wait for so long just to get my transaction confirmed. I want things to work instantly. I state the exact opposite: If we don't have Lightning, some shitcoins with larger blocks will find their opportunities to distinguish. The Lightning Network protects the significance of the monetary policy of Bitcoin. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 13, 2022, 03:39:44 PM I'm also replying to @philipma1957: There is a lot of complexity as to why we should or should not have LN I think in the long run it will hurt BTC but then again maybe not. The intelligent technology of Lightning doesn't care what the majority wants. It's something that runs on top of Bitcoin, without anyone's permission and approval. Even if lots of users didn't want it, they could do nothing to prevent it. There'll always be some who find it satisfactory.As for if it's damaging in the long term: I strongly disagree. It's what I call the solution to scaling. I'm not going back to paying 10-100 cents and wait for so long just to get my transaction confirmed. I want things to work instantly. I state the exact opposite: If we don't have Lightning, some shitcoins with larger blocks will find their opportunities to distinguish. The Lightning Network protects the significance of the monetary policy of Bitcoin. as you can see. blackhatcoiner is showing the advert campaign. 1. saying LN is intelligent technology.. when its simply 'joint-bank account' economics of private agreements between partners. - cypherpunks had this 'tech' before 2008 and it didnt work for them. they found blockchains as the solution to 'channels' 2. it doesnt run ontop of bitcoin. much like a printer does not run on the internet. even if 2 middle PC software link locally - as bitcoin code has no LN peer connection stuff. and LN can still peer connect without bitcoin. 3. without permission? its 2-of-2 co-signing agreements needing the other person to give permission and be online to allow payments. - dont confuse LN 'instant payments' requiring partner amicable permission. vs bitcoin settlements exiting LN 4.seems you now want to show how you hate bitcoin. and dont want to return to using bitcoins 10min confirms and fee's, because you only want to use pico-measured unit fees and 'instant'(when online and amicable and liquid) 5. did bank notes protect the significance of gold as a medium of exchange? or did it replace it as a medium of exchange once bank note lovers decided not to take back their gold because of the slowness and expense of gold transfers. gotta laugh though. blackhatcoiner doesnt want bitcoin to scale itself to make less transaction bottlenecks and also make transactions cheaper on bitcoin. but then says LN is the bitcoin scaling solution.. then cries how he doesnt want to go back to bitcoin because of its implied restrictions blackhatcoiner is stuck in a loop.. doesnt want bitcoin to change, wants another network to avoid bitcoin problems because bitcoin hasnt changed. last funny part, admitting he doesnt want to return to the bitcoin network to exit LN, means.. yep he will exit LN by atomic swapping to a shitcoin with cheap fee's and less confirmation bottlenecks. and on a serious note. if he thinks that getting people off a train, to use a bus, is how he sees it as a solution to scaling trains. he is missing logic by a few million miles. if no one uses a train daily, people stop maintaining trains, and stop buying train tickets Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 13, 2022, 03:51:49 PM as you can see. blackhatcoiner is showing the advert campaign. Question, why what you are doing is not advertising?1. saying LN is intelligent technology.. when its simply 'joint-bank account' economics of private agreements between partners. Yeah, and Bitcoin is just a currency. Lightning allows these agreements to happen in a trustless way and that's how it distinguishes itself from every other debt-based payment system. At this point I have a feeling that I need to quote the following;If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry. 3. without permission? its 2-of-2 co-signing agreements needing the other person to give permission and be online to allow payments It's a 2-of-2 co-signing agreement, but you both have a pre-signed Bitcoin transaction if you don't cooperate. Same goes for connectivity. 4.seems you now want to show how you hate bitcoin You're the only person in this room who thinks I hate Bitcoin.Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 13, 2022, 04:04:08 PM 1. saying LN is intelligent technology.. when its simply 'joint-bank account' economics of private agreements between partners. Yeah, and Bitcoin is just a currency. Lightning allows these agreements to happen in a trustless way and that's how it distinguishes itself from every other debt-based payment system. At this point I have a feeling that I need to quote the following;If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry. 3. without permission? its 2-of-2 co-signing agreements needing the other person to give permission and be online to allow payments It's a 2-of-2 co-signing agreement, but you both have a pre-signed Bitcoin transaction if you don't cooperate. Same goes for connectivity. 4.seems you now want to show how you hate bitcoin You're the only person in this room who thinks I hate Bitcoin.1. "LN allows private agreements".. has the word agreements in it. .. its not trustless. it requires both parties to be amicable. even the punishment cant be auto-trusted to work in un-amicable scenarios, it has flaws. seems you have not even looked at the issues cypherpunks had with their p2p money before blockchians existed. 3. you are yet again confusing the locked bitcoin vs the LN payments. please try to learn the difference, it will help you with your day to day use of LN. im not stating you personally shouldnt use LN im saying you should learn what LN actually does and how it actually works to make your life better. heck it might even give you some insight on a better PR campaign 4. you just stated you dont want to go back to using bitcoin because of the fees and confirmation time ill quote you AGAIN I'm not going back to paying 10-100 cents and wait for so long just to get my transaction confirmed. I want things to work instantly. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 13, 2022, 04:08:00 PM Bitcoin LN will destroy the BTC network, what will happen next? same as what happened to golds old 19th century medium of exchange status, replaced by bank notes.. and now bank notes being swapped for brass, nickel and copper coins. .. no one uses gold as a medium of exchange anymore those wanting LN dont want bitcoin to be a medium of exchange (daily activity currency between the common people) they want it as a 'reserve' currency for the settlement by custodians, payment services, 'hub managers'(AKA banks) what needs to happen is BITCOIN needs to scale to keep people using the bitcoin network and maintain it regularly/daily. not be shunned away to another network being told to prune their wallet software and not maintain the blockchain, and not use bitcoin network regularly. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Warless on January 13, 2022, 04:15:37 PM Bitcoin LN will destroy the BTC network, what will happen next? same as what happened to golds old 1900 medium of exchange, replaced by bank notes.. and now bank notes being swapped for brass, nickel and copper coins. what needs to happen is BITCOIN needs to scale to keep people using the bitcoin network and maintain it regularly/daily. not be shunned away to another network being told to prune their wallet software and not maintain the blockchain, and not use bitcoin network regularly. and they will want to resort to a previous BTC backup (to the closest blockchain of the last fork). It's not like that? Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: LoyceV on January 13, 2022, 04:45:12 PM ~needing the other person to give permission and be online to allow payments. Why is this even an argument against LN? Most of the internet requires both parties to be online, and billions of devices are online about 99.9% of the time. My debit card also requires both the shop as well as my bank to be online when I make a transaction. That's not a deal breaker.And even though Bitcoin can work when the receiver is offline, it still requires both parties to be online and verify the transaction to complete the sale (or whatever deal we made). Quote blackhatcoiner doesnt want bitcoin to scale itself to make less transaction bottlenecks I can only speak for myself, but I've said it for years: I don't really care how, as long as Bitcoin does scale! I wouldn't mind bigger blocks (I think it was 32 MB per block when Bitcoin started), but that caused a lot of drama. High fees aren't good for adoption, and although I agree with the argument that Bitcoin can't reach mass adoption by storing billions of daily transactions on-chain, I also think it would be a good temporary solution to allow more transactions until a more permanent scaling solution is created.@Warless (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3123708): This isn't the place for oneliners (https://loyce.club/archive/posts/5898/58980079.html) without arguments. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 13, 2022, 05:40:52 PM funny part is bitcoin. the actual and only network called bitcoin(not to be confused with altnets)... bitcoin does not require the recipient to be online. nor does it need to pay middlemen to route and have liquidity and be online.
i can send coin to any address whether they are online or not and they will have it confirmed to them even if they dont look or check or ask for it. i can wire transfer money to others bank account without them needing to be at their bank to accept it. i can mail bank notes, gold, or other rare metals to people without them having to ask for it. LN requires a co-signed agreement. and even after the agreement they need to be online to make sure the other party doesnt cheat. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: LoyceV on January 13, 2022, 05:50:47 PM bitcoin does not require the recipient to be online. nor does it need to pay middlemen to route and have liquidity and be online. Although technically correct, it's not a strong argument considering the mining fee is much higher than what the LN middleman charges.Quote i can send coin to any address whether they are online or not and they will have it confirmed to them even if they dont look or check or ask for it. True. But how often do you really do that? I don't mind keeping a device online when someone pays me.Quote i can wire transfer money to others bank account without them needing to be at their bank to accept it. But a computer somewhere at the bank must be online.Quote i can mail bank notes, gold, or other rare metals to people without them having to ask for it. This seems off-topic.Quote LN requires a co-signed agreement. and even after the agreement they need to be online to make sure the other party doesnt cheat. All true. And I'm fine with that :)Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: suchmoon on January 13, 2022, 05:59:40 PM And even though Bitcoin can work when the receiver is offline, it still requires both parties to be online and verify the transaction to complete the sale (or whatever deal we made). I don't know if this is the argument that franky is making, but paying with Bitcoin doesn't technically require funds of either party to be online (in a hot wallet). Sender can sign the TX offline, receiver can give a cold wallet address to sender. Sender needs to broadcast it, receiver needs to verify it, but both don't need to be online at the same time or otherwise coordinated. Back in the day I was rolling my own payment processing and it was extremely simple, efficient, and safe - pre-generate a bunch of cold addresses and hand them out to buyers. None of this is feasible with LN and it seems to be pushing merchant adoption towards custodial options. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: LoyceV on January 13, 2022, 06:04:24 PM I don't know if this is the argument that franky is making, but paying with Bitcoin doesn't technically require funds of either party to be online (in a hot wallet). That's a valid point, LN doesn't facility cold wallets. My counter argument would be that it's supposed to be used for smaller amounts, but it is indeed less secure.Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 13, 2022, 07:53:24 PM 1. "LN allows private agreements".. has the word agreements in it. .. its not trustless. it requires both parties to be amicable. even the punishment cant be auto-trusted to work in un-amicable scenarios, it has flaws. This has become tiring... I've repeatedly mentioned that it's a game theory. You read and write only what's in your interest. Yeah, Lightning payments are just IOUs and LN is designed to destroy Bitcoin. Keep thinking that way, I give up.You transfer signed transactions that are normally accepted by the bitcoin network and, alongside, partake in a game theory where you're discouraged to broadcast any other than the latest transaction that is made. If you ever wondered how often someone is penalized for fraudulent behaviour, forkmonitor (https://forkmonitor.info/lightning) keeps track of all penalty transactions ever broadcast. Apparently, there have been 419 unsuccessful cheat attempts with a total of ~5.13 BTC at stake since the end of 2017. It's a game theory. Another game theory is that we'll constantly have honest miners which will work on extending the chain, punishing those who attack it with their computational cost and rewarding themselves. Does that mean it can always work? Of course not. We've seen lots of 51% in other chains. However, it remains a game theory which works most of the times. I have been ripped off more times in real life than stolen from my partner in the lightning network. And I've only been ripped off once. Now if you disagree there's no trust during the Lightning transactions, then everything you've said it's true. Including the analogy with the bank notes. However, I do agree it's trustless. Back in the day I was rolling my own payment processing and it was extremely simple, efficient, and safe - pre-generate a bunch of cold addresses and hand them out to buyers. Why did you do that? Why can't you just have a BTCPay Server installed and let it undertake your invoices automatically?None of this is feasible with LN Let me correct you; it's a far more efficient way to transact than to update a ledger written in hundreds of thousands of hard drives.Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: suchmoon on January 13, 2022, 09:03:40 PM Back in the day I was rolling my own payment processing and it was extremely simple, efficient, and safe - pre-generate a bunch of cold addresses and hand them out to buyers. Why did you do that? Why can't you just have a BTCPay Server installed and let it undertake your invoices automatically?This was years before BTCPay existed. Still works fine. None of this is feasible with LN Let me correct you; it's a far more efficient way to transact than to update a ledger written in hundreds of thousands of hard drives.Not from a merchant's POV. There is more hassle involved in receiving LN payments for no tangible benefit. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 13, 2022, 11:09:24 PM 1. "LN allows private agreements".. has the word agreements in it. .. its not trustless. it requires both parties to be amicable. even the punishment cant be auto-trusted to work in un-amicable scenarios, it has flaws. This has become tiring... I've repeatedly mentioned that it's a game theory. You read and write only what's in your interest. Yeah, Lightning payments are just IOUs and LN is designed to destroy Bitcoin. Keep thinking that way, I give up.Now if you disagree there's no trust during the Lightning transactions, then everything you've said it's true. Including the analogy with the bank notes. However, I do agree it's trustless. i know you want to keep being adamant about the funding commitment and using it as a settlement in times of non-amicable LN session.. but thats just your ignorance not wanting to enter the discussion of LN PAYMENTS you know. the 'hop routing of millisats' A<>B<>C<>D<>E although you(A) have a funding or settlement commitment for you vs partner B.. there is no such final 'commitment' contract of you vs E(recipient of payment) during the payment.. ill EMPHASISE PAYMENT. it requires B,C,D,E to be online to pay E. E is not 'trustlessly' guaranteed to be paid when A<>B make a promise at the start of the pass the parcel game. or when E starts by giving a htlc public key to A at the start of the pass the parcel game alot of things can go wrong during an LN PAYMENT .. however on bitcoin. (the real bitcoin network not to be confused with altnets pretending to be), on bitcoin i can pay E direct and there is no need of any 'watchtower'/'punishment' need to be online.. or being online just to receive. or online just to initiate, or a way to take back funds after confirmation. or any of the other flaws. i know you only want to direct back to talking about the A<>B funding/punishment as a 'backup' protection. but your forgetting that LN PAYMENTS are usually outside of the A<>B 'game theory' because its actually a PAYMENT trying to succeed between A and E, again the A and E PAYMENT can fail for many reasons. EG delaying signing millisat promises of B<>C C<>D D<>E EG not passing the HTLC secret EG not being online EG not having liquidity call LN payments by any buzzword you like (onion-routed-payments)(HTLC invoices)(microchannel payments)(millisat promises)(hop payment) but atleast learn the difference between the LN payment promise of say A to E vs the 'commitment of A<>B just stop trying to talk about the A<>B funding commitment just to avoid the game theory of LN payments to E. oh and by the way. B does not update the A<>B 'commitment'. until after E promise is signed, which then pases to D, which then passes to C, which then passes to B in short: (alice paying eric) https://miro.medium.com/max/2000/0*B39cCh7nUM-U3fEt.png B doesnt get to update a commitment until point 9, not point 2 B cannot spend(settle) a 'payment' until point 9 has completed (A wont sign a commitment until it receives R(private key)) lots of things can go wrong between 1-9 there is alot of permissions required and trust and amicable 'hopes' for payment success needed during 1-9 .. by the way, A,>B do not create a 'commitment' at 2 using H(erics public key) in a commitment. because A<>B know eric has the privatekey(R) and if A or B broadcast a commitment with H, eric can jump in and send funds to where he likes using R. and at point 6 and 7 diana and carol also have the private key(R).. so they can also 'spend' the A<>B.. if A<>B were to 'commit' using H as a output LN payments are IOU promises measured in millisats that contain the H, but not in the format of a bitcoin transaction. it wont succeed in being accepted by the bitcoin network for many reasons of not being a bitcoin transaction, as its a different format specific to LN and only understood within LN in short 1-8 are not bitcoin transactions. Bob cant just receive R at 8 and broadcast without doing 9. because 1-8 are millisat measured promises, and only becomes a 'commitment(requiring permission via 2 signatures) after point 9. .. isnt it just funny that out of the multiple pages i have been the only one using references to back up my 'opinion'.. yet others opinion is backed up foolishly with 'i think its how it works so you are wrong because its not what i think'(lacking evidence, references) Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 14, 2022, 02:24:10 AM B does not update the A<>B 'commitment'. until after E promise is signed, which then pases to D, which then passes to C, which then passes to B [...] (A wont sign a commitment until it receives R(private key)) Alice finds various paths and needs to try them one by one to see if selected nodes have enough liquidity to forward her payment. There is no other way to do that other than to send "update_add_htlc" and sign a new commitment transaction. Code: (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/02-peer-protocol.md#normal-operation) Once both nodes have exchanged funding_locked (and optionally announcement_signatures), the channel can be used to make payments via Hashed Time Locked Contracts. I have already proved that in this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5379192.msg58893724#msg58893724) by showing you my node logs. If one the selected nodes is unable to forward the payment due to no liquidity in the outgoing channel, it sends "update_fail_htlc". Please, don't bring up "funding_locked" again. It is used only to signal that the funding transaction has reached enough confirmations for the channel to operate safely. by the way, A,>B do not create a 'commitment' at 2 using H(erics public key) in a commitment. because A<>B know eric has the privatekey(R) and if A or B broadcast a commitment with H, eric can jump in and send funds to where he likes using R. No, Eric can't do that. HTLC outputs in commitment transactions require not only the payment secret to be spent but also a valid HTLC signature. When you open a channel, you share your htlc_basepoint, which is a compressed public key used only for HTLC payments in this particular channel. The other node shares their htlc_basepoint as well. You can use htlc_basepoint and per_commitment_point to calculate local_htlcpubkey and remote_htlcpubkey. Now, let's take a closer at locking scripts of HTLC outputs. Commitment transactions are asymmetrical which means that there are two possible scenarios: 1) (Offered) HTLC output in Alice's commitment transaction: Code: # To remote node with revocation key If remote_htlcpubkey (Bob's HTLC pubkey) is on the stack then the provided secret (the payment preimage) is hashed and checked against the payment hash. Otherwise, this output can be spent via a HTLC-timeout transaction which is timelocked and signed by both parties beforehand. Eric or any other intermediary node cannot spend this output as they cannot produce a valid signature for that public key. 2) (Received) HTLC output in Bob's commitment transaction: Code: # To remote node with revocation key If remote_htlcpubkey (Alice's HTLC pubkey) is on the stack then the provided secret (the payment preimage) is hashed and checked against the payment hash and the output can be spent via a HTLC-success transaction. Again, Eric or any other intermediary node cannot spend this output as they cannot produce valid signatures for these keys. HTLC-timeout and HTLC-success transactions, which require both Alice's and Bob's HTLC signatures, consume HTLC outputs and create another locked output which is delayed so that the other party has enough time to broadcast a penalty transaction if necessary. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 14, 2022, 02:38:00 AM again your trying to show the A<>B millisat payment and commitment by blending them into one bx of ascii art
your ascii art of the bolts 2. is that -(1)-> -(2)-> -(3)-> is the LN millisat promise part simplified. YOUR (1)(2)(3) is the same three 1,2,9 (using the diagram in my last post)millisat payment promise updates between alice and bob.. the commitment in your ascii art (4) doesnt happen until after your ascii art (3) has happened (my diagram9) as for your other 2 boxes of text. that again is the commitment bits that happen secondary. again your confusing the a<>b stuff with the payment of a-b-c-d-e remember eric gives alice the payment_hash for the micropayment (millisat promise) with bob (not commitment) bob uses the payment_hash to carol for his micropayment (millisat promise) with carol (not commitment) carol uses the payment_hash to diana for her micropayment (millisat promise) with diana (not commitment) diana uses the payment_hash to eric for her micropayment (millisat promise) with eric (not commitment) eric then gives diana the payment_secret which she passes to carol who passes to bob who passes to alice payment_hash=erics pubkey (H) payment_secret=erics privkey (R) they all then update as success and then make the commitment whereby the commitments outputs = local_htlcpubkey remote_htlcpubkey dont confuse the micropayment millisat promise of erics cycle of H and R through ABCDE, with the commitment of just AB. because if you really think there is no ABCDE millisat micropayment temporary promise using H and R. and you think H and R are only used by commitments and only commitments exist. then erics H is going to be in AB's commitment which if AB broadcast such a commitment. then eric can spend the utxo put into his H using his R you need to realise the different parts and how an LN payment is different to a commitment. the LN millisat payments use erics H and R.. in your steps (123 of your ascii art first box)(129 my diagram) the commitments(45) uses AB keys AFTER (123your first ascii box)(129 my diagram) as you can see using my diagram in my last post at the LN PAYMENT(emphasis) alice gets erics H at 1. and needs to get erics(R) to complete at 9 if alice was to put erics H into a commitment and then broadcast it.. eric could use his R to redeem money to him meaning alice and bob get nothing. thats why LN payments are separate and another reason why they dont get broadcast. aswell as being in a format not understandable to bitcoin network. to prevent eric from scamming alice and bob. at (your ascii art step 4) the actual commitment creation stage. yes alice make a commitment using their own AB agreed keys, not erics key used in the LN payment millisat promise. as for you saying in your post that you explained it already using your node logs Code: 03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: peer_in WIRE_UPDATE_ADD_HTLC please note this is not the commitment. but the LN payment. you can tell because it says to add "amount=97653097msat" and we all know a "bitcoin commitment" does not handle msats. so whats being signed. is not a bitcoin commitment but a msat based LN payment the confusion is your misunderstandings of commitments vs payment.. maybe because you have soo many buzzwords payments via "Hashed Time Locked Contracts" vs commitments payments via "Msat invoices" vs commitments payments vis "micropayment channel contracts" vs commitments your second and third code box of 'commitments' you numbered 1&2 are actually your ascii art(first box) 4 where they are only committed if the LN payment fails(HTLC-timeout) or succeeds(HTLC-success) .. oh and um one last thing when talking about payments in LN.. dont confuse the matter by using bolt2 (channel management) and instead use reference from bolt11 (invoice payment) Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 14, 2022, 08:53:29 AM remember eric gives alice the payment_hash for the micropayment (millisat promise) with bob (not commitment) bob uses the payment_hash to carol for his micropayment (millisat promise) with carol (not commitment) carol uses the payment_hash to diana for her micropayment (millisat promise) with diana (not commitment) diana uses the payment_hash to eric for her micropayment (millisat promise) with eric (not commitment) eric then gives diana the payment_secret which she passes to carol who passes to bob who passes to alice Alice offers Bob an HLTC ("update_add_htlc") and waits for "commitment_signed" which contains signatures for the commitment, HTLC-success and HTLC-timeout transactions. Code: (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/02-peer-protocol.md#requirements-7) Forwarding HTLCs Bob won't talk to Charlie unless he signs a new commitment transaction with Alice. If you believe that Bob and Charlie can communicate in a different way, tell us what kind of messages they use. because if you really think there is no ABCDE millisat micropayment temporary promise using H and R. and you think H and R are only used by commitments and only commitments exist. then erics H is going to be in AB's commitment which if AB broadcast such a commitment. then eric can spend the utxo put into his H using his R thats why LN payments are separate and another reason why they dont get broadcast. aswell as being in a format not understandable to bitcoin network. to prevent eric from scamming alice and bob. Did you read the other half of my post? Eric also needs two valid HTLC signatures that can be produced only by Alice and Bob. as for you saying in your post that you explained it already using your node logs The logs also include commitment related messages. Code: 2021-12-30T02:00:21.308Z DEBUG 03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: Creating commit_sig signature [REDACTED] for tx [REDACTED] wscript [REDACTED] you can tell because it says to add "amount=97653097msat" and we all know a "bitcoin commitment" does not handle msats. so whats being signed. is not a bitcoin commitment but a msat based LN payment The receiving node routes down the value to whole satoshis before preparing and signing the commitment transaction. The sending node does the same for their version of the commitment transaction. If either of them doesn't do that, the HTLC can be failed. when talking about payments in LN.. dont confuse the matter by using bolt2 (channel management) and instead use reference from bolt11 (invoice payment) bolt11 describes only how a payment invoice should be encoded/decoded. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 14, 2022, 12:10:08 PM you still do not realise that 2 vessels of data are signed independently of each other.
(actually its 3 but i wont complicate things) first a LN payment(data not in blockchain accepting format, and contain millisat units) and separetly commitments (sat units in blockchain accepting format) you are using bolt 2 which is one part of things.. missing the point of micropayments which is another part the millisat payment comes first. and is then rounded up/down into sat commitment as a second part i know most of you groupies only want to talk about the inchannel stuff of blockchain formated commitments. but at least learn about the other stuff too where there is a value exchange between A<>B, commitments are formed after the 'success' or 'timeout' but you have to realise that when trying to pay E(eric), via D(diana), via C(carol) a different part of things is used. where by a different message format measured in millisats is used and encoded in 'onion' layers of sphinx encryption. but it is funny how you are using bolt2 (Peer Protocol for Channel Management). and avoiding yet again: bolt4: (Onion Routing Protocol) bolt11 (Invoice Protocol for Lightning Payments) i get it you dont want to learn LN, or you dont want to admit there is more to LN as a independent network. i get it you want to pretend everything in LN is dependent on bitcoin format transactions.. but its not. the HTLC in a LN payment (which also has amount measured in msat) which is wrapped in onion 'sphinx' encryption. sent to peers along a route, is different to the timeout/success commitments that happen just within a channel after they need to update due to the success/time out of the LN payment(msat payment wrapped in sphinx encryption) the bolts tries to explain that payment_hash (same for all parties involved in a route).. and its payment _secret (same for all parties of a route) is for the msat payment. separetly the localpubkey remotepubkey(just between channel peers) and revoke keys(just between channel peers) are buzzwords for the channel commitment just because both commitments and route payments both say "htlc" does not mean the specific HTLC happening during a route is the same data as a HTLC happening within a channel HTLC is basically saying is a contract. an agreement but with complex conditions. it does not mean that the contract is of only one format that is acceptable to blockchains. a htlc can be a commitment(blockchain format) or a LN payment (msat denominated format).. if you truly think that if A wants to pay E. only commitments are done. and commitments are signed before B pays C. and c pays D and D pays E.. then B can run away with A's funds before E has been paid. sorry thats not how it works payments are done as a separate HTLC(in msat) and once E has received the payment_hash from D, who got it from C, who got it from B who got it from A(who got it from E). then E knows to send payment_secret to D, who passes to C, who passes to B who passes to A. and then A and B make the commitment where B is deserved the value inside the spinx encoded onion payments that go through a,b,c,d,e they all get the exact same payment_hash to use. and they all use the same payment_secret to validate the payment is success. which then triggers the commitment part to update which doesnt use the routed payment has/secret but instead the channel peers own pubkey and revoke key .. funny thing is. although i have many reasons to not like LN, it seems i have done more research or atleast able to describe LN in its many functions.. yet the LN groupies seem to be ignorant to reveal features, or just lacking the research to understand the features, or even just avoiding explaining the features to set some narrative. .. if LN groupies actually bothered to learn all the LN features. and understand them, and see the differences of them. they could actually use it to create some good PR campaign of why LN is a niche service for certain utility.. instead of being ignorant/avoiding features, just to prime some weird narrative that LN is fixed to or is bitcoin Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 14, 2022, 04:23:39 PM Not from a merchant's POV. There is more hassle involved in receiving LN payments for no tangible benefit. Isn't your customers' satisfaction a tangible benefit? Whenever I see Bitcoin as a payment method, but without Lightning, I'm a little more discouraged to do the transaction. For instance, I don't want to broadcast another transaction every month for the $10 of Spotify.Also, if I had made all those transactions on-chain the merchant would have a ton of UTXOs. I've saved them money in fees. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: LoyceV on January 14, 2022, 04:43:41 PM millisat payment Would you be more okay with Bitcoin LN if the minimum amount would be 1 sat? If so, it's probably not that difficult to adjust the software and start your own node.Whenever I see Bitcoin as a payment method, but without Lightning, I'm a little more discouraged to do the transaction. Me too, but that's mainly because Bitpay has "conditioned" me to fear their additional consolidation charges. They've also conditioned me to stay away from any site that uses Bitpay, but I've seen others do it too (and usually those amounts are much bigger than what I pay on-chain).Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DaveF on January 14, 2022, 04:47:13 PM Sigh...
I think part of the problem is that there are several different conversations going on here and nobody seems to get the point that I have made elsewhere but am going to go ahead and do it one more time. Lets start with the basics: 1) I use BTC and run my own nodes and deal with a lot of my own payments. 2) I use LN and run my own nodesand deal with a lot of my own payments. 3) I use altcoins other crypto and may or may or may not run my own nodes and may or may no deal with a lot of my own payments depending on the coin. 4) I am and we are for the most part here rare edge cases. Over the last 5 or 6 years I have encouraged many merchants to accept BTC / crypto. I have been successful a few times. Some went to Coinbase Commerce, some went to BitPay, some went to coinpayments.net and others I did a BTCPay server for. As of now none of the BTCPay servers are active. They just did not want to deal with it. Businesses are in the business of doing business. NOT worrying about payments. They have to take payments to do business and just about all of them want it quick and simple with NO or minimal interaction on their part. So BTC / LTC / ETH / Lightning / Dave's itchy left testicle coin they don't give a shit. Because 99% of the time they just convert to fiat and move on. People like us here, care about BTC. If we want massive adoption, guess what most people will not give a flying fuck about bitcoin any more then Visa / Master Card / AMEX / Discover. It's a means to an end for most people to conduct commerce. What we talk about here about holding and invest or just save or convert to fiat are the rare edge cases. There are several large businesses you can read about in the press section of this board that are now accepting BTC / crypto. They all are using 3rd party processors and they all are getting fiat. Do you think they are about BTC / LTC / ETH / Lightning / Dave's itchy left testicle coin? No they don't they just want their fiat. and don't care how it gets to them. Stop giving people FUD to talk about and push for acceptance of all of it. The rest will take care of itself. -Dave Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: suchmoon on January 14, 2022, 05:10:20 PM Not from a merchant's POV. There is more hassle involved in receiving LN payments for no tangible benefit. Isn't your customers' satisfaction a tangible benefit? Whenever I see Bitcoin as a payment method, but without Lightning, I'm a little more discouraged to do the transaction. For instance, I don't want to broadcast another transaction every month for the $10 of Spotify.Also, if I had made all those transactions on-chain the merchant would have a ton of UTXOs. I've saved them money in fees. What percentage of online purchases are paid for with Bitcoin? What percentage of those are paid for with LN? At merchants who have both those options along with fiat payments. As much as some customers might be satisfied paying with exotic payment methods, there is a threshold were such options are too costly and cumbersome for the sales (and satisfaction) it could possibly bring in. Most businesses would happily pay the extra 20 cents per UTXO or whatever it is, if they can avoid maintaining yet another service and dealing with all the other crud - imagine training customer service reps on troubleshooting LN payments. They might be enticed to utilize LN payments if it's offered as a custodial hands-off solution so there's probably a business opportunity for someone here. I have been successful a few times. Some went to Coinbase Commerce, some went to BitPay, some went to coinpayments.net and others I did a BTCPay server for. As of now none of the BTCPay servers are active. They just did not want to deal with it. Similar experience here. I still have some clients running self-hosted payments but only because I support them for free basically, and even take the bitcoins off their hands if they want to. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 14, 2022, 05:41:43 PM millisat payment Would you be more okay with Bitcoin LN if the minimum amount would be 1 sat? If so, it's probably not that difficult to adjust the software and start your own node.seems even now with your post being the 71st post of this topic you and certain people want to pretend everything in LN it bitcoin format, where you want to brand tag an altnet as being bitcoin. by also saying LN is permissionless contracts that all can broadcast because 'its bitcoin'.... but then.. yep you slip up and make contradictions by admitting LN does handle millisats payments which are not blockchain compatible. can you all stop the flip-flop(aka contradictions) and learn 1. difference between bitcoin locked value on the blockchain vs the 1:1000 pegged millsat LN payment 2. learn the unbroadcast commitment that use channel peers pubkey vs LN millisat payment using destinations payment_hash 3. LN millsat payments(aka invoices aka htlc aka sphinx onion encrypted payments) (whatever buzzword of the week you please) is not the same as a bitcoin broadcastable transaction 4. learn the bitcoin protocol does not have LN dns, peer handshaking, channel create code if you can learn that there is no separate 'bitcoin LN network' and separate "litecoin LN network" and realise the LN network is its own network of its own protocols that allow channels with different pegged coin. if you actually learn the differences of why LN is not bitcoin. then you can learn to actually PR campaign based on the differences, and give people some reason to want to use LN for the niche use cases where bitcoin doesnt fit their need. trying to call it bitcoin lightning network as if the LN network is the bitcoin network. is just misleading EG you shouldnt say "dollar visa payment network" or "pound visa payment network". instead its just the visa network that can handle different currencies where visa is not "dollarL2", nor "dollar network" if you continue to say "visa is dollar" people will laugh at you Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 14, 2022, 05:51:34 PM but it is funny how you are using bolt2 (Peer Protocol for Channel Management). and avoiding yet again: bolt4: (Onion Routing Protocol) bolt11 (Invoice Protocol for Lightning Payments) Let me repeat again. bolt11 describes only how a payment invoice should be encoded/decoded. As for the bolt4: This document describes the construction of an onion routed packet that is used to route a payment from an origin node to a final node. bolt4 describes how the onion packet is constructed and how it can be validated by each node. It does not describe how it is passed around. Here's a piece of information from bolt2: Code: (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/02-peer-protocol.md#adding-an-htlc-update_add_htlc) The format of the onion_routing_packet portion, which indicates where the payment is destined, is described in BOLT #4. The "onion_routing_packet", which contains encrypted instructions for each hop, is a part of "update_add_htlc". So, Carol doesn't know anything about Diana unless Bob sends her "update_add_htlc". Bob can't send it unless Alice replies with "commitment_signed" and they finish exchanging revocation keys. Why? Again: Code: (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/02-peer-protocol.md#requirements-7) Forwarding HTLCs If you still disagree, tell me what kind of message nodes use to forward the "onion_routing_packet" without triggering the update of the commitment transaction. the millisat payment comes first. and is then rounded up/down into sat commitment as a second part That's exactly what I have said in my previous post: The receiving node routes down the value to whole satoshis before preparing and signing the commitment transaction. The sending node does the same for their version of the commitment transaction. If either of them doesn't do that, the HTLC can be failed. payment_hash (same for all parties involved in a route).. and its payment _secret (same for all parties of a route) is for the msat payment. separetly the localpubkey remotepubkey(just between channel peers) and revoke keys(just between channel peers) are buzzwords for the channel commitment Payment secret and payment hash are also used in the locking script of the HTLC output in the commitment transaction. payments are done as a separate HTLC(in msat) and once E has received the payment_hash from D, who got it from C, who got it from B who got it from A(who got it from E). then E knows to send payment_secret to D, who passes to C, who passes to B who passes to A. and then A and B make the commitment where B is deserved the value You still haven't answered my question. How do all of these nodes communicate? How do they forward the onion packet? Is there anyone here who is following our discussion? Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 14, 2022, 06:17:31 PM gotta love how you admit
Quote the construction of an onion routed packet that is used to route a payment from an origin node to a final node. but then backtrack to avoid discussing the payment, to then recite the channel management. yep you went straight back to referencing bolt 2. try to read a bit more of bolt 4 https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/04-onion-routing.md#legacy-hop_data-payload-format Quote The hop_data format is identified by a single 0x00-byte length, for backward compatibility. Its payload is defined as: https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/04-onion-routing.md#basic-multi-part-paymentstype: hop_data (for realm 0) data: [short_channel_id:short_channel_id] [u64:amt_to_forward] [u32:outgoing_cltv_value] [12*byte:padding] Field descriptions: short_channel_id: The ID of the outgoing channel used to route the message; the receiving peer should operate the other end of this channel. amt_to_forward: The amount, in millisatoshis, to forward to the next receiving peer specified within the routing information. Quote Basic Multi-Part Payments An HTLC may be part of a larger "multi-part" payment: such "base" atomic multipath payments will use the same payment_hash for all paths. Note that amt_to_forward is the amount for this HTLC only: a total_msat field containing a greater value is a promise by the ultimate sender that the rest of the payment will follow in succeeding HTLCs; we call these outstanding HTLCs which have the same preimage, an "HTLC set". payment_metadata is to be included in every payment part, so that invalid payment details can be detected as early as possible. Requirements The writer: if the invoice offers the basic_mpp feature: MAY send more than one HTLC to pay the invoice. MUST use the same payment_hash on all HTLCs in the set. SHOULD send all payments at approximately the same time. SHOULD try to use diverse paths to the recipient for each HTLC. SHOULD retry and/or re-divide HTLCs which fail. if the invoice specifies an amount: MUST set total_msat to at least that amount, and less than or equal to twice amount. otherwise: MUST set total_msat to the amount it wishes to pay. MUST ensure that the total amount_msat of the HTLC set which arrives at the payee is equal to total_msat. MUST NOT send another HTLC if the total amount_msat of the HTLC set is already greater or equal to total_msat. MUST include payment_secret. otherwise: MUST set total_msat equal to amt_to_forward. what you need to learn a local inchannel HTLC for the in channel 'commitment uses the partners pubkey Ln payments along routes use a pubkey of the destination(payment hash) and along the route or if part paying across multiple routes the same payment hash(destination pubkey) must be used LN payments sent along the peers (separate from channel commitments) are measured in msat .. still laughing how you rushed back to bolt2 and ignored the other bolts. it seems you are stuck in the 2015 LN protocol and dont want to move forward to the 2018 "micropayment" update to the protocol when they added more bolts when they finally got LN to be fund peggable after segwit. oh and fun fact LN first usecase was on testnets, thus not bitcoin network specific oh fun fact, LN done atomic swaps from different blockchains before anyone even used Ln to purchase real products with bitcoin pegged funds Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: philipma1957 on January 14, 2022, 06:29:19 PM I create this topic because I challenged (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380036.msg58919433#msg58919433) franky1 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=65837) to join a civil discussion with all arguments in one place: Nice work .@franky1: If I create a self-moderated topic (Lauda called me Switzerland for being neutral; I won't delete any of your posts, but I will call you out if you go off-topic), are you willing to engage? I expect it will be "you vs a couple of other users", but from what I've seen, you can handle yourself. I would like to discuss your points on LN that I've seen in far too many different topics, and it would be nice if we can reach consensus on at least part of the discussion. My invitation was accepted by franky1:i can engage. Anyone else than franky1: I will delete unfriendly posts, and I will delete off-topic posts. See my unedited archive (https://loyce.club/archive/topics/538/5380215.html) when that happens.and out of respect i will even take my own advice and step back from the computer between posts and take some breathing time between posts, and avoid (as i see other do)just hitting reply to rage reply. if others can do the same. and answer without shining their bias/advertising PR stance of utopia, and respond rationally and thinking outside their small box. then great it could actually lead to some proper dialogue. Please keep this topic civil. Please keep the discussion only here, and not in other topics. If there's something worth reading in another topic, quote it here instead of posting a link. Try to limit the scope: I want to add this as a condition: We'll speak of one topic at a time. Scalability? Scalability. Lightning's protocol? Lightning's protocol. Consensus? Consensus. This way we can clarify which are our interlocutor's disagreements and constructively (& friendly) correct them. Read everything before responding. Try to avoid duplicate replies.Newbies: read more, post less, and create an informed opinion. To consider: I removed franky1 from my ignore list. I think that's only fair considering the topic I started. To start: I use on-chain Bitcoin, and I use Bitcoin LN. Bitcoin can work with or without LN, LN can't work without Bitcoin. I don't like high fees, as it limits adoption. I would like to see Bitcoin grow in value, userbase and number of transactions per second, and I think we need all three of those for Bitcoin to grow. How, that's up for debate. LN is a different network for a reason. it has its own usecase and niche and utility that differs from bitcoins. I am glad you did this. At franky1 if btc writes code to alter from 0.00000001 to 0.0000000001 and it is voted on via miners do you concede that to be okay. note I said sats to 1/100 sats or eight digits to ten digits. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 14, 2022, 07:00:40 PM At franky1 if btc writes code to alter from 0.00000001 to 0.0000000001 and it is voted on via miners do you concede that to be okay. note I said sats to 1/100 sats or eight digits to ten digits. bitcoins reward math. bitcoin transaction data is not 0.X.. its actually measured in sats. to make the smallest unit subdivide even further requires breaking and bastardising many bitcoin rules. if you look at the byte data(raw tx) of a tx of 1000sat, its not 0.00001000 its actually 1000 EG if a legacy UTXO had 1000sat locked to the key. and a BStard transaction format was measured in msats the then code would think that the 1000 unit of legacy is only 1sat (1000msat) also the block reward. its not 6.25/2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2 its actually 625000000 /2 or more technically, in binary: 100101010000001011111001000000 were the end bit is dropped every 210,000 blocks if a new BStard transaction format of msat protocol viewed: 100101010000001011111001000000 it would convert is to not still be 6.25btc but instead appear at GUI as 0.00625btc because the unit of measure has shifted by 3 decimals at GUI level this means to cludge the code with more code to fix that. the current 100101010000001011111001000000 (6.25bt legacy) which has 30 halvings left (30 bits to drop) would need to be changed to 1001000110000100111001110010101000000000 with 40 halvings. meaning it also breaks the 20140 year cut off. and changes it to be 2180 before supply depletes and also more code ontop to recognise old legacy/segwit formats and convert a legacy/segwit utxo value from 100101010000001011111001000000 to 1001000110000100111001110010101000000000 and if someone wanted to go back to a legacy utxo. the reverse (4bit varient to 30bit varient) in short, alot of cludgy code and alot of bug risks of translating bytes and crap .. also with 1000x more sharable units. that can be split and shared around. this also changes the scarcity. EG no one cares about only 190,000 tonnes of gold. if there is enough gold dust for everyone to have, its not scarce because everyone can have some gold Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 14, 2022, 07:03:53 PM but then backtrack to avoid discussing the payment, to then recite the channel management. yep you went straight back to referencing bolt 2. try to read a bit more of bolt 4 Again, routing instructions are a part of the onion packet, but bolt4 does not describe how to pass this information around, which is what we were talking about. Code: Packet Structure "hop_data" is a part of "onion_routing_packet". It is a piece of data that each hop receives in an encrypted format, which tells them who they should forward the HTLC to (via "update_add_htlc"). You don't send just "hop_data" to the next destination. You need to send the whole "onion_routing_packet" through "update_add_htlc". You still haven't answered my question. How do nodes forward the "onion_routing_packet"? You have just learnt that they need to forward it because it contains (encrypted) instructions for every hop. How do they do it, though? I keep asking that question because you insist that nodes do not sign a new commitment transaction before communicating with the next node in the routing path, which is not true. I am not sure why you keep bringing the msat thing over and over again. I have already admitted that one side asks the other to add an HTLC denominated in msat and expects signatures for the commitment, HTLC-timeout and HTLC-success transactions denominated in satoshis as a reply. If the other side does not reply with valid signatures then the HTLC is failed. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 14, 2022, 07:27:00 PM Is there anyone here who is following our discussion? I'm following, although I struggle understanding how franky corrects you. His technical writeups make it infeasible to read and understand.if you can learn that there is no separate 'bitcoin LN network' and separate "litecoin LN network" and realise the LN network is its own network of its own protocols that allow channels with different pegged coin. How's that true? Can't you verify if the channels you're routing transactions exist in the Bitcoin blockchain?As much as some customers might be satisfied paying with exotic payment methods, there is a threshold were such options are too costly and cumbersome for the sales (and satisfaction) it could possibly bring in. Sure. But, if one out of the ten merchants starts accepting Lightning he makes the difference. The rest have an inferiority when it comes to payment methods. I honestly don't know if the elasticity of demand from such change gives greater profits than the extra costs. I suspect that if the merchants like Bitcoin they will get involved with it and handle it properly. I mean how much dedication do you need to maintain your channels?Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 14, 2022, 07:27:24 PM your trying to set a narrative that channel partners update a commitment and then send a "onion_routing_packet"
what you are not realising is what i said a few posts back. with the colourful image cycle of 1-9 alice to eric you do know that users along a route cant create a commitment update until they have first received a LN payment. else how will they even know what they have to update the commitment by. (oh wait is LN now featuring psychic powers?) also at the update_add_htlc, they dont update the commitment. they create a LN micropayment promise this update_add_htlc is a private message between channel partners that update their own micropayment promise. this micropayment promise is measured in msat and includes the destinations payment_hash as the 'output' its not the channels commitment that uses the channel partners pubkeys. its a "micropayment" msat format using the payment_hash once an payment succeeds then they update the commitment. because then and only then has B deserved been paid by A. if there is a route fail. then the Ln micropayment promise just gets dropped please take some time to read ALL the bolts. and try not to fear moving away from your adamant desire to only read bolt 2 .. actually.. seeing as you love bolt 2 https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/02-peer-protocol.md#adding-an-htlc-update_add_htlc Quote Adding an HTLC: update_add_htlc Either node can send update_add_htlc to offer an HTLC to the other, which is redeemable in return for a payment preimage. Amounts are in millisatoshi, though on-chain enforcement is only possible for whole satoshi amounts greater than the dust limit (in commitment transactions these are rounded down as specified in BOLT #3). The format of the onion_routing_packet portion, which indicates where the payment is destined, is described in BOLT #4. type: 128 (update_add_htlc) data: [channel_id:channel_id] [u64:id] [u64:amount_msat] [sha256:payment_hash] [u32:cltv_expiry] [1366*byte:onion_routing_packet] as you can see "update_add_htlc" is the msat message including the "onion_routing_packet" update_add_htlc is not a trigger for create new commitment Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 14, 2022, 07:52:06 PM your trying to set a narrative that channel partners update a commitment and then send a "onion_routing_packet" No, one side sends "onion_routing_packet" in a "update_add_htlc" message and then commitment update is expected as per specifications (see last quote in this reply for explanation). you do know that users along a route cant create a commitment until they have first received a LN payment. else how will they even know what they have to update the commitment by. (oh wait is LN now featuring psychic powers?) I do know that and that's what "update_add_htlc" does. this channel update is a private message between channel partners that update their own micropayment promise. What exactly is that private message in your opinion? That's what I have been asking you the whole time. please take some time to read ALL the bolts. and try not to fear moving away from your adamant desire to only read bolt 2 Please, take some time before replying to my posts and show me the actual pieces of code from the official specification which back up your statements. as you can see "update_add_htlc" is the msat message including the "onion_routing_packet" update_add_htlc is not a trigger for create new commitment You make me repeat the same things over and over again. Code: (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/02-peer-protocol.md#requirements-7) Forwarding HTLCs As per specifications, the node which receives "update_add_htlc" MUST commit the HTLC by signing a new commitment transaction (a series of "commitment_signed" and "revoke_and_ack" messages between both peers) before forwarding the payment further (sending "update_add_htlc" to the next hop). The receiving node knows the next hop because it obtained this information from the "onion_routing_packet" which was included in "update_add_htlc". Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 14, 2022, 08:18:26 PM HTLC is not a specific term which means commitment
HTLC is basically "complex contract" a LN millisat format payment has a HTLC .. just because you see something that says HTLC does not mean it refers to the commitment AGAIN: a LNmillisat payment HTLC has units of measure in msat and also uses Erics payment hash for all users (ABCD) a commitment HTLC(different) uses only the pubkeys of the channel partners and is measured in sats a commitment is an inchannel management thing that occurs after the out of channel payment of routing packets please try, for the multiple time of telling you. to learn the differences last time im going to say this. a HTLC is not "commitment". it refers to a whole range of transactions and formats that use HTLC so stop trying to say 'it makes a commitment because it says HTLC. oh and one last thing bolts2 (the thing your addicted to) uses examples of old old protocol where its describing examples of 'hub' payments (where channel partner is the destination) try to read the newer bolts. that explain more of the routing and payments of others in hop models using micropayments. you cant comit to rounding up a millisat to a sat. until you know the millisat payment is complete.. otherwise if alice is trying to pay Eric. if it was alice commiting to bob first. bob could then broadcast his win he never asked for.. and because its the latest commitment(in your scenario fantasy). bob cant be revoked. and so bob gets the win. eric doesnt get paid and alice is out of money. sorry but thats not how it works. bob only gets paid after eric gets paid (ref the image several posts ago of 1-9 alice to eric) Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 14, 2022, 08:56:37 PM a LNmillisat payment HTLC has units of measure in msat and also uses Erics payment hash for all users (ABCD) That's correct. a commitment HTLC(different) uses only the pubkeys of the channel partners and is measured in sats A commitment transaction with HTLC outputs uses the public keys of the channel partners, their HTLC public keys and the hash of the payment secret. See the second half of this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380215.msg58983131#msg58983131) again. a commitment is an inchannel management thing that occurs after the out of channel payment of routing packets The specs literally say that one should not forward an HTLC unless one can enforce the contract on-chain. bolts2 (the thing your addicted to) uses examples of old old protocol where its describing examples of 'hub' payments (where channel partner is the destination) It's exactly the opposite. Direct payments could work just fine without HTLCs (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/101128). The main purpose of HTLCs is to enable payment routing. otherwise if alice is trying to pay Eric. if it was alice commiting to bob first. bob could then broadcast his win he never asked for.. and because its the latest commitment(in your scenario fantasy). bob cant be revoked. and so bob gets the win. eric doesnt get paid and alice is out of money. franky1, come on. You seem to completely ignore the fact that TWO commitment transactions are signed for each Lightning payment. The first transaction is supposed to prevent the situation you described from happening. The transaction contains additional (HTLC) outputs with locking scripts which I described in the other half of this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380215.msg58983131#msg58983131). Bob has no real reason to broadcast his commitment transaction with HTLC outputs unless Carol claims his HTLC and Alice stops cooperating, and refuses to sign another commitment transaction without the HTLC output. The second commitment transaction is signed once Bob sends "update_fulfill_htlc", which includes the payment preimage, to Alice. It's the transaction you have been talking about all the time. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 14, 2022, 10:07:56 PM a LNmillisat payment HTLC has units of measure in msat and also uses Erics payment hash for all users (ABCD) That's correct.we are agreed. one step forward for you.. finally a commitment HTLC(different) uses only the pubkeys of the channel partners and is measured in sats A commitment transaction with HTLC outputs uses the public keys of the channel partners, their HTLC public keys and the hash of the payment secret. See the second half of this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380215.msg58983131#msg58983131) again. we are half agreed. two steps forward for you.. (being generous) but kind of weird how you say the exact same thing as what i said.. but then you say the commitment then has erics payment_hash(facepalm.. ill explain later issues with this) and then ask me to check something.. and when i go check. you are referring back to commitments of the channel management and nothing to do with the LN payments.. deduct half a step rath_you are 1.5 steps forward. but looks like you are beginning to step back again a commitment is an inchannel management thing that occurs after the out of channel payment of routing packets The specs literally say that one should not forward an HTLC unless one can enforce the contract on-chain. oh and here you go again. talking about step 4(your ascii art) of the commitment and ignoring the steps 123(your ascii art) of the payment.. deduct 1 whole step your only one step forward. bolts2 (the thing your addicted to) uses examples of old old protocol where its describing examples of 'hub' payments (where channel partner is the destination) It's exactly the opposite. Direct payments could work just fine without HTLCs (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/101128). The main purpose of HTLCs is to enable payment routing. again you seems to only want to limit the scope to direct payments (inchannel funding commitment where bob is the destination) HTLC is actually about the revocation part initially(punishment) in regard to routed or in channel direct payments(partner is destination). though in direct payments becasue your trying to pay bob anyway as the destination there is less need for HTLC but a HTLC main objective is you 'hope' to prevent partner sending an old commitment. by having a time locked contract with revoke conditions i wont deduct a step yet, as this is a new argument from you. ill just treat is as naive jump to conclusion before checking. just try to look into it abit and not just repeat it because you said it before otherwise if alice is trying to pay Eric. if it was alice commiting to bob first. bob could then broadcast his win he never asked for.. and because its the latest commitment(in your scenario fantasy). bob cant be revoked. and so bob gets the win. eric doesnt get paid and alice is out of money. franky1, come on. You seem to completely ignore the fact that TWO commitment transactions are signed for each Lightning payment. The first transaction is supposed to prevent the situation you described from happening. The transaction contains additional (HTLC) outputs with locking scripts which I described in the other half of this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380215.msg58983131#msg58983131). Bob has no real reason to broadcast his commitment transaction with HTLC outputs unless Carol claims his HTLC and Alice stops cooperating, and refuses to sign another commitment transaction without the HTLC output. The second commitment transaction is signed once Bob sends "update_fulfill_htlc", which includes the payment preimage, to Alice. It's the transaction you have been talking about all the time. i know you want to concentrate and saturate this topic with endless post just talking about the commitment and ignoring the millsat payments.. yea your game is obvious. and getting boring.. your post you refer to is ignoring the LN payments that involve the payment_hash provided by eric and used throughout the route. instead you want to only discuss the commitments of channel management .. here is the thing.. when alice gets payment_hash from eric. alice has not even told bob how much needs to be routed. because alice might use zoe, yvonne xena.. instead so how does bob know, well alice chooses to try a route via bob, carol, diana,eric by sending an LNpayment (onion packet msat with erics payment_hash(htlc)) though that path. alice does not use this (payment)htlc to put into a commitment with bob, because the output is erics key and eric knows the secret, if it were put in, and it was broadcast, eric would see the confirmed utxo to his key and he can then spend that utxo with his secret the commitment is a separate HTLC using the alice bob pubkeys (not the eric payment_hash HTLC) i know you want to use bolt 2 because its example is pretending bob is the destination.(direct payment) where micropayments/routing is not needed needed in bolt 2 scenario. but things have moved on.. try reading bolt4 and learn about the other things . like micropayments using the onion packets it seems you are too eager to pretend that the 'payment' is put into commitment and act as if there is no msat format htlc.. and that story of yours is getting boring Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 14, 2022, 10:26:05 PM anyway. its been pages of flip floppy.(contradictions) and avoidance of understanding PAYMENTS. just to meander into only discussing commitments(facepalm)
so lets gauge peoples understanding. these questions (by request) have been write short to avoid clauses, and also in pairs of opposition wording to avoid bias. lets see what you know 1.a: lightning network is not the bitcoin network. agree[ ] disagree[ ] 1.b: lightning network is the bitcoin network. agree[ ] disagree[ ] 2.a: lightning network is a separate network that does different things than bitcoin agree[ ] disagree[ ] 2.b: lightning network is always linked to the bitcoin network that does what bitcoin does agree[ ] disagree[ ] 3.a: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in picocoin-1 (11decimal) also known as msat/millisat agree[ ] disagree[ ] 3.b: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in btc agree[ ] disagree[ ] 4.a: LN "payments" (inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction agree[ ] disagree[ ] 4.b: LN "payments" (inside LN) are same format, to a bitcoin transaction agree[ ] disagree[ ] 5.a: bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format agree[ ] disagree[ ] 5.b: bitcoin network does understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format agree[ ] disagree[ ] 6.a: LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network agree[ ] disagree[ ] 6.b: LN is tethered to only function on the bitcoin network agree[ ] disagree[ ] 7.a: LN wont work without bitcoin agree[ ] disagree[ ] 7.b: LN will work without bitcoin agree[ ] disagree[ ] Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 14, 2022, 11:06:44 PM you say the commitment then has erics payment_hash(facepalm.. ill explain later issues with this) [...] alice does not use this (payment)htlc to put into a commitment with bob, because the output is erics key and eric knows the secret, if it were put in, and it was broadcast, eric would see the confirmed utxo to his key and he can then spend that utxo with his secret That's why I asked you to check one of my previous posts. There is no point in explaining it again, so I am going to quote myself instead. by the way, A,>B do not create a 'commitment' at 2 using H(erics public key) in a commitment. because A<>B know eric has the privatekey(R) and if A or B broadcast a commitment with H, eric can jump in and send funds to where he likes using R. No, Eric can't do that. HTLC outputs in commitment transactions require not only the payment secret to be spent but also a valid HTLC signature. When you open a channel, you share your htlc_basepoint, which is a compressed public key used only for HTLC payments in this particular channel. The other node shares their htlc_basepoint as well. You can use htlc_basepoint and per_commitment_point to calculate local_htlcpubkey and remote_htlcpubkey. Now, let's take a closer at locking scripts of HTLC outputs. Commitment transactions are asymmetrical which means that there are two possible scenarios: 1) (Offered) HTLC output in Alice's commitment transaction: Code: # To remote node with revocation key If remote_htlcpubkey (Bob's HTLC pubkey) is on the stack then the provided secret (the payment preimage) is hashed and checked against the payment hash. Otherwise, this output can be spent via a HTLC-timeout transaction which is timelocked and signed by both parties beforehand. Eric or any other intermediary node cannot spend this output as they cannot produce a valid signature for that public key. 2) (Received) HTLC output in Bob's commitment transaction: Code: # To remote node with revocation key If remote_htlcpubkey (Alice's HTLC pubkey) is on the stack then the provided secret (the payment preimage) is hashed and checked against the payment hash and the output can be spent via a HTLC-success transaction. Again, Eric or any other intermediary node cannot spend this output as they cannot produce valid signatures for these keys. HTLC-timeout and HTLC-success transactions, which require both Alice's and Bob's HTLC signatures, consume HTLC outputs and create another locked output which is delayed so that the other party has enough time to broadcast a penalty transaction if necessary. For some reason, you refuse to accept the existence of those scripts. so how does bob know, well alice chooses to try a route via bob, carol, diana,eric by sending an LNpayment (onion packet msat with erics payment_hash(htlc)) though that path. There is no other way to pass the "onion_routing_packet" other than via "update_add_htlc". Any other way wouldn't be specification compliant. HTLC is actually about the revocation part initially(punishment) in regard to routed or in channel direct payments(partner is destination). though in direct payments becasue your trying to pay bob anyway as the destination there is less need for HTLC but a HTLC main objective is you 'hope' to prevent partner sending an old commitment. by having a time locked contract with revoke conditions HTLCs have nothing to do with revocation. Revocations and punishments are handled through simple timelocks in locking scripts. For example: Code: (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/03-transactions.md) OP_IF If Alice broadcasts her commitment transaction, she needs to wait for 'to_self_delay' blocks (144 blocks by default) since her transaction has been mined before she can spend this output. Bob can broadcast a penalty transaction at any time. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 14, 2022, 11:57:08 PM again.. i am talking about the LN payments
EMPHASIS LN PAYMENTS which allow eric to get paid from alice. you just tried to convert a conversation about LN payments and their HTLC(eric payment hash + msat denominated format) to then quote yourself saying Quote When you open a channel, you share your htlc_basepoint, which is a compressed public key used only for HTLC payments in this particular channel. The other node shares their htlc_basepoint as well. opening a channel has NOTHING to do with ln payments. LN routed payments (the msat ones) are not the same as in channel direct commitments.they are separate agreements/promises/contracts that happen separetly and depending on circumstance, LN payment agreement/promise might get signed. but commitment might not (payment fail example) also dragging another bit of facepalm from another post Did you read the other half of my post? Eric also needs two valid HTLC signatures that can be produced only by Alice and Bob. first let me clarify buzzwords(LN payment = invoice, aka onion_route_packet aka msat micropayment channel, aka millisat denominated HTLC) you choose the buzzword. your LN has many buzzwords for the same thing. just dont confuse LN payment(or its buzzword variations for the same thing) vs comitments(blockchain accepted format) HTLC is buzzworded as "smart contract(emphasic on the C of HTLC) yes LN payment is one form of smart contract(HTLC) and commitment is another form of smart contract(HTLC) but they are not the same thing. so please stop referencing commitments as your response to LN payments ERIC DOES NOT get paid using two valid HTLC signatures produced by only alice and bob. ERIC DOES NOT get paid using two signatures produces by signing the commitment as the 'message' ERIC gets paid by Diana and only diana eric never sees alice bob pubkeys.. alice and bob never put erics payment hash into a commitment because eric has the secret .. i know your locked on and zoned in and narrow scoped concentrating on just 'direct payment' scenarios of a hub model payment were its just alice paying bob. where bob is the destination. whereby in that 2016-7 scenario of explanation of bolt 2 is only describing the in channel management of such direct payment of just alice and bob. but can you just take a few hours away from typing your messages on repeat referring only to yourself as evidence of your thoughts. and instead read the other bolts and do this.. this one thing distinguish the difference between direct paying bob. vs route payment to eric by this try to expand your scope beyond the repetitive bolt2 reference of a direct payment scenario of a 'hub model'. and instead grasp the concept of micropayments of a 'hop model' i know you are endlessly trying to desperately only want to talk about commitments. but grasp that LN msat payments are a thing, stop skipping to point 4 of your ascii image to avoid the 123 grasp things like: if bob charges 1sat fee, carol charges 1sat fee, diana charges 1 sat fee thats 3sat to make a payment to eric, alice needs to know this to then set how much to send to bob. alice cant commit to bob with an amount unless a route has first been tried using the msat denominated payments, where by alice learns what the combined fees of that route will be. alice also might be looking at other routes. and not yet decided which route to use as a path i know you want to skip past the payment talk to meander back to commitment. but untill you can understand the process of the payment talk. and what happens before a commitment is even made. then it just shows you dont know about the payments. and its not because they dont exist. its that your stuck (narrow scope view) only on the channel direct payment to partner also you say HTLC have nothing to do with revocation because revocation uses time lock..... you might want to check on what TL stands for in HTLC (spoiler: Time Lock) the snippet of IF ELSE statements you referenced in bolt3 are the conditions of .. drum roll.. the HTLC contract before hitting reply. 1. if you have not read the other bolts. dont bother replying, you have already spammed this topic just referencing yourself in previous posts of your opinion. there is no need to post again referencing yourself. 2. if you have sat back and took some time to wish to discuss LN routed payments (without meandering into examples of inchannel direct commitments) then have the first part of your post quoting my previous post questions. putting a * into the [ ] that applies to your opinion. then we can establish a baseline of opinion. of where your opinion differs or (dare i say it) agree with mine i want to get a short quick summary of your actual uncontradicted opinion of your thoughts of LN. so that i can see what things your not getting right Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 15, 2022, 02:08:09 AM I am going to wait for others to share their thoughts. They probably need some time to catch up with us. This is my last reply for now.
also you say HTLC have nothing to do with revocation because revocation uses time lock..... you might want to check on what TL stands for in HTLC (spoiler: Time Lock) the snippet of IF ELSE statements you referenced in bolt3 are the conditions of .. drum roll.. the HTLC contract You might want to check what H stands for in HTLC. I can't see any hash in that locking script. HTLCs in commitment transactions are those two scripts that you ignore to comment for some reason. alice and bob never put erics payment hash into a commitment because eric has the secret Again, you completely ignore two locking scripts which are used for HTLC outputs in commitment transactions. Eric can't spend those outputs with just a secret because he also needs valid HTLC signatures, but you don't want to acknowledge them, even though you keep talking about HTLC-success and HTLC-timeout transactions. (LN payment = invoice, aka onion_route_packet aka msat micropayment channel, aka millisat denominated HTLC) If you don't see any difference between an invoice, onion_route_packet and HTLC then we really don't have anything to talk about. I see that further discussion is pointless as you keep saying that I should read the specifications more carefully without quoting it to prove your statements. Good night, franky1. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 15, 2022, 02:45:30 AM before hitting reply. 1. if you have not read the other bolts. dont bother replying, you have already spammed this topic just referencing yourself in previous posts of your opinion. there is no need to post again referencing yourself. 2. if you have sat back and took some time to wish to discuss LN routed payments (without meandering into examples of inchannel direct commitments) then have the first part of your post quoting my previous post questions. putting a * into the [ ] that applies to your opinion. then we can establish a baseline of opinion. of where your opinion differs or (dare i say it) agree with mine i want to get a short quick summary of your actual uncontradicted opinion of your thoughts of LN. so that i can see what things your not getting right 2. Again, you completely ignore two locking scripts which are used for HTLC outputs in commitment transactions. (facepalm)I am going to wait for others to share their thoughts. They probably need some time to catch up with us. This is my last reply for now. (facepalm)typical. oh well. but dont worry your not the only one that cant answer basic questions, your not the only one trying desperately hard to avoid talking about the msat payments. oh an in another topic. Doomad reminded me about how crappy LN is about funding locks. not requiring them to actually peg to 6 confirms locked value onchain. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380036.msg58991641#msg58991641 anyways. seems the only thing LN PR guys understand is direct payments in hub model. just a shame LN are even trying to break that by having direct payments not require a locked funding peg If you don't see any difference between an invoice, onion_route_packet and HTLC then we really don't have anything to talk about. in LN payments (measured in Msat denomination, not to be confused with commitment in sat denomination) the htlc is not a commitment htlc. the onion routed packet is not a commitment packet the invoice is not a commitment invoice those 3 things are messages outside of the channel commitment(sat denominated) protocol of messages, but are indeed part of 'micropayments' protocol(the LN payment(msat)) because in all 3 message types, they all have 'amount' denominated in msat. i know you find it tough to discuss ln payments and now wish to avoid it. but. like i said first if you cant prevent yourself from meandering back to 'channel management commitments', then yes there is no more to discuss with you. as for not answering 14 unbiased quick summary questions.. silence is revealing i have respect for LoyceV atleast he made an effort to answer summary questions Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 15, 2022, 07:51:44 AM @Rath, I'm reading the discussion and I respect what you're doing, but it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong nor if franky is right or wrong. Franky won't stop derailing your statements until he either proves to be correct or you give up.
You keep shutting him with transaction formats, he keeps telling you that msats aren't sats. You give him the actual scripts, he tells you you're flip flopping. You talk him calmly, he's yelling at you and facepalms himself. You talk with sense, he doesn't. I've said this before; I do, but it's a lost game after all. He doesn't care about his writings, I do. He can't comprehend where he's wrong, I'm forced to highlight it. He doesn't syllogize his counter-proposals, I must provide valid arguments to make a point. Now add to these that he's mocking you on every single post and repeats the same things. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: LoyceV on January 15, 2022, 09:44:06 AM Bitcoin LN you and certain people want to pretend everything in LN it bitcoin format, where you want to brand tag an altnet as being bitcoin.Quote if you actually learn the differences of why LN is not bitcoin. You mean accept a mere philosophical definition.Quote then you can learn to actually PR campaign based on the differences, and give people some reason to want to use LN for the niche use cases where bitcoin doesnt fit their need. That's exactly what I always say: Bitcoin LN is great for small low-fee transactions.Quote trying to call it bitcoin lightning network as if the LN network is the bitcoin network. is just misleading Agree to disagree: I think it's very clear to most people what it means.Quote you shouldnt say "dollar visa payment network" or "pound visa payment network". instead its just the visa network that can handle different currencies where visa is not "dollarL2", nor "dollar network" Nobody says "Visa is dollar", but everyone says they use Visa to pay dollars! And that's exactly what I'm doing with LN: I use LN to pay Bitcoin.if you continue to say "visa is dollar" people will laugh at you I noticed you ignored the actual point of my post: Would you be more okay with Bitcoin LN if the minimum amount would be 1 sat? But instead, you started talking about terminology again.For the record, I prefer to just call it "LN", but if I do, you say LN can also be used by Litecoin, so I specify "Bitcoin LN", even though almost anyone already understands what I mean when I post about LN on Bitcointalk. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: darkv0rt3x on January 15, 2022, 10:35:24 AM Hi.
I feel I just read a 700 page book of some mix of technical book and I don't even know what to call it. My eyes are almost crying due to the amount of things said, the amount of the same things repeated, the amount of times the answers are not objectively replied, the amount of times the posts writing, simply deviates in some way the person who's typing wants. The worse is that there is someone trying to inflict his point of view to everybody else, no matter if he's 100% accurate in his claims or not (which apparently he's not). And in the process he tries to diminish other people's knowledge, confidence and self-esteem by insulting, by not being concise and objective, by deviating the point of the post with an attempt to be grammatically correct, by all sorts of means of demagogy. I would even say this is as close and cyber bullying as it gets. Amazingly, most of the people here can take all this crap over and over again. I wouldn't, for Christ sake. Blinder than a blind man is the one who don't want to see. I'm almost compelled to say this guy is autistic. I have dealt with one in the past and this type of behaviour is common among autistic people. They have tons of drive and focus but then they lack basic skills of communication, lack of social skills, they find quite hard to socialize and accept other visions and thoughts other than the ones of their own.They can't verbalize correctly and they often get angry/frustrated when they can't achieve their goals. This person has all these traces. I'm not going to be making quotes over and over, and deviate the discussion, but this is pointless. This thread is pointless. Not because there is not good information and tons of will of some of the people to share knowledge but because this become just an attempt of a guy to inflict, by brute force, his point of view on his own terms as if his the owner of the absolute truth, which we can see clearly he's wrong in quite a few aspects. Anyway, I already read more in this thread a couple of more mentioned along it, than I read in the last week. I wouldn't even bother to continue this discussion with this person as he's trying to use so many tactics to brute-force his view that only someone completely blind can't see it! Good luck trying to deal with this type of person! Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: LoyceV on January 15, 2022, 10:48:32 AM This thread is pointless. You're missing the bigger picture, which is this:Please keep the discussion only here, and not in other topics. I must say the discussion so far is much better than I expected in Bitcoin Discussion. I don't think anyone will change their mind, but that was to be expected. At least it's more or less on-topic and I don't have to delete a lot of spam. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 15, 2022, 10:52:19 AM You're missing the bigger picture, which is this: Please keep the discussion only here, and not in other topics. We don't just keep the discussion here. We create discussion(s) here. In other topics, those discussions would have got deleted justifiably. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 15, 2022, 12:58:45 PM And in the process he tries to diminish other people's knowledge, confidence and self-esteem by insulting, Blinder than a blind man is the one who don't want to see. I'm almost compelled to say this guy is autistic. lack of social skills, they find quite hard to socialize and accept other visions and thoughts other than the ones of their own.They can't verbalize correctly and they often get angry/frustrated when they can't achieve their goals. This person has all these traces. hmmm. now should i bother to review all the posts of this topic and look at who has mentioned the most insults.. but anyway funny part is that darkv0rt3x post had no content related to how LN works, or scaling bitcoin, yet was just a personal attack message. (boring, but nice try to poke the bear) oh well i now agree this topic is dead. seems people just want to talk about commitments of direct payments(not LN's niche) and not the LN payments(ln's niche of being able to pay different people) some people just want to get angry and insult(funny part is darkv0rt3x could be talking about them) some just want to merit cycle each other and show their loyalty to friends. seems LoyceV is not 'Switzerland' when he merits a post thats not ontopic and just an insult slam (hypocritical) Bitcoin LN you and certain people want to pretend everything in LN it bitcoin format, where you want to brand tag an altnet as being bitcoin.by this i dont mean they are pegged to a different blockchain transaction for msat payment smart contracts. this means its making 'fake' channel, by sending 'funding_locked' messages on trust even when a transaction has not confirmed. where it does not even reference a utxo(txid and blocknumber) because it has no blocknumber to reference. instead it uses random number for channel ID as i said a couple years ago.. the pegs are not guaranteed and the promises are based on trust. even the devs involved with the LN proposal and its current usage in their software use the words "fake" and "trust" when describing the channel setup reference to post on other topic baited by doomad.. (so dont get angry and upset that i responded with proof) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380036.msg58991641#msg58991641 i was trying to keep this topic inline by trying to get people to stick to a non flipflop(contradiction) conversation by setting questions to finally summarise their opinion. (tie them to a single stance they stand by) i was also trying to get people to learn about the differences of LN payment s vs commitments. to then when they realise LN payments are not commitments but their own promises.. then move onto describing commitments to show how LN devs dont even want commitments to be solidly pegged to blockchains.. but it looks like they just want to stay in their utopian fantasy PR campaign version of function, rather than care enough, desire enough to learn how things work and want to know about potential flaws. you cant teach the blind to see, or be independent especially when all they can feel is their friends holding their hands guiding them. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 15, 2022, 01:15:58 PM but anyway funny part is that darkv0rt3x post had no content related to how LN works, or scaling bitcoin, yet was just a personal attack message. The funny part is that he does talk about the LN (https://ninjastic.space/search?author=darkv0rt3x&title=The%20Lightning%20Network%20FAQ) and that responding him likewise make him look right about your behavior towards us.oh well i now agree this topic is dead. seems people just want to talk about commitments of direct payments(not LN's niche) and not the LN payments(ln's niche of being able to pay different people) Commitments of directs payments is LN's niche. You just want to discuss whatever it's in your interest. Please allow us to try make a point out of this mess, thank you.by this i dont mean they are pegged to a different blockchain transaction for msat payment smart contracts. this means its making 'fake' channel, by sending 'funding_locked' messages on trust even when a transaction has not confirmed And whose fault is this? Lightning's? Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 15, 2022, 01:25:20 PM but anyway funny part is that darkv0rt3x post had no content related to how LN works, or scaling bitcoin, yet was just a personal attack message. The funny part is that he does talk about the LN (https://ninjastic.space/search?author=darkv0rt3x&title=The%20Lightning%20Network%20FAQ) and that responding him likewise make him look right about your behavior towards us.his 3 insults vs my 1 'hypocritical' hmm.... but i do laugh that you want to pretend your the victim (AFTER YOU POKE THE BEAR) if you dont want to get bit, dont poke oh well i now agree this topic is dead. seems people just want to talk about commitments of direct payments(not LN's niche) and not the LN payments(ln's niche of being able to pay different people) Commitments of directs payments is LN's niche. You just want to discuss whatever it's in your interest. Please allow us to try make a point out of this mess, thank you.discuss whatever is in my interest? well. this topic is about me. this topic is about my interests..(read title) so me talking about my interests is ontopic doomad, you, rath and others couldnt even stand by your own opinion in a short quick summarised questions. i had respect for LoyceV for giving it a good try to answer to the best of his opinon. by this i dont mean they are pegged to a different blockchain transaction for msat payment smart contracts. this means its making 'fake' channel, by sending 'funding_locked' messages on trust even when a transaction has not confirmed And whose fault is this? Lightning's? LN devs wrote the code, LN devs use the code for their features they want to offer.. LN was not magically created by some vapour entity that fathered jesus.. its not even some self coding AI so yea LN flaws are LN dev's fault and the utupian fantasy narrative of LN's advertising misinforming people of what LN is, is the fault of the LN fangirls This thread is pointless. You're missing the bigger picture, which is this:Please keep the discussion only here, and not in other topics. gotta laugh at LoyceV for this, i noticed it and laughed at it 9 days ago when he made the 'guidance'.. thinking he can make a prison for certain topics(not very 'switzerland' of him, seems more nazi tactic) Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 15, 2022, 02:36:53 PM he didnt talk about it here.. Yeah, you see he was a little dizzy from this supposed discussion. Forgive him.well. this topic is about me. The topic is about you, but that doesn't mean we'll talk about your favorite video games. We've chosen the technical background of LN and that means we can include the commitment of direct payments. doomad, you, rath and others couldnt even stand by your own opinion in a short quick summarised questions. Because they were pointless and misleading questions. LN devs wrote the code, LN devs use the code for their features they want to offer.. Look on your github issue. The proposal has 2 likes and 1 dislike. This turbo feature wouldn't be mandatory and therefore the users would be responsible for its usage. And it's a dumb idea, to be honest. Do you see it getting recognized?Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 15, 2022, 03:00:04 PM LN devs wrote the code, LN devs use the code for their features they want to offer.. Look on your github issue. The proposal has 2 likes and 1 dislike. This turbo feature wouldn't be mandatory and therefore the users would be responsible for its usage. And it's a dumb idea, to be honest. Do you see it getting recognized?they are trying to put a voluntary feature of one software piece, into becoming part of the official BOLTS protocol, that all software would have to try being compatible with. turbo(one use case of breaking the funding lock peg) has been promoting it and doomad(and many others) has been loving the idea, he has even gone as far as doomad jumping off the cliff in defence of it by saying i deserve some court claim harassment for speaking out about its flaws.(facepalm+laugh) as you can see by the github, its been trying to implement it into the BOLTS for 2 years(many iterations). heck even with many comments also against it, even with many mentioning the 'fake' and 'trust' of it, you however pivot to highlight the opposite by narrowing down on the '2 likes 1 dislike" narrative as if you want to make it seem acceptable (then later contradict by saying you think its a dumb idea.. but atleast your honest at that last part) .. people may not like my views on finding the flaws and bugs and faults.. but in coding, finding bugs and flaws is more helpful rather than being a PR utopian dreamer of hope and broken promise. people do actually want to know whats at risk, what works and doesnt work. they dont just want to be kissed and hugged. if you are here just to make friends and agree with people out of loyalty.. so be it. just dont try hugging people into risks and telling them its all safe., better friends would actually find the flaws and warn each other. anyway i am not looking for friends, thats not antisocial. thats just treating this forum as a bitcoin discussion, not some social media site .. if there is a topic that says everything correct. there is no need for me to post. as there is nothing more to say. yes 85% of my posts are replies having a different side to a previous post. because if the post was correct. again there would be nothing more to add to the topic. just because i dont reply with a 98% kiss ass rate of loyalty. does not mean im a troll dont confuse my replies sounding different, to mean i only post just to be antagonistic/troll. my reason for posting is to correct details that need correcting.. i only become antagonistic in the 'mood' of my context after i get poked by the standard social drama insult campaign by certain people. your groups attempts to play victim by calling me a troll because i became antagonistic, is a memory lapse on your groups side of forgetting who started the bear poking. here is a reminder of the flow 1.utopian dream of idea's of promise 2.i highlight how the promises can be broke and the utopia never reached 3.utopian dreamer loyalists defend the dream 4.i backup my opinion with references to code, bips, quotes 5.utopian dreamer loyalists start social drama poking the bear by antagonising 6.i antagonise back 7.utopian dreamer loyalists use last resort of avoiding 2 and just grab 6 as their reason why 1 must be correct 8. (repeat 5,6,7) yep its a know strategy used by a certain group well. this topic is about me. The topic is about you, but that doesn't mean we'll talk about your favorite video games. We've chosen the technical background of LN and that means we can include the commitment of direct payments. oh and by the way. in a topic stipulating my name. about my issues with LN and the utopian altnet offramp described as scaling vs actual scaling of the actual bitcoin network it is my decision to talk about one these things (in a topic about my opinion on things) and i have actually tried to stick to a specific thing at a time. (LN payments, before getting to the commitments) by others trying to move the conversation to talk commitments.. ignoring the LN payment stuff, but isnt that against your own guideline I accept to take part in this discussion and not be biased towards franky, but I want to add this as a condition: We'll speak of one topic at a time. .. This way we can clarify which are our interlocutor's disagreements and constructively (& friendly) correct them. seems your bias and desire to take things off topic, is another hypocrisy on your part Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: darkv0rt3x on January 15, 2022, 03:39:19 PM This thread is pointless. You're missing the bigger picture, which is this:Please keep the discussion only here, and not in other topics. I must say the discussion so far is much better than I expected in Bitcoin Discussion. I don't think anyone will change their mind, but that was to be expected. At least it's more or less on-topic and I don't have to delete a lot of spam. I'm not missing the point. What I meant is that you're not gonna be able to convince him of anything. That's in that sense I said that the thread is pointless. I mean, pointless in the sense that he's not gonna give up of his utopia! And in the process he tries to diminish other people's knowledge, confidence and self-esteem by insulting, Blinder than a blind man is the one who don't want to see. I'm almost compelled to say this guy is autistic. lack of social skills, they find quite hard to socialize and accept other visions and thoughts other than the ones of their own.They can't verbalize correctly and they often get angry/frustrated when they can't achieve their goals. This person has all these traces. hmmm. now should i bother to review all the posts of this topic and look at who has mentioned the most insults.. but anyway funny part is that darkv0rt3x post had no content related to how LN works, or scaling bitcoin, yet was just a personal attack message. (boring, but nice try to poke the bear) ... Your funny speech of the bear being poked makes me laugh. Where is the bear? I can't see one... Ohhh, that's you? You're just a small cub, helpless and alone. You only see what you want to see. That's a man than doesn't want to see. And those, are blinder than a blind man! I said right at the beginning that I wouldn't be discussing LN or scaling details. I just came to threw a few conclusions on the way you take conversations, on the way you relate (or not) with others and etc... More of a psychologic evaluation of your behaviour which seems clear to me. And if you consider yourself a bear, than, I consider myself a bull... All the way. Bull, bullish! :) Your type of speech is well known to me. Your behaviour also. lol. Keep it coming! Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 15, 2022, 03:49:09 PM my utopia?.. funny. you should be a comedian
im not the one advertising other networks as being bitcoins utility replacement system by dreaming that the replacement works 100% even when facts show it has flaws, limits and bugs. if you want to ignore the flaws or try converting me to being a altnet loyalist.. well that is your utopian dream. and your right you wont convince me. your dream wont come true, much like other utopian dreams altnet loyalists promote if all the loyalists want is to convert me, well they failed. ill stick to being risk averse and stick to helping myself and others know of the risks and possible problems, its safer that way, no dreaming. if you dont like that im not an ass kisser like your friends. well maybe realise ass-kissing has some bad consequences too. you dont see the crap touching your lips, you just keep doing it with your eyes closed EDIT: in response to below seems someone is harmed by my facepalm, even though it never touches THEIR face. but nice try playing victim(boring though) anyway now this group has turned this into social drama of personality conflict.. where is 'Switzerland' when you need it Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: darkv0rt3x on January 15, 2022, 03:59:00 PM my utopia?.. funny. you should be a comedian im not the one advertising other networks as being bitcoins utility replacement system by dreaming that the replacement works 100% even when facts show it has flaws, limits and bugs. if you want to ignore the flaws or try converting me to being a altnet loyalist.. well that is your utopian dream. and your right you wont convince me. your dream wont come true, much like other utopian dreams altnet loyalists promote if all the loyalists want is to convert me, well they failed. ill stick to being risk averse and stick to helping myself and others know of the risks and possible problems, its safer that way, no dreaming What is advertising? Do these people you say that advertise, are getting paid by the advertisement? You're the one saying they are advertising. Do you know what advertising is? You're just making non-sense claims out of the blue and you're blind enough to not want to see!. You also have a flaw, and worse than that, you're not even working. LN is working even with flaws. You're the only one trying to brute-force your view into other's heads by demagogy. And worse, you're insulting them. Quote his 3 insults vs my 1 'hypocritical' hmm.... but i do laugh that you want to pretend your the victim (AFTER YOU POKE THE BEAR) if you dont want to get bit, dont poke Where the hell is the bear??? All I see is a cub. If I poke a cub, the cub is dead! You're saying all over the place facepalm, ignorant facepalm, ignorant facepalm, ignorant facepalm, ignorant facepalm, ignorant facepalm, ignorant Aren't these insults? You want to discuss semantics? Synonyms? I'm not native English speaker but I can engage with no problem. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 15, 2022, 05:12:39 PM they are trying to put a voluntary feature of one software piece, into becoming part of the official BOLTS protocol, that all software would have to try being compatible with. I want facts, not words. Where have they seemed agreed with this feature?(then later contradict by saying you think its a dumb idea.. but atleast your honest at that last part) I never believed it was a good idea to contradict it. You keep making things up for the millionth time. Stop it, 'cause readers can't acknowledge when you're a liar and when not as they don't read the whole page of your walls of meaningless text.people may not like my views on finding the flaws and bugs and faults.. but in coding, finding bugs and flaws is more helpful rather than being a PR utopian dreamer of hope and broken promise. You've tired me with the PR thing. What makes you think what you are doing isn't public relations? You're propagandistically trying to persuade people to not use Lightning.Excuse me for not responding to the rest of your garbage-post. I'll stick with this: You also have a flaw, and worse than that, you're not even working. LN is working even with flaws. At this point I think we've violated the following: Please keep this topic civil. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 15, 2022, 05:28:11 PM i yawn and facepalm.. others insult
i use words like fangirls and hypocrites... others use more antagonising insults. (yawn) but as this is a topic concerning me and my thoughts about LN, scaling bitcoin and exodus schemes(PR buzzworded as scaling) i should be posting my thoughts and my references to code, bips, and proposals and other references.. if others just want to social drama.. your in the wrong topic but it is fun watching you defend a ln fangirl. even when what they say has nothing to do with the topics.. seems you care more about defending chums than you do in actually staying civil and discussing the topic. (not your first example of going social drama in this topic) anyway. if any other reader just wants to reply with social drama.. dont hit reply. take your social drama to your private communications with your friends. lets try to get this discussion back to the topic.. starting again with the non biased questions of shortness to avoid added clauses of manipulation.. and wrote in a&b variants to ensure no bias. so that we can get to a base point of peoples view of how they see what LN does and doesnt do. so lets gauge peoples understanding. these questions (by request) have been write short to avoid clauses, and also in pairs of opposition wording to avoid bias. lets see what you know answer by quoting the questions under the line below. if you cannot reply without some silly social drama, insult flame. dont bother replying. this topic is not about you opinions on social drama used as reasons for you to cause more social drama. instead take your victim crocodile tears(fake tears) somewhere else, i have no sympathy for you when you get bit. if you cannot stand by your opinion to even have confidence to answer the questions, then your opinion becomes less worthy. if your reluctance is spouted out as "the questions are bias". then if you think A is bias. answer the B variant. insert a * into the answer that applies most towards your opinion of how you think things are. 1.a: lightning network is not the bitcoin network. agree[ ] disagree[ ] 1.b: lightning network is the bitcoin network. agree[ ] disagree[ ] 2.a: lightning network is a separate network that does different things than bitcoin agree[ ] disagree[ ] 2.b: lightning network is always linked to the bitcoin network that does what bitcoin does agree[ ] disagree[ ] 3.a: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in picocoin-1 (11decimal) also known as msat/millisat agree[ ] disagree[ ] 3.b: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in btc agree[ ] disagree[ ] 4.a: LN "payments" (inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction agree[ ] disagree[ ] 4.b: LN "payments" (inside LN) are same format, to a bitcoin transaction agree[ ] disagree[ ] 5.a: bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format agree[ ] disagree[ ] 5.b: bitcoin network does understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format agree[ ] disagree[ ] 6.a: LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network agree[ ] disagree[ ] 6.b: LN is tethered to only function on the bitcoin network agree[ ] disagree[ ] 7.a: LN wont work without bitcoin agree[ ] disagree[ ] 7.b: LN will work without bitcoin agree[ ] disagree[ ] Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: darkv0rt3x on January 15, 2022, 05:52:01 PM Here we go again. You look like a clock in a rush. A clock repeats it self every 12 hours, you repeat yourself every couple of minutes.
You chose to insult others with your buzzwords like ignorant and facepalm. That's it. This is not even more about LN or any other thing related. This is only about you and your holly point of view and the demagogy you're trying to spread around. You've been asked a few questions and failed totally to respond. Not by me though, but by others, namely @_Rath! But your strategy is simply brute-force all the way in. And you're not getting it done, so you keep going and going until saturation point and people just give up. Then, you think you made your point and take a night of sleep to come back in the next day and realise that after all, your point was not taken, therefore, repetition comes again and the cycle repeats! That's all. PS: flip-flops... The foot wear you use at the beach? Or the sequential logic circuit that can keep memory of it's previous state? Your buzzwords! Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on January 15, 2022, 05:59:28 PM as for not answering 14 unbiased quick summary questions.. silence is revealing i have respect for LoyceV atleast he made an effort to answer summary questions In that case, here's my effort: Lightning: 1. When the sender and recipient are both using bitcoin, LN is supported by the Bitcoin blockchain and can be freely discussed in the Bitcoin Discussion board. agree[ * ] disagree[ ] 2. When the sender and recipient are both using altcoins, LN is supported by that altcoin's blockchain and should instead be discussed in the Altcoin Discussion board. agree[ * ] disagree[ ] 3. LN payments are denominated in 11 decimal places. agree[ * ] disagree[ ] 4. LN payments are different contracts/transactions/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction. agree[ * ] disagree[ ] 5. The Bitcoin network does not recognise 11 decimal places agree[ * ] disagree[ ] 6. LN can function on other compatible blockchains, but if a discussion is taking place in the Bitcoin Discussion board, that means the discussion is about LN as a layer on top of Bitcoin. agree[ * ] disagree[ ] 7. When people are discussing LN transactions supported by Bitcoin's blockchain, it is against the forum rules for anyone to be derailing that conversation to talk about LN transactions supported by other blockchains, unless it is an atomic swap that involves bitcoin. agree[ * ] disagree[ ] Consensus: 8. Any developer is free to code what they want. agree[ * ] disagree[ ] 9. Everyone will be free to run any code they choose. agree[ * ] disagree[ ] 10. If enough people run code with different consensus rules, change can happen even if a minority disagree. agree[ * ] disagree[ ] 11. If you run code which is incompatible with the code a majority of users are running, you can be disconnected from the network. agree[ * ] disagree[ ] 12. Features implemented by soft fork can be considered "opt-in" and you can continue to remain part of the network even if you don't want to use those features. agree[ * ] disagree[ ] 13. If you are unhappy with the current consensus rules, there is no onus on any Bitcoin user to surrender to your demands. agree[ * ] disagree[ ] 14. If anyone wants features which are wholly incompatible with current consensus rules, it is reasonable to suggest they consider looking at other projects geared towards that purpose. agree[ * ] disagree[ ] In an attempt to get the topic back on track, everyone feel free to provide your own responses as above. The more posts representing the views of the community, the better. Make it clear who supports what. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 15, 2022, 07:04:08 PM 3. LN payments are denominated in 11 decimal places. agree[ * ] disagree[ ] 4. LN payments are different contracts/transactions/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction. agree[ * ] disagree[ ] 5. The Bitcoin network does not recognise 11 decimal places agree[ * ] disagree[ ] atleast i got some answer from you that are not about social discussion, but instead respectfully your opinion/stance of actual features of a software and network. one step forward my respect for you was at minus 100, now its minus 97(you stood up and gave your opinion on my 3 questions) it could have been minus 86 if you answered all 14 questions i asked(instead of troll editing to suite your "social discussion" bias). now to take one step forward. now you are standing by the statements that LN payments are denominated in mediums of exchange not understood by bitcoin. lets get more clarity on your opinion of the function and the feature of Lightning network (one topic at a time) i ask for this clarity to summarise a multi-year debate doomad has with myself about his opinion of LN similarity to bitcoin vs my opinion of LN differences to bitcoin so quote below the line and fill in the suitable answer with a * after pegging a channel to a bitcoin blockchain confirmed transaction. using actual confirmed and locked funding (not turbo) 4a. is LN when doing the LN payments(msat denominated) making bitcoin payments. [ ] agree [ ] disagree 4b. is LN when doing the LN payments(msat denominated) making millisat(msat) payments. [ ] agree [ ] disagree 5a. are LN millisats pegged to bitcoins Sats at 1000:1 (msat:sat) [ ] agree [ ] disagree 5b. are LN millisats unpegged [ ] agree [ ] disagree 5c. are LN millsats the same as sats and the 1000:1 difference is non existent and not real thing in LN [ ] agree [ ] disagree using an analogy of other economics(help your understand) after pegging a bank account to a notarised gold deposit. using actual notarised and vaulted gold 6a. are 19th century banknotes when doing the cash payments($$ denominated) making gold payments. [ ] agree [ ] disagree 6b. are banks when doing 19th century bank payments($$ denominated) making $$ payments. [ ] agree [ ] disagree 6a. are 19th century banknotes when doing the cash payments($$ denominated) making gold payments. [ ] agree [ ] disagree 7a. are banks when doing 21th century bank payments($$ denominated) still pegged to gold. [ ] agree [ ] disagree 7b. are banks when doing 21th century bank payments($$ denominated) no longer pegged to gold. [ ] agree [ ] disagree now back to LN features 8a. are LN channels using turbo pegged to locked 6confirm deep bitcoin UTXO when they first 'push' msats to a user. [ ] agree [ ] disagree 8b. are LN channels using turbo pegged not locked 6confirm deep bitcoin UTXO when they first 'push' msats to a user. [ ] agree [ ] disagree 8c. are LN channels using turbo able to 'push' msats to a user even with a unconfirmed bitcoin transaction. [ ] agree [ ] disagree (and now the ultimate, but long winded question which guide where we have difference of opinions the most on) knowing of turbos 'features' and the github discussions of making it a bolt. in a scenario of LN when using a chainhash of bitcoin network genesis as the bases of seeking funding: 9a. can you stand by your opinion that LN is always 100% safe and all funding is 100% secure and guaranteed(trustless) in the channel. [ ] agree [ ] disagree 9b. does LN involve a level of trust and amicable agreement in certain situations [ ] agree [ ] disagree Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: FlyingDream on January 16, 2022, 12:15:06 AM Okay, I'll take a bite at the apple:
4a. define "payment" 4b. define "payment" 5a. define "peg" 5b. define "peg" 5c. no 6a. define "payment" 6b. define "payment" 6a. define "payment" 7a. no 7b. redundant 7a. (yes, you screwed up your numbering) define "peg", and immaterial * 7b. redundant, and immaterial * 7c. yes, and immaterial 8a. question is directed at a third party 8b. vague ("involve"/"certain situations"), but to the extend the question is cognizable the answer is no (because amicability is not required) 8c. no (again, amicability is not required), and immaterial (everything "involves a level of trust in certain situations", including bitcoin) You are using the word "peg" in a different way than it's typically used in the cryptocurrency and legacy finance world, so your comments in this vein are largely incoherent. As for the word "payment", I'm sure I triggered you by questioning your usage of this word, but before you respond please do yourself the favor of going to your local library, taking out a dictionary (Merriam Webster is my go-to), and looking up the definition of the English word "payment". You might be surprised to learn that literally none of the many definitions of the word "payment" make any reference to the notion of currency. As for immateriality, this debate is not about turbo features, it's about LN. Yes, turbo is an optional feature of LN. Optional. It is not required to participate in the network. * When you say "LN channels" in these questions what you actually mean is "LN nodes". Based on the rest of this thread, you appear to have some confusion surrounding this distinction between nodes and channels. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 16, 2022, 12:34:34 AM funnily enough it seems another groupy who wants to play more social drama queen games and wants to cry and wants a different buzzword. (boring social drama game)
well how about you queens go have your little group chat elsewhere and come back when you can decide on something. and actually able to have constructive discussion, instead of your social drama crap being played here. a node is a software working on a network a channel is not a node. but thanks for being a prime example of the social drama of trying to turn a LN discussion into a grammar nazi social drama game of boring replies a channel is a agreement with 2 peers of certain terms in which they agree to swap value, with specific agreed terms a node can have multiple channels (dont confuse the terms) payment is not about the msat itself. its about the message/service/vessel used for the transport of (in this instance)msat. hense why when i say payment i also try to specify what the payment is transporting EG (LN payment denominated in msat) funny part is. i personally prefer the word LN promises/IOU. but the social drama queens cried and so i compromised and started using one of their buzzwords. also peg is very descriptive. because bitcoin outputs do not leave the bitcoin blockchain. in an LN payment(you queens can use any buzzword you like). they are converted into a msat denomination which the bitcoin network does not understand. and are pegged at a 1:1000 rate of sat:msat. (bar examples like turbo, which is avoiding locked pegs and offering instant msats without a confirmed bitcoin output) anyway replying pretending to answer questions but not actually bothering to actually answer, but still posting just to say some alternative thing.. you might aswell of completely not bothered at all and just not replied. you have not said anything constructive or done anything to move the discussion forward. oh and those latest questions. were directed at Doomad because he took a small step forward answering 3 and so i wanted to get more answers from him. i can predict you want to reply to this message with more social drama queen stuff, but just dont bother. its boring .. if anyone else wants to reply. answer the questions properly. or if you cant stand by your opinions of how you think things work to answer and move the discussion forward. then just keep hiding your opinions. by not replying. if you have the courage to actually answer the questions i stated. and you want to actually come forward and stand by your opinions. then great one step forward here are the main questions again insert a * into the answer that applies most towards your opinion of how you think things are. 1.a: lightning network is not the bitcoin network. agree[ ] disagree[ ] 1.b: lightning network is the bitcoin network. agree[ ] disagree[ ] 2.a: lightning network is a separate network that does different things than bitcoin agree[ ] disagree[ ] 2.b: lightning network is always linked to the bitcoin network that does what bitcoin does agree[ ] disagree[ ] 3.a: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in picocoin-1 (11decimal) also known as msat/millisat agree[ ] disagree[ ] 3.b: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in btc agree[ ] disagree[ ] 4.a: LN "payments" (inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction agree[ ] disagree[ ] 4.b: LN "payments" (inside LN) are same format, to a bitcoin transaction agree[ ] disagree[ ] 5.a: bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format agree[ ] disagree[ ] 5.b: bitcoin network does understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format agree[ ] disagree[ ] 6.a: LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network agree[ ] disagree[ ] 6.b: LN is tethered to only function on the bitcoin network agree[ ] disagree[ ] 7.a: LN wont work without bitcoin agree[ ] disagree[ ] 7.b: LN will work without bitcoin agree[ ] disagree[ ] just dont reply with social drama games. you dont only bore me. but you also end up making your own pages of walls of text which your groupies also dislike. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: FlyingDream on January 16, 2022, 07:01:36 AM 1.a: lightning network is not the bitcoin network.
Earlier in this thread you expressed the opinion that the LN as it pertains to BTC transactions should be considered identical to the LN as it pertains to LTC transactions, on the basis that a) nodes communicate between each other using the same basic protocol, regardless of which cryptocurrency a given channel is funded with, b) one single node can participate in transactions involving both BTC and LTC, and c) the LN protocol is capable of interacting with multiple blockchains. By this definition, the LN is definitely not the bitcoin network. This is because LN nodes and BTC nodes do not use the same protocol. 1.b: lightning network is the bitcoin network. Well, I could certainly come with my own argument as to why LN is part of a larger network which encompasses all of the layers involved, including bitcoin. For example, I could refer to economic actors as the nodes in the network, rather than the more technical protocol-subservient nodes you are discussing. 2.a: lightning network is a separate network that does different things than bitcoin Does LN do different things than bitcoin? Yes. 2.b: lightning network is always linked to the bitcoin network that does what bitcoin does No, because it is plausible that at some point in the future the LN will cease to exist (or, less plausibly, the bitcoin network). In this event the two networks would not be permanently linked. If you want to get into more details, I'm afraid we will need to do a semantic detour and figure out what we mean by "always linked". On a practical real-world level, I believe that widespread adoption of LN would be very unlikely if LN did not interoperate with the bitcoin blockchain. But I don't think that's the kind of "link" you're talking about. 3.a: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in picocoin-1 (11decimal) also known as msat/millisat 3.b: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in btc 4.a: LN "payments" (inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction 4.b: LN "payments" (inside LN) are same format, to a bitcoin transaction Seeing as I was the one who asked for a definition in the first place, I'm happy to accept whatever combination of 3.a-4.b you feel is correct (unless such combination results in logical inconsistencies). 5.a: bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format Correct. Incidentally, why are you so hung up on this issue of decimal rounding? The basic point that the protocol LN nodes use to communicate with other LN nodes may not be directly implemented within the bitcoin network is enough. You don't need to invoke decimals to make this point. 5.b: bitcoin network does understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format See above. 6.a: LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "tethered to only function", but I do agree with the basic point that we can conceive of a LN which does not include any channels funded by BTC. 6.b: LN is tethered to only function on the bitcoin network See above. 7.a: LN wont work without bitcoin Is this question any different than 6.b? 7.b: LN will work without bitcoin Is this question any different than 6.a? dont reply with social drama games Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: darkv0rt3x on January 16, 2022, 11:03:12 AM funnily enough it seems another groupy who wants to play more social drama queen games and wants to cry and wants a different buzzword. (boring social drama game) well how about you queens go have your little group chat elsewhere and come back when you can decide on something. and actually able to have constructive discussion, instead of your social drama crap being played here. Clock is repeating itself... Same all shit chat of groupies and PRs and social drama and buzzwords. You're the one using buzzwords over and over again. Non-stop. You keep using the same game over and over again. Jeezzzz... More question walls, more intentionally directed questions to try to serve your purpose! lol. This is starting to be more of a troll than anything else. Or better, I think this is a troll since the very beginning! Lucky you, you still have people feeding your bear cub here, because that's what you're seeking. Attention, the social drama you so much talk about, etc... Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on January 16, 2022, 11:25:21 AM you stood up and gave your opinion on my 3 questions Given that you accept I have answered three of your Lightning questions to a point where you are satisfied, perhaps you can reciprocate and answer three of my Consensus questions? After all, we are attempting to find out what everyone has truly learned. And some might consider it unreasonable to hold others to a higher standard than you are willing to hold yourself. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 16, 2022, 12:36:08 PM 7.b: LN will work without bitcoin thankyou for a respectful attempt at answering the questionsIs this question any different than 6.a? some questions seem similar due to the social drama of a certain group that have cried about reasons to not answer the questions, so i asked similar questions in different forms just to try and get an answer out of them you might notice my questions about 'always linked' and 'LN is the bitcoin network' is to appease the groupies who DO think it is. and have said so in many topics over the last 4 years. its not my opinion it was just an unbiased question to vet and summarise peoples opinion on their beliefs you stood up and gave your opinion on my 3 questions Given that you accept I have answered three of your Lightning questions to a point where you are satisfied, perhaps you can reciprocate and answer three of my Consensus questions? After all, we are attempting to find out what everyone has truly learned. And some might consider it unreasonable to hold others to a higher standard than you are willing to hold yourself. so lets stay at a same level of standards because your consensus questions have flimsy "can be, can happen", rather then "do, are" your not asking anything finite and certain(your same standard argued this when you said my questions were not wrote correct) i bothered to appease groupies cries with short questions of finite/certain points to answer.. also then to appease your cries of believed bias i re-reformatted my questions to be unbiased and be finite in both for/against formats of a&b variants, so perhaps you can reciprocate, by writing questions without the flimsiness of "can be, can happen" which has no certainty being asked Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on January 16, 2022, 01:15:32 PM so lets stay at a same level of standards because your consensus questions have flimsy "can be, can happen", rather then "do, are" your not asking anything finite and certain(your same standard argued this when you said my questions were not wrote correct) i bothered to appease groupies cries with short questions of finite/certain points to answer.. also then to appease your cries of believed bias i re-reformatted my questions to be unbiased and be finite in both for/against formats of a&b variants, so perhaps you can reciprocate, by writing questions without the flimsiness of "can be, can happen" which has no certainty being asked Statements can be conditional or situational. Take, for example, "The sky is blue - agree/disagree". Sounds simple enough, right? But what about sunrise/sunset? What about the night? It's not always blue and, as such, is a flawed statement. So I would phrase it "The sky can be blue" - agree/disagree" because this is more accurate and takes real life circumstances into account. There is certainty that there will be times when the sky is blue. That is not "flimsy". It is factual. If someone were to disagree with the statement that the sky can be blue, it would suggest there is something amiss with their perception. At the very least, please give it a try. Change the wording to be more specific if you like. If you elect to re-word any "can be" or "can happen" and choose to leave yourself open to any conditional issues in an attempt to provide a more finite answer, that is your prerogative. I changed the wording of your questions to more accurately reflect my stance, so it's only fair I extend the same courtesy to you. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 16, 2022, 01:40:22 PM so lets stay at a same level of standards because your consensus questions have flimsy "can be, can happen", rather then "do, are" your not asking anything finite and certain(your same standard argued this when you said my questions were not wrote correct) i bothered to appease groupies cries with short questions of finite/certain points to answer.. also then to appease your cries of believed bias i re-reformatted my questions to be unbiased and be finite in both for/against formats of a&b variants, so perhaps you can reciprocate, by writing questions without the flimsiness of "can be, can happen" which has no certainty being asked Statements can be conditional or situational. Take, for example, "The sky is blue - agree/disagree". Sounds simple enough, right? But what about sunrise/sunset? What about the night? It's not always blue and, as such, is a flawed statement. So I would phrase it "The sky can be blue" - agree/disagree" but then your not stating what it cant be(silver). thus leaving it as an open question with an open answer means its making no decided point of certainty. EG you want to set the narrative that users can be thrown of the network, yet as i know your tactic you want to turn any answer into an argument about bitcoins 2017 event, fitting whatever narrative you please. taking the flimsy answer however you please. so here is my answer: consensus 2009-2016 required majority acceptance voluntarily before activation occurred. consensus 2017-20xx didnt require majority before forking. instead it mandated just a 'bit' flag change without need of compatible software upgrade.. the mandate forced a vote. which caused a fork BEFORE activation. where any pool not changing the bit would have their block rejected in august 2017. the pre activation fork: did not happen due to blocks containing segwit formats being rejected by old peers causing their own separation. did happen by the mandate rejecting legacy(2009-2016) block flags. even before segwit activated this was not a majority accept then activate it was a mandate which may cause a fork after. it was fork first.. to cause faked 100% acceptance due to lack of opposition listed. to then get activation after even the bip91 and 148 state this. and you know this. even though you dont want to admit it Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 16, 2022, 01:40:34 PM Judging by the questions I acknowledge that franky only understands white and black, true and false, yes and no, one and zero. Please allow me to state that the truth is grey.
Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 16, 2022, 01:50:37 PM Judging by the questions I acknowledge that franky only understands white and black, true and false, yes and no, one and zero. Please allow me to state that the truth is grey. i do understand many nuances, and many details outside your groups narrow focused box of scripts you have recited. and so gathered by the group mindset, and their many arguments, cries and recited scripts where they believe that LN is bitcoin. they can only think in one option. and consider any other option as something to reject and oppose and try to get rid of because it doesnt fit their narrative the only reason i done the questions in strict certainty of question wording, and answers in agree or disagree format, is because of the group cries that didnt want grey flimsiness.. i done it for the groups benefit it is done to get to the crux of their stance of their opinion in a short, quick, hard certain form. you cant cry that the questions are now more precise after the group cried that the first questions seemed grey. reference to cry ill number them and you can quote them and put a * mark in which box you agree or disagree with What you fail understanding is that some of those questions can't be answered with a simple True or False. For instance:1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things Yes, they're separate networks obviously, but they do the same thing. They allow you to transact bitcoins. The transaction structure and the contracts are different, but the purpose remains same.funny part is you answered that question.. you then cried by adding in another opinion you wanted to set. which is why in the revision of the questions i added in extra questions to resolve your other opinion. so dont cry to me that i didnt try. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 16, 2022, 02:04:03 PM i do understand many nuances. gathering by the group mindset who believe that LN is bitcoin. I honestly can't categorize this question to neither black or white. It's a misleading question that is interpreted differently by each individual. You're asking if LN is Bitcoin. In which terms? Network-wise? Of course they are not the same. Consensus-wise? Of course they are not the same. However, if I use Lightning I do use Bitcoin. The currency is the same. The way that transactions are accomplished is changed.Also stop using these idiotic terms. Don't picture that you're shutting our mouths while we're crying, please. funny part is you answered that question.. you then cried by adding in another opinion you wanted to set. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 16, 2022, 02:13:37 PM I honestly can't categorize this question to neither black or white. It's a misleading question that is interpreted differently by each individual. You're asking if LN is Bitcoin. In which terms? Network-wise? Of course they are not the same. Consensus-wise? Of course they are not the same. However, if I use Lightning I do use Bitcoin. The currency is the same. The way that transactions are accomplished is changed. Yes, they're separate networks obviously, but they do the same thing. They allow you to transact bitcoins. The transaction structure and the contracts are different, but the purpose remains same. so are you saying that in YOUR 'fact' (opinion) the currency inside LN payments is the same? .. and now we full circle back to Msat discussion. and the 1:1000 peg. are you certain that Msats are not used in the payment messages sent around the hop/route, where by in YOUR 'fact' (opinion) only bitcoin is used? or are you saying that Msats are only bitcoin related and Msats are not used in other blockchain pegged channels and payments? also in relation to things like 'turbo'(plus other LN use-cases).. are you really certain that Msats are locked/pegged to a 6 confirm ('locked') bitcoin blockchain utxo? are you sure LN transacts "bitcoin"? even though "bitcoin" never leaves the bitcoin blockchain and the pegged/locked "bitcoin" you speak of is locked. and does not transact until its confirmed to have transacted on the bitcoin network. now before replying. do not confuse the locked funding or the not on blockchain "commitment" vs the "LN payment" of messages denominated in msat. do not try to say lightning only handles sat measured bitcoin 'payments' by discussing commitments that are never sent around hop/routes of the LN network, just to ignore the msat LN payment stuff that is sent around the LN network. i played that game with rath_ already and it didnt work Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 16, 2022, 02:33:35 PM so are you saying that in YOUR 'fact' (opinion) the currency inside LN payments is the same? Yeah, out loud. and now we full circle back to Msat discussion. and the 1:1000 peg. You're the reason we're back to the circle. What worries you more? The fact that Lightning has subunit of a satoshi or that it doesn't move in the Bitcoin blockchain? Would you be happy if we stopped exchanging msats, but had sats instead?are you sure LN transacts "bitcoin". even though "bitcoin" never leaves the blockchain and the pegged "bitcoin" you speak of is locked. and does not transact until its confirmed to have transacted on the bitcoin network. Yes, because in both cases my money exist and transactions happen, because of a game theory. In Lightning it's the discouragement to cheat in a channel as you may lose all of your funds. In Bitcoin it's the discouragement to work for a 51% attack as it's less profitable. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 16, 2022, 02:45:08 PM so are you saying that in YOUR 'fact' (opinion) the currency inside LN payments is the same? .. and now we full circle back to Msat discussion. and the 1:1000 peg. are you certain that Msats are not used in the payment messages sent around the hop/route are you sure LN transacts "bitcoin". even though "bitcoin" never leaves the blockchain and the pegged "bitcoin" you speak of does not transact until its confirmed to have transacted on the bitcoin network. now before replying. do not confuse the locked funding or the not on blockchain "commitment" with the "LN payment" of messages denominated in msat. do not try to say lightning only handles sat measured bitcoin 'payments' by discussing commitments that are never sent around hop/routes of the LN network, just to ignore the msat payment stuff that is sent around the LN network. i played that game with rath_ already and it didnt work Commitment transactions and HTLC are inseparable if you want to discuss whether or not we are dealing with empty promises. Let me quote (my beloved) bolt2 again: Code: (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/02-peer-protocol.md#requirements-7) Forwarding HTLCs irrevocably commited = both parties sign a new commitment transaction, which includes an additional HTLC output. HTLCs can be a part of commitment transactions. For some reason, you ignore the sophisticated locking scripts (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380215.msg58991379#msg58991379) and pretend that HTLCs can't be enforced on-chain. Before you brag that HTLCs use msats and not satoshis, read my reply to the end. also at the update_add_htlc, they dont update the commitment. they create a LN micropayment promise this update_add_htlc is a private message between channel partners that update their own micropayment promise. I took you a while to admit that nodes use "update_add_htlc" to forward payments rather than send "hop_data" or "onion_routing_packet" out of blue. They do update the commitment transaction. Again: Code: (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/02-peer-protocol.md#requirements-7) Forwarding HTLCs I am aware that commitments are denominated in satoshis while "update_add_htlc" uses msatoshis. Thus, I can agree that beside the commitment transaction, both parties create a promise that X amount of msats, which is less than 1000, belong to either of them. The rest of the coins are not a promise since they can be claimed on the blockchain through the commitment transaction. It would be a promise if the transaction was not signed by both parties. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on January 16, 2022, 03:07:01 PM Statements can be conditional or situational. Take, for example, "The sky is blue - agree/disagree". Sounds simple enough, right? But what about sunrise/sunset? What about the night? It's not always blue and, as such, is a flawed statement. So I would phrase it "The sky can be blue" - agree/disagree" but then your not stating what it cant be(silver) That's not the question I'm asking. And again, I've given you free reign to remove any ambiguity if you feel you can give a more precise statement. I'll highlight some of the reasons why I haven't used absolutes in some areas and request clarification from you about each specific question in regards to the issue you have: Consensus: 8. Any developer is free to code what they want. <- This is an absolute statement. Please highlight in what way it is "open" or "uncertain". agree[ ] disagree[ ] 9. Everyone will be free to run any code they choose. <- This is an absolute statement. Please highlight in what way it is "open" or "uncertain". agree[ ] disagree[ ] 10. If enough people run code with different consensus rules, change can happen even if a minority disagree. <- If I had said "change WILL happen", this statement could be flawed. As an example, the required activation threshold may not be met for one particular proposed ruleset if multiple different proposed rulesets are being run concurrently. agree[ ] disagree[ ] 11. If you run code which is incompatible with the code a majority of users are running, you can be disconnected from the network. <- You are free to state "you WILL be disconnected" if you like. However, you would need to be confident there are no exceptions to that statement. I'm happy to leave margin for error, but you aren't compelled to. agree[ ] disagree[ ] 12. Features implemented by soft fork can be considered "opt-in" and you can continue to remain part of the network even if you don't want to use those features. <- To say "you WILL continue to remain part of the network is incorrect, as someone may choose not to remain part of the network. Anyone is free to leave the network at any time. agree[ ] disagree[ ] 13. If you are unhappy with the current consensus rules, there is no onus on any Bitcoin user to surrender to your demands. <- Please highlight your issue with this statement agree[ ] disagree[ ] 14. If anyone wants features which are wholly incompatible with current consensus rules, it is reasonable to suggest they consider looking at other projects geared towards that purpose. <- Please highlight your issue with this statement agree[ ] disagree[ ] //EDIT: You accept that I answered 3 of your questions, but you won't make an attempt to answer any of mine. Instead, you avoid my questions completely and go on to ask different questions. This is not conducive to establishing your level of understanding. or if you cant stand by your opinions of how you think things work to answer and move the discussion forward. then just keep hiding your opinions. by not replying. This applies equally to you. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 16, 2022, 03:07:05 PM gotta laugh..
Commitment transactions and HTLC are inseparable if you want to discuss whether or not we are dealing with empty promises. Let me quote (my beloved) bolt2 again: a HTLC is not specific to bitcoin. or to blockchain formatted stuff. and its not only used within LN for blockchain denominated contracts that can be broadcast to blockchains. again (hop/route model scenario described before) if erics payment_hash was used in a commitment HTLC, and then if that commitment was broadcast and confirmed on the separate bitcoin network. eric has the secret to then sign out that UTXO to himself LN payments(that route/hop through nodes) use a HTLC thats not the same data as the one inside a specific channels commitment. just because you read HTLC it does not mean it only refers to a commitment. just becasue you only want to reference a scenario describing a direct payment inchannel that doesnt involve routing/hopping. doesnt mean that routing hopping HTLC dont exist you can have different ones in different things. you can have them in channels using different blockchain chainhash. and in LN micropayments. seems rath_ has not gained any new insight over the last day and just wants to stick to the bolt2 (again)(facepalm)(yawn) that part he quotes. is about updating commitments.. a totally separate part thats not to do with LN payment messages LN payment messages also can have their own HTLC. for instance the commitment HTLC has terms of payment of the two partners a LN payment HTLC has the terms of the final destination of a routes key being used by all nodes along the route. the terms of the HTLC in a commitment are measured in sat the terms of the HTLC in a Ln payment are measured in msat ... more flimsy questions ok. lets get to the crux of the consensus debate, by summarising your questions with questions of my own. to avoid your silly games. 1a. true consensus 'cause->effect' trail is: vote->threshold met-> activation -> issues with minority who are incompatible [ * ] agree [ ]disagree 1b. true consensus 'cause->effect' trail is: vote->issues with minority who are incompatible-> threshold met-> activation [ ] agree [ * ]disagree 2a. the bitcoin network mandated rejecting legacy/normal(2009-2016 standard format blocks) before segwit activated
2b. the bitcoin network activated segwit without mandating rejecting blocks that were not voting for segwit [ ] agree [ * ]disagree 2c. the bitcoin network never had a bit number change flagging for a mandatory rejection of normal blocks in july [ ] agree [ * ]disagree [moderator's note: consecutive posts merged] Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 16, 2022, 03:46:48 PM again if erics payment_hash was used in a commitment HTLC then if that commitment was broadcast and confirmed on the separate bitcoin network. eric has the secret to then sign out that UTXO to himself I see that you can't read long pieces of code. Let me trim it a bit: A's committent transaction: Code: (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/03-transactions.md#offered-htlc-outputs) <remote_htlcpubkey> OP_SWAP OP_SIZE 32 OP_EQUAL B's commitment transaction: Code: (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/03-transactions.md#received-htlc-outputs) <remote_htlcpubkey> OP_SWAP OP_SIZE 32 OP_EQUAL I can clearly see that you need either payment secret + B's HTLC signature or payment secret + A's and B's HTLC signature to spend the HTLC output. Eric knows only the payment secret. just becasue you only want to reference a scenario describing a direct payment inchannel that doesnt involve routing/hopping. doesnt mean that routing hopping HTLC dont exist I am not an English native speaker, but I learnt the meaning of "forwarding" at some point. Forwarding HTLCs until an incoming HTLC has been irrevocably committed: MUST NOT offer the corresponding outgoing HTLC (update_add_htlc) in response to that incoming HTLC. I needn't have explained you what "irrevocably committed" means. It's been already explained in the specifications: The respective addition/removal of an HTLC is considered irrevocably committed when: 1. The commitment transaction with/without it is committed to by both nodes, and any previous commitment transaction without/with it has been revoked, OR You keep saying that I am talking about direct payments, but you can clearly see that the last two quotes were extracted from "Forwarding HTLCs" section. In case you don't know what "forwarding" is: to send a letter, email, etc that you have received to someone else Before you send the incoming HTLC to someone else, you need to sign a new commitment transaction with an extra HTLC output with your partner. Only then you can safely forward it. If you don't send it further, the next hops won't know that such HTLC ever existed as they will never receive "onion_routing_packet", which is a part of "update_add_htlc". Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 16, 2022, 04:07:44 PM again if erics payment_hash was used in a commitment HTLC then if that commitment was broadcast and confirmed on the separate bitcoin network. eric has the secret to then sign out that UTXO to himself I see that you can't read long pieces of code. Let me trim it a bit: A's committent transaction: Code: (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/03-transactions.md#offered-htlc-outputs) <remote_htlcpubkey> OP_SWAP OP_SIZE 32 OP_EQUAL B's commitment transaction: i can tell your code is a scenario of just the commitment in channel HTLC of a direct payment where the destination is the channel party.(bob, not eric) your now boring me with your obsession with the direct payment to bob example.. as it doesnt apply to routed/hopped payments by the way the payment_hash inside that code is the alice or bob payment hash.. not erics in a route/hop, scenario the situation is different and different messages are sent eric does not get a alice or bob payment_hash its actually alice, bob, carol, diana that use erics payment hash to 'pass the parcel'.(within LN payment messages, not commitments) which then(separately after) triggers channel partner negotiations of updating the separate and after commitment between the partners again stop just referring to a alice-bob direct payment.. its boring and out of context, done just to avoid discussing LN payments in routes. i have said multiple times about your avoidance of discussing the routed payment protocols. and each time you just want to post code of inchannel direct payment to channel partner commitment examples just take another day to try reviewing the other bolts Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 16, 2022, 04:33:00 PM by the way the payment_hash inside that code is alices(local), she sends that to bob(remote) who cant claim it without alices secret No, the payment hash inside that code is a hash of Eric's secret. its actually alice, bob, carol, diana that use erics payment hash to 'pass the parcel'.(within LN payment messages, not commitments) which then(separately after) triggers channel partner negotiations of updating the separate and after commitment between the partners We're back to square one. Here's a simple question. How do all of these people communicate? You clearly can't use "onion_routing_packet" because you have admitted that it's a part of "update_add_htlc", which also triggers commitment update. just take another day to try reviewing the other bolts Okay, I have taken a look at bolt00. Here you go: Forwarding Such a conditional payment can be safely forwarded to another participant with a lower time limit, e.g. "you get 0.01 bitcoin if you reveal the secret within 5 hours". This allows channels to be chained into a network without trusting the intermediaries. See BOLT #2: Forwarding HTLCs for details on forwarding payments, BOLT #4: Packet Structure for how payment instructions are transported. (My beloved) bolt02 actually describes how payments are trustlessly routed through the network. Oh, and in case you didn't notice: there's "forwarding" at the top which means "to send something you have received to someone else". i can tell your code is a scenario of just the commitment in channel HTLC of a direct payment where the destination is the channel party.(bob, not eric) Are you sure about that? A Lightning channel only allows payment between two participants, but channels can be connected together to form a network that allows payments between all members of the network. This requires the technology of a conditional payment, which can be added to a channel, e.g. "you get 0.01 bitcoin if you reveal the secret within 6 hours". Once the recipient presents the secret, that bitcoin transaction is replaced with one lacking the conditional payment and adding the funds to that recipient's output. See BOLT #2: Adding an HTLC for the commands a participant uses to add a conditional payment, and BOLT #3: Commitment Transaction for the complete format of the bitcoin transaction. HTLCs are not necessary for direct payments as both parties could simply sign a new commitment transaction with updated balances without HTLC outputs. They are used to make the code look simpler (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/101126/why-use-update-add-htlc-when-paying-directly-across-a-channel/101128#101128), though. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: darkv0rt3x on January 16, 2022, 06:22:48 PM i do understand many nuances. gathering by the group mindset who believe that LN is bitcoin. I honestly can't categorize this question to neither black or white. It's a misleading question that is interpreted differently by each individual. You're asking if LN is Bitcoin. In which terms? Network-wise? Of course they are not the same. Consensus-wise? Of course they are not the same. However, if I use Lightning I do use Bitcoin. The currency is the same. The way that transactions are accomplished is changed.Also stop using these idiotic terms. Don't picture that you're shutting our mouths while we're crying, please. funny part is you answered that question.. you then cried by adding in another opinion you wanted to set. Not LN is Bitcoin as cents of Euros or Dollars are not Euros or Dollars! lol If you agree that milisats are not Bitcoins, then, you must agree that cents (of Euros or Dollars) are not themselves Euros or Dollars. This is so ridiculous as it gets! He, not only won't stop using those idiotic terms to insult other people as he keeps repeating himself. I said a few posts back. He's not discussing LN nor Bitcoin anymore. He's discussing wording, semantics, grammar, synonyms and other language tools to try to brute-force his point of view to others! That's all. And the clock keeps repeating itself, as it is supposed to. This guy will keep it coming even after he's been proven wrong over and over again by @_Rath and other members! He still using the same buzzwords like facepalm, ignorant and yawn (new one), to insult every other people! More social drama as he calls it! But it's mostly on his side. That's the funny part! :) Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 16, 2022, 07:02:52 PM More social drama as he calls it! But it's mostly on his side. That's the funny part! :) No, the funny part starts once he comes shortly and insult you for bringing more social drama!Let's see how many times he's (ab)used those words:
Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 16, 2022, 08:54:24 PM We're back to square one. Here's a simple question. How do all of these people communicate? you think that everything is done within commitment changes. of channel management.. its not.. ill summarise(analogy first): z. now take a htlc. imagine a piece of paper as a contract with terms y. now, take a commitment. imagine its a box. with a HTLC piece of paper inside that box x. now take a channel. imagine thats a box that has a commitment boxes inside it (1 for each partner) w. now take a node. imagine thats a box that can contain many channel boxes v. now take a string. that peer connects to other node boxes now take a separate box call this (V(w(M))) M is for messages transmitted through w's via V in msat format a LN payment is (V(w(M))) not (V(X(Y(Z)))) also all messages are send via V not Z within the V messages they can be in many formats. lets just call them: (V(w(M))) for Ln payments in sats (V(X(Y(Z)))) for commitment changes .. there are hundreds of messages but lets just for demo sake just concentrate on two, as it seems you have preference for just 1 and i dont want to stretch you too far now more technical version of the analogy explained https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/01-messaging.md#lightning-message-format Quote After decryption, all Lightning messages are of the form: type: a 2-byte big-endian field indicating the type of message payload: a variable-length payload that comprises the remainder of the message and that conforms to a format matching the type extension: an optional TLV stream The type field indicates how to interpret the payload field. The format for each individual type is defined by a specification in this repository. The type follows the it's ok to be odd rule, so nodes MAY send odd-numbered types without ascertaining that the recipient understands it. The messages are grouped logically into five groups, ordered by the most significant bit that is set: (v)Setup & Control (types 0-31): (x)Channel (types 32-127): (Y)Commitment (types 128-255): (w)Routing (types 256-511): Custom (types 32768-65535): experimental and application-specific messages inside the payload of say a onion_packet(v(w(?))) it has its own payload called hop_payload and inside that hop_payload it has its own payload called hop data and that data is https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/04-onion-routing.md#legacy-hop_data-payload-format Quote [short_channel_id:short_channel_id] the amount is in Msat, and does not contain keys, or HTLC for a commitment.[u64:amt_to_forward] [u32:outgoing_cltv_value] [12*byte:padding] it is not sending a signature or HTLC to change a channels commitment HTLC if you read all the bolts(requested many times now) you would see many messages without payload in (Y or Z) format the (y) format is in sats. other messages are in msats... get it yet.(different messages, do different things) its not all related to commitment changes not everything is in Y or Z format you want to think that LN payments are done via commitments HTLC messages or channels updates (y)Commitment (types 128-255) (x)Channel (types 32-127) but they are done at the string level on the outer box (v)Setup & Control (types 0-31) or (w)Routing (types 256-511) LN payments the payload for the messages(v(w(M))) happening at the outer box string level(v) is payments in Msats (before everything). the payload is not in Y or Z formats. nor sat denominated this is the LN payment stuff. right at the start where alice wants to pay eric. IT'S NOT COMMITMENT(changes at the point of already finding the destination and they all agree to accept with their fee's included). because participants dont yet know amounts to commit to (obviously) get it yet. you cant commit to an amount that you dont know. a commitment(y(z)) happens after the LN payment(v(w)) and again. before you say that the payload of (v(w)) is (y(z)) i have just shown you the hop data is Msat amount without any (z) stuff. they dont know (z)HTLC yet because they dont know what they should commit to yet this is because if alice wants to pay eric 1000. 1. (alice knows erics invoice details(v or uri). but doesnt know which route to take to pay him 1000) 2. alice sends exploratory(v(w)) message with a payload of 1000msat to bob) (alice asks bob if he can forward, bob wants 1 for his fee. so bob is willing to forward alice payload+1 (1001)) bob sends exploratory(v(w)) message with a payload of 1001msat to carol 3. (bob asks carol if she can forward1001, carol wants 1 for her fee. so carol is willing to forward bobs payload+1(1002)) 4. carol sends exploratory(v(w)) message with a payload of 1002msat to diana) carol asks diana if she can forward1002, diana wants 1 for her fee. so diana is willing to forward carols payload+1(1003) 5. diana asks eric if he can accept payment. 6. he acknowledges knowing he gets 1000(minus 3(fees)) at this point. alice does not know that the actual amount is 1003 yet. because she has not yet got the route response(v(w)) on the response. 7. diana then knows she has to pay 1000 to eric. so asks carol for 1001 8. carol then knows she has to pay 1001 to diana. so asks bob for 1002 9.bob then knows he has to pay 1002 to carol. so asks alice for 1003 0. alice then knows she has to pay 1003 to bob at this point is when they update the commitment and send a (v(z)) message with commitment update message to their partner who then signs his side and (v) message back these messages are done on the node level not the commitment level also note that 6,7,8,9 include other data not related to commitment. and also note that 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 are messages measured in msat yes. once receiving node level (outer box string messages denominated in msat) the nodes then look within their boxes to adjust their commitment box contents within the particular channel box content accordingly. but dont confuse the msat payment messages of deciding what to sent how to send and what the fee is and the acknowledgement parts are commitments done at only commitment adjustment level. again you cant adjust a commitment until you know something different that needs to be changed. and a commitment is about commuting to something. so a commitment is not altered every time a message is received as it may not be in their favour. the commitment is done AFTER and separate from the routing messages.. EG how does bob know he has to commit to 1002 with carol or 1003 with alice if he at point 1 has only got a message from alice for 1000 he has yet to try carol, and yet to get a acknowledgement from eric,diana1003,carol1002 to then commit to 1002 with carol and commit to 1003 with alice i know you only want to speak about the inchannel direct payment to channel partner. where the only messages are done between JUST the string of the partners. where the only message is to update HTLC of commitments. but you are ignoring the routing and hop messages of payments outside of channels (but your missing out on the outer box thinking of the LN network and the LN payment messages that hop across many strings multiple boxes away) the reason i use analogies and simple common english. is because the bolts has all the technical stuff for those that want the technical waffle. i break things down into simpler explanations average joe can interpret(as long as they are not grammar nazi/ignorant insulting) so that other readers outside the technical people can learn something, in "common speak", not "elitist speak". i know im about to get hounded by grammar nazi's saying that i used (V(X(Y(Z)))) instead of their favourite group decided buzzword of the month.. well tough. if you cant translate it back to your buzzword thats your failing of translation. english is not just the queens elitist post scholar speak. it has many variations. someone from hacney speaks differently than someone from liverpool or glasgow. if you just want to grammar nazi about 'its not posh english' go somewhere else and play games with other people. your boring Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 16, 2022, 10:08:26 PM https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/04-onion-routing.md#legacy-hop_data-payload-format the amount is in Msat, and does not contain keys, or HTLC for a commitment. it is not sending a signature or HTLC to change a channels commitment HTLC There are no keys or signatures in here because "hop_data" consists only of routing instructions for the current hop. We have already agreed that "hop_data" is a part of "onion_routing_packet" which can be sent only through "update_add_htlc". Knowing all of that... https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/01-messaging.md#lightning-message-format [some payload analogies] Here's what a proper message should look like: Code: Type: 128 (update_add_htlc) Your message would look like this: Code: Type: ??? This is wrong because: a) "hop_data" is encrypted. "onion_routing_packet" contains a compressed public key which was used to generate a shared secret for all hops. Thus, sending just "hop_data" doesn't make sense. b) as your message would be non-standard (no type), the receiving node would ignore your message. Code: (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/01-messaging.md) A receiving node: Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 16, 2022, 10:28:44 PM your again ignoring the hundreds of different message types. just to circle back to your favourite message of the commitment HTLC update.
you really are becoming very very obvious. even when i point out your narrow minded scenario of only wanting to talk about commitments. you still repeat it. think outside of the commitment box. and look at the the other hundreds of messages that are not commitment related. then you might see again. the commitment HTLC is measured in sats. a commitment HTLC 'packet' is not msat. so you are only focusing on the one type of HTLC thats only suppose to be used in one place. again ignoring the other HTLC stuff in micropayments (ln payment) messages not all HTLC go into a commitment. some are separate promises outside of commitments. done so people can have no harm, no lost value indicators of possible future things. like when routing. you cant commit to an amount before your sure of the amount that needs to be committed. you need to learn about the whole network gossip stuff and routing. and not just only want to concentrate on the channel partner commitments after negotiations Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 16, 2022, 11:28:01 PM your again ignoring the hundreds of different message types. just to circle back to your favourite message of the commitment HTLC update. Hundreds of different message types? I am all ears to you. When I asked you what kind of message is used in your example, you kept ignoring me or saying "hop_data", which we already know that is wrong. you really are becoming very very obvious. even when i point out your narrow minded scenario of only wanting to talk about commitments. you still repeat it. [...] you need to learn about the whole network gossip stuff and routing. and not just only want to concentrate on the channel partner commitments after negotiations I am really sorry that the Lightning Network is designed this way! There is no other standardised message other than "update_add_htlc" which includes routing instructions. Prove me wrong. again. the commitment HTLC is measured in sats. a commitment HTLC 'packet' is not msat. It doesn't matter. again ignoring the other HTLC stuff in micropayments (ln payment) messages I believe that the following message is a valid Lightning (HTLC) message as per bolt01. Code: Type: 128 (update_add_htlc) done so people can have no harm, no lost value indicators of possible future things. like when routing. you cant commit to an amount before your sure of the amount that needs to be committed That's actually a good example. However, you don't know if nodes along the path have enough liquidity unless you try to send the payment through them. Otherwise, it would be possible to probe any channel at any time without having to lock up a large amount of coins in a channel. I posted my node's debug log some time ago. My node failed to forward an incoming HTLC due to no liquidity ("CHANNEL_ERR_CHANNEL_CAPACITY_EXCEEDED"). You can see messages like: "update_add_htlc", "commitment_signed", "update_fail_htlc". Code: 03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: peer_in WIRE_UPDATE_ADD_HTLC Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 16, 2022, 11:48:29 PM your again ignoring the hundreds of different message types. just to circle back to your favourite message of the commitment HTLC update. Hundreds of different message types? I am all ears to you. When I asked you what kind of message is used in your example, you kept ignoring me or saying "hop_data", which we already know that is wrong. hmm really? The messages are grouped logically into five groups, ordered by the most significant bit that is set: (v)Setup & Control (types 0-31): (x)Channel (types 32-127): (Y)Commitment (types 128-255): (w)Routing (types 256-511): Custom (types 32768-65535): experimental and application-specific messages as for your choosily picking type 128 .. Code: Type: 128 (update_add_htlc) yawn.. .. rath try once more. but this time without concentrating on commitments .. but quick explainer. but in that example, it only sends the update HTLC message after it has done many payment messages unrelated to changing the HTLC in a committent. i know you endlessly only want to discuss stage 10 of 10.... but your forgetting stages 1-9 update htlc message is a trigger to then commit. whereby after the message(128) LN code then rounds the msats to sats. and does some other funky stuff. (commitments are not created first, to then send payment. its the other way round, payments trigger commitments. again how else will they know what to commit to unless they are told) the commitment is then the end of the negotiation and pass over. that payment hash. in that example is a hash from a channel partner, in a direct payment not a routed hop to eric. its used as a temporary offset allotment of funds reserved for channel partner. not used from erics payment hash to pay eric. in a routed hop payment erics payment hash is put into its own temporary format. .. you do realise a channel is just a blockchain transaction template right. nothing more.. and its actually the messages between nodes that trigger changes to the blockchain transaction template. whereby you cant change a template unless you know what to put in it. you cant know what to put in it unless you have tried something outside the template. like sending msat denominated messages to see if peers have liquidity and get them to gossip with their peers. (which needs no editing of a blockchain transaction template to achieve this) also things like min dust, min payment and min fee are not things found inside the blockchain transaction template so when you notice the things outside the template that get changed or viewed without having to change the blockchain transaction template. then you might see out of the box Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 17, 2022, 12:16:23 AM (w)Routing (types 256-511): as for your choosily picking type 128 .. hmm let me see, ooooo you chose a type that belongs to just the commitment..(no surprise) yawn.. .. rath try once more. but this time without concentrating on commitments No worries. I knew that you would point it out and I have already prepared myself. All of the "routing" messages (type-wise) are described in bolt07 (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/07-routing-gossip.md) (P2P Node and Channel Discovery). bolt07 messages: announcement_signatures, channel_announcement, node_announcement, query_short_channel_ids/reply_short_channel_ids_end, channel_update, query_channel_range/reply_channel_range Their types are: 259, 256, 257, 261, 258, 263, 264 respectively. None of these messages include "onion_routing_packet", "hop_data" or any other routing instructions. that payment hash. in that example is a hash from a channel partner, in a direct payment not eric. No, it isn't. Payment hash is reused in HTLCs. PTLCs will use a different hash for every hop, but those hashes will be cryptographically related to one another. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 17, 2022, 12:31:14 AM onion routing is bolt 4..
https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/04-onion-routing.md oh look its says '4-onion-routing' routing gossip is bolt 7 https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/07-routing-gossip.md oh look its says '7-routing-gossip' your obsession and small box thinking is of your 'types' found in (x)Channel (types 32-127): (Y)Commitment (types 128-255): which is YOUR obsession with bolts 2&3 but nice try trying to think only channel/commitment stuff exist or that there are only 7 messages related to whatever your trying to create a narrative of now totally ignoring all the message types from 256-511 and again when eric sends his payment_hash to alice. who passes it to bob, carol, diana. if those people actually put it into a blockchain transaction template. and signed it. thats 4 people the then committed to pay to erics key. (which he knows the secret of) the HTLC in a commitment are the pubkeys of the channel partners. not the key of someone multiple hops away Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 17, 2022, 12:42:41 AM onion routing is bolt 4.. but nice try trying to thing only channel stuff exist Wait... you laughed at me because "update_add_htlc" type was "Commitment" and not "Routing", but when I listed you all messages that are of "Routing" type, you laugh at me because I didn't mention bolt04? Unfortunately, bolt4 does not contain any (bolt1 formatted) messages. It describes their payloads. and again when eric sends his payment_hash to alice. who passes it to bob, carol, diana. if those people actually put it into a blockchain transaction template. and signed it. thats 4 people wanting to pay to erics key. (which he knows the secret of the HTLC in a commitment are the pubkeys of the channel partners. not the key of someone multiple hops away Back to square one again. HTLC outputs also require valid HTLC signatures from both channel peers. You fail to comprehend that for some reason. I see that you have edited your post. but nice try trying to think only channel/commitment stuff exist totally ignoring all the message types from 256-511 Oh really? I think that I have listed quite a lot of "Routing" type messages. bolt07 messages: announcement_signatures, channel_announcement, node_announcement, query_short_channel_ids/reply_short_channel_ids_end, channel_update, query_channel_range/reply_channel_range Their types are: 259, 256, 257, 261, 258, 263, 264 respectively. None of these messages include "onion_routing_packet", "hop_data" or any other routing instructions. You are starting to troll. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 17, 2022, 12:51:35 AM onion routing is bolt 4.. but nice try trying to thing only channel stuff exist Wait... you laughed at me because "update_add_htlc" type was "Commitment" and not "Routing", but when I listed you all messages that are of "Routing" type, you laugh at me because I didn't mention bolt04? Unfortunately, bolt4 does not contain any (bolt1 formatted) messages. It describes their payloads. you didnt mention all the messages/types related to onion routing and gossip routing. you tried to pin them down to just 6 types.. by ignoring the rest (you only wanted to mention 6 messages you know of relating to channels stuff.. AS ALWAYS) also i pre-empted you by purposefully doing the (v(w(m))) because the V is the type (described in bolt1) which encapsulates (w)channel gossip, or onion route packets i did not say w(v) aka 4(1) which you are narrating as your narrative to be "bolt 4 does not contain bolt 1" its actually infact bolt 1 contains bolt 7 or contains bolt 4 but nice try trying to ignore bolt 4 (onion routing) and then state onion routing is not found in bolt (whatever game your playing) and its never quoted by me as 7 being just about the onion packets payments which require finding routes. and then sending onions packets is the bolt 7(find) with 4 as payload. .. emphasis again. nice try taking bolt 4 messages and cry that you couldnt find them in bolt 7 your obsessed with the messages that trigger commitment changes. (x(y(z))) aka (2(3)) but you ignore the other types EG (v(w(m))) aka (1(7)) message to find channel and (1(4)) for the onion packet you just sound like your doing a doomad now Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 17, 2022, 01:18:47 AM its actually infact bolt 1 contains bolt 4 Oh, great. So, you have just admitted that "update_add_htlc" (which can be bolt01 formatted) contains "onion_routing_packet", which includes routing instructions ("hop_data"). Now, read the "Forwarding HTLCs" section of bolt02 again and you will learn that you have to commit that HTLC (for your own security) before you forward it to the next hop. You also admitted that bolt04 describes the payload and not the actual messages that are sent to other nodes, so don't bother mentioning it in this case again. I am not going to answer your bolt4/bolt7 ramble as it is clearly a trolling attempt, just like the HTLC signatures and payment secret case. Good night, franky1. It was fun to argue with you again. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 17, 2022, 01:22:29 AM its actually infact bolt 1 contains bolt 4 Oh, great. So, you have just admitted that "update_add_htlc" (which can be bolt01 formatted) contains "onion_routing_packet", which includes routing instructions ("hop_data"). Now, read the "Forwarding HTLCs" section of bolt02 again and you will learn that you have to commit that HTLC (for your own security) before you forward it to the next hop. You also admitted that bolt04 describes the payload and not the actual messages that are sent to other nodes, so don't bother mentioning it in this case again. I am not going to answer your bolt4/bolt7 ramble as it is clearly a trolling attempt, just like the HTLC signatures and payment secret case. Good night, franky1. It was fun to argue with you again. yep your definitely doing a doomad trick. bolt 1 involves explaining all messages.. do not now make it be narrated that your opinion is that bolt 1 is purely about HTLC updates. yea i know you dont want to talk about bolt 7 and 4, because then it means coming out of your bolt 2&3 box Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on January 17, 2022, 01:34:39 AM yea i know you dont want to talk about bolt 7 and 4, because then it means coming out of your bolt 2&3 box Except for the part where Rath_ definitely has spoken about bolt07 and bolt04 and explained to you why they don't mean what you think they mean. Here it is again as you appear to have missed it: All of the "routing" messages (type-wise) are described in bolt07 (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/07-routing-gossip.md) (P2P Node and Channel Discovery). bolt07 messages: announcement_signatures, channel_announcement, node_announcement, query_short_channel_ids/reply_short_channel_ids_end, channel_update, query_channel_range/reply_channel_range Their types are: 259, 256, 257, 261, 258, 263, 264 respectively. None of these messages include "onion_routing_packet", "hop_data" or any other routing instructions. bolt4 does not contain any (bolt1 formatted) messages. It describes their payloads. Also, I'm still waiting on a response on my previous post about consensus. Kindly answer some of my questions before you attempt to add more of your own. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 17, 2022, 02:23:26 AM yea i know you dont want to talk about bolt 7 and 4, because then it means coming out of your bolt 2&3 box Except for the part where Rath_ definitely has spoken about bolt07 and bolt04 and explained to you why they don't mean what you think they mean. Here it is again as you appear to have missed it: All of the "routing" messages (type-wise) are described in bolt07 (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/07-routing-gossip.md) (P2P Node and Channel Discovery). bolt07 messages: announcement_signatures, channel_announcement, node_announcement, query_short_channel_ids/reply_short_channel_ids_end, channel_update, query_channel_range/reply_channel_range Their types are: 259, 256, 257, 261, 258, 263, 264 respectively. None of these messages include "onion_routing_packet", "hop_data" or any other routing instructions. bolt4 does not contain any (bolt1 formatted) messages. It describes their payloads. yes which is where he is pulling a doomad what rath_ is doing is although the fact of the actual writing of the bolts is that bolt 1 sets the type. and inside it are certain messages.. rath wants to narrate that its bolt 4 that then has bolt 1 inside. its actually bolt 1 that then has 4 inside i even pre-empted that game HOURS before he tried it by doing the (v(w(m))) and i have explained it many times now.. he also tried to take some limited points about bolt 7, and pretend i said bolt 7 is purely about onion packets. when infact its bolt 4. routing (both channel gossip and onion packet messages) are concerning both 4 and 7. .. raths original game was to only want to narrate the flow of conversation towards the inchannel changes of bolts 2&3 which have nothing to do with the payment messages and forwarding stuff that involve bolts 4 and 7 Also, I'm still waiting on a response on my previous post about consensus. Kindly answer some of my questions before you attempt to add more of your own. i did answer your question. but without having to play around with blue writing to edit the question, i just wrote some out to get to the real context of the contention/argument/debate(second half of this post) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380215.msg59001987#msg59001987 my answers have never waivered, and never been contradictory and i have stood by them for years. so its more important that you answer them due to your own contradictions and flip flops. that way we can get to the actual opinions you want to stay strong on to actually know which narrative you wish to proceed on .. to hopefully end the contradicting narrative games anyways now lets get to the consensus topic doomad wants to discuss.. and ill do so by explaining what "doing a doomad" is .. for 4 years doomad has been spouting endlessly that there was never a mandatory activation. he stated that bips91 and 148 were never used. and then deviated to pretend 2 other bips were used and tried to play games about how there is no mandatory wording in his other bips he suggests were used. the thing is. bips91 and bips 148 were used and both mention about rejecting blocks that dont signal to activate segwit. he might forget/ignore that the blockchain data actually shows the bit flags in the block data of the bips involved in bip91 and 148. even pieter wuille and theymos were quoted as saying it was used. he might keep forgetting just to spin his narrative into his ignorance of wanting to talk about other bips.. but thats just him doing a doomad. (saying something unrelated and then suggest whats unrelated doesnt contain the related things.) summary There's no such thing as a "mandatory fork" in Bitcoin. you might want to check devs own wording of bip148 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki mandatory 'activation day flag" is mentioned a few times " Title: Mandatory activation of segwit deployment" https://preview.redd.it/7putyzz1flv01.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=bbfe1af4a5c06877dfda907081d43737191d43ce https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0091.mediawiki "While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required will be rejected. " bip 91 is blue line and bip 148 is red line red(bip91) caused blue(148) to spike to 100% doomad wants to only discuss things after august 2nd 2017 and avoid the stuff that happened from march-august1st 2017 rath wants to talk about channel changes to commitment and avoid all the messages about value movements that lead upto needing to commit .. im bored of watching these groupies play these games.. goodnight Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 17, 2022, 08:09:16 AM rath wants to narrate that its bolt 4 that then has bolt 1 inside. its actually bolt 1 that then has 4 inside I have never said that. You are probably referring to this quote: bolt4 does not contain any (bolt1 formatted) messages. It describes their payloads. I hope that you read it too fast and misunderstood it. Let me repeat again. bolt04 does not describe any independent messages than can be sent in bolt01 format. bolt04 describes payloads that can be included in other standardised messages. For example, bolt04 describes "onion_routing_packet". It can't be sent as an individual message. You need to put in the payload of "update_add_htlc" message as per specifications. he also tried to take some limited points about bolt 7, and pretend i said bolt 7 is purely about onion packets. when infact its bolt 4. routing (both channel gossip and onion packet messages) are concerning both 4 and 7. Don't forget that we were talking about bolt01's "Routing" type messages. As bolt04 does not describe individual messages, but payloads, they can't be bolt01 formatted. but you ignore the other types EG (v(w(m))) aka (1(7)) message to find channel and (1(4)) for the onion packet I am ignoring your (1(4)) message as it is a non-standard message and it would be discarded by other nodes. Again, here's what your message would look like. Code: Type: ??? This is wrong because: a) "hop_data" is encrypted. "onion_routing_packet" contains a compressed public key which was used to generate a shared secret for all hops. Thus, sending just "hop_data" doesn't make sense. b) as your message would be non-standard (no type), the receiving node would ignore your message. And before you say that (4) refers to "onion_routing_packet" and not "hop_data", think about it again. "onion_routing_packet" can't be sent as an individual message as well. You need to send it through a standard message, like "update_add_htlc". Here's what a proper message should look like: Code: Type: 128 (update_add_htlc) Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 17, 2022, 12:00:04 PM i know you only know of the channel and htlc update stuff
and now your narrative is that onion routing is not encapsulated in a bolt 1 format but then you contradict yourself by saying bolt 4 messages are payloads of standardised messages(as set by bolt 1) so you are playing grammar games, as your way of ignoring bolts 1,4,7 just so you can quote 1 usage found in bolt 2, where that single usage is about direct payments to partner ... https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/04-onion-routing.md#packet-structure Quote type: onion_packet(0x00) ^ this here is the (1) aka (V)data: [byte:version] [point:public_key] [1300*byte:hop_payloads] [32*byte:hmac] Quote The hop_payloads field is a structure that holds obfuscated routing information, and associated HMAC. It is 1300 bytes long and has the following structure: ^ this is the 4 aka w of (1(4) aka (v(w)[/color]type: hop_payloads data: [bigsize:length] [hop_payload_length:hop_payload] [32*byte:hmac] ... filler Quote type: hop_data (for realm 0) ^ this is the m of (1(4(m)) aka (v(w(m))data: [short_channel_id:short_channel_id] [u64:amt_to_forward] [u32:outgoing_cltv_value] [12*byte:padding] so now, take yourself off of the bookmarked bolts 2& 3 pages. and explore the pages of the other bolts more. try to think outside of your channel management box, and think about the node functions, node messages between peers outside of a direct payment scenario Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 17, 2022, 12:50:53 PM bolt04's type is not the same as bolt01's type. See:
Code: (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/01-messaging.md) 1. type: a 2-byte big-endian field indicating the type of message onion_data, onion_packet, hop_data don't seem like 2-byte big-endian fields to me. You will again accuse me of playing grammar games, but it's not my fault that the specs are so strict. but then you contradict yourself by saying bolt 4 messages are payloads of standardised messages(as set by bolt 1) I don't see any contradiction here. In order for the bolt01 message to be valid, you need to set a type which will be understood by your peer. type: onion_packet is out of question as it isn't a 2-byte big-endian field. You need to stick to the types listed in the specifications. Code: (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/01-messaging.md) Setup & Control (types 0-31): messages related to connection setup, control, supported features, and error reporting (described below) As you can see, none of these types reference bolt04. Thus, you need to find another way of sending the onion packet, which is the payload of "update_add_htlc". [hop_data] this is the 4 aka w of (1(4) aka (v(w) Sending just hop_data doesn't make any sense. I have told you that countless of times. [...] so you can quote 1 usage found in bolt 2, where that single usage is about direct payments to partner You might need to look up the meaning of "to forward" in the dictionary again as you completely ignore "Forwarding HTLCs" section of bolt02. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 17, 2022, 02:05:37 PM You will again accuse me of playing grammar games, but it's not my fault that the specs are so strict. I don't see any contradiction here. In order for the bolt01 message to be valid, you need to set a type which will be understood by your peer. hmm really? https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/01-messaging.md#lightning-message-format Quote The type field indicates how to interpret the payload field. The format for each individual type is defined by a specification in this repository. The type follows the it's ok to be odd rule, so nodes MAY send odd-numbered types without ascertaining that the recipient understands it. so nodes do accept many messages. even if they are outside of YOUR limited personal knowledge of bolt2 if you really want to play games that a node never sends onion routing messages or routing gossip messages without being encapsulated in a channel HTLC commit, you can play those games for decades. but you will just be playing with your group only they would be rewarding you with merit and patting you on the back for playing games.. i know your game is your narrative that the only messages sent are bolt 2 channel management messages.. but guess what. before a channel is even set up, node messages are asked to find out what type of chainhash and channels are available with a peers node. yep how can you assert that all messages are suppose to be encapsulated into a channel message if there is not yet a channel. how can a peer encapsulate a onion message if it does not yet know which channel the partner wants to utilise for their forward to the next peer nodes send messages outside of a blockchain formatted template of output+witness. but hey. it might take you some time to read all of the bolts. , but dont reply if your just going to try to push conversations back into bolt 2.. (there are other bolts, with other messages, learn them) so go play your backward-of-time-and-logic games elsewhere i know your thinking alice can psychic predict that she needs to pay bob 1003 for a 1000pay to eric via hops through bob carol, diana.. so alice predictively commits to bob 1003 before even trying to find a route. or before alice even knowing carols, diana's fee.. or before even knowing if carol and diana have liquidity to pay to eric but here is the thing. alice has to try a route to first know if one can be found, whether hops have liquidity to forward, and find out the total the fees actually are once eric accepts the offer and the messages return back down the path.. to THEN allow alice to commit to bob with known amounts its not: pay first via commit(update_htlc), find route second via channel messages of a signed blockchain transaction. its is: find route(node gossip), assess fee's, accepts particular route(channel gossip). have destination accept. hops response back down the path... then commit the messages of finding route and calculating fees are not in a channels blockchain formatted transaction template output(your update_HTLC understanding) the dust fee, min fee and the other things are variables that can be looked at without having to change a blockchain formatted transaction templates output. you dont need to sign blockchain formatted transactions just to see if a channel has liquidity, fee's or other channels with other peers learn all the gossip messages and packet messages that dont involve updating a HTLC because alot of messages are used before even updating a HTLC here is a summary flow decide to buy something find destination recipient via a route path make an offer recipient accepts the offer route path messages back payer commits at payment success commit can be broadcast to settle i know you want to only target: (your bolt 2 narrowminded target) payer commits at payment success commit can be broadcast to settle but your missing out on all the 'gossip messages' and node interactions of:(multiple bolts) decide to buy something find destination recipient via a route path make an offer recipient accepts the offer route path messages back Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 17, 2022, 02:38:53 PM hmm really? Yes. Again, "hop_data", "onion_packet" and "hop_payloads" are not 2 byte big-endian values. They do not match the criteria specified in the message structure. If "onion_packet" is a valid type for a bolt01 message then why "channel_update"' type is 258 and not just "channel_update"? It should be a simple question for you to answer. if you really want to play games that a node never sends onion routing messages or routing gossip messages without being encapsulated in a channel HTLC commit, you can play those games for decades. but you will just be playing with your group I have never said anything like that about gossip messages. They can be formatted as bolt01 messages as all of them have a valid type. bolt07 messages: announcement_signatures, channel_announcement, node_announcement, query_short_channel_ids/reply_short_channel_ids_end, channel_update, query_channel_range/reply_channel_range Their types are: 259, 256, 257, 261, 258, 263, 264 respectively. find route(node gossip), access fee's accept particular route(channel gossip). have destination accept. hops response back down the path... then commit You can remove "find route(node gossip), access fee's accept particular route(channel gossip)" as Lightning nodes constantly send/receive gossip and build a local map of the whole network. They use it to calculate payment paths. Another simple question for you. How do they response back then? What's the message they use? You used to say "funding_locked", but you now know that it's sent only to signalise that the funding transaction has reached enough confirmations. but here is the thing. alice has to try a route to first know if one can be found, whether hops have liquidity to forward, and find out the total the fees actually are to then commit to bob Why would she need to learn the total fees? Each "channel_update" message contains "fee_base_msat" and "fee_proportional_millionths". Every node in the network listens for these changes and adjusts their local map of the network. Alice already knows how much she is going to pay before she actually tries to send the transaction. Did you forget that wallets choose paths based on their cost and length? How do hops reply that they have enough liquidity in your opinion? I am not even going to talk about my node's logs again. I gave you the proof of what's going on under the hood if your node can't route the incoming payment. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 17, 2022, 02:51:39 PM Why would she need to learn the total fees? Each "channel_update" message contains "fee_base_msat" A. "channel update" is a message from one peer to the other about the variables (dust, limit, fees) its not a edit or signing session of a commit, its not a edit of a output inside a commit. B. atleast you are now admitting these messages are in LN msat denomination and not a commitment sat denomination (1 step forward for you) C. alice wanting to pay eric 1000, would know bobs ''fee_base_msat". but she does not know carols or diana's because she has yet to gossip via the hops/nodes. D. because of the limited knowledge of (C) alice cant commit to 1003 to ensure bobs 1fee, carols 1fee and dianas 1fee is met to ensure eric gets his 1000, because alice does not know carol or dianas fee yet. E. and these messages to find out this stuff, is all node, route, channel GOSSIP.. not actual changes to commitments F. and the format of these gossip messages are not signed blockchain transactions. G. and the value in these messages are msat not sat find route(node gossip), access fee's accept particular route(channel gossip). have destination accept. hops response back down the path... then commit You can remove "find route(node gossip), assess fee's, accept particular route(channel gossip)" as Lightning nodes constantly send/receive gossip and build a local map of the whole network. They use it to calculate payment paths. Another simple question for you. How do they response back then? What's the message they use? You used to say "funding_locked", but you now know that it's sent only to signalise that the funding transaction has reached enough confirmations. 1. "you can remove"... "lightning nodes constantly send/receive gossip" so its not removed. but thanks for admitting these messages happen without needing a commitment edited and before a commitment is even considered for editing 2. if you remove find route assess fees accept route....(at any stage before paying) guess what.. you have no route. you cant pay a destination without knowing about them i know your going to say the node has a list of stuff it received before making a payment. but.. unless it looks at the gossip messages and assess the fees and then chooses a route, it cant then use it pay. 3. i never said that they used funding locked as messages. i said they send messages, where there are many different types of messages. and then gave an example for whichever scenario 4. turbo send a 'funding locked' message even without the funding transaction being confirmed. because LN does not use actual blockchain transaction template edits to communicate. it uses node messages of many types YOUR the one pretending everything is done via editing a blockchain transaction templates output(HTLC) [moderator's note: consecutive posts merged] Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 17, 2022, 03:37:07 PM C. alice wanting to pay eric 1000, would know bobs ''fee_base_msat". but she does not know carols or diana's because she has yet to gossip via the hops/nodes. [...] i know your going to say the node has a list of stuff it received before making a payment. but.. unless it looks at the gossip messages and assess the fees and then chooses a route, it cant then use it pay. Now, I am not sure whether you don't understand it or if it's just a language barrier between us. Before making the payment, Alice should have an up-to-date map of the network. She can build it by receiving "channel_update" and "channel_announcement" messages from her other Lightning peers. The map includes information like: channel ids, fees, total balance and other parameters required for the payment. You don't request these information at the time of the payment. Code: (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/07-routing-gossip.md#bolt-7-p2p-node-and-channel-discovery) Node and channel discovery serve two different purposes: If you don't receive a gossip message about a certain node, you can't select it while constructing the routing path because you simply don't know that it exists. If you know about it then you don't have to request any additional information (you keep saying that Alice needs to learn the total fees) and you can include it in the path. 1. "you can remove"... "lightning nodes constantly send/receive gossip" so its not removed. but thanks for admitting these messages happen without needing a commitment edited and before a commitment is even considered for editing My point was that you don't use routing gossip while making the payment. I have already explained above that you get all the information you need before making the payment. None of the routing gossip messages (bolt07) can return information about liquidity. I asked you which message is responsible for that (you can quote it along with the rest of the payload), but you don't want to give me the answer for some reason. We can't come to agreement because you insist that you can use it this way. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 17, 2022, 04:08:40 PM C. alice wanting to pay eric 1000, would know bobs ''fee_base_msat". but she does not know carols or diana's because she has yet to gossip via the hops/nodes. [...] i know your going to say the node has a list of stuff it received before making a payment. but.. unless it looks at the gossip messages and assess the fees and then chooses a route, it cant then use it pay. Now, I am not sure whether you don't understand it or if it's just a language barrier between us. Before making the payment, Alice should have an up-to-date map of the network. She can build it by receiving "channel_update" and "channel_announcement" messages from her other Lightning peers. The map includes information like: channel ids, fees, total balance and other parameters required for the payment. You don't request these information at the time of the payment. your making a few steps forward finally. yes before making a payment gossip messages between nodes occur without having to change a blockchain formatted transaction output and without having to sign a blockchain formatted transaction congratulations. your now a total of 3 steps forward i know your trying to say that peers dont need to gossip right before the payment. because they have a map of the data. but here is the thing. how did they get the map of the data. yep because they sent and received messages. and when do they do this, before making a payment i can tell your probably going to try turning this into a 'but not 0.1 second before, maybe 1min.1 hour" (more lame games, so dont bother) None of the routing gossip messages (bolt07) can return information about liquidity. I asked you which message is responsible for that (you can quote it along with the rest of the payload), but you don't want to give me the answer for some reason. We can't come to agreement because you insist that you can use it this way. (facepalm) and you took a step back into playing games you do recall i said many bolts.. asking you to read them all. where i stated messages of bolts 1,4,7.. and explaining the onion stuff is done at the 1(4) stage alice does not get the active liquidity of hops(exact numbers). she gets a summary idea ('is liquid?') based on the acceptance of the route not rejecting due to not having liquidity. (not forwarding) she can find out they have liquidity by them succeeding in establishing a route. using messages. without needing to know exact capacity in lame speek its not "how much can you take"answer: amount inlame speek its more "can you take this"answer: forward/reject where she knows she has a liquid route by getting a response on the return path where there is a route to eric and eric has accepted the offer i also stated that alice cant know the liquidity if a route would work to even commit to bob at the start. and alice only knows if a route can work after the peers send messages to each other of AB BC CD DE and then on the return ED DC CB BA where by then alice knows there is a route that has liquidity and she then knows the most uptodate fees she needs to total up to then decide which route to take. and then do the other stuff .. you play games like 'you can choose a route without messages because you have the network map' then you play games of 'the network map doesnt reveal active liquidity of non partner peers so you need to message the route to find out if a route will work' your contradiction games are truly boring. now go back to the point where you know messages happen before a commitment is signed. and move forward from there, stop dancing around going back and forth contradicting yourself. can you atleast now state finally. that the messages of payment. are NOT performed purely by blockchain formatted transaction output edits and blockchain formatted transaction signing and are infact done by the messages between the nodes involving making offers, testing if offer can have a path, and destinations accepting and the path responding back in acceptance. because without any messages. there is no payment, you cant edit a blockchain formatted output unless you know the total value needed, and knowing which partner/direction to commit the accepted payment to Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on January 17, 2022, 04:10:36 PM Also, I'm still waiting on a response on my previous post about consensus. Kindly answer some of my questions before you attempt to add more of your own. i did answer your question. but without having to play around with blue writing to edit the question, i just wrote some out to get to the real context of the contention/argument/debate(second half of this post) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380215.msg59001987#msg59001987 You're skipping ahead. Let's get the fundamentals nailed down first. If someone can't accept that 2+2=4, then I'm not going to acknowledge any opinions they might have on quantum mechanics, because their views are meaningless. Similarly, if someone can't accept that devs can create whatever code what they want and users can run whatever code they want, then their opinions on consensus are equally meaningless in my view. There is an important reason why this understanding is crucial. I'll take the opportunity to repeat something I said in 2018 (with a small portion removed in the spirit of keeping things civil): It's all well and good saying that the community should have a bigger say on what the code is, but then you have the chicken and egg problem where users can't agree or disagree with code until it actually exists and then they can all see what that code does. Then you have the small, but insurmountable, obstacle where Bitcoin is not some sort of committee or parliament with points of order and rules governing social conduct. There is no way for anyone to enforce a rule that says people can't write code with an arbitrary activation date. There's no way to enforce a rule saying we aren't allowed to have softforks. It's just people writing and running code. If you want to write some code, go ahead. If you want to run some code, go ahead. (...) That's about the extent of your influence here. I assert that this is how Bitcoin works. I also assert no one has provided a viable alternative. If certain individuals could gain leverage over what developers were and were not permitted to code, it opens the door to lobbying. Lobbying is one of the biggest failures of traditional Democracy. This is why I have often repeated the stance that Bitcoin is not a Democracy. It's more robust than that. Another reason we need the fundamentals pinned down is because you have said things in the past which indicate confusion on your part. Take for example: dont cause a fork before a consensus change. This makes no rational sense. A fork is a consensus change. Further, no one individual is in a position to determine when consensus can or cannot change. This should be self-evident. we need to get back to a level playing field where multiple pieces of full node full validating full archival software all have equal level as core. Who decides what qualifies as "level" or "equal"? There are no individuals in a position to make that determination. Further, it can't be enforced. core, if it wants to be a reference client should only run current rules. There is no way to enforce that. Along with being a failure to understand consensus, I would also describe this as an egregious assault on freedom. All of these comments are highly problematic if you wish to engage further about how consensus "should" work or that we're somehow doing it "wrong". First you have to demonstrate you understand how it does work before we can accept any of your assertions that you know how to make it "better". So again, before you skip ahead to add new questions, please, at the very least, just answer the first two: Any developer is free to code what they want. agree[ ] disagree[ ] Everyone will be free to run any code they choose. agree[ ] disagree[ ] Please demonstrate your understanding of these key aspects of consensus. he stated that bips91 and 148 were never used. False: My stance is, and always has been, that BIP91 bit 4 flag is what activated Segwit with 90+% of the hashrate BIP91 bit 4 flag is what activated SegWit. I'm not sure how many more times I need to repeat it. "Mandatory" BIP148, to the best of my knowledge, was only implemented in the UASF client. However, I never ran that client, so I don't personally recognise it as part of Bitcoin. That code never had the opportunity to activate as BIP91 activated first and superseded it. We could also easily spend the next few years arguing about what "mandatory" means and how I disagree with shaolinfry's use of the word, but it's entirely inconsequential now. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 17, 2022, 04:11:59 PM Further discussion is pointless as you can't show me the message which transmits information about channel liquidity once you construct the path. You quoted some Lightning messages in your previous posts, so what's the problem now?
Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 17, 2022, 04:44:42 PM that devs can create whatever code what they want and users can run whatever code they want, then their opinions on consensus are equally meaningless in my view. contradictions.There is an important reason why this understanding is crucial. I'll take the opportunity to repeat something I said in 2018 (with a small portion removed in the spirit of keeping things civil): It's all well and good saying that the community should have a bigger say on what the code is, but then you have the chicken and egg problem where users can't agree or disagree with code until it actually exists and then they can all see what that code does. Then you have the small, but insurmountable, obstacle where Bitcoin is not some sort of committee or parliament with points of order and rules governing social conduct. There is no way for anyone to enforce a rule that says people can't write code with an arbitrary activation date. There's no way to enforce a rule saying we aren't allowed to have softforks. It's just people writing and running code. If you want to write some code, go ahead. If you want to run some code, go ahead. (...) That's about the extent of your influence here. i know your plaything the Doomad: "anyone can run software they code/choose" EG to have colourful backgrounds or store data locally differently just to game contradict Doomad: "no one can run software and change the protocol alone just to game contradict Doomad: "changes to the protocol only happened in my opinion through bip9 because i never run UASF or 91" just to game contradict yea you played this game. but here is the thing. mining pools actually got threatened by the NYA agreement of the ECONOMIC NODES (merchants, payment gates and exchanges and some other pools) that were using UASF. and pools fell inline flagging the bit number to activate segwit even if they had not upgraded their own software to run segwit. blocks were then actively rejected that were not flagging it which then got the red line above its 90%threshold (it achieved 100%) the fact that it achieved 100% in a week should be revealing as something odd even to you. as you and me both agree there is never 100% agreement in a wide community it does not need 90% of all user nodes to upgrade their software before a consensus change happens. the extra difference in 2017 is that it only needed the power players to run software that would reject normal/old blocks on a certain date.. which is what the threat and action was. This makes no rational sense. A fork is a consensus change. Further, no one individual is in a position to determine when consensus can or cannot change. This should be self-evident. My stance is, and always has been, that BIP91 bit 4 flag is what activated Segwit with 90+% of the hashrate BIP91 bit 4 flag is what activated SegWit. I'm not sure how many more times I need to repeat it. "Mandatory" BIP148, to the best of my knowledge, was only implemented in the UASF client. However, I never ran that client, so I don't personally recognise it as part of Bitcoin. That code never had the opportunity to activate as BIP91 activated first and superseded it. We could also easily spend the next few years arguing about what "mandatory" means and how I disagree with shaolinfry's use of the word, but it's entirely inconsequential now. already answered. i know your saying: yea because you didnt use it you think its not part of bitcoin well ill use your mindset i never used LN software so its not part of bitcoin.. (and then you cry pleading the opposite) but here is the thing nothing on bitcoin shows anything about LN msats or LN gossip messages or even LN peer handshaking. so in bitcoins data/code and in cores peer handshaking there is no LN in bitcoin.. meaning LN is not bitcoin but what you do find in bitcoin blockdata and bitcoin cores bips is that there is stuff related to how the consensus change occured in 2017 aswell as devs and many others saying bips91 and 148 were used, where even they are backed up by the blockdata ignorance because you didnt use software. does not make it ok to pretend there is no proof that events didnt happen. it just means you lack the ability to find the proof to change your mind, because you want to close yourself off from having proof infront of you heck i didnt use the software, but i atleast know it happened and blockdata bips and quotes from the devs back up my version of events even if you didnt run the software doesnt mean it didnt happen Further discussion is pointless as you can't show me the message which transmits information about channel liquidity once you construct the path. You quoted some Lightning messages in your previous posts, so what's the problem now? read! alice does not get the active liquidity of hops(exact numbers). she gets a summary idea ('is liquid?') based on the acceptance of the route not rejecting due to not having liquidity. (not forwarding) she can find out they have liquidity by them succeeding in establishing a route. using messages. without needing to know exact capacity in lame speek its not "how much can you take"answer: amount inlame speek its more "can you take this"answer: forward/reject where she knows she has a liquid route by getting a response on the return path where there is a route to eric and eric has accepted the offer i also stated that alice cant know the liquidity if a route would work to even commit to bob at the start. and alice only knows if a route can work after the peers send messages to each other of AB BC CD DE and then on the return ED DC CB BA where by then alice knows there is a route that has liquidity and she then knows the most uptodate fees she needs to total up to then decide which route to take. and then do the other stuff and in summary. https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/04-onion-routing.md#returning-errors or even just the expiry of not getting a response (there are many ways for a route to fail due to lack of liquidity) .. oh and if you want to loopback to the network map construct of having routes before pay to not need to gossip nodes to find route. well a good privacy thing is that nodes dont have to network gossip their fee's and updates to become known on a public map. you can still route through them via their partners by sniffing out the fee's when trying routes. meaning they only tell you the fees on the response of a route success which then totals the fees to then let alice know how much to pay her partner if she chose that route and no finding a route using all the messages and getting a response when there is a path. is not something that needs to edit blockchain formatted transactions. nor needs them signed, it can be done via messages of gossip [moderator's note: consecutive posts merged] Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on January 17, 2022, 05:35:04 PM but i atleast know it happened and blockdata bips and quotes from the devs back up my version of events Yes, you have proven the existence of BIP148. It exists. It doesn't change what actually happened, though. SegWit was activated via BIP91 bit 4 flag. That is the correct interpretation of events. That's what happened. History has recorded it thus. Any other "version of events" regarding how SegWit activated is either a baseless opinion or a historically inaccurate version of events. even if you didnt run the software doesnt mean it didnt happen BIP91 bit 4 flag did happen. Doomad: "changes to the protocol only happened in my opinion BIP91 bit 4 flag activation of SegWit is not an "opinion". It is a proven fact. mindset Use whatever mindset you like. Enough of the users securing the blockchain ran the code which activated SegWit via BIP91 bit 4 flag. Mindsets don't change that reality. Mindsets also don't change the reality that any developer can create any code they want and any user can run any code they want. Once a user is running code, the consensus mechanism will then match them up with all of the other users who are running code with compatible consensus rules. Those users form a network and build a blockchain together. That's the reality of the situation. As such, I would present the argument that it's more constructive to discuss reality instead of mindsets. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 17, 2022, 05:41:09 PM ok half a step forward.
you admit that bip91 was used. so you admit to the words of that bip Quote While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required will be rejected. This BIP will have a start time of midnight June 1st, 2017 (epoch time 1496275200) and timeout on midnight November 15th 2017 (epoch time 1510704000). This BIP will cease to be active when segwit (BIP141) is locked-in, active, or failed Historically we have used IsSuperMajority() to activate soft forks such as BIP66 which has a mandatory signalling requirement for miners once activated, this ensures that miners are aware of new rules being enforced. This technique can be leveraged to lower the signalling threshold of a soft fork while it is in the process of being deployed in a backwards compatible way. By orphaning non-signalling blocks during the BIP9 bit 1 "segwit" deployment, this BIP can cause the existing "segwit" deployment to activate without needing to release a new deployment. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on January 17, 2022, 06:11:05 PM ok half a step forward. you admit that bip91 was used. so you admit to the words of that bip Quote Historically we have used IsSuperMajority() to activate soft forks such as BIP66 which has a mandatory signalling requirement for miners once activated, this ensures that miners are aware of new rules being enforced. This technique can be leveraged to lower the signalling threshold of a soft fork while it is in the process of being deployed in a backwards compatible way. Yes. Key words "once activated". You keep describing "mandatory" as "users get forked off before rules change". That is inaccurate. It goes on to describe "the process of being deployed in a backwards compatible way". i.e. Does not fork users off. Would only fork off miners producing invalid blocks after the consensus rules have changed. Mandatory signalling != "Mandatory fork" (because, again, there's no such thing) But you're just going to accuse me of "grammar" / "games" / "mindsets" / "social drama" again because you can't accept reality or understand how consensus works. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 17, 2022, 06:32:41 PM bip91 is not segwit.
bip is the rule of threshold and evaluation of blocks. bip91 ceases to be active when segwit(141) activates it was the 148 nodes that rejected blocks which got bip91 to its threshold and beyond which then activated segwit(141) This is the BIP148 possible split point, which is what motivated all of the Aug 1 hubub. But due to BIP91's successful activation about a week ago, it is most likely that nothing of note will actually happen. It is however possible that the unexpected could occur. maybe you need to spend 5 years arguing with theymos the split of old style blocks by miners refusing to flag for segwit, were rejected and 'nothing to see' on bitcoin of old blocks because they instead mined for BCH the mandatory flag did work. and got its thresholds within days of activating the bips(148 and 91) if you still want to deny that bips 148 and 91 were used. first go cry your blindness to theymos and pieter wuille and many others. then try to read some block data of the flags noted during july and BEFORE august 1st i know you want to pretend it all happened after segwit activated on the 24th of august. but thats just a laugh that you think there was no 148threat, there was no91 activity before august 24th. At the risk of pissing on your parade, UASF was technically obsoleted by the miners activating BIP91 and in turn, shortly BIP141. The only way UASF can still play a role now is if miners suddenly change their mind and back out at the last second, which I see as being beyond unlikely. This is categorically in the territory of MASF, not UASF. That said, one could certainly argue that the miners wouldn't have activated BIP91 if UASF hadn't put the gun to their heads first, but the sting in the tail is that some of the miners are still looking to support the '2x' part of SegWit2x, which I know not all of you approve of. Perhaps celebrations now might be premature. Best to wait 'til November to see for certain. yea remember 141, the actual segwit activation.. which happened on august 24th.. yea remember you admitting 148 threat happening and caused bip91 to activate affirming the threshold needed to get 141 BEFORE segwit activated .. yea you forgot all that and later from like 2018 YOU went on a tangent that there was no split(BCH not exist in your mind) and how you pounded your chest saying segwit(141) was activated by <your random dream> not the 148/91 activity not sure why you went contradictory but you did, and you continued for years Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 17, 2022, 06:57:30 PM The technical discussion is over, buddy. It's clear that the problem you have with Lightning is much deeper than just its function. If you want to continue supporting your position, better just dive into this:
First you have to demonstrate you understand how it does work before we can accept any of your assertions that you know how to make it "better". So again, before you skip ahead to add new questions, please, at the very least, just answer the first two: Any developer is free to code what they want. agree[ ] disagree[ ] Everyone will be free to run any code they choose. agree[ ] disagree[ ] Please demonstrate your understanding of these key aspects of consensus. If you decide to start talking more socially than technically, the thing changes. We'll probably end up to a point where we simply disagree, ideologically, but this is still good as we'll have cleared up our confusions. If you deny this discussion proposal, then there's really nothing you can do to convince us for your sayings. Try it. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on January 17, 2022, 07:13:18 PM This is the BIP148 possible split point, which is what motivated all of the Aug 1 hubub. But due to BIP91's successful activation about a week ago, it is most likely that nothing of note will actually happen. It is however possible that the unexpected could occur. maybe you need to spend 5 years arguing with theymos Nope, no argument necessary. That post from theymos appears to be accurate and supports what I have said. it was the 148 nodes that rejected blocks which got bip91 to its threshold and beyond which then activated segwit(141) Impossible. If UASF nodes had started rejecting blocks which other Bitcoin nodes were accepting, they would have forked themselves off the Bitcoin network and formed their own chain. That never happened. Honestly, this might go better for you if you don't automatically assume the evidence you are providing supports your argument, when in fact, it completely undermines it. Try to understand what the evidence really means first, before you jump to the incorrect conclusion that it proves you right. franky1 speaks very confidently about his opinion regarding ckpool, solo-mining, pool-mining, nonces, and extranonces. Please do not mistake confidence for knowledge or understanding. He's got some facts wrong, and his concept of what it means to be solo mining vs pools mining is not the widely accepted and understood concept. I think along with solo-mining, pool-mining, nonces, and extranonces, we can also add consensus, forks, Lightning, routing and freedom. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 17, 2022, 07:24:58 PM This is the BIP148 possible split point, which is what motivated all of the Aug 1 hubub. But due to BIP91's successful activation about a week ago, it is most likely that nothing of note will actually happen. It is however possible that the unexpected could occur. maybe you need to spend 5 years arguing with theymos Nope, no argument necessary. That post from theymos appears to be accurate and supports what I have said. it was the 148 nodes that rejected blocks which got bip91 to its threshold and beyond which then activated segwit(141) Impossible. If UASF nodes had started rejecting blocks which other Bitcoin nodes were accepting, they would have forked themselves off the Bitcoin network and formed their own chain. That never happened. Honestly, this might go better for you if you don't automatically assume the evidence you are providing supports your argument, when in fact, it completely undermines it. Try to understand what the evidence really means first, before you jump to the incorrect conclusion that it proves you right. as your own words have been saying for years (2018+) that bitcoin never used any mandated activation.. (pretending you have no knowledge that 148/91 were used) contradicting your 2017 stuff you even said how you were unaware because you never personally used mandated software so you believe it didnt happen. then in recent hours you contradict yourself by saying that the bips were used, but however only activated after segwit activated.. by which you are saying 148/91 activated on august 24th but theymos and many others, and the blockchain data actually show 148/91 activated in late july and august 1st (before segwits august 24th activation.) as for saying im wrong.. your evidence appears to be just quoting others in your friendship group that say im wrong.. .. and thats it. thats social drama. not proof. anyway. this topic has bored me again tonight. seems the certain group doesnt care about facts or data they just want to argue and contradict for the sake of arguing. maybe they should have a private get together with each other and talk amongst themselves and play around with each other, as they seem to like games soo much. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: darkv0rt3x on January 17, 2022, 10:09:55 PM As far as I'm concerned and from what I read, you're the one ignoring facts, evading replies to questions (while others replied yours), not acknowledging you are wrong about quite a few aspects, convinced that you have the absolute truth, insulting others, claiming that others are doing social drama when you're the one doing it, driving/deviating all your posts towards what you want others to believe, trying to brainwash people with inaccurate technical info, playing games with grammar/English language/synonyms/phrase construction/etc.
Well, let me tell you this (facepalm as you like to type countless times): you are wrong in many aspects and everybody here already got your game. Saturation, brute-force, confusing people with inaccurate technical terms and statements, swapping your own contradictions and fails towards other people. This is what I call some kind of cheap reverse psychology. And yet, you convinced no one whatsoever. What this means is that by all means, you have no solid data and facts about what you're saying, otherwise I know that people would recognize your knowledge and would recognize their faults/mistakes, which was not the case. So yes, lock yourself in your shelf, live your own self believed truth and be happy with it! Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: OgNasty on January 17, 2022, 10:47:04 PM For me at least, the Lightning Network does not contain the properties that to me make Bitcoin special. I don't think it can even be debated whether LN is Bitcoin or not. It isn't. Lightning is Bitcoin like WBTC is Bitcoin. There's little difference in my opinion. Going a step further, I think the LN is just a fancy IOU with some code behind it.
I'm happy if people want to stack sats and transact on the Lightning Network. More power to them. Who knows, maybe LN will never have any issues and turn out to be the main global payment system. I find that unlikely given it's shortcomings, but I think it would probably make a good NFT platform. Even in El Salvador, I'm told that transacting in USDT over the Tron network is the preferred method of transfer for various reasons I won't go into because promoting shit scam networks and stablecoins ain't my thing. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 17, 2022, 10:53:47 PM i have no issues if people want to use sidechange, custodial wallets or LN
they should just, if they want to act like advertisers for those niche services. actually explain why and how its different from bitcoin. (which could actually create positive PR for the niche service). and give an honest view of the risks so users are risk aware and know of the pitfalls and issues. the attempts to say it is bitcoin it does what bitcoin does but better. and trying hard to put bitcoin down by tempting people over to these niche services like its the utopian solution. well thats bad PR even with these 160posts in this topic. the amount of contradictions played by a certain group, doing every game in the book to try getting people to not highlight the differences, issues, flaws. is just callous actions by that group which is why i lost respect for them. and dont sympathise for them when they play victim AFTER their own callous acts if they actually wanted a good niche service, they would actually be proud to look for flaws and learn the differences and try to get it to work. rather then trying to shut up people that are highlighting the bugs and differences. those working on bitcoin from 2009-2015 actually inspired desire to point out flaws/bugs. to fix them in bitcoins now it seems they want to highlight issues to push people into different altnets and services. those working on LN want to shut up anyone highlighting bugs/flaws/issues with LN, trying to push people into using a less secure network as for those thinking i jump across many subjects in this topic. well when there are more then a couple different people asking me different questions. all asking me for answers. crying when i dont answer them, then yes my answers will be on different subjects.. but each answer is on the subject the person wants EG doomad wants mainly consensus talk but mostly social drama darkvortex wants social drama/emotion rath wants LN talk but some social drama, and to play contradiction mind games darkhatcoiner, picks and chooses. but mostly social drama so yes in the last 2 pages i have jumped from talking about LN to then answer doomads consensus stuff because he cries that i ignore him. then rath wants LN answers because he cries that i ignore him.(its like tennis, and im the ball in their game) yea its one of their games. and it bores me especially when "switzerland" has not tried setting the topic of the day or mediated on the cross talk, to try to get to the crux of a certain topic, one at a time like he wanted heck i tried to get a summarised view on a certain subject but even that was too much to ask for the main few of the group. yes LoyceV gave a respectful try at answering the questions. the others, well they just game played to play contradiction/grammar games. it got boring. and all i could see was their narrative games of just playing tennis with each other, thinking i was the ball. i dont care for these games. it solves nothing. so im going to let them go play with each other in their own little worlds. night! Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: darkv0rt3x on January 17, 2022, 11:43:24 PM i have no issues if people want to use sidechange, custodial wallets or LN they should just, if they want to act like advertisers for those niche services. actually explain why and how its different from bitcoin. (which could actually create positive PR for the niche service). and give an honest view of the risks so users are risk aware and know of the pitfalls and issues. You're so oblivious that you can't even see what you say is false. There is no advertising. No one is being paid to advertise, therefore, there is no such advertisment. But you insist in that non-sense! the attempts to say it is bitcoin it does what bitcoin does but better. and trying hard to put bitcoin down by tempting people over to these niche services like its the utopian solution. well thats bad PR That's what you say. But it hasn't to be true just because you said it. Your words don't hold the absolute truth just because you spit them out! You're being egocentric all the way. You say false things about what we say. No one is putting down Bitcoin when we say that LN is good and solves some problems within the Bitcoin network. That's just you making up words/statements as it fits you. even with these 160posts in this topic. the amount of contradictions played by a certain group, doing every game in the book to try getting people to not highlight the differences, issues, flaws. is just callous actions by that group which is why i lost respect for them. and dont sympathise for them when they play victim AFTER their own callous acts You have been caught in contradictions yourself over and over but yet, you can only see supposed contradictions in other people. Typical of someone like you. You talk about a group that you invented. There is no group. You're the only one making up groups out of the blue! You have respect by anyone else but yourself. That's it! Egocentric again! if they actually wanted a good niche service, they would actually be proud to look for flaws and learn the differences and try to get it to work. rather then trying to shut up people that are highlighting the bugs and differences. those working on bitcoin from 2009-2015 actually inspired desire to point out flaws/bugs. to fix them in bitcoins now it seems they want to highlight issues to push people into different altnets and services. those working on LN want to shut up anyone highlighting bugs/flaws/issues with LN, trying to push people into using a less secure network You even contradict the reality. LN implementations are open source. Anyone is free to make PRs to fix bugs, add functionalities, etc but you say that people working on LN are not proud of what they do when they fix bugs and add functionalities and let the code open for everyone to engage. How many PRs have you committed? How many functionalities have you added to the LN over the years? Yet you're moaning all over the place about the flaws, about the bugs, issues, bla bla bla bla... That's what you're good at. Criticizing and bringing other people down by trying to brute-force all your non-sense and insults and whatever! as for those thinking i jump across many subjects in this topic. well when there are more then a couple different people asking me different questions. all asking me for answers. crying when i dont answer them, then yes my answers will be on different subjects.. but each answer is on the subject the person wants EG doomad wants mainly consensus talk but mostly social drama darkvortex wants social drama/emotion rath wants LN talk but some social drama, and to play contradiction mind games darkhatcoiner, picks and chooses. but mostly social drama so yes in the last 2 pages i have jumped from talking about LN to then answer doomads consensus stuff because he cries that i ignore him. then rath wants LN answers because he cries that i ignore him.(its like tennis, and im the ball in their game) yea its one of their games. and it bores me especially when "switzerland" has not tried setting the topic of the day or mediated on the cross talk, to try to get to the crux of a certain topic, one at a time like he wanted Yet, you're the one with all these crying. But you can only see the crying in other's eyes... Typical once again. Egocentric behaviour. You have done so many social drama as everyone else. You just can't admit it. Typical of you. Egocentric. It's all about the wrong in other's, never in yourself! Egocentric! heck i tried to get a summarised view on a certain subject but even that was too much to ask for the main few of the group. yes LoyceV gave a respectful try at answering the questions. the others, well they just game played to play contradiction/grammar games. We all gave you a bit of your own game! That's what you get! The buzzwords, the social drama, even the technical part was given to you... All you tried, was given back, still you fail to recognize it! Self-denial... it got boring. and all i could see was their narrative games of just playing tennis with each other, thinking i was the ball. i dont care for these games. it solves nothing. so im going to let them go play with each other in their own little worlds. night! So, you got beaten at your own game. F..... FINALLY! lol. Get some sleep! Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 18, 2022, 12:40:08 AM in response to darkvortex's social drama post of no substance
(yawn) not beaten but just seeing your losing your game, where its the same game, just different day. so its boring, so i have better things to do then entertain you lot with your games and so i realised more and more with each day that life is too short to care about cheaters playing games, acting cultish. i have no sympathy for those types of people. it has been a good laugh watching a group of people trying to play victim as if they want or pretend to deserve respect and sympathy..even after they themselves have been the instigators of their own injured emotions. but anyways, its starting to sound a bit cultish now. wanting to convert people over to their cause and insulting anyone that does not join their altnet. arguing with anyone that shows the flaws of their utopian religious place of worship. sorry but im not interesting in joining the cult. its not the promised land, its not the utopia you lot present it as. but you did give it a nice try pretending bitcoin is at it end of days as a currency. you gave it a good try, trying to make it appear bitcoin is useless for daily use. and you gave it a good try pretending that LN is the next blissful life of promise, beyond bitcoins death. your group is not the first that tried to insinuate that bitcoin cant cope, survive, grow. your not the first to try cutting the legs off bitcoin to stop it moving forward. so, goodluck with whatever new hobby you try next. just dont try to waste 5 years trying to turn your hobby into a cult for your own personal enrichments of getting people to join your commune nice try, but you failed. have fun in your group. but try to play with each other next time instead of against others that you see as the opposition there is only one thing you have all got right, i dont need friends or loyalty to back up my opinions. i just have to quote the data. even if you dont want to read it.. others can, others do Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 18, 2022, 01:31:18 AM and in summary. https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/04-onion-routing.md#returning-errors Thanks franky1 for finally answering my question. There are two problems with your answer. 1) Notice that the failure_codes are not of the same type as other message types, defined in other BOLTs, as they are not sent directly on the transport layer but are instead wrapped inside return packets. Here's another interesting fragment: The association between the forward and return packets is handled outside of this onion routing protocol, e.g. via association with an HTLC in a payment channel. Let's take a look at HTLCs again then. Code: (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/02-peer-protocol.md#removing-an-htlc-update_fulfill_htlc-update_fail_htlc-and-update_fail_malformed_htlc) type: 131 (update_fail_htlc) So, bolt04 says that failure errors are returned as a part of HTLCs and bolt02 says that those errors are described in bolt04. 2) I looked through all failure messages and I couldn't find any that explicitly states that there is no enough liquidity in the outgoing channel. well a good privacy thing is that nodes dont have to network gossip their fee's and updates to become known on a public map. By default, Lightning channels are public and they advertise themselves through "channel_announcement" and "channel_update". You can use Lightning explorers like amboss.space (https://amboss.space) or 1ml.com (https://1ml.com) to see information extracted from the gossip protocol for each public node. Here's (https://1ml.com/node/0273da0a525390c36857841e208f1d289275c76ebfa7ecfde697c6cbf4f235b4f5/channels) my node. You can see all of my channels, including their fee settings which are necessary to construct the routing path. Private channels are generally not used for payment routing as the invoice would have to include routing hints. Even a lightwallet like Electrum forces their users to wait for the local graph to sync (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5259973.msg54732922#post_point2a) through the gossip protocol if they don't want to be able to connect only to trampoline nodes, which can take care of the path calculation for the user if they are willing to compromise their privacy. You should take a look at at least one paper describing the probing attack on the Lightning Network. Quote from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.00333 LN nodes gossip about channels available for routing and their total capacities. To issue a (multi-hop) payment, the sender creates a route based on its local knowledge of the graph. As local channel balances are not public, payments often fail due to insufficient balance at an intermediary hop. In that case, the payment is attempted along multiple routes until it succeeds. This constitutes a privacy-efficiency tradeoff: hidden balances improve privacy but hinder routing efficiency. You can download the paper and learn how Lightning payments actually work. Another question for you. I would appreciate if you could interpret my node's debug log. I posted my node's debug log some time ago. My node failed to forward an incoming HTLC due to no liquidity ("CHANNEL_ERR_CHANNEL_CAPACITY_EXCEEDED"). You can see messages like: "update_add_htlc", "commitment_signed", "update_fail_htlc". Code: 03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: peer_in WIRE_UPDATE_ADD_HTLC Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on January 18, 2022, 03:06:25 AM //EDIT: I have presented a logically fallacious argument. I accept that I was wrong and withdraw my erroneous assertions above. Admitting one's mistakes is vital for personal growth and gaining a greater understanding of complicated subjects. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: suchmoon on January 18, 2022, 03:26:55 AM This also demonstrates a lack of basic comprehension. If a user is swapping their BTC for a coin on another blockchain, that means the user on the other blockchain is accepting the BTC. It is therefore not possible to have a mass "exit" from BTC if it's 1 out, 1 in. Someone will always be taking the place of the person who left. Come on, you're handing this to franky1 on a platter. There is a buyer for every sale. But that doesn't make it impossible to have more people exiting than coming in, or create price pressure, etc. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 18, 2022, 08:52:16 AM If a user is swapping their BTC for a coin on another blockchain, that means the user on the other blockchain is accepting the BTC. It is therefore not possible to have a mass "exit" from BTC if it's 1 out, 1 in. Someone will always be taking the place of the person who left. i guess doomad never learned anything from 19th century economics of the gold/bank note scenario heres a joke: 2 bitcoiners enter a bar. A has funding locked bitcoin and funding locked litecoin, B has only funding locked bitcoin.. .. 2 men leave a bar, A has 2x confirmed bitcoin, B has litecoin in bitcoin thats called 'thunderdome: 2 may enter, one may leave' in litecoin thats called '1 in 1 out' oh and to pre-empt another social game. even doomads favoured service 'thor' can create channels without needing both partners to fund(have coin) on both sides. so doomad is aware its not a 1 in 1 out and thats the punchline that makes me laugh. doomad knows, but pleads ignorant to set a narrative and to rath_ seems to again forget, to edit/change a htlc in a commitment or update/edit/change/sign a commitment . they need to know what needs changing. he forgets the messages that communicate the information. he also thinks alice or bob or carol know erics htlc right at the start. he also thinks alice or bob or carol know erics is online just from network gossip he also thinks alice or bob or carol know diana is online and liquid to forward just from network gossip he thinks the deal is complete as soon as alice looks at network gossip and signs a commitment with bob to blackhatcoiner below i didnt avoid the consensus stuff, i even stated bips related to how devs changed its parameters. mandate(148/91) before sw active(141) the stuff about anyone free to use any software is not about consensus. its about freedom to use any software. whether its a lite wallet, spv, a altnet, wallet consensus should only change when majority of nodes have an agreed framework to obide by. consensus should not change by pre block rejecting before the new feature activates EG deciding to lite wallet is a freedom but has nothing to do with consensus your free to use this forums software or just write aimlessly on microsoft word.. nothing to do with consensus Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 18, 2022, 01:27:10 PM Lightning is Bitcoin like WBTC is Bitcoin. There's little difference in my opinion. WBTC is backed by Bitcoin. LN-BTC is backed by a cheating discouragement. Both are IOUs, but in the former there's trust involved. Try cheating me on my channel (AKA: Refusing to pay your debt) and I'll prove you how idiotic it is to consider it a promise.doomad wants mainly consensus talk but mostly social drama Yeah, everyone's wrong and evil while you're an honest angel. Misleading, nonsensical, insulting and psycho drama queen. You keep avoiding the consensus questions. It's not favoring you.darkvortex wants social drama/emotion rath wants LN talk but some social drama, and to play contradiction mind games darkhatcoiner, picks and chooses. but mostly social drama Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: darkv0rt3x on January 18, 2022, 02:58:53 PM in response to darkvortex's social drama post of no substance (yawn) not beaten Absolutely beaten by the evidences... But you'll never recognize that! but just seeing your losing your game, where its the same game, just different day. so its boring, so i have better things to do then entertain you lot with your games To me and apparently to everybody else, the losing game is the one you're doing over and over! and so i realised more and more with each day that life is too short to care about cheaters playing games, acting cultish. i have no sympathy for those types of people. Looks like you expect to have sympathy from anyone? lol. I can see the sympathy you're getting. it has been a good laugh watching a group of people trying to play victim as if they want or pretend to deserve respect and sympathy..even after they themselves have been the instigators of their own injured emotions. I certainly laugh at you, because all your attempts to convert people via demagogy, failed. That's a good laugh. but anyways, its starting to sound a bit cultish now. wanting to convert people over to their cause and insulting anyone that does not join their altnet. arguing with anyone that shows the flaws of their utopian religious place of worship. That's been your game. We just started playing it. Convert people to your unproved beliefs and quotes that were not properly backed as others did.sorry but im not interesting in joining the cult. its not the promised land, its not the utopia you lot present it as. but you did give it a nice try pretending bitcoin is at it end of days as a currency. you gave it a good try, trying to make it appear bitcoin is useless for daily use. and you gave it a good try pretending that LN is the next blissful life of promise, beyond bitcoins death. Here is your narrative again. The narrative you want to make everybody believe that was ours, in the first place. But you're the only one mentioning those non-sense of Bitcoin not having use cases and whatever! Don't make up words and scenarios out of the blue and transport them to the rest of the people. That game works with infants, kids! Not with grown people, ffs! your group is not the first that tried to insinuate that bitcoin cant cope, survive, grow. your not the first to try cutting the legs off bitcoin to stop it moving forward. so, goodluck with whatever new hobby you try next. just dont try to waste 5 years trying to turn your hobby into a cult for your own personal enrichments of getting people to join your commune nice try, but you failed. have fun in your group. but try to play with each other next time instead of against others that you see as the opposition Clock is repeating, as expected. You decided to make up a group out of nowhere. And you're trying to brute-force the existence of that group into other's minds. Not gonna work once more! there is only one thing you have all got right, i dont need friends or loyalty to back up my opinions. i just have to quote the data. even if you dont want to read it.. others can, others do HFSP and lonely then. You don't need friends nor loyalty to backup anything. You need proof, you need facts, data, which you were unable to properly provide when you were requested. Done! Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 18, 2022, 03:58:26 PM by now everyone should know(including Doomad) that 148 and 91 were used and both involve mandatory rejecting non-segwit flagging blocks before segwit even activated(141) on 24th august 2017.
so lets recall some messages from a certain person who spent years denying it ever happened, even contradicting himself first lets see him admitting it was used.. right when it happened. Definitely not worth buying the popcorn for, heh. I had a pretty strong feeling that it wouldn't exactly be fireworks, but I thought there might be something happening. So much hype and drama for so little action. Oh well, onto the next big drama, I guess. Nothing has happened yet, apart from BIP148 having locked in. Either you've got your BIP numbers mixed up or you've been listening to the wrong people. BIP91 has been locked in, BIP141 is currently on course to lock in, but isn't there just yet. We have to wait for the 1208 blocks currently remaining in this signalling period to complete the lock in for SegWit. Once that happens, BIP148 will become completely redundant and won't be required. Some might argue that it has already served its purpose in forcing an ultimatum to begin with, though. For those who have been reading the announcements (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2017191.0;topicseen), it should be noted that the first post is based on circumstances that changed not too long after. Initially, there was a chance that BIP148 could result in a split, but this was mostly negated by BIP91. Today was going to be boring from the offset until BitcoinCash reared it's ugly head, but as it turned out, that's pretty boring too, heh. //EDIT: "The Bitcoin network has forked as of block 478559". BitcoinCash splutters into life... just. as you can see. on august 1st 2017 he was happy to admit 148 led to 91 which would in 3 weeks lead to 141(segwit) and admits the split occured on the day everyone said it would due to the actions of the 141 91 stuff heck there are other posts where he also admits that due to the split BCH had to change its magic to actually be an altcoin rather that a reject block orphaner fighting against bitcoin. heck he even mentions how gmaxwell had to plead to BCH to add some changes, heres one: (note the date, ill explain later) Indeed. BCH had to make a few important changes. First and foremost was updating their network magic, so that they would not be following the BTC chain, then they needed the EDA to compensate for the lower-than-anticipated hashrate their chain had. Either way, it takes two to tango. But I'd personally still argue that BCH announced their fork prior to agreeing to change their network magic, which is why Core responded by implementing the code they did. the reason why they had to change the EDA, was because it wasnt its own altcoin, just borrowing blockdata. it was a split based on the 148/91 and so the split of bch begun at the same difficulty as bitcoin (a true altcoin just copying blockdata but wanting to go-it alone without the mandatory cause, would start at a near 0 difficulty(EDA)) and then.. here he is denying things happened. (as you can tell in 2017- april 2019 date shows how he knows it happened in 2017 . and admits it in 2019.. 2 months later, below = contradicting himself) dont feed the troll. yep doomad is trollingIs obvious that he is trolling even he knows that luke JR invented the code for the mandatory split crap MONTHS before bitcoin cash was even a brainfart Back to the point on Luke Jr, though, individual devs can do things that other devs don't support. One person's actions does not necessarily represent the views of an entire dev team. It's not a conspiracy, you flailing fruitloop. All that happened is that someone coded something you don't like and now you apparently have to spend the rest of your life bitching about it on the internet, because that's what butthurt sadcases do. You are the only person who still cares about this "mandatory" code that wasn't mandatory in the slightest because not enough people were running it. and for years after he was saying "it never happened", "there is no mandatory", "bips didnt activate until after 24th aug 2017", "there was no split".. just so he can be a social drama queen showing off loyalty to some core devs there are many many more posts where he says there was no split (although the world can see BCH exists), yea i removed some insults from his post but they were just his usual boring ramblings. but as you can tell he is the one thats being uncivilised and contradictory. which then prompts me after years, to bite back. again i dont feel sympathy for him playing the victim card now, because he was the instigator by doing his contradiction games just to play debater and cause reason for him to act uncivilised as part of his game. but hey. ill give it a month and he will again forget about 148/91 before 141 and instead go back to insisting 141 activated without any mandatory bips. just so he can cause social drama for his new friends to hug him. (not his first time with that tactic(forgetting he got debunked when he pretends nothing happened, forgetting his own admissions of what did happen)) yea all boring social drama. his latest point of wanting to ask about devs can write any code. is to narrate that no one should/can stop core. (something he is passionate about not wanting people to stop core from being the authority) he then tangents to pretend that core cant mandate (due to lapse in his memory of events(the contradiction)). but when circling back to the facts and not his narrative. they did mandate and they got segwit activated without miners or users needing to upgrade software to actually use segwit. because all they had to do was edit a couple bits in a block to signal something without needing to upgrade software.. "due to backward compatibility". pools were threatened to change bits because the 'limited' user that did use 148UASF were the main NYA agreement group that included some pools, merchant tools, payment services and exchanges. meaning they were the economic majority nodes of importance. .. which is why the threat worked. and on august 1st the rejected blocks caused the fork resulting in BCH, which core devs demanded they either stop, or change their 'magic' to not disrupt bitcoin so any time you see a consensus upgrade described as "backward compatible", it means that it does not require majority to upgrade the software. because bip148, 91, 141 did not need general users to upgrade software to cause activations of segwit. it worked by the threats of the economic nodes(exchanges/payment gateways) Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on January 18, 2022, 04:27:11 PM by now everyone should know(including Doomad) that 148 and 91 were used and both involve mandatory rejecting non-segwit blocks before segwit activated on 24th august 2017. I see, so you're blurring the lines between the date when the required activation threshold was reached and the lock-in date and attempting to make some sort of moral case about what miners "can" or "cannot" do during that period? This should be interesting. Please continue. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 18, 2022, 04:28:27 PM by now everyone should know(including Doomad) that 148 and 91 were used and both involve mandatory rejecting non-segwit blocks before segwit activated on 24th august 2017. I see, so you're blurring the lines between the date when the required activation threshold was reached and the lock-in date and attempting to make some sort of moral case about what miners "can" or "cannot" do during that period? This should be interesting. Please continue. i know memory escapes you. but if your unsure about the bips. go read them. your rhetoric for years was that there was no mandatory split. and that the only time there would be a split is if people run incompatible software when segwit activates and starts making segwit template format blocks. (after aug24th) yet the bips 148 and 91, and BCH split prove that a fork happened on august 1st (the dates of the bips) not based on segwit activation data and segwit actually being used. i know you now want to play games pretending you mis understood 'threshold, vs 'activation' to pretend, in previous yours you meant that segwit started making different block formats on august 1st. but you are just playing bad grammar games trying to claw yourself out of the hole you dug yourself there was no segwit(141) code or detail in bips to start making blocks of segwit template format, or include segwit transactions on august 1st.. the split was due to 148/91... not 141 Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: LoyceV on January 18, 2022, 05:28:43 PM especially when "switzerland" has not tried setting the topic of the day or mediated on the cross talk, to try to get to the crux of a certain topic, one at a time like he wanted I've been to busy to keep up, and unfortunately this topic requires more time than I can spend at the moment.Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on January 18, 2022, 07:22:52 PM and BCH split prove that a fork happened on august 1st (the dates of the bips) not based on segwit activation data and segwit actually being used. Forkcoins like BCH and others are a prime example of how a BIP is not a necessity for a fork to occur. Sometimes a simple announcement on a blog or other website is sufficient. That's how BCH came to exist. They probably had their own equivalent of a BIP in their own code repository, though. My recollection of the 2017 timeline is: February 25th, 2017: Shaolinfry proposes the "user activated soft fork" BIP148 approach Some time in June, 2017 (I forget the exact date): BCH devs announced their intention to fork on August 1st, 2017 regardless of whether SegWit had activated or not. Mid-to-late July, 2017 (I forget the exact date): SegWit reached the required activation threshold (BIP91 bit 4 flag) and superseded BIP148's August 1st deadline August 1st, 2017: BCH forked off exactly as they said they were going to. August 24th, 2017: SegWit successfully locked in. If anyone can pin these dates down a little more accurately, feel free to chip in. I feel it's important there's as little ambiguity as possible here. Given everything you've said, it occurs to me that your overarching concern might possibly be similar to the one raised in this (remarkably prescient for its time) post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1805060.msg18118337#msg18118337) from 2017? But correct me if I'm wrong: Alright, I've been giving this a ton of thought and and both for and against UASF. No offense meant to the OP, but it absolutely is dogshit, conceptually. Devs on this thread could instantly see that. It took me -slightly- longer. The worst part, I'm convinced, is what the BU community can do in response. Since UASF tells everyone to pick a side by X date or be left behind in a hostile manner, the BU team has NOTHING TO LOSE by Hard forking on that date. It would be extremely dumb of them not to. So basically, UASF forces a hard fork (...) [//EDIT: Above quote pruned for relevancy] This sounds vaguely similar to the argument you've been making all these years. Is that the general point you're trying to hammer home? Or are you saying something else entirely? unfortunately this topic requires more time than I can spend at the moment. When you do have more time, do you think the three posts you reserved at the start of the topic for summaries will be sufficient? :D Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 18, 2022, 09:28:30 PM When you do have more time, do you think the three posts you reserved at the start of the topic for summaries will be sufficient? I think it's possible to sum it up in only one sentence. :) Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 18, 2022, 10:58:36 PM segwit(141,144) didnt activate on august 1st. the mandatory threats did (148/91)
in normal consensus, incompatible nodes only fork off when they are receiving a new format they do not understand (block containing a new merkle tree for instance). https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#specification what you learn is the 'backward compatible' is not that a segwit blocktemplate is the same as a normal legacy block. its that segwit upgraded nodes understand a segwit formatted block, and then strip it down and rebuild the blocktemplate without the segwit parts so that its formatted like a legacy block, for non-upgraded nodes. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0144.mediawiki#serialization whereby the trick of the 'anyonecanspend' rule is to just not evaluate or look for a signature(witness) of such transaction (because they got stripped out anyways), but treat as accepted even without a signature being validated, verified or stored by old nodes https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#backward-compatibility this meant that those collating/creating/propagating segwit blocks would not cause a fork after the 24th(141/144). but just cause non upgraded nodes to not be full validation full archive nodes. by being given stripped(serialised) version which has been a debate about the security hole of then the non-upgrading nodes now no longer treated as full validation and archival nodes, because they are missing crucial data and they are not truly validating all transactions. .. but before segwit even activated, before segwit nodes and pools even done anything with segwit block templates(141/144). there was a split(148/91). this was not due to normal consensus events of old nodes not understanding a new block structure(141/144) and rejecting(because segwit wasnt activated to even allow making new blocktemplates).. but instead the split was due to the 148/91 stuff of mandatory rejection from the side of those wanting segwit to activate by rejecting old blocks that didnt flag for 148/91, BEFORE segwit activated .. pools still making blocks without the flag (on august 1st only 1-2%) were getting their blocks rejected, but old nodes still accepted them. causing the split 59 blocks after the 148/91 activation/lockin. because it took hours for nonflag-poolers to get a block confirm, now different nodes were seeing two chains of blockheights containing differing blocks. UASF(148) nodes with their peers who didnt propagate unflagged blocks. (the NYA economic majority)->users nodes with their peers who received old blocks(non flaggers)->users. the bitcoin network followed the chain of the exchanges, payment gateways and prominent pools (NYA economic nodes), because the users and pools feared not getting their transactions seen by exchanges, meaning they couldnt spend their value. those who were on segwit flagging chain, during the grace period before segwit activated, didnt like the split, didnt like the orphan drama and the cross transmissibility of nodes. so they asked those accepting the old blocks to change stuff to become a independent altcoin. (as highlighted in previous posts, which showed doomad knew about this) .. segwit did not actually make any segwit blocktempates with the witness until after august 24th. meaning in a true consensus unupgraded nodes in a true new consensus (without backward compatibility strippping trick) would have forked on the 24th because they cant full validate and archive segwit blocktemplates. i think maybe this is why after 2017 Doomad got told segwit didnt fork(aug 24th). which he misinterpreted or lead to his contradictions by saying in later years 'it didnt happen'.. but totally ignoring the mandatory fork(using flags, not blocktemplates) before segwit activation(aug 1st), which caused the later activation(aug 24th), by simply rejecting block flags not flagging for a segwit activation. to get a segwit flag of over 95% before august 2nd again by using a few tricks. bips148/91 forced the condition to start 141's 3 week 'grace period' to get segwit activated. in summary and answering doomads consensus questions yea the NYA agreement team (UASF) did run their software even though they were a minority. and no one could stop them (you admit they were a minority of general nodes) but because they were also the economic majority(nodes used by payment services and some pools), other pools listened and followed their lead under threat of not having their transactions seen by the economic majority nodes(payment/exchange services). this is why average user nodes(not exchanges/ merchant tools) had no vote, and were pandered just flagged blocks or thrown off the network for accepting unflagged blocks(orphan drama of 2 chains).. depending on what blocks got propagated to them via whatever peer they were linked to. which all occured because of a mandatory action before segwit even made its first segwit block template including segwit transactions Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 19, 2022, 12:31:32 AM and to rath_ seems to again forget, to edit/change a htlc in a commitment or update/edit/change/sign a commitment . they need to know what needs changing. he forgets the messages that communicate the information. he also thinks alice or bob or carol know erics htlc right at the start. he also thinks alice or bob or carol know erics is online just from network gossip he also thinks alice or bob or carol know diana is online and liquid to forward just from network gossip he thinks the deal is complete as soon as alice looks at network gossip and signs a commitment with bob I see that you have completely ignored my answers and remarks to your statements, again. Never mind. You seem to forget that "update_add_htlc", which forces commitment update, always includes "onion_routing_packet" which contains routing instructions. That's how both peers know how to update the channel. Actually, you can tell if Eric is online from the network gossip. Either of the peers can disable their side of the channel through "channel_update" and that's what all implementations do if their peer goes offline. Disabled channels are ignored during payment path construction. Carol doesn't need to know if Eric is online as she interacts only with Bob and Diana. If Carol or any other hop beside Alice knew that Eric is the final destination, it would be a huge privacy concern. I have never said that the gossip protocol (bolt07) is used to reply whether or not there is enough liquidity in the channel to forward the payment. You keep saying that you need to send bolt04 payloads in a bolt01 format, but I have already proved you in my previous post that bolt04 error messages need to be associated with HTLCs from bolt02. The association between the forward and return packets is handled outside of this onion routing protocol, e.g. via association with an HTLC in a payment channel. The only HTLC related messages that can return bolt04 errors are "update_fail_malformed_htlc" and "update_fail_htlc". Your peer cannot send them unless there is an HTLC commited to the channel ("update_add_htlc" + "commitment_signed" + revocation keys exchange). Here's your view (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380215.msg59009229#msg59009229) as far as I understand: 1) Alice constructs a path based on the information from her map. If she doesn't have some information about specific node, she requests it through the gossip protocol. 2) Alice sends just "onion_routing_packet" in a bolt01 format to learn if all nodes in the route have enough liquidity. 3) Each node in the path forwards that packet in the same way 4) Once the packet reaches Eric, he replies whether or not he can accept the payment. 5) All hops reply to their partners in the backwards order. 6) [Here should be the commitment part, but I have no idea how you want to handle it with a different secret for each hop and trustlessly without HTLC outputs in the commitment transaction] My comments: I have already shared most of my concerns before. I still don't know what message each node would use to say "I can forward your payment". I also didn't mention HTLC outputs here as you clearly ignore that they exist or say that they could be claimed with just payment secret, which is not true (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380215.msg58991379#msg58991379). Without them, if Eric claims the payment in his channel with Diana and Carol disappears, Diana can't claim the coins she was promised as the promise was not enforceable in any way. Here's my current understanding of how the system works: 0) Lightning nodes constantly use the gossip protocol (bolt07) to forward/receive "node_announcement", "channel_announcement", "channel_update" messages and maintain a local view of the whole network. 1) Alice receives a payment invoice from Eric which includes information like: Eric node's public key, payment hash, amount, expiry (date) and cltv expiry. 2) Alice constructs a path to Eric using her local map of the network. She tries to find the cheapest and the shortest route. The longer the route, the higher the risk that funds will get stuck during routing. 2a) She prepares "onion_routing_packet" which includes encrypted routing information for each hop. 3) Alice sends "update_add_htlc" message to Bob, which includes the "onion_routing_packet" (which is the same for all peers), the amount, the payment hash and cltv expiry. 4) Alice and Bob sign a new commitment transaction with an HTLC output. 5) Bob sends "update_add_htlc" to Carol with the same "onion_routing_packet". 6) Carol and Diana, Diana and Eric do the same. 7) Eric sends "update_fullfil_htlc" message to Diana, which includes the payment secret. 8) Eric and Diana remove the HTLC output and update balances by signing a new commitment transaction. 9) Diana sends "update_fullfil_htlc" to Carol with the same payment secret and they update the commitment transaction. 10) Carol and Bob, Bob and Alice do the same. Comments: 3) The amount Alice sends is actually bigger than the one in the invoice as she must account for the fees. Each hop forwards the HTLC with a smaller amount and keeps the difference. If some hop tries to claim higher fees than Alice expected, the next node in the route will fail the payment as the routing instructions say how much one's node is supposed to forward. If Bob doesn't have enough coins to forward the payment on his side of the channel with Carol, he must send "update_fail_htlc" message and Alice needs to try sending the payment through another route. All channels use the same payment hash. It is safe because HTLC outputs require both the payment secret and HTLC signatures, which can be produced only by channel partners, to be spent. See this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380215.msg58991379#msg58991379) for explanation. I can back up my statements by showing you my node's logs and quoting research papers and other resources, but you will totally ignore them as always. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 19, 2022, 12:54:56 AM You seem to forget that "update_add_htlc", which forces commitment update, always includes "onion_routing_packet" which contains routing instructions. That's how both peers know how to update the channel. and multiple times i have been saying you cant update a HTLC until you know the amounts, and details to put into a HTLC alice is not psychic. i know you want to play the whole 'everyone is seen online, there is no privacy, all the data is found when people start their node/app.. because gossip network map' but this is not the case. you say that the transparent network map is on by default and requires an opt out to become private. but its actually the opposite. its an opt-in process of being private first and deciding to go public https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/07-routing-gossip.md#the-announcement_signatures-message Quote The announcement_signatures Message This is a direct message between the two endpoints of a channel and serves as an opt-in mechanism to allow the announcement of the channel to the rest of the network. in short, nodes dont announce, and can reject requests and not announce, unless they choose to go public. nodes are not forced to announce and then choose to go private even while private they can still be routes to only the channels they want to accept EG if i was C in ABCDE i can keep my BC side private. thus A wont know about me or my channels with CD through network map. because i wont send an announcement to B of my D channels but set my CD as public and so E can see me on the network map. because i am announcing to D my channels E could use network gossip to build a route to A but if A wanted to build a route to E. A would need to do channel requests to B to see that B is actually connected to C.. (and then i can choose(opt-in) to temporarily tell A about D (SEPARATE from the network map) this if you learned it could actually become a positive privacy feature.. allowing payments to be made without having to be public. but as always you want to deny it happens because it doesnt fit your narrative.('everything done in htlc') .. which is starting to seem like your not actually interested in promoting LN for its positive features for the niche service it offers. but just want to cause debate and misinformation to fit a narrative where you thought that everything was done via commitment changes and only done by commitment changes(facepalm) so please. try to learn about the messages. the HUNDREDS of different messages that happen before a HTLC is even changed. because you cant change a HTLC unless you first know the data to put into the change. here i will give an example.. of when actually routing (not rath_s psychic make a route without talking to peers on route) https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/07-routing-gossip.md#routing-example as you can see they need to receive and see and then change the CLTV. aswell as update channel with some other details at the route stage(fees total, amountsat, cltvexpory ). where the can also reject such request.. before they can even make a HTLC to input the data(if they accept) update_add_htlc is node a inside your node trigger to just add a htlc. its actually a message from a peer of data Quote Thus, A->B's update_add_htlc message would be: amount_msat: 5010198 cltv_expiry: current-block-height + 20 + 9 + 42 onion_routing_packet: amt_to_forward = 4999999 outgoing_cltv_value = current-block-height + 9 + 42 ill emphasise this. and make it bold and colourful. maybe then take some time and think about these words: you cannot change a HTLC unless you know the data that needs to be put in it, to change change it so now are you ready to look at all the messages (not just the limited ones you want) that all involve how to get the data Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: n0nce on January 19, 2022, 02:27:19 AM Damn,
Here's my current understanding of how the system works: This all looks correct to me. The various peers on the route are basically waiting for Diana to 'open' the secret to then update their balances. It's not very complicated, to be honest. Just a network of payment channels, where e.g. A sends amount x to B in a shared channel, then B sends x (minus fee) to C in a channel BC, all the way to the destination.0) Lightning nodes constantly use the gossip protocol (bolt07) to forward/receive "node_announcement", "channel_announcement", "channel_update" messages and maintain a local view of the whole network. 1) Alice receives a payment invoice from Eric which includes information like: Eric node's public key, payment hash, amount, expiry (date) and cltv expiry. 2) Alice constructs a path to Eric using her local map of the network. She tries to find the cheapest and the shortest route. The longer the route, the higher the risk that funds will get stuck during routing. 2a) She prepares "onion_routing_packet" which includes encrypted routing information for each hop. 3) Alice sends "update_add_htlc" message to Bob, which includes the "onion_routing_packet" (which is the same for all peers), the amount, the payment hash and cltv expiry. 4) Alice and Bob sign a new commitment transaction with an HTLC output. 5) Bob sends "update_add_htlc" to Carol with the same "onion_routing_packet". 6) Carol and Diana, Diana and Eric do the same. 7) Eric sends "update_fullfil_htlc" message to Diana, which includes the payment secret. 8) Eric and Diana remove the HTLC output and update balances by signing a new commitment transaction. 9) Diana sends "update_fullfil_htlc" to Carol with the same payment secret and they update the commitment transaction. 10) Carol and Bob, Bob and Alice do the same. Comments: 3) The amount Alice sends is actually bigger than the one in the invoice as she must account for the fees. Each hop forwards the HTLC with a smaller amount and keeps the difference. If some hop tries to claim higher fees than Alice expected, the next node in the route will fail the payment as the routing instructions say how much one's node is supposed to forward. If Bob doesn't have enough coins to forward the payment on his side of the channel with Carol, he must send "update_fail_htlc" message and Alice needs to try sending the payment through another route. All channels use the same payment hash. It is safe because HTLC outputs require both the payment secret and HTLC signatures, which can be produced only by channel partners, to be spent. See this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380215.msg58991379#msg58991379) for explanation. I can back up my statements by showing you my node's logs and quoting research papers and other resources, but you will totally ignore them as always. Unfortunately, it seems like a pattern with franky1.For me at least, the Lightning Network does not contain the properties that to me make Bitcoin special. I don't think it can even be debated whether LN is Bitcoin or not. It isn't. Lightning is Bitcoin like WBTC is Bitcoin. That's fortunately completely wrong. Lightning is simply a network of 'channels' which are just people sending real Bitcoin transactions back and forth, but simply not publishing them on the blockchain. They can however do that at any time, which gives it the 'realness' and full security of Bitcoin. The only risk is a person publishing an old 'state' (old transaction where e.g. they owed you less than in the latest state), so your node needs to be online pretty much all the time to keep an eye on it and in case of fraud attempt, publish the 'latest state' transaction. There is a time lock though on all these exchanged transactions, so you got time to do so.So yeah it's simply normal Bitcoin, just without submitting the transactions to the blockchain all the time. Meanwhile, WBTC is just an Ethereum token. That's a whole other thing. I can't just take a 'WBTC transaction' or utxo or whatever and publish it on the Bitcoin blockchain to get my coins confirmed (mined) forever within 10 minutes and see them immediately in my normal Bitcoin wallet. There's little difference in my opinion. Going a step further, I think the LN is just a fancy IOU with some code behind it. It's IOU indeed, but can be 'claimed' at any time since it's again, just an unpublished transaction. Publish it, pay the mining fee and you got the money. Just like that. You're constantly holding signed transactions from the person 'owing you' with the full amount owed.I'm happy if people want to stack sats and transact on the Lightning Network. More power to them. Who knows, maybe LN will never have any issues and turn out to be the main global payment system. I find that unlikely given it's shortcomings, but I think it would probably make a good NFT platform. Well one thing's for certain: in Bitcoin v22.0, without second layer, right now, it cannot become the main global payment system. The throughput is just too small. With Lightning, it would be possible. Today. We shall see which scaling method will prevail, but so far LN's the best we got.Even in El Salvador, I'm told that transacting in USDT over the Tron network is the preferred method of transfer for various reasons I won't go into because promoting shit scam networks and stablecoins ain't my thing. That's an interesting anecdote, but probably due to people still not used to Bitcoin's volatility. When they use Tron, not only do they see the 'USD' symbol they're used to (official currency until last year) but also it doesn't change in USD-denominated value which gives them a sense of security. Of course, the purchasing power goes down the drain over time but yeah the number stays the same, I guess. What I'm trying to say: they're not not using Lightning, because they believe that Lightning is not Bitcoin or anything like that; I doubt that many people are so deep into the topic to actually think or discuss about this.Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 19, 2022, 02:56:30 AM rath's narrative was that LN payments were done not by messages of Msat data but by actually editing outputs in a blockchain format transaction template and signing them. and then sending thoses signed transactions to the peeres to sign and complete the payment.
.. his more recent and changed view now atleast admits there are messages. and those messages have things in them but he still misses some things Quote 0) Lightning nodes constantly use the gossip protocol (bolt07) to forward/receive "node_announcement", "channel_announcement", "channel_update" messages and maintain a local view of the whole network. 1) Alice receives a payment invoice from Eric which includes information like: Eric node's public key, payment hash, amount, expiry (date) and cltv expiry. 2) Alice constructs a path to Eric using her local map of the network. She tries to find the cheapest and the shortest route. The longer the route, the higher the risk that funds will get stuck during routing. 2a) She prepares "onion_routing_packet" which includes encrypted routing information for each hop. 3) Alice sends "update_add_htlc" message to Bob, which includes the "onion_routing_packet" (which is the same for all peers), the amount, the payment hash and cltv expiry. 4) Alice and Bob sign a new commitment transaction with an HTLC output. 5) Bob sends "update_add_htlc" to Carol with the same "onion_routing_packet". 6) Carol and Diana, Diana and Eric do the same. 7) Eric sends "update_fullfil_htlc" message to Diana, which includes the payment secret. Cool Eric and Diana remove the HTLC output and update balances by signing a new commitment transaction. 9) Diana sends "update_fullfil_htlc" to Carol with the same payment secret and they update the commitment transaction. 10) Carol and Bob, Bob and Alice do the same. in (2) he thinks that alice constructs a path just from network gossip. and tries the cheapest route to bob, and then (3) signs a commitment to bob.. but here is the thing. again using the example (its only a 1 hop instead of 3 hop to avoid lengthy example) https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/07-routing-gossip.md#routing-example alice wants to pay Carol 499999 based on carols details Quote amount_msat: 4999999 cltv_expiry: current-block-height + 9 onion_routing_packet: amt_to_forward = 4999999 outgoing_cltv_value = current-block-height + 9 but if alice paid bob to pay carol. bob would not get a fee. and also bob has his own defauly CLTV of 9 meaning carols cant begin because bobs has the 9 so instead alice has to request some update messages where by bob and carol talk. and alice gets an update of Quote amount_msat: 5010198 as you can see the fee and calculated amount_msat and the cltv have changed based on the numbers that need to change to fulfill the route..cltv_expiry: current-block-height + 20 + 9 + 42 onion_routing_packet: amt_to_forward = 4999999 outgoing_cltv_value = current-block-height + 9 + 42 this is only done via alice talking to bob talking to carol and carol talking back to bob who talks back to alice. this is not all just found at the network map on initial opening of an app. it is only then that alice knows it will cost her 5010198msat to pay carol 4999999 by which alice can try to see the amount of other routes.. and then choose the route to actually take. and then on taking the actual route then comit to the channel of that route direction again for emphasis. because network map does not hold all info. such as CLTV amount_msat of active available balance, nor any other personal parameters like adding a bit of shade to each CLTV. making each one unique. you cant just create a route in A using just A network map and just commit to bob. for an amount A guessed based solely on the network map there are reasons why onion messages are a thing. and its not to transmit signed commitments.. seems rath_ has now managed to get n0nce mixed up. one more time for clarity LN is not a network of relaying signed transactions like the bitcoin network it is instead where peers relay messages of little pieces of information that nodes gather up. to eventually put info into a blockchain format transaction template LOCALLY. and then sign their copy. if all goes perfectly the other per should have also gathered its info similarly to build its own blockchain format transaction template LOCALLY. for it to sign. and then they both swap signatures. once verified the signatures respond to their local builds it shows they both successfully commited. again (to save me having to make another post to say the same thing. ill say it again here) its not like tx bitcoin relay of signed transactions in full tx data in a blockchain acceptable format. its instead lots of different messages relayed, in msat value..(and other info) that is then locally built and converted into a blockchain acceptable format locally. and locally signed and then just sending the signature to peer as a message. which should match both sides build to verify they both comply to the same terms. once rath and others realise LN does not relay blockchain formatted transactions as payment, but instead lots of small different messages of things measured in msat. he will realise the differences between LN and bitcoin Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 19, 2022, 07:49:40 AM Franky, you're trying to convince us that Rath is wrong, but due to your awful writing character, you're constantly failing. How about posting how you think the current system works? Just like Rath did.
rath's narrative was that LN payments were done not by messages of Msat data but by actually editing outputs in a blockchain format transaction template and signing them. and then sending thoses signed transactions to the peeres to sign and complete the payment. How do you explain the force-close channel option then? Once I make a Lightning transaction, both of our nodes update and add the HTLC, I send the commitment_signed and the other node revokes and acknowledges. I wish I had more free time to get involved into the discussion. Again, tell us the way you think the system works, but do it summarily.Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 19, 2022, 10:07:30 AM i can keep my BC side private. thus A wont know about me or my channels with CD through network map. because i wont send an announcement to B of my D channels but set my CD as public and so E can see me on the network map. because i am announcing to D my channels E could use network gossip to build a route to A but if A wanted to build a route to E. A would need to do channel requests to B to see that B is actually connected to C.. (and then i can choose(opt-in) to temporarily tell A about D (SEPARATE from the network map) What you are describing is a really edge case scenario as most payment are probably routed through public channels. The only effective way to achieve that would be to include routing hints in the payment invoice, but that would require the cooperation of the sender. Usually, senders include only private channels that are directly connected to them. You also mixed up a few things. If the BC side is private it doesn't mean that CD is private and that Alice doesn't know anything it. The CD channel is public. The gossip is advertised not only to people who you have a direct channel with, but also to other Lightning nodes that randomly connect to your node. Alice must have learnt about that channel at some point from her other peers. If the BC channel suddenly goes public, the gossip will eventually reach every single node in the network. There would be no need for Alice to ask B for any details. However, If the BC channel was private all the time: You can't ask B to temporarily tell you about C. You can't assume that B will have any way of forwarding your payment. In fact, Eric doesn't know it as well. What would be the point of having a private channel if literally anyone could send a gossip message to your peer to reveal the existence of your channel? You would waste a ton of bandwidth and time trying to guess which node might have a private channel that could be used in your route. If the channel between Diana and Eric was private, Eric could tell you about it through the payment invoice. you say that the transparent network map is on by default and requires an opt out to become private. but its actually the opposite. its an opt-in process of being private first and deciding to go public Yes, it is default for LND, c-lightning and Eclair nodes which make up the vast majority of the network. All of them open public channels by default. and multiple times i have been saying you cant update a HTLC until you know the amounts, and details to put into a HTLC alice is not psychic. you cannot change a HTLC unless you know the data that needs to be put in it, to change change it It seems that your main argument now is that you can use private channels. Here's what routing hints look like in invoices: Code: (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/f6c4d7604150986894bcb46d67c5c88680740b12/11-payment-encoding.md) r (3): data_length variable. One or more entries containing extra routing information for a private route; there may be more than one So, if DE channel was private, Eric could give you all the information you need about that channel to construct the "onion_routing_packet". You wouldn't need to request any additional information. If either BC or CD channel was private, you would have no way of learning that you can use either of them to reach Eric. again for emphasis. because network map does not hold all info. such as CLTV amount_msat of active available balance, nor any other personal parameters like adding a bit of shade to each CLTV. making each one unique. you cant just create a route in A using just A network map and just commit to bob. for an amount A guessed based solely on the network map Of course, you can. "cltv_expiry_delta" is a part of "channel_update" message, so Alice knows all the information she needs from her network map if all channels in the route are public. If you want to assume that BC channel is private and Carol is the destination then Carol needs to include routing hints for her BC channel in the payment invoice. This way, Alice has all the information she needs to construct "onion_routing_packet". I also really like how you quoted this routing example (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/93909f67f6a48ee3f155a6224c182e612dd5f187/07-routing-gossip.md#routing-example) and talk about some weird update messages when the example clearly uses only two messages: "channel_update" which Alice received at some point in the past and "update_add_htlc" to send the payment. LN is not a network of relaying signed transactions like the bitcoin network No one is relaying signed transactions. Commitment updates are local. Nodes relay instructions which tell them how they should update their local transactions. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 19, 2022, 01:29:42 PM minus a few contradictions you made, you have actually took a few steps forward
so lets summarise: contradictions The only effective way to achieve that would be to include routing hints in the payment invoice, but that would require the cooperation of the sender. Usually, senders include only private channels that are directly connected to them. VS Here's what routing hints look like in invoices invoices are not htlc updates to a blockchain formatted transaction output. but thank you for now recognising the messages that go between nodes, especially beyond the initial network map gossip you have been narratting for pages that payments are blockchain formatted transaction(commitment) changes where you have been thinking all HTLC are the outputs of a commitment anyway, lets reply to the other points. If the BC side is private it doesn't mean that CD is private and that Alice doesn't know anything it. The CD channel is public. you like games, but do you know the game pass the parcelif alice does not know diana or eric. then diana or eric cant tell alice about the bob-carol channel bob has been told by carol not to tell alice about the bob-carol channel. bob can tell alice about other public channels bob might have with different peers. but ot about carol. which is where alice does not know about diana and eric. and so alice cannot get the EDCBA back path from eric.. because bob is not passing the parcel of eric and diana.. and alice is not connected to eric thus alice does not know there is a route to eric via bob-carol-diana-eric via a map bob however is ok with being public to carol. so bob knows of alice. and carol knows alice-bob and carol is ok to send to diana and diana sends to eric. meaning eric knows of alice route. but eric is not node peer handshaked to alice to tell alice messages are sent pass the parcel. not to some uber mempool map everyone is connected to. its like bitcoin. there is no central mempool everyone uses, each node has a mempool only of the stuff it gets relayed by a peer. different nodes will have different maps(mempools) if certain peers are not connected to their peer or peer of peer which is where you get a better map view if you have lots of channels with lots of peers and those peers have lots of channels to increase the chances of mapping everyone. (if they are all public) its called the 6th degree of separation(kevin bacon) The gossip is advertised not only to people who you have a direct channel with, but also to other Lightning nodes that randomly connect to your node. Alice must have learnt about that channel at some point from her other peers. exactly. because alice has not been given details of carol, diana, eric. she cant get a copy of a eric->alice path unless eric connects to alice ((invoice with hints) where invoice is sent in some out of network communication EG blog post or a DM on a social platform)If the BC channel suddenly goes public, the gossip will eventually reach every single node in the network. There would be no need for Alice to ask B for any details. However, If the BC channel was private all the time: its a pass the parcel game.. not everyone connects to everyone randomlyagain if you know the pass the parcel game you could turn that into a positive about how it avoids DDoS of random nodes You can't ask B to temporarily tell you about C. You can't assume that B will have any way of forwarding your payment. In fact, Eric doesn't know it as well. in a BC private channel set by carol.carol is refusing to tell bob about diana.. meaning alice and bob dont know about diana which mean alice and bob dont know about eric on the map again in the pass the parcel game. your not connecting to all nodes and interrogate their channels. your being passed parcels from a peer who gets data from a peer thats allowing said data to be passed or not What would be the point of having a private channel if literally anyone could send a gossip message to your peer to reveal the existence of your channel? You would waste a ton of bandwidth and time trying to guess which node might have a private channel that could be used in your route. so now your saying LN is not private and has no privacy.. wow the tables have turned. the channel announcements are not broadcast to all nodes.. all nodes are not connected to all nodes. as that would be a waste of bandwidth!! its a pass the parcel game peer to peer. where a peer in the middle can refuse to pass a node only knows of the map of its peers, peers and so on. meaning its not one tree of everyone.. but several trees where one node in one corner wont have the same trees as another node in another corner. If the channel between Diana and Eric was private, Eric could tell you about it through the payment invoice. ill thank you with one step forward for admitting that its not all done in the network map. oh and yea invoices are not commitment edits(pre-empting you your narrative twist i can predict you will make) oh and invoices are messages in msat denomination, not a blockchain formatted transaction template you say that the transparent network map is on by default and requires an opt out to become private. but its actually the opposite. its an opt-in process of being private first and deciding to go public Yes, it is default for LND, c-lightning and Eclair nodes which make up the vast majority of the network. All of them open public channels by default. ok then if LN is now public. the privacy advert needs to stop. seems bitcoin has privacy. because it does not reveal partners of partners to show all possible places to pay. Ln has now become public and can show all possible people to pay EG. if my network map is where ABCDE only have A and E with 1 channel and BCD with 2 channels then the only network map ABCDE has is only of ABCDE. because they are peered to pass the parcel because E is not connected to Z or M or T elsewhere. ABCDE wont know about all the other channels. it only knows about the ones peered to it again needing an invoice or message outside of the network map. outside of a route parcel game and multiple times i have been saying you cant update a HTLC until you know the amounts, and details to put into a HTLC alice is not psychic. you cannot change a HTLC unless you know the data that needs to be put in it, to change change it It seems that your main argument now is that you can use private channels. Code: (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/f6c4d7604150986894bcb46d67c5c88680740b12/11-payment-encoding.md) r (3): data_length variable. One or more entries containing extra routing information for a private route; there may be more than one note: this is not a change to a commitment. this is not a network map view. its a message. measured in the denomination of msats So, if DE channel was private, Eric could give you all the information you need about that channel to construct the "onion_routing_packet". You wouldn't need to request any additional information. If either BC or CD channel was private, you would have no way of learning that you can use either of them to reach Eric. wait. but for a few posts you have been saying everyone knows everything... and now you admit that alice would have no way of knowing about eric via the network map.. .. finally another step forward again for emphasis. because network map does not hold all info. such as CLTV amount_msat of active available balance, nor any other personal parameters like adding a bit of shade to each CLTV. making each one unique. you cant just create a route in A using just A network map and just commit to bob. for an amount A guessed based solely on the network map Of course, you can. "cltv_expiry_delta" is a part of "channel_update" message, so Alice knows all the information she needs from her network map if all channels in the route are public. If you want to assume that BC channel is private and Carol is the destination then Carol needs to include routing hints for her BC channel in the payment invoice. This way, Alice has all the information she needs to construct "onion_routing_packet". finally it appears your getting it. alice doesnt just use a network map and then constructs a commitment and signs it to bob. to initiate a payment(your narative all along) there are alot more messages that happen. before a commitment is edited/signed also update messages(msat) are not just sent once at a network map initialisation of opening an app. or once at the invoice send updates happen after invoices and also update again when things change, including along a route EG even after alice knows of a route to diana by invoice(not map). alice then needs to send message which then update the cltv so that alice can then once the route is established and everyone is accepting messages. channel updates are not forced to only happen at 3 times:(your view) network map initialisation invoice send commitment signed channel updates can happen all the time EG if alice is preparing to pay carol using say map or invoice. but during that preparation crol wants to pay her partner zoe, carol then has to change stuff. EG if while alice is preparing to pay carol. bob(for his own reason separately) pays someone else for something else. he too has to change something. EG if alice is preparing to pay diana, where diana sent an invoice with a hint path through CBA at each transaction BCE can change their cltv per transaction to add some privacy. meaning random numbers change every few seconds and updates occur I also really like how you quoted this routing example (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/93909f67f6a48ee3f155a6224c182e612dd5f187/07-routing-gossip.md#routing-example) and talk about some weird update messages when the example clearly uses only two messages: "channel_update" which Alice received at some point in the past and "update_add_htlc" to send the payment. again updates are not done just 'sometime in the past' (your view of just 3 times they occur) i can right this second change my min dust, fee, cltv. anytime and update, without having to wait for a map gossip or invoice message or a payment. when routes are built alice needs to know the latest total of msat and the cltv of the entire route. which can change from the app opening initialising network map view. and change from the invoice sent 5 minutes ago. because bobs circumstance has changed in the last 2 minutes LN is not a network of relaying signed transactions like the bitcoin network No one is relaying signed transactions. Commitment updates are local. Nodes relay instructions which tell them how they should update their local transactions. thank you for admitting its not about commitment editing/signing.. and thank you for admitting is about sending messages (messages denominated in msat) feels we have made some progress. even when you have contradicted your self in some small ways inbetween.. dont step back now Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 19, 2022, 02:39:24 PM wait. but for a few posts you have been saying everyone knows everything... and now you admit that alice would have no way of knowing about eric via the network map.. Nice try franky1. A few posts ago you were not talking about private channels at all, so I assumed that all channels are public, which is the most common case. You are trying to prove me wrong by changing your assumptions. That's no bueno, my dear. thank you for admitting its not about commitment signing and is about sending messages (messages denominated in msat) Read my reply again. No one is relaying signed transactions. Commitment updates are local. Nodes relay instructions which tell them how they should update their local transactions. From the very beginning, I have been saying that you need to send "update_add_htlc" message which includes those instructions AND forces commitment update as per bolt02: Code: (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/02-peer-protocol.md#forwarding-htlcs) Forwarding HTLCs invoices are not htlc updates to a blockchain formatted transaction output. but thank you for now recognising the messages that go between nodes, especially beyond the initial network map gossip you have been narratting for pages that payments are blockchain formatted transaction(commitment) changes where you have been thinking all HTLC are the outputs of a commitment Routing hints are included in the invoice which Alice needs to receive (outside of the LN) before she tries to send the payment. It does not contradict with what I have been saying about HLTCs as it's a separate process. a node only knows of the map of its peers, peers You seem to forget that Lightning explorers, which obtain data through the gossip protocol, exist. All Lightning nodes should have exactly the same information as those explorers. channel updates are not forced to only happen at 3 times:(your view) network map initialisation invoice send commitment signed No, my view is that "channel_update" is sent whenever some node makes changes to one of their channel parameters (most commonly the fees). You don't need to send "channel_update" when you give someone an invoice or when you sign a new commitment transaction with someone. You can also send "channel_update" when your peer goes offline so that no one tries to route a payment through this channel. In other words, you can disable the channel. EG if alice is preparing to pay carol using say map or invoice. but during that preparation crol wants to pay her partner zoe, carol then has to change stuff. EG if while alice is preparing to pay carol. bob(for his own reason separately) pays someone else for something else. he too has to change something. Change what exactly? If liquidity is not public then there is nothing to change in this case through "channel_update". EG if alice is preparing to pay diana, where diana sent an invoice with a hint path through CBA at each transaction BCE can change their cltv per transaction to add some privacy. meaning random numbers change every few seconds and updates occur You don't need to spam the network with "channel_update" messages. Here's an easier way to improve one's privacy: Quote from: https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/07-routing-gossip.md#the-channel_update-message If a route is computed by simply routing to the intended recipient and summing the cltv_expiry_deltas, then it's possible for intermediate nodes to guess their position in the route. Knowing the CLTV of the HTLC, the surrounding network topology, and the cltv_expiry_deltas gives an attacker a way to guess the intended recipient. Therefore, it's highly desirable to add a random offset to the CLTV that the intended recipient will receive, which bumps all CLTVs along the route. its a pass the parcel game.. not everyone connects to everyone randomly [...] again in the pass the parcel game. your not connecting to all nodes and interrogate their channels. your being passed parcels from a peer who gets data from a peer thats allowing said data to be passed or not [...] the channel announcements are not broadcast to all nodes.. all nodes are not connected to all nodes. You need to read bolt07 more carefully: Quote from: https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/07-routing-gossip.md#the-channel_update-message BOLT #7: P2P Node and Channel Discovery This specification describes simple node discovery, channel discovery, and channel update mechanisms that do not rely on a third-party to disseminate the information. Node and channel discovery serve two different purposes: Node discovery allows nodes to broadcast their ID, host, and port, so that other nodes can open connections and establish payment channels with them. Channel discovery allows the creation and maintenance of a local view of the network's topology, so that a node can discover routes to desired destinations. To support channel and node discovery, three gossip messages are supported: For node discovery, peers exchange node_announcement messages, which supply additional information about the nodes. There may be multiple node_announcement messages, in order to update the node information. For channel discovery, peers in the network exchange channel_announcement messages containing information regarding new channels between the two nodes. They can also exchange channel_update messages, which update information about a channel. There can only be one valid channel_announcement for any channel, but at least two channel_update messages are expected. So, you can learn about node that you don't have a direct channel with. Why would you not be able to learn about its channels then? If you suddenly stop liking bolt07, here's bolt00: To make a payment, a participant needs to know what channels it can send through. Participants tell each other about channel and node creation, and updates. See BOLT #7: P2P Node and Channel Discovery for details on the communication protocol, and BOLT #10: DNS Bootstrap and Assisted Node Location for initial network bootstrap. bob however is ok with being public to carol. so bob knows of alice. and carol knows alice-bob and carol is ok to send to diana and diana sends to eric. meaning eric knows of alice route. but eric is not node peer handshaked to alice to tell alice No, Eric still doesn't know anything the BC channel. Neither Alice's nor Diana's network map contain any information about the BC channel. The same goes for Eric. You can't make only one side of the channel private; the whole channel must be private. when routes are built alice needs to know the latest total of msat and the cltv of the entire route. which can change from the app opening initialising network map view. and change from the invoice sent 5 minutes ago. because bobs circumstance has changed in the last 2 minutes If that happens then the payment attempt simply fails. Channels don't change their parameters frequently. It should take a couple of minutes for the message to propagate across the whole network. Alice should receive it fairly quickly as she's just a few hops away. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 19, 2022, 03:49:45 PM Nice try franky1. A few posts ago you were not talking about private channels at all, so I assumed that all channels are public, which is the most common case. You are trying to prove me wrong by changing your assumptions. That's no bueno, my dear. i mentioned private channels as one example, due to your assumption everything is public as if there is a central 'mempool' of ALL channels that all nodes has access to. so that in your view commitments can be signed without checking with peers or recipients. infact each node has a different 'tree' layout depending on their particular pass the parcel game with their particular tree. where some branches of said tree are broke off for multiple reasons i simple used an example of where: 1. its a pass the parcel game, not central mempool all nodes talk with 2. due to not only private channels,(other examples apply('turbo' shouldnt announce while unconfirmed)) not all channels are passed back to a node (pass the parcel game) 3. parameters do change. fees, cltv, many other parameters i would have mentioned many other examples, but seeing as for pages of posts you have had particular issues getting yourself out of the 'direct payment to channel partner' scenario.. i thought i would take things slowly on you. give you a chance to gently come out of your box. EG one step, realise its not just commitment signings but actually lots of messages EG two step, messages are in msat and not blockchain formatted transaction templates EG three step, not all nodes psychicly know everything when they open the app or minutes/hours later(things change) EG four step, show more messages and scenarios that contravene your commitment signing thoughts of how LN work your fluctuating between step 1-2, but your trying to pull it back to step minus 0 your not at step 3 yet EG YOUR "update_add_htlc forces commitment update'. where YOUR thinking the only messages are update_add_htlc (again facepalm) here is something for you to think about outside of your box Quote until an incoming HTLC has been irrevocably committed: MUST NOT offer the corresponding outgoing HTLC (update_add_htlc) in response to that incoming HTLC. take a second. and think. an incoming HTLC... hmm.... how is that formed(what data is inside this incoming htlc). next how is the data in that incoming HTLC collated/determined/checked/viewed before alice sends it to bob (before bob sees it) yep before alice even sends bob an (incoming to bob) alice needs to do stuff, which requires lots of messages. i know you think that there are only 3 times a node gets gossip. 1. app opening initialisation to get a map 2. invoice received. to add a node and then add to map (60 seconds later) 3. when a node within the map updates due to a successful payment or a shutdown but you are wrong. nodes can actually send query messages and respond to queries aswell. nodes also can change their fee anytime they please. they are not arm-strung into sticking with the same fee at app-open or channel creation. they can change the fee regularly, at their whim. even the cltv can be changed so that its not a default of 9, but instead random per attempt. but alice would need to know these changes to then commit to bob lots of messages happen before a commitment is signed. i know you want to endlessly quote the in-channel commitment stuff of a direct payment.(alice to bob only) but thats just you wanting a 'alice pays bob' scenario. where messages and variables are simple for you there is alot more involved that happens before alice even signs to bob on a route payment * this is not not just formulated from a network map. for many reasons ... also there are many reasons(not just private channels) as to why branches of a nodes map(tree) differ from other nodes map(tree) ... theres other things like https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/04-onion-routing.md#legacy-hop_data-payload-format if you read the entire chapter of legacy hop payload format. NONE of it is about commitment editing or signing. its about MESSAGES and showing how MESSAGES should fail/reject if parameters are not as expected. commitments are done after checking the messages and seeing the contents meet the parameters https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/04-onion-routing.md#returning-errors these are messages, not commands to un-edit/re-edit a commitment there is no reason to write and sign a commitment if the parameters are wrong update_add_htlc is not a command locally, its a message to remote peer it only initiate changing a blockchain formatted transaction output if the parameters are good .. a node has hundreds of message types, i know you want to only discuss 3 (channel_update and update_add_htlc and commitment_signed) but you are stepping back into your bolt 2 direct payment box here is some more stuff https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/07-routing-gossip.md#rationale-5 Quote Future nodes may not have complete information; they certainly won't have complete information on unknown chain_hash chains. While this full_information field (previously and confusingly called complete) cannot be trusted, a 0 does indicate that the sender should search elsewhere for additional data. The explicit reply_short_channel_ids_end message means that the receiver can indicate it doesn't know anything, and the sender doesn't need to rely on timeouts. It also causes a natural ratelimiting of queries. The query_channel_range and reply_channel_range Messages for instance. if i have a bitcoin funding locked channel(bitcoins chainhash) the network map only shows PUBLIC bitcoin channels that are only my peers, my peers of peers and their peers of peers but i can also query a peer and find out updates of the parameters anytime i want. including seeing which peers have, say litecoin channels to see if i can atomic swap Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 19, 2022, 05:17:10 PM yep before alice even sends bob an (incoming to bob) alice needs to do stuff, which requires lots of messages Alice doesn't need to send any messages as she should be able to extract all the information she needs from her local network graph. EG your "update_add_htlc forces commitment update. thinking the only messages are update_add_htlc (again facepalm) Thank you for finally admitting that "update_add_htlc" enforces commitment update. an incoming HTLC. how is that formed(what data is inside this incoming htlc). Again, all the data she needs to prepare "onion_routing_packet" should be obtainable from her local network graph. As both of us are probably getting tired of the "contradiction game". I invite you to play the "quote game". I am quite sure that you know Andreas Antonopoulos and you must have read "Mastering Bitcoin" at some point. Let me introduce you to "Mastering The Lightning Network". The gossip protocol: The Lightning Network solves this problem by implementing a gossip protocol. Gossip protocols are typical for peer-to-peer (P2P) networks and allow nodes to share information with the whole network with just a few direct connections to peers. Lightning nodes open encrypted peer-to-peer connections to each other and share (gossip) information that they have received from other peers. As soon as a node wants to share some information, for example, about a newly created channel, it sends a message to all its peers. Upon receiving a message, a node decides if the received message was novel and, if so, forwards the information to its peers. In this way, if the peer-to-peer network is well connected, all new information that is necessary for the operation of the network will eventually be propagated to all other peers. The construction of a channel graph is not a one-time event, but rather an ongoing activity. As a node bootstraps into the network it will start receiving "gossip," in the form of the three update messages. It will use these messages to immediately start building a validated channel graph. The more information a node receives, the better its "map" of the Lightning Network becomes and the more effective it can be at pathfinding and payment delivery. So, you actually don't need any channel peers to start syncing the graph which contradicts your view: then the only network map ABCDE has is only of ABCDE. because they are peered to pass the parcel because E is not connected to Z or M or T elsewhere. ABCDE wont know about all the other channels. it only knows about the ones peered to it EG. if my network map is where ABCDE only have A and E with 1 channel and BCD with 2 channels [...] a node only knows of the map of its peers, peers You said that Alice has only B, C, D, E (completely ignoring that BC is a private channel) in her local map of the network. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 19, 2022, 06:14:45 PM EG your "update_add_htlc forces commitment update. thinking the only messages are update_add_htlc (again facepalm) Thank you for finally admitting that "update_add_htlc" enforces commitment update.1. you mistook my saying of YOUR mindset that YOU still think update_add_htlc is a command to changes blockchain format transaction output (which i facepalmed) here is some clarity to your grammarism game EG YOUR "update_add_htlc forces commitment update'. where YOUR thinking the only messages are update_add_htlc (again facepalm) 2. ok so below is you again thinking everything is done by a network map everyone has publicly.. i did laugh, ill explain my laughter after the quotes yep before alice even sends bob an (incoming to bob) alice needs to do stuff, which requires lots of messages Alice doesn't need to send any messages as she should be able to extract all the information she needs from her local network graph. an incoming HTLC. how is that formed(what data is inside this incoming htlc). Again, all the data she needs to prepare "onion_routing_packet" should be obtainable from her local network graph. As both of us are probably getting tired of the "contradiction game". I invite you to play the "quote game". The gossip protocol: The Lightning Network solves this problem by implementing a gossip protocol. Gossip protocols are typical for peer-to-peer (P2P) networks and allow nodes to share information with the whole network with just a few direct connections to peers. Lightning nodes open encrypted peer-to-peer connections to each other and share (gossip) information that they have received from other peers. As soon as a node wants to share some information, for example, about a newly created channel, it sends a message to all its peers. Upon receiving a message, a node decides if the received message was novel and, if so, forwards the information to its peers. In this way, if the peer-to-peer network is well connected, all new information that is necessary for the operation of the network will eventually be propagated to all other peers. The construction of a channel graph is not a one-time event, but rather an ongoing activity. As a node bootstraps into the network it will start receiving "gossip," in the form of the three update messages. It will use these messages to immediately start building a validated channel graph. The more information a node receives, the better its "map" of the Lightning Network becomes and the more effective it can be at pathfinding and payment delivery. So, you actually don't need any channel peers to start syncing the graph which contradicts your view: Quote the more information a node receives, the better its "map" becomes and more effective it can be share (gossip) information that they have received from other peers. the construction of a channel graph is not a one_time event but rather an ongoing activity As soon as a node wants to share some information, for example, about a newly created channel, it sends a message to all its peers. Upon receiving a message, a node decides if the received message was novel and, if so, forwards the information to its peers. notice all the wants, decides, if's, cans.. try not to imagine the utopia of a central mempool(DNS server) for all nodes to access, showing all nodes channels of the whole network.(like you have been suggesting, then contradicting and then suggesting again, as if its the sole source of information ever needed) and instead imagine each node with its own mempool of only data it can see from its peers which its peers has allowed it to get i know you want to emphasise a quote of andreas saying "whole network" but thats not the reality. its actually local built based on only the peers with direct path to you publicly. (there may be other peers on path that are private or just decide to go silent on such queries) example of small map EG imagine your own scenario of your small box direct payment to bob.. where its only in your view ever a alice-bob negotiation.. guess what. alice doesnt know zoe and in your scenario bob doesnt know carol.. so in your map. based on your small box scenario you try deviating back to your map is just 1 branch of bob.. not a tree of thousands of branches.. example of missing branch map EG imagine the ABCDE where your alice and im bob. i can be public with BC meaning carol can tell diana all about me and becasue i told carol about you(alice) diana knows this too.. but here is the thing. i can just refuse to reply with my BC channel when talking to you. you do realise that there are many messages that happen separate to the initial sync map build.. right? and the map is only as good as the peer connections allow. i know you think that the only way for bob to dissuade alice from using bob as a route to carol is for bob to rack up his min fee to 1btc a hop. .. where bob has to stay public all day but with a large fee to prevent alice using his BC as a route path.. (an old trick people told each other years ago) but you can actually just break the branch in the map and tell alice that the BC channel is not available by responding to a query without mentioning BC channel. or even just telling alice your BC is shutdown/offline meanwhile carol can tell diana it is available and online, which tells eric .. alice can later just query bob and bob can decide to respond. or bob can send an update message to alice to change this. it does not require alice having to turn off-on her app to trigger another gossip challenge. or patiently wait for an invoice to trigger a map update. oh and seeing as you want to break the PR campaign about privacy not being private, to fit your narrative are you now trying to break the "instant payment" PR campaign of needs to wait for map updates, to fit your narrative because in your view payments can only be made when network maps are updated, which only happen infrequently, which cant happen IN YOUR VIEW 'on the hop'(adhoc) by messages during a payment, but instead IN YOUR VIEW by waiting for nodes to announce to update a map. which are themselves delayed during their own payments being 'inflight'(pending) so if you want to say that a payer cannot make a payment while another node is 'inflight' with a different payment for their different reason, because its not yet updated to tell YOUR map. just know that YOU are really calling out that LN is not 'instant' and not 'fast', just to fit a narrative to your opinion Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Wind_FURY on January 20, 2022, 11:12:26 AM This topic reminds me of my debates with franky1, but this topic is on steroids. BUT let’s make it simple. Newbies, whatever the trolls say to disinform you, whatever the trolls post to gaslight you, YOU only need to know that those coins in channels are signed transactions that have not been broadcasted and included in the blockchain yet. No one in Lightning is sending something worthless in the network. They are literally BITCOINS.
Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 20, 2022, 01:19:46 PM This topic reminds me of my debates with franky1, but this topic is on steroids. BUT let’s make it simple. Newbies, whatever the trolls say to disinform you, whatever the trolls post to gaslight you, YOU only need to know that those coins in channels are signed transactions that have not been broadcasted and included in the blockchain yet. No one in Lightning is sending something worthless in the network. They are literally BITCOINS. If only it was that simple. You have to make your point with arguments. Even if I consider franky a troll, I can't just say to everyone that he's a liar and I'm right. The whole point of the thread is to show why and where he's right/wrong. Also, there's no way newbies reach the 10th page of this mess. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 20, 2022, 02:16:38 PM This topic reminds me of my debates with franky1, but this topic is on steroids. BUT let’s make it simple. Newbies, whatever the trolls say to disinform you, whatever the trolls post to gaslight you, YOU only need to know that those coins in channels are signed transactions that have not been broadcasted and included in the blockchain yet. No one in Lightning is sending something worthless in the network. They are literally BITCOINS. (until you learn about turbo and other services that open channels with msat balance without the 6confirm funding lock) (which cannot then commit to anything because the 'locking' utxo is not actually confirmed to have a block number.) buy hey, i guess people dont want to know things, and instead want to shout insults if anyone tries making users risk aware. but hey, you can instead believe the utopia of network maps being always full and uptodate of all details to not need to check nodes. you could instead believe that everyone is honest and symbiotically wants whats best for you. you could believe its permissionless (even though it requires TWO signatures(someone elses authorisation)) you could instead believe that LN is 100% successful. and all other utopian adverts are true. but then you are putting yourself at risk. when i show bips that prove there are over 500 messages types. and even some of those have dual purpose.. yet someone else says everything is only done via 3 messages. you can see who is hiding things the most. but hey if you think that there are only 3 messages types and those 3 messages are blockchain formatted transactions.. you keep dreaming that. enjoy your sleep it would be better if those promoting LN actualy showed how and why its different to bitcoin. then it may reveal real niche usecases they can actually promote. rather then the usual "bitcoin is broke and wont scale, everyone should use this alternate network instead" game. if anyone is still unsure. lets use Lightning-C. () asadvertised by Rath https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning#sending-and-receiving-payments Quote Payments in Lightning are invoice based. The recipient creates an invoice with the expected <amount> in millisatoshi (or "any" for a donation), a unique <label> and a <description> the payer will see: https://lightning.readthedocs.io/lightning-pay.7.htmlQuote On success, an object is returned, containing: payment_preimage (hex): the proof of payment: SHA256 of this payment_hash (always 64 characters) payment_hash (hex): the hash of the payment_preimage which will prove payment (always 64 characters) created_at (number): the UNIX timestamp showing when this payment was initiated parts (u32): how many attempts this took amount_msat (msat): Amount the recipient received amount_sent_msat (msat): Total amount we sent (including fees) status (string): status of payment (always “complete”) destination (pubkey, optional): the final destination of the payment there are other things about monitoring the progress of payments (inflight) and there is even juicier stuff if you have the time about how 'payments' are stored locally. spoiler its not in a blockchain formatted transaction. even things like feature to allow watchtowers to hold onto a 'revoke' payment to use when one side cheats. the watch tower does not get/store blockchain format transactions Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: n0nce on January 20, 2022, 03:16:07 PM it would be better if those promoting LN actualy showed how and why its different to bitcoin. then it may reveal real niche usecases they can actually promote. rather then the usual "bitcoin is broke and wont scale, everyone should use this alternate network instead" game Wait, you think the Bitcoin blockchain scales? We basically have a hard limit of transactions per second of around 20. Quote from: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/59501 maximum of 12195 transactions 12 thousand transactions per block (10 minutes) means 20 transactions per second and some pocket change. This will never suffice without off-chain (or other? sidechain? ???) scaling mechanisms.Franky, you're always going deep into implementation details that half of the people here can't even understand; let's see it from a high-level perspective: how do you think Bitcoin adoption should work on a large scale purely based around the blockchain? Recording every little transaction, every micropayment, every in-game purchase, everything on the almighty blockchain? It will clog up bad. I mean, even with the super controversial SegWit introduction we only went from 10 tx/s to 20 tx/s... I would be very interested how you envision scaling to the required hundreds to thousands range (of tx/s... that's 1-2 orders of magnitude) without going off-chain, purely on a high level. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 20, 2022, 03:43:50 PM actually the logical limit is 4200tx a block. about 7tx/s (which was stated even back in 2010)
we have never had a single hour, day or month where its had an average of 7tx/s the most we actually get on average is under 2500tx a block(4.16 tx/s) https://api.blockchain.info/charts/preview/n-transactions-per-block.png?timespan=3years. this this limit has been purposeful prevented from being lifted. for multiple reasons. the main excuse is the pretence we still work with 1990's tech (dial-up and floppy disks) where 4mb every 10 minutes has been deemed too slow (facepalm).. but with that all said. thank you for proving my point that you too want to propagandise the narrative that bitcoin cant scale, just to hide that certain people dont want it to scale. i know you also want to propagandise that you believe bitcoin needs to be 100mb a block this year to 'scale' to this years daily use. but thats just exaggeration on the part of the group you also cling to. on average. a human only buys (in life) 1-3 things a day. so if we take LN's 1Ml stats(rath believes is complete public view of all LN users) thats 33,000 nodes. (some are sybil nodes of same user) but lets take this 33,000 as a exaggerated userbase (i know the user numbers are lower due to multiple nodes per user, but ill go with the number to actually give a number that helps LN feel comfy with high users) so 33,000 * lets say.. hmm 5 payments a day. lets be generous thats 165,000 payments. bitcoin at an average of say 1700tx a block * average 144 blocks a day=244800 bitcoin has the bitcoin Dev consent that 4mb is ~acceptable(if uncludged by other limits) which could allow 1-2.4m/day which is more then whats needed. so please stop thinking bitcoin needs to scale to 1.7mill transactions a block(244m a day) this year just to cope with the presumed LN advertised usage.(LN group rhetoric of needing 100mb blocks to scale(facepalm)) because even my exaggerated usage is actually is not even 1mill a day, definitely not needing to scale to 244m a day. emphasis: bitcoin scaling. not LN narrative bitcoin leaping. as for other networks that peg locked funds(LN included) they can have their niche services for certain features. as long as they advertise them HONESTLY and actually mention what makes them different to clearly advertise their unique usecases and the risks users may encounter. emphasise: stop pretending bitcoin is dead, cant grow.. to pretend that altnet pegs are the only way forward Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 20, 2022, 03:49:53 PM (until you learn about turbo and other services that open channels with msat balance without the 6confirm funding lock) Wait for a sec, franky. Do you think that including this into parentheses will make it look less significant? Okay, so what does it mean that a bunch of services decided to open channels without having the necessary confirmation(s)?I'll take Exodus as an example, which is a closed-source Bitcoin wallet. What does it mean if its developers decided to not allow you double-spend your transactions using RBF? That Bitcoin is faulty or that Exodus is a bad choice? but hey, you can instead believe the utopia of network maps being always full and uptodate of all details to not need to check nodes. This is definitely not the case. I don't believe that the map of the network remains the same nor the its nodes are always up-to-date of all details. Some even go offline, but they must not be many. If you provided me some valid statistics, we could negotiate this.buy hey, i guess people dont want to know things, and instead want to shout insults if anyone tries making users risk aware. Let's assume that we do, which is not true but let's say that we do. You insult all the time. How does that differentiate you from us?you could instead believe that everyone is honest and symbiotically wants whats best for you. I'm sure Bitcoiners know that everyone isn't honest nor they want their good. That's why they're using Bitcoin.Wait, you think the Bitcoin blockchain scales? You just opened a can of worms. You've no idea how many franky's nonsense posts will follow if you decide to continue this further.Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 20, 2022, 03:54:24 PM (until you learn about turbo and other services that open channels with msat balance without the 6confirm funding lock) Wait for a sec, franky. Do you think that including this into parentheses will make it look less significant? Okay, so what does it mean that a bunch of services decided to open channels without having the necessary confirmation(s)?I'll take Exodus as an example, which is a closed-source Bitcoin wallet. What does it mean if its developers decided to not allow you double-spend your transactions using RBF? That Bitcoin is faulty or that Exodus is a bad choice? if you want to deposit gold into a bank vault to then have a bank note promising to be backed by that amount of gold. fine. vault it up first. ensure its locked and witnessed. and ensure its signed to get a promissory note.. but then if the bank starts offering bank notes not backed by gold.. dont trust the bank note. its not backed as for saying insults. you might want to use some word finder tools and actually look at this topic. find who uses the most insults and which words were the worst words used... it may surprise you when five repeated people of a group throw many insults(of varying degrees) in my direction, i laugh, i yawn. i facepalm.. when i call those 5 in the group "fangirls" they act as if its a savage attack and they have been murdered you can play the victim card. but that card is a blank bit of paper of no substance, wave it all you like. saying your a victim does not make you a victim Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 20, 2022, 04:18:58 PM you do realise that there are many messages that happen separate to the initial sync map build.. right? and the map is only as good as the peer connections allow. Nevertheless, you are ignoring the fact that you can connect to any Lightning node even without having any active channels and start syncing the map of the whole network. Even if Alice is stuck in the "ABCDE" fraction of the network, she will eventually connect to some outside node. The same goes for every other member of the fraction. You acknowledge the existence of the initial sync, but you insist that Alice knows only about "ABCDE". i know you think that the only way for bob to dissuade alice from using bob as a route to carol is for bob to rack up his min fee to 1btc a hop. .. where bob has to stay public all day but with a large fee to prevent alice using his BC as a route path.. Bob can also send a "channel_update" message to disable his side of the channel with Carol. Alice would not be able to send payment in the BC direction, but she could still receive a payment in the CB direction. Code: (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/07-routing-gossip.md) MAY create and send a channel_update with the disable bit set to 1, to signal a channel's temporary unavailability (e.g. due to a loss of connectivity) OR permanent unavailability (e.g. prior to an on-chain settlement). but you can actually just break the branch in the map and tell alice that the BC channel is not available by responding to a query without mentioning BC channel. or even just telling alice your BC is shutdown/offline You are changing your assumptions again. Now, you are saying that BC channel is public, but B refuses to let Alice use it. Even if Bob doesn't send "channel_announcement" and then "channel_update" to Alice, she will eventually learn about it from other Lightning nodes as you assume that Diana knows about that channel all the time. Diana forwards every Carol's "channel_update" message. .. alice can later just query bob and bob can decide to respond. or bob can send an update message to alice to change this. It would be a waste of time for Alice to message Bob and ask if he made any changes. Alice should use the information from her local map as it's the fastest way. Bob has no real reason to postpone sending "channel_update" message, which would reach Alice immediately. oh and seeing as you want to break the PR campaign about privacy not being private, to fit your narrative I am not breaking any "PR campaign claims" as it is common knowledge that you can learn a lot of information about public nodes; Lightning explorers (amboss.space/1ml.com) are more popular than you think. This does not change the fact that Lightning payments are private. are you now trying to break the "instant payment" PR campaign of needs to wait for map updates, to fit your narrative "channel_update" is usually sent to advertise updated fee rates of a channel. For example, c-lightning has recently introduced a grace period: Code: (https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/releases/tag/v0.10.2) setchannelfee now has a grace period during which both old and new fee policies are considered. This prevents a fee update from making the channel unusable until the update propagated. So, even if someone uses an old feerate in their "onion_routing_packet", the payment won't fail (for a certain period of time). If the feerates are too old then the payment is failed (update_fail_htlc) and the exact error is reported through this message. Some error messages, which are always encapsulated in "update_fail_htlc" as per bolt04, might actually include the latest "channel_update" so the sender can try resending the payment immediately. so if you want to say that a payer cannot make a payment while another node is 'inflight' with a different payment for their different reason, because its not yet updated to tell YOUR map. Again, "channel_update" is not sent across the network when you send someone an invoice or when you are in the middle of routing a payment. If either was the case, what would be the reason? Take a look at "channel_update" again. Code: (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/07-routing-gossip.md#the-channel_update-message) type: 258 (channel_update) Which of these parameters in your opinion change when you send someone an invoice or when you are routing a payment? My answer is: none. If there are no changes to those parameters then the update is not necessary. even things like feature to allow watchtowers to hold onto a 'revoke' payment to use when one side cheats. the watch tower does not get/store blockchain format transactions Watchtowers need only txids of revoked commitment transactions and actual penalty transactions for each commitment, to function properly. if anyone is still unsure. lets use Lightning-C. () asadvertised by Rath https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning#sending-and-receiving-payments Quote Payments in Lightning are invoice based. The recipient creates an invoice with the expected <amount> in millisatoshi (or "any" for a donation), a unique <label> and a <description> the payer will see: https://lightning.readthedocs.io/lightning-pay.7.htmlQuote On success, an object is returned, containing: payment_preimage (hex): the proof of payment: SHA256 of this payment_hash (always 64 characters) payment_hash (hex): the hash of the payment_preimage which will prove payment (always 64 characters) created_at (number): the UNIX timestamp showing when this payment was initiated parts (u32): how many attempts this took amount_msat (msat): Amount the recipient received amount_sent_msat (msat): Total amount we sent (including fees) status (string): status of payment (always “complete”) destination (pubkey, optional): the final destination of the payment there are other things about monitoring the progress of payments (inflight) created_at, parts, amount_msat, amount_sent_msat, destination are all known before the payment is sent. payment_hash is a part of the invoice. payment_preimage is known upon receiving "update_fulfill_htlc". status relies on "update_add_htlc", "update_fail_htlc" and "update_fulfill_htlc" messages. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 20, 2022, 08:07:59 PM if you want to deposit gold into a bank vault to then have a bank note promising to be backed by that amount of gold. fine. vault it up The same disanalogous example... Again... And again... While I've told you it's not the same kind of IOU... Sorry, but I won't repeat it. You want to not understand me.you might want to use some word finder tools and actually look at this topic. find who uses the most insults and which words were the worst words used... it may surprise you I've never insulted anybody if they hadn't insulted me first. I challenge you to search my posts (https://ninjastic.space/user/id/2775483). You're the only person who I've really insulted in this forum.when five repeated people of a group throw many insults(of varying degrees) in my direction, i laugh, i yawn. i facepalm.. Half truth: You're doing this every time someone corrects you. You don't want to get better, you just want to seem correct. Please sit down and realize that all of the users in this thread (besides foulmouthed suchmoon) never insult no one. You're the only one who feels insulted for having his sayings corrected. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: n0nce on January 20, 2022, 09:06:10 PM ~ Only because at the moment the mempool is not clogged up, is not proof that a blockchain scales. A blockchain does not scale by definition / design. It's not made to do it and it's perfectly fine. It allows us to run it on a multitude of devices, at affordable prices and with pretty quick setup time (less than a week in most cases) which is essential for decentralization and security of the whole Bitcoin network. For the record though, I'm not a promoter of big blocks, of faster blocks or of shitcoins as a scaling solution. I'm instead a promoter of performing real Bitcoin transactions, but keeping the majority of them off-chain, that's a pretty simple and logical concept in my eyes. You think I'm a propagandist? I'm just giving you obvious facts. Yeah, it's also a fact that Bitcoin is at under 4tx/s at the moment, but how is this proof that the number won't change? And do you want it not to change? Because I do want the number of Bitcoin users to go up; it's in my and their interest. So I try to look into the future optimistically and assume / hope we will soon have the need of 40tx/s, one day 400tx/s and maybe in a very far future 4000tx/s. That's why I'm trying to start building the infrastructure for such a future now, not when it's too late and the 'demand' for more transactions/sec. is way higher than the 'supply' Bitcoin can deliver. bitcoin at an average of say 1700tx a block * average 144 blocks a day=244800 Wait, the second step is wrong. At the moment, I showed you before, you can put a theoretical maximum of 12195 transactions per block, which is 1,756,080 transactions per day. Not sure how 2.4m would be possible. Fact of the matter is, Visa for example, does 100 millions per day in just the U.S. alone. That's 50x, just Visa, just U.S. If you add Mastercard and all the other countries in the world, you'll be at 1000x or more. Since you can't go from a 4MB block to a 4000MB (4GB) block every 10 minutes, you cannot feasibly scale on-chain. Simple as that...bitcoin has the bitcoin Dev consent that 4mb is ~acceptable(if uncludged by other limits) which could allow 1-2.4m/day Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on January 20, 2022, 09:19:46 PM this this limit has been purposeful prevented from being lifted I mean, that's certainly one opinion. Another opinion would be that those securing the network, right now, as we type here, could easily amend their code to increase that limit, but they are choosing not to do that. Why do you think that is? Perhaps your view is that there must be a conspiracy of some kind. Maybe that seems like the most rational explanation to you. But I would suggest the real picture is altogether less sinister: What if (and please consider this carefully) some people do want the same thing you want, however, at the same time, some of them don't want the same thing you want? So, if the thing you want requires a hardfork (and naturally it does, because you've gone to great lengths to express how much you despise softforks), that likely results in splitting the network if we don't have a significant proportion of people in agreement. It's difficult to paint that as a positive outcome. That wouldn't achieve anything good. So that's probably a pretty reasonable explanation as to why it's not happening. Do you see the sense in that? certain people dont want it to scale. Again, that's certainly one opinion. Another would be that people generally want to scale responsibly and aren't in any particular hurry. Also, hate to break it to you, but you're sharing a network with those people. You can't exactly make them go away. They have as much right to exist as you do. But as much as you might disagree with their views, the fact remains you are all agreeing on the current rules every single time you use Bitcoin, so you continue building a network together. The status quo is easy to maintain. Change is much more difficult. If you want to change something, the onus is on you to convince everyone else that it needs to change. And to date, it's fair to say you haven't really had much of an impact there. If all the things you've been demanding for the last 5 or more years really were as brilliant as you suggest they are, do you honestly not think that there might be a small but noticeable swell of grass-roots support made up of people who are just as angry and vocal as you are? Where are they? Where should I be witnessing the same level of outrage in others that I see in you? It's just not there. Let's be real here. I can't think of anyone on this entire forum who has a more intense disposition about this issue as you. No one else here is as relentless or persistent. Then again, I suppose it's fair to argue there would be more vociferous support for on-chain scaling if the BCH fork hadn't happened, but they made their choice. It's likely most of those people no longer care what we do, because they just went ahead and made the changes they wanted to make. And that's valid. They didn't try to force everyone to agree with them, they just did it. That's probably the most effective way to get stuff done. But it still remains to be seen that they've made the "best" choice. It doesn't seem to be working out all that well for them. The outlook long term doesn't look encouraging. Perhaps if BCH and the other myriad forks continue to weaken and eventually die off, those users might return to BTC. Then you might see that swell of support for on-chain scaling. Honestly, when enough people want it as badly as you do, greater on-chain scaling will happen. It will. But not right now. emphasise: stop pretending bitcoin is dead, cant grow.. to pretend that altnet pegs are the only way forward I don't see anyone saying LN is the "only" way forward. Your inference that people are saying that appears to be embellished for dramatic effect. I think everyone would welcome a little less hyperbole. Please let's try to keep things in perspective. Again, further on-chain scaling will almost certainly come at some point, but we're trying some other stuff first which doesn't have as much overhead in terms of cost. Please try to be patient. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 21, 2022, 04:37:19 AM aaaanndd domad has gone back to ignorance of the consensus stuff of 2017 all over again
pretending it didnt happen. i though finally 2022 will be the year doomad remembers and accepts the 148/91 stuff.. understanding what happened. the real sequence of events. but looks like he instead has retreated back to his other rhetoric of ignorance again.. im not even going to redeem him by suggesting that he does know what actually happened and is just trolling a different narrative just to be argumentative.. instead ill just go with what he is trying to pretend himself as, someone ignorant and forgetful. (well he wants to present himself as this, so illl go with it) i thought it would take him 3 weeks to retreat back to his foggy memory.. he managed it in 3 days you do realise that there are many messages that happen separate to the initial sync map build.. right? and the map is only as good as the peer connections allow. Nevertheless, you are ignoring the fact that you can connect to any Lightning node even without having any active channels and start syncing the map of the whole network. Even if Alice is stuck in the "ABCDE" fraction of the network, she will eventually connect to some outside node. The same goes for every other member of the fraction. You acknowledge the existence of the initial sync, but you insist that Alice knows only about "ABCDE". alice can connect to bob(only bob in this faction example) without a channel, to sniff bobs channels, or create a channel with bob. but alice can only get a route tree(map) of only the data bob has access to(wishes to disclose), which is in the case of ABCDE faction.. only ABCDE (only if all ABCDE are public(allowing disclosure) and only if bob wishes to disclose) you then pretend alice pings the entire network or a central mempool/repo/dns (whatever fantasy variable your have tried to add in) for the rest of the network you than back down and say another fantasy, that alice magically must connect eventually(facepalm) to some outside node. .. sorry but your statements are utopian hope. not actual fact at opening the node to have a entire network map of all nodes everywhere within seconds so she can simply make a payment "instantly" 100% success..(in your view) to anyone without sniffing with regular messages .. sorry that just doesnt happen i know you think that the only way for bob to dissuade alice from using bob as a route to carol is for bob to rack up his min fee to 1btc a hop. .. where bob has to stay public all day but with a large fee to prevent alice using his BC as a route path.. Bob can also send a "channel_update" message to disable his side of the channel with Carol. Alice would not be able to send payment in the BC direction, but she could still receive[FROM carol] a payment in the CB direction.FROM carol, diana or eric] Quote https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/07-routing-gossip.md MAY create and send a channel_update with the disable bit set to 1, to signal a channel's temporary unavailability (e.g. due to a loss of connectivity) OR permanent unavailability (e.g. prior to an on-chain settlement). MAY sent a subsequent channel_update with the disable bit set to 0 to re-enable the channel. thank you for agreeing that channels can be made private/publicly at a whim any time.. (after your multiple post saying its not) thank you for agreeing that alice cant send to carol. but eric-diana-carol can send bob or to alice when bob goes private but you can actually just break the branch in the map and tell alice that the BC channel is not available by responding to a query without mentioning BC channel. or even just telling alice your BC is shutdown/offline You are changing your assumptions again. Now, you are saying that BC channel is public, but B refuses to let Alice use it. Even if Bob doesn't send "channel_announcement" and then "channel_update" to Alice, she will eventually learn about it from other Lightning nodes as you assume that Diana knows about that channel all the time. Diana forwards every Carol's "channel_update" message. funny part is. my quotes "tell alice that the BC channel is not available" is not me changing my assumptions. it is not me saying that BC channel is or is not public. its that there is more then 1 way to dissuade alice from using BC as a route. im clearly still using the narrative that bob isnt telling alice about BC. so the assumption is the same. im highlighting there is more than one way to do so. im saying more than one way, because you think that there is no way, because before this evening you were adamant that the nodes are all default to public from the start.. and all have a global map of everyone.. so im just showing you that its not true. its not just by setting the disable_bit, it can also be done if bob is also public, but when alice queries bob(different messages) , he can also: time out the query respond by missing out details of a channel there is absolutely nothing FORCING bob to submit to alices request, when she asks for a list of channels. there is nothing FORCING bob to have to list all channels. .. alice can later just query bob and bob can decide to respond. or bob can send an update message to alice to change this. It would be a waste of time for Alice to message Bob and ask if he made any changes. Alice should use the information from her local map as it's the fastest way. Bob has no real reason to postpone sending "channel_update" message, which would reach Alice immediately. in your utopia of a network map showing all channels all updated in 0.001seconds, yea sure, waste of time, go ahead built your route and send your payment.. .. i think i now see how you got your 70% fail rate. because payments are private. and not on the map. even by using limited info from the 'map' alice still does not know how many 'inflight' payments (pending) bob,carol, diana has.. this means alice does not know the liquidity of the route. and so alice can 'walk the route" to gain details like cltv and fee's aswell as see if a route is viable. you know. because users may want to update their fee's and cltv for every payment to add some obfuscation. the process is lots of messages happen before-during and after. [pre-flight] [in-flight] [post-flight] is not like one initial sync and then nothing for minutes-hours. nodes can talk to each other using query messages. its not just to get updates but also to make sure they are still online. i know (in your view) you think there are only 3 messages structures and all involve update channell update htlc and commitment signed.. but there are hundreds of messages.. heck even the simple ping/pong messages can include updates to the fee's cltv's and such.. its not some mass harmony of network gossip that makes everyone public right from the start. its lots of messages happening before during and after payments, which make payments happen so if you want to say that a payer cannot make a payment while another node is 'inflight' with a different payment for their different reason, because its not yet updated to tell YOUR map. Again, "channel_update" is not sent across the network when you send someone an invoice or when you are in the middle of routing a payment. If either was the case, what would be the reason? i know you are obsessed with just 3 messages. but there are other query messages to get fee amounts and cltv amounts. also i was not the one setting a narrative of a full network broadcast where everyone gets the information for everyone to have a global map of everyone, thats always uptodate... YOU WERE each node has a different map tree of their connected(directly and peer of peer indirects). and thats all they have. your the one that thinks a node knows everyone or just needs to initial sync or get a invoice and everything is ready to just commit. funny part is an invoice doesnt always include 'possible route' hints. why. because when someone makes an offer to sell something and has their LN uri to show a users were to send payments to on a forum post/blog post or private communication DM on other platforms.. that recipient does not know who wants to pay him to have even sniffed the network map or his routes to find a payer. again time travels in one direction. you cant know everything before someone decides to pay, its getting more obvious why you have had 70% event fail rate. and why your still unclear as to why Take a look at "channel_update" again. Code: (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/07-routing-gossip.md#the-channel_update-message) type: 258 (channel_update) Which of these parameters in your opinion change when you send someone an invoice or when you are routing a payment? My answer is: none. If there are no changes to those parameters then the update is not necessary. if eric sent me an invoice. he would want to obfuscate some details for each payment even the ones not for me. so his last 5 parameters may be different for my invoice from him, compared to an invoice he sent to someone else 2 seconds earlier.. also an invoice is just an offer.. its not a thing that has a 'network map' of insight of all possible routes. because invoices could be static uri with offers, where the invoice is posted to a forum as the way of saying 'pay me' you still then need to look for a route or other routes before just paying the invoice giver again your forgetting about all the messages inbetween. for instance if eric is handing an invoice saying he wants 1000msat.. you still need to know about bob, carol, diana. also eric might have changed them parameters in the 5 minutes of me getting the invoice and deciding i definitely want to buy something from him.. for instance since the last 'network map' update via bob of carols 'state' carol could have changed her fee 100 times. this is because carol might want to use different fee's per payment for some obfuscation. or change her cltv value instead of keeping the 9 default. she may have updated other channels.. t / a-b-c-d-e \ z ..other channel partners(t&z) where she has inflights(pending payments) with z or t but because for last 5 minutes she has not sent or received a payment from bob, she has no reason to update bob nor would she want to 'network map rebuild gossip' bob every payment she gets from d, e, z or t as thats alot of messages to update to b even when B is not doing anything. and eric too could have changed his parameters too depending on his other payments with others. if you really think that all channel updates result in keeping an map tree uptodate, you are thinking of spam. and yes nodes do want to change things like cltv and fee to add obfuscation per payment even with out publicly announcing it everywhere.. because whats the point of advertising it to (your view of a network map) to add obfuscation, if the point of adding obfuscation is to hide from the network map .. i really am starting to understand your 70% fail rate now. seems you have been coding in some stuff that doesnt use logic or checks. even things like feature to allow watchtowers to hold onto a 'revoke' payment to use when one side cheats. the watch tower does not get/store blockchain format transactions Watchtowers need only txids of revoked commitment transactions and actual penalty transactions for each commitment, to function properly. most node software dont even store their own commitments in a binary form of a blockchain transaction format.(raw tx) they actually store it in variables of value input output signatures and keys. much more similar to the messages i have been talking about. heck i know you want to imagine LN only store blockchain format transactions. and only sends messages containing updated commitments already signed or to be signed.. but thats not how it works there are no messages sending blockchain formatted transaction templates. even the hard 'backup' doesnt store blockchain format transaction in raw byte array. the messages are not like that, the storage is not like that yep they dont store blockchain transactions. just bits of data that they compute a signature in ram by temporarily building binary arrays. to sign. and then store the signature plus the amounts and keys. (not a full raw blockchain tx) (but ill get more into that later, im not sure your at that point yet. maybe a month, or more.) (you took a few steps forward so your on your way, but you seem to want to drag it backwards so im not predicting your going to cotton on to LN's real differences just yet) anyway this topic is getting boring with the contradictions and dancing back and forth thats happening im not even going to bother to try pegging people down to one narrative using simple questions.. (tried that, they declined) so, maybe i will skip a few steps ahead rather than wait for rath to dance back and forth so here goes.. imagine i was carol(C).. A>B>Cmy node1 Z<Y<X<W<C my node3 my node3 C>D>E (A)lice can pay (Z)oe even though A only has a network map tree of B>C(if i(via node1) decided NOT to respond about my node3 paths) yep i dont actually need to have a tree linking all channels via a peer pass the parcel of linked peer channels from start to end. yep DEWXYZ can all pay A. even if the Z does not have a network map tree of ABCWXYZ. ill let you have a little think about that. hint my node 1 has no 'channel' to my node 3.. yet via my private messages i can allow A to pay z or A to pay A without either of them having either of them on THEIR maps. (i know your not ready to be out of the 'direct payment to channel partner' box, and think that nodes dont need to sniff routes when making a proposed payment.. but.. i hope you get out of the box soon) [moderator's note: consecutive posts merged] Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 21, 2022, 07:16:07 AM im not even going to redeem him by suggesting that he does know what actually happened and is just trolling a different narrative just to be argumentative.. Man, what's wrong with you? He's talking to you as politely as one possibly can and you behave with complete lack of courtesy. People talk to you calmly and you either insult them or snob (?) them. You're constantly complaining about the off-chain solution (which works brilliantly IMO) and want to persuade everyone with demagogue that the block size increase will do the job while history has shown that it simply flusters the network. And again; What if (and please consider this carefully) some people do want the same thing you want, however, at the same time, some of them don't want the same thing you want? Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Wind_FURY on January 21, 2022, 07:38:05 AM This topic reminds me of my debates with franky1, but this topic is on steroids. BUT let’s make it simple. Newbies, whatever the trolls say to disinform you, whatever the trolls post to gaslight you, YOU only need to know that those coins in channels are signed transactions that have not been broadcasted and included in the blockchain yet. No one in Lightning is sending something worthless in the network. They are literally BITCOINS. If only it was that simple. You have to make your point with arguments. Even if I consider franky a troll, I can't just say to everyone that he's a liar and I'm right. The whole point of the thread is to show why and where he's right/wrong. Also, there's no way newbies reach the 10th page of this mess. But it is that simple, because he is trolling you. Remember when I was alone debating him, and it only annoyed everyone because many topics became “Wind_FURY and franky1 show”? Someone actually said that. I have limited technical knowledge, but I tried debating him alone, without help except from DooMAD, because I knew he was lying, only to learn weeks and months later that he was gaslighting the NEWBIES who will read through without technical knowledge themselves. He is also trolling you now, and he will post long technical stuff to confuse you. It’s better not to debate franky1, it’s also better to educate newbies. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 21, 2022, 08:05:25 AM But it is that simple, because he is trolling you. You ignore him and demand from the rest to ignore him too, because you think he's a troll. You're suddenly sounding like franky. If you want to shut him up, better do it with arguments. This is the hard way, I know, but it turns out it's the only way. Ban requests or ignorance will do more harm than good.The fact that we've made 11 pages in this thread and another 5 on my ban request (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380036) proves that this case isn't simple. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on January 21, 2022, 08:14:59 AM aaaanndd domad has gone back to ignorance of the consensus stuff of 2017 all over again pretending it didnt happen. i though finally 2022 will be the year doomad remembers and accepts the 148/91 stuff.. understanding what happened. the real sequence of events. but looks like he instead has retreated back to his other rhetoric of ignorance again.. Bottom line: Even if we accepted your version of events (and I'm not convinced anyone does), you have still yet to propose an alternative that doesn't amount to "devs can't code things I don't personally approve of" (and also split the network). That's not a "rhetoric". That's you failing to provide a compelling argument. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 21, 2022, 12:36:15 PM funny that you now want to ignore that 148/91 happened(again), and pretend it didnt happen, because.... i said it did happen so it must be wrong..
you have the very oddest gauge of deciding an opinion.. you base what is in your reality, not by evidence like block data and bips.. but by who is telling you it, and are they kissing your ass or debating you. your opinions seem to be based on social bias where you ignore evidence just to stay loyal to your friends opinion, or to say the opposite of evidence if some one is debating you or your friends. you use friendships of like minded people as your backup... not evidence. i see many people like you, the conspiracy nutters on the P&S category are much the same. EG if you were a court judge, you happily would take here-say statements from friendly people, and ignore any documented evidence from brash people. you sir, would be the type of person that gets innocent people locked up and turn them vengeful, to then use their anger of wrongful conviction as a reason to never overturn the conviction. 'keep him locked up, he is angry i dont want him in society' and if you ever did decide to release the innocent. you would blame the brash evidence giver for not being an ass kisser as the reason for the conviction. not your ignorance and personal social preference oh well, your boring me. if you want to forget ignore that 148/91 happened. thats ignorance is on you. and blackhatcoiner does not want proof, he just wants me to shut up. he thinks absence of opposition by removing opposition, then becomes the proof that blackhatcoiner opinion must be true. no wonder doomad and blackhatcoiner like each other.. they both DONT want evidence. they just want a lack of evidence that disproves their opinion, by trying to shut up anyone providing any evidence. seems familiar. like threatening to remove the opposition unless they pander to your mandates. and anyone still not falling inline, you just reject them and not count them... so that all you can then see and count on, are those who agree and have your like minded chain of events. thus you activate your mindset as fact based solely on that game hmm.. as to rath. here is the code for LND that shows that channel data is stored not in binary rat blockchain format template. but in variables of keys and values. where 'amount' is saved in millisats https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/channeldb/channel.go the first several hundred lines of code are the variables.. and it does NOT just have a simple 'sent to file (raw tx)' where rawtx is a blockchain formatted transaction template in sat denomination oh and if in any line of code it says "btcutil.amount", this is not a reference to sats in btc form.. its actually https://github.com/btcsuite/btcutil/blob/master/amount.go#L13 Quote // AmountUnit describes a method of converting an Amount to something // other than the base unit of a bitcoin. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 21, 2022, 01:29:07 PM they just want a lack of evidence that disproves their opinion, by trying to shut up anyone providing any evidence. This is a lie, I'm not that kind of person. Quote me wherever you think I did this and I can give you a reasonable justification.he thinks absence of opposition by removing opposition, then becomes the proof that opinion blackhatcoiner must be true. This doesn't make any sense.like threatening to remove the opposition unless they pander to your mandates. and anyone still not falling inline, you just reject them and not count them... so that all you can then see and count on, are those who agree and have your like minded chain of events. thus you activate your mindset as fact based solely on that game Neither this makes sense, you started the nonsense again. I've never threatened anyone if that's what you mean.Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 21, 2022, 01:36:21 PM proof of threat, proof of wanting someone removed
well https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380036.0 and who made this threat.. ohhh it was you but i do like your quote of what you deem my abusiveness comes down to More social drama as he calls it! But it's mostly on his side. That's the funny part! :) No, the funny part starts once he comes shortly and insult you for bringing more social drama!Let's see how many times he's (ab)used those words:
i usually say those things multiple times per post. but lets be generous and pretend its 1 "abuse" per post and just call it 1055 posts. (its actually far far less) well i have made 22,000 posts where by, even at exaggeration of extending some generous stretching, thats only 4% rate. (reality is more like 0.5%(but who's actually counting)) but if those words are so abusive in comparison to 'autustic, liar, troll, angry man, mental case, ban him" then its probably worth you realising, that im not the harshest abuser. and you picked the wrong bear to poke. and if you think im more abusive than you, then please show me where i have demanded you be banned heck ill be generous, and admit a word i have highly over used and deemed as abusive fangirl (https://ninjastic.space/search?author=franky1&content=fangirl): 39 oh and some context, i have been talking about a certain group of like minded people since 2015 16,000 posts ago. yet 39 of 16000 is 0.24% abuse rate but hey lets be generous lets post count from the date i first used "fangirl" 5840 posts ago (2019) is still only 0.66% so if you want to pretend im abusive in every post, or abusive in majority of posts.. please do try harder now how many times has blackhatcoiner "abused" the word wrong (https://ninjastic.space/search?author=blackhatcoiner&content=wrong):203 now how many times has Doomad "abused" the words wrong (https://ninjastic.space/search?author=doomad&content=wrong):507 ignore (https://ninjastic.space/search?author=doomad&content=ignore):114 troll (https://ninjastic.space/search?author=doomad&content=troll):100 lie (https://ninjastic.space/search?author=doomad&content=lie):75 Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on January 21, 2022, 02:15:34 PM *avoiding the point* We're going round in circles. Let's pretend that you somehow managed to convince us to accept your version of events and, by some miracle, we all decided to accept your assertion that:
(I don't accept that, clearly) But what is the next step in your plan here? There have been 11 pages in this topic (and countless pages in others) and we're still no closer to establishing what it is you actually want. What are any of us supposed to do about it? What actions can be taken? There isn't a single person on this entire planet who can promise you that the stuff you're moaning about won't happen again. None of us have that kind of power (and that's a good thing). I am 100% convinced that what you are asking for is not remotely feasible. Say, for example, you somehow managed to convince every single current developer to agree never to code another softfork or another arbitrary activation date ever again (which isn't realistic, but let's pretend). What is to stop any of those developers from changing their mind later? What about new developers who haven't agreed to those terms? No human being on planet Earth can stop someone from creating code in an open-source environment. Ergo, what you are asking for is impossible in Bitcoin. Either prove that it is possible, or kindly give up. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 21, 2022, 02:19:33 PM point is. that people should be aware of actual events and the risks that come with things.
i know your "a pretend it didnt happen and shut anyone up that wants to discuss it" type of person i know your a "deny it happened and argue with people that want to discuss it" person but how about you stop contradicting yourself to cause debate and stop calling people a liar because they say something that goes against your view. basically, LEARN actual events, and then be consistent in your memory of those events in short.. stop the contradictory social drama of trying to hide discussions about risks and issues people want to discuss/know. by making people aware. makes people risk aware if these things are attempted again. by you wanting to hide the risk, deny the risk, you want people to aimlessly let the risk happen again.. which is not a good or helpful thing on your part. EG LN: making people aware of the pegged asset, and the payment systems different denominated token, and how the payment system can allow unpegged tokens.. is making people aware of how the 19th century bank system moved away from the gold standard. EG consensus: making people aware of a mandated activation done via opposition rejection pre-activation to fake 100% for activation. shows that devs could repeat the same thing again if they ever wanted to break a rule that should not be broke Title: Re: [Sitcom] Franky and his unfortunate interlocutors Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 21, 2022, 02:38:33 PM Okay, that's it. I can't continue this further. I don't make any sense and I can't stand the mood of the discussion with this unwholesome person. There's no discussion at all, it's just franky spitting nonsense perpetually trying to psychologically project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection) himself.
This thread is pointless. Neither we nor he will accomplish anything. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on January 21, 2022, 02:40:15 PM devs could repeat the same thing again if they ever wanted to break a rule that should not be broke But only if those securing the chain run the code to change that rule. And yes, I know you won't acknowledge that part, given your past comments that you think all users are "sheep" and just blindly follow, but okay, whatever. Consider us sufficiently "aware", even if we're still not in agreement about your interpretation of events or morality in general. I acknowledge that softforks have the potential to be controversial, however, I maintain that they are permitted and, provided they find sufficient support levels, they absolutely can happen. Neither I, you nor anyone else can change that. Are we done? Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 21, 2022, 03:11:54 PM i know you want to let the devs of core just change things as they please..
i know deep down that you know that they have done it even without users needing to upgrade to vote. so why play games of denial acting like upgrades cant now happen unless everyone runs the software again you deny the existence of the backward compatibility that ensured those not upgrading didnt count at the protocol validation level. (debunking your 'those securing the chain run the code to change that rule' - no they didnt need to) and the block rejection of non voters ensured the opposition pools didnt count at the block level. (debunking your 'those securing the chain run the code to change that rule' - no they didnt need to) so why keep saying that things can only upgrade if majority vote for it. consenus should be. if there are 10 pools the vote should be 9/10. but what actually happened. before pools even downloaded the actual software to even make segwit formatted blocks. pools using legacy code. had to (by threat) just flag a bit in a header. or have their legacy block rejected EG if 7/10 pools vote yes. it wont activate. so the bips used would reject the 3 opposition to then have a 7/7. before then activating you are pretending there was no threat, when deep down you know that the new trick is to just reject the opposers, and slip a stripped block to the abstainers. seems you just want to pretend that everything should only work the way core want it. with a FAKE pretence that users should just take the centralised point of failure as a feature. and that core should continue as they please Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on January 21, 2022, 04:25:53 PM Guess we're not done. ::)
i know you want to let the devs of core just change things as they please.. No. Not just the core devs. Any devs can change code. And what I "want" is irrelevant. I'm not telling you what I want, I'm telling you how it is. Facts of life. Neither my desires nor yours count for anything. This is simply how it works. I'll repeat again: No human being on planet Earth can stop someone from creating code in an open-source environment. Ergo, what you are asking for is impossible in Bitcoin. Either prove that it is possible, or kindly give up. You know what I'm saying is accurate. Don't go twisting my words to deflect from the part where you don't have an answer. so why play games of denial acting like upgrades cant now happen unless everyone runs the software Unless enough people run the software. Again, please stop with the needless hyperbole and distorting what I have said. again you deny the existence of the backward compatibility that ensured those not upgrading didnt count at the protocol validation level. I don't deny their existence. You are yet again misrepresenting my words. And again, it still required enough of the people securing the chain to run code to make it happen. (debunking your 'those securing the chain run the code to change that rule' - no they didnt need to) You haven't debunked anything, they did need to run code to change the rule. Do I really have to say "BIP91 bit 4 flag" again? //EDIT: your word games of "no one can change the code" and "anyone can change the code" are contradictions. done so purely to avoid mentioning the actual events that actually happen For that to be my word game, you would first have to provide evidence that I've said "no one can change the code". Otherwise you're being dishonest again. And I have already described events as they happened (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380215.msg59020657#msg59020657). I'm not repeating myself again. are you now denying 148/91 happened or are you accepting 148/91 happened I'm saying your understanding of what happened is flawed. You stated: it was the 148 nodes that rejected blocks which got bip91 to its threshold and beyond which then activated segwit(141) This is false. The paltry number of people running the UASF client would have resulted in a minority chain split had BIP91 not superseded BIP148. BIP91 happened. BIP148 failed, although the threat of BIP148 did result in the unilateral announcement and subsequent enacting of the BCH fork. Please get it right going forwards. //DOUBLE_EDIT: but seems hasnt took the time to learn a thing. If all you have to teach is tyranny, it's not surprising no one heeds your "lessons". ::) seems this topic is dead. the contradictors want to stick with their contradictions And the delusional want to stick with their delusions. Thanks for playing. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 21, 2022, 04:29:17 PM your word games of "no one can change the code" and "anyone can change the code" are contradictions. done so purely to avoid mentioning the actual events that actually happen.
i know your contradictions, you have said them for 5 years. now stick to the facts of the actual code and the actual bips. the actual events are you now denying 148/91 happened or are you accepting 148/91 happened segwit activated on 24th of august. .. not the 1st it did not require majority to run segwit on the 1st to trigger the segwit grace period at that date of august 1st it required legacy node users of pools to just change a bit flag in a header. that is all. or have their blocks rejected. again nothing to do with segwit block template formats causing rejection. the threat was not of 10,000 nodes rejecting blocks where those nodes are all random users. unable to understand segwit format templates. the threat was from 50 prominent economic nodes(merchant services, exchanges, pools(NYA)) rejecting blocks without the flag. meaning opposition pools(not flagging) cant then spend their value. again you forget that its not a opt-in to activate. it was a opt-in or else get your block ignored. where the block count after then triggered segwits grace period due to lack of opposition. again witout any pool needing to run segwit code that could create segwit block templates again it was not a normal system where those who dont upgrade would get forked off purely due to them not understanding accepting a new format after activation. it was those not showing willingness to allow a new feature to even enter a pre-activation grace period will be forked off. it didnt require everyone to upgrade. to activate. it just required a flag to say you dont want to be forked, which also was the same flag used to allow segwit to enter its 3 week grace period to activate segwit ok ill make it simple 1. which version of events happened in 2017 A[ ] mandatory fork(148/91) before aug 24th.. then segwit graceperiod leading to segwit(141) activation on aug 24th B[ ] segwit graceperiod leading to segwit(141) activation, without 148/91 flag event prior 2. what bip/code required nodes/pools to upgrade software upto august 1st to cause a segwit activation 3. what bip/code required nodes/pools to upgrade software upto august 24th to cause a segwit activation Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on January 21, 2022, 10:06:29 PM you then pretend alice pings the entire network or a central mempool/repo/dns (whatever fantasy variable your have tried to add in) for the rest of the network you than back down and say another fantasy, that alice magically must connect eventually(facepalm) to some outside node. Again, about that fantasy.... This specification describes a node discovery mechanism based on the Domain Name System (DNS). Its purpose is twofold: Bootstrap: providing the initial node discovery for nodes that have no known contacts in the network I also run my own node and I can see that some random nodes connect to me from time to time. You know what? Let's leave this topic. You're being ignorant just like with HTLC signatures in the HLTC outputs of commitment transactions. thank you for agreeing that channels can be made private/publicly at a whim any time.. (after your multiple post saying its not) thank you for agreeing that alice cant send to carol. but eric-diana-carol can send bob or to alice when bob goes private Private channels are channels that have never been announced to the network. Disabling a channel does not make it private. All nodes still have that channel on their map, but they know that they can't temporarily use it for their payment. there is absolutely nothing FORCING bob to submit to alices request, when she asks for a list of channels. there is nothing FORCING bob to have to list all channels. That's possible. However: Even if Bob doesn't send "channel_announcement" and then "channel_update" to Alice, she will eventually learn about it from other Lightning nodes as you assume that Diana knows about that channel all the time. but there are hundreds of messages.. heck even the simple ping/pong messages can include updates to the fee's cltv's and such. Even the ping/pong messages? Are you sure that we are looking at the same specifications? You might as well put a picture of your cat inside of your "ping" message, but the recipient won't know how to handle it correctly as it's non-standard. i think i now see how you got your 70% fail rate. [...] i really am starting to understand your 70% fail rate now. seems you have been coding in some stuff that doesnt use logic or checks. If you actually looked at my logs and posts, you would know that my payments failed either at some further point in the route or due to no liquidity in my second channel. It should take a couple of minutes for the message to propagate across the whole network. Alice should receive it fairly quickly as she's just a few hops away. if you really think that all channel updates result in keeping an map tree uptodate, you are thinking of spam. Imagine that B, C, D, E updated the parameters of their channels and didn't broadcast the changes as "it's spam". Alice would have to query every single one of them to be able to send the payment. By the way, how would Alice know that all of her information is out-of-date? Asking each hop individually would consume a lot of time. If the payment fails due to outdated "channel_update", "update_fail_htlc/update_fail_malformed_htlc" can actually return an error message along with the latest "channel_update". Still, the payment would fail 4 times in the above scenario. and yes nodes do want to change things like cltv and fee to add obfuscation per payment even with out publicly announcing it everywhere.. I don't think that any implementation behaves this way as it would complicate routing a few different payments at the same time. The sender can actually obfuscate both. CLTV: Quote from: https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/07-routing-gossip.md#the-channel_update-message If a route is computed by simply routing to the intended recipient and summing the cltv_expiry_deltas, then it's possible for intermediate nodes to guess their position in the route. Knowing the CLTV of the HTLC, the surrounding network topology, and the cltv_expiry_deltas gives an attacker a way to guess the intended recipient. Therefore, it's highly desirable to add a random offset to the CLTV that the intended recipient will receive, which bumps all CLTVs along the route. Fees: In the "onion_routing_packet", the sender can intentionally set "amt_to_forward" to a lower value. As a result, the fee paid would be bigger than the one that can be calculated from publicly known parameters. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 22, 2022, 02:45:19 AM seeing as you want to limit yourself to a DNS uptopia and a 3 messages scenary of network wide channel update, and the only in channel partner private message share of update htlc and commitment signed.
but let me just show you a few things outside of your box. the ping pong message: first you claim that unknown message types are just rejected, yet https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/01-messaging.md#lightning-message-format Quote The type field indicates how to interpret the payload field. The format for each individual type is defined by a specification in this repository. The type follows the it's ok to be odd rule, so nodes MAY send odd-numbered types without ascertaining that the recipient understands it. then you thinking ping pong is useless for anything but poking a node to wake up https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/01-messaging.md#rationale-4 Quote The largest possible message is 65535 bytes; thus, the maximum sensible byteslen is 65531 — in order to account for the type field (pong) and the byteslen itself. This allows a convenient cutoff for num_pong_bytes to indicate that no reply should be sent. Connections between nodes within the network may be long lived, as payment channels have an indefinite lifetime. However, it's likely that no new data will be exchanged for a significant portion of a connection's lifetime. Also, on several platforms it's possible that Lightning clients will be put to sleep without prior warning. Hence, a distinct ping message is used, in order to probe for the liveness of the connection on the other side, as well as to keep the established connection active. .. Finally, the usage of periodic ping messages serves to promote frequent key rotations as specified within BOLT #8. hmm. and maybe you can take some time to wonder what other things you can put in the 65kb allowance of a ping message apart from ping:"awake?" pong:"yes"/"no" (human translation) Quote Within the received ping message, the sender will specify the number of bytes to be included within the data payload of the pong message. hmm payload data. i know your not thinking what im thinking. but take some time, it might dawn on you what im hinting.. some hints. another name for payload is TLV. and guess what TLV im thinking of. because 'ping' messages only go direct to peers its connected with (and not some network wide 'internet' of nodes connected to everyone). you might see that your thoughts of 'spamming' the network. is a little out of place. ping and pong is direct messaging between connected peers and not a network wide spam. where ping and pong can be used to send a payload of hundreds of TVL(types) of messages but it appears in your philosophy of your understanding of the network there is no privacy. in your eyes any SEC or law enforcement department can just sniff a DNS and see all nodes using LN and send them cease and desist requests if they are not registered money transmitters. so in your philosophy you feel the only privacy is the payment.. and the only way to hide a channel is via tor(facepalm), just t hide a channels IP.. its kind of a shame that you want to break your own PR campaign niche features just to make a narrative to fit your personal philosophy. heck i did laugh that you think even if channel partners set their channel to private, the channel is still getting listed on some DNS.. ill quote that just for giggles Private channels are channels that have never been announced to the network. Disabling a channel does not make it private. All nodes still have that channel on their map, but they know that they can't temporarily use it for their payment. first, im guessing you didnt read the bolt about pruning (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/93909f67f6a48ee3f155a6224c182e612dd5f187/07-routing-gossip.md#pruning-the-network-view)the map(i call it cutting off branches of the tree) its funny because not only are you trying to make a narrative that its all public, al channels, all nodes, always listed unless channel close is announced formally.. but you also contradicted yourself before even making your narrative by your own admission that "private channels are channels that have never been announced to the network".. i guess the DNS philosophy must be psychic then.. having the listing without it ever being announced. amazing. much like your make a payment without sniffing the route or knowing whats available on the route. yea, seems like utopia best-case guess and exaggeration of psychic understanding of the network without sniffing the network is your narrative.(YOUR philosophy of not needing to ping to see if route is all active, just sign a commitment and wait for fail to learn(facepalm)) where as reality is more like nodes only know about their map(tree branches) of the peers within their tree. and only get announced updates when a node wants to announce. and that ping and pong messages can happen inbetween such formal announcements to test a peer is still active and also to arrange regular key changes and updates of fee's .. but your philosophy of only relying on network wide(facepalm) formal announcements could leave your map outdated https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/01-messaging.md#rationale-4 Quote Connections between nodes within the network may be long lived, as payment channels have an indefinite lifetime. However, it's likely that no new data will be exchanged for a significant portion of a connection's lifetime. oh and yea, i know you think that the messages of amount, fee, cltv are only handled in htlc updates(your 3 message type limit box). but take some time about the thoughts of ping-pong payloads and their ability to have TLV's (payloads) of hundreds of types.. P.S and my hints are not of anything new, its stuff i have already said. but things you have failed to have "make the connection with"(pun intended) yet Title: Re: [Sitcom] Franky and his unfortunate interlocutors Post by: Wind_FURY on January 22, 2022, 08:41:20 AM Okay, that's it. I can't continue this further. I don't make any sense and I can't stand the mood of the discussion with this unwholesome person. There's no discussion at all, it's just franky spitting nonsense perpetually trying to psychologically project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection) himself. This thread is pointless. Neither we nor he will accomplish anything. Hahaha! I told you. I know franky1, I had the best learning experiences about Bitcoin from him and jonald_fyookball, the hard way. Everything, from being convinced that big blocks will scale Bitcoin, to debating about offchain layers. It’s better to post the truth, then ignore the trolls. You will not sound like franky1. Why? Because you’re neither gaslighting people, nor spreading disinformation. I’ll post it again. Quote The coins in channels are signed transactions that have not been broadcasted and included in the blockchain yet. No one in Lightning is sending something worthless in the network. They are literally BITCOINS, not IOUs. 8) Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-cha Post by: franky1 on January 22, 2022, 02:08:00 PM The coins in channels are signed transactions that have not been broadcasted and included in the blockchain yet. No one in Lightning is sending something worthless in the network. They are literally BITCOINS, not IOUs. and its people like these that make it obviously clear that what they learned from doomad and their group has alot of errors of thought and research. windfury has had years to learn. but seems hasnt took the time to learn a thing. seems this topic is dead. the contradictors want to stick with their contradictions Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 25, 2022, 11:37:25 AM I just want to remind the people of this thread that the following:
If we accept your premise that larger blocks offer more utility, then you should have no problem explaining why everyone hasn't switched to BCH. It's everything you claim Bitcoin should be. They are doing everything you want us to do. Why should we copy their approach when it isn't working for them? I take the stance that having a choice between on-chain and off-chain unequivocally offers more utility versus not having that choice. That's common sense. I would also posit that if off-chain transactions didn't offer more utility, people wouldn't be using them. But they are. People find this technology useful. More useful than larger blocks. Acknowledge this fact. Learn to accept it. Is answered by: they dont care about bitcoin. they dont care about: maintaining the bitcoin network with archive nodes. they are prune node lovers reasonable fee's per transaction, they want fee's to be high per transaction. helping the network keep the difficulty difficult to attack more tranasction onchain to keep the individual fee per transaction cost down they want those running LN 'full nodes' to prune the blockchain after IBD and pretend they are supporting the bitcoin network even when they are not. they want to convince people that bitcoin cant scale they want to convince people that LN is the only option to spend their wealth on retail products and items completely shameful these fangirls are. all they care about is steering people away from bitcoin and the btc asset, just so they as LN hubs(banks) can take the btc off people at settlement and swap it for altcoins. the only reason why these fangirls think they have a valid mindset for their actions is the same dozen groupies merit each other to pat each other on the back.. which is a form of cabin fever, and 'special boys club' mentality. No comments... Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 25, 2022, 11:55:36 AM many people want to hold exchange MySQL balance and trade tokens on MySQL databases thinking they are 'owning bitcoin' but they dont care about maintaining the network, nor care about the 'not my keys, not my coin' stuff, heck they dont even know or care that what they are trading is a different token and not a blockchain confirmed(settled) transaction
same goes for LN.. people using a phone app to buy chewing gum. they dont care about being full nodes(validation AND archiving) they just want to have an account which allows them to move value. no matter the format of the value. and not really think about the security lacking in using such 'easy/fast' option. yep no one is going to carry around a laptop and sync the blockchain just to validate a channel is real(still open) when just wanting to buy a coffee on an offchain. they will just 'trust' that everything is fine and hope the partner is amicable and honest. bitcoin does not need to leap to the propagandised 100mb blocks to meet offchain demand. because offchain demand is no where near it. bitcoin however should not be hindered, restricted, stagnated to prevent some scaling (incremental) increases of transaction count possibilities. but that hindering so far has not been based on some technical reason that would break bitcoin. but on political reason to promote other networks as solutions. .. the old 'blockchains are broke use non blockchain solutions' lame advert there are many reasons people dont choose BCH. such as its technical team(lack of), its not having a wide array of merchant acceptance. and even is lack of fundamental value. the funny thing is that getting people away from using the bitcoin network and into using altnets or custodian served litewallet apps is going to cause more people to drop from being bitcoin network maintainers(full nodes(validate and archive)). far more so than the 1990's hardware propaganda reasons. you can spot these people wanting less bitcoin network maintainers, not only do they promote altnets as utopia and bitcoin as broke. but also they try to tell bitcoin maintainers(full nodes(validate and archive)) that the 'archive' part is redundant(facepalm), even go as far as saying that upgrading to remain validation completeness is redundant, 'coz backward compatibility'(facepalm).. yet the fail to convey the actual security and feature of why full validation and archiving is important backbone to the network. and fail to explain how UN-upgraded nodes are not true full nodes as they are handed stripped data and put on a lesser level, but deceived as being told they are 'full nodes' even when not using their deceptive methods of understating what "backward compatibility" actually results in and what pruned actually lessens the features available of. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 25, 2022, 12:24:13 PM same goes for LN people using a phone app to buy chewing gum. they dont care about being full nodes(validation AND archiving) I don't know what's favoring them, but I'm sure they want their chewing gums. They will use what satisfies this need. They could be using PayPal instead or some other payment processor, but they choose to use a cryptocurrency 'cause it comes with benefits. However, they're more attracted by PayPal, because it's faster than the on-chain transactions.These people won't change by increasing the block size. The vast majority don't even run a node. They're probably satisfied by SPV solutions. the funny thing is that getting people away from using the bitcoin network and into using altnets or custodian served litewallet apps is going to cause more people to drop from being bitcoin network maintainers. far more so than the 1990's hardware propaganda reasons What to do franky? Global adoption brings defects. What matters to me is that you, now, can verify everything. You're not obligated to trust someone. There's another option. Sure, it's tough to handle and sure, trusting hubs has its easiness and comfort including some disadvantages, but there is another option that did not exist before. You don't like trusting hubs? Use Bitcoin without trusting hubs! You don't like LN? Make only on-chain transactions! The fact that some users are satisfied by these inventions means that it's useful to them and you ought to respect it.Whether people use hubs or not; whether they like exchanging using third parties or not: Trust is no more mandatory. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 25, 2022, 12:27:20 PM then stop with the adverts that bitcoin is broke and the solution everyone should use is LN
atleast tweak your adverts to be an 'option'(niche usecase) instead of pretending its the default end goal for everyones daily utility. EG if your saying 'bitcoin doesnt need to scale because LN is here' is more so an advert saying people should stop wanting to use bitcoin often and use an altnet instead. its not an advert saying people can choose. its more like 'heres the exit, the only way to go' .. also when it comes to these 'hubs' and channel partners.. explain the disadvantages and limits. stop trying to utopianise offchain niche services Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 25, 2022, 12:30:51 PM then stop with the adverts that bitcoin is broke and the solution everyone should use is LN No, I won't, 'cause Bitcoin does not satisfy my needs when I want to make micro-transactions. And I'll continue supporting it and spreading its utility, otherwise merchants will not adopt it.atleast tweak your adverts to be an 'option' instead of pretending its the default end goal for everyones daily utility. When did I say that it must be the default end goal? This is just you misinterpreting everyone.Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 25, 2022, 12:44:45 PM When did I say that it must be the default end goal? This is just you misinterpreting everyone. first you seemed a little open minded. like it was an option. Based on all these replies I read, from newbies to Legendaries, I realised that this is something that no one thought of on bitcoin. At least, no one has a solution. Right now we can may payments really cheap, I had made a payment using only 300 satoshis. It took 5 days, but it did. The median is about $2. I've noticed that by paying 1 sat/byte (which is much lower than $2) can take about 1 day to get confirmed. So even if the median reaches $10, we can still make transactions really cheap. Now, I don't know much about that lightning network, but I'm sure that not every bitcoin adopter will switch on using that. see your progression from mentioning flaws of bitcoin without a solution and saying lightning is not a solution for everyone.. ..to then go full on LN loyalist mode, saying things like: I just think that the lightning network is a more preferable solution and that most of the Bitcoiners use it. I find LN really cool as a solution to the scaling issue, but there are lots of people believing that due to its existence, it can be globally adopted as a medium of exchange. I don't want to say again that Lightning brings new things to the table, but I'll have to: It's an innovative solution and does good to everybody. LN does not scale bitcoin. LN takes people away from using the bitcoin network. your advert is like saying exchange custodians scales bitcoin network.. but we all know that is not true. because those using custodial wallets are not even touching the bitcoin network. if you think that stagnating and immobilising a limit that causes a backlog of transaction delays is solved by removing users. then you are missing the cause of the problem that needs to be addressed Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 25, 2022, 12:52:42 PM LN does not scale bitcoin. LN takes people away from using the bitcoin network. I won't answer to this closed-minded way of thinking, but to this:your advert is like saying exchange custodians scales bitcoin network.. but we all know that is not true. because those using custodial wallets are not even touching the bitcoin network see your progression from mentioning flaws of bitcoin without a solution and saying lightning is not a solution for everyone.. Take a look on the dates of those posts. They're not the same. In 2020, I didn't even know how Bitcoin works technically. I was literally a newbie. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 25, 2022, 12:58:35 PM LN does not scale bitcoin. LN takes people away from using the bitcoin network. I won't answer to this closed-minded way of thinking, but to this:your advert is like saying exchange custodians scales bitcoin network.. but we all know that is not true. because those using custodial wallets are not even touching the bitcoin network see your progression from mentioning flaws of bitcoin without a solution and saying lightning is not a solution for everyone.. Take a look on the dates of those posts. They're not the same. In 2020, I didn't even know how Bitcoin works technically. I was literally a newbie. and instead of leaning what was stifling BITCOIN progress. where you would know the solution is actually in scaling BITCOIN(increase onchain transaction average). but you instead avoided learning about the technical stuff, heck you avoided learning what a full nodes functions consist of. you just leaped straight to idolising LN and propagandising flaws of bitcoin like it cant scale, wont scale. heck you dont even know all the LN flaws, so instead shy away from mentioning LN flaws just to over promote it as what "everyone" "most" "everybody" should/does use... sorry but its not the case .. there is a big difference between these two narratives LN is the solution to bitcoin scaling everyone should use vs LN is a choice option anyone can use .. the first is like saying bitcoins problems are solved and no bitcoin adjustments need to be made because people will use LN instead. the second is that options are open. but that BITCOIN still needs more work done on and for the bitcoin network to scale BITCOIN Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 25, 2022, 03:58:17 PM It's clear that we won't ever agree that Lightning does scale. In my opinion, it does as it minimizes the transactions that happen on-chain and therefore, the weight of the chain. In your opinion, it doesn't as ITs' NoT BiTCoIn! But, that's okay. Everything's relative.
heck you avoided learning what a full nodes functions consist of Huh?Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 25, 2022, 04:17:43 PM It's clear that we won't ever agree that Lightning does scale. In my opinion, it does as it minimizes the transactions that happen on-chain and therefore, the weight of the chain. In your opinion, it doesn't as ITs' NoT BiTCoIn! But, that's okay. Everything's relative. heck you avoided learning what a full nodes functions consist of Huh?1. bitcoin network. im going to emphasise this. BITCOIN NETWORK making people not use the BITCOIN network. is not scaling the BITCOIN network. it just makes people use a DIFFERENT NETWORK. this is not scaling bitcoin. its scaling another networks popularity. decreasing bitcoin network utility/popularity. you may want to hide the millisats and pretend LN is bitcoin. but LN sends payment messages in millisats. heck even the channelDB that saves channel data saves the data in millisats. 2. your numerous attempts to say that a full node doesn't not need to archive, does not need to offer Initial Block Downloads to peers. doesnt need to regularly check hashes against data... or peers and instead treat a local utxo set as golden locked. even when this database has no hash to ensure no edits happened.. you seem to have forgot alot of network backbone security/features, just to present a local view of user-only-comfort as somehow being the network full service node for network security and service. in short YOUR view of a full node is just a local-personal-use-validator Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 25, 2022, 06:18:29 PM making people not use the BITCOIN network. is not scaling the BITCOIN network. Alas, they do use it. They use the Bitcoin network to create channels. They couldn't have Lightning if they didn't have the first layer. And the existence of the Lightning contributes to those who want to only use the first layer. The transactions which would occur on-chain by those who use Lightning, did not happen. The chain weights less!2. your numerous attempts to say that a full node doesn't not need to archive Another misinterpretation? What else have I said? That I want your death, because I requested a ban? That I hate Bitcoin, because LN iS nOt BiTCOiN? That I'm Satoshi, because <irrelevant reasons>? Quote me wherever I cursed Bitcoin principles for one more time and I'll show to everyone you just misunderstood my sayings...Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 25, 2022, 09:39:18 PM making people not use the BITCOIN network. is not scaling the BITCOIN network. Alas, they do use it. They use the Bitcoin network to create channels. They couldn't have Lightning if they didn't have the first layer. And the existence of the Lightning contributes to those who want to only use the first layer. The transactions which would occur on-chain by those who use Lightning, did not happen. The chain weights less!again lightning can still function without bitcoin people can deposit fiat into an exchange, buy an asset realise bitcoin is expensive and swap to an altcoin and then use LN. people can have channels opened for them with 'inbound capacity' without the user needing to have bitcoin. (thor) heck people can even have channels that are suppose to be pegged to bitcoin transactions without there even being a confirmed transaction to peg to(turbo). so yea LN is not strictly and 100% hooked to bitcoin. calling it a layer offers a imaginary pretense of it being a protective skin for something. but LN is not a skin of bitcoin. its a bridge , a transport bypass to exit the area https://i.imgur.com/Ia0qJ4A.png you want people to think of it as a skin of bitcoin to protect bitcoin utility and add to bitcoin utility where you see "LN bitcoin" as a separate network from "ln litecoin" as if LN is a skin for each coin also you probably view it as a skin that has more 'nodes' than the encompassed coin has yet its actually a bridge between different crypto's to take people away from one to then access another where there is less nodes than the actual blockchain nodes funny part is a smart PR guy could actually sell its actual view as its niche, positively. rather than just lame tagging LN as bitcoin to pretend its made for and is for bitcoin and helps bitcoin. taking utility away, yea it does decrease the weight. but thats not scaling the weight, thats removing the weight. meaning getting rid of transactions, removal, exodus, exit. users buying their coffee with lightning apps on cell phones are not protecting bitcoin, monitoring bitcoin, helping bitcoin. its doing something else away from bitcoin where users never touch the bitcoin network. yep LN's niche of cellphone apps for people to buy coffee (not home nodes offering services) is where users never touch bitcoin. and when its time to move on from LN decide to exchange to a altcoin like litecoin to then move to an exchange to change to fiat, Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: n0nce on January 25, 2022, 11:58:27 PM same goes for LN people using a phone app to buy chewing gum. they dont care about being full nodes(validation AND archiving) I don't know what's favoring them, but I'm sure they want their chewing gums. They will use what satisfies this need. They could be using PayPal instead or some other payment processor, but they choose to use a cryptocurrency 'cause it comes with benefits. However, they're more attracted by PayPal, because it's faster than the on-chain transactions.These people won't change by increasing the block size. Or what about buying $1 coffee with $0.08 (absolute minimum!) fee? Sounds like nothing at first, but it's an 8% fee. Block size doesn't change confirmation time and transaction cost, no matter if the mempool will always be empty or not. Because 1sat minimum is not negligible, especially in the future! How about microtransactions at the cent-level to e.g. pay for music or movie streaming by the second? Or low-value digital items? Every time a fee of at least 250 sats? At the moment it's only 8 cents, but if Bitcoin reaches $1 million, that will be ~$2.5 for every transaction at 1 sat/vB MINIMUM FEE! Much rather opening a channel for 2 bucks instead and use it basically for free afterwards.. Also let's not forget in other countries / economies, $0.08 is not 'nothing', like for us. Wages can be >10x lower, so that would be already like $1 for them, at low low Bitcoin prices of $30k. Imagine what happens at $100k or more. The vast majority don't even run a node. They're probably satisfied by SPV solutions. These are not mutually exclusive either. You can be a super hardcore Bitcoin supporter with even multiple full nodes, but prefer to pay through Lightning (from one of those nodes or LN app, whatever), in stores, for micropayments or other stuff, for example.yet its actually a bridge between different crypto's to take people away from one to then access another It's just one extra capability of LN. If people want to switch from Bitcoin to another coin, it should be their freedom to do so and it's possible already today through something that we call 'exchange'... 0:) Don't you think?where there is less nodes than the actual blockchain nodes taking utility away, yea it does decrease the weight. but thats not scaling the weight, thats removing the weight. meaning getting rid of transactions, removal, exodus, exit. You got it! We scale Bitcoin by taking some weight off its back (the blockchain)... :) We take actual, real Bitcoin transactions and move them between users without storing every movement on the ledger. This is why we call it 'scalable'.Any on-chain scaling mechanism is limited to some very hard bounds and thus can't be called 'scalable'. Like, a 2x throughput increase (2MB blocks) is not 'scaling'. That's a freaking tiny constant factor. It's not nearly enough for global adoption. I see, you like numbers. Let's go ad absurdum. Assume every node operator has a 100Mbit internet connection (not all do) and unlimited computing power so a block is completely verified in 1 nanosecond. This means in 10 minutes (600s) he can transmit 60,000Mbits or 7.5GB. This will be the absolute biggest block size. The smallest possible Bitcoin transaction is 166 Bytes in size. (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Maximum_transaction_rate) A 7.5GB block (biggest 'scaling' you can do on-chain) can thus contain 7,500,000,000/166=45,180,722 transactions, or 75,301 tx/s. This would suffice for worldwide usage. Though then we run into a storage issue: 7.5GB/10min is 0.75GB/min or 1080GB/day. After 10 years, the blockchain will have the size of 3,944,700GB or 3,944 Terabytes. This requires over 200 18TB Seagate HDDs, basically buying 20 of them every single year. This is a rate of around 2 Seagate 18TB HDDs per month. At current MSRP of $600 per drive, that gets rather expensive. And don't forget about the magical instant-multi-GB-block-verifying CPU and fully saturated 100Mbit/s internet connection (this is the most realistic bit about this whole thought experiment now that I think about it). Now, you will say, we don't need 75k tx/s. That's true. What if we want to replace VISA and Mastercard (no normal bank transfers)? From what I can gather, together they typically have 5k tx/s. So if we go from 75k to 5k, that's just a factor of 15. Meaning instead of having 3,944 Terabytes of data after 10 years, we will have only 263TB. That's still 15x $600 drives, driving your node cost upwards of $9000. If this doesn't drive centralization, I don't know what will. users buying their coffee with lightning apps on cell phones are not protecting bitcoin, monitoring bitcoin, helping bitcoin. its doing something else away from bitcoin where users never touch the bitcoin network. yep LN's niche of cellphone apps for people to buy coffee (not home nodes offering services) is where users never touch bitcoin. and when its time to move on from LN decide to exchange to a altcoin like litecoin to then move to an exchange to change to fiat, So you think every Bitcoin user has to 'protect' and 'help' Bitcoin? And that nobody should be allowed to use Bitcoin if they're not running a node at home?Also, as I said earlier, running a node and using LN is not mutually exclusive. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 26, 2022, 12:29:13 AM never said that no one should have choices.
i always said to not advertise LN as "its bitcoin" "it is the solution" "bitcoin cant do this, come use something else" where the motive and narrativce is not choice. but being shown an exit if you want to play with millisat messages and channel databases that are measured in millisats. where you dont actually save a blockchain formatted template to your hard drive. but be under the illusion that you think its 'bitcoin' that your choice. just dont go trying to tell everyone that LBN is the future end place people should all move to with silly excuses of 'bitcoin cant scale' oh and the 'big block' '100mb block '2mb block" is again ignoring what bitcoin scaling is. its about transaction count increases and decreasing the fee per use.. but yea you will shy away from talking about onchain transaction increase discussions. as many LN fans always do. and instead make the conversation sound more like "bitcoin weight" vs LN capacity. just to set an image in peoples minds that bitcoin is about bloat and LN is about capacity. as for you saying that bitcoin is 0.08 minimum 250byte = 1sat/byte =250sat is ~9cents. but. here is the thing. 1sat/0.01kbyte. can make transactions 25sat for a 250byte tx. after all bitcoin already has fee calculation code cludge that doesnt actually count full length raw data as full length. so new fee mechanisms can be added to 'round' bytes up to the next significant number i didnt even say everyone should be full nodes(archive and validate) i have always said dont advertise less than full nodes as being full that everyone should prune where its falsely portrayed as still full that people should use other networks, which would decrease the current diversity/population of full nodes due to users dropping full nodes in replacement for altnet lite apps for their daily use Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: n0nce on January 26, 2022, 12:34:06 AM oh and the 'big block' '100mb block '2mb block" is again ignoring what bitcoin scaling is. its about transaction count increases and decreasing the fee per use.. but yea you will shy away from talking about onchain transaction increase discussions. as many LN fans always do. I'm not shying away! Then we say the blocks stay at 1MB? Let's say you magically get a transaction down to 10 Bytes each (impossible but let's say it). That's 100,000 tx/block (maximum 'transaction count increase'). This would yield 166 transactions per second. Clearly not enough. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 26, 2022, 12:45:45 AM oh and the 'big block' '100mb block '2mb block" is again ignoring what bitcoin scaling is. its about transaction count increases and decreasing the fee per use.. but yea you will shy away from talking about onchain transaction increase discussions. as many LN fans always do. I'm not shying away! Then we say the blocks stay at 1MB? Let's say you magically get a transaction down to 10 Bytes each (impossible but let's say it). That's 100,000 tx/block (maximum 'transaction count increase'). This would yield 166 transactions per second. Clearly not enough. LN is not processing (166-7) 159 transactions a second. so bitcoin does not need to be 24x transaction capacity. to meet demands.. .. sorry but LN is not that popular real world utility puts real people only buying 1-5 things a day. meaning with real life usage of 33000 LN nodes (actually less users due to some having more then one node, but lets pretend each node represent a user) 33,000*5 (yep im helping your side by exagerating) is 165,000 A DAY!! (not a second) which actually becomes 2tx/s extra demand to cope with LN users if all LN users retreated back to using onchain. and no. dont 'do a rath'. by showing a users "events" (success or fail) as an example of a users real life usage. those events are counts of routing. where 1 persons payment for a coffee appears as events on multiple peoples logs. but is still only one actual payment had been made. so yea no need to pretend bitcoin needs to leap from 7 to 166.. and instead just needs more of a 7 to 10 scaling and also you have ignorantly tried to avoid the 'scaling bitcoin transactions' discussion by stating a silly 'stick at 1mb size' and then adding in an impossible scenario of transaction being 10 bytes.. to make it look like bitcoin cant scale.. which is another sweep under the carpet of actual utility of space. heres a real option. 4mb is deemed hardware safe. so remove the cludgy code that still insists portions of data stick in a redundant 1mb space. and actually utilise the 4mb space to allow 4x transaction capacity compared to 1mb EG the 1.5mb-2mb segwit has not yielded a 1.5x-2x capacity increase of transaction count due to the cludgy code. if say the devs actually insist on a 2mb block (without the 1mb multiplier cludgy segwit weight math crap) then that 2mb can actually achieve 2x transaction capacity. other things can be done too. like limit the sigops of transactions. so that a block is not filled by just 5 transactions(if someone wanted to) and instead allow more of the space to share with more users. also fee formulae can be added. to punish people that 'spam' blocks with just 1confirm transaction spends. thus again allow more room for genuine people that just want to buy things once or twice a day. due to the lack of mixers/spams every block. trying to make bitcoin the "reserve" where only hubs, exchanges doing batch withdrawals, and mixers doing spam transactions.. where everyone else is forced to use other networks.. is not the direction people should be aiming for Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: n0nce on January 26, 2022, 04:08:02 AM oh and the 'big block' '100mb block '2mb block" is again ignoring what bitcoin scaling is. its about transaction count increases and decreasing the fee per use.. but yea you will shy away from talking about onchain transaction increase discussions. as many LN fans always do. I'm not shying away! Then we say the blocks stay at 1MB? Let's say you magically get a transaction down to 10 Bytes each (impossible but let's say it). That's 100,000 tx/block (maximum 'transaction count increase'). This would yield 166 transactions per second. Clearly not enough. LN is not processing (166-7) 159 transactions a second. so bitcoin does not need to be 24x transaction capacity. to meet demands.. .. sorry but LN is not that popular Lightning can definitely do that many transactions per second. It would be extremely easy: 160 users send a transaction to their peer at the same time. We have thousands of these channels already.... so if needed, LN can already provide that speed. As I showed you, Mastercard + VISA perform roughly 5,000tx/s. I find it a very weak argument that only because very few people use Bitcoin, it doesn't need a way of scaling. Because that assumes Bitcoin usage will (and should) never change, and at most by a very small constant factor. To set things clear: you don't want Bitcoin to replace / rival existing banking systems? Because to do so, it does need to reach at least VISA + Mastercard speeds. These 2 networks don't even include bank transfers, which can also be replaced by Bitcoin. and also you have ignorantly tried to avoid the 'scaling bitcoin transactions' discussion by stating a silly 'stick at 1mb size' and then adding in an impossible scenario of transaction being 10 bytes.. to make it look like bitcoin cant scale.. which is another sweep under the carpet of actual utility of space. Nononono I already showed how much data it will use if we scale block size. Then you said you want to reduce transaction size instead, so I gave you the best chance with my assumption that we can get a transaction down to incredible 10MB (that was in YOUR favour!!) and that it still only would do ~160tx/s.heres a real option. Okay, so you want to simply incrase block size to 4MB, why did this require 12 pages? Everyone here's trying to figure out what you actually want / propose. Just state right away: 'I want Bitcoin to have X block size and reduce transaction size and that's my scaling solution'. Let's say you can then do around 4x the transactions of pre-segwit Bitcoin (7tx/s), that puts you at 28. This works if adoption only slightly rises.4mb is deemed hardware safe. so remove the cludgy code that still insists portions of data stick in a redundant 1mb space. and actually utilise the 4mb space to allow 4x transaction capacity compared to 1mb It also doesn't allow for micropayments which happen much more frequently than 'purchasing X things per day'. For example, when listening to a podcast on Breez, I can pay them 10sats/min (so 1tx/min). I would be sending 60 transactions a day if I were to listen for a podcast a day, opposed to the 1-5 transactions you are claiming. Of course you will say that microtransactions are unnecessary and stupid, but the fact is many people would like something like that. I accept your opinion that you don't need or like it though. Just trying to say that since LN 'truly scales' (not 4x constant factor, that's not really scaling), you can do things that were not possible before. other things can be done too. like limit the sigops of transactions. so that a block is not filled by just 5 transactions(if someone wanted to) and instead allow more of the space to share with more users. This all sounds simple and fun, but it's not a real scaling mechanism. It's small improvements here and there, that maybe bring you from 7tx/s to 28, 50 or maybe even 100. In the end, there will be a constant factor formula to get from block size to transactions/s.also fee formulae can be added. to punish people that 'spam' blocks with just 1confirm transaction spends. thus again allow more room for genuine people that just want to buy things once or twice a day. due to the lack of mixers/spams every block. However, if you get the load off the blockchain and people send commitments back and forth off-chain, the throughput will be completely independent from block- and transaction sizes. That's the beauty of it. With the same base numbers, you can handle 10, 100 or 1000s of users and transactions, because they're essentially only limited by their internet connection speeds amongst each other. trying to make bitcoin the "reserve" where only hubs, exchanges doing batch withdrawals, and mixers doing spam transactions.. where everyone else is forced to use other networks.. is not the direction people should be aiming for Wait, who is forcing anyone? Anyone can use whatever they want. In fact, I'm wondering why you're feeling so forced to use stupid Bitcoin with cludgy SegWit, silly LN developers and pruned-node-fanatics. There are Bitcoin forks out there with 4MB blocks, no SegWit and no LN.........I'm a little bit disappointed you showed no interest in my 7.5GB... numbers, since you like to post so many yourself, but no worries.. 0:) Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on January 26, 2022, 09:13:46 AM kind of weird really..
n0nce is the only one that mentioned the silly 'transactions of only 10 bytes becomes only 166tx/sec.. Quote I'm not shying away! Then we say the blocks stay at 1MB? kind of weird that he then carried on with a scenario of leaping in 1 step to large blocks of nonsense amounts.. Let's say you magically get a transaction down to 10 Bytes each (impossible but let's say it). kind of weird for him to forget what he said in his scenario's and then pretend its what i was saying.. actually, its not weird. its not the first time i seen this lame tactic done. and im not surprised they do not understand the difference between scaling vs leaping. and not surprised that they keep pulling on the gb's by midnight or else bitcoin fails propaganda ofcourse im ignoring his 7gb block theory. as its the same, infact worse propaganda than the "100mb by midnight" theory used to pretend bitcoin cant cope with any scaling by throwing in big numbers where its portrayed that any scaling must be leaps to sky high numbers instead of progressive steps. but hey, maybe they are not ignorant about scaling, but just soo entrenched in their LN advertising that all they can think about is trying to make LN seem like the utopian place people need to go to. i guess he also thinks that scaling the real estate market requires 20billion homes to be build tonight 'coz population in 2050'. rather than realise that every 6 months only a few million need to be build at a time. yea thats basically the LN fans idea of scaling 'leap to 20billions homes by christmas 2022 because they are going to be needed now for the future population' totally ignoring the word scaling. (periodic movements). but you gotta laugh at the utopianism advert of LN Quote because they're essentially only limited by their internet connection speeds amongst each other. actually there are many factors.. liquidity of hops. availability. node honesty. and also. they are not sending commitments between each other. no LN message EVER contains a blockchain format transaction template. and as for the 'instant-ness' funny how people using LN are complaining about the lengths of time payments are 'inflight' https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/issues/4381.. oh and if you look at the max HTLC numbers of inflights. a business can only receive 483 payments at a time from its node. this is why LN businesses run multiple nodes(LNBIG has 26) yet in bitcoin you dont need 26 addresses to receive thousands of transactions. LN relies on the lack of confirm payment system, with a later(days-month later) ideal settlement period. after all LN does not care about confirmed payments. it only cares about a recipient seeing a zero-confirm signature yep people can pass around many zero-confirm transactions and the RBF as the 'update' on the bitcoin network well bitcoin can also send upto 300mb(mempool limit) of zero confirm transactions. if there was a fair comparison. yet LN peers are limited to a 65kb length to hold all relayed(routed) payments at any one time Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on February 08, 2022, 05:49:33 PM The following post is a continuation of the discussion which started here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5348270.msg59191084#msg59191084).
in other topics i showed you there are like 500 different message types(spec compliant) and upto 65,000 custom (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/01-messaging.md#lightning-message-format), and each of those types can be used for a multitude of things And that's how you learned that "Routing" type messages do not contain any routing instructions or liquidity information. bolt07 messages: announcement_signatures, channel_announcement, node_announcement, query_short_channel_ids/reply_short_channel_ids_end, channel_update, query_channel_range/reply_channel_range Their types are: 259, 256, 257, 261, 258, 263, 264 respectively. None of these messages include "onion_routing_packet", "hop_data" or any other routing instructions. even simple messages like ping and pong can add payloads of different information, well outside of your "update_add_htlc" mantra where you think everything is done inside Again, just because you can technically fit some data inside ping/pong messages, it doesn't mean that the other node expects it. In fact, you should not send any data using them: Code: (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/01-messaging.md#the-ping-and-pong-messages) type: 18 (ping) Quote from: https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/01-messaging.md#the-ping-and-pong-messages A node sending a ping message: SHOULD set ignored to 0s. MUST NOT set ignored to sensitive data such as secrets or portions of initialized memory. So, as per specifications, the data sent through ping/pong messages is just a bunch of zeros. 3. maybe the many ways many wallets do it, is not spec compliant to YOUR wallet. but your wallet after all is not interested in privacy, hense why you think your wallet is limited to only a dozen message types. Feel free to name those privacy-oriented wallets which do not follow the specifications to improve the privacy of their users. EG W does not tell X about C because WC is private. so X cant tell y and Y cannot tell Z . so you as Z will just see Z-Y-X-W but not -C.. As Z, you won't learn about the CW channel, but you can still learn about AB, BC, CD, DE from either W, who can learn about them from C, or from some outside node which had received a gossip message about any of those channels. W can safely forward gossip messages from C as those messages are exactly the same for every hop. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on February 08, 2022, 06:39:50 PM So, as per specifications, the data sent through ping/pong messages is just a bunch of zeros. really?? Quote Rationale The largest possible message is 65535 bytes; thus, the maximum sensible byteslen is 65531 — in order to account for the type field (pong) and the byteslen itself. This allows a convenient cutoff for num_pong_bytes to indicate that no reply should be sent. Connections between nodes within the network may be long lived, as payment channels have an indefinite lifetime. However, it's likely that no new data will be exchanged for a significant portion of a connection's lifetime. Also, on several platforms it's possible that Lightning clients will be put to sleep without prior warning. Hence, a distinct ping message is used, in order to probe for the liveness of the connection on the other side, as well as to keep the established connection active. Additionally, the ability for a sender to request that the receiver send a response with a particular number of bytes enables nodes on the network to create synthetic traffic. Such traffic can be used to partially defend against packet and timing analysis — as nodes can fake the traffic patterns of typical exchanges without applying any true updates to their respective channels. When combined with the onion routing protocol defined in BOLT #4, careful statistically driven synthetic traffic can serve to further bolster the privacy of participants within the network. Limited precautions are recommended against ping flooding, however some latitude is given because of network delays. Note that there are other methods of incoming traffic flooding (e.g. sending odd unknown message types, or padding every message maximally). Finally, the usage of periodic ping messages serves to promote frequent key rotations as specified within BOLT #8. ping and pong can be sent: 1. randomly with any extra data that can be false so that it confuses others 2. with onion routing to have private updates, or (1) because just waiting for a official update can be "no new data for a significant portion of a connection's lifetime" 3. to do other things like changing keys, updating status, heck you can even put in personal info like delivery address or a link to something that someone bought oh and you forgot the "extension" part of the message. yea, i see you just wanted to codebox the 'type/payload(data)' yep you can put in lots of stuff into the extension part.. but you keep dismissing this. maybe you dont understand, or maybe your purposefully ignoring what happens with TLV in the extension yep inside the extension part you can put a TLV which has its own type inside the extension. Quote As Z, you won't learn about the CW channel, but you can still learn about AB, BC, CD, DE from either W, who can learn about them from C, or from some outside node which had received a gossip message about any of those channels. W can safely forward gossip messages from C as those messages are exactly the same for every hop. and if C is private. there wont be a BC or CD or CW on the DNS network bootstrap map.. instead of seeing a full network map tree that links ABCDE ABCWXYZ ZYXWCBA ZYXWCDE you would instead see AB ZYXW which is where you would have to "trampoline" heres the funny part, there is no consensus in LN. so while you play games saying that the rules are strict and network compliant and everyone is forced,default public. where peopel cant just switch on and off their visibility. and where people cant negotiate payments away from YOUR version of pre organised payment setup from bootstrap data. BUT reality is there is no network wide audit, (well there wasnt and shouldnt.. though public loving person you are, you may want there to be. ) i guess you cant think of PR campaign to promote privacy, so you avoid wanting to discuss that its an option. and instead want to quote andreas saying things about how its default and forced to be public. i still laugh that you think that it all has to be done via the payload of a update_add_htlc again very strange tactic your playing Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: Rath_ on February 09, 2022, 11:09:41 AM 1. randomly with any extra data that can be false so that it confuses others All messages are encrypted so it doesn't really matter what you put inside (still, the specs recommend using zeros). The overall size of the message is more important as standardised messages have a fixed size, so a third-party might try to guess what you are talking about with some other node. 2. with onion routing to have private updates, or (1) because just waiting for a official update can be "no new data for a significant portion of a connection's lifetime" I have no idea where you got the "private updates" from. Your quote suggests that you can create synthetic traffic in combination with BOLT04. In other words, for example, you can send ping messages while routing a payment to pretend that the payment was split or forwarded to a different node. You just need to send a ping message with the same size as "update_add_htlc". 3. to do other things like changing keys Encryption keys are changed every 500 uses. Ping/pong messages count as one use. As ping/pong messages are sent frequently, they are the cause of frequent key rotations. They are not used to exchange new keys. No extra data is sent here. yep you can put in lots of stuff into the extension part.. but you keep dismissing this. maybe you dont understand, or maybe your purposefully ignoring what happens with TLV in the extension Let me explain my point again. Here's what you said before: but there are hundreds of messages.. heck even the simple ping/pong messages can include updates to the fee's cltv's and such. Yes, technically you can fit this information in there. However, an optional TLV payload was not a part of the initial specs and the Lightning Network works well without depending on it. Here's how I replied to you: Even the ping/pong messages? Are you sure that we are looking at the same specifications? You might as well put a picture of your cat inside of your "ping" message, but the recipient won't know how to handle it correctly as it's non-standard. None of the existing wallets or implementations expects information about fees, ctlv timelock or liquidity in the TLV payload. They would ignore it. Sure, you could modify your client to behave this way, but you would still have to comply with the specifications to be able to talk with other nodes without any problems. So, if the TLV payload is not used to exchange this information, what's your next idea? and if C is private. there wont be a BC or CD or CW on the DNS network bootstrap map.. instead of seeing a tree that links ABCDE ABCWXYZ ZYXWCBA ZYXWCDE you would instead see AB ZYXW If we assume that all of the C's channels are private then you are almost correct (you forgot about DE). Although, "DNS network bootstrap map" is not really a suitable name for DNS bootstrapping used by new nodes and a local map of the network maintained by every node. Technically, any Lightning node can be listed in the DNS seeds. heres the funny part, there is no consensus in LN. so while you play games saying that the rules are strict and network compliant and everyone is forced,default public. where peopel cant just switch on and off their visibility. and where people cant negotiate payments away from YOUR version of pre organised payment setup from bootstrap data. BUT reality is there is no network wide audit, (well there wasnt and shouldnt.. though public loving person you are, you may want there to be. ) i guess you cant think of PR campaign to promote privacy, so you avoid wanting to discuss that its an option. and instead want to quote andreas saying things about how its default and forced to be public. What's the point of discussing what the Lightning Network could look like if we can't come to agreement how pathfinding and payment routing works at the moment in existing implementations and wallets? Other people already have a hard time keeping up with our discussion, especially that we are constantly switching between private, public and disabled channels in examples. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on February 15, 2022, 02:25:53 AM What's the point of discussing what the Lightning Network could look like if we can't come to agreement how pathfinding and payment routing works at the moment in existing implementations and wallets? Other people already have a hard time keeping up with our discussion, especially that we are constantly switching between private, public and disabled channels in examples. yea obviously you only want to discuss the Alice pays bob direct in the same channel stuff. i tried many times to get you to expand out of your narrow examples. to get you to look outside a small subset of messages. and to see the wider stuff actually happening even as far back as 2019 i havnt even got to the bits about 'trampoline' and other stuff outside of your comfort zone. because you want to keep dragging things back to the small narrative of in-channel commitments to avoid talking about routed payments and payments without a pre defined path(three very different things) (trampoline is just one example where the sender is not defining a pre-defined path nor needing to know full network before attempting a payment) i have tried too many times to try expanding your narrative out, trying to get you to see more then just a dozen messages you think are involved. but hey. its not about "what the network could look like". its that you only want to see/discuss a narrow portion/ small feature piece of the network ignoring the other features,. to only want to discuss bits that suit your narrative right now. in an existing ability/feature. (not a "could be") if i was set to public or private. your bootstrap map wont show all my paths, though i can allow payments through them. but im guessing im getting to far ahead of your narrative Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on December 20, 2022, 01:26:47 PM Bumping the topic as I believe we've achieved a breakthrough. After many years, franky1 has finally managed to articulate their grievances in a manner which can be interpreted:
2) Run a client which doesn't support SegWit and continue following the current consensus rules 3) Run a client which supports SegWit and proposes a change to consensus if a given activation threshold is met, hoping that others run the same client 4) Run a client which doesn't support SegWit and proposes a change to consensus if a given activation threshold is met, hoping that others run the same client this is where you get things wrong well i know deep down you used to know this stuff.. and now your just either incompetent, ignorant or just trolling 2. does not follow the current consensus rules. what they get from a segwit compliant node (dev buzzwords not mine) stripped/segregated/ downstream version of the blockchain that has no witness data. thus they cannot validate or verify those transactions they also are not deemed worthy of being part of the unconfirmed tx relay peer system and not part of the seeding of the initial block download for those wanting to get the blockchain. due to lack of having full data The stance franky1 takes here is that backwards-compatible non-SegWit nodes are not following consensus. It's certainly a... unique... interpretation, but that's not the point. Their issue is that they don't like the consequences of their choice. It's not enough for them that they can remain part of the network while declining to utilise, or even recognise, SegWit. They feel diminished in their role, despite that being the path they chose. Almost as though it's a form of discrimination to them. It might sound like I'm reaching, but this point will be evidenced again below. READ YOUR OWN WORDS " Run a client which doesn't support SegWit and continue following the current consensus rules" how can you say something is following the current segwit rules if it doesnt support segwit!! also how can you say something is following the current taproot rules if it doesnt support taproot!! if it doesnt support it they are not validating things they dont understand. they are just BLINDLY using an opcode trick to accept without verifying the transaction.. thus they are not following the consensus rules becasue they are not verifying all the rules because they dont have all the rules to verify everything. they are no longer full validation nodes YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD THIS DEVS ADMIT THIS so its time YOU ADMIT IT TOO https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#backward-compatibility Quote older software will continue to operate without modification. Non-upgraded nodes, however, will not see nor validate the witness data and will consider all witness programs as anyone-can-spend scripts (except a few edge cases where the witness programs are equal to 0, which the script must fail). Wallets should always be wary of anyone-can-spend scripts and treat them with suspicion. Non-upgraded nodes are strongly encouraged to upgrade in order to take advantage of the new features. (treat as checked without actually checking)What a non-upgraded wallet cannot do Validating segregated witness transaction. It assumes such a transaction is always valid this applies to taproot too nodes that do not support taproot do not know the code/rules needed to verify taproot so are (by use of opcode trick) told to accept it unchecked) PLEASE DO SOME RESEARCH!! again a segwit compliant node strips/filters out (witness)data and gives the unsupported node a block that has less data than a segwit node has the unupgraded node then doesnt verify segwit transactions and just blindly gets told to keep data unchecked. those unupgraded nodes are down rated as less then full node. and not treated as good source nodes for IBD Again, franky1 reiterates his belief that non-SegWit nodes, with the new addition of non-Taproot nodes, are supposedly not following consensus, yet somehow remain part of the Bitcoin network. And again expresses anthropomorphised feelings that backwards-compatible nodes are being treated unfairly somehow. Given the choice between being a part of the network and being forked off the network, I'd have thought most people would be happy with being able to remain. This, however, is not enough for franky1. If he can't have what he wants, apparently no one can (except we can and do, in fact, have everything we want, he's simply in denial about it). true consensus is about agreement by the masses to then activate a feature becasue the masses agree they are ready to accept the new rule however the mandatory activations, the backward compatibility stripping/filtering of data and the op-code tricks means those not upgrading are not voting at all. they are simply downgraded out of being full nodes and the features are activated without their need to agree/consent true consensus for emphasis one more time because of your ignorance it needs repeating was that rule changes did not happen new features did not happen unless the mass of nodes were ready to fully verify new rules new data. as thats the whole point of a secure network your desires of a network of nodes that are not fully verifying and not needing to fully verify and not keep full archive data while in your stupid eye want too pretend they are still "full nodes" is your incompetence of understanding network security, code, protocols, rules and consensus requirement It's worth pointing out that Bitcoin's network has no concept of "true consensus" as franky1 chooses to define it. After all, that's a notion which only exists in his imagination. It's not a genuine thing here in the real world. Consensus empirically does not function in the way franky1 describes above. Yet he continues to argue that it "should" because the alternative is that he feels diminished in his role and that his non-SegWit node is treated as "lesser" because he is making the choice not to take part in that aspect of the available features. I hope this gives people some fresh insights in how to handle this colossal man-baby and his ceaseless tantrums. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on December 20, 2022, 04:07:58 PM And again expresses anthropomorphised feelings that backwards-compatible nodes are being treated unfairly somehow. Fairness is subjective, because it's a result from each person's standards. It doesn't surprise me that some people like franky don't find it fair to produce consensus by that manner. Maybe backwards-compatible nodes do, indeed, get treated unfairly according to some, because they might disapprove the change but can't disapprove the transactions of that change (because they can't verify the witness part), and that might seem unfair to them, because they don't get to called full nodes (with the entire sense of the term) anymore. The thing is: Bitcoin isn't in favor of fairness; it never was. It's in favor of freedom. The moment you start enforcing these consensus rules, that very moment you consent that these rules might as well change by consensus in the future. Like it or not, find it fair or not, that's how this system works. If you disapprove of it, create another one, which is more fair. It's doomed to be less free though, because fairness requires to dictate what's fair. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on December 20, 2022, 09:36:36 PM if doomad thinks bitcoin didnt have a true consensus.. then he is the idiot that does not understand bitcoin
but it is funny how i had to spend years dumbing things down to the most "explain like your 5yo" before he can understand the objections.... but thats on him. not me he loves the fact that the consensus mechanism of 2009-2016 has been broken and bypassed. where he now wants to pretend it never existed. that bitcoin never had a consensus (solution to byzantine generals problem) but thats just his and his buddies that follow his narratives SHAMEFUL, manipulative, malicious, shenanigans and ignorant mind at play i cannot believe how malicious doomad (and his chums) rhetoric is by saying that bitcoin doesnt and never had a true consensus. .. i understand why he says it. because his favoured subnetwork doesnt have a consensus system to protect their network value. so he is selling a narrative that systems dont have nor need consensus and pretend bitcoin never had or needed one.. SHAMEFUL sales pitch very shameful!! the thing is YOU idiots want to say that nodes with: stripped blocks(non witness) that dont offer IBD seeding to peers. and/or pruned chains that dont offer IBD to peers. nodes that dont verify every rule you malicious deceitful fools are still deeming those nodes as being full nodes, pretending that they fully secure the network fully and are following consensus fully BUT THEY ARE NOT you lot do not care about making users risk aware or understand the variances and their impacts .. consensus is where nodes need to majority be ready to verify new rules BEFORE a new rule is activated so that the nodes can verify the blockchain fully. and fully agree they have all verified all data and came to the same agreed end state yet you IDIOTS what to have this stupid diluted insecure mashup of variant nodes of one brand, where people are still reliant on one brand even if they are not fully securing the network. all so you lot can weaken bitcoins system by subversion so you lot can promote your crappy subnetwork as a 'solution' to limitations and flaws added by the devs that should not be putting these limits in but instead should be expanding and evolving bitcoin take the new RBF. nodes that have full rbf disabled. when seeing a tx. keep the first seen. and thus are left falsely thinking the tx they see pending in the GUI is the one that will confirm. yet other nodes that use RBF will reject first seen and keep the higher fee spending utxo. thus nodes will have different mempools and different trust of whats pending to be confirmed. and thus ruining the risk based tolerance of acceptance of zero confirmation. yep you lot wanted to break this zero-confirm tolerance because it impedes users that want to accept zero confirm. thus now they cant risk tolerate low value, are being told to use your stupid broke subnetwork as the replacement/solution to the zero confirm acceptance system If you disapprove of it, create another one, which is more fair. It's doomed to be less free though, because fairness requires to dictate what's fair. consensus is not about changing the rule and then if you dont like it, its too late go fork off to an altcoin consensus is majority without manipulation(by pre-rejection-pre orphan miscounting). then would only activate a new feature if there is agreement by the masses(get a dictionary and learn consensus) now go play with your silly subnetwork and stop abusing bitcoin with your charades that are malicious and only end goal is to ruin and stifle bitcoin to make your other silly non blockchain.non consensus network seem more attractive you malicious manipulative vile people Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on December 20, 2022, 10:22:33 PM now to summarise why this topic even started by loyce
To start: I use on-chain Bitcoin, and I use Bitcoin LN. Bitcoin can work with or without LN, LN can't work without Bitcoin. I don't like high fees, as it limits adoption. I would like to see Bitcoin grow in value, userbase and number of transactions per second, and I think we need all three of those for Bitcoin to grow. How, that's up for debate. LN is a different network for a reason. it has its own usecase and niche and utility that differs from bitcoins. bitcoin lives on the bitcoin network. it never leaves the bitcoin network and no one can create new bitcoin on or off the bitcoin network so anything pretending to be bitcoin outside the bitcoin network is not bitcoin database balance on a CEX is not real bitcoin sidechain tokens/ subnetwork IOU's are not bitcoin if it uses a different unit EG a token of 11 decimals. its not bitcoin if its not appearing as a confirmed bitcoin UTXO when you feel that you have been "paid" its not bitcoin if its not appearing as unconfirmed/pending on the bitcoin network peer nodes. its not bitcoin LN is a separate network that can work with other coins. it is not a network that only functions for and only with bitcoin Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on December 20, 2022, 11:44:05 PM if doomad thinks bitcoin didnt have a true consensus.. then he is the idiot that does not understand bitcoin Bitcoin has a consensus mechanism. It does not have a "true consensus mechanism". It cannot have such a thing because it's a phrase you made up. It's not real. Never has been real. Never will be real. Only exists in your head. No one aside from you believes it's a thing. And consensus still does not function as you describe. he loves the fact that the consensus mechanism of 2009-2016 has been broken and bypassed. You are still the only person on the face of the planet who I've seen saying that consensus has been broken, bypassed or faked. Literally just you. Again, this is also a thought residing exclusively in your head and no one else's. where he now wants to pretend it never existed. that bitcoin never had a consensus (solution to byzantine generals problem) Bitcoin has always had consensus and will continue to have consensus. I said it never had your entirely imaginary definition of consensus. Learn to read, plz. but thats just his and his buddies that follow his narratives SHAMEFUL, manipulative, malicious, shenanigans and ignorant mind at play i cannot believe how malicious doomad (and his chums) rhetoric is by saying that bitcoin doesnt and never had a true consensus. .. i understand why he says it. because his favoured subnetwork doesnt have a consensus system to protect their network value. so he is selling a narrative that systems dont have nor need consensus and pretend bitcoin never had or needed one.. Says the person completely twisting and distorting the meaning of what I wrote. ::) Again, Bitcoin has consensus. It just doesn't have the perverted, nonsensical, made-up nonsense you call "true consensus". consensus is where nodes need to majority be ready to verify new rules BEFORE a new rule is activated so that the nodes can verify the blockchain fully. and fully agree they have all verified all data and came to the same agreed end state The current situation we find ourselves in suggests otherwise. Soft-forks cannot be un-invented. Argue all you like, but here we are. If anything, it sounds as though YOU are the one saying Bitcoin doesn't have consensus. Because YOU have stated unequivocally that non-SegWit and non-Taproot nodes are not following consensus. I believe non-SegWit and non-Taproot nodes are following consensus, but are simply opted out of those features. So stand by your own faulty logic and accept you haven't got the slightest clue what you are talking about. You can't claim I'm the one saying Bitcoin has no consensus when YOU are the one claiming consensus is "fake" and "broken" and that there are nodes on the Bitcoin network which supposedly are not following consensus. That makes zero sense (like just about everything you've said in this entire topic). Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on December 20, 2022, 11:53:28 PM You are still the only person on the face of the planet who I've seen saying that consensus has been broken, bypassed or faked. Literally just you. Again, this is also a thought residing exclusively in your head and no one else's. apart from the fact that the bitcoin devs themselves admit it was bypassed by naming and shaming Luke Jr and shoulinfry as the people that came up with the bypass to get certain features activated without the need of mass consensus before activation https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki funny how anyone can google how it was done but you seem to refuse to do research after 5 years heres just one example.. took me 23 seconds https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#credits https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0144.mediawiki#credits Quote Special thanks to Gregory Maxwell for originating many of the ideas in this BIP and Luke-Jr for figuring out how to deploy this as a soft fork. oh and more evidence to prove my point how consensus WAS https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0008.mediawiki#motivation the boefore explanation Quote Activation is dependent on near unanimous hashrate signalling which may be impractical and result in veto by a small minority of non-signalling hashrate. afterSince all consensus rules are ultimately enforced by full nodes, eventually any new soft fork will be enforced by the economy. Quote Super majority hashrate based activation triggers allow for accelerated activation where the majority hash power enforces the new rules in lieu of full nodes upgrading. This proposal combines these two aspects to provide optional flag day activation after a reasonable time, as well as for accelerated activation by majority of hash rate before the flag date. then maybe you can spend some time with how they used the other bips of mandatory rejecting non-flagging blocks to fake the flag thresholds before activation. to cause a activation without need of majority nodes and without true majority of block creators yep it took me about 50 seconds of search to find good source data from the devs. .. now show me your good source data of your assertions Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on December 20, 2022, 11:58:21 PM You are still the only person on the face of the planet who I've seen saying that consensus has been broken, bypassed or faked. Literally just you. Again, this is also a thought residing exclusively in your head and no one else's. apart from the fact that the bitcoin devs themselves admit it was bypassed by naming and shaming Luke Jr and shoulinfry as he people that came up with the bypass to get certain features activated without the need of mass consensus before activation funny how anyone can google how it was done but you seem to refuse to do research after 5 years If UASF had activated, then you might have a point. But it didn't, so you don't. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on December 21, 2022, 12:09:12 AM so flags just happened to reach unnatural 100% that triggered the mandatory activation, was just a coincidence?
oh and dont start on the USAF.. you idiot we both know it was the NYA agreement and mandatory hardfork. dont stupidly pretend it was the other one do you need me to show you the pretty picture graph of the flags AGAIN or can you be capable of reminding yourself without a spoon being put in your mouth and teaching you how to digest information .. doomad wheres your source links for your assertions.. wheres your blockdata of flags used. wheres your bips/codebases to back up your rhetoric dont respond unless its to show links of actual code/bips or flag data in blockchain. as there is no point in hearing your empty cries for anymore time without you backing up your wet eyes and cries enjoy the next five years of continual childisms. or hopefully take a chance on yourself do some research accept the immutable data beats your delusional thoughts. accept the data wins. and grow up and act like an adult for once Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on December 21, 2022, 09:38:58 AM consensus is where nodes need to majority be ready to verify new rules BEFORE a new rule is activated so that the nodes can verify the blockchain fully. and fully agree they have all verified all data and came to the same agreed end state You can whine as much as you want, but what's the result? Let's assume you're right, and consensus is democracy (that's how you interpret it).Hard forking is an inevitable part of a decentralized system, and if someone wants to hard fork, there's nothing that can stop him from do so. Soft forks, on the other hand, aren't necessarily inevitable; such forward-compatibility can only be set in stone from genesis. If it isn't, then any protocol change would result in hard fork. Let me ask you this: if a soft fork cannot be supported with consensus as you've made clear with your definition of consensus, why did Bitcoin v0.1 had explicit support for future soft forks? Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on December 21, 2022, 11:15:59 AM consensus is where nodes need to majority be ready to verify new rules BEFORE a new rule is activated so that the nodes can verify the blockchain fully. and fully agree they have all verified all data and came to the same agreed end state You can whine as much as you want, but what's the result? Let's assume you're right, and consensus is democracy (that's how you interpret it).Hard forking is an inevitable part of a decentralized system, and if someone wants to hard fork, there's nothing that can stop him from do so. Soft forks, on the other hand, aren't necessarily inevitable; such forward-compatibility can only be set in stone from genesis. If it isn't, then any protocol change would result in hard fork. Let me ask you this: if a soft fork cannot be supported with consensus as you've made clear with your definition of consensus, why did Bitcoin v0.1 had explicit support for future soft forks? by you wasting your whole post about forks. and only asking questions about forks, shows you are evading discussion about consensus or simply dont know what consensus is consensus is a byzantine generals solution. research it. its not a split up the generals into rival armies so they can all do their own thing. consensus is about getting the generals to agree on one marching order of unity, if there is a majority agreement of the generals(keeping the army together),. else there is no new marching order if no majority. and they then have to come up with a new mission/policy to vote on later if they want to progress please genuinely research the term "byzantine generals" there is a difference between consensus and forks forks are "fuck off" mechanisms consensus is "stay together" mechanisms yes people can fork and make their own altcoin. but thats making their own altcoin consensus is about agreement of a change is accepted by a majority vote where there is no pre activation forks. where there is no threat of rejecting blocks blackmail. its simply asking people to flag intention and if intension gets majority without threat or malice. then it activates because people are then ready to service that new rule by having upgraded to have code ready to support the new rule. thus no fork note the words of agreement and acceptance (consent) also note the census part, of information from the masses of a given population yes consensus is about consent of the masses here is the thing i know you guys seem like the types that believe trump won 2020 due to what you read on twitter and believe because your buddies believe it but if the US done a proper census and looked at the actual election results.. they would see the consensus proves trump lost forks/altcoin creating. is not about being part of a countries election. its about being deported before an election or threatened that deporting will happen unless you vote a certain way. where by being deported means you are not part of an election and instead a citizen of another country do you understand the difference between a fork vs consensus yes segwit activated. yes taproot activated, but not via a true consensus, it activated by false election via a deportation policy before election triggered by a popularity contest of the corporations, and the lack of need to count the citizen votes meaning lots of nodes are not supporting things like taproot right now thus lots of nodes are blindly hoarding blocks where they have not fully validated every transaction of every block .. your view of what you think consensus is, is about splitting america up into trumpland and bidenland where as consensus is, if there is a failure to find true majority of a fair election. there is no new leader, and a new election has to occur with maybe some other policy pledge to maybe win favour at a later date to maybe have a winner with a new policy that is part of the future for america. its not about deporting people before elections to some other land to win an election by a false election Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on December 21, 2022, 11:39:59 AM How do you feel that nobody agrees with you? I mean, let's say you're correct for a wild moment, and that's how things should be. How do you feel that the people who're responsible for this network's well-tempered operation disagree with soft forks being "fuck off" mechanisms? What can you, individually, do about that? And you know... have an essence. Not just whining, and beating the air. 'Cause as far as I know, if people don't give a fuck for what you have to say, you either shut up, or get your fuck together elsewhere, preferably on a different network in this case. Dictating others how it is fair for a pro-freedom network to work doesn't make much sense to me.
consensus is about agreement of a change is accepted So why isn't Segwit part of consensus? Some nodes came into this agreement, and in fact, they took into consideration that it won't fork the rest nodes off the network. They could have chosen to solve the transaction malleability problem without soft forking, backwards-compatibility and the like; just a brutal hard fork, and it would work more efficiently as well. But they thought: we can't just enforce this to everybody, nor is it appropriate to split the network in half. yes segwit activated. yes taproot activated, but not via a true consensus, it activated by false election via a deportation policy before election triggered by a popularity contest of the corporations, and the lack of need to count the citizen votes So how should be done, according to you? What's the "true consensus" voting system like?Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on December 21, 2022, 11:43:55 AM no one IN YOUR BUDDY GROUP agrees with me. its just a shame you only see your buddy group. and you only notice people that have no fear of being frank trying to talk to your buddy group about how stupid you look. where you ignore the thousands of other people that object to your buddy group, they just avoid getting into debate with you cry babies
but your buddy group is only a dozen plus subnetwork adoring people of a network that has no consensus or blockchain its funny how there are thousands of posts and topics about bitcoin scaling and wanting onchain changes of extra tx per block and cheaper fee's(many people not liking the broken/empty promise of the segwit pledge /LN deportation plan of "scaling") yet i see the same dozen idiots trying to promote the "LN solution to scaling problem" consensus is about agreement of a change is accepted So why isn't Segwit part of consensus?(facepalm) the METHOD of activating segwit into the ruleset.. was not done via consensus consensus: consent via a mass census it was activated by only counting trump voters EG part of elections in america is offering new POLICY/pledge of new rule change in the future. where if there was no true winner via a fair election trump stays in power but the policies stayed in pre election state. where no new policy is accepted. meaning another election would need to occur if new policy were to happen yes this means trump(core) still in power but not with any 2020 policy change allowed. where trump(core) continued on in old policy(ruleset(no segwit)). but that was bypassed where trump(core) stayed in power and got to change policy, by his fake election campaign. which idiots want to call "trump won 2020" using the analogies bitcoin is now living in a trumpland 2020 where trump stayed in power AND changed the policy.. by evading democracy.. instead of how elections actually happened where if there was no clear winner. trump would have temporarily stayed in power but without new policy. where a new election would soon occur to offer new policy Some nodes came into this agreement, and in fact, they took into consideration that it won't fork the rest nodes off the network. They could have chosen to solve the transaction malleability problem without soft forking, backwards-compatibility and the like; yes NYA corporate votes were counted yes they changed election rules that normal citizens dont vote(backward compatibility to just keep trump in power without a vote) funny part is.. the blockchain data and actually using your eyes.. there was a hard fork.. its called BCH(yes it happened) there were block rejections to falsify a 100% (un-natural to get full 100% by the way) they instead changed the voters rights(backward compatible) and just didnt count or involve all citizens in the vote where abstaining was treated as voting for trump2020 policy just a brutal hard fork, and it would work more efficiently as well. But they thought: we can't just enforce this to everybody, nor is it appropriate to split the network in half. no in real consensus there just be no policy change. thus no fork due to an election please go learn the difference between consensus vs forking learn the solution to the byzantine generals problem.. it will clear up your many misunderstandings it will help you realise why bitcoin was such a novel solution to many things in 2009-2016 .. you you and your daddy doomad stop reptending segwit was soft. it was hard as proven by there being a hard fork and stop pretending that i am saying that segwit activated via soft (uasf) becasue again i am and never have said that segwit was soft there was a fork, controversy and rejections and then election bypass to activate new policy stop trying to think segwit was peaceful kumbaya unanimous agreement Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on December 21, 2022, 01:46:13 PM no one IN YOUR BUDDY GROUP agrees with me. Correct, if by "my budding group" you mean the legitimate Bitcoin users. where you ignore the thousands of other people that object to your buddy group, they just avoid getting into debate with you cry babies Sorry that I have to spoil that to you, but whenever I've avoided a debate with you, it's because it's unbelievably tiring to talk with someone who barely knows his mother tongue. bitcoin is now living in a trumpland 2020 where trump stayed in power AND changed the policy.. by evading democracy.. That's the problem. You think Bitcoin is democratic. It fundamentally isn't. Consensus isn't democracy. If Bitcoin was democratic, there wouldn't be a Bitcoin Cash, because it was rejected by majority. But there is, because there were a few users who had formed consensus on running that. In 2017, some users had had intentions to switch to SegWit. Some others didn't. The former group decided that the latter could still be part of the network with their consent if they want. That's how things were done, in reality. Not in this stupid, fantastic, utopian world where you live in-- which I'm sure it isn't the UK. Even school dropouts know English better. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: LoyceV on December 21, 2022, 03:30:46 PM how to handle this colossal man-baby and his ceaseless tantrums. he is the idiot that does not understand bitcoin Reminder:~ YOU idiots want to say that nodes with: ~ yet you IDIOTS what to have this stupid diluted insecure mashup Please keep this topic civil. forks are "fuck off" mechanisms I like this (not so subtle) explanation :)consensus is "stay together" mechanisms bitcoin lives on the bitcoin network. it never leaves the bitcoin network and no one can create new bitcoin on or off the bitcoin network so anything pretending to be bitcoin outside the bitcoin network is not bitcoin One could argue Bitcoin LN doesn't leave the Bitcoin network, it just doesn't move on-chain when it's moved in LN.Quote if it uses a different unit I have a broker account that uses fractions of cents internally. Does that mean it's not in euro? Or maybe it's not euros because it's not printed on paper banknotes, but only numbers on a centralized computer. I think most people consider it to be euros, because for all practical purposes it acts the same, even though it isn't printed on "original" banknotes.EG a token of 11 decimals. its not bitcoin Quote if its not appearing as a confirmed bitcoin UTXO when you feel that you have been "paid" its not bitcoin For me, the fact that it's guaranteed to be possible to get it on-chain is enough to trust LN and consider it to be Bitcoin. I get that we disagree, and I'm okay with that.Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on December 21, 2022, 04:22:57 PM Quote if it uses a different unit I have a broker account that uses fractions of cents internally. Does that mean it's not in euro? Or maybe it's not euros because it's not printed on paper banknotes, but only numbers on a centralized computer. I think most people consider it to be euros, because for all practical purposes it acts the same, even though it isn't printed on "original" banknotes.EG a token of 11 decimals. its not bitcoin the function of your micro eurocent has a different purpose to a metal eurocents you find in your jacket pocket if that database of microeurocents has: *some guarantee that your broker cant just do an FTX on your balance.. *recognised by your countries regulators that your deposits are insured *no way for broker to get away with stealing your microeuro *where all microeuros convert to euros no matter what situation occures then YOU may presume the microeuro to be a euro.. (emphasis on YOU) however much like: #not-your-key-not-your-coin(counterparty refuse to sign multisig) much like fractional reserving(thor turboing) much like sidechain/subnetwork de-begging(change 1:1000 peg) there are more flaws to your brokers system than an actual euro LN msats have many many ways to break the peg. and also many ways your channel counter-part can attack your value and abuse the "trust" of the contract you have agreed on via funding tx signing it into their co-control if you are not away or wish to be blind to the differences.. thats on YOU Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on December 21, 2022, 04:28:41 PM Quote if its not appearing as a confirmed bitcoin UTXO when you feel that you have been "paid" its not bitcoin For me, the fact that it's guaranteed to be possible to get it on-chain is enough to trust LN and consider it to be Bitcoin. I get that we disagree, and I'm okay with that.when you broadcast to settle.. i hope you atleast are not watching TXID of a broadcast with your node having RBF turned off.. where you only see a unconfirmed tx of "first seen" your counter party may have RBF on and later sends a previous commitment with higher fee. which pools accept as replacement of the one in your mempool.. thus your waiting weeks thinking your 'first-seen' is waiting/pending a confirm to settle where as your counterparties other broadcast gets confirmed.. so i hope you lot atleast have RBF turned on to watch for double spends at unconfirmed relay and you lot are watching via UTXO of funding commit.. rather than TXID Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on December 21, 2022, 04:34:40 PM as for blackhat running out of rebuttles so just goes grammar nazi
english is a beautiful language there is no single way to speak tom8o tom@o phone, dog and bone scone: s-con sc-own, biscuit(american english) if you go to glasgow, then liverpool, then manchester, then essex, then cornwall. you might notice the beauty of the language this forum is not a oxford university for getting a degree in english its a discussion forum where people have their own dialects. and yes there are many versions of english outside of oxford by the way americans call football. that game of holding a ball.. and call what brits call football soccer yes we hate the football, tom8o diversity of the english language. but if you cannot accept diversity or atleast the diversity of language. thats on your narrow mindedness. im not here to earn an oxford university degree. this forum is not here to offer oxford degree's this forum is open to diversity and open discussion my english is understandable by those that are not narrow minded. i was born british. as were my parents and their parents and theirs, for as far back as i have measured the 1700's however angelo.. you are greek. so its you with the english deficit. im here to discuss bitcoin. and i end up having to put up with narrow minded people like yourself that cannot understand the broad range and beauty of the english language and i am 100% sure if i spoke cockney to you or mancunian you would collapse in tears thinking your translator is broke you call yourself a bitcoiner? A. you want people to stop doing transactions on bitcoin daily by advertising another network B. you advertise fullnodes should not be full nodes by saying people should prun C. more precisely you dont want a distributed ledger D. you dont like the blockchain. specifically the taint proof of coin origins you do not like much about bitcoin at all first of all thank you for admitting one thing.. you admit the "few users" "some users" also known as the blockstream DCG group of the NYA economic nodes however you think when it comes to the hundreds of thousands of the wider community. you think they never had a vote(even before 2016). again you also think democracy is about ability to fork its not democracy is about unity of the community. by majority vote consensus/democracy is about coming to a majority elected policy which unites the masses, where if there is no clear majority the new policy does not activate. that process was brutalised in 2016-17 by the ADMITTED changes proposed by luke Jr and shoulinfry the devs admit it happened.. and its you guys that think you are defending and kissing devs ass by pretending it didnt happen democracy is not where Jeremy Corbyn managed northern england and Boris Johnson managed southern england democracy is not where kier starmer manages northern england and rishi manages southern england there is no split up of england in true democracy there is simply re-elections if no clear majority is found and one last shut-down of another misconception you have "bitcoin LN" brand stealing lightning network is not reliant on bitcoin nor sole function for bitcoin and bitcoin alone even J.Poone (DCG related) who wrote the white paper on lightning said this https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf Quote Cross-Chain Payments. So long as there are similar hash-functions across chains, it’s possible for transactions to be routed over multi- ple chains with different consensus rules. The sender does not have to trust or even know about the other chains – even the destination chain. Simiarly, the receiver does not have to know anything about the sender’s chain or any other chain. also when running a compiled LN wallet/node. you do not have to go back to base code and change parameters. to make it operate with other networks. its simply an input you enter into the compiled and running node/wallet. thus LN is not something thats hard coded for bitcoin/reliant on bitcoin Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on December 21, 2022, 04:40:34 PM LN msats have many many ways to break the peg. Can you name a few of these "many many ways"? I only know one: your partner closes the channel, and you lose (outgoing capacity mod 1000) msats. as for blackhat running out of rebuttles so just goes grammar nazi Just in case you skipped it:bitcoin is now living in a trumpland 2020 where trump stayed in power AND changed the policy.. by evading democracy.. That's the problem. You think Bitcoin is democratic. It fundamentally isn't. Consensus isn't democracy. If Bitcoin was democratic, there wouldn't be a Bitcoin Cash, because it was rejected by majority. But there is, because there were a few users who had formed consensus on running that. In 2017, some users had had intentions to switch to SegWit. Some others didn't. The former group decided that the latter could still be part of the network with their consent if they want. english is a beautiful language If only I could say the same about your writing. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: LoyceV on December 21, 2022, 05:56:57 PM *where all microeuros convert to euros no matter what situation occures Nope, the microeuros will never show up on my bank account, and I can't withdraw them. Anything less than a cent can't be cash, and even cents have been "rounded" to 5 cents minimum for years in my country.Quote then YOU may presume the microeuro to be a euro.. (emphasis on YOU) It's more like I don't care about the microeuros, just like I don't care about the microsatoshis. For internal calculations it's okay, for practical purposes it's dust.Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on December 21, 2022, 07:27:59 PM *where all microeuros convert to euros no matter what situation occures Nope, the microeuros will never show up on my bank account, and I can't withdraw them. Anything less than a cent can't be cash, and even cents have been "rounded" to 5 cents minimum for years in my country.Quote then YOU may presume the microeuro to be a euro.. (emphasis on YOU) It's more like I don't care about the microeuros, just like I don't care about the microsatoshis. For internal calculations it's okay, for practical purposes it's dust.then we both agree msats are not bitcoin however here is the thing imagine your broker trade desk screen showed you had 500,000microcents internally you think your broker owes you 500cents (5 euros) now what if i told you that the rules of your broker software(he asked you to download) meant that he can manipulate your user agreement of the 1:1000 conversion rate. where by he can get the software to sign a 1:10,000,000 meaning your 500,000microcents trade desk screen balance.. is actually being signed into withdraw request order. of not 5 euros.. but not even 1 cent.. but instead 0.05 yep be aware that LN has no network consensus, no network audit of payments or channel law. no mechanism to prevent changes to pegs. thus you can think your IOU is 5 euros as displayed on trading desk GUI. but at withdrawal of the settlement broadcast. you only get euro0.0005 yep the pegging mechanism between the onion payment unit vs commitment unit. is not a guaranteed secure rate Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on December 21, 2022, 07:36:09 PM oh and dont start on the USAF.. you idiot we both know it was the NYA agreement and mandatory hardfork. dont stupidly pretend it was the other one Dafuq now? *squints in confusion* To the wider audience, is there a polite way to question if someone is illiterate without it being an insult? I'm genuinely curious. Did anyone else interpret my previous post as suggesting that UASF had activated? He called out shaolinfry by name (or at least tried to), so I assumed he was referring to UASF. So I stated that if it had activated then he might have a point. I never claimed it did activate. I can't fathom how one person can invoke so many misunderstandings in a single exchange of ideas. My point was, UASF is the closest Bitcoin has ever come to a breakdown of the consensus mechanism, but it never gained significant traction to do any damage. Aside from that near-miss and one or two technical errors which were before my time here, Bitcoin has always maintained consensus. And to address franky1 directly, we've been through this before. NYA was as much of a failure as UASF. NYA didn't activate shit, so you are incorrect in your assertion that "we both know". Unlike you, I can't "know" things that never happened. That's your talent. And I know you're eager to move on from the part where you stated it's "shameful" for someone to say Bitcoin doesn't have a consensus mechanism right after you had just finished saying that consensus in Bitcoin is "broken"/"fake"/"bypassed"/etc and that non-SegWit and non-Taproot nodes supposedly aren't following consensus, but I think I'll dwell on it a little longer. Even by your standards, that's a pretty spectacular own-goal. Not to mention technobabble of the highest magnitude. Now, instead of responding in your typical belligerent fashion, I would strongly recommend you take this opportunity to be reasonable because you're reaching a point of no return. You seriously need to take a moment to consider issuing a retraction for your comments and attempting to state your position in something more akin to a logically sound manner. We fully accept that you personally disapprove of opt-in, backwards-compatible features. You don't need to convince us any further of that. We get it. However, what you do need to convince us of is that you are not so blinded by your biases that you can no longer tell fact from fiction. It is clearly not correct or accurate to say that there are nodes active on the Bitcoin network right now which are not following consensus. Such a thing is impossible. You can't just go around spouting nonsense like that and expect us to let it slide. I'm giving you one last chance to start making sense. But if you continue down this route of saying some nodes aren't following consensus and yet they magically remain on the network, I guarantee you those words will haunt you. I will bring them up at every available opportunity to discredit any argument you make on any technical subject because it proves you have zero understanding of even the most basic aspects of Bitcoin. Everything is archived so you can't just go back and edit it. Consider your next words carefully. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on December 21, 2022, 07:46:07 PM it looks like we need to show doomad a pretty picture
AGAIN i even sent you the pretty picture many times https://preview.redd.it/7putyzz1flv01.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=bbfe1af4a5c06877dfda907081d43737191d43ce this image is not some made up gameplay. its graph is actual references to actual flags in block data. and the flags are reference numbers used by actual bips. which actually activated feature in actual code the diagonal red line event was the reject of non signalling blocks where every new block from that trigger point late july was then signalling segwit which diluted the count of previous non signals ... hence the line went STRAIGHT(no wiggle) diagonally to 100% where 100% is not natural by the way. those tactics that were used were not described by me as SOFT. becasue they actually were HARD but FALSLY described as soft by other people. which even you want to call it soft because of your ignorance of what actually happened also the UASF was a different proposal promoted by samson mow not the same as the lukejr and shoulinfry stuff which the core devs and blockstream NYA group utilised so dont try confusing people what you are missing in your ignorance is that the 2x part of NYA was never a coded thing or a bip. it was the empty promise of "sometime later" and its the 2x that failed. not the blackmail of block rejections first part of the NYA which was actually pushed if you cannot tell the difference between the code and bips.. vs whats is promoted and said in a blog. then you again are not realising the actual stuff that actually happened it seems apparent now your source of information has fooled you. but if you want to continue pretending you know better.. BACK IT UP WITH ACTUAL DATA show me some actual lines of code, some bips, some block data. .. something .. im still waiting all you can produce is your mindset of stuff you read on some blog post or tweet or some chat room somewhere Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on December 21, 2022, 08:18:06 PM For someone so utterly incapable of accepting the consequences of their choices, I'd have thought you'd make a smarter one. So be it.
Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: BlackHatCoiner on December 21, 2022, 09:44:13 PM Can't believe you two still quarrel about NYA, S2X and UASF. Guys, it's been half decade. These things are past for good.
The fact that franky's best interlocutor (who's been fighting his shit for over 5 years) isn't yet sure about whether franky does have a standard protocol interpretation or not should tell you a lot about franky. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on December 21, 2022, 10:14:16 PM oh..
lets see blackhats cries so.. 33 hours ago doomad bumped this topic back to life he wanted to mention something about a debate he triggered in another topic so lets deal with certain subjects.. who mentioned the words segwit. and uasf first in this recent debate revival.... hmmm.. oooo it was doomad. who bumped this topic that was dead for 10 months.. oooo it was doomad who cant back up their narrative with any blockdata, code or bips.. oooo doomad the reason i bite and respond to his and your pokes. is because unless people learn from the past and actually learn what actually happened in the past to ensure things dont easily happen like it again.. they end up happening again.. even more easily. which is not good risk awareness to play dumb and ignorant and blind and definitely not a good plan to be a ass kisser that lets devs make backdoors into feature inclusion without a good true consensus vote to fairly decided if it should activate or not.. is another risk but hey. you lot dont care about bitcoin at all .. that much is obvious you girls are the cry babies heres another reason why you lot should cry you think LN is the best, the solution, the popular network, the (pfft) feature that you brand as bitcoin well babies. did you realise that taproot has managed to hoard more coins into their feature in less than a year by the scale of 4x, compared to what you babies have managed in 5 years yep using taproot has manage to grab 20k (https://txstats.com/dashboard/db/taproot-statistics?orgId=1) coins in a year. yet your prefered feature(different network, but you pretend is just a feature) of LN only manage an average of 5k coin (~1k a year on LN) (https://txstats.com/dashboard/db/lightning-network?orgId=1) did you also know that there are 180,000 WBTC (https://crypto.com/price/wrapped-bitcoin) and it is only 3 years 11 months old compared to the 5k you lot celebrate in 5 and a half years oh and remember how you guys were celebrating that bitfinex had over 1k of LN liquidity(20%) well bitfinex has over 2k of wbtc i only mention btc as an example of a other network unit pretending to be bitcoin and yet after 5 years of promoting LN you have not realised its broke, flawed and buggy. you are still using the outdated sales pitches of 5 years ago seems other people would rather lock funds into taproot rather than LN would rather sell bitcoin and buy ethereum and then convert that to wbtc, rather than use LN oh and i am not the one unsure about things. i am clear and my narrative has not changed my narrative is backed up by blockdata, code and bips straight from sources wrote by developers unlike your narratives which yet again you fail to respond with any evidence to back up your narrative. all you can do it cry and moan and insult that you dont understand english and blame it on the englishman. rather than realise that you are greek, where english is YOUR weakness but i do laugh how you lot, do all the insulting but then cry when i insult back. you lot are not victims. so grow up. learn something . do some research and stop being manipulative Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on December 22, 2022, 09:29:06 PM anyway lets summarise the two narratives of disagreement of me and doomads thoughts around consensus and fullnodes
ill call my narrative fullnode and consensus. and ill call doomads narrative coresenseless and foolnodes just to make it easier for people to distinguish the differences because some people have reading issues, so we have to make it easier on the kids to read doomads narrative CORE decide the rules of bitcoin. where coresenseless is that everyone sheep follows core rules and dont get to vote if core should activate or not because no one should tell a dev what to do. where any other node that wants to propose bitcoin changes outside of core roadmap should be treated as enemy of bitcoin and told for f**k off to an altcoin and not get involved with cores bitcoin(#REKT) or blind obedient sheep follow core to remain on the bitcoin network a foolnode "can" validate everything, but not essential due to backward compatibility meaning they dont have to a foolnode "can" archive everything, but not essential due to pruning which means they dont have to but in doomads rhetoric as long as a node sheep follows the full or stripped data/validated or not of core rules. its a foolnode of coresenseless my narrative 2009-2016 consensus was: no one owned the right to enforce rules in as they pleased. it required consent of the masses to THEN activate.* where for security of the network the masses need to upgrade nodes and be ready to suport a new ruleset before it activates, and not activate before full nodes are amassed to be ready *without mandate or threat of rejection, nor pre activation rejection events to fake a vote however core had managed to bypass consensus in 2017 via a few tricks invented by lukle jr and shoulinfry(no not UASF). but this trojan backdoor bug should not be allowed to be used as a normal function for network rule change options to activate a full node is where it validates everything and understands all the rules and archives full data, where as if you switch off certain features like archiving IDB seeding, where you dont stay upto date with the full ruleset you are not a full node. you are downrated to non-full status. pruning/backward compatible/unupgraded nodes are not full node status Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: LoyceV on December 23, 2022, 08:45:10 AM you think LN is the best I can only speak for myself, but I think it's the best for small Bitcoin transactions so far. If something better comes up, I'll embrace it.Quote you babies Somehow I get the feeling LN is such a touchy subject for you, that it actually influences your real life mood. It's so easy, if you don't like it, don't use it. It's not bothering on-chain Bitcoin.did you also know that there are 180,000 WBTC (https://crypto.com/price/wrapped-bitcoin) and it is only 3 years 11 months old You're comparing an underfunded project to a centralized scam that someone earns a lot of money from, and goes to great lengths to trick people into accepting it instead of Bitcoin.Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on December 23, 2022, 10:15:05 AM the problem is
LN is not a bitcoin feature that manages to do something or solve something for bitcoin and purely for bitcoin even poon in his whitepaper admits LN is a multi-currency system yet due to idiots selling it as a bitcoin thing, a bitcoin solution. devs are giving up on scaling BITCOIN (take the congestion onchain last month FROM JUST ONE EXCHANGE. bitcoin needs more onchain capacity to cover utility of multiple businesses and more especially individuals) so yes it is negatively affecting bitcoin even if i dont use LN even if 99.99% of people dont use it. it still affects bitcoin via its existence as the solution. thus bitcoin issues do not get sorted LN's usage is super low but its existence has stifled bitcoins usage growth and innovation onchain you know the song.. ("bitcoin shouldnt scale to more txps because LN solves transaction scaling") bitcoins last few "innovations" at bitcoin protocol level have not been to evolve bitcoin utility. it has been to offer gateway transaction formats for subnetworks.. there is the security flaws, the bugs, the liquidity issues.. all being branded as bitcoin features, yet they are not they are flaws, and those flaws are bringing a bad reputation and a negative view onto bitcoin due to the brand stealing crap of LN (el salvador experiment failure (september 2021-december. was nothing to do with the bitcoin network, it failed due to an LN project pretending it was bitcoin)) i facepalmed in september with the "LN is making bitcoin successful" "LN LN LN LN LN" then when it failed same idiots "bitcoin failed el salvador" so in december i was laughing that they tried to limit their exposure and pretend LN had nothing to do with the el salvador crap the el salvadorians were exposed to, and then i facepalmed again when they tried to say bitcoin was the problem (cheeky f**kers!) as for you thinking its under funded.. ooh please!!! the main devs of LN are paid. you think rusty, a.bosworth, and such work for free?(i name just a couple for examples, but loads of them are corporate funded to work on lightning) did you know LN is actually an invention pre 2017 and its inspired by the hyperledger stuff, which the dcg (https://dcg.co/portfolio/#l) and its subsidiaries blocksteam (https://blockstream.com/lightning/)is funding the dev groups are funded .. in short if bitcoin was to have an off-chain solution to various features that have been stiffled and refused to be included into bitcoin protocol... LN is not the answer/solution.. a new network needs to be made for such off-chain promises without the LN flaws to give actual solution.. or more simply. re-boot bitcoin innovation and scale BITCOIN not other sub-par networks brain and brand and reputation stealing LN community has had 5 years to figure their crap out. and yet more people are locking funds to wbtc and taproot based networks rather than what LN pretends its usage accomplishments are Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on December 23, 2022, 06:40:13 PM doomads narrative CORE decide the rules of bitcoin. where coresenseless is that everyone sheep follows core rules and dont get to vote if core should activate or not because no one should tell a dev what to do. where any other node that wants to propose bitcoin changes outside of core roadmap should be treated as enemy of bitcoin and told for f**k off to an altcoin and not get involved with cores bitcoin(#REKT) or blind obedient sheep follow core to remain on the bitcoin network Categorically false. I must have stated several dozen times by now that the code people choose to run decides the rules of Bitcoin. That is my stance and always will be. I can see why he gets confused, though. As franky1 believes everyone who doesn't share his delusions is a sheep. Also, one or more Core developers mocked franky1 at some point (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1919964.msg19050638#msg19050638) and he's held a vendetta against them ever since. I'd be curious to see the specifics of the message he sent to the devs to initiate that particular conversation. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if franky1 came across in his typical obnoxious, condescending, saviour-complex demeanour. I'm sure under the circumstances, ridicule was likely deserved. People should take this into consideration when reading anything franky1 writes about Core devs. There is clearly a sizable grudge being held on his part. It's not worth wasting my time replying to any of the other abject lies he spouts in that post, as every single one was addressed fully in this topic (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5122903.0) back in 2019 and I'm not rehashing it again. Reserved. I may make summaries later. We're swiftly coming up on the 1 year anniversary of this topic. Can we look forward to Switzerland's impartial judgement soon? :) Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on December 24, 2022, 01:12:27 AM your view is follow CORES rules or be treated as opposition
you personally cannot tell where core begins and bitcoin ends where your view is core is bitcoin and every other node that wants something in bitcoin that does not meet cores roadmap is not bitcoin and should fork off. you view is not how decentralisation and consusus works heck you pretend users get a vote then you spin around in circles saying no one get s to oppose core or tell them to not do things. doomads idea of freedom is core is "the man" and should have freedoms to do what they want without needing consent. where by the mans view of consent is that the community are willing to be in his bed or f**k off if they do not like the abuse put on them without consent .. well thats rape at best, it could be seen as core is just a BDSM 'dom' with everyone else in the orgy, 'subs' and anyone fully declining to be in the orgy being rejected and ejected out of the room true consent is consent before and during the act. where if majority do not consent, there is no orgy.. end of story if there was majority consent, it then allows time for all parties to get prepared and ready for safe sex before sex happens and, consent is also agreement during sex domads view "dont worry you dont need to wear a condom, dont protect yourself or deny me sex, i promise im clean... pinky promise with extra oozy drips" and then treat anyone that denies the man sex, as someone to hate and tell them to fuck off and where he things "well the man got his genitals inside, so she must have consented" so whos "freedom" is doomad protecting.. the co-ed community of university students.. or the rapists right to rape/ be BDSM dom, with no choice of equality where no-one else can propose sexual activities/positions to try apart from the core man moving onto your other social drama queen tears of bottom scratching funny think about that anyonecanspend issue do you realise that the plan back then was to just start putting segwit tx's into bitcoins tx relay system and blocks without a true consensus activation event where by nodes should upgrade to have code that can verify first, before activation.. . where by it would have caused lots of nodes problems in their first stupid plan for segwit well guess what. they ended up doing a mandatory hardfork(to remove opposition and also THEY(you) pretending its soft to avoid admitting they were wrong) and they didnt release the wallet function to allow people to create segwit transactions untill the following year because they also realised letting people make segwit transactions before nodes were ready to verify them, would be a problem yep they bypassed consensus to not need nodes to upgrade and support segwit.. then delayed segwit wallet function until 2018 (https://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-core-full-segwit-support/) waiting for nodes to upgrade again that was a bad way of doing things.. but they were under sponsored contract to get segwit activation by november 2017 at the latest. so they had to do it anyway they could even if it was the wrong way. unsupported way so they mocked me. but proved my point later on.. by not allowing anyonecanspends tx trick to be widely used before 2018. even though the way they did it, was still not the best way as it abused consensus to get what they wanted how they proved my point was the stupid next poke of the bear(by the way they activated segwit) that was unfair on the community and the protocol security, Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: LoyceV on December 24, 2022, 09:07:25 AM Reserved. I may make summaries later. We're swiftly coming up on the 1 year anniversary of this topic. Can we look forward to Switzerland's impartial judgement soon? :)Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on December 24, 2022, 09:24:55 AM reading the topic again from the start (due to getting too embroiled in the drama of the doomad/blackhat ping pong game)
the first reponse to loyce When Binance came to Brazil, it dominated the crypto market nearly completely. It is by far the best, most trusted and cheaper exchange. Nearly everyone who works with cryptocurrency in Brazil has a binance account. I was going to sell some bitcoin in the next few days, and I gave my client my binance address. He immediately asked if I could be paid in BEP2 chain (Binance chain, using a BTC pegged token). I accepted, as it is a free and instant transaction and I was not going to hold that bitcoin for long. Now, is a BTC pegged token bitcoin? It is not, but i guess it is useful for bitcoin adoption and awareness. So, to summarize: Off-chain solutions are already happening. They are useful. LN is the best off-chain solution, but people do use it all the time yet. LN would be good for my transaction? Well, I think not as good as the BEP2 solution, but it would work. I believe that we should support LN and use it, otherwise we will soon be forced to use a worse off-chain solution from time to time. this shows exactly the problem bitcoin only exists on the bitcoin network. so all the binance custody balance, BEP20, BNB, sidechain and LN stuff are not bitcoins.. they are tokens, units or display balances pretending to be bitcoin. but not actual bitcoin it goes to show people cant tell the difference even though there are risks of using custodians or so called pegged promises all being falsely branded as bitcoin if you do not have sole-custody of a UTXO to move yourself without other parties sign-off and clear to spend as you deem fit. you dont have bitcoin yourself. this means locking coin up into multisig of another party or federation, to then play with other balance units on another system. does not mean you have bitcoin. you have an unsecured unsettled iou of potential bitcoin should a withdrawal/broadcast happen at a later date it gets worse when those other systems/networks fail or are under suspicion of future failures that it tarnishes the actual bitcoin networks reputation. then we have the ping pong games of the madhatters (doomad and blackhatcoiner) who go around saying: "bitcoin isnt fit for purpose as a currency for the unbanked" "bitcoin doesnt have a consensus to decide on rule activations" "devs can impose any rule change they like without veto or objection from other network users" "people should prune the data because distributed blockchain is not a thing that needs to be secured" and "if people want to transact.. they should use a pegged network and not the bitcoin network" basically they want to kill off bitcoin to fame up LN while then pretending they are "bitcoiners" very shameful tactics by them as for bitmovers idea to use LN out of fear of there being worse.. .. well LN is flawed, buggy, has liquidity issues, bottlenecks, lacks network security of payments, has a weak pegging mechanism many can abuse, can fractional reserve value, it needed things like watchtowers and revokes because its design was so shoddy and the work arounds of watchtowers/revokes dont even work as 100% fixes to flaws they suppose to solve.. ...maybe just maybe a new "system"(for those small niche use cases) is required, that actually works! a new system could be designed that is actually closer to the bitcoin principles, but without the LN flaws.. a system that works with bitcoin and only for bitcoin... because LN is not the solution it promises to be anyway merry christmas to all those not in the madhatter camp. ill leave you in peace for a few days, goodluck to all who do actually care about BITCOIN and want to learn and research i hope you dont fall down the madhatters rabbit hole and i suspect ill see the madhatter clan moan and cry and make up more malicious crap about how their beloved altnet is better and a solution and how im just trolling them. or maybe they can spend the time too enjoying christmas and also maybe take the new year as an opportunity to sort out their motives once and for all Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on December 24, 2022, 04:30:32 PM And I must admit I don't really feel like reading everything in this topic again. Understandable. Even I'm struggling to read the latest posts. It seems franky1 is reaching new depths of depravity. I don't think I've ever seen something as abhorrent on this board as him equating the code he doesn't like to the act of rape, but that's how franky1's sick mind works. Disgusting and obscene. It shows you just what kind of inhuman monster he truly is. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on December 26, 2022, 10:43:39 PM says doomad that has said that he does not believe in consent and pretends that no consent is needed to perform a act(tivation) on a community
and that the group cannot refuse or "just say no", where he thinks the only option of refusal is to not be part of a community. i feel doomad is the depraved one if he idolises such methods of performing an act on others and wants it to continue where it should not be stopped by anyone because he believes in the freedom of the abuser reigns supreme, even at the cost of the security and harm it can cause on multiple others who end up having their choice and freedom dictated or removed. lets hope it only takes 2023 for doomad to learn and understand consent by census (consensus) and not be another 5 years of him thinking it means obediently 'subs' follow the bdsm 'doms' bedroom rules of a orgy fest who make the decisions without contest for everyone else involved. where the only "just say no" option is to get out of the room and let the 'doms' continue their acts Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: DooMAD on December 27, 2022, 02:31:23 AM If we follow franky1's absurd "orgy" analogy to its natural conclusion, on-chain is the orgy and SegWit/LN allows people to have the option to temporarily leave the orgy and go into a private room for some intimate one-on-one time. The "consent" franky1 demands here is that no one can leave the orgy without his permission, like some perverted little deviant who wants to watch every sordid act. I think people should be free to go somewhere private. I also think people having the freedom to do this does not take anything away from franky1's personal freedoms.
Stepping away from the ludicrous analogy, the only thing franky1 claims to have lost is that he doesn't have a complete copy of the blockchain including witness data, but this is HIS CHOICE. He simply can't accept the consequences of his choice, where the users of this network have moved on without him. We've got something he doesn't have (yet easily could have if he stopped acting like a petulant child) and he's going to be bitter until the end of time about it. I maintain the stance that 6% of the network should not have a permanent veto to block what 94% of the network would like to do. My stance it that this would stagnate the network to an extent which is far greater than the extent to which franky1 claims devs are supposedly stagnating the network (and devs are categorically not stagnating the network, this is yet another fantasy that only exists in franky1's head). It's clear by this point that franky1 will only accept this "95% of users have to agree" notion as the "true" definition of consensus (even though it clearly doesn't work that way). He says that anything else which doesn't give him a permanent veto is equivalent to "rape", all because he can't force people to do what he wants. He has no conscience and only cares about his ideals of control and tyranny. Abhorrent. Truly and undeniably abhorrent. Title: Re: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain Post by: franky1 on December 27, 2022, 03:30:14 AM doomad you are so insane you have things backwards in so many ways
LEARN CONSENT.. if not for bitcoin, for any relationship you ever have in life.,. stop expectng people to kiss your ass on demand you really do not understand consent and so you are trying too hard to be an idiot to pretend your mis-understanding is justified onchain is the common room of university students where in normal legal consent. if someone suggest an orgy, people can just say no. and no orgy happens. (doomad probably acts surprised by this concept of consent) where people just stay in the common room doing normal things without threat or harm or insult or malice or attack or coercion into accepting sex. (again doomad is probably shocked at this notion) where it requires an actual majority of the attending students to agree on an orgy for an orgy act(vivation) to occur however doomad thinks an orgy has to happen where he thinks its the rapists right to make sure it happens where in doomads scenario the only opt-out is "the freedom" to leave the common room. thus faking a vote that the remainers are voting for an orgy whether they say so or not. where by staying in the common room means for doomad they are forced into sex or atleast left in the room to watch it happen without any say so or way to stop it.. where you cant even 'just say no' and just stay in the room doing normal things, where no sex happens.. even if majority would have said no.. doomad still wants sex to occur in short rapes happen and those staying in the room have no choice but to watch it happen as for doomad crying about a 6% veto from the november 2016- june 2017(days prior to the mandated threats). segwit didnt even get 50% so why was he crying about 6% veto when segwit had natural 50%+ veto by which point with such a low vote 46% vote in favour, it should have been an opportunity to the devs to go back to the design board and figure out what the community actually would want. something that could have got a true actual natural vote of a 80% threshold without needing mandated pre-rejection threat and abuse. and fake voting doomads version of consent is "im having sex with everyone in the room, if you dont like it, go to a different university" (im trying to justify doomad to being at college level. so using that age level analogy of consent.. otherwise ill have to go back to talking as if doomad is 5yo again) |
