wrong
1. LN uses HTLC's for payment not bitcoin CLTV's
2. the denomination(unit of account) of LN is Msat which is something bitcoin does not accept
3. LN can function with just swapping(hot potato) msats using lite wallets that do not api/RPC a blockchain
4. if you were to API/RPC a blockchain your node can use the chainhash of litecoin, vertcoin or others. not just btc

5. refer to point 4 above
6. LN is a single network where multiple nodes can communicate where ach node can designate a different chainhash, to allow swapping on the same network

LN was built and then bitcoin had to change and get a new tx format to be LN compatible. also litecoin added this tx format before bitcoin did, thus technically bitcoin copied litecoin

have a nice day

you used his words. but you didnt even include a screen shot of full context conversation. he could be calling your answers the gibberish nonsense. the fact that you wrote something which is just basically saying he replied to you has no proof about the question you were trying to counter.
also if you read code, check block data and stats. you will see the clear truth. i know you love your social drama. but try to learn something about bitcoin and LN

its not a bitcoin layer. LN is its own network.. the N of LN stands for network.
LN is not acronym'd BL2

IF and im being strong emphatic here. IF LN was a utility thats only sole function was to tender to bitcoin and actually catered to bitcoin alone. that would be a start to a whole different story.
also
IF and again strongly emphatic here IF LN when you run scenarios actually done what it proposes then it would be of benefit
LN is for a small niche utility which has not been met and at the moment wont be met. thus over promoted as some mass solution to bitcoin woes, even though bitcoins woes are caused by devs stifling bitcoin just to promote LN

there are many stats around like bitcoin UTXO stats, coinage which reveal how often people 'spend' bitcoin. even Visacard have statistics of how often people spend fiat. and if you put these spending habits against LN's scenarios. such as opening a group of channels(for efficient chance of route success) for a month. and work out the cost/utility benefit of saving in LN and the onramp tx utilisd to get in and out on bitcoins network. LN is not so 'infinite/instant/cheap'

i think too many people throw around buzzwords like LN, layers, scaling, but never actually bother using the systems/running scenario's. they just want to jump on the promo band wagon without actually knowing the details


in short. did bank promissory notes increase the adoption of gold. or actually decrease the number of gold hoarders, and instead increase the adoption of cheaper options like nickel and copper coins once people wished to settle up

LN is a separate independant network, the units of account of LN (msats) are not even recognised on the bitcoin network

LN is not even fixed/tethered to bitcoin. you can change the chainhash to be litecoin or other alts
infact you can run a litewallet that api's to a factory/server and not even worry about blockchains
thus LN can actually promote litecoin far more than bitcoin because the onramp (cost/time) to lock collateral to LN is faster and cheaper using litecoin

people keep assuming that LN is a sole unique feature that is only bitcoin enabled due to the silly buzz words like "layer" but the reality is that LN is not a layer at all. its just fluffy buzzword used for PR to do the fame game of garnering sponsorship/funding by trying to mention the word bitcoin/crypto/blockchain being related to LN

th problem with widfury is he merges 3 questions/point into one sentance and when addressing the points he just changes the order of the points to try making it seem different but is him just repating himself

the 3 points are
tokens created . not using real bitcoin
the iou
who is a central issuer of such

so dealing with these 3 points separately.
1. Msats are a token NOT recognised by a blockchain thus LN is not using real bitcoin. bitcoins never leave the blockchain. Msat balance is created when a HTLC is created. Msats creation/utilisation are a token that doesnt even need to be tethered to a bitcoin transaction

2. the HTLC because its not an actual bitcoin asset but a different denomination/token. because its not even getting settled. HTLC's function is just to say who OWES who what, where by at a later date the parties then agree to settle the debt
EG i can put up a pair of $60 sneakers(shoes) up as collateral. and i and a friend can both agree to a HTLC of 1200000000msat total balance and then over time we agree on who owes who what. then at the endwhen one side shows they are owed th balance of a full pair of sneakers the person that is owed the sneakers gets them

to address amishmanish's query about 'limited by channel capacity'
the collateral does not have to be bitcoin locked transaction nor anythinglocked/community ruled/centrally accountable.
the msat balance(capacity) does not have to be locked tethered to anything
the msat balance(capcaity) can be increased/decreased at any point
a htlc of msats is just a 2 party IOU agreement, it's just a private agreement by those 2 parties. meaning as long as they agre to it whatever it is thats the iou agreement they are agreeing to.
 
which if you can trust that it will get settled, later on gets settled.. but no guarantee.
even converting a HTLC to a bitcoin CLTV tx (should the particular instance be based on btc collateral)
does not guarantee that the CLTV broadcast would get added to a block/confirm/settle up as desired.
so yes indeed the HTLC is a debt balancer of who owes what, whether there is collateral or not

3. seems winfury cant counter point 1&2 and is now trying to meander in the 3rd point pretending that pegged/tethered /collateral or uncollateralised tokens or iou's can only be created by central issuers. thus with his lack of knowledge/ ploy to be subtly saying there is no central issuer he believed that there can never be such a thing as pegged tokens/iou tokens/unpegged token creation. which is another flaw in how understanding.

the issuer is the parties themselves. THEY create the HTLC themselves
HTLCs do NOT get treated like a bitcoin blockchain CLTV tx.
HTLC's do not broadcast to a blockchain

pegged token networks do not need a central company to make the tethered pegged tokens..
in LN anyone can make pegged tethered tokens.
in LN anyone can make tokens that are not pegged/tethered

the only reason some of the pegged tethered token networks use a central company to be the sole issuer instead of letting users do it themselves is about making a company accountable.
by not having a centralised issuer does not mean that pegged tokens dont occur. it just changes who is accountable

nope. thats about coinbase running a service
im talking about a USER sending BITREFILL mysql balance of fiat, altcoin or btc.. emphasis mysql database balance, not blockchain tx. and then bitrefill just making a HTLC, again emphasis without needing tethered btc. but where the HTLC is measured in msats and is designated as a pegged btc
when the USER wants to settle. nothing is broadcast. but instead a request to factory(bitrefill) is made and its then upto bitrefill to reimburse the user in whatever amount was agreed. again this can be coinbase balance. thus not touching a blockchain.

what this means is LN is NOT defined/fixed to a blockchain, and its not even defined fixed to a coinbase account. anyone can write a htlc and a partner can agree on it for any reason

getting free/discounted balance people are gonna turn down??
i know many people wear rose tint glasses, rainbow boxers and hug a stuffed unicorn when promoting LN.. but knowing the negatives is just or more important

wind fury did not even get greg to counter the whole controversial split debate about segwit (gateway format for LN thus ontopic)which windfury said he was gonna message greg about.
greg just waffled about other stuff to do with bitcoin cash(unrelated to segwit or LN or bitcoin)
thus windfury failed

just getting greg to reply, even when his reply didnt even talk about the issue. makes gregs reply meaningless
so trying to just use the fact that greg bothered to reply is not proof in itself. its just another meaningless meander offtopic

secondly to address your flip flop about it. there was a 3 trick game at play.

you incessant attempts to first say everyone loved core, yet stats showed only 35% agrement in spring 2017
you incessant attempts to first say there was no controversy.
you incessantly say that core devs didnt write code and how it magically wrote itself and users magically just had it
you incessantly said how core are free to write whatever they like and activate what they like without permission

you incessantly attempt to say there was only one person opposition it (yea you kept acting as if im the only opposer)
you then incessantly said how its not a vote, not a consensus(more no permission waffle).
you then incessantly said how it needed users to opt-in(flopping about just the bip148 part)
you then incessantly said how its not an opt in due to compatibility.
you then incessantly said how its ok for users to ban nodes

and now you cannot deny that core fans and core devs wanted the mandatory activation first. you not even gonna counter that. but talk instead about stuff gmaxwell did not even mention (who struck first)

seriously. stop with the social meanders and flip flops. spend more time learning about bitcoin and LN

P.S need you forget your own excitement about how core devs wanted to force nodes of service bit 6 and 8 off the network BEFORE segwit even activated. or will you now flop and deny that trick tactic was used too

now can you pair of meanders go do some research.
i was talking about LN and its issues until doomad asked for proof how core devs were causing issues for bitcoin.
which doomad has been incessantly trying to make the topic about since. to avoid negative LN conversation.
windfury wanted to meander about bitcoin cash social drama.. again as an attempt to avoid talking about LN flaws
seriously you both lack the basic knowledge of LN and i see no point why you both even bother talking in LN topics.
how about instead try learning it first before replying

msats are not techno babble
its a word for a economic unit of measure thats 12 decimals. which the bitcoin network does not accept or recognise.
its a word for a economic unit of measure thats 12 decimals. which the LN network does accept and recognise.
nothing technical or babbly about it

windfury without you doing any research or learning, you keep repeating how you think there are no pegged tokens or iou's
but your lack of knowledge is just digging yourself a hole and not proving a point. in the end there is no point you repeating your mis-information because you have not even bothered or tried to check on reality

while the social dramatists continue thier meanders
core devs announced a segwit mandatory controversial split in march, the announcement set the date for august first

as for bitcoin cash. well that was announced way later..
anyway i can see the foolish tactic doomad and windfury are doing to detail the topic so far by getting people to not take about LN flaws.. but thats windfury and doomad failure

may they finally stop wasting time with their social drama meanders and instead learn about bitcoin and LN.
there is no need for them to reply about arguing why they shouldnt have to learn.
there is no need for them to reply about arguing why they shouldnt have to understand LN/bitcoin
there is no need for them to reply about arguing about me

all they should do is learn about a topic they want to reply about, use actual details stats, cod related to the topic. and if they want to meander off topic, they should just avoid the reply button altogether. if they dont like other people. they can hit the ignore button

---

reigning the topic back ontopic, yet again

LN does NOT require tethering to a blockchain. (research thor turbo)
the tokens in LN are not recognised by blockchain networks (research msats)
there is no community consensus so 2 private parties can make private malicious agreements(fractional reserves)
HTLC's dont settle funds they're just temporary agreements of who OWES who what, meaning iou (research CLTV vs htlc)

once you learn the flaws of LN. you start to see the stats of 'LN's growth' are not real or accurate. as shown by proving that LNBig and bitrefill done alot of sybil noding/channeling to fudge numbers

though ur digressing the topic to be about bitcoin cash. because you cant counter argue LN. nor counter segwit activation (gateway to ln thus related to topic)

1. segwits mandatory bip came first. gmax does not counter that... he just tries to talk about unrelated bitcoin cash stuff. not answering who triggered the actual mandatory bilateral/controversial split. thus even he cant counter who instigated pushing segwit into activation via the consensus bypass (controversial fork/bilateral split)

2. funny thing is gmaxwells meander that does not addrss the consensus bypass part. talks about how bitcoin cash had to change something which then made it then unable to do PoW... hmm... yet bitcoin cash, last time i checked still does PoW, and from what i can see the history still exists. so i guess gmax is wrong.. again the blockchain data of bitcoin cash shows they still do PoW and still have block history.

again this is where you need to do your own independant research and stop trying to get info from your echo chamber
you have not proved a controversial split didnt happen. you have not proved that cores segwit didnt trigger a controversial split first. you have no proven anything. all you have done is side step the issues, not provided a counter and just opened up another meander.

now please go back to basics of learning the topic and actually provide data, stats, code and such to back up the topic

but while we are on your unrelated meander. to just put it to bed lets address a point. increasing the blocksize by saying 'anything under 4mb is acceptable' 'anything under 8mb is acceptable' means 1mb is acceptable and does not make history disappear.
however code such as luke JR's 300kb blocks of only accept 300kb would risk killing off all historic blocks 301kb+ if not coded a correct way

---

anyway. unless you want to talk about LN try not to reply to this topic. but if you do, atleast show you done some research

LN does NOT require tethering to a blockchain. (research thor turbo)
the tokens in LN are not recognised by blockchain networks (research msats)
there is no community consensus so 2 private parties can make private malicious agreements(fractional reserves)
HTLC's dont settle funds they're just temporary agreements of who OWES who what, meaning iou (research CLTV vs htlc)

once you learn the flaws of LN. you start to see the stats of 'LN's growth' are not real or accurate. as shown by proving that LNBig and bitrefill done alot of sybil noding/channeling to fudge numbers

Msats are a token that exists within LN and only LN... bitcoins network does not recognise masts.
if you even tried to broadcast a LN htlc to the bitcoin network, it would not relay, it would not enter mempool and it would not get added to a block to confirm.
LN htlc's are not balances of actual bitcoins. bitcoins never leave the bitcoin network
if you cant understand that then you will never understand the pegging that occurs. and you will just circle around in your own absance of information like someone sticking head in the sand. which is why i keep saying to learn about this stuff so you dont just keep this whole circular empty thought you keep having.
for your own benefit, learn this stuff


as for the IOU. again because its not real btc because its not even guaranteed that a HTLC will convert to a blockchain CLTV and because theres no guarantee that the bitcoin CLTV will unlock to settle out in the amounts alloted in comparison to the HTLC.. the HTLC is not a final guaranteed settled fund. its just a agreement of who owes who what. thus iou agreement

lastly i was not the one that was "only miners should run full nodes".
my words were
the importance for average joe that only needs to check 1tx a day/month compared to a retailer/business or pool. means that
catering full nodes should be more aimed at those that actually need to be full nodes the most. such as businsses, rgular spenders and pools.

the fact that most average joe users are not technical and not interested in whats good or bad code, they would run 'compatible nodes' just because of lame reasons
if they have internet issues and are not in actual need to validate transactions regularly, they would benefit themselves from running lite wallets
the fact that with most average joe who does have limited internet they are not actually helping the network by throttling up 100+ connections. they can easily benefit their own phone bill and also the data transfer rate to other peers by only connecting to 1-3 nodes if they stayed running a full node.

trying to have bitcoins network on the whole stifled and deburdened of utility purely with the lame mindset that bitcoin should remain at low capacity for the odd small user that doesnt NEED to be a full node. it displaces, annoys and hurts the many businesses, users and pools that could take advantage of a better utility/capacity network thats not stifled.

its much the same argument as saying EA games should not release HD online shoot-em-ups because some users are on dial up. but then promote another company to handle HD games and then try to sway the majority of the community to deburden themselves of using EA games

research further
you can 'buy' balance using coinbase user account balance (no onchain tx)

also when you look into factories... HTLC's.. ln not being a consensus/blockchain network.. and the fact that the HTLC contracts are not even community audited thus can be made out of thin air. you will see that things are not as network wide fixed/ruled as you think

LN's over promises were that it meant to be more private than what blockchain coins are. so if there are stats available for LN, it shows LN is not as private as thought. i kinda laugh that 1ML shows the country and IP addresses of nodes. it is funny

also, because HTLC's are not actually tethered to blockchain coins via any fixd network punishable rule. people can open HTLC and have an agreement with a counterpart without the tether. infact as thor turbo proves and even some other scenarios prove, that the numbers of balance can be faked

infact recently i done a private scenario with a friend. i set the funding as a pair of shoes(sneakers) where by he agreed a value $60(denoted as millisats of btc(1100000000msat)) so we made a HTLC of $30(550000000msat) each and we set it so that balance would be left open to be used for others to route(we would not spend for personal use) and whichever directions routes went, when all balance leaned to one side, that party gets to own the shoes.

yep no tethered bitcoin blockchain tx, yep routes actually went through us and yep who owes what changed. yet the agreed 'settlement' was a pair of shoes not btc even though the 'value' in the HTLC supposedly represented btc

there is no such thing as "instant pay" in bitcoin. a confirm is ~10mins.
this means without having a private key anywhere on the web server you can still offer a PROMPT service within the acceptable tolerance of 10mins

the easiest method is when a user makes a withdrawal request. this request does not trigger signing a transaction on the webserver, but puts a withdrawal request into a database. and the web server never needs to list a IP address or make and calls out.. instead a remote system can securely look in on the withdrawal request database every 20seconds-2minutes. see what needs to be processed and then process it remotely knowing it will be in a block within the tolerable timescale


thus the webserver has no keys now any listing of the remote system because the webserver does not transmit anything. it just lists items

instead of even replying. how about
learn about bitcoin
learn about LN
reply using code, dev quotes, data, stats. and not just social drama about people that are not writing bitcoin protocol rules

P.S the event of august 1st which gregmaxwell calls a bilateral split (2 sides split) was a contentious fork event. but remember the data found on the blockchain shows it was core devs code that triggered the event. as for mentioning bitcoin cash. thats just you trying to meander the topic away from talking about bitcoin and LN. because you still dont have the knowledge of bitcoin and LN to talk about it.

your more then welcome to reply about bitcoin and LN but atleast keep it in context by actually including code, data, stats that can actually back your assumptions. without your replies just sounding like "x because y said it"

but to again jump back to your meander. cores segwit was also contentious. both sides split below a majority threshold

again windfury offers no code, no dev quotes, no stats.... just social drama and insults that just narrow down to "wrong coz franky" which is laughable, weak and empty of any valid counter argument.

research thor turbo. they open channels without having a confirmed locked CLTV tx on the blockchain
thor let people pay them fiat/alt/coin in coinbase.com balance(mysql database) and INSTANTLY open a LN HTLC channel measured in millisats of the token they designate represents btc. (the pegged IOU)

meaning there is no 'bitcoin' just a IOU agreement (htlc) measured in a token only recognised on the LN network

the way it works is that thor turbo give a user a millisat HTLC (HTLC's do no broadcast) so the user just treats it as IOU balance and when it comes to settling it does not touch bitcoins blockchain. it does not get broadcast. instead the user requests thor to settle out. and thor then decides to hand any fiat or altcoin or whatever payment method the user is owed.

learn about this stuff. seriously.
if you want to promote/defend something. atleast learn about it

if an LN channel has a $160 limit, then here is some assumptions that can be made

1, to get a viable and good chance of using LN, users open up atleast 5 channels. thats like $800 value locked

2. this upto $800 means that people are only going to lock funds for a month or less because the value/utility of such is not an amount that would cover months/years of utility

3. continuing point 2 $160 /28 days of just 1 payment a day is under $6 a day spend per channel

4. with each channel open and close costing a onchain fee of at the moment ~20cents(40cents total) to recoup that 40cents
a channel would need to charge 40*1cent payment..(max $4 spending per payment) or if charging 0.1cent fee means 400 payments of 40cent max spending. meaning the chances of finding a route to buy a $20 pizza is super low unless the LN fee is 5cents, just to break even

other things to note about LN, due to it not being community audited per payment. no consensus and purely just an agreement between 2 parties that can edit their node how they like

1. LN does NOT rely on onchain locked funds. thor turbo is proving it by opening channels with balance even without having a confirmed locked transaction on the blockchain
2. LN HTLC's are not the same as bitcoin CLTV's the denomination of a HTLC is a millisat. something bitcoin does not recognise
3. LN HTLC's are private agreements unsttled between 2 parties and used just to show who owes what.
LN HTLC's are a pegged token using IOU's that do not even need to be tethered to a blockchain tx (thor turbo proves this)

goodnight doomad.
your dream of consensus meaning if users dont like it find another network. shows how little you know about consensus and the thing satoshi solved in 2008
by the way heres another hint. its users finding agreement is called commUNITY not comSLITTY

see you one day when you wake up

doomad.. sober up
you keep on thinking that i am writing code and trying to change bitcoin under some big campaign
1. show me code i wrote
2. show me the campaign of numbers you think i dont have enough of

what you try to do is try to suggest i am campaigning an opposition and change of state. when the reality is i am just correcting the misinformation that a certain group spouts out about how they pretend to be a fair open system
now if the brand/team was not core that done the exact same things core did. you would be the first in line to support correcting the mis information. you would be happy that people are pointing out the trojan and consensus bypass methods used to gain control. you would actually be salivating and taking every opportunity to announce how a brand achieved control unethically. but because core done it, you just want people to shut up and not talk about it
you cant counter the stats/code/devs admissions. so all you can do along with windfury, is just keep circling the social drama games of "wrong coz franky said it"

now go try to learn some stats/code/data and stop wasting time on your social games. if you actually started to care about the bitcoin network and not care about a certain brand. your motives and messages would differ compared to your current rhetoric

as for A mthod of a fair consensus. hint not my idea, not me making any campaign, but just informing of what consensus is
1. no mandatory aparthied/segregation pre consensus vote activation ( meaning no faking the vote)
2. require nodes to actually opt-in rather than sheepishly being 'compatible' (meaning no faking the vote)
3. understanding consensus is consent of the majority. meaning there is a majority and a need for majority consent
4. not faking a majority by removing parties pre count

the whole point of bitcoins important solution that was so revolutionary in 2009 was that it invovles uniting parties to an agreed consensus. NOT throwing out parties until all thats left is a smaller group of agreement
thus if a brand wants to change the network rules they need to provide a proposal of new rules that the REAL community can find unity around. without needing to just make up random rules and just push out opposition to force the rule into affect

anyway. here is another hint that will save you circling.
devs ADMIT their actions. they dont need you or windfury to pretend things didnt happen. so you again are wasting your time being a core defense script reader when core dont need you defending them.
so just try to spend more time caring about bitcoin and not a team of devs. and you will start to have a something worthy of spending your time discussing