The administration assumes an imperative job in the advancement of Bitcoin in a nation. For instance, an administration declares that it will acknowledge Bitcoin in that nation, so I'm certain the improvement of Bitcoin in that nation will be quick!
What do you think, the Government or the network who assume a critical job in the improvement of Bitcoin?
government regulations do not help 1. regulations are just a shiny sherrifs badge given to COMPANIES so that they can police their customers. its the fake aura of trust that this sherrifs badge gives that mistakenly makes people throw money at the companies. but reality shows that these companies are just as scammy as unregulated companies. take enron take the 2007 financial crises take the 2008 credit crises take how HSBC laundered billions but was fined only pennies on the dollar 2. other examples of regulations not helping. even though the 'war on drugs' has relaxed against cannabis in many american states, guess what. banks still dont want to serve cannabis businesses even when the business is now considered 'legal' 3. other examples of when prohibition does not remove utility(the opposite to legalisation). a century ago alcohol who prohibited in america. but guess what people still got drunk. drugs have been prohibited for decades-centuries but people still get high. all in all nations regulations are meaningless and just give a faint shroud of 'trust' / legitimacy |
|
|
|
go do some research. stop wearing the core defense cap. its not attractive on you
It's not a defense on Core. It's the community who came in consensus on what we consider Bitcoin. Unless you are trying to sneak the "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin" narrative again. Because there is no debate there. 1. the community did not decide using a fair commmunity inclusive consensus. actually read some code, speak to devs and look at blockchain data. before the activation even occured(consensus) core devs had code to disband parts of the community, which they did. they didnt need the community. all they needed was nodes controlled by matt corrola's fibre network to control what blocks the relay network gets. the core devs to change the dns seed node listings to only include certain nodes. and also barry silberts NYA agreement to sway the laggers that were 'compatible' that sticking with cores roadmap would allow them to spend coin. in short it didnt need 10,000-60,000 nodes/community users. the adoption of segwit and the following of core was done with far far far far less involvement of the community and far far more involvement of the group of devs and those siding with the devs. 2. cores mandatory code came first not bitcoin cash. also cores implementation triggered before bitcoin cash. bitcoin cash didnt even make an independent block for themselves for hours AFTER cores mandatory splits kicked in. so it was core striking first not the other way round 3. but seeing as you refuse to look at code/stats/data and only interested in social drama here is some. did you know that bitmain was on the NYA. did you know blockchain.info and bitpay(Rver gets money from) is barry silbert funded and peter rizen works for coindesk(a barry silbert company). thus bitcoin cash was just a false option and fake choice and inevitably a worthless altcoin used just to benefit core for social drama 4. as for you echo chamber response of if not a fan of core people must be team bitcoin cash with your suggestion that im trying to sneak in some bitcoin cash narrative. i have nor ever will be team bitcoin cash. so dont even try playing that game 5 i think its time you stop circling the foolish things being scriptd to you from your buddies. as you not gaining any traction nor supplying or able to supply any counter argument bar "wrong because X persona said it" just try for once to actually do some research about what actually happened. and try to avoid the social drama rhetoric your buddies inform you of, because its not helping you. |
|
|
|
Because to provide liquidity in LN, a user must stake some Bitcoins, a valuable asset. Why would he/she not try to get something in return? The user also needs to manage his/her channels to maintain liquidity in both sides.
actually untrue research thor turbo. hint. opening channels of pegged token that dont even have an equivlent onchain confirmed funding |
|
|
|
|
i watched the movie and it was more about FIAT money laundering where there was a crypto mixer used in the middle
and a few slight references to bitcoin atms, ico's and trading
main theme is:
main character is a AML agent employed by a company, he is initially depicted as a bit of a savant and went into too much detail of a companies finances and found many flaws in their fiat accounts. they didnt like it so suspended him for a few weeks.
his superviser told him to go investigate a local bank in the main characters old home town while the dust settles.
he goes back to his home town and visits one of his teenage favourite places, a liquor store where he and a friend use to steal liquor. this is where he bumps into that same friend, who turns out to now run that same liquor store.
here we learn the friend is highly into bitcoin and crypto. typical hobbyist. has a bitcoinATM in the liquor store, mining equipment in the liquor stores walk-in freezer and the friend is into a bit of hacking and researching ICO's as a extra income method.
now the main character starts looking dumb, doesnt know about bitcoin or hacking or much else and starts relying on the friend later on in the movie. but for now is just settling in working from a back office at the bank weeding through many boxes of unorganised bank paperwork..
small bits of family drama. h runs into his brother who is angry/jealous the main character left the home town, leaving the brother and dad to fend for themselves running a potato farm
back in the bank the main character starts learning about an art gallery and then uses his liquor store buddy to hack further and finds a link to some canadian small fishbait store which turns out to be a shell company for the russian mob
its found that the bank, art gallery and fishbait store are linked to an OTC(over the counter) mixer/exchange that launders the fiat for the russians.
the russians then come to town and burn down the liquor store. but not before the main characters friend makes a video of all the evidence including making a bitcoin HD phraseseed which contains alot of bitcoin
the russians find out so kidnap the main characters dad and want the evidence returned in exchange for the dads release.
evidence is handed over and dad gets released
all in all thats about it in regards to 'crypto' based stuff.. which to me was slim snippets of a bitcoin ATM a bit of chatter about mining,ico and trading. and a OTC mixer/exchange.... the rest of the movie was pretty much fiat money laundering for the russians and the story line wouldnt have change much if the liquor store owner was just a standard hacker and the laundering was done by way of pure fiat. i just flt they only slid in references of crypto based to make a boring standard russian mob laundering movie sound more appealing/relevant to the millennial generation
|
|
|
|
But there are no "IOU pegged promises to pay tokens" in the Lightning Network either, it doesn't matter how much you post techno-babble. It simply isn't the truth.
pegged tokens = Msats bitcoin network does not recognise Msats.. IOU's are agreements that are not and will not settle. they are just temporary agreemnts of who OWES what HTLC are agreements inside LN. HTLC's do NOT get broadcast to the main net blockchain networks HTLC's are the IOU and the denomination balance of the HTLC is the pegged token its not about beleiving me its about reading code and talking to devs and doing own research as THEY(the devs) SAY "Within the network, all HTLC payments are denominated in // milli-satoshis. As milli-satoshis aren't deliverable on the native // blockchain" atleast do some rsearch and stop with the incessant and ignorant 'must be wrong coz franky" try to learn what actually happens on a network and not just concentrate on the person telling you. hense why i keep saying people should do their own research after all whr is your code/research/stats/data that actually shows the opposite as a fair counter.. you dont provide it. you just repeat 'wrong coz franky' as you supposed proof (facepalm) |
|
|
|
Lightning network really is a work of art and people aren't being appreciative enough of all the hard work that went into it, this is a complete game changer for the bitcoin ecosystem.
not a work of art. even the devs are shouting out the risks. seems maybe you should use it before promoting it. here is a hint. a company called fold done a pizza campaign recently. 1500 users tried it but only 150 succeeded. this 150 was not due to issues with fol not following through with pizza or not having balance to pay pizza company. but because LN and its routing system had issues so transactions could not even complete might be worth you doing some research lastly LN is not a bitcoin unique feature. many coins can use LN and so its not something that will 'promote bitcoin adoption' as others have already highlighted . pushing bitcoin fee's up to promote LN, does not help bitcoin. it infact helps promote altcoins to be the onramp in and out of LN |
|
|
|
I know also that if I wanted to go online and look for LN-enabled services, I would be hardly spoilt for choice. So other than people carrying the torch and doing their best to push the numbers, actual stuff I could reliably use LN for still isn't here yet... but the point is, for someone like me, I didn't even think we'd get this far at this point of time I know what we need in order to push through We just need the repetition of the dire situation which happened by the end of 2017 with people having to pay insane fees like 50 dollars per transaction. As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention, and if we live up to that (again), people will quickly find LN quite useful and convenient which they refuse to do now simply because most are lazy and don't mind paying a little more at the moment (but 50 dollars would be over the edge, of course) people paying $50 wont firstly those with fiat wont buy bitcoin to then open a channel to spend bitcoin. because its gonna cost them $50-$250 to set up LN(50 for one channel but upto $250 for multiple channels to have a somewhat modicum chance of payment route success) people end up just ignoring bitcoin entirely and noticing they can use the same LN system but with litecoin or other coins for much cheaper. infact people will start to think crypto in general should be avoided if it starts costing foolish amounts just to use it |
|
|
|
Next year will be a great year for bitcoin, miners will start hoarding bitcoin because of the halving to 6.25BTC per block reward,
It will be really interesting to see how fast the price will rise when the next block reward gets cut in half. Inflation rate will be lower than all fiat currencies and it will only continue to drop in the future, this will make bitcoin a better store of value than gold
dont get to set on thinking the halving will be a direct cause. put it this way. imagine the hashrate was 50ex and the mining cost was ~$5k/btc but imagine that the market rate was $12k(future time)($7k speculative margin/profit) .... this continues for months until the halving event. and then when it happens it obviously makes mining costs move to $10k/btc but because the market is already(at the time) $12k miners are still in profit. so you dont see any big change and wont see a big instant change to $24k. what happened in 2012 was that the price didnt change much. it wasnt until ASICS launched and the mining costs rose in 2013 did the prices suddenly go crazy. so if there is already alot of speculative margin(profit above cost) then dont expect the halving to cause much reaction |
|
|
|
"They went full Jihan, Never go full Jihan" - random quotes
I think it's only the tip of the iceberg. I bet many shell companies use different permit to get cheap electricity for mining. They got what they deserved.
the actual quote is they went full bobby lee, never go full bobby lee (might be worth you checking the current status of BTCC (bobby lees now defunct pool/company named btcchina)) |
|
|
|
Woouldn't dare comment on ongoing discussions re Core and LN as I doubt I've got the technical balls for it, but I wonder if OP should update his statistics from little under a year ago. Would be really interesting to see a comparison of the past 12 months, against a backdrop of dipping confidence supposedly, and lowered hype surrounding Bitcoin. From 1ML and from BitcoinVisuals: Active channels: 38,694 (1ml) | 34,982 (BV) - about 400% YoY growth Nodes with active channels: 4231 (1ml) | 4,191 (BV) - about 95% YoY BTC Capacity: 1,063 (1ml) | 1,065 (BV). - about 10,000% YoY Below quoted for reference: Edit:
Active channels: 8433
Nodes: 2228
BTC capacity: 20.948
worth noting yet again one group LGBIG have 42 nodes that have ~500 channels and 30btc capacity each meaning if all LGBIG nodes wre online.. alone they would account for ~2100 channels ~1260 capacity (yes i know they are not all online at the same time, but it just puts it into prospective how one group is sybilling the numbers) |
|
|
|
|
under the hood (code level, not user intrface) the code has units of account(sharable split units) called satoshis.
the code shows balance as satoshis and its the upfront user interface that basket it up into groups called bitcoins
there are 2,100,000,000,000,000 sharable units currently
under the assumption of this. the bitcoin halving events would end new unit creation in ~2140
however some bitcoin devs want to split up the units of account by a further 1000x called millisats. meaning more units of account can be shared out
i know many people will say 'but there will still be only 21m btc because each btc is no longer
100,000,000 sats
but
100,000,000,000 millisats
also by having more dvisions, this would allow more 'coin creation (and thus more halving events) to occur meaning coin creation would continue for a dozen+ more years ()
it becomes the same deception of having a crate of sliced banana. where each crate had 10,000 slices. to later have 100,000 slices carried in a truck thats 10x larger to hold larger crates. but then saying theres still the same number of crates in the truck
even though theres now more slices per crate to feed more banana lovers
its like gold.
centuries ago they would say there are only 180,000 tonnes of gold. meaning only 180,000 rick greeks, pheroahs and kings can own a tonne
then they started breaking it up into KG bars and the socio-economic minds then started talking about how 180million rich people can own a KG of gold (less people mention the tonne number)
then they started breaking it up into 1oz coins and the socio-economic minds then started talking about how 6.3biillion people can own a 1oz of gold (less people mention the tonne or kg number)
so now we are in a situation where everyone probably has a bit of gold in their house whether they know or care about it. it maybe jewellery or circuitry. but these days just 'having gold' lost its elitist/scarce appeal
if btc went to $1m a coin. and people spending smaller amounts daily like $10 they wont say they are spending 0.00001btc
instead they would say they are spending
10bits or 1000sats or 1million msats.. making talking about it in terms of BTC(like gold tonnes) would not be common terminology
and with everyone able to own some bits,sats or msats it wont seem so scarce
|
|
|
|
*Assorted drivel*
So rather than even attempting to counter a single point I made, you just repeat all the same incorrect assertions and outright lies you've made dozens of times before in a slightly different way. Your entire argument hinges on the absurd notion that nobody on the Bitcoin network likes what Core are doing, but still continue to run their code anyway. You're insane. You keep telling people that Bitcoin doesn't work in the way it clearly does and instead works in the way you imagine it does. Then, at the same time, you somehow complain about the way in which Bitcoin does currently work (because it actually doesn't work like how you imagine) and why you think Bitcoin would be better if it did work the way you imagine. It demonstrably doesn't work like you imagine and never will. Now clean out the mess between your ears that you have the audacity to call a brain and get back to us when you have a clue. go do some research. stop wearing the core defense cap. its not attractive on you |
|
|
|
|
oh doomad
learn consensus
its a vote that everyone should be part of.
not where before the deadline a event occurs to dismiss an opposition to then fake majority
you really need to learn about real consensus and how the byzantine generals theory is solved (not bypassed)
then you will learn how core got control and learn why core are now holding bitcoin back with thier 'conservative' roadmap THEY(not the community) decided on. and how core believe LN is the solution and thus twiddling their thumbs.
the only main changes to bitcoin have been to make the gateway to the lightning network and to implement things to make bitcoin network less appealing to help promote LN even more
as for your other waffle defending cores actions to become dominant
1. core dominate not because all users/majority chose core. infact only 35% chose core.
core dominated because before the consensus, CORE implemented mandatory apartheid campaigns. i would say the word segregation, but you would get confused.
you again were completely excited and happy that core implemented the aparthied to get the VOTE COUNT needed to activate segwit
2. its not about writing code on napkins, github or as a tattoo on their arm. its about writing code that was designed to bypass consensus to trojan in segwit without needing wide community opt-in.
thats right the community didnt need to opt-in to get segwit activated. you know this (should you finally decide which flip or flop narrative you want to dedicate yourself to)
if any other brand wrote mandatory consensus bypass they would not get the same excitement from you. you would treat them as attackers and you would flip to argue that other brands should suddenly stick to just using consensus naturally.. thats the point you have brand bias. you dont care about the bitcoin network, your loyalty is to a dev group.
3. again users didnt need to run the software. even the devs will tell you about their 'inflight upgrades/compatibility and apartheid tricks. yes the core devs OWN fibre meaning they control the top of the relay layer tree that controls what gets relayd out from most pools. meaning by the time it reaches normal random nodes the data is already biasedy rejected/not relayed thus when normal random users get is already selective. same with the DNS seeds. core devs own and manage them too, so again controlling which new nodes are acceptable to the network for users to connect to. all without random users needing to independently do anything
4. again for emphases. if any other brand dared try the apartheid causing bans/rejects and disconnects you would be screaming REKT them, attack, trojan group
because core now dominate the network because opposition were thrown off (yep the opposition didnt give in and just stay on bitcoin) again for emphases. the opposition did not suddenly decide to support core.
but because the core devs pushed out part of the community. your waffle about how 'users chose to run core' holds no merit
now with all that said, now the network is core dominant core are following their roadmap of mainly playing with bitcoin just to make it LN compatible and doing what they can to make LN the network the community should us for daily spends.
oh as for your theresa may reference. it seems its you that loves the conservative buzzword.
now try to actually read what devs admit happened, check the blockdata, check the code. learn about the network and how core bypassed certain things to trojan in segwit to then get LN stepping forward.
oh and please dont flip flop. its not healthy for you and just makes you look foolish
EG flip bitcoin isnt democracy/consensus/voting
flop bitcoin neds users to run the code
reality. core didnt need majority users to run the code, they just needed to remove users not running the code and also control the data 'compatible' users received via fibre/dns seeds. the events of 2017 were not community led/controlled, but core controlled
|
|
|
|
|
non reversible means cant be cancelled once confirmed
refundable means the recipient can move the funds back to you after confirmation.
bitcoin is non reversible. but is refundable
|
|
|
|
|
firstly 'bitcoin' is a buzzword for a group of unit of account (100m sats)
secondly 'bitcoin' is a buzzword for a network/protocol/ledger the units of account reside on
lets for confusions sake say
the unit of account is BTC
the protocol/ledger/network is bitcoin
bitcoin is NOT a commodity
btc is NOT a commodity
a commodity is a raw product traded to be used to create othr products
oil-> car fuel/plastic
wheat->bread, cereal
gold-> circuits,jewellery
bitcoin/btc is not a raw product that can be used to make other produce.
some people want/hope/try to classify it as a commodity. not due to true classification reasons. but just for least tax burden/greed reasons
bitcoin is NOT a currency
btc IS a currency
anything can be a currency it just needs to have more than once person agree it has value and they want to trade it.
even cigarettes are a currency in prisons
even sex is a currency between sexual partners and even prostitution
currency can literally be anything that people agree has value and want to trade it
bitcoin is not an asset
btc IS an asset
because of the signature scheme of bitcoin, it becomes easy to prove ownership/possession of btc. which makes btc a asset. yes even digitally things can be assets
bitcoin IS a payment method
btc is NOT a payment method
bitcoin the protocol/network/ledger is the way/method to pay for things using btc.
btc is the unit of account but not the WAY/method
|
|
|
|
Ok. I believe you, and all newbies, I encourage you to believe franky1 too.  Moving on. its not about believing me. i did not write LN code or comments with the LN code., emphasis i did not write LN LN devs themselves wrote that. its actually pretty clear if you ever decide to read code and explanations by LN devs thus no need to try making out its something related to me.. just read some code and use LN(do your own research). you will learn alot I know that it's not a perfect term because Lightning channels are really Bitcoins sent in a special 2-for-2 multisig address, that are sent back and forth peer to peer between its participants, and with all transaction records stored locally. But how would you call it?
bitcoins are locked on the bitcoin network in CLTV contracts. they never leave the bitcoin network the bitcoin network always shows the UTXO on the blockchain as having X balance(sats) LN views this and creates pegged tokens in HTLC. these HTLC's are contracts that are in a different unit of account(msats) the HTLC's are not broadcastable to bitcoins network. thats its pegged coin LN payments are the HTLC's, renegotiating who owes what but are not settling up. thus its IOU windfury, if you want to get involved in LN discussions atleast drop the social name pointing and either do 2 things 1. use LN to understand it 2. read LN code to understand it and try not to have amnesia evry morning to forget what was said so you can play dumb and just repeat your same false narative. atleast take steps to learn about LN and retain the knowledge.. it will help you |
|
|
|
thus it has delayed any bitcoin progress because bitcoin devs are waiting for LN instead of innovating bitcoin. thus putting a disadvantage on bitcoin and holding it back.
No one group is capable of " holding it back". If you believed one group were able to control Bitcoin in such a way, surely you would just admit to yourself that Bitcoin had failed and move on to another coin. Bitcoin was designed in a way that it wasn't susceptible to co-option, so if what you say is true, then it sounds like we should scrap the whole idea and go back to the drawing board, because it hasn't worked. That is, of course, assuming anyone actually believed that devs were holding Bitcoin back.  bitcoin is not an AI of self writing code. it requires devs to write code to progress bitcoin or to not progress it by them devs not innovating bitcoin. one group of devs are holding it back, even YOU admit one group dominate the codebase YOU have been the one excited that core can code what they like YOU have been the one excited that core can implement mandatory activations as they 'dont need permission' YOU have been the one also highlighting that now core is dominant there is no need for community vote(consensus) YOU have been loud about how bitcoin is not a democracy YOU have been the one that loved that they banned nodes (example: using version bits 6 and YOU have been the one that after all the apartheid tricks implemented by said group that bitcoin is now core dominant brand where other nodes are just 'compatible'(not part of the main relay/protocol) you pretend the network is diverse(flip) and open to other brands but as soon as other brands want to change the rules YOU see them as attackers(flop) you can try pulling out your social drama quotes where you flip. but you also have you flop quotes too saying the exact opposite its this group that made the 'roadmap' in december 2015 and have been following it like sheep for 3.3years now where the only main changes to bitcoin were to make bitcoin LN compatible |
|
|
|
Forgive my stupidity. But are Lightning transactions more secure than zero-conf?
nope firstly. LN's HTLC's can be renegged on. secondly they can themselves become locked from utility due to OTHERS multiple route hops away. thirdly they are not even in a 'balance' the originated coin of the peg would recognise. fourthly in bitcoin a transaction is source to destination complete in one tx. (gets confirmed or not. pass or fail) with LN it requires multiple htlc's where party of each HTLC all need to be online and communicating just for success(too many if's) What peg? Let's avoid this old debate. Or please continue it on one of the other topics. HTLC in LN are balance measured in msats the CLTV locked bitcoin on the bitcoin network is measured in sats bitcoin is locked and never moves from the bitcoin network tokens on the LN network move and are in a different format im now becoming shocked how many times i have to inform you of this and its like you just move onto a different topic, ignore its ever been told to you and you start again pretending 0 knowledge. so instead of ignoring it. actually research it and move a step forward into actual knowledge i dare you to search the bitcoin github for msat i dare you to search the LN github for msat you will see something on one that doesnt exist on the other then read the code of both githubs and you will see a bitcoin 'coin' is 100,000,000 sat a 'bitcoin' on LN is 100,000,000,000msat here is some further lessons for you https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/b0288d46773ac6d45e5dc4d5e6a80dd3034d0b9f/lnwire/msat.go#L13const mSatScale uint64 = 1000
// MilliSatoshi are the native unit of the Lightning Network. A milli-satoshi
// is simply 1/1000th of a satoshi. There are 1000 milli-satoshis in a single
// satoshi. Within the network, all HTLC payments are denominated in
// milli-satoshis. As milli-satoshis aren't deliverable on the native
// blockchain Moving on, would you agree to the idea that it might be better to develop an off-chain layer on top of Bitcoin using a hub and spoke model, before turning it into a more peer to peer model?
LN is not a 'offchain layer ontop of bitcoin' firstly LN is its own network (N of LN =network) secondly LN was buzzworded and concepted even before bitcoin became compatible with LN thirdly LN is not limited to bitcoin the whole calling it a layer and saying its ontop of is just word play to try making it sound like LN is a bitcoin feature purely to gather fame and attention for sponsorship LN is its own cryptocurerncy network of pegged tokens of multiple coins. the sponsorship word play is much the same as circle word played themselves as a bitcoin company for sponsorship before then moving away from bitcoin.. |
|
|
|
|
andreas has simplified it a little, but thats the general jist of it. id say its a fair, open explanation in plain english for the basics without the waffle.
TL:drb;(too long didnt read below
he could have mentioned the diversity of nodes is beneficial to ensure the best chances of good valid transaction confirmation without bias. and how a network without diversity would cause more issues for the lifecycle of a transaction
a more detailed explanation would be where some 'wallets' make a transaction but are not fullnodes and not part of the main relay network themselves, and so hand it to a full node(hand it up the network to the relay network)
he mentions that nodes are 99% similar with the transactions in their mempools. but this number is a little lower. some nodes reject transactions based on things like:
which peer sent it
format of the transaction
minimum fee the transaction includes
maximum bytes of tx
maximal signature operations
plus other variables
this is why they say nodes should have ~8 peers to have some diversity and increase the chance of having their transaction forwarded even with some biased nodes on the network that have set the acceptable tx variables too high/low
once the transaction gets relayd(forwarded) around the network, it hopefully reaches a mining pool. this pool is a special node that collates the transactions into blocks. andreas did say the mining pool collates transactions based on biggest fee first. however some pools also reject(not collate) transactions based on things like
which peer sent it
format of the transaction
minimum fee the transaction includes
maximum fee
signature operations
maximum bytes
plus other variables
yes some pools actually dont include transactions with too high a fee as they think the transactor made a error creating the TX and also by having too many high fee tx's in a block it raises the average tx fee up, causing social dispute and less people wanting to use bitcoin.
yes some pools actually dont include transactions that are segwit because of many social/moral/bias reasons.
yes some pools actually dont include transactions that are legacy to try to make it appear that segwit utility is higher
this is why they say the network should have more than a couple mining pools to have some diversity and increase the chance of people having their transaction included in a block at some point
what comes next was simplifed down. but once the mining pools sent the header to the asic miners to get the blockhash to solidify/secure the collated block of transactions into a fixed confirmed list. this is then sent out, not to all nodes at once. but to a certain group of nodes. mainly a group known as fibre. which validate the block and then relay it out more onmass than a mining pool is capable of alone
not all blocks get relayed if a block does not fit the rules or has an error, the block is rejected and so not all nodes see all possible blocks. this can be abused by some if say fibre nodes were set to ignore blocks created with a certain version number. even if the data and format was valid. by rejecting a block based on a biased version. the main relay network would not get these versions and so they would remain waiting for a block that does pass certain tests.
this is why some pools ensure they are not just connected to the fibre relay group, but also random nodes to work around the risk of say the fibre network controlling things
some say that allowing known rejectable blocks to still get relayed is a waste of bandwidth, but people who only get a limited controlled supply of data rather than the full range are not independent and thus it negates the point of independent testing. so its still better to be handed a rejectable block so that when you get it you can choose if its rejectable for a valid reason rather than say fibres biased reason to not relay certain versions.
also some nodes only request blockheaders (block identifier and transaction id list(not full transaction)
also some nodes only request stripped blocks (block identifier, transactions but not the signatures of certain tx(segwit)
thus not all nodes get the exact same data
but with enough diversity and enough unbiased set nodes in the network the network as a whole should settle on an agreed chain of blocks and with each new layer, making the previous even more acceptable to the network as a whole as it shows there is no mass network disagreement amongst the blocks.
|
|
|
|
more social drama rants from windfury about believe personality a or personality B.
pretty shameful he misses the point of DYOR(do your own research)
if only he spent more time researching and less time just naming names to follow/avoid. he too would know more about bitcoin and less about social drama
No more drama. I WANT the newbies to believe in you. I WANT the newbies to take everything you post as "simply the truth". The irony is you want them to "DYOR". that said.
lightning hasnt grown much due to real utility/adoption. its justmore sybill stats just to try faming it up for sponsorship
Ok, your opinion, but should that stop the LN developers from developing what they want? Why? seems you believe in "trust" of third parties too much. i believe in self control. meaning all them influencers who spam about how great LN is without actually using it, are putting the people that 'trust' them at a disloyal position of believing in something due to social drama rather than factual things. its way better people pull their socks up and do their own research and actually try things at low/limited risk or atleast learn about things, run scenario's before promoting/using it at full risk LN has been buzzworded about for atleast 3 years. and still it is not ready to do what was promoted. thus it has delayed any bitcoin progress because bitcoin devs are waiting for LN instead of innovating bitcoin. thus putting a disadvantage on bitcoin and holding it back. the more people know that LN is not as advertised the more we would hopefully get pressure on devs to get back to innovating bitcoin and seeing LN as just a side service and not as 'the solution'.. because even after 4-10 years LN wont achieve its goals realistically. thus this wasted time is just benefiting no one. LN devs should carry on with thier side service if they want. but having bitcoin devs sitting on their hands and promoting LN as the roadmap forward benefits no one |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
