so after many months of your nonsense. your 'proof' that LN is not pegged IOU is some quote of someone.. well again, do some actual research. and look into unconfirmed payments in millisats. goodluck trying to counter argue that millisat based contracts are bitcoin confirmed funds. i gave you many chances to update/correct your lack of knowledge. but it seemed you ignored the hints so one more chance. hint: learn about millisats. its the first stepping stone outside the echo chamber you have become stuck in.. please dont fear taking steps outside your echo chamber, the big wide world of reality is not as scary as yo may think.. enjoy learning new things No, because all the answers that the newbies will actually learn are from people who don't spread misinformation, and disingenuous techno-babble from people who have been losing with their narrative. Sorry, but Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, or Craig Wright has lost. But newbies, listen to franky1. It's also the other correct path to real learning.  windfury, why have you decided to be a social drama queen. wouldnt it atleast benefit you to actually learn about the tech for once. learn by USING, learn by reading CODE, checking stats if you only want to learn via social drama, than your failing yourself again do some actual research you spend too much time with this social drama stuff that its becoming obvious your just on this forum to troll people and just shout "wrong coz [persons name]" without actually using any experience, code, stats, data You can call me whatever you like, but nothing will change Bitcoin history, and Bitcoin facts. There's no social drama. It's Bitcoin history. But newbies, I encourage you to listen to franky1's version. i talk about millisats, i shown proof that LNbig hosts alot of the 'balance' which shows its not a large consumer base but a corporation faking growth by bloating its own balance into the network and all windfury can do is talk about social names and social stuff. no code, no stats, no features. so yea windfury you love social drama not bitcoin facts now go spend some time learning about bitcoin, not social drama. it will help you |
|
|
|
|
bitcoin mining has not been a CHINA thing for a couple years now.
will people stop living in propoganda past
|
|
|
|
Russia, Iceland, and perhaps the US itself can pretty much harbor large-scale industrial mining. China is only being chosen
bitcoin mining is actually very distributed and has been so for years. your about a couple years out of date if you still think 'china owns mining' thats the old racist rhetoric of the fox news crowd style of propaganda trying to flame up drama of how mining is some how communist gotta find it funny though china has more diversity than america, 3x the population. yet people still talk of "china" as if its a single person |
|
|
|
As far as I know, Bitmain has plans already in place in USA (Texas) however, it was scrapped due to the worsening market conditions throughout 2018. https://cointelegraph.com/news/mining-giant-bitmain-reportedly-suspends-mining-operations-in-texasOf course as business operators, you always look for options specially if you are being pressured by someone, in this case the government of China. There are a lot of places suitable for mining, specially countries wherein the climate is cold with cheap electricity. imagine bitmain as just a franchise licencer, allowing private businesses to start their own franchise(mining farm) under the bitmain brand, for special discounts on hardware and access to special customers(OTC deals) now imagine not bitmain HQ. but private business USA wanted to set something up in texas as a franchisee. but didnt find the whole opportunity in texas great, so pulled out. thats the crux of it |
|
|
|
|
bitmain us TSMC
ill give you a hint. T stands for Taiwan
taiwan is governed by the "REPUBLIC OF CHINA"
do not confuse that with chinese mainland that is governed by "PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA"
by confusing the two its much the same confusion as saying mexico is part of USA and under trump rule because mexico is part of north "america"
once you understand manufacturing is not mainland china
then you can move
the next step is to understand the mining farms are not mainland china
antpool alone has farms in georgia(europe) iceland, america and other places
so the whole "china control mining" debate has been a propaganda thing, and in reality a NON ISSUE for a couple years now.
and its about time people stop trying to sound like fox news by shouting the words china in anything related to mining
|
|
|
|
|
caveats:
1. opening a single channel of say $20 does not mean you get to spend all $20
2. opening a single channel does not guarantee even being able to spend any of it, as it depends on who/where/when you are in the network(your reliant on others availability/agreement)
3. if you decide to open up multiple channels to maximise chances of being able to buy something. you also open up the risks of your channel partners using your channels and your balance against you.
even the LN devs themselves have lost funding when using a system THEY designed
opening a channel just for the sake of opening a channel is meaningless sybill activity.
|
|
|
|
I still don't get why Core is blamed for being the core of all problems happening in Bitcoin by some people. Hate them or love them, the fact is nobody is putting a gun on anyone's head to run their full client software. If you don't like it, code it yourself and get enough people on board that it becomes relevant, or get enough people with enough Bitcoin that it becomes a force to be reckoned with for that matter. Skin in the game and so on. My point is, no one is running Core because there are no alternatives, anyone can code their own client.
1. alternative clients got relegated/segregated/split/forked off the network BEFORE any new network features changed, purely for the fact that they would not follow core. so pretend all you like that core happily invite alternative brands, but the truth is they dont. this was not due to individual users going into their console/debug tab and manually deciding to disconnect opposition. it was not even really random users having coded clients that automated it to disconnect from the individuals peer list. it was done by the core devs who have control over the main network resources such as Fibre/DNS where only a few nodes affect thousands of nodes. 2. running own alternative would be treated not as part of the main relay playingfield, but set as what core devs' themselves call the 'downstream'/'filtered' subfield of the network, the area that older/'compatible' nodes sit at, as a pretend 'part of the network' but do not get or relay at the same level. 3. if you think that coin hoarder have much say, or mining pools, or users. you would be wrong. core again proved it in august 2017. pools had the threat that their blocks would not get passed matt corrallos Fibre fence to then reach majority nodes client users had the threat their nodes wouldnt be in the DNS seeds of the main core devs listings community had the threat that they would not be on a network which most exchanges/services accept core devs did infact have 3 guns loaded in 2017 to get what they wanted and change a 35% consensus to their false 95%+ and if you think they will never try it again then you have become completely unaware of the last 4 years of rekt campaigns and threats used to get core where it is today. and if any alternative even dared use the same 3 trigger tactic core did. then suddenly the alternative would be considered a trojan/attacker.. which is hypocritical. the whole point of bitcoin/blockchain (solution to byzantine generals theory) is/was to find common unity of diverse mindsets to work together on a single decentralised playingfield. yet core have mutated that and the bitcoin of 2009-2013(15) is not the same as bitcoin 2015-2019 |
|
|
|
Plus I never thought of Lightning as "utopia". But how can I be against it? It's not doing anything to alter the consensus layer like a hard fork, isn't it? This is Bitcoin, open and permissionless. Let developers build on top of it.
firstly you using terms like 'layers' is just fake buzzwords of trying to pretend things are united/part of a larger whole... sorry that false advertising has been debunked to populate and false promote LN (the alternative network that is not bitcoin) developers have actually messed with the consensus , by now making the BITCOIN network core centric where core can slide in their changed unhindered also LN as a separate network that it is, did not develop to be bitcoin compatible. but instead bitcoin had to change to be LN compatible. changing bitcoins ideology, ethos and fundamentals to fit a separate network that does not even comply to the same security/principles of what bitcoin is all about is not good for bitcoin. then further stifling bitcoin by limiting its transaction throughput onchain, and also not implementing a fair fee mechanism, is all efforts to deburden bitcoin of utility/desire, purely to promote, persuade people to use alternative networks/services. which again is against the purpose of bitcoin further more actually delving into the statistics of a 'working' LN scenario for a moderate population. would require more impractical changes that manipulate bitcoin away from its ideology/ethos/fundemental purpose .. but maybe, before you just promote LN. maybe its best you learn things about bitcoin and LN so you can atleast offer an experienced, researched viewpoint. and not just a dev ass kissing narrative |
|
|
|
while the price has steadily declined from 0.18 BTC a year ago down to 0.05 BTC today.
mindset error here is that the false assumtion is that BCH was: 1. bought at 0.18, for there to actually be a loss of 0.13 decline 2. bought at all, rather than obtained for free due to forks and ongoing mining. meaning BCH would actually be +0.05 not -0.13 gotta find it funny how so many people emphasis the "$20k" bitcoin day, as if everyone around the world all bought all of their bitcoin on that day, to now be making a $15k loss as of todays ~$5k yet reality is that not many people actually bought right at the peak. meaning the peak price has no relevance to REAL gain/loss and is just a meaningless statistic for a history book. same for BCH the price of a coin is just temporary drama. same for BTC the price of a coin is just temporary drama. people dont actually profit/loss from one years temporary drama ATH vs ATL. people actually profit/loss from the cost of the actual acquisition of asset vs the sell of the asset. in short you never lose unless you sell at a loss |
|
|
|
|
doomad is over using the term permissionless without understanding
first of all people can also say that bitcoin is permissionless. (doomads mindset) meaning doomad does has a right to write whatever he likes and have it activated as he wants.
yet
doomad also argues that bitcoin works by users deciding what they should follow. but this can be seen as countering doomads "permissionless" stance because he says it needs people to decide/follow
doomads flip flopping has got so bad that his narrative swings more than a bisexual sex addict, so much so that his points no longer follow a straight line
i think doomad should first learn what bitcoin is/does. also learn the tech behind bitcoin that solved a fundamental problem that cypherpunks were trying to deal with for so long, and how 'offchain' services do not solve this same issue and never will.
until he can grasp what the differences are. he will be stuck
once learning about bitcoin. may doomad than try to refine his narrative to a clear straight line path that does not meander in circles of social drama. and instead sticks to the point that can reference blockdata, stats, code and dev decisions.
for instance
bitcoins transaction/payment signing does not need 2nd/3rd party permission to sign a tx thats destined for someone. but when it comes to what was the 2009-2013 ideology of consensus. permission is needed to activate new features/protocols
doomad mixes up user interface utility vs code/protocol to serve his circular social drama
he then mixes up the user interface utility of bitcoin with that of alternative network/services to confuse the differences purely to promote the alternatives as (falsely) being the same.
core bypassed consensus to get an activation which under the 2009-2013 ideology of bitcoin would not have been activated.
core bypassed writing code that would satisfy the majority desires
core instead cut away a significant population to fake a majority of lesser population
if doomad actually understood the purpose of bitcoin. and the byzantine generals theory of finding unity in diversity. rather than (excuse the pun) segregation. he would understand how core broke the main principals of bitcoins revolutionary technology purely to make core dominant/incontrol/powerhouse of bitcoin. which in itself is again something else that is against the fundementals of bitcoins ideology(decentralisation)
i really think doomad should take time to learn about bitcoin. or spend more time atleast just being more straight lined and just admit his adoration for alternative networks. maybe even spend more time on forums of those alternative networks
|
|
|
|
so after many months of your nonsense. your 'proof' that LN is not pegged IOU is some quote of someone.. well again, do some actual research. and look into unconfirmed payments in millisats. goodluck trying to counter argue that millisat based contracts are bitcoin confirmed funds. i gave you many chances to update/correct your lack of knowledge. but it seemed you ignored the hints so one more chance. hint: learn about millisats. its the first stepping stone outside the echo chamber you have become stuck in.. please dont fear taking steps outside your echo chamber, the big wide world of reality is not as scary as yo may think.. enjoy learning new things No, because all the answers that the newbies will actually learn are from people who don't spread misinformation, and disingenuous techno-babble from people who have been losing with their narrative. Sorry, but Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, or Craig Wright has lost. But newbies, listen to franky1. It's also the other correct path to real learning. windfury, why have you decided to be a social drama queen. wouldnt it atleast benefit you to actually learn about the tech for once. learn by USING, learn by reading CODE, checking stats if you only want to learn via social drama, than your failing yourself again do some actual research you spend too much time with this social drama stuff that its becoming obvious your just on this forum to troll people and just shout "wrong coz [persons name]" without actually using any experience, code, stats, data |
|
|
|
so after many months of your nonsense. your 'proof' that LN is not pegged IOU is some quote of someone.. well again, do some actual research. and look into unconfirmed payments in millisats. goodluck trying to counter argue that millisat based contracts are bitcoin confirmed funds. i gave you many chances to update/correct your lack of knowledge. but it seemed you ignored the hints so one more chance. hint: learn about millisats. its the first stepping stone outside the echo chamber you have become stuck in.. please dont fear taking steps outside your echo chamber, the big wide world of reality is not as scary as yo may think.. enjoy learning new things |
|
|
|
|
windfury.
just use LN, please its becoming too obvious your saying things without experience of what you speak.
your just as bad as doomad. you dont care about bitcoin you dont understand how things actually work, you just want to say some strange things just to try making people think LN is great and the future method people use for making payments.
all at the downfall of you both letting blockchains/bitcoin become stifled/deburdened of utility
i prefer to highlight how bitcoin is being stifled in the hopes new dev teams put core back in its place as not the controller but as just a participant of bitcoin. thus re-innovating bitcoin
as for you admirations of LN and over promoting/exaggerating/defining ln as utopia.. if you feel that millisats are not real, htlc / private commitments are not real. and if you feel that the too-and-throw of channel balance between channel partners is as settled and secure as blockchain confirmed funds then please try to actually make a case that blockchains are useless invention and how digital money could work without needing blockchains due to your belief that the private signed commitments between two parties is the same immutable/final/settld/guaranteed/paid off/ system as blockchains offer.
i dare you to try convincing yourself that the private signed commitments between channel parties is just as final as blockchain confirmed transaction
|
|
|
|
|
doomad you got no clue
seems your spinning yourself in circles.
enjoy your flip flops and social drama but your the one missing the point.
time you step back take some fresh air in, have a coffee and spend time learning about bitcoin. not your social drama
kind of funny how you say democracy is impossible.. you kinda miss the point of consensus.. both the dictionary definition and the bitcoin utility definition of such
if you dont understand what made bitcoin such a revolutionary thing when the white paper first came out showing how it solved something. just admit it.
but denying the thing it solved as being 'impossible'. means you are failing.
you might want to check the code, check the blockdata, check with devs and do some research before hitting the reply button..
learn the difference between consensus and controversial forks
learn the byzantine generals theory and satoshi's solution
learn the purpose of bitcoin and what the revolutionary technology is/was
hint. learn what actually happened. not what you advocate
|
|
|
|
Designing a protocol does not need devs. Btw. Maybe refactoring and bug fixing, but the consensus is dev free territory
bitcoin is digital. it is code CODE not conversation code does not write itself devs write code for a new rule to be proposed devs need to CODE it if devs CODE it in a way that controversially 'sends off' a controversial amount of users then you cant pretend the devs were not involved i really find it funny that people think bitcoin is just social drama and such are only interested in performing social drama rather than speak about actual code and actual protocols. |
|
|
|
you keep on insinuating that my words on this forum are somehow affecting the network. you insinuate it by emotionally mentioning how im appealing and asking for peoples permission...
Wrong on both counts. Secondly, you are the one playing the logical fallacy with your ongoing appeal to pity, which is an emotional appeal. you literally debunked yourself I don't need your consent. You are delusional if you think I do.
Your ongoing appeal to pity that other people would have to wait for your permission to do something,
You seem to live in some sort of dream world where your opinions are important and that people should somehow be required to consider your delicate feelings.
"required" "permission" "appealing".... thats your words.. this is a discussion forum about bitcoin. it is not the bitcoin network that uses consensus. my opinions are just a discussion. it is you that is getting emotional and insulting and trying to make out that my discussion is somehow powerful. all i ever tell people is just to do their own research and try to avoid becoming anti-bitcoiners like you and your echo chamber that just want to do social drama emotional stuff to then promote alternative networks plus. learn consensus consensus is about unifying people. not having excuses to throw people off the network you really have no clue about what the byzantine generals theory is, or how satoshi's solution to it is actually the opposite of 'throw everyone off' i truly believe in the real world you would be seen as a person who has many prejudices and is probably racist by the tone your messages on this forum show as to how to react to people of opposing stance to you But please, keep telling us how Bitcoin would be better if we accepted your double-standard where other clients can remove us from their network at any given moment of their choosing, your so emotional that you are actually flip floping so much you are forgetting which path your following and what path your suppose to be debating. its YOU that has been saying that its ok to do network affecting 'send off' (controversial forks) prior to bip activations, purely to achieve a bip activation by faking the threshold requirement. so how about do yourself a small favour, take a few days to refresh yourself, have a break. chill out, calm down. and use the time to learn about bitcoin from actual research. and by bitcoin i mean bitcoin 2009-2013.. (not from the prospective(prospectus) of core) learn things like byzantine generals theory, consensus, as it would help you to learn the whole purpose of blockchains and how the network should be decentralised and not just a core distribution. then you might start grasping how blockchains have a purpose and function that LN does not. and how LN is not secure. then learn about LN practically and pragmastically rather than the delusions or promotional buzzwords. once you gain a good scope of understanding the technology. then try to form discussions about the tech. without the emotional social drama of ignoring the tech just to argue with humans that are not coding the network. in other words. if your trying to insult a person rather than tech or devs. your not doing things right |
|
|
|
|
ontopic:
my posts above were about
how LN is not mooning due to veriblock. but due to how LN factories are giving away balance
how to solve a spam incident like veriblock is/was/may be causing can be solved by implementing a working fee priority mechanism(yes its possible)
as for doomad, the social drama flip flopper. well he can get emotional easity when people agree with him. so expect alot of insults
but again for emphasis before doomad pokes the bear, gets bit and then pretends he is the victim of meandering topics
ontopic:
my posts above were about
how LN is not mooning due to veriblock. but due to how LN factories are giving away balance
how to solve a spam incident like veriblock is/was/may be causing can be solved by implementing a working fee priority mechanism(yes its possible)
|
|
|
|
Rather than allowing franky1 to continue derailing the Veriblock thread, I'm cross-posting it to this cesspit of a topic: consensus: consent of the majority.
I don't need your consent. You are delusional if you think I do. I am under no obligation whatsoever to tolerate incompatible rules on my network. If you run incompatible rules, I can remove you from my network if I want to. you have the personal perogative to go into console menu of your own persona node and IP ban who you like when you like. but when a dev team creates CODE that automates throwing users off a network on mass. not due to them running incompatible rules. but due to them not wanting a NEW rule to change the network. thats a different thing. kicking people off the network to activate a new rule falsely is different than kicking off people whos rules dont match the current active rules stop flip floping and stay with the actual reality of what actually occured. P.S my opinion is based on reading code and reading block data. your opinion is based on reddit/twitter scripts of social drama also my opinion is just a discussion. for you to be so emotional about a discussion reveals too much about how your own motives lay. you keep on insinuating that my words on this forum are somehow affecting the network. you insinuate it by emotionally mentioning how im appealing and asking for peoples permission... sorry but thats not what discussions boards do. .. learn how bitcoin works and you will learn its CODE made by DEVS that people need to care about and scrutinise. but i do find it funny how you want people to ignore devs and not care about code, but to instead do your failed social drama crap that somehow my words on a forum are stronger than code.. (hint you got no clue how bitcoin works with such mindset) i really do hope you wake up one day and realise you wont get financial gain from your motives, and instead you spend some time learning about bitcoin, rather than trying to promote your endless rants that you fel the only solution to changing bitcoin is to get people to stop using it so that the only ones left are a certain breed of users that you can echo chamber with |
|
|
|
OP, I believe the "drama" will start after two halvings. There will be some "influencial" people from the community who will start a "campaign" for a hard fork to change the reward schedule, but without inflating the supply.
There's already support for divding 1 BTC into smaller fractions in a hard fork. That's the end of it really, instead of mining new coins ending in the year 2140 (as things are now), mining will stop in the year 2200 or something like that Why do you want to promote drama that doesn't even exist? Plus who's promoting? I'm ridiculing. Unless it's a bug or something that threatens impending doom for Bitcoin, a hard fork will never get consensus. because LN is a separate network. and BITCOIN was changed to meet LN needs(not the other way round) the same group that instigated hardforks using consensus bypasses in 2017 to make bitcoin LN compatible. will do the same thing again to make the bitcoin units of account more appear to be the same as LN's pegged tokens. to attempt to hide that LN is pegged tokens learn millisats with 8 decimals the year 2140~ is the year mining rewards cant be divided. but adding 1000 subunits means that bitcoin can have many more 'bitcoin halving' events beyond 2140 eg 1000, 500,250,125 which is 4 extra NON-Rounded halvings which is 16 years of more units of account bing added to circulation what you also have to realise is that at code/PROTOCOL level units of account are measured in satoshi's. so messing with the units of account do actually matter. once you look beyond the propaganda hype and buzzwords of human drama and the user interface and look at the code you will realise that the units of account changing from ~2,100,000,000,000,000 ~2,100,000,000,000,000,000 matters yes some people will buzzword it that its still going to be 21m 'bitcoins' . but the reality is a 'bitcoin' is a basket term for 100,000,000 satoshis much like saying a banana pallet is 1000 banana's. and then saying there are only ever 100 pallets in a truck. yet by adding 10 banana's per pallet and still trying to say there are only 100 pallets, does not hide the fact that there are now 1000 extra banana's that can be shared around |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
