AFAIA you'd need to be there at the inception as it basically requires refund scripts to have been created before the off-chain txs occur.

I have only quickly browsed the documentation though so it would probably be better for one of the LN people to explain things.

How much would you like to bet?

(my guess is not much)

If you'd like to "put your BTC where your mouth is" then I'll take on a bet with you (say 1 BTC which would need to be sent to a trusted escrow).

The concept is not designed to help with sending BTC to someone once (you'd do that using Bitcoin).

When you consider things like a "game table" people are likely to spend hours "playing" that would (if recorded on the main chain) just be blockchain bloat and luckily that is not necessary if you are prepared to instead use a payment channel.

There is no small group blocking any increase at all (not at least amongst the core developers) and there is going to be another meetup next month to further discussions about increasing the block size.

The XT shills just keep ignoring reality and shouting "we need to change and put Mike Hearn in charge ASAP" because that is what they have been told (or paid) to say.

Well - sorry guys - but your rubbish "urgent action required now" mantra is simply not working and most Bitcoin professionals and enthusiasts really don't want Mike Hearn to become the CEO of Bitcoin.

You can doubt reality as much as you like - that doesn't change it from being real.

Nothing has been spent on promoting CIYAM at this stage, however, its blockchain and a simple application using it has already been tested.

Hmm... well you might be rather surprised to find that it has already been done then.


It really just depends upon the motives of the people involved - if franchise owners are going to save money by sharing an application with other franchise owners then that itself would be the motivation to do so.

Also if groups of people share a common interest then it is likely they might be motivated to provide the small amount of resources required to run a non-POW blockchain node.

The CIYAM system has been developed for creating blockchain applications and has no "coin" at all (although there will be an optional Token package made available later, however, that would function more like a "voucher system" rather than a currency).

You can follow the project development here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=598860.0

Although being a "coin" does provide an initial incentive I think there are other practical uses for blockchain applications that don't need coins at all (think of franchises running a blockchain application on a PC at each franchise rather than using a "cloud server").

Note that such applications can still be decentralised (so having a "coin" is not necessary for that at all).

Well - I think this topic has veered entirely off-topic now so I'm going to lock it.

It is obvious who the main XT shills are on this forum and we'll see them in numerous other topics no doubt.

Nice to have a good result - please be careful when you next send out BTC.

Only by *spam* not by real transactions - and no doubt these spam attacks are actually by XT supporters who want to keep trying to say that it is so important that we need to change (and put Mike Hearn in charge) now.

No-one is using Bitcoin for everyday purchases even (I don't know anyone who does - including myself).

So you can go on and on about the bullshit txs representing "real txs" but that is simply not the case.

For a start - you would need to be "paid in BTC" to want to be spending it for everyday purchases - now apart from ad-siggers getting paid tiny amounts who is actually being paid in BTC now?

(answer - no-one - this is just another part of the XT misinformation)

XT Guru: "Hey - Satoshi - you've got a great idea there. Now to make it really appeal we should engineer it so that rather than caring about boring things like changing the world's remittance or settlement systems we should focus on teens getting paid to make pointless posts on forums so they can later buy coffees at Starbucks."

Satoshi: "Wow - I never would have come up with that idea - pure genius. You should be the CEO of Bitcoin!"

Seriously - this isn't the 1980's (even though I grew up then).

The blocks are half empty mostly for weeks now - so what on earth are you talking about?

(and if they are full at times then it would be due to another attack that is just involving tiny amounts that could easily just be ignored if need be)

Try paying a fee and not using ad-sig campaigns and the like to get your coins (which I presume are mostly actually close to *dust* amounts).

Satoshi never mentioned that Bitcoin should be engineered in a way to suit people to make money from posting rubbish on forums.

The Chinese government is always concerned about RMB being taken out of China (mostly by corrupt officials) so of course Bobby Lee doesn't want them to focus on Bitcoin being used to do this.

Understand though also that it was the government (unofficially as they made no announcement) that recently allowed RMB to be transferred directly from bank accounts to at least his exchange (that had been banned back in 2013 after the rise to 7K RMB).

So perhaps he is just saying what he thinks the government would want him to say (as I'm sure he doesn't want them to block direct bank transfers again).

Not liking XT does not equate to not supporting larger blocks - you do realise that there are several BIPs for bigger blocks?

(again you are a typical XT shill who just pretends that BIP101 is the only bigger block proposal out there)

If Mike Hearn wasn't doing things like refusing to go to meetups with core developers, miners and major businesses then maybe he would have more credibility but instead he keeps on pushing to become the CEO of Bitcoin which it appears very few people apart from Coinbase want.

Actually - they are not - and that is exactly what this topic has demonstrated.

Mention any other BIP to do with increasing block size and the XT shills immediately attack it (i.e. there is only one way to increase block size and that is the BIP101 way).

It is amusing that the shills keep saying "we are just wanting bigger blocks" but as soon as any other suggestion to do that is mentioned they want to "shoot it down in flames".

This is why these people are clearly *shills* rather than being supporters of bigger blocks.

Funny - as I'm not on any side (am just against the XT shilling and Mike Hearn's approach).

It is the XT supporters that are demanding people to "take sides" (and attacking anyone that isn't on theirs but it would be better if the ad-homs were not being used by anyone).

I'm not too fussed if the block size is increased somewhat (although I do think that BIP101 is too much and aiming to predict too far into the future).

If it wasn't for Mike Hearn and his agenda to be the CEO of Bitcoin then perhaps I'd even accept BIP101 (assuming it had widespread support - which it doesn't and that isn't just because of Hearn - it is because it is not a good solution).

This kind of "if you are not with us you are against us" attitude is exactly why so many of us are sick and tired of Mike Hearn (who has stated he won't attend the block size meetup in December because it would be "a waste of his time").

What is needed is a well thought out and well supported (by miners, developers, businesses and users) way forward rather than a hostile takeover attempt involving misinformation and alarmist claims.

I was actually rather amazed that Gavin had got himself so involved with this although it appears that more recently he is less so.

So if you understand that Lightning actually depends upon the main chain why would you ask this question?

Your question implies that no transaction is done on the main chain at all - and of course that is not how it works.

Please read this: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-summary.pdf

(the point being that there are other ways to scale the Bitcoin infrastructure that don't just involve creating bigger blocks)

You do understand that the Lightning Network *depends* upon Bitcoin?

It is comments like yours that simply cloud any attempt at serious discussion.