Interesting arguments from both sides, Carlton versus Franky and the OP, about LN's "currency" being an altcoin or not. For me technically it could be but it is not. But then again it could really be. What some see as bad, I see opportunity here. I view the Lightning Network as something like a pseudo bank[1] account in which it can be made and used as a bridge[2] between blockchains. Like a decentralized exchange.
Thank you OP for pointing out that LN could be really an "altcoin" because it just opened the possibilities of what it really is. I am very excited on how this all works in practice.
thats the right way to think about it have an open mind and think about all possibilities good and bad good: to benefit users bad: to suggest solutions to benefit progress which benefits users bad: to know it could divert security (hashpower / node counts) away from bitcoin.  keep that open mind and think of all possibilities... dont become close minded like carlton [1]though its not a LN feature but a bitcoin a smart contract feature, you are also correct that when locking bitcoins into a multisig can lead to many possibilities. such as [2]you are then credited with units pegged at 1:XXXX in a different network or node to then use in a different system, the smart contract feature is the mechanism planned to be used for things like side chains, LN and other protocols in conception and production right now. and like you say, these altcoins and sidechains and offchain payment systems can have different possibilities, but also some flaws and limitations. which is what the devs need to work on before making a public release. |
|
|
|
How can the different units be "incompatible altcoins" AND constitute monetary inflation. You're going to need to pick one or the other, because they cannot both be true at once.
(hint: they're both false, lol)
1. REALITY: bitcoin wont accept more units because it screws the maximum possible units that are minable within bitcoin REALITY: bitcoins stay in one place onchain and on a different codebase people play around with something they have been credited with (an altcoin) REALITY: a LN payment dual-signed to show: A owns XXmillisats and B owns XX millisats will get rejected by bitcoin. 2. THEORETICAL SCENARIO: in your dream where you had millisats included in bitcoin (not going to happen, but talking about your dream) it would be inflation |
|
|
|
You imply a separate blockchain for Lightning transactions, so try not to mention such things if you don't want them to be led to their illogical conclusion, lol
i said altcoin. you said miner i said altcoin. you said blockchain. there are MANY altcoins without needing mining there are MANY altcoins without a blockchain and as for the inflation/deflation.. you have again lost the plot..
adding more units into circulation is called inflation... renaming a certain allotment of units to hide the more units in circulation doesnt change anything.
wake up!!
and its only been you that has shown desire to add more units of measure..
sorry but go play with infinity coin if you want more units of measure.
smart people dont want to screw with bitcoins unit of measure cap (coded as 2,100,000,000,000,000 satoshis)
How Many Units Will Be Added Answer The Question Franky LN is an altcoin because the units of measure do not match thus making signatures not match and txids not match. if you compared a bitcoin tx measured in sats to a LN tx measured in millisats. they do not match they are not compatible just like monero and bitcoin are not compatible. no one of any intelligence and coding knowledge is proposing to add any units. so LN payments are not compatible, thus LN is an alt. with btc hodled on bitcoins blockchain people are credited with and play around with millisats using a different codebase/node. it was only you that suggested it would be compatible if bitcoin added some units you know they are not compatible with bitcoin
Millisats can't exist on the blockchain until the Bitcoin code allows that amount of granularity,
by the way i laugh when your own words ruin your own argument |
|
|
|
bitcoin has
2,100,000,000,000,000 units of measure called satoshi's
at the front end GUI (human decision after the fact) humans call
100,000,000 units... 1btc (one bitcoin) but this is just GUI display. not codebased
blockchains LN has
2,100,000,000,000,000,000 units of measure called millisats
at "instant payment" level LN calls
100,000,000,000... 1btc (one bitcoin) but this is just GUI display. not code based
signing an LN payment to give someone 100,000,000,000millisats which LN deems to be 1btc
ends up with a signature and txid that is not the same as a bitcoin tx of 1btc
thus it gets rejected
EG
on bitcoin you deposit
100,000,000sats (called 1btc)
then using a totally different node you are credited with
100,000,000,000millisats (called 1btc but this is just GUI display. not code based)
you trade and sign transactions in millisats. knowing that those signed transactions will get rejected by bitcoin.
the only way to settle back on bitcoin is to create a bitcoin compatible transaction by destroying the millisats and then separately agreeing to satoshi amounts the peers think each other deserves from the earlier bitcoin deposit done before even using LN. and sign it as a bitcoin transaction
again playing with millisats on a different codebase/node, which blockstreams LN is. where its promised a 1sat:1000millisat peg
is the same as playing with moneros codebase/node, where someone promises you a 1btc:1000monero peg
Problem: there are no LN miner to mine this imaginary Lightning blockchain you're making up. 2nd layer != different chain And I love the early part of your post where you (in effect) admit your BS: any increase in granularity is not going to inflate the supply. Increasing the divisibility of a money is called monetary deflation. So, Franky, the Bitcoin supply will increase by exactly zero, just like I said. Any more bullshit? i made no mention of mining.. are you that deluded to not even read the content of posts!! LN is just about SIGNING Liquid is an altcoin. and guess what there is no mining involved in that Ripple is an altcoin.. and guess what.. yep, again no mining NXT is an altcoin.. and guess what.. yep. again no mining really wonder what drugs ur taking.. to even think mining even ever came into the debate about LN and as for the inflation/deflation.. you have again lost the plot.. adding more units into circulation is called inflation... renaming a certain allotment of units to hide the more units in circulation doesnt change anything. wake up!! and its only been you that has shown desire to add more units of measure.. sorry but go play with infinity coin if you want more units of measure. smart people dont want to screw with bitcoins unit of measure cap (coded as 2,100,000,000,000,000 satoshis) |
|
|
|
|
bitcoin has
2,100,000,000,000,000 units of measure called satoshi's
at the front end GUI (human decision after the fact) humans call
100,000,000 units... 1btc (one bitcoin) but this is just GUI display. not codebased
blockchains LN has
2,100,000,000,000,000,000 units of measure called millisats
at "instant payment" level LN calls
100,000,000,000... 1btc (one bitcoin) but this is just GUI display. not code based
signing an LN payment to give someone 100,000,000,000millisats which LN deems to be 1btc
ends up with a signature and txid that is not the same as a bitcoin tx of 1btc
thus it gets rejected
EG
on bitcoin you deposit
100,000,000sats (called 1btc)
then using a totally different node you are credited with
100,000,000,000millisats (called 1btc but this is just GUI display. not code based)
you trade and sign transactions in millisats. knowing that those signed transactions will get rejected by bitcoin.
the only way to settle back on bitcoin is to create a bitcoin compatible transaction by destroying the millisats and then separately agreeing to satoshi amounts the peers think each other deserves from the earlier bitcoin deposit done before even using LN. and sign it as a bitcoin transaction
again playing with millisats on a different codebase/node, which blockstreams LN is. where its promised a 1sat:1000millisat peg
is the same as playing with moneros codebase/node, where someone promises you a 1btc:1000monero peg
|
|
|
|
How many millisats will the Bitcoin 21 million limit be inflated by? It's zero, isn't it?
as discussed before.. bitcoin should not even propose to extend the units of measure. it is however ONLY YOU that is trolling to suggest bitcoin should extend. but staying in reality!!! while bitcoin does not have any extra units of measure and where i and thousands of others agree should never change. a blockstream LN signed payment is not compatible with bitcoin. have a nice day |
|
|
|
and no, deflating the monetary base by adding monero is not the same thing as inflating it, for the trillionth time
You've got the insider knowledge on this one Franky, do tell us: How many millisats will Blockstream be adding to the Bitcoin monetary base? How many, what number? we both know ur just trolling. here is the conversations we both know about https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1642269.0no point repeating your failed arguments |
|
|
|
Millibits. Hmmmm. I wonder why they're called that......
you know its millisats. I do. you know they are not compatible with bitcoin
No, that sentence doesn't even make proper sense. Millisats can't exist on the blockchain until the Bitcoin code allows that amount of granularity, so there are no millisats to be incompatible with. And no, deflating the monetary base is not the same thing as inflating it, for the trillionth time  much like saying monero can't exist on the blockchain until the Bitcoin code allows it. so there are no monero to be incompatible with. And no, deflating the monetary base by adding monero is not the same thing as inflating it, for the trillionth time satoshis code is that there are ever going to be 2,100,000,000,000,000 units of measure called satoshi's(in code) and then ONLY FOR GUI PURPOSES will an allotment of 100,000,000 be defined as a bitcoin. again only at GUI level. adding more units does multiple things. it extends when mining for a blockreward will cease. (from 2141 to 2181) please learn things before defending blockstream using their PR. because their PR lacks realistic facts. all you seem to do all day is defend blockstream while saying bitcoin needs to get screwed around with to fit blockstreams vision |
|
|
|
Millibits. Hmmmm. I wonder why they're called that......
you know its millisats. you know they are not compatible with bitcoin.. you did not gain amnesia in the last 48 hours. so all i can assume is your just baiting another debate because you have nothing to do with your life. have a nice day learn LN or dont talk about LN |
|
|
|
its the same concept as locking bitcoins into an address and playing with litecoins for payments. litecoin transactions cannot be bradcast to bitcoin there needs to be a conversion of the units back as bitcoins and then signed before broadcasting to bitcoin.
No it's not. Show me the part of the Lightning design documents where it says Lightning "units" need to be converted to and from Bitcoin. You're making it all up. |
|
|
|
I fail to see how a bunch of waffle about channel closing and unit rounding and means that the Lightning transactions are not sending Bitcoin.
It starts as Bitcoin.
Then it gets to the recipient as Bitcoin.
Your desperate word-salad is not going to work
blockstreams LN concept the same concept as locking bitcoins into an address and then playing with millisat coins for payments using a totally different node. millisat coin transactions cannot be broadcast to bitcoin, there needs to be a conversion of the millisatcoins back to bitcoins and then signed before broadcasting to bitcoin. the only thing carlton forgets or doesnt know is millisatcoin is a 1:1000 peg to bitcoin ... a peg, not an actual bitcoin a different node not actually bitcoin node. a memool not an actual blockchain |
|
|
|
agreed LN in its blockstream concept is an alt. the 'payments' performed within blockstreams LN are not bitcoin compatible. the units of measure are different. so a signed LN 'payment' cannot be simply broadcast into bitcoin. it requires rounding the altcoin to then be measured as a satoshi equivalent and then resigned. which only happens on closing the channel. some say that its bitcoin due to using the same privkeys. but then we come to the contraversial forks which use the same privkeys. so again an altcoin. unless an LN concept uses the same units of measure any the LN 'signed payment' can at anytime be broadcast to bitcoin without needing to create a new tx just to close the payment session.. its an altcoin segwit however is within bitcoin.. as for carlton.. ignore him he knows nothing about LN Lol, I'm not going to check the details, just so i can speak to you, it's a waste of time after all
as proven |
|
|
|
Lol, I'm not going to check the details, just so i can speak to you, it's a waste of time after all
And you should be embarrassed, considering how much time you clearly devote to researching your propaganda material. I can beat you in every argument going, and I spend very little time reading up. I only have to read it once, you see, lol, my job isn't propagandising Bitcoin all day long
you have proved no points and won no arguments. the only conclusion anyone has gained from you is your lack of understanding. there is not one single argument you have won. but pretending you have won does not make it so. goodluck with never learning and then blaming others for your lack of not understanding goodluck with never learning and then blaming others for your lack of not wanting to learn have a nice day |
|
|
|
and I not going to look up the online references for LN just to talk to you.
1. admission you have no desire to look at LN 2. accusing your desire to not want to learn is due to me. im laughing lol if you dont understand LN and dont want to learn LN, then dont get involved in a conversation involving LN learning LN has nothing to do with me. thats your choice/failure to not want to learn. if you want to get involved in any topic, atleast research it. and dont blame the commenters for why you dont wish to learn. im laughing right now that you blame me for your own desire not to learn. true comedy moment |
|
|
|
and there it is....... the scenario to work out why carlton concluded what you concluded Maybe the LN protocol designers might come up with an atomic signing mechanism
its kind of a shame i predicted what carlton was gonna say even before carlton even said it. which brings the conversation right back to the initial point so your proclaiming the 2 participants do not have control of the privkeys to sign. (so dont have control of the funds.... lol) so cannot decide when to sign or not sign.. to not be able to ransom?
i know carlton would reply about the emphasis of his word "atomic".(automic) but again he has not thought about the technicals of "atomic" (automic) before even suggesting it. if there is no self control due to a middle(automic) process ensuring no ransom can happen. then BOTH users have to trust the hubs middle(automic) process. because whats stopping person B saying 'person A owes me everything' to the middle process and get it automatically accepted. because A has no self control any longer the only way it can work is if both users have some collateral to lose if they dont co-operate even an automic process still cannot solve it. why do you think the fiat system is failing!! anyway goodluck to carlton and his "blockstream is utopia campaign" he deserves all the monero Gmaxwell will give him |
|
|
|
|
"trustless" lol
not really
the customer has to trust kimdotcom signs
the kimdotcom has to trust customer signs
as you say "its controlled by the user"
so the users need to trust each other.
LN is not a "push" payment concept. LN is not a "pull" payment concept. its a "dual agreement" requiring both sides to trust each other
wake up
|
|
|
|
Is this what it's really come to Franky? You've got nothing, except trying to pretend I say things I didn't?
you said that ransom cannot happen, but you fail to prove why (due to you not knowing how the system works) so people end up having to use scenario's to work out why you would conclude what you conclude. rather then just ignoring your pathetic conclusions. and then answer why those scenarios wont work and dont result in your conclusions.. this is only due to you having a lack of explaining yourself. and then meander further to the "i didnt say that" game of still avoiding explaining yourself so how about explain why ransom cannot happen.. go on for once give a proper deep understanding of the topic. try to stay on topic and prove yourself why ransom cannot happen if you only reply with "your wrong". but not explaining why by using real reasons related to the tech. then you have proved nothing. and you are wasting your time. have a nice day |
|
|
|
lastly you are trying to promote LN as a bug free, perfection right now. even though it has not been completed..
its like your promoting cars that can fly will never crash before one is even built.
Quote. There is no quote of me claiming or implying a bug-free LN codebase, you're a liar. And you're nuts, you're still trying to pretend this payment channel ransom attack can work? Don't know what to say. Sucks to be you, I guess so your proclaiming the 2 participants do not have control of the privkeys to sign. (so dont have control of the funds.... lol) so cannot decide when to sign or not sign.. to not be able to ransom? think about it... real hard. sit down have a cup of coffee and think about it hint: if keys are only available to the user at the node level then the user can tinker with his node to manually decide when to signhint: if keys are only available to hubs then the users are at risk of the 'we been hacked' thefts by the hubstop promoting everything as utopia simply because its a blockstream invention, without proving its utopia smart people prefer to look for holes, bugs and weaknesses. not the utopia's and especially not utopia's before its even finally coded if only you spent more time looking into the context of the topic and less time looking at who is replying you would maybe.. maybe... maybe finally have something valid to add to the topic |
|
|
|
Your explanation is wrong. Economic majority is represented by those, who are transferring btcs, e. g. doing business. Not just hodling - that doesn't create economy (not that it's wrong to hodl per se). Miners are rewarded by those who make transactions.
no the block reward is the miners payment. and miners can accept or reject any transaction they like. heck i can make a Tx that has a 2000btc fee. but it can be rejected for many reasons and has no way of swaying a miner to make protocol changes even if they accepted it. peoples funds and network protocol are separate things. also the fee does not mean anything. many pools have already made blocks this year with just 1tx (the block reward), many pools have already made blocks this year ignoring certain transactions that are bloated even with a higher fee.. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
