understanding the brilliance of immutable transactions protected by a blockhash(confirm), then protected by the chain of blockhashes and difficulty of retrying hashes as more go ontop (more confirms as more blocks are added)
knowing that lightening doesnt have that immutable hash protection because the transactions are not settled
You know what I like about facts, Franky? Their immutability  And you're ignoring the fact that all outputs originate from chained hashing when they are mined to begin with, Bitcoin 101. What you're saying in essence is that Lightning will break double-spend protection, which isn't the case, as the Merkle root hash of every output is validated both today and with Lightning transactions. what is your personal trust level opinion of a single signee zero-confirm transaction (trustless off-chain)
would you consider that as secure as a several confirmed immutable transaction..(onchain)
then having to rely on a multisig contract between multiple users (trust-based)
would you consider that as secure as a single signee zero-confirm (trustless off-chain)
would you consider that as secure as a several confirmed immutable transaction..(onchain)
You're talking gibberish man, there is no reliance on multiple parties for transaction immutability in Lightning. You're conflating multi-party addresses/transactions with Lightning's operation, likely in the hope that your bizarre presentation might confuse some poor frightened individual to believe it. More research needed, Franky lol my question about asking his trust level is 2 parts. 1. standard traditional transaction with no confirms vs standard traditional transaction with confirms2. lightning transaction not yet settled, vs the two mentioned in point 1eg onchain, several confirm=100% trust eg onchain, 1 confirm=98% trust eg offchain traditional, 0 confirm=<50% trust(pre-malle fix/orphan/51%/low fee transaction drop, etc etc) eg offchain traditional, 0 confirm=>50% trust(post-malle fix/orphan/51%/low fee transaction drop, etc etc) eg offchain LN multisig, 0 confirm=90% trust(post-malle/orphan/51%/low fee transaction drop, etc etc) i asked what was his personal opinion on trust.. as you can see i just wrote mine however your confusing the immutability of a settled transaction(onchain).. with a separate situation of the unsettled transaction(offchain) just sitting in a hubs mempool that is signed by user and hub(trusted offchain), i do laugh that you think while a channel is open the transactions are immutable just being signed is not enough, if it was there would be no need to ever settle and no need for bitcoin blockchain ever again.. think hard about why there is a settlement mechanism. and why the blockchain exists with its many security features beyond a signature the short and curlies of it is although a (starbucks) LN hub may be online all month.. the user wont be. and when the customer signed the final transaction for the month and got their 30th coffee.. that customer wont go back to the app meaning customer is not there to authorise a change of fee when the hub finally wants to settle to match the current fee war price at the time of settling. the customer has his coffee, nothing more the customer cares to do. even CPFP is not fool proof trick to guarantee a sub-fee settlement gets higher priority. all starbucks can do is keep rebroadcasting and hope someday the fee war settles down to finally get in a block there are a few other loopholes lightening need to fix before its ready for general public use, but that was just one. seems before today you didnt even know lightening uses multisig.. maybe you need to check it out a bit more.. bt take off your glory hat of fluffy cloud perfection. and put on a critical thinking cap on have a nice day though |
|
|
|
because there is no situation under which Lightning transactions won't hit the main chain anyway (unlike what Franky is suggesting)
wow lightning network gonna fix bitcoins ability to drop transactions. kool no more fee war because no transaction will be dropped oh wait.. transactions will drop off still if they lack enough fee even when using lightening network.. (just one example) |
|
|
|
Fair enough, I think this is a semantic issue. That was never my take on "off-chain". The way I see it, the real addition to scalability that Lightning provides is moving transactions off the blockchain---directly mitigating mainchain throughput not by expanding its capacity, but rather by moving throughput into contracts. Yes, they are still Bitcoin transactions, but the blockchain is only involved in opening and settling a channel. Everything in between could take place on the blockchain, but it doesn't. Sure, we could call it "pre-chain", but to me that also implies "off-chain".  But like I said, I think this is a semantic thing. I get that hard forkers try to leverage the "off-chain" term to argue that a) the model isn't trustless (false) and b) LN transactions aren't Bitcoin transactions (they are). But the reality is, the reason LN is the answer to scaling is precisely because it scales outside of the Layer 1 protocol --- as opposed to, say, Layer 1 optimizations like Schnorr signatures. I don't think "off-chain" needs to permanently hold onto the negative connotation of "trust-based/custodial". The issue is trust---not on/off chain---there is a world of difference between "trust-based off-chain" and "trustless off-chain." the thing you have to ask yourself... understanding the brilliance of immutable transactions protected by a blockhash(confirm), then protected by the chain of blockhashes and difficulty of retrying hashes as more go ontop (more confirms as more blocks are added) knowing that lightening doesnt have that immutable hash protection because the transactions are not settled what is your personal trust level opinion of a single signee zero-confirm transaction (trustless off-chain) would you consider that as secure as a several confirmed immutable transaction..(onchain) then having to rely on a multisig contract between multiple users (trust-based) would you consider that as secure as a single signee zero-confirm (trustless off-chain) would you consider that as secure as a several confirmed immutable transaction..(onchain) |
|
|
|
Monero will become illegal if it picks up, and you know this as a fact?
Yes. I can't tell you how though, since that's confidential. You can not expect a rational person to believe you when you say such a thing, you might have insider knowledge of some sort but I am not in a position to know that, it would be gullible of me to believe you, surely you would agree. Furthermore you claim to have knowledge that Monero is going to be banned in all jurisdictions. What kind of a person are you then? Can we deduct based on this information that you have ties to government? Whatever I am not going to speculate, but this is a rather peculiar statement. lauda is just a young guy (under 30) he has no real world experience, no experience of coding. he is however very chummy with many monero holders, and i think he is just baiting you. secretly him and his chums want monero to supersede bitcoin. the hint is in the REKT campainers posts. gmaxwell is highly into monero, so is the REKT campaigner icebreaker. then we have the troll twins carlton and lauda who blindly follow their chums and back each other up in a circle jerk by getting spoonfed with whatever false information they can get hold of to push bitcoin in one direction with the ultimate aim that they hope monero becomes more useful because bitcoin has lost its utility EG lauda loves the fee war that pushes bitcoin away from being cheap for the unbanked third world EG lauda loves sidechains and offchain because he doesnt want bitcoin capacity growth onchain (even when his friends beloved monero has it) EG lauda loves centralized control and doesnt want users to decide how they want bitcoin to grow |
|
|
|
Franky, the very fact that you are, and have always been, the sole source of this information about Luke-jr wanting to start an independent fork of Bitcoin makes me suspicious. You're the only one shouting about it at the top of your voice, and you're not very reliable.
gmaxwell mentioned it (your best bud) luke himself mentioned it mining pools mentioned it adam back (another friend of yours) mentioned it they all had a few meetups and stuff to discuss it. (many round tables) so its not secret knowledge. its just you want to fail at pretending you dont know so you can avoid answering, yet over many months you have been very vocal about the details to show you do actually know about it. so grow some balls.. will you rekt luke when he releases the 2mb code? again remember its CORE CODE, not independent code. will you defend luke JR and say he is part of core and the code is vetted by the team.. so its acceptable or will you REKT luke.. im presuming you will REKT luke because you accidentally tarnished core code made by core team member as "independent".. oops you slipped up and revealed your mindset. |
|
|
|
|
simple question will you shun luke JR in a REKT campaign due to 2mb CORE TEAM code he will release?
just like you REKT others who released code with the same rule..
come on grow some balls and answer.
unless you fear your answer destroys your rhetoric of the "trust of core team" and reveals its the centralization control that your actually advocating
|
|
|
|
Yeah Franky. Except the only people prosecuting a war have been the 2MB-or-die shills, unless you want to roll out that "Core started it" canard again
you think its a war. because you dont want your king to let the community to live freely. you defend such a king to make people hate neighbouring villages rather then enlighten your king that he should be trading and communicating with the whole community. No, you're advocating the equivalent of kicking in the door to an someone elses house, moving your preferred householders into the house, crowing "free-market competition, bitches!" bitcoin is not a house. bitcoin is a land. and everyone on the land should have equal voice to come to a majority to decide the rules of the land. and then they can decide if they want a pink, blue or orange house to live on while following the rules of the majority everyone decided on. simple question will you shun luke JR in a REKT campaign due to 2mb CORE TEAM code? edit, will you kick lukeJR out your leaders house? |
|
|
|
Yeah Franky. Except the only people prosecuting a war have been the 2MB-or-die shills, unless you want to roll out that "Core started it" canard again
you think its a war. because you dont want your king to let the community to live freely. you defend such a king to make people hate neighbouring villages rather then enlighten your king that he should be trading and communicating with the whole community. edit: Except the only people prosecuting a war have been the "segwit or fuck off to an altcoin"(hoping they join you on monero), unless you want to roll out that "core is king" canard by the way.. luke JR is releasing a 2mb version of core will you accept that a core team has 2mb code.. or shun luke JR in a REKT campaign? and shout doomsdays to tell people not to download it? even if a core team wrote it? simple question will you shun luke JR in a REKT campaign due to 2mb CORE TEAM code? |
|
|
|
No that's idiotic. You cannot expect computer illiterates to make good choices about engineering decisions for a cutting edge peer to peer network. They will make foolish decisions sooner or later, like electorates typically do.
It's far better to let the crypto coding teams work without interference, and then the public can pick which cryptocoin is exhibiting the best perfromance in the real world, after the decisions have been made. If Bitcoin Core screw it up, so be it. It's their software project, not mine, yours or anyone elses.
This is a very Sun Tzu thing to do, in The Art of War Sun Tzu recommends that politicians stay away and let the generals take the decisions related to war. We must let the engineers take the decisions they are the ones that know what they are doing. art of war! opposite to the art of peace and community and agreement after all bankers know how money creation works.. lets leave our finances managed and controlled by bankers.. lets let them choose negative interest rates and freezing accounts, lets continue letting a single group decide everything for us. |
|
|
|
If Bitcoin Core screw it up, so be it. It's their software project, not mine, yours or anyone elses.
its their software (GUI) but the rules should not belong to core alone, especialy if they only offer one option Ok, you can't really expect me to believe that you understood 5 minutes ago that more than one set of rules can't operate at once, and now you're pretending as if that particular logic has been disappeared using your magic sentence? Um, not sure what to say exactly. Keep taking the tablets? one rule runs.. based on the consensus agreement of the majority (activation parameter of a high majority) where the consensus is not reach by biased belief of which team is best. but by what rule is best because ALL TEAMS have a version to allow free unbiased choose of the rules they want without worrying about the team. EG core fanboys can happily vote for 2mb because they are downloading a core version with 2mb. without having to sacrifice their ideology of core. EG non core fans can happily vote for segwit because they are downloading bitcoinknot with segwit. without having to sacrifice their ideology of bitcoinknot. EG non core fan can happily vote for segwit because they are downloading bitcoinj version with segwit. without having to sacrifice their ideology of bitcoinj. --- EG core fanboys can happily vote for segwit because they are downloading a core version with segwit. without having to sacrifice their ideology of core. EG non core fan can happily vote for 2mb because they are downloading bitcoinknot version with 2mb. without having to sacrifice their ideology of bitcoinknot. EG non core fan can happily vote for 2mb because they are downloading bitcoinj version with 2mb. without having to sacrifice their ideology of bitcoinj. |
|
|
|
If Bitcoin Core screw it up, so be it. It's their software project, not mine, yours or anyone elses.
its their software (GUI) but the rules should not belong to core alone, especialy if they only offer one option but hey screw bitcoin, you can just go play with your monero, right? |
|
|
|
im talking about the decisions of the rules..
NO SINGLE TEAM should make that decision
you only want core to make the rule decisions and then anyone free to choose the fluffy front end GUI
Yes Franky, except it's IMPOSSIBLE to have more than one set of rules running at once, in any system. Duhhhhhhhhh. Because different sets of rules will CONFLICT with one another. Duuuuuuuuh. There can be only one set of rules at once. It's plain and simple logic. there will be one set of rules running at once.. but allowing nodes to flag if they want something new. and consensus deciding if the rule should change EG if core had 2 versions. one with 2mb base block, one with 1mb base block and 4mb blockweight. if bitknots had 2 versions. one with 2mb base block, one with 1mb base block and 4mb blockweight. if BU had 2 versions. one with 2mb base block, one with 1mb base block and 4mb blockweight. if classic had 2 versions. one with 2mb base block, one with 1mb base block and 4mb blockweight. if XT had 2 versions. one with 2mb base block, one with 1mb base block and 4mb blockweight. if BITCOINJ had 2 versions. one with 2mb base block, one with 1mb base block and 4mb blockweight. then its upto the users to decide with no biases EG some core fanboys love core the team, but want 2mb capacity instead of 1mb EG some non-core fanboys hate core the team, but want segwit.. then bitcoin wont care which GUI signalled a majority.. because they all released a version that the majority can happily choose both people can use the GUI(team) they like, while also having the level playing field and no control over who gets to set/control the rules we shouldnt be at a point where core slips in a soft rule change requiring no nodes to upgrade to activate.. and then saying people need to run only core to be fully validating nodes or be left as out of date nodes not validating segwit signatures (no longer full nodes) |
|
|
|
I still don't get how Core is centralized. Again, people are freely choosing to use their software instead of Classic/XT or whatever it's out there nowadays, to validate transactions. People is free to use other software, the majority wants Core because they are the best developers, is that simple.
your statement is about the social choice of GUI, and or the chances of bugs. im talking about the decisions of the rules.. NO SINGLE TEAM should make that decision you only want core to make the rule decisions and then anyone free to choose the fluffy front end GUI |
|
|
|
What's wrong with selling all your Bitcoin (prove it IMO) for altcoins, Veritas? Why would you stick around on the ostensibly sinking Bitcoin ship, if you really believe what you're saying?
Why do you believe Bitcoin is sinking? dont worry about carlton he is cheek to cheek with greg maxwell who wants monero to be the next big thing. carlton doesnt care about bitcoin(decentralized/not controlled). in short he defends core not bitcoin, because he wants core to control bitcoin(centralized mindset), thus defending core is defending bitcoin in his eye he wants core to twist bitcoin, to stagnate bitcoin with fee wars and nodes that dont validate(if its not core) or store transaction history(if its cores pruned mode) so that his favorite monero can grow. i highly doubt carlton can have a logical debate about bitcoin without it sounding like defending core. |
|
|
|
Obviously we must choose decentralized and slow adoption. What use does Bitcoin have if the network becomes centralized? This is why we must keep supporting Core. They are conservative, the progress is rather slow but it is solid and well thought, no improvisation and keeping the network decentralized is the priority.
lol delaying freedom of choice with words like year development and year grace period.. is not cautious security.. but delay/avoidance tactic to then push through their own rules that doesnt even need 6000 nodes to upgrade/consent to, and activated in under a year analogy: "we dont want to get into a car to go to the shop, so we think it will take 2 days to walk it and avoid car crashes.. but we want to invent a motorbike with an invisible side-car and will get to the shops in one day" core is centralized. (even you admit they are a powerful team) core is centralized. (a dozen paid coders and 90+ spell checkers doesnt make them decentralized) much like UK parliament where 650 MP's live in different towns but make decisions together, is not decentralized much like US government where senators live in different towns but make decisions together, is not decentralized but core has become the prime minister/president that can sway the debate in their direction, veto and disregard. in short.. if your are defending the power a group has about the rules.. its not decentralized. every group should be on the same level in regards to the consensus as for the social preference of which implementation. then that is not about the rules, but about the function, speed, errors, GUI interface and openness of each team. (total different argument to the consensus mechanism) |
|
|
|
|
thanks to blythe masters for helping out the bank of england and bank of india with their next generation RTGS platform,
the centralised faster payment service based on cryptocurrency technology is now covered for the mass adoption category of this topic
(there is sarcasm in the thanks)
lets keep bitcoin as an alternative/opposing option to the way of the banks, where there are no barriers to entry.
lets keep it decentralized and lets keep it doing what its supposed to.
it takes time to teach people the difference between money(subcategory of currency that is centrally controlled) and currency(individually valued and traded), so logically it will be a slow adoption process.
even with slow adoption, we still need to increase the capacity buffer to accommodate a growing adoption,without trying to delay such growth to stifle bitcoins utility.
but those wanting fast adoption only care about fiat. so much so they are willing to centralize bitcoin using middlemen authorisation (multisigs) purely for short term FIAT profit so they can run back to FIAT.
those people dont understand money or understand the real need for bitcoin and if they want fast adoption(purely for profit) then they need to be advised to go play with some penny stocks or an altcoin
|
|
|
|
https://bitcoinfees.21.co/look for the line that is green, because all the yellow and orange lines are slower(less change of next block priority) at time of posting its about 70-80sats per byte. which you then have to work out the data size of your transaction(in bytes) to multiply and get a transaction fee amount for your transaction in particular then add a few satoshi's ontop that total to give you a little extra chance that you are more priority than other people looking and trying the same thing.
|
|
|
|
this isn't doing much for me since i treated bitcoin as money from the beginning. that people come up with this and say that bitcoin is money, makes me only wonder why it took so long for them to realize this.
bitcoin has always been currency.. that good for many many reasons compared to defining and pigeon holing it as money.. money is the stuff the bankers want/create/and want more, that comes with rules the problem is 99% of the world doesnt understand "money" which is why the 1% reign supreme. we should be trying to teach the 99% what money is so that they move away from it. rather than letting bitcoin become money so the 1% can extort it |
|
|
|
Who cares what people in offices, or officials, think? If we'd taken that attitude, Bitcoin wouldn't be here at all, it's been officially denounced ad infinitum up to now.
err... almost everyone? dude, i agree with you that right now bitcoin investors doesnt care much about that but if we want to see bitcoin been used as a real currency(daily use) we will need these offices/officials. f*ck the government, f*ck the banks, i dont care about them... but the majority of the population cares so unfortunatelly we will need their support. but if we allow those officials to decide what bitcoin is and then pigeon hole it into the wrong category. it makes bitcoin no better than fiat. i personally see bitcoin as an asset currency. which makes it have more possibilities than thinking of it as just money. anyone can have the freedom of swapping assets without the hurdles of money. EG if bitcoin is money. then suddenly people will start to need to declare transactions above $10k value if bitcoin is money. then suddenly people will start paying tax on it every time its swapped if bitcoin is money. then suddenly at border control (highway checkpoints/airports) will need to have their trezor's/keepkeys examined and confiscated if over $10k value is hoarded if bitcoin is money. then suddenly people will start to need pay inheritance tax if you time locked it and gave the private key your child. then things like identification requirements just to hold bitcoin start becoming a thing. lets not get excited that some official wants bitcoin to be money. because all they really want is a nice payday in the form of a huge fine/settlement, future tax income etc |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
