*Facepalm*

That's like saying you are admitting Bitcoin's total supply can be modified because anyone can change the supply consensus rules in their client.  But in doing so, you effectively create your own network with no one else on it. 

Read more carefully and actually TRY to comprehend.  Don't just deliberately take things out of context to support your pre-existing misconceptions.

Emphasis mine:


So you freely admit that:

You can't open a channel without having funds locked on the blockchain unless both participants have freely chosen to allow that.  Meaning no one can find themselves in a position where the other party was doing something they were unaware of.  You would also be unable to interact with any other Lightning users with the standard settings if you did that.  

Or to put it another way:

Your actions in opening a "channel" without funds like that would be the equivalent of writing "twenty pounds" on a piece of paper and playing make believe with an equally gormless friend that you were exchanging money with each other, while the rest of the world didn't even notice you existed and went about with their normal everyday lives.  To insinuate that anyone could confuse your play-time with a legitimate financial transaction is absurd.

Thank you for finally clarifying your mindless FUD.  It should be apparent to all that your earlier "scenarios" (in the loosest possible sense of the word) were yet another attempt to cause panic over nothing.

Further, BitRefill then went on to clarify how Thor Turbo channels work, but you are still somehow misinterpreting it.  As usual, the only confusion is whether you are deliberately misrepresenting what was said in an attempt to weave a false narrative, or whether you are simply too unintelligent to comprehend the meaning of what is being explained to you.  All the facts have been presented to you, but you somehow still reach a flawed conclusion.  Again, emphasis mine:

I've come to learn that caveats need to be included when dealing with pernicious cunts like you.  Maybe if you weren't such a pathetic troll, I could deal in absolutes.  I have to make it clear that Wumbo needs to be enabled by both parties in order to facilitate a 10 BTC transaction, or you would try to claim that I didn't know that needed to be the case.  It's just how you operate.  Try being less of a shit-sack if you don't want me to cover my back and protect my reputation by preempting your repeated attempts to deflect from your own misunderstandings of Lightning.



If I were simply using you to route a payment to someone you had a connection to, you wouldn't get to keep the coins.  Of course, if you were unreliable or uncooperative, the more likely outcome is that someone would close the channel with you.  Sorry if that contains one too many "ifs" for you, but even a simpleton like you must understand there is more than one potential outcome.



I am tired of this ridiculous song and dance of yours.  Please name the unmodified client that allows this so that your claims can be investigated.  If you reply "do your own research" or any variation thereof, I will leave you negative feedback for unsubstantiated claims.  Based on past conversations, I am convinced that you are still misunderstanding the Thor service from BitRefill (a representative from BitRefill has confirmed as much to you in the Development and Technical board before you got banned from it, linked here  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5130122.msg50947683#msg50947683) and I'm not wasting any further time on you until you can prove otherwise.

Because many of us here are a deeply suspicious bunch, it's always best to include a direct link to your GitHub so that people can easily inspect the code:

https://github.com/nathanp/crypto-price-widget

If I hadn't spotted that link on your site, I'd have already posted a warning for other users to be wary.

If that's your assessment of Faketoshi's verbal diarrhoea, it only shows how susceptible some people are to indoctrination.  Coming back to the 'shady used car salesman' analogy, some of them are quite effective in selling lemons to the gullible.  You're simply choosing to believe what you want to hear.

Common sense tells us it's 2) because he's clearly more of a 'shady used car salesman' than he is a criminal mastermind.  The only explanation he can give is that he is a liar/cheat/fraud/criminal/etc.

Indeed.  Every time we have to explain how it actually works while FUD-busting, someone can potentially learn a little more about it.  The more discourse, the better.  

Wrong.  You're not in the BTC game if you buy a stock.  You're in the stocks game.  They're two very different things, so please don't confuse them.

When you buy bitcoins, you're joining a whole new economic system, separate from the traditional finance sector.  There are numerous benefits to this which you can't gain from buying stocks.

Buying a stock that simply follows the fiat price of Bitcoin will not give you censorship resistance, borderless payments, 24/7 transactions, etc.  It's a weak substitute for the real thing.

Arguably, it's precisely because the US tried to tighten their grip that things started to slip through their fingers.  As far as I recall, the first attempt to regulate crypto was the New York "BitLicense".  I'm sure I remember a large exchange moving away from the US due to some US regulation or another.  It stands to reason that crypto is going to flourish in the places with the least bean-counting regulatory interference and authoritarian government meddling.  Meaning not America.  But at the same time, definitely not China either.

It's intermittent.  I found that even when I hit "Post" to reply to a topic just now and it returned 504, the post still seemed to make it through somehow.

I'd treat free online courses with the same suspicion and aversion I give to free altcoin airdrops.  If it is free, you have to ask yourself what the business model is.  How much personal information do you have to hand over?  Is it something that could lead to identity theft?  Does it involve downloading potentially malicious software?  What's the catch?  Always be mindful of someone trying to exploit you.

You don't even need a course to learn this stuff.  Just stick around these boards for a couple of years and you'll learn plenty.

Assuming both parties have accepted 'Wumbo' to be able to handle a transaction that large, yes.  Once both parties have accepted the latest channel state and the 10 BTC is on my side of the channel, there's literally no one else on Earth who can authorise those BTC to be spent without incurring a revocation penalty.  That makes them mine, because I'll possess the secret key to prove it.  It's almost like you don't know how it works at all.  If you don't broadcast it, but the latest channel state shows the 10 BTC being mine, I could(*) then unilaterally close the channel and claim the 10 BTC, subject to the delay that we would have both agreed on when opening the channel and would know what to expect in advance.  No one can challenge the legitimacy of that channel closure if I am committing the latest state to the blockchain.  

* That's assuming I want to close the channel, of course.  I may want to leave those 10 BTC off-chain to use for something else.

Thank you for proving beyond all doubt that you are clueless when it comes to Lightning.  And, based on past behaviour, next you'll be telling me that I'm talking about the "old" version of lighting and we all need to watch out for the channel factory boogeyman, but that will be a bunch of ignorant fear-mongering as well.  You're pathetic and predictable.  Now do everyone a favour and kindly stop breathing.  You are a literal waste of oxygen.  

 

Because people are primarily using LN to move BTC.  What you or I want to associate anything with is irrelevant.  People are USING it FOR their BITCOIN.

LTC Lightning has somehow dropped to a paltry ~220 nodes.

And 1ml.com seemingly can't even be bothered to track Vertcoin's usage anymore because it's apparently so insignificant.

Groestlcoin has 7 LN nodes.  And at least 3 of those look like the dev team.  Good luck finding someone you might need to pay on there.

So keep talking about all the "other coins" you can supposedly use Lightning with, but (as always) here in the real world (i.e. not your fantasy world of make-believe where you can't accept reality) it's not going to be very easy to make a payment using those other coins.  Learn network effects.

Pffft.  As if they've been at the forefront of technology all this time.  Even back in the '90s, all the best games consoles, cameras, stereos and pretty much all the other electronic gadgets in our homes were Asian.  The US is only at the forefront of empty boasting.  I'd take a Samsung or Huawei phone over an iphone any day of the week.  And I'd be willing to bet that most american phones are are either made in Asia, or primarily built from Asian parts.  It's no surprise at all that the the US aren't a leading force in blockchain technology.

In short, this blog is a load of guff.

Given that you been banned from posting in the Development and Technical section of the boards because you are renowned for spouting misleading nonsense, it might worth considering that your opinions on what is or isn't Bitcoin carry very little weight here. 

Keep repeating it as often as you like, every time you post. 
We'll keep pointing out that you're a malicious troll, every time you post.



You can live with people describing Lightning in a totally misleading and incorrect fashion?  Hmm.... no surprises there! 
It's almost as though you are encouraging people to spread misinformation to suit your lame propaganda war.   Pity you're losing.   



Exchanges are a tool for many currencies, do we have your approval to talk about those here on the forum? 
WebWallets are a tool for many currencies, do we have your approval to talk about those here on the forum? 
Payment Processors are a tool for many currencies, do we have your approval to talk about those here on the forum?

There are advantages and disadvantages to using those tools.  LN is no different.  But the simple fact is that you can use Lightning to make a transaction that results in you transferring the ownership of your BTC to an intended recipient.  There is absolutely no reason why we can't discuss doing so here.  Whine about it all you like, but there is nothing you can do to stop it.

Can you?  The same rules would apply to your favourite crapcoin and every other cryptocurrency if we're warping the definition of "money transmitter" to mean what you're claiming it means.  Or you could just be sensible and stop trying (and failing} to scaremonger because you have no coherent arguments to raise.

Why don't you fight against exchanges and other custodial wallets as much as you fight against LN (which isn't custodial)?  What's the agenda here?  Are you butthurt over scaling like franky1?  Or do you have some other motivation for being a compulsive liar?

It might be 3 years out of date now, but DannyHamilton's custom ignore list is here.  Add those names to get started, then just continue to ignore bad posters as you see them.

---

Not quite everyone, just most of them. 

And if LN had been designed without revocations in place, the detractors and trolls would have a really easy job, because then all you would need to do is always spend from an outdated commitment and easily defraud people.  The current implementation of Lightning would not be possible without revocations.  So it only makes the trolls look even more ridiculous and ill-informed when they claim that the very part that makes it secure is somehow a bad thing for users.

We'll also have to see what happens with Eltoo, since there may be an alternative way to handle maintaining channel states.  I look forward to the trolls' feeble attempts to undermine that one as well.  

---

I can see how that would be a tricky one from a business perspective.  On the one hand, they want to assure people it's a legitimate business model, but on the other hand, they probably can't give away the finer details until they're a little more established, in order to avoid another company playing copycat and ripping off their business model.  They'll naturally want to make the most of first-mover advantage.

You need a new catchphrase, this one is getting pretty old and predictable.  It's also a myth that has been thoroughly debunked:


Meaning, even if your prognostication of Lightning becoming centralised did come true (and there's no sign yet that it will become centralised), it would still offer you greater control over your wealth than a bank does.  If you can't grasp this incredibly simple concept, you are not qualified to comment further (but I suspect you'll keep babbling nonsense regardless).

So if you're quite finished attempting to derail the topic, let's get back to the part where the developers of Strike chose Bitcoin and Lightning for their app.  Notice how they didn't choose any of the crapcoins you repeatedly claim are "better".  That's because, here in the real world, people care about the strength and integrity of the network.  They don't want to place their wealth on weak and insecure chains.  They don't want to use coins that no merchants will accept as payment because they're nothing more than a novelty or gimmick.  They don't want to use networks where there's only one or two developers who might get bored and leave the project in limbo.  And these are only some of the reasons why Bitcoin and Lightning are the preferred platform for so many projects.  And when people develop utilities like this, it helps Bitcoin and Lightning grow larger still.  The momentum will continue to build and nothing (least of all a pathetic troll like you) can stop it.

Thanks for playing!

It's still BTC, the millisats are just rounded off at the moment.  It could be other coins too, technically, and then the transaction settled on the first layer would be on that coin's chain.  But since the announcement makes no reference to Litecoin, it's fair to assume they're only talking about Bitcoin for this app.  The two trolls in the topic are just taking potshots because one is bitter about scaling, while the other is constantly trying (and failing) to convince people that Proof-of-Stake is better.  Pay them no mind.