|
I wouldn't mind being able to get that far, heh. I've not had much luck even connecting to servers in the new 3.3.4 release. I tried at least 10 different ones. The circle in the corner stays red. How long should it take before it starts synchronising?
If I get that bit sorted, then I can try a bech32-to-bech32 transaction to see if I can reproduce the issue.
|
|
|
|
Someone has to route a payment through them to you in order for you to receive any BTC.
mr flip flop. unlike u i understand more then you realise your rebuttle is that if you imagine A buys a channel of 0.16btc from (B)itrefill for under 0.04btc. the LN channel would look like A[0.00<>0.16]B your rebuttle is also for A to the get to touch the 0.16btc.. others need to route funds through. EG C saying they want to pay 0.16 to A where A[0.00<>0.16]B[0.00<>0.16]c becomes A[0.00<>0.16]B[0.16<>0.00]c becomes A[0.16<>0.00]B[0.16<>0.00]c but here is where you are not understanding things. 1.this contract A[0.00<>0.16]B is not some global community agreed/audited contract. its purely an agreement PRIVATELY between 2 people (2 nodes) so A can agree to this contract without even caring about the blockchain. because there is no global community validating that A B's contract has to meet some terms. A and B can shake hands to any agreement they want 2. guess what mr flip flop, because a contract is just between 2 people. they can agree whatever they like.. they are "free to write their own code" for what their private node shakes hand to. they are "free to choose the rules that they prefer" 3. there is no consensus/no byzantine generals solution in LN to keep a group of people following a select rule. imagine it this way 99% of LN users ar not going to sit in thier basement with a desktop running a fullnode that checks that the contract they agree with is pegged/backed by a blockchain locked fund 99% of LN users are going to run mobile apps that run 'autopilot' that just auto accepts requests because 99% of people will be at starbucks and grocery stores on their phone. not in a basement so if A pays 0.04btc and see's a channel of [0.00<>0.16] ofcourse A will agree to it because thats what he damn well paid for no matter what the blockchain contains A will agree to what A paid for, even if it doesnt tally i find it shocking how you pretend that blockchain rules of bitcoin are loose and free to individuality. but then flip to think that LN is strict and rule following where 2 private people cant choose things outside a rule That's a very long-winded way of you admitting you were totally 100% wrong about it being like fractional reserve, but okay, I'm glad you got it figured out eventually. Try to understand it before you go spouting off nonsense next time. There is no fractional reserve involved. |
|
|
|
According to Bitcoinist.com and 1ml.com, "Bitcoin off-chain scaling solution the Lightning Network (LN) has reached a record $5 million in capacity as Bitcoin price rises fuel enthusiasm across the board.".
It feels slightly disingenuous to say that prise rises are fuelling enthusiasm when part of that $5 million figure will be coming from the price rise itself. If the price dropped down again tomorrow, it wouldn't mean that fewer people were using it. It's probably best to stick to using BTC to measure the overall capacity. That will avoid any moving goalposts. |
|
|
|
about the fractional reserve
bitrefill let people buy LN channels with balance using DIFFERENT CURRENCIES
bitrefil also let people buy channels with balance for less than the balance
500,000 sats capacityYou pay0.000333 BTC
2,000,000 sats capacityYou pay0.001109 BTC
4,000,000 sats capacityYou pay0.001663 BTC
8,000,000 sats capacityYou pay0.003105 BTC
16,000,000 sats capacityYou pay0.003992 BTC
Bitrefill are locking BTC into a channel in order to route it. They aren't just handing over more BTC than you give them, you gormless imbecile. If you open one of these channels, your balance starts as zero. Someone has to route a payment through them to you in order for you to receive any BTC. That's the service you're paying for. It's not magicked out of nowhere. It's not money from nothing. It's not fractional reserve. Either you don't understand the service they are offering or you are deliberately trying to twist it to sound as though it's akin to fractional reserve when it's not. Spend less time talking nonsense and more time making at least some attempt to comprehend any of this. |
|
|
|
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/henry_ford_136294It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system,
for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.
Henry Ford
updated: It is well enough that people of the world do not understand our Lightning Network Offchain system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. Translation: You and franky1 would ideally like to incite a revolt by lying to people. You're both doing everything you possibly can to convince people that off-chain is akin to the traditional fractional reserve banking system. The only conceivable way the two things could ever be considered the same is if your bias is blinding you to reality. Anyone who isn't harbouring your deep-seated hatred simply isn't going to see it how you do. Developers understand the damage that would be caused if Lightning ever were to turn out to be the horror show that you and franky1 already attempt to portray it as. They haven't poured countless hours of their time and effort into it just to make something that would fail. The development will continue, the userbase will keep growing and none of your scaremongering will change that. |
|
|
|
|
Shameless attention seeking from antiquated remnants of the past, desperate to remain relevant in a world swiftly leaving them behind. We don't need them or their supposed "trusted expertise".
|
|
|
|
Can anyone help me find out where franky1 is going with this post? He claims that a fractional reserve on Lightning "has begun". Is Bitrefill starting a fractional reserve in Lightning? Is that possible? Or is franky1's gaslighting getting better? Hahaha.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5124663.msg50325896#msg50325896fractional reserve on LN. it has begunhttps://www.bitrefill.com/buy/lightning-channel/500,000 sats capacity You pay 0.000403 BTC 2,000,000 sats capacity You pay 0.001341 BTC 4,000,000 sats capacity You pay 0.002011 BTC 8,000,000 sats capacity You pay 0.003753 BTC 16,000,000 sats capacity You pay 0.004825 BTC You're buying an "empty" channel. Within the channel, your balance begins as 0 and Bitrefill's balance is whichever option you pay for. Which is why the channel costs less for you to buy than the capacity. This allows people to send you payments via Bitrefill. Taking the largest channel as an example, if you pay 0.004825 BTC, you can then receive up to 0.16 BTC from your customers, which may have otherwise been problematic to receive if your other channels were approaching full capacity. There is categorically no fractional reserve involved. Franky1 is a disinformation agent whose only goal is to cause as much confusion as possible. //EDIT: And here's an image that shows the 500,000 sats channel being initiated:  Starting share is zero. It's not money created from nothing as franky1 would have you believe. |
|
|
|
|
"Revival" implies Bitcoin is dead or unconscious, which clearly isn't the case. It yet another article that can only measure success and failure in terms of price, which completely misses the entire point of Bitcoin. Each and every time I send or receive a transaction and no one manages to challenge, block or reverse it and I didn't need anyone's permission to do it, that's justification for Bitcoin's existence. Multiply that by the number of transactions Bitcoin handles every day and I'd say it's fighting fit and doesn't require any "revival" whatsoever. Who cares if it's not meeting The Economist's skewed criteria of how it needs to be performing?
|
|
|
|
and added to blocks that were collated by pro core pools
So by that reasoning, surely you must be part of the " core crowd" as well. Or does your special brain think you've never had a transaction collated by a " pro core pool"? If you ever get tired of being a lost cause who no one takes seriously, feel free to let us know. as for your drama about antpool, wu and ver... seriously please put a browser ban on reddit and actually force yourself to not get your mis-information from places like that.
Yeah, you'd much prefer we got our misinformation direct from Craig "Scammer" Wright's sphincter like you do, right?  |
|
|
|
So this Medium article is just a recap of all the history behind Segwit,but with a call to action at the bottom leading to the Magnum wallet service.Basically,it's just content marketing and nothing more.  It doesn't explain clearly(in plain stupid english) why the blockchain needs Segwit. Well spotted. If you want to read both the pros and cons without being subjected to advertising, you can refer to SegWit Benefits and SegWit Costs and Risks. Long story short, it was a way to increase the overall size of blocks while still allowing all the users who don't want to upgrade to keep using Bitcoin just as they always have done. |
|
|
|
I'm surprised this post from about a year ago wasn't more widely recognised as a quality contribution. Definitely deserves more merit than it got. But then that's the problem with the Altcoin boards. Anything even remotely intelligent gets buried under all the barely-coherent " good project" spam for random coins. |
|
|
|
MODIFICATION TO ASSETS INVOLVED WITH MR BLOCK CHAIN?? SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED..
I HAVE ONLY RUN A FEW TESTS AS WELL AS A FEW METHODS I USE..!! I ALSO HAVE OVER 50+NEW CREATIONS MODIFICATIONS AS WELL AS ALMOST FINISHED TOTAL OF OVER 16 PROJECTS.
THEN BOOM WATCH WHAT IS REVEALED BY END OF THE DAY..
i let everyone watch and wait.. also i have not taken any coins as also will not be for anyone.
THE RIGHT THING IS TO BE DONE TO SECURE ALL THREATS INVOLVED FOR FUTURE AND BIGGER PLANS FOR ALL PUBLIC INVOLVED..
If you have found a genuine vulnerability, the responsible course is to report it directly to the developers. That said, this all-caps posturing you've just presented us with does reduce the credibility of your claims somewhat. It honestly makes me wonder if your parents have allocated too much screen time and you might need a nap or something. |
|
|
|
They have great marketing This. Look at all the top scam coins - XRP, EOS, TRON, BCH. All complete trash, but all with either big personalities or big marketing budgets behind them. Ask any serious crypto user their opinion of these coins, and they will laugh, but newbies chasing get-rich-quick schemes outnumber serious users 100 to 1. Unfortunately, EOS launching some probably illegal Minecraft rip-off dApp or Justin Sun tweeting that he will be announcing an upcoming big announcement for TRON are more eye catching to these newbies than actual "boring" progress and real world use like SegWit or LN. It's to be expected, really. The same has a tendency to occur in any new industry. Looking back to the early days of the dotcom bubble, it was all about who could make the biggest song and dance. Style over substance. Eventually that industry matured and then everyone finally realised that substance actually counts for something. Over time, the same will happen in crypto. These hollow buzzword coins have a limited lifespan. We're just ahead of the curve because we can see through the glitzy veneer, while Weiss and their ilk are still dazzled and dumbfounded by it. |
|
|
|
|
They're literally making it up as they go along. If memory serves, they gave Bitcoin a "C" or possibly even "C-" not too long ago. How has the adoption and technology suddenly changed to an "A" grade in such a short space of time? They're constantly changing their criteria and there's no consistency to any of their so-called ratings.
It's just another company seeking to leech off Bitcoin’s name to give them a bit of exposure and media attention. Ignore them. They don't know shit.
|
|
|
|
|
It would be an interesting metric if we knew what percentage of stock market investors also held BTC.
My assumption would be that for those who don't already hold BTC, a sudden stock market crash is unlikely to make them take a punt on something they aren't already familiar with. As others have mentioned, precious metals would be a more likely route for them. But those that do hold BTC already may be more inclined to move a greater proportion of their wealth into Bitcoin if the stock market began trending downwards.
|
|
|
|
|
When wealth is threatened, people generally make reactionary and unpredictable moves. If anyone here could tell you with any certainty how it would affect Bitcoin, they probably wouldn't, because it might impact the profit they could potentially make by reading the market correctly. Just place your bets and hope for the best.
|
|
|
|
Any way, the guy in 36th above me - ChiNgadOr - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1176794He registered in September 2017 & has posted 12,047 times. That’s over 8,000 posts per annum. Fucking insane amount of posting that is, I’m surprised he hasn’t been banned for spamming. That does seem just a little excessive, heh. At my current rate of posting, I'm hitting an average of around 600 posts per annum. If that continues, I'd have to stick around for another 14+ years to reach 12000 posts.  Maybe that's why I can't break into the top 100 "most recognised", heh. |
|
|
|
Lightning Labs aren't the only game in town, so maybe the others will keep them honest.
or maybe others follow the same path if they also see there is money to be made. Perhaps, but then it's down to us as users to support the values we want to see upheld. All it takes is for one developer to give users the choice and then we can see whether people opt to use the open or closed source one. Plus, releasing an open-source version doesn't mean they can't make money from it. |
|
|
|
|
Somehow missed this topic. I naturally assumed most of their revenue would come from consultancy work, offering their services to show businesses how to integrate Lightning into their existing payment systems. It's not ideal that Lightning Labs opted to offer this particular service in the way that they have, but one would hope that maybe ACINQ, Blockstream or any other Lightning developers out there can come up with something similar in their clients and will subsequently keep the source open, allowing competition to thrive. Lightning Labs aren't the only game in town, so maybe the others will keep them honest.
|
|
|
|
- Is it wrong or immoral to create code that causes a client to disconnect another client from the network if the features they propose are not compatible? Should users be allowed to disconnect incompatible clients if they want to? Or is this a way to cheat consensus and deprive the users running that client of the chance to express their support for a change in the rules? And, in this morality judgement, should we consider whether replay protection is included in the the client being disconnected if that means users can be safeguarded from replay attacks?
No! It indicates a civil war within the network and shows a weak side of decentralization. It enforces the rule of muscle power! Just so I've got it clear, which part were you saying " No" to? The " Is it wrong or immoral" part? Or the " Should users be allowed to" part? The discussion that led to the disconnecting code being merged can be found here if anyone wants to read it for themselves. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
