As soon as funding becomes a factor, the question has to be asked how you plan to avoid the corruption that occurred with the first "Bitcoin Foundation"?  The issue with centralised organisations is that someone generally ends up in charge of the purse strings and there's not an easy way to hold that person to account in terms of responsibility and ethics.

Have a look at one of the mainnet Lightning network maps and decide for yourself.  I'll see if I can provide a link, but I'm posting from a phone at the moment.

//EDIT:  https://explorer.acinq.co  should show you the current number of nodes.  Many altcoins have fewer nodes than LN, so they are arguably more centralised than Lightning.  LN does have a different security model, however, so make sure you understand it thoroughly before you dive in to use it.

But it helps.  It's just one of the things being worked on.  And if it doesn't work, I'm sure we'll try other things you'll probably hate just as much because you can't be enthusiastic about anything other than your own preconceived ideas.  You can't stop people being excited by the potential of new technologies.  If you see anything that's factually incorrect, call it out.  But so far, the largest quantity of factually incorrect information has come directly from you.  Maybe try showing just a hint of optimism for the future?  Go with the flow and see how it turns out, perhaps?



Not solely.  No one is claiming Bitcoin is the only blockchain that wants to take advantage of LN.  The very fact that more than one chain wants to implement it should clue you in to the fact that it's clearly desirable to have.  



Pretending you speak for everyone again?  
Pretending everyone is too stupid to comprehend what's being said about LN?
Pretending that people running full nodes are too dumb to know what roadmap they're supporting when they decided not to switch to another client, despite having ample opportunity to do so?

It's your expectations that need adjusting.  We're not doing what you want right now.  Your proposals don't have adequate support.  



As if you even know the meaning of the world "honest".  And oh, what's on that very next line of your post, I wonder?



That's a lie right there.  Didn't take you long.  No one is trying to limit scaling.  Your interpretation of the word "scaling" is just different to what other users running full nodes understand it to be.  No amount of telling people to "research" (because we all know that's coming next) will make people think that "scaling" means what you think it means.  When there's consensus for a larger blockweight, it will happen.  Until then, try to recognise that lone users with fringe ideals are wholly impotent in a system that uses consensus.  And you are way out there on the fringes, buddy.



Oh marvellous, you've taken the time to survey everyone on Earth to find out exactly what they NEED, have you?  That's right, everyone, franky1 knows beyond all doubt that you don't need to run a full node.  It's all been decided for you.  He's not being a presumptuous fuckwit at all.  

Do you even read what you write before posting it?  Christ.

How about you just let people use it and make up their own minds, like you keep pretending you want them to?  

But, of course, that doesn't suit your goals, so you have to keep telling people how terrible Lightning is, because if you can scare them into not using it, they'll never be able to form their own opinion.  How convenient.  



Your "other networks" catchphrase isn't going to cut it anymore.  



You seem to have a short memory.  Here is a recent topic where someone was concerned about the overall size of the blockchain.  You had the first response and literally told them to use SPV because they weren't a business:


As usual, your position is completely untenable.    

Hence the conditional auxiliary verb in that sentence, now emphasized for your benefit.  The very point I'm making is that we can't tell.  Try to keep up.

If only a small number of nodes exist, those nodes would effectively become the new financial institutions that users on the network are forced to rely on.  Using Bitcoin isn't just about the cost of transactions, it's about the cost of being able to run a full node if you want to.  Obviously we know which of those qualities you're willing to throw under the bus to get what you want.  Just because you might be able to afford a high-bandwidth internet package with generous usage limits, it doesn't mean those in other parts of the world can.  Why do you want to exclude the non-wealthy from being able to run a node?  

I'm of the opinion that there's generally too much emphasis on the market cap anyway.  XRP is a permissioned bankster crapcoin.  It stands to reason that crooked middlemen are going to put their ill-gotten gains to use in padding the market cap for a "coin" that helps to preserve their business model.  That doesn't mean real people are actually using XRP or gaining any tangible benefit from it.  Market cap doesn't tell you anything about the number of users or what real-world utility it has.  It may just mean some money is being funnelled into it by a small number of fiat gatekeepers with vested interests.  

Even if Ripple did have the highest market cap, it wouldn't lessen my belief in real cryptocurrency.  

Remember, they can't stop Bitcoin, so the best they can hope to do is pad the numbers for the "walled garden" to make it appear more popular than it really is.

You’re not the only one to have noticed.  It's getting absurd now.  I don't often frequent the Reputation board, but I'm tempted to make an exception for this particular user.

Lightning may support more than one coin, but that doesn't diminish Bitcoin’s utility.  If anything, it's far more reasonable to argue that LN is an enhancement to Bitcoin’s utility.  It's just another way to move coins around.  The option is there if you need it.  And if you don't need it, you can still transact in the same way you always have done.

Units of BTC can never "leave" Bitcoin’s blockchain via Lightning.  The owner of the coins can change, but it's all still BTC on Bitcoin's blockchain.  Other compatible coins can send transactions in the same way on their respective chains, but this has no detrimental impact on Bitcoin.

Once LN is more user-friendly, rather than taking whatever arguments are presented here on the forums as gospel, people should just try it for themselves and form their own conclusions.  Obviously some forum users aren't content with that and will continue to attempt to dissuade people going anywhere near LN, in order to push their on-chain call-it-scaling-even-though-it-isnt agenda.  If people can see LN having a positive effect, it decimates the non-arguments of this small minority of malicious forum accounts.

If people were running the code that made it happen, it's consensus.  None of your derpy catchphrases change that.  But keep crying about the fact that you can't change reality.




Drama Queen.   

If franky1 continues his deluded ramblings throughout the coming year, I'm taking this moment to preemptively nominate him for 2019's Bitcoin Drama Queen.



Except that your conspiracies are not actual things.  We're not psychiatrists.  We can't research stuff that only exists in your head.  See a shrink.

"Consensus Bypass" does not exist.  It cannot be researched.  You are fabricating something from nothing.  Your imagination is the source of the drama.

It's unconscionable that someone would deliberately target a client favoured by casual users.  It's difficult enough to get people involved with Bitcoin even when there aren't hackers trying to take advantage of them. 

Merry Jeebusmas, everyone!

Maybe you should try taking your own advice if you want Lightning to "fizzle out".  At the moment, you seem to be doing a great job of promoting Lightning, even going so far as to claim that Lightning will be so effective that users won't want to use Bitcoin anymore. 

Generally speaking, longstanding denizens of the forum aren't as easily mislead as newer members.  Sadly, new users are not always in a position to defend themselves from misinformation.  It appears as though there are some unscrupulous people out there who would take advantage of this.  It's therefore vital that we give new users the tools and knowledge to be able to differentiate between lies and genuine assistance when they are presented with information about technical subjects.  As such, this topic will stand as a handy guide on how to counter any fraudulent or deceptive arguments being presented by malicious users.


Moderation note:  Any malicious users who are quoted as sources of these lies are not permitted to post in this topic.

---

LIE #1:

"The Lightning Network will encourage users to leave Bitcoin in favour of other blockchains with lower fees and faster confirmation times, leading to Bitcoin losing dominance in the market".


SOURCE:



FACT:

Atomic Swaps are an exchange between two parties, where each will take ownership of the other party's funds on their respective blockchains.


REASONING:

It's called an Atomic Swap.  The clue is in the name.  It stands to reason that you can't swap coins on your blockchain with coins on another blockchain unless someone with coins on that blockchain wants some coins on your blockchain.  People will want to hold bitcoins due to the comparatively higher levels of security and adoption in relation to other coins.  If you relinquish ownership of some bitcoins and take ownership of a proportionate amount of altcoins, the owner of those altcoins will then take ownership of the bitcoins you just swapped.  It's not a one-way street.  A swap is only completed if someone takes ownership of the bitcoins.  As such, it's only natural that there will be as many users coming in as there are leaving.  This will not result in a reduction in the number of people using Bitcoin.  

---

This post will be updated with more lies as they are debunked.

He said without a hint of irony.   

As if you're in any position to offer that advice.   

Best franky1 post ever.   

All you need is to find some people who want to run nodes that support these 10GB blocks.  Otherwise it's not a peer-to-peer network.  Being peer-to-peer is kind of an important aspect of what we're doing here.  It's easy to achieve scaling if you completely compromise the important stuff and make something that works in a similar manner to how visa works.  The hard part is scaling in a way that doesn't sacrifice the things that make Bitcoin better than visa.

So you thought you'd help by encouraging yet more negativity?  Sound logic there.   

Try starting the types of discussion you'd like to see. 

There are no "orders".  Devs are producing code and people are choosing to run it of their own volition.  If they chose to run something else, the law would be different.  Running code is not a "vote" on what the law should be, it's literally enforcing the laws users want to enforce.  Not "what should be", but "what is".  We don't have to all come to an agreement on what the law "should be" before anyone writes the code.  People just select the code they want and start enforcing rules.  Enforcement may include rejecting blocks that don't conform to that law, or disconnecting other clients that don't conform to the law.  Those securing the chain decide what the law is.  Not devs.  


 

Say it as many times as you like.  You are the one who doesn't understand consensus.  It's plain as day.  You've lied about it so many times that you've somehow managed to convince yourself it's the truth.  But it isn't.  It's not possible for us to "understand" the way you believe you do, because the things you're talking about only exist in your fevered imagination.  It's all in your head.  Your "understanding" is not based on anything real or tangible.  You only comprehend fairly tales and are totally oblivious to how things actually are.  9000+ nodes are clearly in agreement on what consensus is, which means you are demonstrably wrong.  Reality doesn't lie.  That's your specialty.

Once you've understood weight, then you can read about the scale factor, also referred to as the discount factor. 

That's not a flip flop.  If you are incapable of comprehending the difference between voting and running code, I'm afraid there is nothing I can do to help you.  Democracy is weak.  Just like your "arguments".  



You are making shit up again.  You are a disgusting liar.  I had a notification on the 18th to say that one of my posts had been removed by a moderator.  I have deleted nothing.