@OP - as I warned you this is the crap that you are going to see.

I do not bother with the above troll as he has been told again (and again and again) how things work and refuses to accept it.

(it is clear that he is being paid to make such posts as he does so every day on this forum in many different topics)

Unfortunately this topic is now being derailed by a poster of nonsense (who doesn't even understand how these things work).

@OP - I would advise you to ignore his posts and lock the topic (if you don't know how then scroll down to the bottom and look to the left).

(he is a well known shill/troll who constantly posts inaccurate information to try and attack the Bitcoin Core devs)

I'm not sure why you'd think that - LN is using Bitcoin txs which are just not broadcast to the normal Bitcoin network until the channel is closed (so all settlement is still being done using the normal Bitcoin system).

The localised effect that speeds up your LN txs (prior to settlement) is simply because the nodes you are transacting with would be expected to be nearby (such as your local food delivery service for example).

If you open up a channel with your Pizza Delivery Service and the channel is given a duration of say 1 month then your txs for buying pizzas will be almost instant and at the end of the month the settlement will occur as a normal Bitcoin tx.

LN addresses the scalability of transactions (from the current 3-7 TPS to potentially millions per second) although the massive scaling that it can bring will likely require increasing block sizes as well (if not wanting payment channels to have to last a long time which is a why it is expected that the block size will be increased in 2017).

For the LN propagation is separate from the Bitcoin network itself and so would be expected to actually be much quicker (as generally most people are going to do most of their transactions within a small geographical sub-network and confirmations are not relevant until the channel is closed).

I think once the Lightning Network is live this will actually perhaps not really be so important anyway (I would think that shrinking the bandwidth being wasted by getting rid of repeated transaction content from relaying txs and blocks would be the next priority).

Perhaps the main thing that weak blocks helps with is zero confirmation transactions (as you can effectively have 1/4 confirmations rather than 0) but if most txs end up being LN ones then I'm not sure that it is going to really matter so much.

I don't see how this is really any different to the weak blocks proposal (which actually has several such "tick" blocks per "tock").

Perhaps you are not aware of that?

All crowdfunding QORA (and BURST) raised for AT was for @vbcs to do as he pleased (my interest in this field is not about making money but about trying to aid in the transformation from centralised to decentralised software which is why I am dead-against centralised cloud computing).

Note that all the coding done in Java has been by @vbcs (as I am a C++ coder and the original AT prototype was coded in C++ well before Qora had shown any interest in it. For that work which included the AT specification I received about 3 BTC in personal donations from memory of which I paid out 2 BTC for some help on an upcoming whitepaper).

The main reason why this isn't very feasable at the moment is due to tx id malleability (as the ECDSA signature is included in the tx id and the same tx can be signed with a different valid signature because ECDSA approach used by pretty much all Bitcoin wallets includes a "random" number).

The introduction of SegWit gets rid of this problem by removing the signature information from the tx (it is provided separately in a "witness block") so once this is in place it will be possible to make the sort of bandwidth size reductions you are suggesting (and that is planned).

That's not to say that such an approach couldn't be used currently - but it could be susceptible to attacks whilst the tx id malleability issue remains (there are other advantages to removing the malleability as well which is why SegWit is higher priority at this stage).

For the record I personally was never paid any QORA whatsoever and would appreciate that you don't post incorrect information (funds that were crowdfunded were not ever paid to me nor even under my control).

It is no conspiracy theory about the way that Microsoft has done business for many, many years. Those who worked for Netscape would never forget all losing their jobs because of the illegal (and yes, they were fined for illegal) practices.

Hosting a bunch of nodes under the control of a single organisation is opposite of decentralisation and therefore itself a bad idea.

Trusting that Microsoft doesn't have any ulterior motive is naive at best considering their long track record.

If you can't resist attacking supposed conspiracy theories (and I've offered no such thing) then please go and fight the trolls on this forum spreading misinformation about SegWit (IMO that would actually be a more useful thing you could do with your time).

Firstly, for someone who has stated repeatedly that you have very little QORA and don't care one way or the other, why is it that you keep on posting (more and more text and now with pictures) about this?

Secondly, why don't you explain to us all why Microsoft would offer a free service that would have no possible revenue potential to themselves?

To say you have no agenda or association with Microsoft and hardly anything invested yet repeatedly post to try and push this issue is confusing to say the least (and if you really are just out to "dispel any FUD" then there are at least another hundred or so topics that you should be posting in rather than just this one).

If you have studied Qora then you should know that I am not a developer (for it) and that CIYAM Developers were only responsible for AT (not the coin itself).

As far as PR goes I don't think that this project has anyone even working on that (and the Burst PR team ended up stealing all the funds so the #1 PR article we should have had about the first ACCT between two blockchains was never even published back when that occurred).

If you'd like to provide some PR then I'd think that would probably be welcomed (and if you have such a stake then surely that is in your interest).

Basically I prefer not to be even publicly involved so if you think I am a problem for PR then that isn't really such a problem (I've only been posting a lot in the last few days because I think the Azure idea is a bad one).

I am fine with him having his opinion and you should be fine with me expressing mine as well thank you.

Also - if not wanting to "get into bed with MS" makes me a "dick" then I am fine with that.

Really - so as a newbie who hasn't used the forum for more than a few weeks you have somehow read the entire history of Qora?

The opinion of a newbie account who has done absolutely nothing doesn't really concern me (you are most likely just a sock-puppet as how would a newbie even know about all of this?).

It's funny how such newbie accounts suddenly appear in huge topics such as this when some controversy has happened (are you going to tell me that you read through this entire topic newbie - and the other Qora topics as well?).

And any value that they have are mostly due to the CIYAM Developers having added AT to the coin (please try to remember that - and yes you're welcome).

I am not worrying about trying to censure you but am just pointing out that your claims don't add up (you repeatedly have said you have little QORA and you don't care about Azure - but you never stop posting about supporting it - any rational person can see you are being inconsistent).

So please do that and stop posting here (for someone who supposedly doesn't have hardly any QORA and doesn't care your continued posting makes you look very much like a liar).

I don't think that this community really needs members such as yourself.

Let me be totally clear - I do not sign agreements with corporations like Microsoft.

They are the past and we are the future.

We do not need their cloud services and they do not help with decentralisation (the entire point of blockchain systems).

Why someone who claims to have very little Qora and doesn't care just keeps on posting about supporting MS Azure is amazing if there isn't actually some other reason (such as being paid to post by Microsoft to do so).

And I'll say this just once (as I don't need to repeat myself unlike you).

Why would MS bother to enforce you to make an agreement that just gives them ownership of a README file and an installation script?

And how do you think MS is going to profit from this?
(or do you think they are offering free cloud services from the good of their heart)

And again (this part I will repeat) you say you have virtually no Qora and you don't care - but here you are posting again in support of Azure - why?

Again - just because Bitshares does something doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do.

BTW - if you have hardly any Qora and you don't give a fuck - why are you still posting?

(odd behaviour to say the least)

I think you should watch the documentary about what Microsoft did to Netscape before you post anything else (maybe that was before you were born?).

Microsoft have always been anti-open source and have always used copyright and patents as their main "weapon" of choice (as do other such corporations).

To call that "insane ramblings" just shows your incredible amount of ignorance and/or naivety.

Bitshares is a get rich quick scheme (as are most of the other projects in this area unfortunately) so that doesn't make a good example at all.

If you're not trying to "get rich quick" then why on earth are you so supportive of signing up with Microsoft?