I think the nail in the coffin moment for me will be if I found out that some government agency developed Bitcoin to take control of people's wealth. It has happened before that some agencies created honey traps to trace money derived from criminal activities and they even infiltrated Tor exit nodes. I entered Crypto currencies, because it gave me some financial privacy <not for criminal use>, so if I found out that this was only a smoke screen, then I would definitely exit the scene.  Personally, I don't think I'd have a problem with that. Call me blasé, but if it did turn out to be one of the three-letter-agencies who were responsible for opening Pandora's Box, the simple truth is, it's out of their hands now. It's no longer controllable by them or anyone else. Regardless of where it came from, it's ours now. |
|
|
|
If someone knew of a serious risk to Bitcoin's network which they believed was genuine, but then deliberately withheld that information from other members of the community so that they could analyse the risks for themselves, you'd have to ask yourself if they really did care about Bitcoin as much as they say they do. Good news, though, pretty much all the people who believe this opcode is an issue are totally discredited. I see why franky1 won't provide a source now for his claims now. I also see why I didn't find this " issue" while searching, because I deliberately ignore search results from the following sources. If franky1 had posted a source, he would have to end up quoting something written by anonymint (another prolific troll who wouldn't shut up about ANYONECANSPEND right up to the point they got banned from the forum), something written by Craig "fake satoshi" Wright (no explanation required for that one), something written on bitcoin.com (definitely no credibility there), or he would have to link to something legitimate that I would pay attention to, which completely debunks the supposed risks of ANYONECANSPEND. Or... he'd have to link to this quote, which is rather telling and explains SO, SO MUCH about his behaviour: Well, if that is a critical issue i advice you to make contact with Core/LightCoin dev's about youre concern. They're testing it atm, this will be the moment for it to how to fix it. We'll be gratefull.
i did.. EG last april i spotted the anyonecanspend issue.. their response. ridicule me for months.. Is this the point someone hurt your feelings and prompted your little vendetta, franky1? You've been carrying this little grievance of yours since April 2016? Ever since then you've been taking shots at developers because they don't take you seriously? Aww, diddums. I honestly never knew a human being could actually be this pathetic. |
|
|
|
No, there are currently a far greater number of coins that don't support atomic swaps than there are coins that do. Most coins can support it, but most of them aren't there yet. Hopefully that's something that will change over time, but it's still a relatively new concept. Also can bitcoin be traded for any other coin that exists and vice versa?
Yeah bitcoin can be fairly traded for any coin Traded in an exchange perhaps, but not via atomic swaps. While it's technically possible to perform an atomic swap between Bitcoin and Litecoin, something that was achieved in 2017, it's not something which is practical for users to do yet. Atomic swaps are not yet possible with " any" coin. It's safe to say that's at least a few years away, if not more. |
|
|
|
One can 'guess' this key. So what prevent him from guessing it and taking all coins at any moment?
If you can successfully guess a key signature, you deserve every last satoshi you get.  You've probably got more chance of winning the jackpot on two different national lotteries on the same night. If B accepts N+1, they will give A their key for N. A will also give B their key for N. But A of course is not going to give B their key. Then the transaction isn't finalised and N+1 doesn't exist. N is still the current state and can't be revoked until A hands over their key for N. Again, keep reading that post or find somewhere else that explains it in a way you can understand.
look into the opcodes. they even want to rename an opcode to make it visibly shown its a risk(hint. its a risk for one and secondly reintroduces malleability)
A little more concreteness would be appreciated. Obviously not every argument can be broken down easily, but for example which opcode are you referring to specifically? The only thing I can find is this discussion from 2015. If that's what franky1 is soiling himself over, then I'm pretty sure the issue isn't quite the catastrophe he's making it out to be. If that's not what he's alluding to then he needs to be more clear and link to whatever it is he likes to pretend we should be so alarmed about. If he wasn't a troll, he simply would have provided the source of his claims rather than making such a big song and dance about it. He's incapable of simply providing the technical details and then letting users decide for themselves how serious the risks are. He can only weave tenuous and highly exaggerated narratives to portray things in the worst possible light. Blatant scaremongering and FUD. Every time you ask him for specifics, he just gives you more absurd conspiracy theories. Not even remotely acceptable behaviour for someone with the 'Legendary' rank. |
|
|
|
you already know that the 2mb legacy with segwit was just a ploy. by the same group that just wanted segwitx1 WHAT? No, I don't " know" that. And neither do you. It's just another one of those things you like to repeat over and over again, hoping that some gullible idiots will believe your absurd conspiracy theories and total re-writes of history. Total conjecture. Just for once in your dismal existence try being reasonable and rational. but letting bitcoins network expand in a efficient byte for byte transaction for transaction is not their roadmap.
because who would want LN if bitcoin could handle the transaction flow for 2015-2020
Anyone who wants to see atomic swaps implemented via LN? Anyone who wouldn't want to risk centralising layer 0 if tx volumes increase, thus making it more costly to run full nodes? Anyone who is trying to ensure we can go well beyond 2020? In short, lots of people with foresight (which naturally excludes you). its why they had to do a hard fork mascaraed as a UASF and then point fingers at another group as the instigators..
Who are " they"? No one has enough individual control over Bitcoin's network to " do a hard fork" (*facepalm*) and make everyone else on the network like it. What world are you even living in? I can't tell if you need to take far more or far less medication for whatever it is that's wrong with you. Stop pretending developers have so much control they can force miners and users to fork against their will. It's total lunacy and you are unhinged if you believe that. I think we're all running out of patience with you now and have had quite enough of your paranoid fantasies and delusions. Use facts, not franky1 la-la-land fairytales and campfire stories. |
|
|
|
i dont need to break it or rip people off. i just need to tell an LN dev of an exploit.
Is that before or after you tell them they have to work on solely on-chain stuff to make Bitcoin better? The problem with LN haters is that they always shit on everything devs do, but don't bring up any solutions to the table,
actually i and others have given solutions to problems. even solutions to segwit too. Yeah, " 4MB for everybody"!  as for the respect of segwit users.
read my posts
i said open up the 4mb space for BOTH segwit and legacy to coexist and get the optimum 15k plus tx capacity
That's not a " solution". Try again. If the Bitcoin network couldn't find consensus for 2MB legacy with SegWit, what makes you think people will jump at the chance to have 4MB legacy with SegWit? Maybe try saying " learn consensus" without a hint of irony a few more times just to make everyone laugh a little bit harder. |
|
|
|
GO PLAY WITH LN
go play with the internet you act like you've never tried the internet there are many ways to break the rules and cause people to lose their funds. the internet isn't perfect and it doesn't solve the Byzantine Generals problem... ALL BROWSERS CAN BE MODIFIED lots of people are aware of the flaws and the goalposts are moving. the internet isn't utopia many have already lost funds stop promoting the internet its not the sole solution GO PLAY WITH THE INTERNET
Ugh... I feel like I've killed some of my braincells writing like that. I honestly don't know how you do it all the time. Your "arguments" are ridiculous. I accept that Lightning isn't perfect and I accept that there are ways in which you can lose funds. I only wish you were actually capable of having a decent enough understanding of LN to explain the genuine flaws (and not the totally made up ones, like the one quoted in the first post in this topic) in a way that wasn't so utterly painful to read. When real flaws are discovered, people will be hard at work on fixing those flaws. Until the technology matures, LN is currently just for micropayments and should still be treated as highly experimental. No one is saying Lightning is the sole scaling solution right now and no one will be saying it's the sole scaling solution even once it has matured, so I suggest you stop claiming otherwise unless you genuinely want anyone reading this to think that you are a liar (assuming they don't already think that). Also, duplicitous much? you might want to use LN yourself first... but not with the utopian 'i shall follow the rules' and make one payment the way it was intended. but with a 'lets see if i can tinker' mindset.
it will shock you
?me bring down LN one node at at time?
again i point out the flaws but i dont have the lack of morals/ethics to steal other peoples funds. your narrow view of things and people think that if someone say something is wrong they are the kind of people who want to destroy it. is totally wrong
You tell me I should try to break LN, but you've never attempted it yourself? Worthless troll. |
|
|
|
Either the commitment state is updated because both parties agree, or it isn't updated because one party doesn't agree. What the mistery entity the 'commitment state' is? Where is it kept? Who is responsible and guarantee for it's consistency and actual state? I steel feel some smell of magic. There is no magic involved. Both participants know what the current commitment state is because they both have to update it each time. They are both responsible. I'm going to attempt this one last time and if you still can't grasp it then I'm afraid there's nothing more I can do to help you. Here are some checkboxes representing the previous and current commitment state. Both A and B have revoked payments from N-1. If either party attempted to spend from N-1, the other party could penalise them because B has A's key for N-1 and A has B's key for N-1. If either party close the channel and broadcast to the blockchain, there is no penalty involved and N is the commitment state which gets broadcast: | N-1) | A: ☒ B: ☒ | | N) | A: ☑ B: ☑ |
Then A sends a new transaction which B has not yet accepted. Because B has not accepted N+1 yet, N is still the current commitment state. There is no way for A to claim or pretend that B has accepted N+1 because A does not have B's key for N. They will only have B's key for N if B has given it to A as part of revocation. If either party close the channel at this stage, there is no penalty involved and N is still the commitment state which gets broadcast to the blockchain: | N-1) | A: ☒ B: ☒ | | N) | A: ☑ B: ☑ | | N+1) | A: ☑ B: ☐ |
If B accepts N+1, they will give A their key for N. A will also give B their key for N. This revokes payments from N and N+1 then becomes the new current commitment state. Neither party can spend from N without being penalised because N has now been revoked. If either party close the channel at this stage, there is no penalty involved and N+1 is now the commitment state which gets broadcast to the blockchain: | N) | A: ☒ B: ☒ | | N+1) | A: ☑ B: ☑ |
If it still doesn't make sense, read it again more slowly. If that doesn't work, keep reading it until it does make sense. Or read the whitepaper. Or read any other website where someone else has explained it. But there is categorically no magic involved. |
|
|
|
I agree about the Press sub, but I think that board has served it's purpose now and should be locked/archived. It was created when any press mention about bitcoin was exciting and essentially 'noteworthy', but now it's just used to spam any old crap that vaguely mentions crypto. If it's to stay then I think we should prohibit any bitcoin/crypto-based websites but there definitely needs to be some standards pinned in there at least.
It feels like the purpose of that forum should be to discuss interesting and newsworthy current events as they happen in the real world. Personally, I'd prefer if that was kept separate from the "regular" Bitcoin discussions, at least until the main Bitcoin discussion board is a little more spam-free. I don't want to sift through several pages of " who is satoshi?", " what if the government ban bitcoin?", " Is bitcoin better than X/Y/Z?" and " why is price going up/down/sideways" to read about the latest news. I'm all for Press being more strictly moderated, though. |
|
|
|
That said, it will obviously be slightly more resource intensive for those choosing to use Dandelion. You'll be maintaining two distinct mempools.
I certainly didn't think that, but since once the transaction is broadcasted to network, you simply move transaction on stempool to mempool. IMO it has bigger impact on computational resource. I could be wrong, but since your stempool will handle other peoples' Dandelion transactions, I thought it fair to assume that both stempool and mempool would need to be maintained continuously. I doubt it will be particularly demanding on your system, though. I really like the idea. |
|
|
|
But there still is a 'penalty'. Not in the scenario you've described. If B doesn't acknowledge A, the only consequence is that the commitment state is not updated. There are no penalties involved. Some people use 'binary' (some other use 'cryptography') in sense of the ancient people used 'magic': an absolute power to do and to explain everything.
Whatever you call it: 'commitment', 'revocation', etc. - one has to send some binary data to another and then it has to be known (confirmed) somehow if this counterparty has surely received the same binary data.
I'm not talking about sending someone "binary data" like 1s and 0s. I'm saying it's like a 'true or false' statement where there are only two possible outcomes. " A binary outcome is a general term that implies there are only two possible outcomes to a certain situation." Either the commitment state is updated because both parties agree, or it isn't updated because one party doesn't agree. One party can't just claim that it's updated and then ask for a judgement about it. It doesn't work like that. You appear to be suggesting that A can send B a payment and then penalise B for not accepting it. I'll repeat it again: If B doesn't acknowledge A, the only consequence is that the commitment state is not updated. There are no penalties involved.
4. as for you main question. because there is no community consensus to reject/orphan off them 12 decimal tokens people play within within the channel. person B can edit a node to ignore bolts or pause bolts command list of what suppose to happen at any point. and instead do other things.
I said "be specific". Saying that person B can " instead do other things" is not specific. What "things" can they do, franky1?If this really was an attack vector, where can we download this supposed modified client? Surely if there was a way to steal peoples' money, detractors of Lightning would be all over that action. They'd have already proven by now that Lightning wasn't a viable concept. Why aren't you bringing down LN one node at a time if it's so easy? |
|
|
|
2. Would this affect block size/weight limit size increase in future? I believe yes, the same as ring signatures? Maybe DooMad can confirm. It's the first time I've read about it, but my initial understanding based on a cursory glance of the BIP is no. Whichever Dandelion-compatible client is selected at random to actually broadcast the transaction, it strips out any of the extra information required by Dandelion and just sends a regular Bitcoin transaction. Definitely slows down propagation a tiny bit, but doesn't appear to impact tx size once the final broadcast is made. Clever stuff. That said, it will obviously be slightly more resource intensive for those choosing to use Dandelion. You'll be maintaining two distinct mempools. |
|
|
|
That list is so demoralizing (...) stompix sad  Really? The fact that people such as yourself care enough to take time out of their day to check this stuff is highly uplifting for me. Yes, this new requirement is causing some to attempt to cheat, but at the same time, many of them are going to get caught because there are some incredibly diligent people around here who are doing their best to make this forum a better place. The ones abusing the system will effectively weed themselves out. I'd say all is working as intended, so don't let it get you down. |
|
|
|
We seem to have an enormous number of applicants who never really contribute to the forum. I'm not sure how to do it, but would it be worth having a clean up of the member list?
Is there any kind of tangible benefit in doing that? It seems like one of those things where there might be quite a bit of work involved without much reward at the end of it. As such, it might not be too high on the list of priorities. If all these entries were bloating the size of the forum database to the point where it was becoming a problem, it's likely it would have been dealt with by now. Would it maybe make the forum's search function less resource-intensive if there are less entries to query? Things like that might be a worthwhile consideration. |
|
|
|
yes i know doomad will only se the utopia. but with a critical mind it just shows people can change/tweak their node to do hand shaking in a different order or request data that normally not requested in that order.
if funds are locked. the partner either has to obey to the request or close the channel.
EG if you know the 2016 concept is that X hands over their private key first. and is expecting an automated reply from Y with Y's private key.
why can edit thir node to stop at th X hand key.. so that why gets it. but then does not hand Y key
its like any contract negotiation. whomever signs first is usualy the one worse off. because the second party can then renegotiate the terms before agreeing to sign
it why most contracts are not treated as valid until both parties sign. and its been notorised by witnesses Precisely which "terms" are you able to "renegotiate" in Lightning with this supposed attack, then? Please elaborate and be specific, because I'm sure we'd all love to hear some more totally made-up nonsense. Don't just say " the second party can then renegotiate the terms" without explicitly describing what you mean, because otherwise you are clearly spouting FUD and not describing an actual attack that can be successfully performed in Lightning. Even though I'm going to totally dismantle everything else you just said, I want an answer to this above all else. i understand doomad is an optomist and he likes to see the bright side of life. but promoting other networks that are not built yet to a reasonable level,
I understand you don't seem capable of comprehending the fact that no one is suggesting that Lightning is ready for mass adoption right now. What we are "promoting" are the future benefits. We all recognise it's not finished yet and there is still much work to do. and yet not care about how it is shifting utility and innovation away from the bitcoin network, and surprisingly being preferential that people should want to use LN instead of scaling bitcoin..
In your bizarre-o-world where Bitcoin somehow isn't allowed to have Lightning <cough>fascist</cough>, the thing that would actually shift innovation and utility away from the Bitcoin network is every other coin being interoperable and compatible with each other when they all implement LN and atomic swaps, while leaving Bitcoin totally isolated. Great idea! is not what a true bitcoiner should be like.
You are in no position to judge what a " true bitcoiner should be like" because you openly advocate preventing people from developing the off-chain technologies they want to develop. You only like developers that are making things you want them to make. Which, as far as I can see, is precisely ZERO of them because your ideas aren't as good as you like to think they are. even going to the extent that if someone doesnt like bitcoins onchain stagnation that the critics should just go make their own network..
There is no " onchain stagnation" in Bitcoin. That's just a lie you like to perpetuate. is th mindset of those that think apartheid history was a good thing.
Says the person who doesn't want Bitcoin to be interoperable with other networks. Almost as though you wanted to segregate them... Keep those different networks apart. You're free to leave if you don't like it here. You're also free to stay and continue to be ridiculed for spouting nonsense. That's not apartheid. If you think it is, that's yet another concept you don't understand. LN can function without bitcoin because its not reliant of bitcoin. the chainhash can be for litecoin or other coins.
EG LN is an island but it can continue even without bitcoin inhabitants.
right now its mainly bitcoin inhabitants walking around it so its giving the island some bitcoin fame. but that does not make it a bitcoin island. its a multi-nation island
Sounds great, I'm okay with that. Freedom and choice for everyone is a good thing. Why do you hate multi-nation islands? Does it have something to do with your fascist tendencies? as for the "custodian" thing. .. im laughing
coinbase, offers its "vaults"
That has no correlation whatsoever with what we're talking about here. If you think it does, start again because you don't understand Lightning. "Vaults" work like this. That is categorically not how Lightning works. Thank you for once again proving beyond doubt that you are not in a position to comment on anything even remotely related to LN. you said it yourself
"Users are free to negotiate between themselves how they are going to settle transactions between themselves as long as their software is compatible."
me: i wont shake your hand unless..
you: my node cant do that.
me: "well change your node or close the channel using your old state. by the way i have the private key to that old state, so its less risky to comply to my code edit by editing your node to follow my new policy. than it is for you to close channel"
Definitely keeping this quote handy as further evidence that you are 100% misinformed. If you ever manage to figure out why what you just said is totally wrong, let me know. |
|
|
|
With sidechains, Bitcoin will be able to process smart contracts, issue tokens, register property, and more. Because of the many benefits sidechains will bring to the Bitcoin blockchain, it's believed that they will render altcoins useless in the future.
It's fair to point out that it wouldn't actually be Bitcoin processing the smart contracts and such, but since it's generally assumed that Bitcoin will be the blockchain that effectively underpins all the others, it's likely Bitcoin users can effectively "borrow" the properties of these other chains. It's not that we would be " promoting other networks" at a cost or detriment to Bitcoin, but rather that Bitcoin would be strengthened because users would only be using the other chains temporarily for whatever specialist need they require, then would naturally return to the blockchain which has the greatest network effects and real world acceptance once they're finished. |
|
|
|
Even if we can establish how the Byzantine General's problem relates to LN, it still doesn't change the simple fact that LN is not custodial in the same way as an Exchange is. It is unequivocally more empowering to users than leaving funds totally under the control of a third-party. For all the people out there who have completely surrendered control of their funds to a webwallet or exchange, they have little-to-no recourse if those funds suddenly vanish. People can make all the arguments they want about potential flaws with Lightning, but surely anything has to be better than a fully-custodial "service". Using webwallets and exchanges to store funds is the real " banking 2.0" and it's a problem that Lightning can help mitigate once it matures. We're now open to a potential future where services won't have irresponsibly vast troves of BTC stored in a single hotwallet ready for hackers to steal; A future where users don't automatically forfeit their money en-masse when such hacks occur. This is what progress looks like and there's no denying it with manipulative wordplay about Bitcoin " trying to go full circle and back under a currency control where people need other people authorisation to make payments". Even in completely unrelated topics, malicious actors are attempting to derail the progress that is being made with their FUD. Don't let them. Being able to authorise your own payments is undeniably better than a service (or an attacker of that service) making the sole decision over what happens to your money. |
|
|
|
LN does not solve the byzantine generals problem so pretending that things cannot happen in LN is a fruitless task.
Pretending that anything you say or do is going to derail future development to minimise risks in LN is also a fruitless task. use your time more wisely to learn the basic principles of:
byzantine generals problem
LN factories
consensus
multisig
You think multisig is the same thing as custodial. Why are you telling others to learn the basic principles of multisig if you haven't managed to do that yet? |
|
|
|
Let's be "frank" , this community weighs too much on LN and this is not ok.
In your opinion. And considering that I disagree with just about every " improvement" you've ever suggested for Bitcoin because they're all so poorly conceived, if we're being frank, your opinion isn't worth anything to me. |
|
|
|
Mining has three child boards without descriptions as well. Anyone have any suggestions for what those could be set as? All the Marketplace boards have descriptions, so the inconsistency strikes me as a little odd. Is it the moderator assigned to each section who is responsible for their descriptions?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
