It doesn't need more "investment".  It just needs time to mature.  And no matter how much you try (in vain) to derail it, it's going to get that time.  When people say that Lightning is a solution, they don't mean right this second and that everyone should use it now.  As usual, you're twisting the narrative to suit your agenda.  



The community DO want this code.  If you recall, we had a whole civil war about this.  It's decided now.  I think what you mean to say is you want the devs to develop the code YOU want them to develop.  That's clearly not happening.  You learn consensus.

---

Except that's not even remotely true.  Merklized Abstract Syntax Trees, Schnorr Signatures and other things are being actively developed right now.  No one has "given up" on anything.

And the fact that you frequently decry Lightning has nothing whatsoever to do with your support for franky1?   

But you're not wrong about the "special attention" part.  You both deserve plenty of that.  I'll be watching your posts very closely...

Ugh... that's not even a word.  Why does anyone take you seriously?  



Sounds remarkably like Bitcoin itself back in the day.  In fact, even people today are still losing funds because they're sending forked coins to BTC addresses and vice-versa.  You shouldn't move funds into any crypto if you aren't willing to risk a small chance of losing them.  The idea of development is that it gets incrementally better.  And it will.  No one is claiming LN is "perfect" right now, so stop pretending otherwise.

The current one.  There's nothing wrong with it, despite what franky1 might claim.  He's just throwing tantrums because he can't get his own way.



You don't have to follow a certain roadmap.  You are free to create a client that proposes an entirely new roadmap.  The problem you seem to be having is that people either:

a) don't approve of your proposed roadmap, or
b) don't have a particularly strong opinion one way or the other and are just going with the flow, or
c) are already using another coin that has a similar roadmap to the one you keep whining BTC should have

If more people felt the way you do, the current roadmap wouldn't be the current roadmap.  Or do you think all these thousands of BTC nodes are being run just for the fun of it?  Each of those nodes is testament to the fact that BTC's present course is locked in and you can't do anything to change it, unless you can build a layer on top of Bitcoin that is more to your liking.  You're free to do that too.

I see what you're doing.  You want more people to feel the way you do.  That's why you're taking thinly-veiled potshots at the current roadmap in most of the topics you participate in.  No one's falling for it.

The only nail in the coffin for me would be if Bitcoin somehow became a closed-source and permissioned system.  A "walled garden" where people weren't able to view or modify the source, or create the software they wanted to create.  Freedom is the most important thing for me.

In a way, it's less about the difference between Bitcoin and altcoin "investors" and more about the difference between people who are invested for the right reasons and those who are merely speculating.  

There aren't that many altcoins which will genuinely disrupt the more traditional industries or improve the world in any meaningful way for the average person.  Most altcoins exist primarily as speculative assets, so it stands to reason that "investors" (read: speculators) would have a shorter attention span.  Once the hype has died down, it's time to cash in and move on to the next shiny collection of buzzwords and gimmicks and pump that one instead.  The motivation there is greed.

Bitcoin fulfills an actual purpose.  Some people invest not just with their money, but with their belief and aspirations.  They invest their time and understanding, which are often far more valuable.  They invest in it for the ethos and not just the potential profits.  They recognise that freedom and privacy are important qualities that need to be preserved in a world that appears to be undermining them.  The motivation is a little more wholesome and genuine.  Definitely something to stick around for.  

I'm honestly not sure how else I can explain it.  Neither A nor B are cheating in this scenario.  No one needs to "decide" or "judge" anything.  Your premise is flawed because you've made an incorrect assumption about how it works.  

Read this explanation to understand the process involved.  "Agreement" only happens once both parties have revoked the previous commitment state.  One party can't "send an agreement" and then accuse the other party of cheating if they "claim" they haven't got it.  It doesn't work like that.  No one can make "claims" about anything.  It's a binary outcome.  Either both parties have agreed, or they haven't.  If they haven't, that doesn't necessarily mean someone is cheating.  It only means the commitment state doesn't change.

Again, in your example, N is still the current state and neither party can take the other party's coins.  There are no penalties involved, as no one is attempting to spend from a revoked commitment state.  If B hasn't sent A the key to revoke payment from N, there is no N+1.  If Party B has not agreed to N+1, they won't send Party A their key for N.  Party A is therefore unable to agree to N+1 if they don't possess party B's key for N.  N+1 cannot exist unless both parties have revoked N.

So you continue to maintain this total fiction that "developers control the network"?  Even though the code they produce has no power unless people choose to run it?  Cool, destroy those tattered remnants of your credibility that little bit further.  Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of consensus can recognise that you are talking nonsense.  Users and miners made this happen.  They made that choice.  Developers just provided them with the tools to do so.  So blame the users and miners (except you can't, because it doesn't fit your narrative).  Consensus made it happen, so blame consensus rather than making ludicrous claims that it was "bypassed".  That's what happens if you run incompatible code and you don't have sufficient numbers behind you.  It's designed to work that way.  If you were forked off the network as a result, that's on you.

If I didn't care about Bitcoin, I wouldn't keep challenging your manipulative FUD posts.  You think you can tell developers, users and miners what they can or can't do in a permissionless system.  As someone who cares about Bitcoin, I think it's vital for everyone to be able to make their own decisions.  You think developers should be forced to stop working on off-chain solutions and drag them kicking and screaming back to the base protocol when that's not what they want to work on.  As someone who cares about Bitcoin, I think developers are free to create anything their vision and talent can manifest, even if it's an alternative client that some would claim is an "attack", "hostile takeover", "coup", whatever (much like how you claim LN is an attack on Bitcoin).  You think you can foist undesirable changes onto nodes that do not want them.  As someone who cares about Bitcoin, I think nodes are vital to the network's resilience and we should not make things prohibitively costly for them.  

SegWit is opt-in.  Bech32 is opt-in.  Lightning is opt-in.  However, imposing greater on-chain throughput onto nodes that do not want greater on-chain throughput is NOT opt-in.  Why do you think you get to force your authoritarian views on others when there are already other chains that cater to your wishes?  That's what you're doing when you insist that we "open up the 4mb space for BOTH segwit and legacy to coexist and get the optimum 15k plus tx capacity".  There are blockchains where nodes freely choose to accept greater on-chain throughput, but that's not this chain.  It would be advantageous for you to use a chain where people share your views.  Stop pretending that you respect the decision this chain has made when all you want to do is overturn it.

Also, it takes two sides to have a disagreement.  There would not have been a fork at all if everyone agreed.  Some chose to run the code that adhered to consensus on the BTC chain, while others chose to run code that did not adhere to consensus on the BTC chain.  Sounds like freedom to me.  Why do you not apportion blame equally to both sides?  Clearly we could not reach an agreement where everyone was satisfied.  And it seems like you still can't find one long after the rest of us have moved on from this matter.  And be under no illusion that we have absolutely moved on.  So it's far better if everyone moves forward in a direction they are happy with, even if that means parting ways.  It gives people greater freedom and choice that way.

Consensus means you run the code you want to run and you will be automatically matched with other people running compatible code.  You will then build a blockchain together and ideally reap the benefits of any network effects you jointly produce.  That's how this works.  You can either adhere to consensus or you fork away and form your own consensus with others.  Whatever you believe the developers and the code did or didn't do, it doesn't really matter anymore.  It's moot and it's done.  The simple fact is that people chose to run that code and consequences happened which you seriously need to get the hell over.



Said the fascist trying to enforce things.  

Your ideas are not compatible with permissionless freedom.  I say that without emotion.  You are being emotional.  Stop whining about things you can't change and move on.

Also, start a new thread for this if you feel the need to continue.  This topic is supposed to be about breadwallet.  If users don't like the change developers have made, usage of breadwallet will naturally decrease.  It's entirely up to the users, as it should be.  There is no "forced change", as you were alluding to when you first started derailing the thread:


Name the users that have had a gun put to their heads by the breadwallet devs to force them to run this new code.  Name one.  Breadwallet may have applied pressure to some businesses to implement bech32 support, but no users are being forced to run code they don't want to run.

You keep saying that as though it matters...

Maybe one day you'll realise it doesn't and that you're pretty much the only one who seems to care.

Repeat if in every thread for the rest of time if you like, it's not changing anything.  Much like the blockchain itself, history can't be undone.

And even if it could be undone, do you honestly think we're going to agree to roll it all back to how it was and then invite Roger Ver over for tea and sodding biscuits?   

You are literally broken in the head.  Seek help.

No.  No one has said that.  

As with all of your other lies and manipulations, it's literally just you claiming that people are saying it's utopia.  It's just you claiming that people think Bitcoin is broken.  It's just you claiming that on-chain development is being stalled.  How about you stop making claims that further reveal you to be a lying troll?



Because you keep derailing perfectly good threads.  You are the one claiming the current direction we're moving in is making BTC worse. 



Learn to read.  I didn't say it was.  I'll repeat what I said:


There are enough people who do support it to make you and your troll screed insignificant.  If enough people felt strongly enough to have opposed SegWit, we'd all be using BCH by now.  And clearly that isn't happening.  I'm sorry reality can't be more accommodating for you.

Yes, now that your LN arguments have been obliterated, let's get back to SegWit and breadwallet.

Permissionless.  Breadwallet devs are free to design a client that only uses bech32 if that's what they believe the best course of action is.  If users don't want to have bech32 addresses, they are free to continue to run older versions of breadwallet, or even a totally different client.  

You are free to not use SegWit.  I'm sure you must know that because no one has put a gun to your head to make you use it.  It is always entirely up to you what code you install and run.  The choice is yours.  However, if lots of people choose to run software that has activated SegWit on this network, you have to respect their decision.  You don't have to agree with it (and clearly you never will), but you don't have a choice in accepting the reality that you have no say whatsoever in what code they choose to run.  If you can't abide by that, again, feel free to use other networks where SegWit has not been activated.  We won't miss you.

Lightning.  Is.  Not.  Even.  Close.  To.  How.  Banks.  Work.

Your confusion stems from the fact you haven't got the faintest clue how Lightning works.



You're the only person dealing in absolutes.  We're all saying development is going to continue so that both Bitcoin and LN incrementally improve over time.  You're the one who says it's all-or-nothing and everything has to be on-chain or bust.  



That's good.  Interoperability between chains is a feature, not a bug.  Atomic swaps will be good.  Why do you keep arguing good things are bad?



You're the one saying it's broke.  We think it's coming along just fine.



You go play with the "other" networks.  There are plenty of crappy forks where your primitive mindset would be more than welcome.  



Development to improve the base protocol continues.  Again, you're the only one arguing all-or-nothing.  Some developers work on Bitcoin because that's what they freely choose to work on.  Some are developing different Lightning implementations because that's what they freely choose to work on.  You are the one claiming that development on the base protocol is being stalled, which is a total fabrication on your part.
  


You can't force them to "return", you fascist twunt.  Permissionless.  They can do whatever they like.  



You have BCH for that.  You constantly fail to answer every time I ask you:

What is the point in having two BCHs?  

You want larger blocks?  You've got them.  Go play with them.  Leave us in peace.  The scientific approach is to test multiple theories, not repeat the same idea on every fork.  If you think the "real" Bitcoin is purely on-chain, use that network that likes to pretend it's the real Bitcoin (but doesn't have the numbers behind it to back that claim).  
 


The only thing that's dead around here is your credibility.

The alert system wasn't only disbanded due to concerns over who could send what message, but also because of a potential vulnerability involving DoS attacks on full nodes:


I don't think they're in any hurry to bring it back in a slightly different guise.  There would be a certain irony if we inadvertently introduced new security risks while attempting to safeguard against potential future security risks.

And apart from "herp derp blocksize increase", how would you have created a better LN?  You keep saying that everything about Lightning is wrong (and many disagree with you, but that's not the point).  What do you have to offer to make LN better?  Clearly Lightning is not going away, so what constructive contributions can you offer in your infinite wisdom?  If all you can do is suggest things that don't help improve Lightning, what function do you serve? 

Yes, part of the security model is that both parties have to agree on what the current state is.  Would you prefer it if the other party could send you transactions you hadn't agreed to in an attemp to trick you into spending from an older state?  Is that how LN would work if franky1 was in charge?  Of course not.  So stop trying to paint useful security features as a flaw, you manipulative weasel.

So in Bitcoin Discussion, there are four "child boards" and two of them have pretty decent descriptions, but I think Press and particularly Meetups require a bit of tweaking:

Current:

Press Notable press hits

Meetups

Proposed:

Press Notable press hits about Bitcoin

Meetups Find conferences, summits, workshops and other notable gatherings in your area

People seem to be mistaking Meetups for "two dudes hanging out in a basement" or something.  And some people still think they can post any news (even related to altcoins) in the Press section.  Simple descriptions can help remedy these mishaps.

The nearest source is actually closer than you might think.  

Not sure how people always miss it, but perhaps that's a topic better suited to Meta.  [//EDIT: done.]

There isn't an N+1 unless both parties agree that there is an N+1.  Otherwise N is the current state, regardless of what anyone "claims".  In this example, B can withdraw their funds from N without a penalty.  There's no cheating involved, because no one is trying to spend from an old state.  N is the current state.  

However, it's worth pointing out that B does have a financial incentive to agree to N+1, because it sounds like A wants to send them more BTC.  It's a strange example you're using.  I assume in your example you are positioning A as a malicious actor attempting to trick B to steal their coins?  If so, A won't have much luck with that.

N+1 can only become the current state if A and B both lock N+1 with a new key and have also sent each other the old keys for N to revoke payments from that state.  Once payments have been revoked from N, if either party then attempts to spend from N, that's where a penalty would come into play.

I think the problem you might be having is that you associate the word "transaction" with a one-sided push payment like it works with regular on-chain transactions.  Once you've sent it, it belongs to someone else.  In Lightning, however, a transaction involves the other party effectively approving the transaction.  If you send a payment, it only belongs to the other person once they've accepted the latest state and revoked payments from the old state.



But it's not "trust" keeping people honest, it's "consequence".  Play by the rules or risk losing funds.

I wasn't aware that being a coder was some sort of mandatory prerequisite to contribute to the conversation.  Many people arguably prefer Wind_FURY's insights over your own, so let's play nice, okay?



In your opinion.  Clearly the breadwallet devs (who, being coders, you clearly concede have the right to make that determination) disagree with you on that part.

You and whoever you are transacting with are both the referees.  You keep each other honest.  It's explained here.


In essence, they can't trick you into spending from an old channel state because you both have to agree on what the current state is.

Also, there's apparently going to be less reliance on this penalty method as Lightning matures.  People are already talking about eltoo and achieving the same result without needing penalties.

More likely, it's precisely because they do understand the benefits that they declare it illegal.  Control over the money is control over the populace.  Anywhere that has declared Bitcoin illegal clearly has no interest in freedom for its people.  More marketing won't change that, sadly.