And we should just take your word on that because...?  



This could be why people aren't taking you seriously.  Network latency and bandwidth are the resources people are primarily concerned with.  Not Storage.  



Correction:  that's what you need for your strategy to succeed.  Lighting already has numerous committed groups of developers, backed with the support of the community, devoted to a healthy balance between both on-chain and off-chain improvements.  That's why Lightning is happening and your strategy isn't.  Telling us you don't like the current strategy won't make us suddenly like yours better.  And it definitely won't make us start building it for you.  Pay someone to make it if you're that desperate.  



Are you even hearing yourself right now?  We don't need anything from you.  You are not here to "save us".  Your "proposals" are not a required factor in the equation.  I can't even begin to imagine how self-aggrandising you must be to genuinely believe Bitcoin can't move forward without your input.  Get over yourself.

-IF- Lightning were to become centralised (and there's no guarantee that's going to occur), then only the second layer is centralised and the base blockchain is still decentralised.  Starting to get it yet?  This course of action preserves the decentralisation of Bitcoin.  That's why people like it.



Consensus.  Users, miners and developers have to support a proposed change, otherwise it doesn't change.  This really isn't as complicated as you're making it out to be.  If you can find enough support for your ideas, they will be adopted.  But that very much remains to be seen.

Say we did halve the blocktime to 5 minutes, effectively doubling throughput, but consequently providing the same multiplier to the speed at which the blockchain grows.  It's not that much of an increase in capacity, but it places more of a burden on the resources required by full nodes.  In comparison, Lightning could easily provide x20 or more capacity with zero cost to full nodes.  That's what you have to compete with.  You can't come up with anything like a x20 or more increase by fiddling with the blocktime, unless you set it to something ridiculous like 30 seconds.  I wish you the best of luck if you think for a second that's a viable direction.  You're going to need it.

Ambivalent.  

I don't see ETFs as a boon for Bitcoin.  They don't help improve the technology.  They won't bring any genuine adoption.  They can't demonstrate to normal people why Bitcoin is important.  If ETFs get approved, all it does is reinforce the misguided notion that Bitcoin is purely a speculative asset and lets banksters place their bets from the sidelines.  I'd rather see price discovery occur organically through ordinary people finding a genuine benefit to using Bitcoin, not through a bunch of Wall Street Whales and their automated high-frequency-trading algorithms manipulating everything to shit.  It's had to imagine why people are looking forward to that, unless they don't actually care about the future of crypto and are just in this for a "quick buck".



What the SEC seem to fail to comprehend is that any market can be manipulated if you throw enough money at it.  HFT is often abused for this purpose.

That's just it, though.  I'm not the one deciding that.  You are.  That's what you don't understand.  

You are the one freely choosing to be irrelevant by thinking you can dictate the direction of this project all by yourself, when literally everyone else is completely ignoring your blocktime ideas because they don't care and think that Lightning is the right course of action.  Blame me all you want, I'm not the one making them not care about your ideas.  They just don't.  That's how it is.  If you want more on-chain throughput, there are other forks which cater to that.  Or you can make your own.  Go start a thread in altcoins if you're serious.

The beauty of open source, permissionless systems is that if you don't like the path everyone else is following, you can forge your own.  But consequently, you have to accept that you're on your own if you don't like what everyone else is doing.  And I don't know how many more times I need to say it, but if you really do think you've got the right idea (you clearly haven't, but I don't expect that to stop you), go ahead and make whatever crap it is you're talking about and prove it's the right path.  I don't know what else there is to say.  Go make it.  See who runs it.  Stop whining that no one has shown the slightest interest in making it for you.  We heard you the first dozen times, but still no one cares.  

Not only did Lightning make the more convincing technical arguments, it also sparked the imaginations of people who realised they could extend the functionality even further and build even greater things, so that's what we've opted to do.  Tinkering with the blocktime simply doesn't achieve that same inspirational and transformative effect.  By all means belligerently stand there and keep pissing into the wind if you like, but things are set in motion now and there's a certain impetus to it that you simply can't fight against.  The work is already well underway.



Excuse me?  Your sole purpose in this thread is to boldly declare that all of the extraordinary work that has gone into Lightning so far is a total waste of time!  If that's your idea of "productive" then I'm afraid there's nothing we can do to help you.  You're way too far gone in the head.  

There is nothing "productive" about you telling us everything that's happening right now is wrong, particularly when you haven't got anything better to offer.  Your "attitude" is that you are somehow entitled to the skill and talent of other developers in the community to bring your vision to life.  That's just not happening.  Developers aren't a free resource you get to leech from if your ideas aren't compatible.  Sorry if my pointing out the glaringly obvious is causing you so much distress.  If anything, I'm trying to save your valuable time by suggesting it might not be the best idea to keep pointlessly smashing your head against a brick wall in a desperate attempt to get attention for your proposed sad and lonely altcoin which you can't even get off the ground.  

We're not making your crap, so either do it the easy way and accept that no one cares, or go make it by yourself, then come back when you have something to show and learn the hard way that no one cares.  The rest of us are quite liking the sound of this Lightning stuff and are watching intently to see how it all unfolds.  

Some might argue that spammers being effectively incentivised to tidy up their own mess is a good thing, heh.  Sounds like a win if the mods would normally have to delete them anyway.  

And yet, there's Lit.  A wholly non-commercial project for Lightning.  Tell us what the business strategy is there.



Yes, exactly, "for you".  As in, "no one else".  You are just one person impotently fighting the tide.  No one cares about your old ideas because everyone else is moving forwards and progressing together.  You are an insignificant nothing moving backwards alone.  Have fun with that.  Or go make a coin with franky1.  Then you can be two insignificant nothings going backwards together. 

You don't matter.  We're going forwards.  Lightning is happening.  It's as simple as that.

*facepalm*


There's a difference between "complementary to" and "competing with".  LN is the former, not the latter.  It's not competing with Bitcoin, it strengthens Bitcoin.  It gives users greater choice and new possibilities for how to transact.  But if you don't want to use it, don't.  It's up to you.



There is an active process.  In case you hadn't noticed, Lightning has its own developers, while other developers are still working on sensible and risk-free improvements for the base protocol.  Schnorr sigs are one such improvement in the pipeline.  There are others too.  Look them up.  Again, just because no one gives a crap about your crude blocktime fiddling (which, by the way, had already been ruled out by the community several years before you showed up, which is why no one but you wants to work on it), doesn't mean development is being "frozen".  



Proprietary?  As there are at least three different Lightning implementations, kindly enlighten us as to which of those companies is the owner of the trademark.  Oh, that's right, it's not proprietary at all.  It's free software, which is the complete and total opposite of proprietary software.  See the licence text from:
 
Blockstream's c-lightning
Lightning Labs' neutrino
ACINQ's eclair

Not proprietary.  Get a clue.



You first.

Sorry, but no.  You and franky1 are the ones who are full of shit.  I find you two, along with anonymint, to be by far the top three most insufferable parasites on this entire forum.  

You both keep mouthing off about all the parts of development you believe are totally wrong, yet you either can't or won't build anything that would make it better without sacrificing any of the qualities which genuine Bitcoin users actually appreciate.  The reason I approve of LN is because it's built on top in a new layer and doesn't compromise the base protocol.  Conversely, just about every "bright idea" you and franky1 have ever come up with would almost certainly endanger the protocol in some form or another.  If franky1 wants to ruin decentralisation by having nothing but on-chain transactions, he has BCH for that.  There's no point in having two BCH coins, so why replicate what they're doing here?  And if you would happily throw the network's security out the window over your ridiculous obsession with annihilating ASICs and pools, you need to go make something that doesn't have those things.  No one in their right mind would launch your totally untested and unverified brainfarts onto this blockchain.  That's not how it works.  If you want to propose radical changes to the base protocol, you need to prove it works first by building it, putting it on a testnet and proving beyond all reasonable doubt that your concept is sound, not just blowing a load of hot air like you know exactly how to "fix" everything without consequence.  Or, alternatively, build it as a new layer on top of Bitcoin where no one can stop you.

My argument with your "improvements" (in the loosest possible sense of the word) isn't that "it is impossible to reach a consensus", it's that "your wholly theoretical and largely insane ideas will never find consensus".  All the things written about in that Lightning blog will undergo extensive and rigorous testing, even though they can't harm the base protocol in any way.  Then they'll be implemented because stuff built of top of Bitcoin doesn't need consensus.  These concepts, unlike your ideas, can and probably will happen.  They are also infinitely more likely to help move Bitcoin forward than anything you have ever come up with.  If you don't want to see those things come to fruition, too bad for you.  Those are the things people are freely choosing to work on.  Go cry a river because no one wants to dedicate their time or effort to develop your dumb ideas.  We don't care.  

So understand where the difference lies between us.  I'm supportive of legitimate improvements that have a decent likelihood of going live.  You and franky1 are proponents of things that won't happen in Bitcoin and would arguably make Bitcoin worse.  It doesn't matter if you think I'm a shill or not, this is the direction things are undeniably moving in.  Lightning is happening, no matter how many times either of you spout your inane drivel about it being a "failed project".  I suggest you get used to it.

It's certainly a bold idea, but I suspect it might fall afoul of theymos' stance that:

While new users are still learning, it may not be fair to expect too much, too soon.  They might have worked really hard for their first merit and I could understand some serious disillusionment if they happened to earn it at 90+ activity just for the new system to tear it away from them again shortly after.  

Don't get me wrong, though, I like the idea overall.  I'd be more than happy for higher ranks that inherited some initial starting merit to be subject to those rules.

Merit is entirely subjective, so my views may not be representative of the community as a whole.  Maybe there will be other members who primarily stick to the altcoin subforums because they see value in it.  And perhaps those sections will get more merit sources going forwards.  But it's incredibly rare for me to award merit in those sections.  And based on what I generally see, it appears as though people often deem posts in the Bitcoin and Meta sections of the boards more valuable in terms of the amount of merit being given there.  

No one is saying you shouldn't discuss altcoins, because there are occasions where that can be beneficial.  But it just seems a bit of a rarity for people to be imparting any real knowledge and understanding in those areas and just want to talk about pump'n'dumps.  Everything seems to boil down to "profit" instead of learning and educating, which is what I'd definitely like to see more of, personally.  But I'm certainly in no position to claim what the "official" stance is.

I skimmed through the last 10 pages of your post history.  I didn't spot any posts in a language I can understand that were discussing Bitcoin.  Everything was altcoins, airdrops, bounties and ways to make money.  Contrary to popular belief, that's not what this forum is for.  If some of your posts in the local boards were discussion Bitcoin, then you need to complain to the people in your local boards.  In all 10 pages I read, I couldn't find a single thing I could award a merit for.  Clearly you can speak English well, so perhaps try getting involved in more discussions where the topic is about Bitcoin and then you might be able to contribute something people deem valuable.

Firstly, this topic is posted in the wrong forum and belongs in Meta.  I don't think it's unfair to say that if you can't even post things in the right part of the forum, you shouldn't be eligible to attain higher ranks.  

Secondly, the forum has a big issue at the moment with low-quality posts.  This has nothing to do with your IP or location.  The new rules apply to everyone equally.  If you haven't earned any merits, you can't be a Jr Member anymore.

Read this thread and all will be explained.  In future, try to search the forums to see if there are any threads about it already. 

True enough, I was just too lazy to look up the latest version numbers for other clients and Core just happens to be at the top-left of the page.  

Armoury is 0.96.0, so based on their version number, they might still see it as beta software
Electrum, conversely, is up to 3.2.3, so based on that, they probably view it as more of a full release

It will definitely vary from one group of devs to another.  They'll naturally all have different ideas about how "complete" their implementation is.



It's certainly an arguable point.  Most of the current end-users probably see it as, effectively, a finished product, but many devs might still see these as early days because they've still got loads more ideas they want to explore and, perhaps one day, implement.  However, while it might be easy for current, moderately tech-savvy, users to take for granted, Bitcoin still isn't quite user-friendly enough for the average person to deal with yet.  There are certainly custodian services that simplify things, but that's not what I think of as "proper" usage.  Because of that, I personally still tend to lean more towards it being in beta.

As usual, your beliefs are totally and utterly wrong.  You'd first have to understand what I'm saying before you could even begin to attempt correcting me.  And it really shouldn't be that hard because anyone with half a brain can understand this.  You've yet to demonstrate you've understood a single thing anyone has ever told you about Lightning, because you're too busy spreading FUD and trying to draw false analogies with traditional finance to absorb into your thick skull what's being said.

When you and another party both deposit funds into a Lightning multisig, the other party doesn't have the same control over your portion of the coins in that channel as you do.  If you don't spend from an outdated channel state (and eltoo apparently improves on this anyway), you maintain 100% control over your portion of the funds in that channel until the point you freely choose to sign them over to the other party.  They can't broadcast a revocation to take your portion of the funds unless you break the rules.  Granted, it's still possible to break the rules by mistake and lose your funds, but that's why it's still under active development and people shouldn't be using it to deal with larger sums of money yet.

I can't even begin to imagine how you could willfully distort that understanding to mean that anyone could believe you could buy 3000 coffees and still keep your coins, but that's just how astoundingly broken your mind is.  How about you run the scenario where people might actually take you seriously if you made sure you were correct in what you were saying before you said it (and generally weren't such a total bellend).



Learn that factories are basically a proposal at this point?  Learn that if there is a flaw with them that it would be promptly fixed?  Learn that their practical implementation hasn't even been finalised?  Learn that you're a worthless troll and you're talking out of your arse?  Oh wait, we already knew that.

---

For anyone that wants to read some informed insights into future LN developments, rather than franky1's demented verbal flailings, there's a good blog here that goes into a lot (and I mean a lot) of detail.

It's an important point that everyone tends to forget because it's something that works so well:

Bitcoin is still effectively in beta.

People spend so long fixating on the price swings that they totally forget about how much stuff is still on the to-do list.  A 0.x version generally denotes software that isn't deemed a full release candidate yet and the latest Bitcoin Core is 0.16.2 so clearly still beta software.  Lightning is also very much in early beta.  There's so much more to come.  People need to be patient.

I think we should all run franky1's scenario where he thinks being in full control of your balance means you still control it after you've spent it.  He's clearly an authority on the inner workings of the Lightning Network.   

Every time he says "run some scenarios", what he actually means is "make some shit up that doesn't accurately describe how LN works" and then tell other people they have a utopian mindset when they explain how it actually works.   

You might wish to move this topic to the more appropriate Meetups board.  That's generally where all the conferences and seminars get posted.  It often helps to put the date and location in the subject line, too.

Sending coins to a forked chain doesn't give you a balance on that chain (with the notable exception of a fork that hasn't implemented replay protection, because then it gets messy, heh).  As far as BCD's network is concerned, no transaction has taken place.  It can't see those coins the OP has mistakenly sent.  So there's no possibility of duplicating them.  

The BTC chain, however, knows that the coins have been sent to an address format it recognises (again, assuming BCD didn't screw around with that).  So if you can retrieve the private keys to spend from that address, the BTC chain will treat it as a normal transaction.  

Is it a wallet you have control over?  Or is it an exchange or webwallet?  If it's a wallet you control, you need to export the correct private key from the BCD wallet you accidentally sent the funds to.  Then import that private key into a BTC wallet.  Assuming BCD haven't changed the relevant parts of the code in their fork, it should give you access to your coins again.

Numerous reasons:

• A protest against "too big to fail" banks and the current bailout culture
• Hedging against endless quantitative easing and money printing
• Privacy concerns over the increased surveillance of our spending habits
• Some have moved to Bitcoin out of necessity as their national currencies are collapsing
• Censorship resistance, so no one is able to block or reverse your payments
• Your personally identifiable information isn't required, so there's less risk of identify theft
• Freedom and independence, where you have full and total control over your money

All of these are things that should be plainly obvious by this point.  After nine years, you'd think people would have got the message by now.  Just because some short-sighted people are trying to use Bitcoin like a get-rich-quick scheme, doesn't mean it is one.