*sigh*

I suppose I asked for this by trying to be reasonable and giving you the benefit of the doubt.  I gave you an inch and you took a mile, or several miles, even.  Won't make that mistake again.  It's zero-tolerance for franky1 bullshit from here on in.  

---

Quoting this for posterity just so you can't go back and edit it later.  I literally... can't... even... words fail me.  Wow.  Best "scenario" yet.

---

I've got a scenario for you to run.  If LN really is as horrendous as you make it out to be, no one in their right mind would use it.  As you point out, it will be cheaper, more convenient and more secure to use altcoins if what you're saying is true.  So why would so many independent developers now be working on this concept if it was obvious that we'd be handing BTC's #1 position in the market on a plate to some other coin?  Why would they dedicate their time, knowledge and expertise to making BTC worse?  Why would so many people, including all the ones who are clearly far more knowledgeable about this than you are (which is basically ALL OF THEM), be enthusiastic about the potential for this technology if they thought even for a split-second that you were right about any of this?  Maybe the scenario you need to run is the one where you've turned into a conspiracy theorist who has isolated himself to the point where no one takes him seriously anymore.

More to the point, why am I even dignifying your "scenarios" by calling them that?  I can make up a crazy story that isn't possible in the real world and then call it a scenario.  Doesn't mean it could actually happen, though.  Stop running hypothetical what-ifs from la-la land that clearly wouldn't play out like that in practice.  Give us proof.  Go ahead and buy 3000 coffees and somehow manage to keep your BTC.  Show us that's possible.  I would love to see how that works out for you.

As I'm not a developer, in layman's terms, how complicated a task is it to mash all the different Lightning ideas together and keep it all compatible, over multiple dev teams with their own implementations?  We've got Channel Factories, Eltoo, Atomic Multi-Path, Atomic Swaps, Watchtowers and probably a few other interesting ideas besides.  I'm amazed by all the ingenuity on display with this stuff.  The only small downside is that every new idea will probably mean it takes that little bit longer to reach the stage where it's all seamlessly integrated and relatively user-friendly.  A price worth paying, for sure, though.

What?!  Is this your first time using a search engine or something?  That organisation is not even remotely relevant to the OP's question.  Information Commissioner's Office != Initial Coin Offerings.  Please don't tell people to cost themselves money by calling a UK group specialising in Data Protection, Freedom of Information requests and the new GDPR legislation just to ask them about some random crapcoin they'll never have even head of.  That's just a waste of everyone's time.

There is no "head office" that handles initial coin offerings.

If you ever learn how to point out the flaws without giving misleading information in the process, then by all means do that.  I don't want this place to become an echo-chamber.  I welcome dissent.  But FUD is not the same thing as dissent.  Funds are not "locked forever".  Multisig in LN doesn't mean they have equal control over your portion of the funds in the channel (a standard multisig wallet would mean they do, but LN makes use of smart contracts).  Funds are never "in limbo", they are always anchored to a blockchain.  None of those things you claimed are true.  There are probably other examples, but I really can't be bothered re-reading the thread to point them out.  But surely, whatever you actually believe, you must know that anyone who understands LN will recognise that those things you've said are untrue.  If you have no self respect and your credibility doesn't matter to you, you're on the right path.  You can't just make shit up and then claim you're only trying to be neutral.  You can't be "brutally honest" if what you're saying is demonstrably false.  Someone will call you out on it.  Plus, it doesn't do your cause any favours.  If people can't trust you, they're more likely to believe the people you say you're fighting against.  Now be honest, did you genuinely not understand that some of the things you've said were factually incorrect (which is something we can forgive and move on from)?  Or are you being willfully insincere and manipulative?

There's a difference between 'balancing the scales' and 'smashing the scales with a sledgehammer and then flipping the table like a total asshat'.  If you're doing the latter, people are naturally going to assume you aren't attempting to be neutral.  That's clearly not the behaviour of someone with pure intentions.  Maybe try aiming for balance for once if that's what you claim you're trying to do.  If I can admit there are some negatives, then you need to admit there are some positives.  Or don't.  I can keep playing this game of whack-a-FUD and keep calling you a troll, zealot, extremist, fundamentalist, etc.  It's up to you.  As always, you're totally free to choose.  But choices have consequences, so choose wisely.  My preference is that you admit your mistakes and we can have a more civilised conversation going forwards.

Also, how would anyone believe LN is the sole future for scaling?  Again, there's Schnorr, MAST, AMP (which, admittedly, is an add-on to Lightning, but still), plus whatever other features I've already forgotten about in the pipeline.  And if we find it's needed along the way, there's still the option of larger blocks.  But aside from larger blocks, what other developments did you have in mind for scaling?  



Again, I don't mind you pointing out genuine faults.  There are actually a few things you said where I agreed, because they are genuine issues.  There are ways in which you can lose funds.  Routing isn't faultless.  Lightning isn't perfect.  It's not ready for the average user yet.  By all means continue to point those things out if it sounds like people are 'all aboard the hype-train'.  Those responses are perfectly valid.  But so much of what you've said is factually incorrect, there's no other conclusion I can arrive at than you being an idiot or a troll.  You need to understand that if I see someone constantly posting things that aren't true, I'm going to give that person a hard time, whether it be about Lightning or anything else.  You don't combat extreme hype with extreme FUD.  You debate using reasoned and well-researched responses.  You demonstrate that you are capable of being neutral and considering both the positives and the negatives.  Show me where you have considered the positives.  There's no evidence of it in this thread that I can recall.  If you can start being reasonable and moderate about this stuff, I'll stop giving you grief.  I don't think that's too much to ask.  

It's undoubtedly easier for us to recognise that Zin-Zang is a troll, because we have the experience and knowledge to make an informed judgement.  But it would be just as easy for anyone new to Bitcoin to be lured in by such posts and start believing something that's not true.  Best to nip it in the bud.  The last thing we need is a whole forum full of people claiming it's some sort of conspiracy to create "banking 2.0".

Riiiiiiiight...  

So, when I point out that your entire argument effectively boils down to:

"Lightning isn't perfect, so people shouldn't be allowed to have the option of using or developing it"

your response to that is:

"If you run some scenarios and make a really long post with pictures and everything, you'll see that Lightning isn't perfect, so people shouldn't be allowed to have the option of using or developing it"

Well, that changes everything.  I'm totally convinced now.  



Seriously, are you blind or something?  I'll use all the emphasis this forum software has to offer, just for good measure:  

I already accept that Lightning isn't perfect.

Is that clear enough for you?  Do I need to make it blink or use a <banner> tag like something from the geocities-era of the internet to get you to notice?  I am running scenarios.  I recognise the potential pitfalls.  I acknowledge there are risks.  I accept it is possible to lose funds.  I understand that routing won't have a flawless, magical guarantee.  How many more ways do I need to say it before it sinks in to your head?

The thing I am questioning is not your ability to make increasingly technical posts to explain why it isn't perfect.  I am questioning the premise of your argument.  The entire basis of it.  The part where you seem to think it's a valid argument to say that because there are risks of losing funds and it isn't perfect, that we shouldn't be allowed to even try.  That is a stupid premise.  Bitcoin and the whole crypto movement would never have got off the ground to begin with if people weren't prepared to take some risks.  And risks aren't justification to say we can't do it.  We are allowed to do whatever we like and, providing enough of us agree, no one can stop us.

Look at how many people have already lost untold fortunes in Bitcoin's fairly brief history by losing their password, private key or seedwords.  At any time over the course of the last few years, there could have been an undiscovered exploit that someone used to compromise the security of the network and the whole thing would have come crashing down.  Everyone could lose everything.  Does that mean we should have stopped using and developing Bitcoin itself because there's the potential for people to lose money?  Is that really what you're arguing?  Because it sure as hell sounds like that's what you're arguing.  

There are risks of losing funds if you keep most or all of your money on centralised exchanges or webwallets.  We've already seen people lose everything they had.  But I don't see you vehemently pissing into the wind to say we can't have those.  Where are your unrelenting attacks on third parties in full control of customer funds?  We can keep arguing the toss over exactly how much control users have of their funds in Lightning, but I don't think even you have the gall to claim it's less control than users have with an exchange.  Why isn't that the issue you literally won't STFU about?

If you want a brand new technology with zero risks to the people using it, I suggest you go invent one.  We don't have those here in crypto.  If you want a safety net and someone to hold your hand or give you a cuddle because all this stuff is a bit too scary for you, tough shit, we can't help you.  Run crying to Mummy if you need comforting.  All we have to offer are personal responsibility and freedom.  You do what you want with your funds, you follow whatever chain you want to follow, you decide what risks you're prepared to take.  But at no point do you get to tell us what to do.  We've decided what we're doing.  You can't stop us.  End of.



They also need to know how Lightning actually works, which is why I have to keep correcting you when you make flagrantly false claims and totally exaggerate the risks.  When I refute you, I'm doing it because you are taking things to extremes.  I'm merely trying to drag you, kicking and screaming like the total infant you are, back to the sensible middleground.  I'm not saying Lightning is a magical land of rainbows and fairies and chocolate fucking raindrops.  It clearly isn't.  But nor is it some sordid conspiracy to recreate the banking sector, you total crackpot.

If you just approached things from a moderate perspective instead of being some hardline fundamentalist about it, I'd consider going a little easier on you.  Until then, I'm happy to keep ridiculing you.  If it looks, talks and acts like a fool, I'm going to call it a fool.

I don't see why anyone would fight against your view.  Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.  There's no compelling reason to trust strangers on the internet with either our money or our personally identifiable and financially sensitive data. 

Also, you don't need to take chances on random, unknown (and potentially malicious) ICOs and airdrops in order to be successful in crypto.  The more you play with fire, the more you risk getting burned.  It's better to stick with known quantities and established, reputable altcoins.

An exploit like heartbleed could also allow an attacker to drain the funds from your standard BTC or altcoin wallet.  Maybe you should just stop using all crypto.  You clearly aren't cut out for this stuff.  



Except they won't be lost forever.  Also, this delay is only in the event of an uncooperative other party or you are the one forcing the channel closed.  If you're dealing with a legitimate retailer/merchant and they become uncooperative and cause inconvenience to their customers, they're not going to attract much business.  It's in their financial interest to follow the rules.  For the average person, this isn't going to be much of an issue.  It's fair to assume normal people ren't going to attempt running the largest node on the network.  But perhaps the larger hubs may have greater concerns in this regard, since there may be slightly less incentive for those connecting to them to play by the rules.  But then that supports the notion that LN won't result in a small number of giant, centralised hubs, instead of how you keep arguing it will.  So, as usual, thank you for undermining your own argument.

At this stage we don't even need to refute your misinterpretation of it.  We'll just quote you, so that when you realise how totally and utterly wrong you are, you won't be able to go back and edit your posts to mask your ignorance.  Anyone who does understand how this works can immediately recognise how totally unknowledgeable you and franky1 are.  Providing you act within the rules of the network and stay online to counteract any malicious activity by the other party, you are in total control of your portion of the funds in the channel.  That's how it's designed to work.  Learn smart contracts.

If you mistakenly spend from an outdated channel state or go offline and miss the expiry of the timelock, then that's a breach of the smart contract, so yes, you can potentially lose control of your funds in those situations.  But as the technology advances, developers will clearly work on reducing those risks as much as they can. 

I'm seeing too many people attempting to frame this as negative news for Bitcoin.  It's good news.  This is only going to affect altcoins and creators of malware who steal processing power from unassuming device owners.  The average person might become more receptive to crypto if nefarious people weren't constantly trying to get them to install apps that slow down their phones and tablets.

Except for the part where it isn't.



You should probably GTFO of crypto, then.  Everything is in beta. 



It's beyond adorable you think you have anything to offer in terms of development.



I'm all about giving people options.  You're about authority and telling people what they can and can't do. 

Also, what's your alternative proposal?  What do you think we should be doing instead of LN?  Larger blocks?  Tell me what the point is in having two BCHs.  How is that, in any way, productive?  If you want larger blocks, there is already a blockchain that caters to your needs.  You're free to choose that one if you like.  But you're not making our choices for us.  Get a clue.
 


Some of us are just more patient than others. 

No one is denying there are ways in which you can lose your funds, but you're embellishing the risks.  The threat of losing funds is the required disincentive to cheat.  You're criticising the very thing that makes it work.  If there were no revocations in LN, it would be easier to steal funds.  Try learning the basics, perhaps?



Yes, it does sound realistic that you would deliberately use something in a way it wasn't meant to be used at this stage to make it sound like it can't do anything.  Way to be the extremist I recognise you as.  You are fully aware (since you've said it in other threads) that, in the early stages, LN will be most ideally suited for recurring payments to the same recipient, not random one-off payments to 84 different recipients.  Obviously there's no practical way to conduct transactions like that yet with the limited number of users.  

It's also worth noting that if you are using the testnet, that now has fewer nodes than mainnet does.

However, as Lightning usage grows and matures over time, spending in that manner might, in future, start to become a plausible option, depending on adoption and how people freely choose to use it.  Market forces are in action so the outcome is not predictable.  We'll just have to wait and see how it all unfolds (as it's clearly not going to stop, despite your incessant protests).

You really are contemptible if you think that it not being perfect out of the box is a good reason to give up on it.  Particularly if you then use the double standard to claim that other people are saying it's already perfect (when it obviously isn't), when you're the one arguing it has to be all or nothing straight off the bat.



"A certain time" is not the same as "Forever".  If you have spent from an old transaction state, they can issue a penalty transaction and take all the funds.  If you haven't spent from an old transaction state and they close the channel unilaterally while the CLTV is in effect, they get their portion of the funds in the channel back, not your portion.  If the innocent party went offline and the CLTV elapses, the malicious party then has the opportunity to steal all the funds.  You learn LN.

I'm tired of trying to explain it to you, so I'm just going to quote other sources (rather than just making up a total load of bullshit like you are):

---

---

You need to let go of your preconceived misconceptions and bias before you will understand this stuff properly.  I know that's easier said than done, but it would help if you at least made a slight effort to reform your ways.  If you aren't going to make an effort, I'm going to keep assuming you're a troll.  



No one is suggesting it is perfect.  They are suggesting it has a great deal of potential for the future.  As in, not right now, in case you need it explained what "the future" means.  I'm merely suggesting that:  

a) you are totally exaggerating the downsides,
b) you are resorting to outright FUD and manipulation,
c) you clearly don't understand it well enough to be in a position to comment and I'm not convinced you have actually used it,
d) comparing LN to banks makes you look like either a totally ignorant newb or a malicious troll (and it's honestly hard to tell which it is with you).

People are allowed to be excited about new features.  Just because you're a dour detractor, doesn't mean everyone has to share your dismal and bleak outlook.



Again, absolutely none of that is a reason not to develop and improve it.  What?  You spotted something wrong so that means we should drop everything and do what you want instead?  You think that's how life works?  Go ahead and have your little tantrums about it.  No one cares.  

Also, I'm highly skeptical that you managed to have any influence whatsoever on the development process, so I'm going to need someone with an actual reputation to corroborate that claim.



I'm still waiting for you to do that, as you seemingly don't live in the real world.  Again, you're arguing that everything has to be 100% perfect for it to be even remotely acceptable, whilst simultaneously arguing  that the fact it's not perfect (which everyone already knows and understands) means we should abandon it to focus on on-chain features.  On-chain features are being developed.  Stop being a petulant child about this.  Market forces are at work and you don't get to make the call about who develops what.  

Lightning is not perfect, but people are going to keep working on it because they want to.  That's their choice.  Nothing to do with you.  None of your goddamn business.  If you want more on-chain development, go develop something, rather than talking out of your arse and trying to derail legitimate work with your FUD nonsense.  No one is saying it's perfect, drop the damn strawman already.

Guess it will never be apparent to you that you don't have to route through a hub if you don't want to.  Try actually learning how it works instead of repeating the crap you've absorbed from reddit.  It's as peer-to-peer as you're willing to make it. 

I mean, perhaps you might need to rely on a hub, since you don't strike me as the kind of person that people would voluntarily want to associate with, let alone transact with.   

Seems like you've spent too long looking at franky1's bus.

True, but network effects mean that the more coins which are LN-enabled, the more useful the network becomes.  Plus, with atomic swaps via LN, we don't need to rely as heavily on centralised exchanges.  This can only ever be a positive for crypto as a whole.
  


You say that like having the choice is somehow a bad thing.  How is this a problem?  



True again.  But some people are creatures of habit and make the same routine purchases.  I know that, unless I've booked time off work, I'll spend between £3 and £4 in the staff canteen each day that I'm in for a full shift.  It's easy to plan ahead for that sort of thing.  It's literally no different to making sure there are enough physical notes and coins in your wallet before you leave the house each day if you're a fan of paying in cash.  It doesn't require a goddamn PhD or bachelor's degree to figure out.  Just because it isn't a one-size-fits all deal, that doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue it.



Many would argue that no one is "stalling" anything and that you're expressing an opinion rather than a fact.  Also, on-chain features doesn't necessarily mean changing the size of blocks.  Things to improve on-chain scaling are already in development.  Schnorr Sigs and MAST could both result in smaller transactions, meaning we can squeeze more transactions into a block.  PSBT could give us the option to make payments completely offline without an internet connection and then settle them on-chain at a later time, so you may be able to time it strategically to record it on the blockchain when network traffic is calmer and fees are lower.  Making more efficient use of existing resources should be considered before simply burning through more resources.  Bitcoin is still on the bleeding edge of innovation.  Most of the altcoins that claim the latest and greatest features are just throwing buzzwords around and aren't actually delivering any real innovation.

Anonymint didn't get banned because people don't like him, though.  He got banned for ban-evasion and disrupting unrelated threads with his doomsday prognostications.  He derails and dominates every thread he posts in.  As he's proven time and again, he's perfectly capable of registering new accounts totally undetected.  If he were to do that and just post like a normal human being, he'd probably never get caught.  But every time, he has to broadcast to the world that he's Anonymint and he's here to tell us everything is broken yet again, even though it isn't.  Apparently posting here just doesn't stroke his ego enough unless his small number of fans know for sure that it's him.  So they ban him for ban-evasion for the Nth time because he openly flouts it.  He says he's never going to post here again but, much like every other claim he's ever made, I'll believe it when I see it.

I'm not sure about the prefixing threads with a particular tag, but I think it would be an improvement to simply make all threads self-moderated by default.  There could also be a message displayed during thread creation along the lines of:

To ease the growing burden on forum staff, all users are openly encouraged to delete off topic, spam and low quality replies from their topics.  All topics are now self-moderated by default.  Help keep the forums clean and tidy!

It's a pretty big change, though.  Are there any downsides people can think of?  Any potential for abuse, etc?

And there's a very good reason for that.  He always argues that some terrible event is going to occur at some unspecified time in the future.  You can't empirically prove anything one way or the other until it doesn't happen.  And it never does.  But by the time it was supposed to have happened, Anonymint has already moved on to "imminent" catastrophe #573853 and everyone has already forgotten about whatever alarmist flailing he was doing before.  Complete and utter headcase. 

He clearly likes the attention and the odd occasions some person gets the mistaken impression that he's actually smart.  When, in truth, it's just an overactive imagination, a strong vocabulary and a flair for the dramatic.  Don't be taken in by it.

Bitcoin is like Wesley Snipes?  There's definitely a joke about not paying taxes in there somewhere.   

It's sometimes difficult to come up with simple ways to explain Bitcoin to the masses, so I wouldn't say your efforts here are silly at all.  If I manage to think of anything to add, I'll edit it in here later.

Provided you draw a clear line between individual businesses implementing their own KYC procedures and nothing whatsoever being implemented at the protocol level, then that's fine.

Businesses have laws they have to adhere to.  Even if those laws are a direct cause of identity theft, by mandating that companies store a vast trove of customers' personally identifiable and financially sensitive information for hackers to then steal.  Yay for dumb laws!

Would you care to name this supposed third party? 



Which is a positive, rather than a negative.  Just wait for Atomic Swaps to kick in and then see what you're missing out on if you use a coin that isn't Lightning-enabled.  This is all stuff that's going to come later, though.



Now that's a sensible critique.  While it is technically "out", it's mostly the advanced technical users testing the waters right now.  We're still very early in the adoption curve.  There's a loooong way to go before any of this is user-friendly enough for the average member of the public.