That's my understanding.  One of the few limitations of BTCPay is that it doesn't allow you to convert to fiat right way, as tends to be common with centralised payment processors.  But the trade off is you have the advantages of hosting your own server.  So you don't have to rely on a centralised service that could shut you down.  You're also respecting the privacy of your customers by not handing their data over to third parties.  Plus, the priority for most companies, it usually saves on fees and is generally more cost effective over the long term.  If you run a company that isn't in any particular hurry to convert to fiat, it's pretty much a no-brainer.

"Consensus breaking" implies that consensus can never change.  It's fair to assume that no alternative clients have ever proposed a change with the ambition of becoming a minority chain that most users don't agree with.  But it's difficult to gauge support until users are actually running the code.  You can't put the cart before the horse and assume that every alternative client will be rejected by the majority just because it proposes a change to the current rules.

Otherwise, you play into the hands of BCH supporters who make claims that BTC development is centralised and that one dev team have total dominance over what the rules should be.  It's better if that decision is left to the users.  Which means allowing other clients to stand on equal ground and not sweeping them under the carpet as "altcoins", which smacks of social engineering.

Does that particular billboard poster really constitute "trolling"?  I figured that was just a word the media went with as a clickbait headline to attract more readers.  The wording of the billboard didn't strike me as overly provocative or inflammatory.  Mildly confrontational and direct, perhaps, but not what I'd call trolling.  And it was certainly more politely worded than anything Buffett has said recently.  This is just the internet making a big drama out of every little thing.  Abject sensationalism.

If Buffett can express his opinions, other people can express theirs in return.  Sounds fair enough to me.

Besides that, I'd imagine the guy has a pretty thick skin, being as outspoken as he is.  I'm sure he can handle it.  It's not like he's going to burst into tears because someone said "maybe you're wrong" on a billboard.

According to current groupthink, perhaps.  After all the years of people claiming this, I'm still not convinced.  Surely by definition, it's not an altcoin until it's on a separate blockchain?  If no fork has occurred, it's simply an alternative client which follows the current rules but proposes a potential change to consensus rules if enough people run the code.

People might not like the proposed changes in the client, but it's still disingenuous to call them altcoins prior to any fork.  If or when a minority fork takes place, then you can call it an altcoin.

There are clearly some incredibly vocal supporters of Core.  Some of them do take things to extremes.  While it generally pervades the forum narrative that it's the supporters of alternative clients who supposedly act with "bad intentions", it's worth pointing out that some of the more militant, tribalist Core supporters have exhibited behaviour in the past that could be considered an attack on consensus.  Things like encouraging client spoofing to manipulate statistics of current support levels, impersonating Satoshi to discredit fork proposals and even DDoS attacks on alternative clients.  We've seen all of that and more.  And I'll continue to argue against that kind of behaviour when I see it.  I'm under no illusion here that it's an incredibly hostile environment for alternative clients to make any ingress.  

But chances are, at the very least, some people will continue to describe any alternative client proposing consensus changes an "attack" or a "power grab" and have yet another "REKT" social engineering campaign whenever the opportunity arises.  Even for those of us who don't believe that's a rational argument (and I certainly don't, because there isn't a central entity in Bitcoin to take power from), there's nothing you can do to prevent them saying that, as they're free to express their opinions.  All anyone can do is state why you might disagree and argue a compelling case to the contrary.  Granted, I don't seem to be having much success with that here, but still.  I'll say it again just in case:  alternative clients that propose changes in consensus rules are not attacks, power grabs, coups, hostile takeovers, etc and should not be relegated to the altcoins subforum until a fork has occurred and that chain is the minority fork.

However, while I'm sympathetic to your stance, I have to make it clear that while supporters are acting in this way, that should be no reflection on what any dev team themselves are doing.  All the developers are doing is producing the code they think is best.  If they want to do that via strictly moderated channels and procedures to produce what they believe is the strongest and most resilient code, that's entirely their prerogative.



It once again sounds like you're blaming one particular dev team for the way in which it's difficult to change consensus in Bitcoin.  Any dev team can have prerequisites and processes that need to be adhered to in order to submit new code.  Just because Core are quite strict and regimented about what can go into their repo, it doesn't mean they have any influence about what code goes into other clients.  Ultimately it's still the users who are effectively forcing it work in this way, because it's the users who are choosing to run the code that has gone through such a rigorous process and rejecting other clients which may arguably be less stringent.  But again, if they could do it without the social engineering REKT silliness, that would be an improvement.  People should make more of an effort to be neutral and impartial about these things and not just jump on a bandwagon because it's popular.  Ultimately, though, if the current methods are what the majority of users approve of, that's how it'll continue to be done.  So blame the users, not that one dev team.  

It's worth emphasising that there is no one particluar developer the community should follow.  People will naturally run whichever client is most representative of the rules they think the network should be governed by.  No developer has any inalienable right to be the ones we "follow".  Since it is ultimately up to users, it shouldn't really be described as "taking over".  No one ever takes over the power users have.

In effect, we only follow them while they provide the best code.

For once, I'm inclined to agree with franky1.  XT, classic and unlimited were not "hostile takeovers".  They were merely proposals to change consensus.  Proposals which failed, but proposals nonetheless.  Where franky1 and I likely part ways is if, for example, XT had decided to fork away, but didn't have an economic majority or the most accumulated POW, but decided that they were the "real" Bitcoin.  That would be a hostile takeover, because they would then be trying to steal a name from a majority of users who disagreed with them.

Conversely, if XT had hypothetically forked and did have the economic support and accumulated POW to back it up, it would be the users then electing to change the consensus rules, so it wouldn't be a hostile takeover and could righty claim the mantle of Bitcoin.

As such, I'd argue that alternative clients can only be considered hostile after a fork has occurred.  Until then, they're just options for users to consider.

Looks like forking in pursuit of ASIC-resistance sometimes has its downsides.  Greater decentralisation isn't always the result, it would seem.  People should strongly consider how much they appreciate and value the security levels Bitcoin currently has.  Not something we should jeopardise lightly.

That's certainly the myth they want you to believe, heh.  In practice, they aren't making shopping easier for anyone but themselves.  They're just reducing their level of bureaucracy and paperwork, along with other administrative costs, by getting software to do the record-keeping for them in real-time.  That's all these companies care about.  Chances are, you won't even be able to see their blockchain.  The average consumer won't notice any difference at all.

The average employee, however, might well notice if their role entails administrative or auditing duties.  They're soon to be out of a job, sadly.

People ask this every year.  How long is a piece of string?  It's all speculation until we actually see it.

Personally, I think that while things are heading in the right direction, there's still a fair way to go before we're there.  Many still argue we're quite early in the adoption curve.  

In terms of "blockchain" adoption, however, that's largely unimportant.  Any companies adopting (or perhaps co-opting is more accurate) blockchain are just building walled-gardens for the cost-saving benefits.  They're not actually creating something for users to see any benefits.

You sound like you've only just watched an Andreas Antonopoulos video from 2014.  Something like this one, perhaps?  Are people now resorting to a kind of audio plagiarism now that we're getting hot on written plagiarism?

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.  It almost sounds like you're raising a legitimate concern that could genuinely affect users, rather than just spouting mindless propaganda about "banks".  You actually managed to make an entire post without blaming a particular group of developers for everything, well done.  That must have been difficult for you.  Why couldn't you just open with something that sounds reasonable like this, rather than the reams of utter drivel you've been posting lately?  I might have actually taken you seriously.  

If I soften my stance and concede there might be the occasional instance where this is an issue, is there a chance you might be able to soften your stance and concede there might actually be the occasional benefit to using the Lighting Network?  Maybe compromise and find a fair-minded middleground?  Or was this just another attempt at a cheap points-scoring exercise and you have no interest in being fair-minded or neutral about it because you're the embodiment of the tribalism you opportunistically use as a smokescreen for your attacks?  Is there some remote possibility that you might be able to say something positive about Lightning for once?

But as you've said, "don't assume, don't assume, don't assume", so let's run that scenario:

If Starbucks don't sign their half of the transaction, they've effectively let a customer walk out without paying for their coffee.  That customer could conceivably think the best course of action is to broadcast from an older transaction, but that's not really in the customer's best interests.  The more likely scenario is that when the customer goes back for another coffee, they say "Hey, you didn't sign the transaction for my last coffee, you need to do that before I can pay for today's coffee".  And the Starbucks staff would say "Oh yeah, we're a business and we need to accept money for our products and services or we'll go out of business, duh".  Well, okay, maybe they wouldn't say it quite like that, but clearly the financial incentive is there for Starbucks to hold up their end of the deal.  It's not like they don't have anything at stake.  They have operating costs to cover just like any other business.  And to cover those costs, they need to actually sell the coffee, not try to screw their customers over.

Companies want to accept your money.  Because companies that place barriers to transact will naturally lose customers.  And if a company deliberately tried to rip people off, like your scenario, that would probably involve larger problems, like negative publicity, a tarnished brand and possibly even consumer protection agencies, watchdogs and regulators getting involved.  In extreme cases, fines and other criminal proceedings.  

The path of least resistance (and consequence) is the honest one in this scenario (and many others).

Mohor - copy/paste with a few changed words:

copy:

original:


Another example:

copy:

original:

Another apt demonstration you haven't got the slightest clue how it works.  You both have keys, that's the entire point.  You are equals in this scenario, the other person in the channel doesn't have more power over you than you have over them.

---

Congratulations, that description encapsulates every single cryptocurrency and all on-chain transactions too.  If it applies to LN, it also applies to literally everything else in the cryptoverse, particularly centralised exchanges which are already subjected to such regulations.  Remind me again what your point was?



Tell that to all the people who had their accounts frozen and had to wait weeks or sometimes months to get their money back.  Better yet, tell that to the people who never got their money back.  

Centralised exchanges are a throwback to the outdated "traditional" finance system.  Bitcoin was specifically designed as a transaction between a sender and a recipient.  It was not designed so you could hand over your money to total strangers on the internet and ask them not to lose it.  Engaging in such archaic behaviour is not "superior", it's downright backwards.  

Still, not everyone can be enlightened enough to understand progress.  You should head back to the comforting familiarity of your cave, neanderthal man.



It's clearly not the only way.  Show me a link to where anyone has ever uttered the words "Lightning is the only way to scale Bitcoin".  If you can find one, I'll happily go on record to say they're as braindead as you clearly are.



Said the Anti-LN (or should that be Anti-Cen?) troll.  You sound roughly on par with that level of utter gormlessness.

No it isn't.  Exchanges are custodial because they, and only they, hold the keys.  Multisig (and the clue is in the name, so this shouldn't be so difficult for you) means multiple people can hold the keys.  But even with multiple people involved, Lightning still allows each user to control their portion of the funds in that channel.  Even when you open a channel with another person/business/hub/whatever, they don't have control of your portion of the funds until you send a transaction within that channel to them, effectively signing control of those funds over to them.  Which is how a payment should work.

It seems like definitions really aren't your strong suit.  You always seem to assume words mean whatever happens to fit your warped conclusions best.  



LN already supports more transactions per second than BCH does.  Maybe throw stones about scaling after you get out of your glass house.



Revocations are only there to disincentivise cheating.  In practice, they shouldn't often be used.  The only think being revoked is permission to spend from anything but the most recent balance, because if you could freely spend from an older balance without consequence, it would be easy to steal money and no one would use it.  

Revocations are also very much proof that you're wrong about LN hubs being equivalent to banks.  If hubs could control your money like a fiat bank or exchange does, there would be no need for revocations.  So thanks for undermining your own (ridiculous) argument with that one.  



Any more shots you'd like to aim directly into your own foot?  

The natural assumption tends to be that changing the algorithm would be favourable to smaller manufactures since it (in theory) levels the playing field, but I'm not convinced of that.  If Bitmain have already achieved ROI for the hardware they've made, while competitors to Bitmain have either only just launched (or are still developing) their hardware, those other manufacturers will take a much bigger hit to their finances than Bitmain will.  Imagine if they're forced to go back to the drawing board, wiping out the funds they've spent on R&D without having the opportunity to recoup those losses with some healthy sales, just because we opted for the nuclear option of an algo change.  Why should they have to suffer for it?  It could conceivably bankrupt some of the potential future competitors and actually reinforce the current dominance of Bitmain.  

As such, I argue that the best course of action is inaction.

*Decries LN "banks" which aren't actually banks at all, then tells people to use exchanges like actual banks*  

You realise that's pretty stupid advice right?  With exchanges, you're trusting that third party to be the custodian of those funds.  You are giving them your money, making them the owner of that money, and asking them to look after it for you.  With a multisig setup, you still have control over your funds.  I don't care how complex or confusing you think it is, it's still more secure to control your own private keys.

If you want to hand your money over to total strangers on the internet, go right ahead.  Don't come crying to us when you lose it.



Centralised exchanges are far more likely to be subject to KYC/AML than LN is, again demonstrating the absurdity of your argument.  But again, go right ahead and take the "too dim to understand the benefits" option and hand your money over to strangers.  It's not like you'll have any other option if you're using BCH anyway.  At least BTC is giving users a choice over how they want to handle their privacy and security.  I would much rather open a payment channel over depositing funds to an exchange.  

Plus, for altcoin trading, we won't even need exchanges anymore when atomic cross chain transfers mean we can hop from one blockchain to another without any middlemen holding funds in between.  Although, again, BCH users won't have the option to attend that party due to their limited vision.  LN is a step towards the death of custodial banking, the exact opposite of what you attempt to portray it as.

People here on the forum did that immature REKT nonsense.  Why lie and blame an entire dev team for the actions of some forum users?  There was a time where I respected your opinions, but that's rapidly fading since you now seem to be making shit up and blaming developers for things they didn't do.



The two mindsets clearly weren't compatible, so yes, a fork was inevitable.  The writing was on the wall.  Honestly, I think there should have been a fork sooner to spare a load of unnecessary drama.  Right at the start, when Gavin first proposed the 20MB plan.  Would have been healthier for all involved.  Could have let the market decide straight away and spared us the years of infighting.  



And one of those networks couldn't find a block to save its life due to a barely noticeable hashrate, so it implemented emergency difficulty adjustments and limped on, despite the fact that only a few people seemed to care about it.  Most of the forum activity surrounding BCH was due to the novelty and controversy of it.  Not because people thought it was a good idea.  Otherwise they would have been running the software and BCH would have had more nodes.  Stop pretending this was an equal split.  BCH would have been stillborn had it not been for the EDA.  Dead on arrival.  Because no one gave enough of a fuck to run the code.  That's what actually happened.  



What is there to defend?  Core made some code.  Many liked it, some didn't.  So a small number of users who didn't agree went off to do their own thing, which is fine.  But then those small number of users started lying for some reason and it makes them look really petty and weak.  They should probably stop lying before they lose what little respect they have left.  

I don't need to convince them of anything.  They can see it happening with their own eyes.  All the reasoning in the world isn't going to change the fact that multiple algorithms now have ASICs designed to mine them.  I'll change my mind when, or if, an algorithm is proven to be uncrackable.  

I also don't understand why you're fixating on the geographical locale.  Would hardware that isn't manufactured overseas be more comforting to you somehow?



Cool, so should I expect to see your algorithm being used in loads of major coins soon, then?  Clearly you've got it all figured out.  An entire multi-billion dollar industry is about to be disrupted by your revelatory interpretation.

Y'know, that, or your idea won't amount to anything.  It's bound to be one or the other.  

So you're going to pretend you didn't post in the very thread where it appears Satoshi did have ideas about not broadcasting to the network until the final outcome is reached?

I'm going to be blunt here, I don't think anyone with such limited cognition so as to perceive payment channels as "banks" is capable of judging the intricacies and depth of Satoshi's vision.  If I open multiple payment channels with other users, that doesn't give me the status of a "bank".  I'm not creating money out of thin air.  I'm not engaging in fractional reserve.  I'm not conducting KYC/AML checks.  I'm not gambling on a $1.2 quadrillion toxic derivatives market.  Categorically not a bank.



The users have said that Bitcoin is going to follow the roadmap that has been laid out by Core.  That's all that matters.  If that wasn't what the users wanted, it wouldn't be what we currently have.  Now stop trying to twist events to suit your skewed narrative.  Developers can't force changes upon users.  I have and use bech32 SegWit addresses.  Not because a developer made me, but because I chose to.  You follow whatever fork follows your desired roadmap, no one's forcing you to stick around and follow this one.

---

Constantly repeating your backwards, regressive opinions doesn't make them true.  At any time and for any reason the users could decide they don't want to use Core's software.  But that hasn't happened yet.  The users happily continue to use that software.  By choice.

Nope.  The whole idea is precisely that it won't need to perform in the same way a GPU does, so they don't have to worry about the "very wide range of calculations" a GPU would have to deal with.  That means they can engineer around the problem and focus solely on the calculations they need to worry about to do the "work".  That's why ASICs are faster to mine with than state of the art GPUs.  They are dedicated to one singular purpose.

That's what Vorrick means when he says:

It's like the difference between a high performance, yet road-legal, sports car versus a Formula One / NASCAR / Le Mans car.  The latter ones are generally going to be faster because they're purpose built for racing and never have to worry about traffic calming speed bumps like a normal sports car has to cope with.  However, you can bet that if Formula One / NASCAR / Le Mans changed the rules to say the race courses could have speed bumps, the engineers would immediately plow untold sums of money into developing a car that would still be fast over speed bumps.  Hence, why making PoW more complicated isn't going to slow them down for long.