😂
What is these post up to?
Who has that address and do you think you could use people to gain wealth for yourself 🙄
This is a puzzle of 120 but with modified public key. So now públic key not 120 bit, but a Mach smaller then 120 bit. Find a prickly, Publix’s in this thread and we get 1.2 btc Who is the owner of that 1.2 BTC? AGD what are you falling for this nonsense? This dude under the nickname "Manosuper" on GitHub is pursuing his own selfish goals. Do not pay attention! I'm not falling for anything here. I am only interested to know who the owner of these 1.2 BTC is. |
|
|
|
😂
What is these post up to?
Who has that address and do you think you could use people to gain wealth for yourself 🙄
This is a puzzle of 120 but with modified public key. So now públic key not 120 bit, but a Mach smaller then 120 bit. Find a prickly, Publix’s in this thread and we get 1.2 btc Who is the owner of that 1.2 BTC? |
|
|
|
hmmm i think that was impossible to know someone private key.
who belong that address ? is it yours
Probably not. That's why he is in a hurry to crack that. Helping to steal other peoples money is a crime btw. AFAIK even the attempt is. |
|
|
|
Lightning is awesome
I concur  seems to be a valid response, but my "me too" was just deleted by a moderator, why? the question of the op was in other words: is lightning good and what are your thougs and my answer is like AGD said: lightning is awesomeSome mods take censorship more serious than others. Some think that short postings don't add anything to the topic. So instead of just agreeing with one or two words you have to agree using a bunch of words, like "I concur from the bottom of my lonely heart and I wish that everybody else would learn about lightning, because it is so wonderful and awesome." |
|
|
|
Also applies to the routing amounts. Nobody can tell you which amounts are forwarded and which aren't, unless node operators make it public. Spoiler: Most node operators don't do that.
That is, your confidence that LN is confidential is based only on the assumption that node operators will not transmit transaction data to anyone. Does anyone believe that messengers are confidential, just because they will not share their information with anyone? What I'm saying is, that node operators only know about the routings of their own node. They don't know the origin and they don't know the destination of a transaction unless they started it themselve. Most of the node operators are completely unknown btw. So if somebody shares the info about the tx he was routing and how much fee he earned, you still don't know anything about the other nodes and you might never find out. Everybody is free to tell you how much Bitcoin he has, still many people won't tell you. Your initial statement was :"Nobody can tell you which amounts are forwarded and which aren't, unless node operators make it public.". And this is a true statement. From this statement another true statement follows: If node operators make their data public, then everything will be bad with privacy in LN. No one can guarantee that node operators will not do this. You can only believe in it. But, as the English proverb says, "When three know it, all know it". You didn't understand this part: They don't know the origin and they don't know the destination of a transaction unless they started it themselve. Means, if a node operator makes his data public, he will only lose his own privacy. Just like everyone who makes his finances available to public, because he doesn't know where the money is coming from and where it went to. The english proverb you provided doesn't apply to lightning, because when three know it, only these three now it and the rest of the 12000 nodes doesn't know shit. Everything is clear with this statement. It works if only one node operator discloses the data. ( and then not always). If we return to your statement again ( and to mine), then "node operators"were used there. Why did you decide that only ONE node operator will give its data. Where there is one, there are 2, and 3, ... And here everything depends on the number. Let's take the end users who will not keep the routed nodes. If one end user makes a transaction to another end user, then most likely 2 nodes (the sender node and the recipient node) are enough for the whole world to know about this transaction. And if we take into account that in the future, with a significant development of LN, there will be 98-99% of such end users,then the privacy of LN looks less convincing. Why are you discussing a non issue? What you say applies to everything: If one person gives something to another person and one or both disclose what they traded in public, then everybody that has this information will know what it was (unless they are lying)Did you contact the node operator that I have posted to you and did you find out about his routings and fees? No? Instead you are talking about things that you don't know anything about. Try to keep it real! Can you follow my lightning transactions or no? Do you know somebody who can? No? If you want to know about Lightning, than learn about it and we can discuss real things. You obviously can't add something with substance to this topic. |
|
|
|
Also applies to the routing amounts. Nobody can tell you which amounts are forwarded and which aren't, unless node operators make it public. Spoiler: Most node operators don't do that.
That is, your confidence that LN is confidential is based only on the assumption that node operators will not transmit transaction data to anyone. Does anyone believe that messengers are confidential, just because they will not share their information with anyone? What I'm saying is, that node operators only know about the routings of their own node. They don't know the origin and they don't know the destination of a transaction unless they started it themselve. Most of the node operators are completely unknown btw. So if somebody shares the info about the tx he was routing and how much fee he earned, you still don't know anything about the other nodes and you might never find out. Everybody is free to tell you how much Bitcoin he has, still many people won't tell you. Your initial statement was :"Nobody can tell you which amounts are forwarded and which aren't, unless node operators make it public.". And this is a true statement. From this statement another true statement follows: If node operators make their data public, then everything will be bad with privacy in LN. No one can guarantee that node operators will not do this. You can only believe in it. But, as the English proverb says, "When three know it, all know it". You didn't understand this part: They don't know the origin and they don't know the destination of a transaction unless they started it themselve. Means, if a node operator makes his data public, he will only lose his own privacy. Just like everyone who makes his finances available to public, because he doesn't know where the money is coming from and where it went to. The english proverb you provided doesn't apply to lightning, because when three know it, only these three now it and the rest of the 12000 nodes doesn't know shit. |
|
|
|
Also applies to the routing amounts. Nobody can tell you which amounts are forwarded and which aren't, unless node operators make it public. Spoiler: Most node operators don't do that.
That is, your confidence that LN is confidential is based only on the assumption that node operators will not transmit transaction data to anyone. Does anyone believe that messengers are confidential, just because they will not share their information with anyone? What I'm saying is, that node operators only know about the routings of their own node. They don't know the origin and they don't know the destination of a transaction unless they started it themselve. Most of the node operators are completely unknown btw. So if somebody shares the info about the tx he was routing and how much fee he earned, you still don't know anything about the other nodes and you might never find out. Everybody is free to tell you how much Bitcoin he has, still many people won't tell you. Just to show you the problem: Try to contact this node with a liquidity of more than 7 BTC 02fb22354383c240f9a04b194d610186cdec1045d961cb7989f254cb7c96498ab5@opwodusf33oapzmpg7nmtpjtdpauaa2m6ym2y6yvm7t2ju34x4jmctqd.onion:9735 and find out how much routings he has and how much fee he earns. If you achieved this (which I doubt you will), you still don't know much, because he can lie to you and also he doesnt know about origins and destinations of the txs he routed. |
|
|
|
...
Payments within the lightning network are not countable from the outside
There is no open ledger, which counts the payments made on lightning. Only node operators can count how many paments they are routing on their own node. They don't know what's exactly happening on other nodes. This makes lightning payments practically anonymous, which is a nice side effect. When people start to crunch numbers on how many payments the lightning network is able to handle, forget about them. They don't know because they can't!
Also applies to the routing amounts. Nobody can tell you which amounts are forwarded and which aren't, unless node operators make it public. Spoiler: Most node operators don't do that. Lightning is NOT a solution for big payments
Bitcoin is already able to handle this. You can send Bitcoins worth millions for a very small fee already, so there is no need to find another solution. Lightning fees are measured by the amount you send and not the tx size. Most big payments will be cheaper on the btc mainchain. Discussions about how big payments can be send over lightning are a non issue. Still people talk about the problem to send tx worth > 500USD through lightning, which in reality is no problem at all, but it could cost more than sending it on the mainchain. |
|
|
|
That shows how much you don't know about lightning.
..
Still no need to open a channel.
i have bitcoin. probably more then most there is no magic that a channel just appears i have to get an app and ask for a channel to be opened. if i want to spend i have to fund that channel (there is a big difference of language between 'dont need to open' and the reality of 'dont need to be the funding initiator') you can play mind games about how the channel opened but if i have to use another app which i have to download and i have to request a channel using such app. its still triggered by me even if a 'custodian' then 'initiates' it i do love it how people try to make things sound magical and utopian, but end result is the same if i want to spend coins. using LN.. it still requires a channel. and that channel is not magically existing already. its created by my request. and i still need to fund it but anyway have a nice day with you "LN solves everything" its weird that people are sooooooooo determined to say bitcoin is broke and another separate network is the sole solution everyone needs. even when bitcoin transactions are more guaranteed, and its the other network that cannot guarantee stuff when the solution is more broke than the presented problem.. its not a solution LN's biggest flaw. its liquidity. payment success for micropennies is ok payment success for 1 coffee is almost ok payment success for a months worth of coffee is varied and not always ok pizza has more issues weekly groceries is poor house rent is even worse you get the idea the more you want to spend the less chance you get to spend it so the LN fan philosophy is to pamper and promote LN beyond logic and outside of moral risk just to get OTHERS into LN for the hope OTHERS will facilitate the fans payments. whilst others then suffer the issues the fans avoid telling them about the flaw in that philosophy. is more people=more competitions for the route liquidity EG someone might have 1500,000sat ($450)(split into a a few channels of $150) they want to spend themselves. but they only allow 10,000sat($3) to be spent via autopilot routing of others so people end up in bottlenecks because everyones using up the $3 route to try getting their $150 spent .. and no . no one is silly enough to open up their whole $150 to be used by others. as the sub penny fee's of such act makes that channel void of spending in just 50 attempts. but at a cost that wont cover the fees onchain to re-org channels OK. Now you are presenting your typical ignorance about simple facts. I don't know if you are just silly or trolling. You know what? I put you and your dumb posts on ignore. Enough is enough. |
|
|
|
There is NO need for everybody to open channels
You can use a lightning wallet like Breez for example, which gives you inbound liquidity up to 0.04 BTC (4 million satoshis) and you can accept lightning payments instantly without caring about opening channels. You can use @lntxbot on Telegram to send and receive satoshis to/from everybody else on telegram. No need to open channels for this. There are more solutions like that. Find out for yourself
inbound accept .. the other persons question was in general.. 'if i have bitcoin and i want to spend..' you mention a "solution" where i have to pay a company. and they hand me channels so that i can 'receive' upto 0.04btc i dont think you really understood the situation and requirement i give you a hint. when people want to spend . they want an outbound solution oh and a quick search and it shows that breez offers that as point of sale merchant tool basically its like saying dont worry about bitcoin addresses, sign up to bitpay as your merchant shopping cart many dont want custodial solutions. and others dont want to spend funds to be given an option to receive after all wasnt that the point of bitcoin oh and yea breez is still not a solution for everyone That shows how much you don't know about lightning. To spend money you just have to send some into your Breez wallet (or get them for free by tipping etc). That's how the world works: Spend some if you have some. If you have no Bitcoin at all, you can't spend them. Still no need to open a channel. And yes, Breez (and other wallets like that) is the solution for everyone. Edit: i have to pay a company. and they hand me channel is completely wrong. You don't pay for the channel. |
|
|
|
devs are in the process of making lightning 2.0 (layer 3)
its where you dont vault up funds into a channel. but instead deposit funds into a factory multisig
the factory then offchain creates channels below it in millisats.
so users cant broadcast, but can close session with the factory and so the factory aggregates the channel balances and recreates new channels to rebalance the channels.
thus even less onchain transactions as it wont require onchain broadcasts/settlement to close/reopen
THIS is exciting. Do you have any documentation you can share? One of the biggest issues I have found with LN is the issue with locking funds up in a channel. I always thought this would be the main issue for many users. I am glad to see the LN devs are looking to improve on this model!! Answer given 3 posts before yours: Even knowing that op started this thread to shill a centralized random shitcoin (xrp), which definitely will NOT solve all scalability issues, I feel almost forced to clear some things up.
...
There is NO need for everybody to open channels
You can use a lightning wallet like Breez for example, which gives you inbound liquidity up to 0.04 BTC (4 million satoshis) and you can accept lightning payments instantly without caring about opening channels. You can use @lntxbot on Telegram to send and receive satoshis to/from everybody else on telegram. No need to open channels for this. There are more solutions like that. Find out for yourself
...
|
|
|
|
Dude, doxing is illegal and no matter how much we hate a person except for a corrupt and evil politician and megalomaniac businessmen, we can't afford to dox them and harassing is a bad thing.
I'm not doxing and neither harassing anyone. Btw. You can write a pm. |
|
|
|
|
A friend of mine wants to send Craig S. Wright flowers and a greeting card, but he doesn't know where Craig lives. Somebody?
|
|
|
|
|
Even knowing that op started this thread to shill a centralized random shitcoin (xrp), which definitely will NOT solve all scalability issues, I feel almost forced to clear some things up.
Lightning is NOT a solution for big payments
Bitcoin is already able to handle this. You can send Bitcoins worth millions for a very small fee already, so there is no need to find another solution. Lightning fees are measured by the amount you send and not the tx size. Most big payments will be cheaper on the btc mainchain. Discussions about how big payments can be send over lightning are a non issue.
Lightning is a solution for small payments
You can buy a coffee and a piece of cake with lightning and pay a very low fee. You can tip people a few satoshis and pay a very low fee. That's what lightning is good at.
There is NO need for everybody to open channels
You can use a lightning wallet like Breez for example, which gives you inbound liquidity up to 0.04 BTC (4 million satoshis) and you can accept lightning payments instantly without caring about opening channels. You can use @lntxbot on Telegram to send and receive satoshis to/from everybody else on telegram. No need to open channels for this. There are more solutions like that. Find out for yourself
Payments within the lightning network are not countable from the outside
There is no open ledger, which counts the payments made on lightning. Only node operators can count how many paments they are routing on their own node. They don't know what's exactly happening on other nodes. This makes lightning payments practically anonymous, which is a nice side effect. When people start to crunch numbers on how many payments the lightning network is able to handle, forget about them. They don't know because they can't!
|
|
|
|
|
It's going up if you zoom out.
|
|
|
|
Will it make me back a substantial amount more money?
When you buy Bitcoin you already have the best form of money. Few ... |
|
|
|
|
Dorian Nakamoto is not Satoshi. Pic is misleading.
|
|
|
|
|
Incredible how subtile you try to shill an altcoin of your preference into a Bitcoin forum. I got you.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
