As said correctly by ranochigo, it's impractical to use radio waves for anything beyond the block headers. So while you can send bitcoins this way, you can't have the necessary proof that the bitcoins have been sent, the transaction has been confirmed etc. Governments restricting access to Bitcoin through the internet would be pretty difficult enough; unless they shut down the entire internet. Nah, just censor everything. It's not an internet anymore, but you can provide them the basics, such as the government's website, Facebook, YouTube etc. You can restrict their freedom if you're a government, but it just pointless in the long-term. For how long will you violate their rights? People have provably shown they find a way. (e.g., Bitcoin) |
|
|
|
I accept to take part in this discussion and not be biased towards franky, but I want to add this as a condition: We'll speak of one topic at a time. Scalability? Scalability. Lightning's protocol? Lightning's protocol. Consensus? Consensus. This way we can clarify which are our interlocutor's disagreements and constructively (& friendly) correct them. My opinion regarding the Lightning Network can be interpreted by the following example I've written; Picture it as following; bitcoin is a type of metal and you ought to store it in a safe place. However, you can't pay with a metal for everyday transactions. Thus, you go to a guy who's willing to give you the option to give him a portion of your bitcoin in exchange for the ability to create agreements with other people who have also given their bitcoin this way. Now you can transact without touching your metal at all. It's faster, cheaper and smarter way to transact.
That being said, add that this guy cannot cheat or lie to you in any way. You've handed out your coins, but they can't steal them from you. You're free to withdraw their promise for BTC anytime you want without their permission. (Which means that, essentially, it's not a promise)
Fuckin' genius I'll say.
|
|
|
|
Well, it's as the messages say. You have no route to Boltz. I successfully opened a channel with Boltz to make it work. It appears that the lightning daemon just needed a restart. Okay, so I sent them 0.0025 LN-tBTC and have probably increased my receiving capacity. Shouldn't I now be able to send my node a few sats? Why do I still get the same error? Is there any other client you advice me to use instead of Electrum? No matter how much I've googled I haven't understood why this happens... For a quick hack, you can kind of 'force detach' it by adding a & at the end like this: ./lightningd & Nice! I didn't know that. |
|
|
|
the average transaction fee for the last year has been over $2. and in the last 3 years has seen fee's of upto $60 Yes, for several days. But, everyday in average it's not more than a few cents for regular transactions. So what's your point? In 2016 there were transactions with fees up to $1000. I agree that it's more than $0.07 usually, but not a lot more. the N of LN pretty much explains its a different network. Congratulations Sherlock, but we never told you that Lightning and Bitcoin were of the same network. We were telling you that it's the same currency, but the millisat subunit had blinded you. Find me one post where I have told you that the Lightning Network is part of the Bitcoin Network. It's a layer, build on top of the existing network. It's a completely different network that works on an already existent network. im not the one trying to ban users. You're banning my time when I waste it trying to clear up your mess. 1. rath was pretending [...] Rath consecutively pretends according to your sayings. According to you, he's a lying bastard who wants to harm the Bitcoin environment by working on a scummy project. Sorry, but you're the only person who sees things like that. I'm not going to talk about Rath's pizza for one more time. People can read the discussion and judge by themselves if he's indeed a storyteller. 2&6. funnily enough a topic called "Re: is bitcoin scalability problem solve now?" was indeed about bitcoin scaling. and not advertising other networks You don't get to decide what's off-topic and what's not. If you think one's post is off-topic report it. However, when a user talks about the scalability problem it's reasonable enough to see Lightning posts. You've stuck on the network thing. Move on. Blackhat does not understand this fact, even when its in the title of said topic. So within your limits, the only thing that we should discuss as a solution there would be to increase the block size. Or shouldn't we as it's officially your punchline? also. balackhats opinions are not of his own mind. he says the exact same things as doomad did. like a script 'Cause I decided to shut your mouth in discussions where you kept talking about the same things. but here is the thing. i dont actually ignore, delete message, request bans of the altnet supporters. i simply debunk their rhetoric adverts and PR campaigns of misleading other BITCOIN readers And why would you? You feel like you're shutting us up with your heavily valid and reliable arguments. People usually act like this only when they feel really annoyed. the insane thing is. when they want bitcoin to change to allow offramps to other networks, and they call for a exodus of users away from bitcoin, their response is that those not wanting to offramp/exodus off, those people then have a choice to exodus and offramp away from bitcoin if those users dont like the idea of being offramped. Not that I understand the entire sentence, but you're probably talking about the awful way we're forcing our ideas again? Yeah, hey: We outnumber you. These ideas are supported by the overwhelming majority of the Bitcoin envisioners.
Also, stop talking about our Lightning disagreements in here. It's off-topic, something that I've been blamed by you. If you want to continue this further create a thread in the Bitcoin Discussion and humiliate me. |
|
|
|
Yes, I guess that would be the most convenient way if it is possible for this router. Google returns me some decent results. Have you tried them? Using Tor may solve my problem partially, I will try to set up that, but I am still looking for a way to do that also for clearnet connections. Excuse me from asking but why do you want clear net connections? Is speed necessary for your job? There's no other downside when you're going through Tor. Unless you want to contribute to the clear net on purpose, there's no reason other than speed to not use Tor. |
|
|
|
Do you want to know how to make this possible with this very router? Do you specifically want to know how to port forward your router? How about allowing incoming connections in another way? If you install Tor and set listen=1, listenonion=1 and discover=1 in your configuration file, you will have incoming connections without port forwarding. It's just how Tor works. Check: Setting up a Tor hidden serviceHowever if you want to receive incoming connections in clear net you're forced to port forward. The procedure of port forwarding it is different in each router and some internet providers require their permission to do it. |
|
|
|
I'm not accusing you or anyone else of being on the extreme end of those things, but wouldn't you agree that banning a member based on his opinions is just a wee bit authoritarian? Not when those opinions are expressed in an enforcing manner, no. I give emphasis to the fact that he's been officially banned from the Dev & Tech board and that he's the only person who has ever accomplished such thing. There's not a forum/community I've ever been on that does tolerate these people. And that's probably why he's on bitcointalk. Anyway, I'm not against freedom of expressing one's opinions, but it's much more complicated with this occasion. If only he just expressed his opinion... If you see someone who constantly disagrees with what you are saying, the only thing possible is to ignore them And that's probably what I'm going to do from now on. |
|
|
|
|
What's the point of disallowing the URL tag from newbies if there's no reason for the spammers to use it? The former just harms the honest users if the latter is actualized. For that reason, I'll just support the second suggestion.
I'm also surprised this hasn't been thought by anyone for so long. I mean this place keeps getting shilled, do you look in your emails? I must receive the new deliverer tokens once a day as I follow the Bitcoin Discussion board and bunch of others.
|
|
|
|
Yes, but the moderators should not be the truth gatekeepers either. Would you really want that? To me that sounds very authoritarian If you ask me I prefer having some people who constantly throw into confusion outa here than leaving this place in its chaotic mercy. You aren't either absolutely totalitarian or disgustingly libertarian. History has shown exaggerations fail. As I said, everything in moderation. We're a forum after all. I'd like to see him get some support for whatever mental disorder he's got going on Yeah... About that  Again, die in a fire plz. Absolute waste of oxygen. As for this, I'm fully agreed: Eventually, once you've debunked all the lies, he just resorts to semantics and wordplay. And by that point no one is going to be convinced by what he's saying anyway. However, as I've underlined above, I'm more discouraged than encouraged to pay this man attention by starting all those wrangles. To reach the point where he starts resorting to semantics and wordplay, a page of wall-sized posts is required. By knowing there's a high chance for the discussion to be removed after all this mess, I don't even take the time. Ah, OK I've just realized that there is no authomatic system, it is just that if he publishes there his posts will be moved or deleted. From what I've noticed, he's banned in theory, but in practice he can disrupt a lot. The existence of the post you've linked proves he's not completely banned from that board, but instead confusing the users with the same shit. however, I don't think he is posting in bad faith. How do you interpret bad faith? I can characterize him an immature, inhibited scum the least. |
|
|
|
|
I assume you can't do that as it's way too heavy for the server. Imagine getting the full Wall Observer in one shot. It'd crash.
|
|
|
|
Then challenge it instead of ignoring him. I do, but it's a lost game after all. He doesn't care about his writings, I do. He can't comprehend where he's wrong, I'm forced to highlight it. He doesn't syllogize his counter-proposals, I must provide valid arguments to make a point. Now add to these that he's mocking you on every single post and repeats the same things. Does it worth even having a conversation with him? No. Does his opinion affect some people? Can't say for sure, but having him banned from the Dev & Tech board shows me he's disapproved by some mod(s). Is this some sort of limitation of the forum's free speech that I'm unaware? Why not getting him rid of for good? Once and for all. Usually this is what happens to a user who's constantly reported for trolling. (And actually gets his posts deleted) Let people think for themselves, even if they're newbies being exposed to franky1's posts. You (or the forum) don't need to be the gatekeeper of the truth. This works oppositely too: Should you leave a malicious user cunningly propagandize against you? Isn't reporting also considered gatekeeping of the truth? All I'm saying is that he gets his posts deleted very often which discourages you to argue with him even if you know he's lying. create a solid rebuttal thread with all the LN stuff etc and respond with a link to that thread when he derails a discussion, thus negating his potential negative impact on newbies etc. That's maybe a smarter, less violent solution. |
|
|
|
In case you were unaware, franky1 is banned from Development and Technical Discussion I'm aware, it's just that Lightning discussions can happen outside this sub-forum and he will still take the chance to dictate with his opinion. Someone may just mention it in the Bitcoin Discussion and he'll start bringing terror. I don't want to imagine what he's been writing to the Politics & Society board. Note that there are far worse trolls than franky1 who are yet to be banned But none so pathetic comes to my mind. Wanna share with me who's worse? This is really a case that needs to be looked at more than whether you agree or disagree about free speech. Again, it's not that I disagree with free speech. Pretty much the opposite: I'm trying to protect it here. |
|
|
|
The best way to do that is to use the ignore button. This is the best way for you to avoid his shitposting. However, when a newbie makes a question and this beast comes spitting nonsensical FUDs that bring confusion and upheaval then the thing takes another dimension. Shall you leave this unchallenged? That way we can preserve freedom of speech And what happens when there are people who will abuse it? Who will manipulate the newcomers' opinions with their dogma? Propagandizing invades my speech. Let alone to be discouraged to clear up the confusion. Freedom of speech, yeah, but moderately. Besides, isn't he already getting his posts deleted constantly for trolling? What else do you need to ban someone by that accusation? |
|
|
|
Franky appears to create a lot of noise when it comes to threads regarding the Lightning Network[1][2][3]. The way this person talks is ill-intentioned and does not contribute anything to the discussion. Instead, he starts yelling and spreading lies and FUD[4][5] whenever we're talking about something that is not in his interest (such as the LN) and demands from the users to do as he says[6]. Anyone who's against his ideas is being cursed. Countless of times his posts are getting deleted after been reported. Still, he has an account here and is allowed to act same like without any penalties. However, those who do want to constructively prove him wrong are being punished by having their posts deleted and thus discouraged to stop his future FUD. I address to the moderating team and request a ban, whether that's temporary or permanent. I also address to those who have been part in discussions with him and are annoyed by this uncontrolled abuse of the forum's free speech as he's infringing the rules: Q: Do you moderate/delete (possible) FUD, accusations and untrue information?
A: No. We don't have enough time to check every single piece of information and verify the validity of the sources. Also, just like scams - too much room for bias and abuse.
However, trolling isn't allowed. If a user is habitually posting obviously false nonsense ("obviously false nonsense" to an outsider, NOT to someone who follows or is involved in the discussion) just to stir up trouble, then it's considered trolling, which is prohibited. Such cases should be thoroughly documented in the report though (There are tons of reports that just say "trolling", but moderators don't have time to look through each user's post). It's down to you to support my statement that what he does is trolling.
[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5376568.msg58708356#msg58708356[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5379192.msg58877861#msg58877861[3] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5378173.msg58804168#msg58804168[4] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5379599.msg58894664#msg58894664[5] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5378173.msg58827879#msg58827879[6] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5379192.msg58878182#msg58878182
|
|
|
|
Good. Just for your information, I never applied for merit source, I just woke up in noon and saw a PM from theymos. I keep meriting the same way I did before, but more frequently and with higher amounts. There's literally nothing bad about that. Don't be ironic to me (and to my fellow merit cyclers), your moaning to theymos. BTW, merits have no value to people who are already above Sr. Member. It just shows respect. |
|
|
|
Wanna go check what was said in December 2017? It is obvious enough that you can't predict what will happen. What's the mathematical relationship that tells you it'd reach $70,000, I can't comprehend. The thing I never understood is technical analysis. The question that I haven't yet got an answer is how to increase your chances of being right from a completely free market where everything happens unpredictably. I can speculate it'll worth more in the future, but up to there. My post is not about trading but about hodling. On that note, investing (AKA HODLing) is a hundred times better than trading. With investing you can do something essential, constructive, useful alongside. You don't have to give your sweat looking at charts for hours... |
|
|
|
Case in point: If you want to complain about my meriting policy do it on the proper thread. You don't convince me to wear the Foxpup's avatar for this blame. |
|
|
|
I am a developer. But I was thinking about using already existing solution so I don't have to implement it myself
Would you mind telling us why you want such thing? It seems like an xy problem. There's no reason I can quickly think of where you need to get the money in two different addresses. It makes the transaction weight more, which means higher fees, and provides nothing to your privacy. |
|
|
|
Thanks for this, but now I'm a little bit confused. So splitting is possible, but in the backend? How? Yes, you could setup a program that waits for incoming transactions and when someone purchases, to spend that UTXO (Unspent Transaction Output) and create others. This requires you to be a little bit familiar with programming and Bitcoin. Here's the easy solution for you: When you have a new purchase, send the money in to two addresses instead of keeping it in one. |
|
|
|
I've sent over a thousand merits in the last 120 days as an appropriate merit source, now tell me. How generosity does it need to be in a first position?! (jk I know you haven't finished)Seriously now, I'm glad to be in the second position once and in the third 6 times. Being the third most-chosen user of @o_e_l_e_o and the second of @pooya87 is nice, but having your account merited by @DannyHamilton makes you feel especially outstanding. He's cheap. I definitely have the above three in my three-fav list. Bpip agrees. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
