Because IS the bankroll growth graph of an initial 100 btc capital managed by Arakne. Bankroll and Funds are very different words with different meanings.
So according to you, you have over 800 BTC under your control and make 35% profits on it monthly. What do you need the forum for? Don't just say "no, the 800 BTC is my bankroll." Do you have 800 BTC or not? |
|
|
|
You keep trying to harp on penalty claims, when over and over again I point out that penalty claims are not the exclusive means for losing funds in LN. Ergo, irrelevant.
The whole thing was in response to your question, which was lost somewhere along the way: But tell me - why is it assumed that there were penalty claims?
So I told you. (meaningless ego-based banter snipped out) For the record, I'm ambivalent on the matter. I don't know, (and I don't much care) whether or not the described event occurred as described (although I know it to be possible within the design of LN, which may or may not give the passerby pause). But I am not willing to propagate hearsay as fact -- something which you are demonstrably altogether happy to do.
I can't make you understand that hearsay is only bad when applied to court room trials. Without doing that, almost every single news article that contains a rephrasing of another's words could be considered "hearsay." If you are interested in the actual findings, here's where things currently stand: guggero 4:39 PM
Hi. I did write the tool to figure out what's going on with your channels.
This is what it looks from the file (listchannels-guggero.txt from Oct. 23):
- Channels still open (funding-TX not spent): 115 (101342555 sats)
- Channels that were closed (funding-TX spent): 295
- Funds in outputs that belong to your node: 268829394 sats
- Of those funds, 139479289 sats are in normal on-chain outputs that should be salvageable just with the seed.
So I guess there's still around 3.7 BTC that should in theory be claimable. In an earlier post, he determined that he only had 3.73452874 BTC missing after the dust settled... 3.7345 - 3.7 = 0.0345 still missing, if not accounted for by 1 - rounding done by guggero 2 - penalty transactions 3 - "unjust enrichment" So basically, the entire thing actually was FUD, even if unintentional on the part of the guy who "lost" his coins. Basically my hunch was correct, and yours wasn't. You can point to whatever you consider to be a logical inconsistency in previous iterations of the argument but it doesn't change the outcome of me being right. |
|
|
|
You are now confusing a judicial subpoena with a congressional subpoena. They are entirely different entities.
Starting to see a pattern... Cover letters include a description of contents, usually including page numbers, that is the purpose of a cover letter.
You're confusing a cover letter with a table of contents. I am not confusing anything. Be prepared for him to shift the argument to something else at this point. That's what he does after he's been caught not knowing what he's talking about. You'd think that the guy who said this wouldn't let himself be proven wrong so easily: As I explained before I have invested way more time into informing myself on these subjects over a period of decades than most people, and certainly more than you. I have gone to the gym every day and built my muscles while you sat on the couch and picked your ass, and you wonder why I treat you like an insect. I am not infallible, but compared to you I might as well be. I am very sorry you haven't invested more time into educating yourself, but your feels and boo boos ren't my concern.
Really all it takes is about 15 minutes of research to thoroughly understand the difference between judicial and congressional subpoenas. |
|
|
|
Since you edited out my addressing of this point, let me re-insert it for you: A penalty transaction has distinct characteristics: LN channel = multisig UTXO.
To change channel balance write new tx spending the UTXO. Both sign but dont broadcast. They all: - are V0_P2WPKH type transactions - are roughly the same size of 237-238 B, 121 vB, 483-484 WU - use SegWit addresses There is a way to filter through transaction data based on this criteria. Still absofuckinglutely irrelevant. Congratulations. How is filtering transaction data irrelevant to the identification of penalty claims? In case you missed it, another possibility is that penalty txs were never issued. For the THIRD FUCKING TIME, dickwad. If his counterparties were on the beneficial side of a stale closing tx, what is their incentive to issue a penalty? They stand to win more through just letting the mistaken stale tx broadcasts lie as is. Seems we need to at least consider that possibility before closing the case. As at least one scenario.
So far none of the 400 nodes connected to him reported receiving any funds. Hmm. None of the 400 unjustly-enriched parties reported unjust enrichment. Whodathunkit? Or, perhaps its because they never received jack shit. Not ONE in 400 nodes is honest enough to report receiving more funds than they should have? Just think about it for a moment before responding. Do you deny that it is possible? It is possible that not one of 400 nodes would have received "unjustified enrichment" without reporting it, but it is extremely unlikely and goes against common sense. You again edited out the link I provided to a discussion on the LN GitHub about the issue which as far as I can tell is comprised of the first and foremost members of the relevant COMMUNITY: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/issues/2468A couple of the "experts" indirectly referenced in the Bitcoinist article have been posting in that GitHub thread. That's why its not hearsay. Your third link was a news blurb containing allegations, totally devoid of links to evidence. It was -- again definitively -- hearsay. First of all, this isn't a courtroom. Second, the title of the article is "4 BITCOIN ‘LOSS’ ON LIGHTNING NETWORK IS FUD, SAYS COMMUNITY" --- the whole premise of the article is based on second-hand information. Third, the article does contain links to evidence, which contain links to more evidence. - Bitcoinist article contains this paragraph: A Twitter thread looking into the circumstances behind the loss and how it could be prevented in future, suggested that LN had been working as intended. The victim would have been fine if he had waited, but impatience caused him to “crash through multiple safety barriers,” as he was deemed “in over his head.” - The referenced Twitter thread says this: - The referenced Reddit thread says this: @guggero (LN developer) says this in the GitHub issue thread: I'm going to write a script that goes through all your 400 channels and looks at the TX outputs if there is still something to be claimed. This should also give us a final account of how much was actually lost because of justice transactions (if any). So if you are willing to DYOR you can see that nothing is unsubstantiated, and while the issue may not technically be "FUD", it sounds like the guy didn't actually lose any coins at all, in spite of what appears to be his best attempts to do so. OK I'm making a concession that he may have lost a maximum of 0.1 BTC (though its still more likely he lost nothing), but it still seems like it was all to make a bullshit point about "the dangers of Lightning." Making a concession is hardly "moving the goalposts."
I was originally stressing that his claims of losing 4 BTC were bullshit.
No, you jumped down my throat for merely asking to see some actual evidence supporting the claim that the entire incident was not made up from whole cloth. From 'case closed, he made the whole thing up' to 'I think he's exaggerating' is the motherfuckin canonical example of moving the goalposts. Stop being such a baby. If suggesting you verify information for yourself is the same thing as "jumping down your throat" then you're not cut out to talk on an internet forum and should probably go join a sewing circle. He still may have put himself in this situation on purpose, though now I believe he earnestly just made a major fuckup -- for whatever reason is beyond me. Its a one-of-a-kind issue though so its good for LN devs to iron this sort of thing out now rather than later. Admitting to changing my opinion on something after learning more about it is only "moving the goalposts" if you come from the viewpoint that you are trying to score a goal. Go fuck yourself. You're the one trying to twist things around to make it appear that you said something other than that which you did.
No, I didn't. I admitted that I changed my stance from "he's a liar" to "he may have accidentally fucked up." I still maintain that nowhere near 4 BTC was lost. Sounds like he lost nothing. |
|
|
|
Also, what does a clerk do?
You were already provided with this answer: ^^^ you can read all about it for yourself in this link "Rule 45. Subpoena Primary tabs (a) In General. (1) Form and Contents. (A) Requirements—In General. Every subpoena must: (i) state the court from which it issued;" https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45You are now confusing a judicial subpoena with a congressional subpoena. They are entirely different entities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerk_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives#DutiesUnder duties: "attest and affix the seal of the House to all writs, warrants, and subpoenas and formal documents issued by the House. ... retain, in the official library, a permanent set of the books and documents generated by the House." "A court of record is a court that is required to keep a record of its proceedings. All the proceedings, acts and decisions of the court are retained on a permanent record. These records of the court are presumed to be accurate and cannot be impeached collaterally. Strictly speaking court of records has the power to fine and imprison." https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/court-of-record/Like I said, a subpoena imposes to "fine or imprison" as a penalty, therefore it must be filed with a COURT of record. That's simply not true. A "court of record" has the power to fine or imprison. Guess who else does? Congress, even though they haven't actually done it for almost a century. There is no court involved with the issuing of a congressional subpoena. That is the clerks job, as described above to file, keep, and attest to the record.
A "permanent set of the books and documents generated by the House" is not the same thing as a court. Where are the subpoenas Nutilduhh?
We've told you several times already: they are not publicly available as of yet. https://www.justsecurity.org/67076/public-document-clearinghouse-ukraine-impeachment-inquiry/Just Security has compiled and curated all publicly available documents in Congress’s impeachment inquiry concerning President Donald Trump in connection with Ukraine. This collection seeks to include significant original source material, including relevant legislation, letters, subpoenas, deposition transcripts, executive branch communications, and litigation documents. Anything else? |
|
|
|
The Steelers are better in defense than the Bills. Why are the sportsbooks giving -3.00 favoring the Browns again versus the Steelers?
This game should be on the poll hehe.
Okay, well, the game will be over in less than 24 hours but the crowd spoke, so I will listen. The alternative matchup is pretty boring, Jets vs. Skins... 2 of the worst teams in the league. New poll: 11/14 8:20 PM [309] PITTSBURGH [310] CLEVELAND As was previously mentioned, line currently stands at -3 Cleveland. I am agreeing with you here, sticking my neck out and going with Pittsburgh to win. |
|
|
|
Also, what does a clerk do?
You were already provided with this answer: ^^^ you can read all about it for yourself in this link |
|
|
|
WO-based Bitcoin ConspiracySatoshi = an expert team of coders/financial analysts put together by billionaire hedge fund manager / mathematician James Harris Simonsmicgoossens = an ancillary social media-oriented team carefully crafted by Simons to make Bitcoin seem cool roAch = another Simons-crafted 2 or 3 man team assembled to be the antithesis of micgoossens, basically to make nocoiners and metal bugs look like fucking idiots Bob = 2 person team to make Bitcoin look cool to the black gay cowboy community V8s =  nutildah = constantly on the move after figuring out Simons' master plan, wanted in 38 countries homer = makes cool hat-vatars Epstein = didn't kill himself
|
|
|
|
|
Just because you claim one deployment of your bot managed to rake in a whopping $22.50 over the last 2 months and 9 days it doesn't make you trustworthy, especially given your previous claims. Sorry to burst your bubble kid. Perhaps consider marketing your bot elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
I’m driving, I don’t know what I’m doing .....
Welcome cryptoqueen.... Don’t push it There is only one master of this account  Don’t lie, JJG was right. You have a team of bots. Fucking trollgoossens   That would explain the mad merits he gets... NY Yankees, Real Madrid, The Avengers, and Team Goossens... |
|
|
|
What a fucking douche canoe. Does an API key still act as a Bitcoin private key? Just checking if you learned anything worthwhile about the main topic of this forum, or is just a tool for you to spam your shit.
you have all these pages and posts due to your personality fella - also an API Key isn't a BITCOIN private key you twatmunching imbecile
His pathological inability to admit his incorrectness here reminds me of a few high profile trolls around these parts. |
|
|
|
|
Cool... Somebody resurrected a Spoetnik thread... Blast from the past.
I don't use DOGE any more but I used to use it for live betting when Directbet was around, because of its cheap fees and fast confirmation times. I think having one minute blocks with 1 DOGE fees is great, however, outside of casinos, nobody really uses it for anything.
Spoetnik... what ever happened to you bro?
|
|
|
|
It is glaringly a dispositive. During the previous 10,000 block period there were exactly 6 penalty transactions totaling 0.09746883 BTC. Haha. Glaringly obvious indeed. Even when spoon-fed, you entirely miss the implication of my clearly-stated musing (see italic above). Since you edited out my addressing of this point, let me re-insert it for you: A penalty transaction has distinct characteristics: LN channel = multisig UTXO.
To change channel balance write new tx spending the UTXO. Both sign but dont broadcast. They all: - are V0_P2WPKH type transactions - are roughly the same size of 237-238 B, 121 vB, 483-484 WU - use SegWit addresses There is a way to filter through transaction data based on this criteria. If his counterparties were on the beneficial side of a stale closing tx, what is their incentive to issue a penalty? They stand to win more through just letting the mistaken stale tx broadcasts lie as is. Seems we need to at least consider that possibility before closing the case. As at least one scenario.
So far none of the 400 nodes connected to him reported receiving any funds. Hmm. None of the 400 unjustly-enriched parties reported unjust enrichment. Whodathunkit? Or, perhaps its because they never received jack shit. Not ONE in 400 nodes is honest enough to report receiving more funds than they should have? Just think about it for a moment before responding. What is more likely is he has the funds, can't access them, and they are far fewer than 4 BTC in total.
Sez you. Sure, it's a plausible argument. But it does not invalidate the alternative scenario which I present. Which, of course, is why I ask to see the evidence. Again, everything you present falls far short of being dispositive. Its a more plausible argument that yours, which is LN developers don't know what they're talking about when it comes to LN. There are LN experts working pretty hard to help this guy recover his funds. What ever does that have to do with the assertion that your last link is mere hearsay? Do you not understand the word itself? You again edited out the link I provided to a discussion on the LN GitHub about the issue which as far as I can tell is comprised of the first and foremost members of the relevant COMMUNITY: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/issues/2468A couple of the "experts" indirectly referenced in the Bitcoinist article have been posting in that GitHub thread. That's why its not hearsay. More germane, you have moved the goalposts from 'he made the whole thing up, case closed' to 'I kinda think sorta he might have exaggerated his losses'. Let us recall that this opened with an assertion made to the effect that it was all a lie, followed by me merely asking for evidence, for which you attacked me with the strawman of denial.
I don't know if you're being dishonest, or you are merely incapable of logic.
OK I'm making a concession that he may have lost a maximum of 0.1 BTC (though its still more likely he lost nothing), but it still seems like it was all to make a bullshit point about "the dangers of Lightning." Making a concession is hardly "moving the goalposts." I was originally stressing that his claims of losing 4 BTC were bullshit. You're one of the most dishonest posters in this thread, so while you are an expert in that field, you aren't exactly in any position to go around claiming others are dishonest. |
|
|
|
Say it ain't so, Joe! Recall that they got their start via a Shark Tank-esque platform last year, of which I spent no more than two minutes vetting them and came to the conclusion that them fucktards shouldn't have been in the competition in the first place. That said, I'm starting my own arbitraging thingy. The first trading pair will be Avocados and Kopi Luwak, closely followed by second-hand Enema Bags and worthless CSW Patents. Hmm... It almost seems like the qicouple were complicit in promoting a scam all along. Whatever these idiots promote I would steer clear away from it, as well as any future shitshows made by the Arbitraging people. Phinn if you open a Scam Accusation thread on the Arbitraging team (their identities are known I take it?) then perhaps we can track them in the future. Sounds like the next scam is called APEX. I would like to sell off some of my APX and AUSD at a decent price.
Sounds like you were part of a Ponzi this whole time and now you are trying to offload your bags on new suckers. Is that about right? |
|
|
|
GREAT NEWS!
...
We need the accounting and tax declaration to analyse why the profit dropped 60% within one day and remains at 60% loss?
How can a token created in 2019 even have a "tax declaration" you silly scammer? Obviously the token doesn't have a lot of liquidity and fluctuates in price quite a bit. It opened for trading at $0.0462 and currently trades at $0.064, which means its had a gain of 38.5% since it started trading. Where is your license to operate a business? If you are a charity, where is your registration as a charity? You should resolve the multiple outstanding scam accusations against you before attempting to continue conducting "business" on this site. as long as OP's and posters respond instead of ignoring his/her posts altogether , this will continue
With classical trolls you may have a point, but GP is a powerful breed of stupid. Ignoring them just doesn't work. You have to be vigilant about thwarting their "business model" and reminding others they are a scammer so random passerbys won't consider giving their money to them. |
|
|
|
Latest thing I started playing with is Spectrum and RGB...colored coins for the Lightning Network. I have been trying to figure out how this can be done for quite a while, it appears someone has figured it out. So I will be delving deeply into the guts to figure it all out.
I am looking at decentralized partial ownership structures for titling seastead homes.
While there are shitcoin solutions, they will come and they will go. I would rather have something that is very likely to last at least 100 years like Bitcoin will.
That is an interesting use case scenario for LN indeed. As a non-LN but still bitcoin solution, had you considered using Omni Layer or Counterparty? I never really messed around with Omni, but I know Counterparty works quite well. Granted if the Counterwallet server went down you would have to switch to a Counterparty-friendly wallet, but there's quite a few of them: https://counterparty.io/wallets/As you are probably aware, the downside is you do have to pay the full transaction fee every time you want to make an asset-related transaction, whether its putting up a bid on their DEX, creating them, moving them around or whatever. To me it seems like a more stable alternative than Lightning at the moment, but you know, times change. |
|
|
|
#344 against mosprognoz is one of those dead linked flags. It was created by korner who has now been permanently banned. Those types of flags should be removed, I hope theymos is taking a look at this otherwise anybody can create a flag hen delete the thread associated with it. Also if anybody is banned should their flags be automatically deleted too? What are your views? If possible, I think a flag made by a banned user linked to a missing thread should be auto-deleted, but being invalidated is just as good. They are far more useless than untrusted ratings. |
|
|
|
Well that was quite the game! I thought we were going to see a tie for awhile there, especially when Wilson got intercepted on the one yard line in OT!
Damn, it was indeed a crazy game. I guess I can believe that SF's rookie kicker miffed that last kick so badly. I thought it was blocked when I first saw it, but nope, just a really shitty kick. SF had a lot of opportunities to win but squandered them. Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Have to give it up to Wilson for putting up a great performance tho. Despite his INT he was top notch. |
|
|
|
No, this isn't a court room, and no those aren't subpoenas. Why is calling letters that are not subpoenas, not subpoenas dumb? Wouldn't it be more dumb to call them subpoenas? Yes, it would. But it would be even dumber to believe the actual subpoenas don't exist. |
|
|
|
You're under the assumption that alts have to go up because "its time."
Not really. I'm under the assumption that we are myopic in our sense of time. If you imagine yourself zooming forward 100 years and you're in 2120 looking back at the "dawn of crypto" you wouldn't see so distinctly "one" get born and then "the others". You'd just see a cloud which represented the explosion of the first ever electronic monetary assets. Doesn't mean bitcoin can't still be more of a "reserve asset" than its successors but it also means that it's less volatile. It's just a question of degree - like Exter's pyramid - you have a base layer of reserve assets into which profit is taken in times of recession, then a graduating utility layer which expands faster than the base layer in times of growth. I think you're operating under too many assumptions too confidently. Every time you've approached this thread ringing the altseason bell you've been proven wrong. Your analysis, like times previous, doesn't really depend on anything other than proclaiming "its time." At the end of the day a coin's chance of success is driven by user adoption. Without this there is no reason to expect any coin to go up, bitcoin included.
"Adoption" can have a variety of meanings when it comes to monetary assets. For monetary commodities "adoption" simply means holding it as a savings vehicle. So measures like the number of active wallets, blockchain transaction use etc ,apply. On the other hand if it's used as a unit of account then it can scale outwith its own technical domain (i.e. holders may not hold bitcoin but may hold some other asset or debt securities that are denominated in bitcoin). "Adoption" mostly means it is being used by an increasing number of people for any purpose. Without this, neither bitcoin nor altcoins will increase in value. By either measure, the observations are the same - that the wider crypto market serves as the "lungs of bitcoin".
I think its the opposite - bitcoin is the lungs of altcoins. If bitcoin falters, so do altcoins. If bitcoin succeeds, some altcoins may succeed. The world is still trying to grasp the concept of bitcoin and doesn't really have time to deal with other coins. And 100 years from now, anything is possible. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
