The "Block" debate at best offers a short term sticking plaster and it should be about replicated monolithic database
against Distributed Network Architecture (DNA) and about on-block or off block

Competition without naming names is going to take over unless the development team stops concluding
with the miners to make them rich and that includes turning them into banking hubs with lightning network
even if it is DNA using centralization

A degree of centralization is not such a bad thing but i am darned if the banking hubs and there fees
should form the basis of that centralization, I did warn you that Bob and Alice channels would not work
and now here is the proof since you would not admit it https://lnmainnet.gaben.win/

The table has magnets under it, fixed game

Yes i know and think people can read it themselves because I posted the quote for them to read

Wallets broadcast to the network and transactions can take days to clear 


The vicar here has taught you well but a star type cluster of specialized nodes does not mean anyone owns the system
and that you have taken you knickers down for the bankers and besides that LN hubs are banks anyway.


Yes just blame the user, must had been hacked, downloaded a virus, money has gone so what about


No 100% it won't be mining coins (they are separate) using PoW and "conforms with the features of Bitcoin" because
the people who wrote Bitcoin did not write my bible and thanks for the no-pal offer but I like gambling on technology
mainly because I understand it 

Once up on a time I loved Tor and was using a dedicated machine that used the Tor Network so that my program
could screen scrape sites and I never used the machine for browsing and apart from windows spyware, my code and the
Tor software nothing else was running on the machine but it picked up a WannaCry virus so can you guess where I think
it came from so if you into coins working on Tor then make sure your not running the client software

Bankers will be running more specialized versions of the wallets than we have that can morph in to
hubs unless of course our wallets come with lots of buttons and input boxes because the protocol allows
complicated transactions that you and me won't understand.

Open a channel and they make you agree to letting the bank take a up front fee to cover the
BTC mining fee even if they owe you money or else the channel will be closed or locked using
the dispute procedure that can take days to sort out.

it's like saving money in a bank without getting to read the terms and conditions and that's
without LN transaction fees being dumped on you. Don't agree at any stage and the BTC miners
will love the $20 you keep sending them to settle the account on the block-chain

Because each channel costs money on the main block-chain so unless you open ten channels a month then your
forced to use hubs or else you could get ten time $20 in transactions fees

See https://lnmainnet.gaben.win/

I am sure banking hub fees will start of low just like has happened with Bitcoin and they we
know what will happen once people buy in to using the banking system

https://www.rt.com/news/417132-cryptocurrency-coincheck-heist-millions-nem/


I understand why Exchanges take deposits and it comes down to the slow speeds of the network
but lets say that moving money could be near real time between wallets then we won't be
exposed like this

High Frequency trades (Robots) would be slowed down also if we said that wallets became locked
for 60 seconds after being used to move money

All the wrong sort of people have taken over Bitcoins and it gets worse with the banking hubs on
the Lightning Network and all the shit-coins because anyone can copy the block-chain

I am trying to work on something new that might offer some solutions that turns a wallet into
something closer to resembling a physical wallet that uses crypto-security on wallet so that
coins cannot leave the wallet unless the user is on-line during the time of the transactions that
are sending money. Broadcasting transactions has become a total mess and leads to all kinds
of trouble as we can see

The part I have trouble with and I am working on is atomic transactions between nodes in a DNA network
with no trust between the nodes and I am not sure if I can come up with a answer myself yet.

I wonder how many of them are running on ETH using "Smart Contracts" that are really just bean counters

We are ICOed out i think

That's better than mine, only got about 30 lines of code and it's shot temp code for now but i seem to have something not
really connected with my code but key exchange that's nagging me in the back of the head and I cannot clear it.

it's like we are watching one hand and forgetting what the other hand is doing with the digits

I need to look at atomic  transactions across servers but just hit fog when trying to think

Ripple and NEO are also worth getting to know about as is ETH but like Bitcoin it's showing its age
and won't scale

Next he will be saying he can fly and hears voices in his head

The they are right and just because you slot machine players made money you will learn that you
can also loose it to so stop trying to get religious about it all

Was not us who put the fees up to silly prices and we don't like being mugged by miner

Thanks and this one is looking much better

I don't want to use external libraries such as BouncyCastle or NBitcoin but don't mind using
Dot.Net framework 4.5 that includes BigINT

Nothing in windows seems easy when it comes to Bitcoin

Edit to add
found this but it wraps BouncyCastle but will compile in VS2017 but it's still not what I am looking for but it does do WIF conversion
if anyone wants it but it Base58 and not 32 like Sewit
https://github.com/Thashiznets/KeyCore.NET

Well i don't know if I can offer all them things but I think I have a revolutionary new concept that
I want to test out that uses Distributed Network Architecture (DNA) that will scale to spread the loads
across multiple servers (Not miners, not using any) that separates the network from the coins so it becomes
a bean counter as such much like ETH "smart contracts" offers to alt-coins so these coins become native to the network.

Wallets will need just one interface to hold various coin denominations but unlike Bitcoin that is real slim in terms of data size
per transaction at about 250 bytes this coin network will require double that amount per transaction and use "Gas" to pay for
hosting transaction server and will require a variable conversion rate between the currency and the price of "gas"

One node fits all (Like Bitcoin) is not going to work here and the coins network will require
1. Replicated DSN type address serves to host the backbone block-chain (approx size estimated)
2. Archive server that become redundant but added for safety and security
3. Transaction servers (Nodes groups providing redundancy)

I intend on skinning this project out myself and then reeving it up on a LAN to test it with 1-2 billion transaction and I have
been careful not to give too much away but I believe some middle ground between VISA and Bitcoin exists and maybe I have
the answer.

Well I have been warning people about Lightning and saying that the Bob plays ping-pong with Alice using a LN
channel was propaganda as is the theory that anyone can become a hub in the network because they cannot and
will need lots of BTC to fill the channels.

I knew I was right so take a look at this https://lnmainnet.gaben.win/
believe it or not but spending will be cheaper but receiving money from bankers is going to
cost you in interest plus small transaction fees.

Bankers are always nice people when they move into a new town, see how long that lasts before
we get stuffed again

Man I am cool with regulations and have some Ripple which should go up if it truly is
the coins bankers like.

Asia and the west look divided and will use Crypto regulations to lock each other out
so maybe EVO will do well and after reading up on the project I must say that i like it
but don't tell anyone because I have not brought in yet.

Something but i am not sure quite what yet will go deep underground on something
like Tor if they keep pushing but Bitcoin will crash in the process I thinks

Buy pure you mean Segwit input and all Segwit outputs with all segwit addresses starting with "3" ?


I think BTC is very common between exchanges so are you saying this exchange-exchange makes up the 80% on top of the 20% "ordinary folk sending bitcoin"
or am i reading it wrong ?

Good too see mempool down and Tx fees at about $12 because this was the elephant in the room so maybe BTC price
can rise again if faith in the development team is restored

My understanding is that Bobs and Alice might have wallets but unless they have lots of buttons to press then they
will not be in a position to use much of the LN protocol but the banker hubs will have custom software that gives them
the advantage. Miners will run the banking hubs because they need bandwidth, hardware, lots of BTC and understand the
nuts and bolts. Miners are already a monopoly as you can see

https://blockchain.info/pools

I can already change from one high street bank to another if fees become too high so was ten major LN hubs to put up the fees
then this will have a ripple effect as the fees will move down to main branch, sub-branch and then on to Bob & Alice and I have
already come across the term "Virtually free transactions fees" in the bitcoin white paper and won't be trusting them a second time

The main block chain nodes needs to cooperate with LN nodes for the protocol to
work so unless they hardwired a few nodes to get it going then I am not sure how it would work
on broadcasts to the BTC network unless that part was already released in Bitcoin core 0.15.1


Interesting and about 650 channel when I looked and already we can see banker hubs that have forty channels or so
and that means that someone must have lots of money to deposit in new channels for these large inter bank transfer's.

Some of the hops are eight long already and I don't think this will go up or down much even if 50,000 channels are
created and interest charged on the inter bank BTC should be low if the outbound and inbound amounts balance out but
you can bet the transit fees will be past to Bob but if the channel is bidirectional then the first hub will be picking up the
lion share of interest fees.

Please correct me if I am wrong but in the ledger connecting Bob to the banking hub requires the bank to deposit $100 in it if Alice on
the far side of the network is to send Bob $100 and if she wants to send him $200 then it would not be allowed because money
cannot be moved from ledger to ledger because the BTC-Block chain only allows the existing money to be settled on block.

Bob           Banks
$100          $0             Bobs deposit
0               $100         Banks deposit
$200          $0             Alice sends Bob $100

Unless Bob starts spending then no one can now send him any money so spending is cheap
but if you receive lots of payments then interest for inbound money could far exceed 5% p.a
if you keep the channel open for 12 months or get the banks to deposit a smaller amount in the channel and
then keep closing and opening a new channel but picking up the BTC Tx fee each month.


 

Ripple, NEO, IOTA would fit the bill but I exclude ETH and the clones because they are much too slow

Single transactions leaves the wallet and it sure seems complicated how that simple transaction gets
written into the block-chain and it's also difficult to walk with one leg and a blind fold on a system that's
been designed to eat up CPU's