|
i yawn and facepalm.. others insult
i use words like fangirls and hypocrites... others use more antagonising insults. (yawn)
but as this is a topic concerning me and my thoughts about LN, scaling bitcoin and exodus schemes(PR buzzworded as scaling)
i should be posting my thoughts and my references to code, bips, and proposals and other references..
if others just want to social drama.. your in the wrong topic
but it is fun watching you defend a ln fangirl. even when what they say has nothing to do with the topics..
seems you care more about defending chums than you do in actually staying civil and discussing the topic.
(not your first example of going social drama in this topic)
anyway. if any other reader just wants to reply with social drama.. dont hit reply. take your social drama to your private communications with your friends.
lets try to get this discussion back to the topic..
starting again with the non biased questions of shortness to avoid added clauses of manipulation..
and wrote in a&b variants to ensure no bias.
so that we can get to a base point of peoples view of how they see what LN does and doesnt do.
so lets gauge peoples understanding. these questions (by request) have been write short to avoid clauses, and also in pairs of opposition wording to avoid bias. lets see what you know
answer by quoting the questions under the line below.
if you cannot reply without some silly social drama, insult flame. dont bother replying.
this topic is not about you opinions on social drama used as reasons for you to cause more social drama.
instead take your victim crocodile tears(fake tears) somewhere else, i have no sympathy for you when you get bit.
if you cannot stand by your opinion to even have confidence to answer the questions, then your opinion becomes less worthy.
if your reluctance is spouted out as "the questions are bias". then if you think A is bias. answer the B variant.
insert a * into the answer that applies most towards your opinion of how you think things are.
1.a: lightning network is not the bitcoin network.
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
1.b: lightning network is the bitcoin network.
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
2.a: lightning network is a separate network that does different things than bitcoin
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
2.b: lightning network is always linked to the bitcoin network that does what bitcoin does
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
3.a: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in picocoin-1 (11decimal) also known as msat/millisat
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
3.b: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in btc
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
4.a: LN "payments" (inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
4.b: LN "payments" (inside LN) are same format, to a bitcoin transaction
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
5.a: bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
5.b: bitcoin network does understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
6.a: LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
6.b: LN is tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
7.a: LN wont work without bitcoin
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
7.b: LN will work without bitcoin
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
|
|
|
|
Meaning anyone who want to really pull an use as a currency has to pay the hoarders lords waiting for their lambo without bringing any value to the network which is currently maybe 90-95% of the economic value today.
just because it needed people to buy 10,000btc to buy 2 pizza's in 2010. does not mean with the price rise people need to buy the same 10,000 coins now for 2 pizza's.. where you think that means it costs people $430,000,000 to 'pay the hoarder lords' for 2 pizza.. you are wrong. in 2010 it cost $25 for two pizza's.. in 2022 i can still pay $25 and get 0.00058139 and use that 0.00058139 to get 2 pizza i can still use bitcoin with $25 to get $25 worth of pizza.. nothing has changed i know i know. in egyptian times pharaohs only needed to pay for a whip to slap 1000 slaves into getting the pharaoh 50kg of gold. now it costs atleast $1.5mill in excavators and sluicemachine and labour to get 50KG of gold. but in the days of pharaohs. a slave would only get bread for 50grams of gold(1.76 ounces) these days you can get bread for 0.02grams you dont need to pay lords or pharaohs for their 50kg of gold or their 10000btc. you can buy miligrams and sats .. your argument is based on you just wishing that you could still get 10000btc for $25 today, and upset that you would have to pay $430k today for 10,000 or only get 0.00058btc for $25 well im sorry but houses in the 1950's may have sold for $5k. but now they are worth $250k, you cant travel back in time to get a house for $5k. and if you could the only reason why you want to go back in time to 'beat the economy' is because you want to 'get rich' like the people that realised real estate economy bitcoins economy before you did.. dont hate it.. just accept you now know about bitcoin and know bitcoin will be around for years and the economics are still the same meaning you can be a hoarder too now and take your $25 (0.00058) and get more for it in the future. here is a thought. instead of being jealous of early adopters for taking the risk of the less known asset from years ago.. instead be proud of the risk they took. if there were 2 people. 1 bought into a PoS and 1 bought into a PoW. they would both on day 1 be taking a risk on the future potential. however by use of their example you can see the PoS investor failed and the PoW investor won. and so with this test you are now more risk averse to PoS and more safe investing in PoW. yes PoS economics are not the same as PoW and it has now been proven by early adopter example to be the case |
|
|
|
|
my utopia?.. funny. you should be a comedian
im not the one advertising other networks as being bitcoins utility replacement system by dreaming that the replacement works 100% even when facts show it has flaws, limits and bugs.
if you want to ignore the flaws or try converting me to being a altnet loyalist.. well that is your utopian dream. and your right you wont convince me. your dream wont come true, much like other utopian dreams altnet loyalists promote
if all the loyalists want is to convert me, well they failed. ill stick to being risk averse and stick to helping myself and others know of the risks and possible problems, its safer that way, no dreaming.
if you dont like that im not an ass kisser like your friends. well maybe realise ass-kissing has some bad consequences too. you dont see the crap touching your lips, you just keep doing it with your eyes closed
EDIT: in response to below
seems someone is harmed by my facepalm, even though it never touches THEIR face. but nice try playing victim(boring though)
anyway now this group has turned this into social drama of personality conflict.. where is 'Switzerland' when you need it
|
|
|
|
LN devs wrote the code, LN devs use the code for their features they want to offer.. Look on your github issue. The proposal has 2 likes and 1 dislike. This turbo feature wouldn't be mandatory and therefore the users would be responsible for its usage. And it's a dumb idea, to be honest. Do you see it getting recognized? they are trying to put a voluntary feature of one software piece, into becoming part of the official BOLTS protocol, that all software would have to try being compatible with. turbo(one use case of breaking the funding lock peg) has been promoting it and doomad(and many others) has been loving the idea, he has even gone as far as doomad jumping off the cliff in defence of it by saying i deserve some court claim harassment for speaking out about its flaws.(facepalm+laugh) as you can see by the github, its been trying to implement it into the BOLTS for 2 years(many iterations). heck even with many comments also against it, even with many mentioning the 'fake' and 'trust' of it, you however pivot to highlight the opposite by narrowing down on the '2 likes 1 dislike" narrative as if you want to make it seem acceptable (then later contradict by saying you think its a dumb idea.. but atleast your honest at that last part) .. people may not like my views on finding the flaws and bugs and faults.. but in coding, finding bugs and flaws is more helpful rather than being a PR utopian dreamer of hope and broken promise. people do actually want to know whats at risk, what works and doesnt work. they dont just want to be kissed and hugged. if you are here just to make friends and agree with people out of loyalty.. so be it. just dont try hugging people into risks and telling them its all safe., better friends would actually find the flaws and warn each other. anyway i am not looking for friends, thats not antisocial. thats just treating this forum as a bitcoin discussion, not some social media site .. if there is a topic that says everything correct. there is no need for me to post. as there is nothing more to say. yes 85% of my posts are replies having a different side to a previous post. because if the post was correct. again there would be nothing more to add to the topic. just because i dont reply with a 98% kiss ass rate of loyalty. does not mean im a troll dont confuse my replies sounding different, to mean i only post just to be antagonistic/troll. my reason for posting is to correct details that need correcting.. i only become antagonistic in the 'mood' of my context after i get poked by the standard social drama insult campaign by certain people. your groups attempts to play victim by calling me a troll because i became antagonistic, is a memory lapse on your groups side of forgetting who started the bear poking. here is a reminder of the flow 1.utopian dream of idea's of promise 2.i highlight how the promises can be broke and the utopia never reached 3.utopian dreamer loyalists defend the dream 4.i backup my opinion with references to code, bips, quotes 5.utopian dreamer loyalists start social drama poking the bear by antagonising 6.i antagonise back 7.utopian dreamer loyalists use last resort of avoiding 2 and just grab 6 as their reason why 1 must be correct 8. (repeat 5,6,7) yep its a know strategy used by a certain group
well. this topic is about me. The topic is about you, but that doesn't mean we'll talk about your favorite video games. We've chosen the technical background of LN and that means we can include the commitment of direct payments. i never mentioned my favourite video game. but nice try with your lame poke oh and by the way. in a topic stipulating my name. about my issues with LN and the utopian altnet offramp described as scaling vs actual scaling of the actual bitcoin network it is my decision to talk about one these things (in a topic about my opinion on things) and i have actually tried to stick to a specific thing at a time. (LN payments, before getting to the commitments) by others trying to move the conversation to talk commitments.. ignoring the LN payment stuff, but isnt that against your own guideline 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.
..
This way we can clarify which are our interlocutor's disagreements and constructively (& friendly) correct them.
seems your bias and desire to take things off topic, is another hypocrisy on your part |
|
|
|
I wonder how his words will encourage people to invest or something similar to it in regards with this cloud mining. And how it differs to typical scam cloud mining.
If that's what he is going to endorse then there's going to be a problem, cloud mining will never be legitimate because it has been proven time and time again that it's a scam and that it doesn't do any work to make you money. I think that the only way that people will still believe in it is if Jack finds a lot of influencers to lie to their teeth about this project. i dont think cloud mining is a good business model, so i doubt thats jacks actual plan, he hasnt even made a prototype yet so his 'idea's are still speculative/theories i only mentioned it as an option as his wording of solving the 'home cost, dust'noise' stuff, made it appear to be one of his idea's.. many other people in other discussions had the same thoughts the reason why its not a sound business plan is because if he warehouses the asics. pays the electric and maintenance.. and is then calculating a average cost per asic of this service. and charges users that fee.. if the customer can 'profit'.. then a sound business would just avoid a customer. and instead the company would mine itself and profit itself. EG if i had an apple that cost me 20cent to grow. why would i sell it for 25cent. knowing the <middleman> can make 50cent. . instead id avoid offering to the <middleman> for 25cent. and instead I sell it for 50cent. thus i make 30cent instead of 5cent |
|
|
|
In a mining pool, all miners are working on the same exact block with the same exact coinbase.
Are you sure about this? I heard that newer version of stratum allow each miner some kind of flexibiliity there are only so many nonces, and (timestamp) extra-nonce an average asic can run through these in seconds. a pool needs to adjust coinbase data(extra-extra-nonce) to give more varied work over the ~many minutes of a block solve session. and do this for each asic. a pool of say 13,000 asics will have 13,000 'new work' with different coinbase every few seconds, meaning over the average ~10min blocksolve session thats probably about 4million different 'work' with different coinbase extra-extra-nonce each asic gets a basic template of their owners blockheader including owners address. so that there is some variance to the work they all do as a pool EG if all asics didnt have one of the outputs different from other asics and the OP_Return started at 1 to a <large number> for all asics. they would all be doing the same work as each other at the same time(waste of time). ckpool example: COINBASE (Newly generated coins) 38HRDQeecdfQnCyrnLEtKJGnEsrLG3XUCt 6.14274623 BTC 1PKN98VN2z5gwSGZvGKS2bj8aADZBkyhkZ 0.12536216 BTC OP_RETURN ?x?x?x?x?x?x?x?x?x 0.00000000 BTC and each few seconds. the pool changes op return for more variance to work on in other pools, its the same thing, all thats different is the payout COINBASE (Newly generated coins) 1PKN98VN2z5gwSGZvGKS2bj8aADZBkyhkZ 6.26810839 BTC OP_RETURN ?x?x?x?x?x?x?x?x?x 0.00000000 BTC OP_RETURN ?x?x?x?x?x?x?x?x?x 0.00000000 BTC in pools that pay out to a pool owner only(later shared). their 'variance' in this example is instead of using a asics address as one output they use a random op return per asic(like an asic ID, unique to each asic). and then another op return as a an extra-extra-nonce to give that asic more work every few seconds some pools just have one op return(small pools) and allot 1-> xtrillion to one asic. and then xtrillion -> x*xtrillion to another asic, within the range of the limit of how much entropy the op return allows(large number) and if the pools asics work through all this variance then the pool can do different tricks by changing the transaction arrangements(order) but in all cases. its not the asic or its user making these coinbase adjustments or blockheader hashs to then give the asic work to churn through. its the pool that is making these header/coinbase adjustments, all thats different between usual pools and ck pool is the payout. ck gets 2% fee. and pays rest to one user. other pool gets 100% and pays out to all users but they all work based on the data management done by the pool |
|
|
|
I believe we don't need to stress ourselves very much to differiate between blockchain and bitcoin. They work hand in hand and heart to heart. My short relationship between is that Blockchain is the foundation upon which bitcoin is laid, and other cryptocurrencies are laid, and the foundation is still open for other companies or organisation to come and lay.
..
blockchains that have a true cost of creating the secure block hash(PoW) are more secure then blockchains that can make blockhashes for free(PoS). because if there is no cost at risk. anyone can try to game the system. if there is cost at risk then people are more willing to stay in the rules to get paid for efforts, rather then waste money to break the rules
PoS still has a cost at risk. The coin miner will donate some coins like colleteral before mining. If he will try to game the system he has coins at stake. coin at stake is of no loss. stakers pay no bills(to others) for making a successful block. if they are not a block solver, they also lose nothing(just dont gain anything either) he just has to hold coin to show he is rich enough to be more important than others. he doesnt need to hand it to other people, doesnt need to spend it(lose it) just to try making a block. he just needs to have coin to have a chance of making a block. no loss |
|
|
|
but anyway funny part is that darkv0rt3x post had no content related to how LN works, or scaling bitcoin, yet was just a personal attack message. The funny part is that he does talk about the LN and that responding him likewise make him look right about your behavior towards us. he didnt talk about it here.. but nice try linking an outside reference.. meaningless, but nice try his 3 insults vs my 1 'hypocritical' hmm.... but i do laugh that you want to pretend your the victim (AFTER YOU POKE THE BEAR) if you dont want to get bit, dont poke oh well i now agree this topic is dead. seems people just want to talk about commitments of direct payments(not LN's niche) and not the LN payments(ln's niche of being able to pay different people) Commitments of directs payments is LN's niche. You just want to discuss whatever it's in your interest. Please allow us to try make a point out of this mess, thank you. discuss whatever is in my interest? well. this topic is about me. this topic is about my interests..(read title) so me talking about my interests is ontopic doomad, you, rath and others couldnt even stand by your own opinion in a short quick summarised questions. i had respect for LoyceV for giving it a good try to answer to the best of his opinon. by this i dont mean they are pegged to a different blockchain transaction for msat payment smart contracts. this means its making 'fake' channel, by sending 'funding_locked' messages on trust even when a transaction has not confirmed And whose fault is this? Lightning's? LN devs wrote the code, LN devs use the code for their features they want to offer.. LN was not magically created by some vapour entity that fathered jesus.. its not even some self coding AI so yea LN flaws are LN dev's fault and the utupian fantasy narrative of LN's advertising misinforming people of what LN is, is the fault of the LN fangirls This thread is pointless. You're missing the bigger picture, which is this: Please keep the discussion only here, and not in other topics. gotta laugh at LoyceV for this, i noticed it and laughed at it 9 days ago when he made the 'guidance'.. thinking he can make a prison for certain topics(not very 'switzerland' of him, seems more nazi tactic) |
|
|
|
And in the process he tries to diminish other people's knowledge, confidence and self-esteem by insulting,
Blinder than a blind man is the one who don't want to see.
I'm almost compelled to say this guy is autistic.
lack of social skills, they find quite hard to socialize and accept other visions and thoughts other than the ones of their own.They can't verbalize correctly and they often get angry/frustrated when they can't achieve their goals.
This person has all these traces.
hmmm. now should i bother to review all the posts of this topic and look at who has mentioned the most insults.. but anyway funny part is that darkv0rt3x post had no content related to how LN works, or scaling bitcoin, yet was just a personal attack message. (boring, but nice try to poke the bear) oh well i now agree this topic is dead. seems people just want to talk about commitments of direct payments(not LN's niche) and not the LN payments(ln's niche of being able to pay different people) some people just want to get angry and insult(funny part is darkv0rt3x could be talking about them) some just want to merit cycle each other and show their loyalty to friends. seems LoyceV is not 'Switzerland' when he merits a post thats not ontopic and just an insult slam (hypocritical)
Bitcoin LN you and certain people want to pretend everything in LN it bitcoin format, where you want to brand tag an altnet as being bitcoin. I don't think we're going to (nor have to) agree on this  I'd say "Bitcoin LN" makes it very clear we're talking about Bitcoin locked in channels that can be send through LN and later settled on-chain. You say it's not Bitcoin. you might want to look at the current proposals wanting to be 'bolted' into protocol of LN and a few services already using the proposals in their own software. these are where peers create LN balance(msats) without a block confirmed pegged btc as collateral. where the msat balance is based on 'trust' by this i dont mean they are pegged to a different blockchain transaction for msat payment smart contracts. this means its making 'fake' channel, by sending 'funding_locked' messages on trust even when a transaction has not confirmed. where it does not even reference a utxo(txid and blocknumber) because it has no blocknumber to reference. instead it uses random number for channel ID as i said a couple years ago.. the pegs are not guaranteed and the promises are based on trust. even the devs involved with the LN proposal and its current usage in their software use the words "fake" and "trust" when describing the channel setup reference to post on other topic baited by doomad.. (so dont get angry and upset that i responded with proof) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380036.msg58991641#msg58991641i was trying to keep this topic inline by trying to get people to stick to a non flipflop(contradiction) conversation by setting questions to finally summarise their opinion. (tie them to a single stance they stand by) i was also trying to get people to learn about the differences of LN payment s vs commitments. to then when they realise LN payments are not commitments but their own promises.. then move onto describing commitments to show how LN devs dont even want commitments to be solidly pegged to blockchains.. but it looks like they just want to stay in their utopian fantasy PR campaign version of function, rather than care enough, desire enough to learn how things work and want to know about potential flaws. you cant teach the blind to see, or be independent especially when all they can feel is their friends holding their hands guiding them. |
|
|
|
before hitting reply.
1. if you have not read the other bolts. dont bother replying, you have already spammed this topic just referencing yourself in previous posts of your opinion. there is no need to post again referencing yourself.
2. if you have sat back and took some time to wish to discuss LN routed payments (without meandering into examples of inchannel direct commitments) then have the first part of your post quoting my previous post questions. putting a * into the [ ] that applies to your opinion.
then we can establish a baseline of opinion. of where your opinion differs or (dare i say it) agree with mine
i want to get a short quick summary of your actual uncontradicted opinion of your thoughts of LN. so that i can see what things your not getting right
2. Again, you completely ignore two locking scripts which are used for HTLC outputs in commitment transactions.
(facepalm)I am going to wait for others to share their thoughts. They probably need some time to catch up with us. This is my last reply for now.
(facepalm)typical. oh well. but dont worry your not the only one that cant answer basic questions, your not the only one trying desperately hard to avoid talking about the msat payments. oh an in another topic. Doomad reminded me about how crappy LN is about funding locks. not requiring them to actually peg to 6 confirms locked value onchain. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380036.msg58991641#msg58991641anyways. seems the only thing LN PR guys understand is direct payments in hub model. just a shame LN are even trying to break that by having direct payments not require a locked funding peg
If you don't see any difference between an invoice, onion_route_packet and HTLC then we really don't have anything to talk about. in LN payments (measured in Msat denomination, not to be confused with commitment in sat denomination) the htlc is not a commitment htlc. the onion routed packet is not a commitment packet the invoice is not a commitment invoice those 3 things are messages outside of the channel commitment(sat denominated) protocol of messages, but are indeed part of 'micropayments' protocol(the LN payment(msat)) because in all 3 message types, they all have 'amount' denominated in msat. i know you find it tough to discuss ln payments and now wish to avoid it. but. like i said first if you cant prevent yourself from meandering back to 'channel management commitments', then yes there is no more to discuss with you. as for not answering 14 unbiased quick summary questions.. silence is revealing i have respect for LoyceV atleast he made an effort to answer summary questions |
|
|
|
all i read is a Doomad boring personal statement oh and my description (with reference) on the LN turbo 'debt/credit of unfunded channels.. If a forum user has spent years undermining their own credibility by making fallacious and sometimes even libellous statements, giving people balance in a new channel without the 'funding' confirmed(turbo), nor locked to a keypair set by the customer and service.. (thor(pre locked funds by bitrefill months before customer uses it)) that not libel. thats their feature 'unconfirmed funding' 'voluntary rule agreement' 'custom channel' are THEIR words. not mine also if you want to read THEIR descriptions. here some other examples of what THEIR feature does https://medium.com/@akumaigorodski/instant-channels-enable-safe-lightning-payments-with-unconfirmed-funding-8d640defa183https://github.com/lightning/bolts/issues/565#issuecomment-460601680'but I prefer more meaningful names for things. I'd suggest zeroconf_spendable_push' 'Dangerous proposal! If you want zero conf, use bcash!!!!! This would be a bad precedent if introduced to LN; however, nobody would stop you from wanting to be robbed though, can't you implement it only for your own biz? tongue
NACK!' and no dont play the game of reciting "thor" option trying to make "thor" sound like "turbo", or 'turbo' sound like 'thor'. they are different options. "thor" uses funding logged pegged blockchain confirmed transactions. "turbo" uses unfunded unconfirmed unlocked balance(no peg) oh and this: https://github.com/lightning/bolts/pull/895note how many times the words 'fake' and 'trust' are mentioned (spoiler 'fake':10 'trust':11) .. but it has been fun watching you scrape the bottom of the barrel.. trying to find something to argue about.. shame you lost the argument before you even posted it today you were debunked 2 years ago. im just reminding you. no need to reply with a cry. just move onto a new subject. |
|
|
|
I don't say it can directly "solve the problem", but it can lead to more acceptance by merchants and users, and thus lead to the virtuous cycle I described in the last post, where Bitcoin can stabilize and slowly become more usable as a currency, and thus "sustain its value" over time.
...
I'm not an unconditional Lightning supporter, .. but I think it is a big piece in the puzzle leading to Bitcoin adoption as a currency.
thats what bankers said when offering bank promissory notes 'pegged' to gold in the 1900's.. and now gold is not a daily use currency nor are bank notes pegged to gold.. and the wild west gold rush is dead just watch out for the PR of "you never have to close your LN channel you can just rebalance" "you dont need to settle to get bitcoin its expensive fee, try an altcoin settlement via atomic swap" its the old banking game. "dont take your gold out to move banks. here have a cheque wrote to another bank" "dont take your gold, here have some brass, nickel and copper coins"
I never participated in any ico or being advocate for pos.
Re: [ANN][ICO][ADX]Iadix Coin POS Purenode HTML5 Blockchain, Starts 15th Feb. Hello, im iadix developper First I want to say there is already some working source code, and we wont "run away" after the ico ends  For the moment there is a wallet based on blackcoin that works on win 32/64 and linux, and the expérimental core im working on which is modular portable and light, easy to customize, it use no big c++ framework, so it compile easily , and include already most function to synch à blockchain, and have web app like wallets and block explorer. The definitive coin used for the ico is not compiled with the definitive parameters yet, but it will be before the start of the ico, there is already a "demo blockchain " working currently though, and we have been testing it for a while already. We plane to be transparent on developpement , and I should be active on it in the near future. And I can answer questions if there is any you literally made an ICO of a PoS coin using your own username as the coin designation. |
|
|
|
again.. i am talking about the LN payments EMPHASIS LN PAYMENTS which allow eric to get paid from alice. you just tried to convert a conversation about LN payments and their HTLC(eric payment hash + msat denominated format) to then quote yourself saying When you open a channel, you share your htlc_basepoint, which is a compressed public key used only for HTLC payments in this particular channel. The other node shares their htlc_basepoint as well. opening a channel has NOTHING to do with ln payments. LN routed payments (the msat ones) are not the same as in channel direct commitments. they are separate agreements/promises/contracts that happen separetly and depending on circumstance, LN payment agreement/promise might get signed. but commitment might not (payment fail example) also dragging another bit of facepalm from another post Did you read the other half of my post? Eric also needs two valid HTLC signatures that can be produced only by Alice and Bob.
first let me clarify buzzwords (LN payment = invoice, aka onion_route_packet aka msat micropayment channel, aka millisat denominated HTLC) you choose the buzzword. your LN has many buzzwords for the same thing. just dont confuse LN payment(or its buzzword variations for the same thing) vs comitments(blockchain accepted format) HTLC is buzzworded as "smart contract(emphasic on the C of HTLC) yes LN payment is one form of smart contract(HTLC) and commitment is another form of smart contract(HTLC) but they are not the same thing. so please stop referencing commitments as your response to LN payments ERIC DOES NOT get paid using two valid HTLC signatures produced by only alice and bob. ERIC DOES NOT get paid using two signatures produces by signing the commitment as the 'message' ERIC gets paid by Diana and only diana eric never sees alice bob pubkeys.. alice and bob never put erics payment hash into a commitment because eric has the secret .. i know your locked on and zoned in and narrow scoped concentrating on just 'direct payment' scenarios of a hub model payment were its just alice paying bob. where bob is the destination. whereby in that 2016-7 scenario of explanation of bolt 2 is only describing the in channel management of such direct payment of just alice and bob. but can you just take a few hours away from typing your messages on repeat referring only to yourself as evidence of your thoughts. and instead read the other bolts and do this.. this one thing distinguish the difference between direct paying bob. vs route payment to eric by this try to expand your scope beyond the repetitive bolt2 reference of a direct payment scenario of a 'hub model'. and instead grasp the concept of micropayments of a 'hop model' i know you are endlessly trying to desperately only want to talk about commitments. but grasp that LN msat payments are a thing, stop skipping to point 4 of your ascii image to avoid the 123 grasp things like: if bob charges 1sat fee, carol charges 1sat fee, diana charges 1 sat fee thats 3sat to make a payment to eric, alice needs to know this to then set how much to send to bob. alice cant commit to bob with an amount unless a route has first been tried using the msat denominated payments, where by alice learns what the combined fees of that route will be. alice also might be looking at other routes. and not yet decided which route to use as a path i know you want to skip past the payment talk to meander back to commitment. but untill you can understand the process of the payment talk. and what happens before a commitment is even made. then it just shows you dont know about the payments. and its not because they dont exist. its that your stuck (narrow scope view) only on the channel direct payment to partner also you say HTLC have nothing to do with revocation because revocation uses time lock..... you might want to check on what TL stands for in HTLC (spoiler: Time Lock) the snippet of IF ELSE statements you referenced in bolt3 are the conditions of .. drum roll.. the HTLC contract before hitting reply. 1. if you have not read the other bolts. dont bother replying, you have already spammed this topic just referencing yourself in previous posts of your opinion. there is no need to post again referencing yourself. 2. if you have sat back and took some time to wish to discuss LN routed payments (without meandering into examples of inchannel direct commitments) then have the first part of your post quoting my previous post questions. putting a * into the [ ] that applies to your opinion. then we can establish a baseline of opinion. of where your opinion differs or (dare i say it) agree with mine i want to get a short quick summary of your actual uncontradicted opinion of your thoughts of LN. so that i can see what things your not getting right |
|
|
|
|
anyway. its been pages of flip floppy.(contradictions) and avoidance of understanding PAYMENTS. just to meander into only discussing commitments(facepalm)
so lets gauge peoples understanding. these questions (by request) have been write short to avoid clauses, and also in pairs of opposition wording to avoid bias. lets see what you know
1.a: lightning network is not the bitcoin network.
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
1.b: lightning network is the bitcoin network.
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
2.a: lightning network is a separate network that does different things than bitcoin
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
2.b: lightning network is always linked to the bitcoin network that does what bitcoin does
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
3.a: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in picocoin-1 (11decimal) also known as msat/millisat
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
3.b: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in btc
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
4.a: LN "payments" (inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
4.b: LN "payments" (inside LN) are same format, to a bitcoin transaction
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
5.a: bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
5.b: bitcoin network does understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
6.a: LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
6.b: LN is tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
7.a: LN wont work without bitcoin
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
7.b: LN will work without bitcoin
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
|
|
|
|
a LNmillisat payment HTLC has units of measure in msat and also uses Erics payment hash for all users (ABCD)
That's correct. we are agreed. one step forward for you.. finally a commitment HTLC(different) uses only the pubkeys of the channel partners and is measured in sats
A commitment transaction with HTLC outputs uses the public keys of the channel partners, their HTLC public keys and the hash of the payment secret. See the second half of this post again. we are half agreed. two steps forward for you.. (being generous) but kind of weird how you say the exact same thing as what i said.. but then you say the commitment then has erics payment_hash(facepalm.. ill explain later issues with this) and then ask me to check something.. and when i go check. you are referring back to commitments of the channel management and nothing to do with the LN payments.. deduct half a step rath_you are 1.5 steps forward. but looks like you are beginning to step back again a commitment is an inchannel management thing that occurs after the out of channel payment of routing packets
The specs literally say that one should not forward an HTLC unless one can enforce the contract on-chain. oh and here you go again. talking about step 4(your ascii art) of the commitment and ignoring the steps 123(your ascii art) of the payment.. deduct 1 whole step your only one step forward. bolts2 (the thing your addicted to) uses examples of old old protocol where its describing examples of 'hub' payments (where channel partner is the destination)
It's exactly the opposite. Direct payments could work just fine without HTLCs. The main purpose of HTLCs is to enable payment routing. again you seems to only want to limit the scope to direct payments (inchannel funding commitment where bob is the destination) HTLC is actually about the revocation part initially(punishment) in regard to routed or in channel direct payments(partner is destination). though in direct payments becasue your trying to pay bob anyway as the destination there is less need for HTLC but a HTLC main objective is you 'hope' to prevent partner sending an old commitment. by having a time locked contract with revoke conditions i wont deduct a step yet, as this is a new argument from you. ill just treat is as naive jump to conclusion before checking. just try to look into it abit and not just repeat it because you said it before otherwise if alice is trying to pay Eric. if it was alice commiting to bob first. bob could then broadcast his win he never asked for.. and because its the latest commitment(in your scenario fantasy). bob cant be revoked. and so bob gets the win. eric doesnt get paid and alice is out of money.
franky1, come on. You seem to completely ignore the fact that TWO commitment transactions are signed for each Lightning payment. The first transaction is supposed to prevent the situation you described from happening. The transaction contains additional (HTLC) outputs with locking scripts which I described in the other half of this post. Bob has no real reason to broadcast his commitment transaction with HTLC outputs unless Carol claims his HTLC and Alice stops cooperating, and refuses to sign another commitment transaction without the HTLC output. The second commitment transaction is signed once Bob sends "update_fulfill_htlc", which includes the payment preimage, to Alice. It's the transaction you have been talking about all the time. i know you want to concentrate and saturate this topic with endless post just talking about the commitment and ignoring the millsat payments.. yea your game is obvious. and getting boring.. your post you refer to is ignoring the LN payments that involve the payment_hash provided by eric and used throughout the route. instead you want to only discuss the commitments of channel management .. here is the thing.. when alice gets payment_hash from eric. alice has not even told bob how much needs to be routed. because alice might use zoe, yvonne xena.. instead so how does bob know, well alice chooses to try a route via bob, carol, diana,eric by sending an LNpayment (onion packet msat with erics payment_hash(htlc)) though that path. alice does not use this (payment)htlc to put into a commitment with bob, because the output is erics key and eric knows the secret, if it were put in, and it was broadcast, eric would see the confirmed utxo to his key and he can then spend that utxo with his secretthe commitment is a separate HTLC using the alice bob pubkeys (not the eric payment_hash HTLC) i know you want to use bolt 2 because its example is pretending bob is the destination.(direct payment) where micropayments/routing is not needed needed in bolt 2 scenario. but things have moved on.. try reading bolt4 and learn about the other things . like micropayments using the onion packets it seems you are too eager to pretend that the 'payment' is put into commitment and act as if there is no msat format htlc.. and that story of yours is getting boring |
|
|
|
The biggest obstacle I see is that fact that there are a lot of people with a lot of time and money and effort already out there and they may not like new competition coming in.
Would bitmain & others drop their price to the point of dumping just to keep new people out?
-Dave
i wouldnt see bitmain dumping their price below their cost to monopolise. there is already other asics on the market and bitmain still sell at a premium due to reputation. they may lower the price if people find a good asic competitor with fair pricing, thus reducing demand for bitmain, where bitmain might then bring it inline with competitors to stay desirable. . but again i dont see them wanting to dump below cost just to monopolise. |
|
|
|
|
HTLC is not a specific term which means commitment
HTLC is basically "complex contract"
a LN millisat format payment has a HTLC ..
just because you see something that says HTLC does not mean it refers to the commitment
AGAIN:
a LNmillisat payment HTLC has units of measure in msat and also uses Erics payment hash for all users (ABCD)
a commitment HTLC(different) uses only the pubkeys of the channel partners and is measured in sats
a commitment is an inchannel management thing that occurs after the out of channel payment of routing packets
please try, for the multiple time of telling you. to learn the differences
last time im going to say this.
a HTLC is not "commitment". it refers to a whole range of transactions and formats that use HTLC
so stop trying to say 'it makes a commitment because it says HTLC.
oh and one last thing
bolts2 (the thing your addicted to) uses examples of old old protocol where its describing examples of 'hub' payments (where channel partner is the destination)
try to read the newer bolts. that explain more of the routing and payments of others in hop models using micropayments.
you cant comit to rounding up a millisat to a sat. until you know the millisat payment is complete..
otherwise if alice is trying to pay Eric. if it was alice commiting to bob first. bob could then broadcast his win he never asked for.. and because its the latest commitment(in your scenario fantasy). bob cant be revoked. and so bob gets the win. eric doesnt get paid and alice is out of money.
sorry but thats not how it works. bob only gets paid after eric gets paid (ref the image several posts ago of 1-9 alice to eric)
|
|
|
|
tl:dr; in short. mining costs and cost of acquisition has more of an impact than the 19m coins in circulation being hoarded. but ultimately its the active day trader actually making the orders that impacts the price the most. because they are the ones setting the price.
the waffle explanation: the bitcoin exchange market price is not affected by: - the 19million coins in circulation (hoarded on keys). - the 1-2mill coins deposited onto exchange hot/cold wallets. bitcoins price is affected by active and just 'taken' marker orders on the market order book EG independent cold store hoarders or those using an exchange as a hotwallet custodian, but not buying/selling. do not affect the price. because they are not buying/selling to set the price as for those with market orders. its not a simple supply/demand. this is because although in 2012 bitcoin had ~11mill coins in circulation and MTgox had many millions of coin alone mtgox orderbooks were 10-1000 coin per order. now in 2022. where there is 19mill coins in circulation(more general supply) market order lines are more like 0.001-1 what you find is that when there is less bunches of dollar. EG people are only offering $43 for 0.001 its not like the sellers are going to 'wall' the market with 10-1000 btc orders that never fill to move the price. instead the sellers also depreciate how much they put in at any order line by also going down to 0.001 to match the demand so its not a simple supply demand. its actually several layers of psychology changing whats deemed as supply.demand .. that said only those making market orders affect the price. no one else .. to add another aspect to this. what people think is fair VALUE of a range thats ok to trade between. is more of a less refined and slight speculative range. for instance in iceland/russia they value bitcoin at $30k because they can mine it for that. america values it at $40k. and japan values it at $70k so japan think the bitcoin price is undervalued(super cheap) because they cant even mine it for less than $70k so iceland think the bitcoin price is overvalued(premium) because they CAN even mine it for less as hashrate and mining costs increase. this impacts the value range people are willing to trade between in short. mining costs and cost of acquisition has more of an impact than the 19m coins in circulation being hoarded. but ultimately its the active day trader actually making the orders that impacts the price the most. because they are the ones setting the price.
Like suppose a long term whale hodler decided to sell his bag. This will cause the price to crash, but they usually recover soon. Small hodlers have little to no impact on the price.
well technically they are no longer hoarders..  hoarders dont sell. thats what makes them hoarders |
|
|
|
your trying to set a narrative that channel partners update a commitment and then send a "onion_routing_packet" what you are not realising is what i said a few posts back. with the colourful image cycle of 1-9 alice to eric you do know that users along a route cant create a commitment update until they have first received a LN payment. else how will they even know what they have to update the commitment by. (oh wait is LN now featuring psychic powers?) also at the update_add_htlc, they dont update the commitment. they create a LN micropayment promise this update_add_htlc is a private message between channel partners that update their own micropayment promise. this micropayment promise is measured in msat and includes the destinations payment_hash as the 'output' its not the channels commitment that uses the channel partners pubkeys. its a "micropayment" msat format using the payment_hash once an payment succeeds then they update the commitment. because then and only then has B deserved been paid by A. if there is a route fail. then the Ln micropayment promise just gets dropped please take some time to read ALL the bolts. and try not to fear moving away from your adamant desire to only read bolt 2 .. actually.. seeing as you love bolt 2 https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/02-peer-protocol.md#adding-an-htlc-update_add_htlcAdding an HTLC: update_add_htlc
Either node can send update_add_htlc to offer an HTLC to the other, which is redeemable in return for a payment preimage. Amounts are in millisatoshi, though on-chain enforcement is only possible for whole satoshi amounts greater than the dust limit (in commitment transactions these are rounded down as specified in BOLT #3).
The format of the onion_routing_packet portion, which indicates where the payment is destined, is described in BOLT #4.
type: 128 (update_add_htlc)
data:
[channel_id:channel_id]
[u64:id]
[u64:amount_msat]
[sha256:payment_hash]
[u32:cltv_expiry]
[1366*byte:onion_routing_packet]
as you can see "update_add_htlc" is the msat message including the "onion_routing_packet" update_add_htlc is not a trigger for create new commitment |
|
|
|
At franky1 if btc writes code to alter from 0.00000001 to 0.0000000001 and it is voted on via miners do you concede that to be okay.
note I said sats to 1/100 sats
or eight digits to ten digits.
bitcoins reward math. bitcoin transaction data is not 0.X.. its actually measured in sats. to make the smallest unit subdivide even further requires breaking and bastardising many bitcoin rules. if you look at the byte data(raw tx) of a tx of 1000sat, its not 0.00001000 its actually 1000 EG if a legacy UTXO had 1000sat locked to the key. and a BStard transaction format was measured in msats the then code would think that the 1000 unit of legacy is only 1sat (1000msat) also the block reward. its not 6.25/2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2 its actually 625000000 /2 or more technically, in binary: 100101010000001011111001000000 were the end bit is dropped every 210,000 blocks if a new BStard transaction format of msat protocol viewed: 100101010000001011111001000000 it would convert is to not still be 6.25btc but instead appear at GUI as 0.00625btc because the unit of measure has shifted by 3 decimals at GUI level this means to cludge the code with more code to fix that. the current 100101010000001011111001000000 (6.25bt legacy) which has 30 halvings left (30 bits to drop) would need to be changed to 1001000110000100111001110010101000000000 with 40 halvings. meaning it also breaks the 20140 year cut off. and changes it to be 2180 before supply depletes and also more code ontop to recognise old legacy/segwit formats and convert a legacy/segwit utxo value from 100101010000001011111001000000 to 1001000110000100111001110010101000000000 and if someone wanted to go back to a legacy utxo. the reverse (4bit varient to 30bit varient) in short, alot of cludgy code and alot of bug risks of translating bytes and crap .. also with 1000x more sharable units. that can be split and shared around. this also changes the scarcity. EG no one cares about only 190,000 tonnes of gold. if there is enough gold dust for everyone to have, its not scarce because everyone can have some gold |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
