Thanks for the feedback! And thank you for working on fungibility!

I agree that it may seem unrealistic to get Bulletproofs on bitcoin as long as there are issues with a potential "inflation attack"

However we should be able go get Schnorr Signatures, that's just a soft fork isn't it..?

It's not totally clear to me from your answer above..Can you please confirm that we can achieve coin-join transactions that are cheaper than normal transactions with the use of Schnorr Signatures only?

So we actually don't need Bulletproofs for this to happen?

How about Schnorr signatures..? Wouldn't that help..?

By fungibility enhanced I'm thinking of tools like coin-join etc..

It seems to me that most people don't care for privacy because "they got nothing to hide"...(or so they think)

But they are all interested in saving money...

So for these tools to actually work with a large anonymity set, wouldn't it be great if they were actually cheaper to use than normal transactions..?

I mean the total amount of fees paid by 100 people in a coin-join should ideally be cheaper than the total amount of fees paid by the same 100 people if they are just sending normal transactions...

Is there any hopes for this to become reality...?

Thanks for reading!

Please check out my new post on Medium.

"Money is a social construct and that’s why you should run a bitcoin full-node"

All feedback is highly appreciated.
Thank you!

Link:
https://medium.com/@AudunGulbrands1/money-is-a-social-construct-and-thats-why-you-should-run-a-bitcoin-full-node-ea0330cb69a5

My question was originally related to your #2 but your #1 brings another dimension to the table.
So the effect is actually twice as strong as I anticipated.
Thank you!

Please share your thoughts around this claim:

"Fork-Attacks on bitcoin like Bcash and B2X might become infeasible after next halving; due to the value of mining reward becoming Fee>NewCoin"

You can Fork the block reward (New-Coins)
But all the economic fee-generating-activity stays on original chain
Miners must follow the User rather than New-Coin

I haven't seen any discussion around this topic, so I'm curious if I'm missing something..

Please check out my open letter on Medium:
 https://medium.com/@AudunGulbrands1/an-open-letter-to-canaan-and-to-all-uasf-supporters-b954be0b3f6a

Or just read the copied text below:


Dear Canaan

Thank you for creating a solid product, and thank you for the fast delivery!

My AvalonMiner has been working flawlessly since the day I turned it on.

As a producer of top notch mining equipment, it is clear that this moment in time holds a unique opportunity for you…

Please consider giving your support for BIP148.

From a pure PR and marketing perspective, your support for BIP148 is likely to be a very good business decision.

You would immediately gain enormous attention and make yourself tremendously popular amongst a large part of the bitcoin community.

In addition to purchasing your products, many bitcoiners will begin to actively promote your brand.

Everyone in the world of bitcoin will know your name, and you will forever be regarded as heroes for helping the activation of SegWit.


Dear UASF supporters

Please help me prove that the above is true.

I urge everyone of you to actively support and promote Canaan, starting today.

Give Canaan a taste of what is to come if they choose to support BIP148.

Make it clear that you will strongly support and promote Canaan if they support BIP148.

Let’s give them a solid economic incentive to join our side.

We can do this by purchasing the AvalonMiner, and clearly state that we will use it to support BIP148/UASF/SegWit.

If you don’t have the opportunity to acquire your own AvalonMiner, you can still help by actively promoting Canaan on social media.

Inform everyone in your community that Canaan can make fast delivery of top quality mining equipment and make it clear that Canaan is your favorite ASIC producer.


This is truly a Win-Win!

Let’s make SegWit happen!

Question:
Assuming a split occurs after the BIP148 UASF..
What condition will trigger a reorg of the non-segwit-chain?
Is it *longest chain* or is it *most work chain* ?

Can you please discuss this with Luke Dashjr..?
He seems to have some plans for this...

ZeroTier was also discussed on Twitter..
I personally don't have a clue, but I think you may find this discussion interesting:
https://twitter.com/adamierymenko/status/862755716565655552

Until recently I was not aware that this code is already available.
I wanted to signal my support for a UASF so I asked for help on r/bitcoin..

The instructions I received was very helpful!

Check out the links below if you are interesting in running the UASF code...

Can someone please provide the following: "How to signal UASF, a guide for dummies" ?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6bim3z/can_someone_please_provide_the_following_how_to/dhnbzg1/

By request: How to signal UASF, a guide for dummies:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6bkk3c/by_request_how_to_signal_uasf_a_guide_for_dummies/

Thank you for responding!
A related twitter thread has turned out to become very interesting!
Check it out here:
https://twitter.com/AudunGulbrands1/status/862369449873113088

Some wallets, for instance the Samourai wallet; offer the ability to connect to a trusted node (your own)
Wouldn't it be great if this could be done by simply scanning a qr-code..

I’m sure that if this functionality was built directly into the Core GUI, then most of the wallet providers would adapt and make it super easy to pair your node and your phone.

So what do you think?
Is this possible / desirable?

This pie chart keeps on popping up everywhere:
http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html

It shows that the actual number of bitcoin core nodes is more that 67 000...

A very different number is shown at:
https://bitnodes.21.co/

My understanding is that the chart by Luke is also showing nodes that do not accept incoming connections...
In other words: Nodes that are only listening and do not forward transactions and blocks.

But how is it possible to measure the number of such nodes?
Can someone please explain..?

That makes sense! Thank you!

Question:
If BU hard fork happens; Can empty blocks be made valid on both chains at the same time?

I may be wrong, but I believe that Lightning would only serve as a decentralizing force in the bitcoin ecosystem.. Since there are no trusted middlemen in Lightning and since Lightning would bring back an incentive to run a full-node.

Anyway..did you see the rest of my Lightning FAQ?
https://medium.com/@AudunGulbrands1/lightning-faq-67bd2b957d70#.6tzmwqnbd

I will encourage you to post your question as a new topic in this forum!
It’s a great question and I would love to read the responses on it!

Please give me a link if you decide to do so.

I recently made a post r/bitcoin (also posted the same here on Bitcointalk) with the following title:

A Lightning Tx *IS* a bitcoin Tx, and here's why
Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5xoijr/a_lightning_tx_is_a_bitcoin_tx_and_heres_why/

After this post I got some valid criticism from /u/jratcliff63367 for not highlighting the fact that a Lightning Tx is a zero-conformation Tx.

The source of my content was my own Lightning FAQ that I have published on Medium.
Link: https://medium.com/@AudunGulbrands1/lightning-faq-67bd2b957d70#.p1nql0g2b

To address the criticism from /u/jratcliff63367 I have now added a new question to my Lightning FAQ.

Please check it out below:
Feedback is appreciated as always!

 
Q 14.1:
A standard bitcoin Tx is dependent on confirmations in the blockchain...
So, is it really fair to claim that a Lightning Tx is the same as a normal bitcoin Tx?

This is a valid point, they are not the same...
A Lightning Tx is a zero-confirmation Tx. But if it is broadcasted to the bitcoin network; it will be just as valid as any “on-chain” zero-confirmation Tx.
Both types of Tx will eventually be mined into the bitcoin blockchain if they pay a sufficient fee.

However, a LN-Tx has a different security model that makes it much more reliable when compared to a standard zero-confirmation Tx.

A Lightning Tx is only indirectly secured by Proof of Work. This is due to fact that a Lightning Network will be completely dependent on the underlying bitcoin network (see Q12)

Within an open Lightning channel; there is a different set of game-theoretical mechanisms that provide a different type of security model.

Lightning will extend the capabilities of bitcoin without the need for a trusted third party.
But the tradeoff is that you must monitor the bitcoin network by the operation of a full-node.

This monitoring can be outsourced, but in that case you must trust an external server to actually do its job. Your money will still not be routed through this server. The only role of the server is to monitor the bitcoin network, and to broadcast a so-called Penalty Transaction when necessary.

Note that the use of this service is an option, in case you don't want to run your own full-node.
It will not be possible for this third party to steal money from a Lightning channel.

Also note that the LN is intended as a platform for low-value-transfer (sub $100)

All LN transactions are multi-signature and both participants in a channel must sign for a Tx to become valid. A traditional double-spending attack is therefore made extremely difficult.
However, there is a risk that someone can broadcast an obsolete Lightning Tx to the bitcoin network.
An obsolete Lightning Tx is a Tx that does not represent the latest state of its channel.

The above mentioned risk is the reason that you (or a service that you trust) must operate a “Watcher Node”.
This node will monitor all the transactions that are broadcasted to the bitcoin network.

If your Watcher Node discovers an obsolete Tx; it will (as a countermeasure) broadcast a “Penalty Transaction”
The Penalty Transaction gives you the power to confiscate all the money within your channel (including the money that belongs to your counterpart) 
However, a penalty Tx can only become valid after the discovery of a broadcasted obsolete Tx.

Your ability to broadcast a Penalty Transaction makes it very risky for your counterpart to broadcast an obsolete Tx.

Another security/privacy feature, is that all Lightning Tx will be end-to-end encrypted between the participants.

Conclusion:
The security model of a Lightning Tx is different from the security model of traditional bitcoin Tx.
A Lightning Tx will still be regarded as a valid bitcoin Tx if broadcasted to the bitcoin network.

However;
A Lightning Tx will not be publicly broadcasted as long as the channel stays open.
It will only be exchanged between the participants in a channel, and they will store the Tx locally.

We can therefore define a Lightning-Tx as:
A Non-Broadcasted-Zero-Confirmation-Bitcoin-Tx with some additional Security-Mechanisms.

Question:
You say that the Lightning Network is using real bitcoin transactions…
How can it be a real bitcoin transaction if it’s not recorded on the blockchain?

Short Answer:

To understand this, we first need to understand what a bitcoin transaction really is…
The fact is; That there are no “coins” in Bitcoin…
There are only signed messages and updates to the blockchain.

So let’s say that Alice is sending 1 bitcoin to Bob…
We call this a peer-to-peer transaction due to the fact that the ownership of value is transferred directly from Alice to Bob.
But Bob does not actually receive a “digital coin” from Alice.

The thing that in reality is happening; is that all the nodes in the network will update their local copy of the public ledger.
The public ledger is updated so that; the “coin” that was before registered in an address controlled by Alice, is now instead registered in an address controlled by Bob.

Long Answer:

The bitcoin transaction that Alice is sending to Bob, is in reality just a signed message that Alice is broadcasting to everybody.
The message is not only received by Bob, but it is broadcasted to all the nodes in the network.
At the time of writing there are more than 5400 so called “full nodes” in the bitcoin network.

The following steps illustrates the process that takes place when Alice is sending a bitcoin transaction to Bob:

1. When Alice is broadcasting her signed message (= bitcoin transaction), it will be picked up by some of the full nodes in the network.

2. These nodes will independently validate the message (transaction) in accordance with the consensus rules. If the nodes find the message to be valid; they will broadcast the message again so that it can be picked up by other nodes on the network.

3. Some other nodes on the network will pick up the message, and this process continues until all 5400 nodes have independently validated and re-broadcasted the message (transaction)

4. At some point a miner will succeed in constructing a valid block that includes the message (transaction) from Alice. To make this happen the miner must bear the cost of an enormous amount of electricity.

5. The miner will now broadcast this newly found block. The new block will be picked up by some of the full nodes. The nodes will independently validate the block and all its content.
By doing this they are also validating the message (transaction) from Alice for a second time.
If the nodes find the block to be valid (in accordance with the consensus rules) they will broadcast the block again so that other nodes also can receive the block.

6. Other nodes will pick up the block, validate and broadcast.
This process continues until all the nodes in the network have independently validated the block and thereby also validated the message (transaction) from Alice for a second time.
The steps above illustrate that a normal bitcoin transaction actually involves everyone on the network.
The message is independently validated two times by 5400 nodes (= 10 800 validations)

Despite this, we are still calling it a “peer-to-peer transaction” because the actual ownership of value is transferred directly from Alice to Bob*
(*But everyone still needs to help by updating their local copy of the ledger)

Conclusion:
A bitcoin transaction is just a signed message.

So let’s say that Alice wants to send 1 bitcoin to Bob within a Lightning Channel:

Alice is storing some of her money in a “2 of 2” multi-signature address.

Alice and Bob will both sign a message that transfers the ownership of 1 bitcoin from Alice to Bob.

This message is a valid bitcoin transaction, but it is not broadcasted to the bitcoin network.
Instead Alice and Bob both store the transaction (message) locally.

From Bob’s point of view, this “double-signed message” has a monetary value of 1 bitcoin.
The monetary value of 1 bitcoin comes from the fact that Bob can spend this money on-chain at any time; by simply broadcasting the message to the bitcoin network.

Bitcoin transaction = Signed message = Lightning transaction

The purpose of any monetary transaction is to change the ownership of value.

In the bitcoin network we change the ownership of value by the use of signed messages.

A Lightning transaction is a double-signed message.
This double-signed message is therefore a real bitcoin transaction.


For more FAQs on Lightning please visit:
https://medium.com/@AudunGulbrands1/lightning-faq-67bd2b957d70#.pjgghlggv

Question:
We all know that Satoshi disappeared after Gavin talked to the CIA...

It is mostly assumed (I think) that Satoshi left the project voluntarily..

But how do we know that the CIA didn't get to him first?

Is it not plausible that the CIA was successful in tracking him down?

Disclaimer:
I’ve been into bitcoin for about 3 years now, but I haven't used much time on this particular topic. I’m probably just missing some pieces of the puzzle…

Could somebody please fill me in on the information that I’m missing?

If you just scroll a little bit down you will find a link where you can download the full resolution PDF.
Also the full content of the poster can be read by just scrolling a little bit more down
(full text below the poster in the actual Medium post)