I don't mean that at all

I mean:

public nodes, with publicly announced channels, NOT routing through specified nodes (e.g. nodes with high amount of channels) to prevent routing from becoming dominated



right, sybil style de-identifying. LNbig already split themselves into multiple nodes, but (obviously) they continue to identify themselves as LNbig run nodes


that's why I also mention positive preferential routing, i.e. a "please use these nodes to route, if possible" routing algorithm

that way, a node operator can choose a bunch of nodes for whom they know (or are at least confident) are run by small independents, and make sure those small independents always get favorable treatment when routing

possibly, large trampoline (routing delegation) nodes could be similarly shown routing preference if they have a "good" preference list, but I don't think it can be proven that trampoline nodes were using routes that avoid hubs, at least with how the Lightning routing protocol works now... not sure about this

Dave, you're confusing "routing" and "payee"


All payees would be reachable, but hubs could be routed around in order to lessen their influence on the network (using your example, the only way one couldn't recieve money from an invoice issued to A would be if A only has open channels with hubs that B, C and D are routing around)

additionally, DONOT-route(hubA, hubB) could easily be PREFERENTIALLY-route-around(hubA, hubB)


this would be user controlled, opt-in. that is in no way contradicting the open nature of the network, it is intended to help reinforce openness

---

so you've misinterpreted the whole idea completely, unfortunately

• could Lightning decentralisation be improved by giving node operators a "do not route thru X" config option?
• could the obverse be achieved by allowing clients to preferentially route through nodes with some definition of "fewer" channels?
• how might this affect fees?
• how might this affect liquidity?
• how (if at all) might this inter-operate with delegated (i.e. "trampoline") routing?

trolls/trolling not tolerated

please post questions and/or answers

The Economist is majority owned by the multi-billion euro Schroeder financial group (and the corresponding family dynasty that's controlled Schroeders for over a century).

Make of that what you will. The Economist also has various unsavoury minority owners.


Here's what I make of it: The Economist is arguably the best crafted propaganda out there, bar none. And that's because so much of the content is so well researched and well written, especially the parts that are subtly against the interests of it's readers.

no, this is incorrect

the fossil fuel industry is promoting the anthropogenic climate change agenda rather heavily, and they stand to gain, for this reason:


fossil fuel industry plan to benefit from these circumstances thusly:

• Promote carbon credits legislation
• Continue extraction and usage of fossil fuels
• Use new tech to slowly reduce the CO₂ output of extraction & energy production (scrubbers, sequestration etc)
• Record how much CO₂ emissions they prevented
• Sell the amount saved to us, as carbon credits

can we trust them, and the regulators who measure and certify their efforts, not to cheat? I doubt it, personally

if your point is (and it was): "we can't trust big oil or big energy in general", you'd be right. But look at what you're trusting them with when you accept the anthropogenic climate change position



can you see the greater political danger in giving this much more power to a group of organisations, who openly admit they are a cartel, over which significant armed conflicts have dominated the past 100 years, and all of that at the expense of everyday people whose political power is rapidly diminishing?

You are being tricked by these very powerful people, please get a grip before they institute any of this planned power-grab



it's not that simple

how much is bad? The fact that you are willing to use such open-ended, non specific expressions leads me to believe that you don't even care what the details of the pro anthropogenic climate change argument even are

because the pro-anthropogenic change argument is not "CO₂ is bad"

the argument is "this proportion of CO₂ is bad"


guess what? I agree with the latter statement. I disagree with anthropogenic climate change proponents on what the dangerous proportion is.

and the major flaw in the argument: reality agrees with me. cherry picked statistics, of course, do not, and that's the only way that anthropogenic climate change arguments can be made; using biased statistics and computer models that reinforce the anthropogenic hypotheses, but deliberately ignore the overall context that does not support the anthropogenic hypothesis

the evidence that biased statistics and computer models are being used to further the anthropogenic argument is abundant, and increasingly so

I do not know from the top of my head, but...

what you need to know (IIUC) is which version of the GCC compiler comes with Ubuntu 18 LTS. If it's a version < 7.2, you want the first Armory package. If 18 LTS has a GCC version >= 7.2, it's the second Armory package.

the consequences of being wrong are perfectly ok, your Ubuntu package manager will tell you "I haven't got GCC version 7.2". It seems very unlikely that 18 LTS has GCC <4.9, version 4.9 is pretty old

let's not forget that there are citizens who'll sell out fellow citizens also, especially in pressured circumstances.

when the built-up problems in the centralised manipulated markets are finally and fully released, there's gonna be some desperate people out there, that could be much more amoral than you remember them before the mother of all recessions.

try not to measure your success in dollars


don't forget, the whole reason why the circumstances that are giving people this opportunity is: inflation

and inflation means that the value of the currency, it's purchasing power, is deteriorating (which you have realised....)


so that means the currency you're transtioning from is not a reliable measurement, so don't measure anything with it!


count in ounces (of gold/silver) and satoshis

there are reports that Hong Kong retailers are choosing to accept Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as a way of supporting Hong Kong's independence movement. If this continued, it might be surprisingly easy for Hong Kong to be the first jurisdiction in which cryptocurrency plays a major/dominant economic role. Hong Kong is very small and densely populated, and the independence activists are staunchly rebellious. This is actually more or less the perfect circumstances for such a thing to happen.

---

if anyone from Hong Kong is reading, I say:

you can do it

my experience was the opposite, anti-virus didn't save me from a single thing, and inconvenienced me from doing what I wanted to at least a handful of times


and really, it's another way of saying "Windows and Mac are insecure by default"

and some company makes your Win/Mac computer secure, for free? because some tiny percentage pay for the "full" application?

I'm amazed that anyone ever believed this (including myself, I believed it up until the early 2010's)

right, one almost never hears anyone talk about sulphur or nitrogen dioxide, yet they're directly bad for the health, and possibly have a detrimental effect on the overall ecosystem also (don't know enough about the consequential effects)



I don't totally agree with this

The storage technology for renewable energy is both required and immature (it's very immature considering how old the energy storage field is), if significant proportions of energy production is to be changed to renewable sources. It's the ideal, but until then, renewables are best used to smooth out peaks in demand, as that supply profile matches what the tech is actually capable of in the actual real world



the argument that CO₂ emissions even matter is similarly thin on the ground (as is the proportion of CO₂ in the atmosphere )


the foundation of the whole anthropogenic warming argument was rocked this week: the climate sceintist that produced the famous "hockey stick" graph of temperature rises over C20th lost his court case.


how did he lose his case? he refused to present his methodology that produced the hockey stick graph in the court room. think about that; the methodology that produced the famous hockey stick trend graph was not publicly available then, and it's still not available now

what sort of scientist does that? loses a court case, a civil libel case which he instigated, by refusing to present the evidence that proves his case? what sort of science cannot withstand the scrutiny of a courtroom?

he's economically illiterate himself (democrats often are)

he claims to support Bitcoin (hard money)

yet he also supports giving away free money (inflationary)


hard money and price inflation cannot co-exist, he's either an idiot or trying to send mixed messages deliberately

this

any speed advantages are almost entirely dependent on the chainstate directory being on a fast disk, flushing the chainstate to a big slow mechanical disk does not impact performance of the node at the present time. running chainstate from a big slow mechanical disk hurts node performance alot (i.e. startup, IBD, tip validation)

if you buy an SSD big enough to fit the blocks too, it's somewhat of a waste of money. the chainstate directory is only ~2-4GB, so really you can buy a very small cheap SSD. 64GB is more than enough

supposedly, people in Hong Kong are now using Bitcoin in greater numbers in case the Chinese government try shutting protestors' bank accounts. and to undermine government control of the HKD, perhaps

ok, so x % of how much total BTC is the question I'm asking


the fact is, if people used Payjoin, which they no doubt are, blockchain analysis cannot detect it. Payjoins just look like any normal transaction, there is no possible heuristic for it

anti-virus = digital snake oil


real 4. Install secure operating system on computer (i.e. not Windows)
5. Install & configure MAC package (mandatory access control)


step 5 isn't easy, but either you want secure Bitcoins, or you don't

FTFY

i didn't



i was referring to you saying this about Wright


what has that got to do with you wanting Wright to be punished for anything, whether it's just or not, and whether or not people he deceived are compensated for their loss? It's "nothing", isn't it?

so you'll pay for mass murder, child sex slavery and the psychological manipulation to stop people reacting against it, just so you can avoid being bullied too?


nice

so, 2 wrongs make 1 right? I disagree with that


what about all the people who never did anything wrong, who have libel cases brought against them, which they lose, either unjustly or corruptly?

meanwhile the people that Wright hoodwinked with BSV (and I'm not even convinced there were that many) will get none of this settlement, while the Kleiman family will get the promise of something (and in the end nothing, as Wright doesn't own significant assets of any kind), and what for? Kleiman sounds like he was lying too, so what sort of justice is that, taking money from a fraudster, and giving it to the family of a deceased fraudster? That makes zero sense, sorry

you're justifying this excessively litigious culture that brought about Wright's come-uppence, yet simultaneously excoriating free trade and capitalism.

Scammers and getting scammed is an unfortunate part of capitalism. If all investments were enforced as 100% safe, there would be none on offer. It's always a risk, and judging the risk vs the potential reward is your responsibility and yours alone. I didn't buy any scammy ICO's, because I invested in the knowledge that led me to deduce that they are mostly scams.