yes there is

that is "evidence" that anyone can present. i.e. not evidence of this story

those addresses are publicly available, you're foolish to believe randomers on a social media platform

where is the evidence of any of this?


smells of a last ditch attempt at manipulating the market downwards before a break upwards

@johnlu

there's a significant re-write of the code going on for 0.97, that sort of thing can take alot of time. It's better that it does (take some time), as it's a good opportunity to re-structure the codebase with a long term perspective in mind


not sure on the exact latest progress though, check github I guess

1. who are the alleged conspirators?
2. what is the crime they were planning?

oh, you are confused about what that word means


conspiracy:

an act wherein 2 or more persons plan to commit a criminal offence


NOT

conspiracy:

story, which is not true

ALLEGEDLY

even the contelegraph headline stipulates that condition


there is zero proof that this is happening

really? link?


I've never heard a story about miners making secret deals to change Bitcoin development before, but you're saying that's been going on for years?

all of these clowns would be even less relevant if people ceased talking about (or to) them

"possession is 9/10ths of the law" - old legal maxim



can you take my Bitcoin from me? is that a "no" I'm hearing?

---

banning Bitcoin is against the laws of reality, which are of course infinitely stronger than any gangsterment edicts.

so if anyone says "give me your BTC", as with drugs, "just say no"

nice


note that the magnet link below (which is just a truncated version of achow101's link) will download Bitcoin 0.18.1, but without giving your IP to any of those trackers (i.e. decentralised!). It might take a bit longer to find peers (a few minutes only)


requires bittorrent client with good DHT handling:

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:c3ba0cfee3ef8413098ac5e81db08a2670e9da8c&dn=bitcoin-core-0.18.1

every state is a channel close transaction, that was negotiated, but not broadcast. the blockchain doesn't know that other more recent states exist, so it's as valid as any other.

that's the point of going off-chain when you think about it; the blockchain only needs to know aggregations of every little transaction together as 1 larger transaction, not every detail of every little transaction.

some names on the list of 0.18.1 contributors aren't as vocal as Luke, but have actually been developing Bitcoin longer than him


@achow101 do you have a magnet link to the binaries?


Thanks to all who contributed to 0.18.1, particularly the new person (technovert) who fixed poll(), that was an annoying bug

right, but the most powerful way of saying "this argument is not credible", is to say it once, then leave it be


whereas, you are giving the argument credibility by saying it has none, but then actually giving it credibility because you continue to argue



for example, if flat-earthers try to engage in argument, what's the best way to handle it? argue with them forever, or for 5 minutes? it's the 2nd option, right?

you're doing the equivalent of arguing forever with Bitcoin flat-earthers about how Bitcoin isn't a discworld (supported by four giant elephants standing on the backs of infinite turtles...)

you could, but unlike an IOU, the debtor cannot stiff the creditor. As I say, that is where the comparisons end

and I reiterate, saying "Lightning is an IOU" is a psychological tactic, designed to make people think they're trusting money put into Lighting channels can be returned to the on-chain. That's not what's happening. You can control whether your money is returned, providing that you understand how to do so.



no

channels are like IOUs, but they are not IOUs. Manipulating subtle differences in the meaning of words, or exaggerating something are typical tactics of someone trying to twist reality.

goods in an IOU are signed by the issuer, and haven't been delivered to the recipient yet

Lightning channels are just contracts to deliver valid on-chain funds, but not to actually confirm the transaction. If it can be confirmed, then it's nigh-on identical to actually owning it on-chain, you have the signed transaction that delivers the BTC to an address own by you

(that's why Eltoo/sighash_noinput is so important, the big obstacle is unexpectedly high on-chain fees preventing you from settling a channel balance, no_input lets you change the transaction fee when you initiate a channel close, whereas with today's Lightning you must choose the transaction fee when you update the channel, which may be a while before you close)


The "IOU" thing is a psychological trick; IOU's have a bad reputation for being worthless and easy to abuse, whereas as you say, Lightning is not like that. That doesn't mean it's any less like a non-legal contract, it is a non-legal contract. Lightning channels are better guaranteed than even a legal contract, maybe we should call them cryptographic or algorithmic contracts to reflect this difference. I find "smart" contract to be an irritating expression

another way to look at it :-

• IOU's are informal contracts, that have a reputation for being easy to break
• Lightning channels are contracts too, but they're enforced by the Bitcoin blockchain. You can't break these contracts

future improvements (i.e. Eltoo / sighash_noinput) will tidy up the corner case where old copies of channel updates are put on-chain.

eh? make sense, man


I think I get it, your reply is laid out in a confusing way

---

again (I'm gonna be as clear as I was last time)


why even validate the bad actors who attack Bitcoin with misinformation? it only gives them status, why would you want them to have status?


All you're achieving is adding oxygen to the discussion of endless trolling from endless trolls. why do that?

I don't post about things that don't matter.

or to put it another way:

if it doesn't matter, why validate it at all by drawing attention to it

Joe Rogan seems to think he can get ANY guest on, and agree with ANYTHING they say, even if it's the complete opposite of what Joe was agreeing with on a different podcast last week


You know what they say about people that just agree with everyone and anything, right?