each state/update PTLC has a update sequence number, using any old states to channel-close are rejected by validating nodes if a close tx with a newer state has already been confirmed in a block. Because the sequence number is lower for the older state. Higher state numbers override lower state numbers.

Conversely, if a scammer tries to initiate a channel-close with an old state, it's perfectly valid on-chain to override that with another tx that redistributes funds according to the newest state, because the sequence number of newer states are higher.

The scammer spends their own anchor outputs as fees to close with an old state in the latter case, a small but real disincentive to try.

Maybe there are real attacks, perhaps with very busy channels the sequence number might be susceptible to overflow? Didn't check the specifics (and I don't think any actual code exists yet anyway). The old-state attack would work if you get cut-off from all internet past the timeout, but that's no different than with HTLC lightning.

no it doesn't

regular people built bitcoin from literally nothing, into a trillion dollar monetary network in little more than 10 years


the main payments rail (the channel network) is just getting started, and you think that a bunch of coiffured ex-advertising used car salesmen will somehow help? It's far more likely they'll help to fuck it up

Saylor is also positioning himself as a figure in a mining cartel


these big-business types are the opposite of what's healthy for Bitcoin and business in general: they're anti-competitive, manipulative and generally psychopathic, and their whole culture has essentially raped capitalism with dirty tricks, pushing a new generation of kids to conflate capitalism and corporatism. the worse this gets, the longer it'll take to fix it


if you promote this kind of character, you're the same kind of scum and fully deserve all the consequences

yes he is

he took a decentralized system and keeps:

• trying and
• trying and
• trying and
• trying and
• trying and
• trying and
• trying and
• trying and
• trying and

...to make his modest little self the center of it.


Do you work for Michael Saylor? You realize such people are nothing but talentless manipulative parasites?

but onrampsincomingliquiditycustodialwalletchannelbalancinghubslightningbankcentral ization



no, waaait a second. That means you created a balanced channel as the transaction to open it, and that this kind of channel could be the default for a node manager searching for channel partners...

with HWI doing the hardware part (https://github.com/bitcoin-core/hwi), it should be pretty easy to achieve. Armory really just needs to start speaking BIP174, and that's more or less the whole thing.

I really hope Armory doesn't use boost process though, that's my least favorite aspect of Bitcoin Core's external signer implementation (coming in 22.0). I know, platform independent etc, but boost is usually over-baked for what is needed, plus quite buggy (and I just don't care whether Windows users get new features or not, to be quite honest)

maybe

it's sad I feel the need to take that stance, but there is a significant motive for foul play of some kind; either faking his own death or being killed for his money (or some political shenanigans he may have mixed himself up in, which he has a demonstrated proclivity for)

dunno, it would help my credulity along a ways if he had died in a less corrupt part of the world.

I'm reading: "Man with 1,000's of BTC issued a death certificate in a corrupt country, had humongous ego + known history of high level trolling/manipulating"

I disagree

to me, the backing has never been an interesting part of stablecoins, the pegging is the killer app (also assuming the network is permissionless & decentralized). Simply as a tool to trade true cryptocurrency against a less volatile token (I hesitate to use the word "asset"), corporate stablecoins do a great job.

Sure, there is considerable counterparty risk as a downside, but that exists in the world of banks and credit unions also, all the more so when you're using your access to the fiat money system to trade cryptocurrencies (banks often put a black mark against you for doing so).

tl;dr The "funds" in your bank account aren't properly funded either, these so-called professionals can't even guarantee an IOU, which is in itself a means to avoid liability for maintaining reserves of real assets. This is, of course, a professionalism of a sort: professional theft

yes, the bitcoins will run out and we will all be very sad



a big party (whales only).


if people were smart, they would increase their asking price when whales start buying, but how do you know it's a whale buying, and not a mackerel? because of this, whales will buy all bitcoins, and mackerels will accidentally sell everything they have to whales.

checkmate bitcoin! whales win, you lose!

if someone says:

• buy this from my friend
• because you bought it, I will now kick your ass

then maybe buy it somewhere else?

node going offline is only a problem if it's more than a few minutes/hours. Most internet outages don't last more than a few hours.

to steal funds from you, your node needs to be offline for weeks (i.e. after the timeout period in the part of the contract where 1 node closes the channel on their own). Who gets disconnected from the internet for that long? Maybe only if you can't pay your ISP bill, but it sounds like you've got more serious problems in your life than your lightning node


future improvements to lightning will make these problems less serious anyway, but for now, just make sure your node is running ok and that your bills are paid.

Corporate and government power working together to protect each other...

...shouldn't there be a name for that sort of thing?

from now on, here's the "logic" (really just rules, and not logical at all):

• if you're not a corporation, and you're using and/or producing energy, expect constant and increasing scrutiny of it all (not just carbon consumption)
• if you are a corporation, some carbon-credit accountancy magic will make everything ok

corporations already break the law with impunity now, they simply pay up using money they are borrowing for zero or being paid to borrow (as they can access the negative interest money loans from central banks), no-one is jailed or individually punished

so, expect lots of scandals, where corporation get caught somehow faking their carbon offsets, and some heartfelt public apologies, until they get caught again


meanwhile people who are not corporate managers and executives can expect to get their own actual ass kicked every time surveillance systems record it

that approach misses the point

Nation states have been rendered progressively less important over the course of the 20^th century, the IMF/World Bank would be quite happy to cede some representation over to the southern and eastern central banks if it could buy them a little good PR. And it's really nothing more than that, only the people that buy into the nation state concept would perceive such a move as making any material difference. The string pullers at (and behind the scenes of) the World Bank/IMF don't care about petty tribal loyalty, they are inherently supra-tribal

and by stating it like that, you're provoking that kind of response from these top-down style organizations. the next stage will be "electing world bank councillors" or other such theatrics



you clearly don't understand the "greener" argument; their point is that any energy use, regardless of how it's produced, is bad. I know, that's nonsensical, but again, you're arguing from a position of accepting their premises of debate. Producing energy is worse than using it, why, someone will then have some energy to use!

did I mention that the OP is a false premise, based upon another false premise?

they don't need to do anything. Instead, normal people can just use their economic instincts, and some kind of market equilibrium is always found. Both fiscal and monetary policy are nothing more than the government causing unhelpful distortions to market signals. Well, helpful only to those that can influence government decisions about how and when to distort said signals.

It's plain old racketeering, not benevolence, that drives politicians and bureaucrats to manipulate marketplaces. Let me spell it out plainly: they're gangsters

who's asking these grave-robbing vermin for their opinion anyway?

they're already using renewable energy sources anyway


but it's irrelevant, you don't know what you're talking about. Climate change is a sophisticated power play by the rich, powerful companies that are ostensibly a target of the movement.


Green activists have been figuring this all out for some time now, because they actually investigate the issue carefully, because they actually care about protecting against environmental damage.

No.


Rich industrialists (with the help of some fellow Malthusian scientists) dreamt up the climate change concept in the 1970s; the same rich industrialists that are responsible for all the real environmental damage


Anthropogenic climate change is a long con, perpetrated by depraved, lying eugenicists. Quite a clever con, to their credit. Bitcoin hilariously cuts through the con, by incentivizing energy use against the root of the most corrupt system of all, the monetary system.


As long as Bitcoin remains a low resource network that can handle disruptions, it cannot be stopped. Hence, someone will always find some power and some miners to keep it moving.

the devs have removed the maximum limits on channels and sends for most Lightning node software, so it's possible to send large amounts. All lightning software will remove send/channel size limits eventually.

Still, it's better if you're careful how much money you put on your node. It's a good opportunity to learn how to run a secure server, which can only be done slowly/carefully.