Bitcoin Forum
June 26, 2019, 03:21:37 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 [49] 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 ... 822 »
961  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Chains on: December 19, 2018, 12:34:48 AM
I am talking about keeping the data on my harddrive. Instead of two copies before the fork, use only one.

you mean
one copy of the chain upto block 478558

then a btc chain of 478559->ongoing
and a bch chain of 478559-556767
then a bch chain of 556768->ongoing
then a bchsv chain of 556768->ongoing

like this:
2009----------------------------------o-----2018 btc
2009----------------------------------o---e-2018 bch
2009--------------------------------------e-2018 bchsv

instead of this:
2009----------------------------------------2018 btc
2009----------------------------------------2018 bch
2009----------------------------------------2018 bchsv
962  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Blockchain size on: December 19, 2018, 12:11:31 AM
as for that block

2.2mb ... but only 230 transactions included..
that there is known as a bloated block as its wasting alot of tx count on heavy transactions..

a very worse case scenario is where a block can be bloated with just 5tx... yep
if you cared about bitcoin utility on the bitcoin network. i/you should not be proud of a block using 2.2mb for just 230 or 5tx.. thats the opposite of scaling bitcoin for better utility.

what you should be seeking is a case where the old notion of bitcoin allowing upto 7tx/s (4200tx a block) having on average more than 4200tx.. that then would be a time to celebrate a step forward in bitcoin utility..
or more long term more than 600k tx a day threshold being passed.

no one should be proud of a 2.2mb block of only 230tx
963  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Blockchain size on: December 18, 2018, 11:57:18 PM
firstly i never said 2.1mb was a limit. i said 2.1 was a more realistic utility
EG i also said 1.2mb but that does not mean minimum limit. is just the expectant range of average.. obviously blocks can be less and more. but do not expect blocks being 4mb filled
expect it more around the 1.2mb-2.1mb area
if howevr they removed a wishy washy bit of code called witness scale factor. then more transactions can be utilitised meaning more transactions, better utility and yes actually getting full use of the 4mb weight.


the bit about millions of home users running full nodes on outdated pc's and slower internet causing bottlenecks vs just 10k-100k running full nodes using business lines and regularly updated hardware

imagine it took you 2-14 seconds to ask-receive-validate-relay a block
imagine your a node with 8 connections (ok for home use internet speeds)
node connects to 8 users. and those 8  connect to 8 and so on

in 8 second min 56 second max. 4096 nodes have the data

in 10 second min 70 second max. 32768 nodes have the data

in 12 second min 84 second max. 262144 nodes have the data

in 14 second min 94 second max. 2097152 nodes have the data

as you can see it can take upto 1minute and 34 seconds before 2millions people have the data
where as:
imagine where its more for those with 'unlimited fibre' plans and people that upgrade their computer often(4 year as oppose to 10 years)
imagine it took you 2-4 seconds to ask-receive-validate-relay a block

in 4 second min 8 second max. 4096 nodes have the data

in 6 second min 12 second max. 262144 nodes have the data

as you can see.. home users would take 12-84 seconds to get data to over 200k nodes
those with fibre and more modern updated pcs would take 6-12 seconds to get data to over 200k nodes

and to address the personal attack from doomad.
less important, as his noise is usually just insults..
 he is a guy that loves the idea of having funds locked up and is promoting other networks. he loves telling people if they are not happy with the plan then just go away....(facepalm)
so he truly hates it when people have an opinion that bitcoin utility, scaling and growth should remain on bitcoin. instead his mindset swaying users to give up using bitcoin and transact in other networks. as those other networks are not blockchained, not limited to bitcoin only coin utility.

in short not sorting out bitcoins network issues and swaying people off network. wont really help people to want to use bitcoin or return to the network.. instead they will just prefer to swap to altcoins within LN and then use other coins network...

much like 19th century banking that vaults up gold makes people play with paper promissory notes and when they withdraw they think gold is too heavy so they withdraw silver coins instead... leaving gold(bitcoin) for those that managed to make going back to bitcoin a hassle via bloated blockchain, bottlenecks, high fee's and low txcount

but dont mind doomad. he does not realise this is a discussion forum. so hates it when people discuss things that are not positive for his group of friends.
kissing ass and being 100% loyal and hide issues under the rug is what he prefers.. it really causes him to get angry when people are more open and honest to be more critical thinking and looking for real solutions and just speaking out when things are not as they seem/promoted
964  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Blockchain size on: December 18, 2018, 10:29:11 PM
with Segwit transactions single block size will rise up to 4 Mb.
It's wrong, in fact Segwit introduces a new notion for block size called "weight" and which is limited to 4MB (Link to the code). To quote the bip-0141 :
Blocks are currently limited to 1,000,000 bytes (1MB) total size. We change this restriction as follows:

Block weight is defined as Base size * 3 + Total size. (rationale[3])

Base size is the block size in bytes with the original transaction serialization without any witness-related data, as seen by a non-upgraded node.

Total size is the block size in bytes with transactions serialized as described in BIP144, including base data and witness data.

The new rule is block weight ≤ 4,000,000.
In practice, this increases bloc size to ~1.4MB

If you want to see Lightning Network developped in the incoming years, you'd probably accept Segwit which resolved the transaction malleability problem thus enabling Lightning Network.

the weight is 4mb. correct. but the code is actually 4mb / WITNESS_SCALE_FACTOR(4) to keep the now outdated 1mb existing and limiting real utility. but a bit more hidden so they can pretend and flip flop social drama the 1mb's existance or non existance depending on what agenda/conversation they have.

but yes even with 4mb weight. due the to reliance of the still existing 1mb limitation. tx capacity and bytes used is expected to be around 1.2mb-2.1mb realistic utility. even in a situation of everyone using segwit(not gonna happen).. so 4mb is not really a true 4mb limit.
(to much wishy washy code)
965  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Blockchain size on: December 18, 2018, 09:56:10 PM
Hi all,

I've recently discovered something is quite concerning for me, i.e. with Segwit transactions single block size will rise up to 4 Mb.
This would lead to a blockchain increase up to ~200 GB/year, while a normal laptop does not have more than 500 GB.

Right now blockchain is already at 200 GB.
In ten years it seems quite unsustainable. Common users will cease to run a full node, only pros and geeks will do that,
and we'll never have millions of full nodes in that way.

If bitcoin is peer to peer electronic cash and want to be worldwide, IMHO more than mining centralization and price dumping
it's mass adoption of the peer-to-peer network that should be concerned.

If LN will have a great development in the following years, and I hope I will. what about reducing block size back to 1 MB or even lower?

I would like to have explanation and thoughts about a technician.

Thanks in advance.

firstly segwit does not actually offer 4mb true open utility. thats the fake promise of a 2015 scaling debate

secondly if your thinking of keeping the same computer for 10 years. then i feel sorry for your computer in regards to future other software from microsoft, apple and any other software available (unrelated to bitcoin) that wont work well on a computer thats over 10 years.(most people upgrade their pc's every 4-6 years on average

thirdly having millions of people running a full node would actually cause more of a bottleneck than having ~10k-100k used by merchants that NEED to monitor funds of thousands of people paying them each day. rather than home users that may only get paid once a month.

those only getting paid once a month and only wanting to use bitcoin just to buy groceries to be delivered next day, can just use spv wallets. not everyone needs to be a full node and monitor ~2000 tx every 10 minutes if they are only personally involved in 1 tx a day/week

if you are a business NEEDING to be monitoring more than just a couple addresses. then you probably for other business purposes have your computers on a 4 year tax deductibles set-up where you replace equipment. and you probably hav a business internet plan. rather than a home user plan

lastly LN is a separate network to be used for multiple coins. meaning it will require once established properly. masternodes that monitor multiple chains. thus making LN hardware requirements to be a "full node"(factory/hub/watchtower) compared to just using bitcoin and only using a bitcoin node to make transaction on the bitcoin network.
or you can just use a cellphone app and not be a full node like 99% of most people
966  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit not Bitcoin? on: December 18, 2018, 09:39:46 PM
SegWit not Bitcoin?

Here is Bitcoin white paper

Satoshi quote
A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.

Satoshis Version is Peer to Peer (Men to Men, Person to Person) without a Segregated Witness (SegWit).aka creating a banking channel. (like opening a bank account).

LN is the separate network with channels.
segwit is a tx format... its a bitcoin tx format.. when its used on the bitcoin network
it can be used to lock bitcoin up should people want to use the tx format as a gateway into LN.
so segwit is part of bitcoin. but its utility opens users up to something thats not bitcoin

segwit is a tx format... its a bitcoin tx format.. when its used on the litecoin network
it can be used to lock bitcoin up should people want to use the tx format as a gateway into LN.
so segwit is part of litecoin. but its utility opens users up to something thats not litecoin
967  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit not Bitcoin? on: December 18, 2018, 08:25:56 PM
Said the forum's #1 fan of Kardashians.   Roll Eyes

Frank is full with bullshit when it comes to Segwit and LN.

referencing the kardasians is about the social drama distraction going on within the "dev state" of
to which doomad and windfury and any core loyalist are fans of.

yet the devs themselves have something different to say than what windfury and doomad believe.
windfury i take with a pinch of salt, as he is still learning.
but doomad has an obvious issue, which makes me wonder what his end agenda is with all his flip flopping and even going against the mantra of the very team he tries to defend.
i still wonder what some fanboys are even doing defending something that even the devs dont try denying.

but hey if your rebuttals only end up being insults. then many yawns and facepalms would be heard.. and thats about it
968  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How many bitcoins to be set? on: December 18, 2018, 07:15:29 PM
How many bitcoins would you say one must have minimum to be set where they don't have to worry about their financial freedom anymore?  When mcafee said it would hit 1 million, i thought that is crazy and i still is.  Then there is this video where a guy said just get 1 bitcoin because that 1 bitcoin could be 1 million dollars in the future.  For most people, 1 million dollars is a lot of money.  But of course it depends on where you are.  That is not much in big cities. 

I would think that you probably need at least 10 bitcoins at the minimum? 

imagining bitcoin being where 1 bit (100 sat) is $1 then bitcoin would go upto $1m
but that is more of a extreme.
id say bitcoin could not go up exponentially forever. especially if tx fee's start costing $2.50+ a tx (250byte+) people wont want to use bitcoin

so $100k (25cent tx fee minimum) seems just about the level that utility and desire will start to tail off like an S curve.

so dont aim for a $1m area. aim for $100k and then just treat anything higher as a bonus
969  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: If you were in charge of Bitcoin 2.0 what would you change? on: December 18, 2018, 06:25:36 PM
You want to undermine those decisions and make unilateral changes.

show me my undermining code that will make unilateral changes..

also read my footnote
"Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at"

im not the dictator here. but your anger, hostility, swearing, curcing and trying to say i should leave the community. and your desire to REKT anything not core.. are very very revealing of what your desires are.

if you dont like what people discuss. then maybe you should b the one that avoids a discussion forum.. or atleast

if you dont like what i have to say. hit the ignore button
970  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit not Bitcoin? on: December 18, 2018, 06:11:06 PM

Code definition: A code is a set of rules about how people should behave or about how something must be..

google can show you the rules/laws they made.
should you care to eventually want to independently research.

also, should you care to read my footnote

"Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at"

i would also like to emphasize opinions on a discussion forum.. are discussions. not rules, not laws. not dictating or and not binding.. unlike the actions of the "dev state" in august 2017

if you dont like what i have to say. hit the ignore button
971  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit not Bitcoin? on: December 18, 2018, 06:04:24 PM
You're dictating

things on an internet forum is not related to consensus.  Consensus is determined by the code people are running.  Not by what is said on the internet.  

so show me the dictating code i wrote?

oh wait. there is none. because i am not dictating. im just stating what occured IN THE PAST
no one can dictate the past.. thus im just informing people that august 1st 2017 actually occured because you wish people to not be aware of it.

i know its a negative hit against your dev state. but it happened. and funnily enough they are proud of it. they are the ones PROMOTING mandated upgrades and upgrades that dont need consensus

which keps me wondering why your denying the actions occured when the guys you wish to defend are promoting their involvement and joy of it happening
972  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit not Bitcoin? on: December 18, 2018, 05:25:08 PM
segwit has made it so bitcoin can be forked and/or upgraded far more easily without having to achieve a 95% consensus before features activate


Any fork can be activated at any threshold.  It depends what code those securing the chain choose to run.  

For hardforks, you are more than welcome to run software that sets activation at 95% if that's what you want.  But if enough users are running code that allows a fork to activate at a lower threshold, then that's what will happen.  There is no rule that states it always has to be 95%.

For softforks, you are more than welcome to run software that doesn't support the fork at all.  But if you've made the choice to do that, then you accept the consequences that you may need to trust others that did choose to support the fork.  Much like you accept the consequences that you need to trust others if you choose to run an SPV client.  Run what you want, but understand what the implications are.

You don't get to dictate that forks can't activate with a lower threshold.  Users are free to decide this for themselves.

again you are misguided.
1. im not dictating crap. thats what the "dev state" done in august 2017
2. consensus of majority means just that. majority.. by the "dev state" wanting a lower threshold is a contentious fork
3. by making nodes get banned and blocks getting rejected is also a different scenario than consensus.
the old consensus mechanism would not ban old nodes and would not ban old block formats..
but the dev state you support have and did..
4. by promoting such threatening contentious fork which occured on august 1st. was not consensus

but atleast your starting to admit that core are running code that activates at a lower threshold...
you finally tripped over your own flip flop which goes against your previous flips of 100% loyalty

anyway my argument is not about the %. its about the fact that it was not a clear majority accrued via full community count. due to the tricks of NYA/UASF/"compatibility" etc...
i already told you in many topics "mandatory" "mandatory" "mandatory" "mandatory" is what i am against.

you keep saying how users get to choose by them upgrading to a feature they want. yet segwit wasnt not activated by the method you flip.. you even admit the "compatibility. and the no vote and the other stuff that users dont get to dictate what core should do... so no point you flopping by suddenly saying users do get a vote

now may you go in peace and watch some eastenders. because i know you love your soap opera/drama more so that reality
973  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit not Bitcoin? on: December 18, 2018, 03:37:29 PM

its the LN network which is not bitcoin.
LN is a separate network for utility of multiple coins such as litecoin, vertcoin and bitcoin. it requires locking up for instance bitcoin into a 'vault'(segwit multisig) that is co-signed by another entity. which puts pressure on the bitcoin networks UTXOset if everyone started doing.. it to then let the user use a different network(LN).

The "Lightning Network" is an off-chain layer, which you can use to make transactions in Bitcoin. Plus no, Lightning is not a network of "multiple coins". That is misinformation.

Remember that your Bitcoins never leave the blockchain when you use the Lightning Network. That's why some people say that "off-chain" is not a perfect term for it.

your so stuck in a propaganda myth
try researching the truth.. heres a keyword

it allows the LN network to know what chain (network/coin) the payment/channel is involved in. its what allows litecoin, vertcoin and others to use LN.

its why LN lets litecoin use it and also allows atomic swaps to occur
LN is not a bitcoin layer. its a separate network for multiple coins to use.

the "off-chain" is the mis information.. its a way to be subtle that LN is a non blockchain network

if you are next going to argue that LN is not its own network.. simply ask yourself what does N stand for in LN
ill give you a hint 'network'
ask yourself why is it not called a LBF
lightning bitcoin feature

more proof?
// litecoinTestnetGenesis is the genesis hash of Litecoin's testnet4
// chain.
litecoinTestnetGenesis = chainhash.Hash([chainhash.HashSize]byte{
0xa0, 0x29, 0x3e, 0x4e, 0xeb, 0x3d, 0xa6, 0xe6,
0xf5, 0x6f, 0x81, 0xed, 0x59, 0x5f, 0x57, 0x88,
0x0d, 0x1a, 0x21, 0x56, 0x9e, 0x13, 0xee, 0xfd,
0xd9, 0x51, 0x28, 0x4b, 0x5a, 0x62, 0x66, 0x49,

// litecoinMainnetGenesis is the genesis hash of Litecoin's main chain.
litecoinMainnetGenesis = chainhash.Hash([chainhash.HashSize]byte{
0xe2, 0xbf, 0x04, 0x7e, 0x7e, 0x5a, 0x19, 0x1a,
0xa4, 0xef, 0x34, 0xd3, 0x14, 0x97, 0x9d, 0xc9,
0x98, 0x6e, 0x0f, 0x19, 0x25, 0x1e, 0xda, 0xba,
0x59, 0x40, 0xfd, 0x1f, 0xe3, 0x65, 0xa7, 0x12,

if lightning NETWORK was not for multi coin usage, it would not even want to register/acknowledge the existence of other coins and would only want to accept bitcoin...
.. but thats not the case.
its a open network for any coin that is compatible. (its why litecoin done segwit too. to have a tx format that is a gateway format into LN)

the reason they misguide you with "bitcoin layer" is just the fundraiser/sponsorship advert to get some investment for devs by playing off the separate network as something "relevant" to bitcoin.
its much like coinbase buzzwording bitcoin service even though they also accept other coins. and mainly a fiat service.. but by mentioning bitcoin. creates the hype and gets them better investors
974  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: If you were in charge of Bitcoin 2.0 what would you change? on: December 18, 2018, 03:09:05 PM
anyway putting aside mr meanders personal attacks yet again.

back to the topic at hand
summary of my opinion
1. not bloating the blockchains with smart contracts aimed to push people off network will strengthen utility on network because it keeps people on network.(pushing people offnetwork is not scaling bitcoin. its like telling americans to use canada's payment system due to american system limitations is not increasing USD usage)

2. making transactions lean (hard drive real byte storage for full validatable tx data) would allow the transaction count to not decline (making smart transaction formats more popular REDUCES tx count byte per byte as they are heavier)

3. not having wishy washy code that forgets to count bytes in code, to bypass hard drive byte storage rule, (witness scale factor is just partly it)
4. simply remove the rule if the hard drive ends up storing more bytes than the rule imposed is meant to prevent.(because the rule is then redundant anyways)

5. removing the witness scale factor allows full 4mb utility, and removes the fake tx fee promotion. as witness scale factors doesnt actually discount segwit users. it actually just makes legacy 4x more expensive.(code shows legacy fee as *4... it does not show segwit fee / 4)

6. make transactors who wish to bloat/spam the blockchain be the ones punished by costing that bloater/spammer more. rather than making the average transactor pay more due to one persons actions

yes i do expect a certain meander object that any idea's of change not advocated by "dev state" are wrong/bad/should not be allowed to even be discussed because it doesnt fit the "dev state" roadmap
but there lays issue which number 6 should address.

7. have a network of independant teams that dont get rekt for opposing a "dev state" by there not being a "dev state". instead have it so anyone can propose anything. and it only activates if there is true consensus (2009-2013 consensus)
975  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: If you were in charge of Bitcoin 2.0 what would you change? on: December 18, 2018, 02:53:44 PM
as for your UNRESEARCHED fake beliefs that 95% are core loyal
only 65% are full nodes
majority of that are actually not run by humans at home independantly but are sybil nodes on amazon, hertsner, digital ocean

and as you keep on promoting people dont vote, people dont need to upgrade as they are "compatible"
so people are not 95% loyal.

now have a coffee relax for a while, destress yourself and self rview if your foing to flip or flop.
or you can just ignore my opinion and hit the ignore button

again for emphasis. i have not and have have nor ever will be trying to sway people into a authoritarian regime. i simple desire to wake people up to the one that already exists since 2013. so that people can see how things have changed since 2013

i have made no code demands of people. nor have i mandated change. i just openly offer my opinion and tell people to go do some independant research

you dont like it? hit the ignore button.

and stop telling people if they dont like the authoritarian regime they can simply "f**k off".. as thats just soo anti freedom
976  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: If you were in charge of Bitcoin 2.0 what would you change? on: December 18, 2018, 01:50:20 PM
Users have a choice.  They're making that choice right now.  You just don't like it.  Your idiotic notions of "voting" are worthless.

users have a choice :: there is no voting
                        flip :: flop

make up your mind
your confusing people running a node because there its the only way to not use a custodian for coin storage.. with the consensus vote of being able to activate/object to activating new features(which has slowly been diluted and lost)

people dont run core to have a free will independant choice of what features the network should/shouldnt have.
people run core just to not have to use a custodian for their coins

core are very much in control of the features and rules of the network. not by user choice. but by actions done by the "dev state" over the years

as for your personal attacks.. you make me laugh.
i dont want people to follow me.. show me some code i made that people should follow
show me some code that has mandated activations.

its also why. i say to people to do their own research. i even say that its best not to just be spoonfed from their social buddy/chum groups but do independent research
but you have been adamant you would prefer to argue and tell me i should leave the community, rather than actually recognise what independant thoughts, opinions and open community are really about.

if you dont like my open thoughts and opinions. hit the ignore button. its simple

now, how about you look passed your love and adoration of "dev state" and notice their actions which you keep trying to deny, even when they fully admit it. as that is the biggest flaw in your rebuttals. they are happy with their "dev state" status.
im not sure why you defend them by denying the actions they are happy to admit

as for saying the community run the code that enforces their will.
you yourself have been promoting the non vote/ compatibility of where users dont get to tell devs what devs can and should do

maybe best you really did take some time and research.. or atleast have a coffee and think about are you flipping or flopping. choose one and stick with it.

you are soo in the authoritarian mindset of wanting "dev state" to reign supreme. you have even admitted that even before i write any code for anyone to review/use you will REKT it.. simply because it opposes "dev state"

also your soo stuck in the authoritarian mindset that you believe that those not wanting core to be the "dev state" authoritarian, must mean the opposer wants to be an authoritarian
yet you cannot actually understand a system of multiple teams on an equal level play ground that all dont use mandated crap, and instead let consensus play out.

you only reside leadership, a dominant brand. where they set their agenda and no one can tell them what to do or not do.
its like you dont understand true freedom. but only recognise a tory/monarch empire as being "freedom"

you call that being "open to freedom"... pfft
977  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: A transfer of 249.999 BTC happened just now, really amazing on: December 18, 2018, 12:10:27 PM
its not a "user speculating"
its an exchange organising its cold store

the only speculating i see is the social drama of the reddit poster and this topic creator

exchanges have always been organising its coldstore daily for years
so many examples.. heres one
this is an exchange re-accumilating its cold stores into one main address after reorganising

there are many other examples.. just the other week people were screaming about "6k moved" "66k moved" "8k moved"
which were all the same thing

so relax its not user movements. its just exchanges doing what they do regularly
978  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: If you were in charge of Bitcoin 2.0 what would you change? on: December 18, 2018, 11:37:08 AM
locking funds into a factory. is a smart contract involving trust that the factory didnt make a 2-of-3 smart contract with users under the pretence of it seeming as a 2-of-2 smart contract (trusting the factory doesnt hold 2 keys).

This can easily be prevented at the wallet level. It's trivially easy to prevent and isn't an effective mode of attack. Users won't have to think about this and significant nodes/hubs engaging in that sort of behavior would be quickly outed and ostracized.
1. users will have to think about it becaus users (99% of people) will be using cellphone apps.. thus trusting the 'significant nodes(factories)/hubs (who is the app creator)*
2. quickly outed? the significant nodes/ will be the ones holding users funds. and needing their signature.*
3. by a user trying to broadcast a tx from a cellphone app. guess who they API send it through... yep the server (app company) who are the factory/significant node of concern*
its like having a payment dispute over an applepay tx. but your using apples app. and they have 2 signature authority vs your 1 signature in a 2-of-3 signature scheme, which under schnorr you will not realise its a 2-of-3, you will be optimistic that its a 2-of-2, and have to trust that is the case.. until its too late

2. the non blockchain 'payment' a factory then gives to a users channel is then done on trust. that while the user then plays with the channel payment which as a opening channel, but unaudited tx. the channel partner has to hope the factory is not also offering the same locked funds to another channel

It's not based on trust. You just keep repeating that. All parties connected to the "factory" can see its commitments on chain. Everything is "audited." See here for a simple explanation.
your link is an example concept where a blockchain confirmed tx used as the peg for a inchannel open session.. thats like an outdated concept from 2017.
the concept is now you blockchain confirm and lock with a factory.
the factory then sends out unconfirmed non blockchain 'balance' to your wallet. and then you use that balance to open channels
making you 2 hops separated away from the blockchain proven tx

channels have to trust that users wont play around because LN is not a byzantine generals solution network. people can play around with the nodes as there is no community to orphan/reject payments.

Trust is not required because 1) the Bitcoin blockchain arbitrates disputes among channel participants and 2) LN punishes dishonest participants by allowing the other party to take the offenders' coins from the channel.

LN uses Bitcoin for Byzantine fault tolerance.
seems you trust things too much.. optimism about utopia vs critical thinking is where optimism is the flaw of trust
LN does not use bitcoin for byzantine fault tolerance. bitcoin does not stop a factory from altering its code at a whim.
users cellphone app is at the mercy of the factories whim

what your saying about LN is like saying bitcoin solves the issues of
oh and if you do manage to get a raw tx and broadcast it without cellphone API to your factory(because they wont relay if they are malicious)
they will simply treat you as the one in the wrong and thus send out their own tx revoking you.
yes its possible..
.. and yes you end up having to trust that they wont. and trust that because there isnt any scam accusation posts about certain factories that the factory/cellphone app company you use is trustable*

channels have to trust once closing session to get a factory to aggregate channels and eith broadcast out(unlock) or re-payment new open sessions.. that they will do. (LN operates as a need to be online and a need to sign for acceptance)
LN is not just a PUSH tx model.

It's not entirely clear what you're saying. LN nodes need to be online to update channel state but failing that, channels can just be closed based on expiration of locktime.
i guess you really havnt used/testd LN. or if you have you only used it under th limited 'ill stay in the only use as intended' remit.. and not been critical to bug test it via the 'play around swing a bat around and see what breaks' remit

sometimes optimism(trust and dreams) are not good. yes they feel good. but when it comes to securing funds. not good

*i know what you are thinking.. the old 2017 concept (pre factory) of be your own node.
well you do realise that LN concepts are now master nodes monitoring multiple chains like vertcoin, lightcoin and bitcoin..
which if you were a critical thinker rather than an optimist of trust. will make you realise this:
1. when your at a coffee shop will you be bringing your laptop/desktop with you running a masternode to buy coffee?
2. if your computer is ok to run a masternode of several blockchains. then its man enough to just run one blockchain of larger scale, so why debate that bitcoin cant scale due to home computer limitations if your home computer isnt as limited as you care to admit by saying you can run a masternode for several blockchains
3. 99% of people wont be masternodes.
979  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: If you were in charge of Bitcoin 2.0 what would you change? on: December 18, 2018, 06:14:53 AM
now that the social drama of insults is put aside.

letss concentrate on the topic.

how would a rebirth of bitcoin look if the community got all the things they wanted.
1. multiple dev groups of independence who could all offer new features without REKT/mandated dilution efforts, but instead true consensus
2. concentrating on lean thin transactions of pushing funds to others without bloating via smart contracts(visa doesnt do smart contracts after all)
3. the limitation of transactions per block would be more of a demand/growth dynamic. rather than a reduce usage by moving offnetwork
4. not letting users have so much tx bloat that they could fill any block/sig limit with just 5 transactions
5. a fee mechanism that does not cause network wide increase in fee's for everyone due to one person spamming..
but instead causes the spammer to spend more if the spammer wants to bloat a block or spend every 10 minutes

the silly thing is the whole "cant buy coffee with bitcoin"
using the LN network involves locking funds . opening several channels, thereby splitting up the value into different channels just to HOPE for good connectivity. then HOPE the channel partners are online to authorise the funds hops. and hope other people dont route through you and take your balance before you get to spend it yourself.
if you plan to deposit $60 worth of btc to cover a fortnight of coffee and a few sandwiches in LN.. just use BTC to buy $60 of giftcards

describing the easy solution to coffee and also raising point 2.. over complicating and adding bloated features doesnt help. its easier to just keep things lean and simple and just have a open payment network that just openly pays.

the silly thing about the whole "energy consumption"
more energy is wasted keeping bottles of coca-cola chilled, than bitcoin. bitcoin miners have already made the watts per hash very very efficient.
if w were to CPU mine bitcoin at todays hashrate. it would require TRILLIONS of cpu's, billions of GPU but only a few million ASICS. and the power consumption of an ASIC is only ~3pc's
millions*3 is better than trillions
i can guarantee you that the number of computers in bank cashier counters, ATMS, bank call centres, Visa warehouses, bank HQ, wall street surpasses bitcoins electric utility
980  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: If you were in charge of Bitcoin 2.0 what would you change? on: December 18, 2018, 05:48:31 AM
 Voting is choosing a puppet to speak for you and then fail to do all the things they promised

so instead you prefer having one puppet.. ok got that
so instead you prefer no choice... ok got that
so instead you prefer that no one can put their hand up that puppets ass and make it dance.. ok got that

again your advocating tyranny where you just want that sngle puppet to do what it wants and not have to listen to the community..
.. yep i got that

i know your mindset. i understood your mindset months ago.
the thing is.. your flip flops show you have not yet either:
admitted your own desire to yourself consciously
or you really do want tyranny but you dont want the sheep waking up and uprising

well goodluck
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 [49] 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 ... 822 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!