The Lightning Network Reality Check

[Lauda]

On-topic: it seems political, too, because LN will need huge signatures?

Before the whole 'block size' debate became very popular and before the 'forkers' everyone was praising LN as a potential wonder. Now you're questioning the motives behind this miracle? This must be a joke.

<maaku> Lauda: ideally LN should never need large signatures at all, but we need some further script improvements for that
<maaku> (which btw, segwit makes possible as a soft-fork)

I'm getting you direct answers in real time.

SegWit and LN go together

This indeed correct.

[franky1]

lightning network as a free choice. great.
but forcing people to use lightning and only letting corporations have access to the real bitcoin network.. not great

segwit. all the little fixes and future new features... great.
but forcing pruned blocks without witness by default. and only letting segwit implementations have the special parameter to enable archival mode.. not great

to me i see soo much happening to try and cut off people from running full nodes unless its a specific "brand" of implementation.. which gets many people heckles up.

and the only defense these brand lovers have to try swaying people onto their team.. by calling all other decentralized implementations insults and pretend that they are redundant or not the real bitcoin. or calling it an altcoin.. purely to try winning the blockstream brand fame and the r3 brand fame.. fighting to the end for domination. instead of leaving implementations open and free to use naturally, by anyone, for any reason

most things on the face of it have great potential.. but then when you research more and read more about it. you start to see the negatives that come with it too

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

On-topic: it seems political, too, because LN will need huge signatures?

Before the whole 'block size' debate became very popular and before the 'forkers' everyone was praising LN as a potential wonder. Now you're questioning the motives behind this miracle? This must be a joke.

Nope. Just wanted to start a conversation.

Y so sensitive??

[Carlton Banks]

lightning network as a free choice. great.
bt forcing people to use lightning and only letting corporations have access to the real bitcoin network.. not great

Nope, that's literally not the proposed Lightning model at all. I thought you were doing lots of research? Only on other topics?

segwit. all the little fixes and future new features... great.
but forcing pruned blocks without witness by default. and only letting segwit implementations have the special parameter to enable archival mode.. not great

Isn't that saying that non-witness mode is simultaneously forced, optional and default all at once? You sound very muddled up. It can't be all three.

most things on the face of it have great potential.. but then when you research more and read more about it. you start to see the negatives that come with it too

There's another category: coming up with negatives that aren't real

 

[Lauda]

Y so sensitive??

Because what you implied is stupid. Use Google next time for simple questions. Blockstream stands to gain nothing from LN (or barely anything) as a company.

lightning network as a free choice. great.
but forcing people to use lightning and only letting corporations have access to the real bitcoin network.. not great

They aren't forcing people. Actually, they can't force people.

but forcing pruned blocks without witness by default. and only letting segwit implementations have the special parameter to enable archival mode.. not great

You're wrong again and I got answers directly this time. Actually your post makes so little sense that they could barely interpret it.

Sipa: the initial implementation will download, verify, and store all witnesses
the only thing that changes is that it introduces a future mode where witnesses are kept less long than other block data
maaku But the consequences of that are the same as with any other soft-fork. E.g. pre-P2SH clients don't understand the P2SH outputs

For non-upgraded nodes read this.

most things on the face of it have great potential.. but then when you research more and read more about it. you start to see the negatives that come with it too

There's another category: coming up with negatives that aren't real

[franky1]

segwit. all the little fixes and future new features... great.
but forcing pruned blocks without witness by default. and only letting segwit implementations have the special parameter to enable archival mode.. not great

Isn't that saying that non-witness mode is simultaneously forced, optional and default all at once? You sound very muddled up. It can't be all three.

     1 item   (pruned blocks without witness) not two or 3... just 1

because segwit wants their uncheckable, no signature blocks to be propagated to everyone.. by defaut..
meaning those that dont even have a segwit client are left with shitty blocks of uncheckable data..
meaning the only way to get full with signature data.. is to upgrade to segwit implementation.. because to get archival data you need to push a parameter only available if your a segwit user.
which is removing freedom of choice of differing implementations.. as it forces those who want to be archival nodes, to use segwit..

however  if...if..
segwit by default allowed full archival data as standard. EG they propogate real full data ust like all other nodes do..... so that every implementation gets the data they need.
and then the lucky crew that love segwit so much.. they can put in a prune parameter into their handshakes. so they can have the smaller uncheckable data.. which is what they want
 

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Y so sensitive??

Use Google next time for simple questions. Blockstream stands to gain nothing from LN (or barely anything) as a company.

What question? I shared an article. Why are you being an asshole? The school of iCEBREAKER? Or wat?!?

[Lauda]

-snip-

It is not all so black and white. Read the link that I've posted from the mailing list.

<maaku> I'm sure someone could code up a client that downloaded that data but didn't validate it. Not sure what the point would be though.

Which means that you keep on persisting with flawed information.

What question? I shared an article. Why are you being an asshole? The school of iCEBREAKER? Or wat?!?

Implying that Lightning Network was a political move. Not sure why you feel offended by my post. I have no relations with iCEBREAKER.

[franky1]

Sipa: the initial implementation will download, verify, and store all witnesses
the only thing that changes is that it introduces a future mode where witnesses are kept less long than other block data
maaku But the consequences of that are the same as with any other soft-fork. E.g. pre-P2SH clients don't understand the P2SH outputs

yea ask them about "initial". ask about the future once everyone has jumped onto the sheep farm and drunk the koolaid

ask them not about what people with segwit will or wont receive.. ask them will those who didnt drink the koolaid and dont have segwit implementations still receive full txdata, with the signatures.. and segwit will never stop that for everyone.. only for the specialised few who are segwit users who choose to prefer pruned and non-sig blocks

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

What question? I shared an article. Why are you being an asshole? The school of iCEBREAKER? Or wat?!?

Implying that Lightning Network was a political move.  

I think the article implied that.

Not sure why you feel offended by my post.

Because the 'next time use Google' comment might be considered offensive. I wasn't offended. I was just curious why you were being hostile.

I have no relations with iCEBREAKER.

Good to know.  

[Carlton Banks]

segwit. all the little fixes and future new features... great.
but forcing pruned blocks without witness by default. and only letting segwit implementations have the special parameter to enable archival mode.. not great

Isn't that saying that non-witness mode is simultaneously forced, optional and default all at once? You sound very muddled up. It can't be all three.

     1 item   (pruned blocks without witness) not two or 3... just 1

because segwit wants their uncheckable, no signature blocks to be propagated to everyone.. by defaut..
meaning those that dont even have a segwit client are left with shitty blocks of uncheckable data..
meaning the only way to get full with signature data.. is to upgrade to segwit implementation.. because to get archival data you need to push a parameter only available if your a segwit user.
which is removing freedom of choice of differing implementations.. as it forces those who want to be archival nodes, to use segwit..

however  if...if..
segwit by default allowed full archival data as standard. EG they propogate real full data ust like all other nodes do..... so that every implementation gets the data they need.
and then the lucky crew that love segwit so much.. they can put in a prune parameter into their handshakes. so they can have the smaller uncheckable data.. which is what they want
 

You've got this way of expressing your self where it's difficult to tell whether even you understand what you're trying to say, but I'll try helping you anyway.


It's easy. Want the segregated data? type this to start bitcoin:

Code:

:> bitcoin -segwit=0 

Don't want the signatures? Just want the transaction chain?

type this to start bitcoin:

Code:

:> bitcoin

If that's too complicated for you Franky, you might want to rethink the whole bitcoining thing.

[franky1]

and there we have it

[01:03] <Lauda> sipa what about a client that does not support segwit?
[01:03] <maaku> Lauda: why would you care to?
[01:03] <Lauda> Just out of curiousity.
[01:04] <sipa> they won't see the witness data
[01:04] <sipa> but they also don't care about it
[01:04] <Lauda> Someone mentioned it. So it is not possible for a client that does not support Segwit to see the witness data?
[01:04] <maaku> Lauda: it is certainly possible
[01:04] <maaku> Lauda: but it's meaningless to do.
[01:05] <sipa> of course it is "possible"... but that "possible" just means supporting segwit
[01:05] <maaku> viajero: maybe the badly named bitcoin core slack? slack.bitcoincore.org
[01:05] <Chiwawa_> imagine people wanted to stick with bitcoin-core 0.11 and not upgrade, will they be cut off from getting witness data, by defalt if segwit gets consensus?
[01:05] <maaku> (I'm not there though)
[01:05] <viajero> my thinking is, that even if the contention is political, isn't it worth trying to find someone who mediates on "top level" before everything breaks apart?  is there even anyone who might fit in that role? (or is my impression just plain wrong that things are on the brink of falling apart?)
[01:06] <maaku> Chiwawa_: they could certainly code up their wallet to get it, but again what's the point? are they going to check the witness themselves?

bitcoin-core v0.1
bitcoin-core v0.11
bitcoin-core v0.12
bitcoin classic
bitcoin unlimited
bitcoin xt
bitcoin .. whatever the other dozen implementations are
will be cut off from seeing signatures if segwit gets consensus.. all because some coders think signatures are meaningless.. goodluck with that one

i personally can edit my own implementation fine Carlton.. but im talking about those that dont know better who blindly folow the brands.. so they know what they are getting into when they choose which brand of corporate backed implementations they download.

and before you ask im not a hearn/gavincoin lover either.. i too hated the 8mb xt proposal..

[Preclus]

The lightning network is no different from an altcoin.

With the "lightning network", bitcoins are transferred to another chain (lightning network altcoin chain), then transactions are performed on that chain and then at some point, transferred back into bitcoins for settlement. It shouldn't be called the "The Bitcoin Lightning Network", it should be called "Lightening Coin".

[franky1]

The lightning network is no different from an altcoin.

With the "lightning network", bitcoins are transferred to another chain (lightning network altcoin chain), then transactions are performed on that chain and then at some point, transferred back into bitcoins for settlement. It shouldn't be called the "The Bitcoin Lightning Network", it should be called "Lightening Coin".

not really an altcoin.. its more like in laymans terms.. playing with transactions in mempool and only then auditing a finalised transaction to send into a block when the channel is closed

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

The lightning network is no different from an altcoin.

With the "lightning network", bitcoins are transferred to another chain (lightning network altcoin chain), then transactions are performed on that chain and then at some point, transferred back into bitcoins for settlement. It shouldn't be called the "The Bitcoin Lightning Network", it should be called "Lightening Coin".

That's just wrong. Even I know that.

It will use OP_HODL. I think..

[Gyrsur]

what for stuff you trying to smoke? really.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

what for stuff you trying to smoke? really.

See, now my posts are better than that!

[Carlton Banks]

The lightning network is no different from an altcoin.

With the "lightning network", bitcoins are transferred to another chain (lightning network altcoin chain), then transactions are performed on that chain and then at some point, transferred back into bitcoins for settlement. It shouldn't be called the "The Bitcoin Lightning Network", it should be called "Lightening Coin".

That's just wrong. Even I know that.

It will use OP_HODL. I think..

Lol just don't ask franky to explain OP_HODL, we'll be here till the XT-fork happens 

[Gyrsur]

The lightning network is no different from an altcoin.

With the "lightning network", bitcoins are transferred to another chain (lightning network altcoin chain), then transactions are performed on that chain and then at some point, transferred back into bitcoins for settlement. It shouldn't be called the "The Bitcoin Lightning Network", it should be called "Lightening Coin".

That's just wrong. Even I know that.

It will use OP_HODL. I think..

it needs OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY, I guess.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0065.mediawiki

[Lauda]

ask them not about what people with segwit will or wont receive.. ask them will those who didnt drink the koolaid and dont have segwit implementations still receive full txdata, with the signatures.. and segwit will never stop that for everyone.. only for the specialised few who are segwit users who choose to prefer pruned and non-sig blocks

You haven't read the post in regards to nodes and soft forks. The same principle applies here. The SegWit patch set really does two things: (1) fetch the witness, (2) validate the witness.

you only need to do (1) if you are going to do (2), otherwise you're downloading stuff you're never going to use anyway; and if you do (1) and (2) ... you're a segwit client

It would be possible to back-port a client so that it downloads the data but it would be unable to validate it. If you are able to validate it then you're a SegWit client.

The lightning network is no different from an altcoin.

With the "lightning network", bitcoins are transferred to another chain (lightning network altcoin chain), then transactions are performed on that chain and then at some point, transferred back into bitcoins for settlement. It shouldn't be called the "The Bitcoin Lightning Network", it should be called "Lightening Coin".

No, it is not. You have no idea what you're talking about. In your world, off-chain systems are abtract and you're living in a delusion. Lightning does not have a chain. Lightning transactions are Bitcoin transactions.
Stored here for referencing purposes and worth a read:

I have no idea why people are complaining about SegWit. It does not even require other wallets to make any changes (complexity wise). Wallets that do not make 'SegWit related' changes will still be compatbile with the network, they just:
1. They just can't receive SegWit transactions; (When old wallets want to send to SegWit wallets they need to use p2sh for compatibility)
2. They can't create SegWit addresses. (e.g. multisig; starting with new prefix; BIP 142 IIRC)
Old wallets can send to new wallets, new wallets can send to old. It is just that sending between new wallets becomes efficient.