The Lightning Network Reality Check

[franky1]

I'm not wrong though, constructing such a transaction is possible. It is either 2 MB or SegWit right now, because both would result in an 'effective block size' of 4 MB which is definitely not safe (in addition to lack of consensus in regards to it).

no...

segwit1mb would be accepted by nodes that are standard pure 2mb limit

remember anything from 0byte to 2mb is accepted.. its not a 2mb or reject.. its 0byte to 2000byte  ..


for instance there are miners today that refuse to fill up the blocks to the top. some have extra preferential settings to form blocks of whatever size they please, as long as the maximum is less than MAX_BLOCK_SIZE
for instance Antpool loves to make 0.2mb or 0.7mb blocks by preference:

0.0002mb(0.2kb)
0.0002mb(0.2kb)
0.731mb(731kb)
0.0002mb(0.2kb)
0.731mb(731kb)

yet these small blocks are accepted.. yes mindblowing(sarc) but true

segwit miners can do the same. only create blocks of 1mb(effective feeling of 2mb) of data based on a preference setting.
just like many miners try to stay at 0.2-0.7 right now, even if there is the capacity for more because of the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;, the preferential setting takes care of smaller block creation

they just choose to have another setting that is whatever they want, but lower than MAX_BLOCK_SIZE

segwit miners can do the same.. have the preferential setting at 1000000 while having the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 2000000; and they only make blocks based on preferential setting while simultaneously accepting blocks from there peers based on MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 2000000;

win win

as any data whether its 1mb, 0.5mb 1.5mb or 1.99mb would all get accepted by MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 2000000;

[1714785594]

1714785594

[1714785594]

1714785594

[1714785594]

1714785594

[1714785594]

1714785594

[1714785594]

1714785594

[bitcoin carpenter]

You can watch the vanilla coin network to see how a lightning network works in practice. 
Locked transactions on a side chain seem to be a very efficient way to reduce load.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

You can watch the vanilla coin network to see how a lightning network works in practice. 
Locked transactions on a side chain seem to be a very efficient way to reduce load.

Good. This block size thing is really doing my head in. Srsly.

Tell me everything.

[johnyj]

There is a common sense in decision making process of financial products: Risk aversion

And I think that's the reason XT was not welcomed by majority of the stake holders, because it makes a too large change that could have trigger many unpredictable behavior in the system thus greatly increase the risk

This is similarly observed in SW and LN, since the amount of change in those solutions are so huge that they will impact many different parts of the whole ecosystem of bitcoin

I found Segwit to be very similar to the personal transportation device Segway. It looks very cool, only runs on two parallel wheels and it can maintain its position without moving. Then the first question people will ask is: Is this thing safe? Will I fall from it? The answer is yes, you will fall if you don't know how to operate it properly

Some people will start to play with it and learn how to control. And once they get used to it they will have some fun, and more questions followed: How long will the battery last? How fast it can go? What kind of road it can run on? What if the engine inside failed etc... because the inside mechanism is so complex that normal people will never understand how it works, so they have to ask all kinds of questions that they would never ask for a bicycle

So most of the people will just treat it like an exciting experience, but will never have confidence to use it in commercial traffic. And after learning that it can not run faster than a bicycle and not run well in a tilted condition, people will fall back to their old traditional way of riding a bicycle or moped

Back to SW, someone recently pointed out that in an environment of 75% SW nodes, the malicious users only need over 37.5% of hash power to attack the network. This is because the rest 25% of non-SW nodes will not be able to detect the double spending since what they see is only empty blocks  

This is just one example of the unpredictable behavior of the system when the system changed its way of working. There will be other problems caused by the fact that the communication between non-SW nodes and SW nodes is asymmetric. So from this point of view, SW must be implemented through a hard fork

[franky1]

There is a common sense in decision making process of financial products: Risk aversion

And I think that's the reason XT was not welcomed by majority of the stake holders, because it makes a too large change that could have trigger many unpredictable behavior in the system thus greatly increase the risk

This is similarly observed in SW and LN, since the amount of change in those solutions are so huge that they will impact many different parts of the whole ecosystem of bitcoin

I found Segwit to be very similar to the personal transportation device Segway. It looks very cool, only runs on two parallel wheels and it can maintain its position without moving. Then the first question people will ask is: Is this thing safe? Will I fall from it? The answer is yes, you will fall if you don't know how to operate it properly

Some people will start to play with it and learn how to control. And once they get used to it they will have some fun, and more questions followed: How long will the battery last? How fast it can go? What kind of road it can run on? What if the engine inside failed etc... because the inside mechanism is so complex that normal people will never understand how it works, so they have to ask all kinds of questions that they would never ask for a bicycle

So most of the people will just treat it like an exciting experience, but will never have confidence to use it in commercial traffic. And after learning that it can not run faster than a bicycle and not run well in a tilted condition, people will fall back to their old traditional way of riding a bicycle

Back to SW, someone recently pointed out that in an environment of 75% SW nodes, the malicious users only need over 37.5% of hash power to attack the network. This is because the rest 25% of non-SW nodes will not be able to detect the double spending since what they see is only empty blocks  

This is just one example of the unpredictable behavior of the system when the system changed its way of working. There will be other problems caused by the fact that the communication between non-SW nodes and SW nodes is broken. So from this point of view, SW must be implemented through a hard fork

not quite accurate on the details, EG "empty blocks" will actually be lots of payto anyone uncheckable tx's for the non segwit nodes.. but apart from that the mindset of comparing it to segway boards is a good one..

what should happen is the consensus (all the 12 different bitcoin implementations) raise the blocksize limit to 2mb. and then segwit1mb (1mb preference setting block) has the freedom to play with their experiment unhindered. and let people see it in practice, giving people the freedom to swap over in their own time..

that way its not throwing the bicycle away and forcing people to use segways before anyone has even really put a segway into real life traffic situation.. but instead all 12 implementations can happily access the same road network and be part of the same traffic, but in their own way. and eventually people can choose which mode of transport they prefer..

there doesnt need to be an all or nothing situation, forcing everyone down a one way street.. it can be a 2way street

[johnyj]

LN's behavior change is the payment channel, it requires certain bitcoin to open the channel, like charging a sim card before you can make a phone call

However, for frequent private spending like phone call, those kind of pay-per-minute or charge per usage model has mostly been replaced by a fixed monthly fee regardless usage model. Because from service provider's point of view, the total sum of the fee income that all the users paid per month is a quite stable or slow changing constant, so you just divide that total sum by the amount of users and add a little bit margin you get a fixed monthly fee with unlimited usage, and that will save you huge amount of time and resource to manage the accounting of millions of user's usage, you manage the total traffic instead

If a bitstamp user send a bitcoin from his own wallet to his bitstamp account, the transaction would still use blockchain, and most of the traffic is this kind of traffic between private users against those institutions (financial hubs), so LN is not going to give too much help here, unless most of the private users are using centralized wallet services like coinbase. Then setting up LN between coinbase and bitstamp would reduce a lot of traffic on the blockchain. However, institutions still need to establish a secure communication channel to exchange information outside of blockchain (an unsigned transaction can not be broadcasted). But once they have such a communication channel, then they can setup their own clearing scheme without using LN, thus don't touch the bitcoin protocol to be on the safe side

Currently bitgo appears as a very fast advancing actor in institution solutions. Their multi-sig solution provide enough security, I predict that their model will become the popular clearing solution of bitcoin ecosystem very soon. In fact they never wanted to implement their solution based on a change of bitcoin protocol, thus they have not been stopped by this tug of war inside core devs

[Lauda]

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/97e5b55c6fabf5deb57be13bdd8f8b9c90d21570

I've asked about this in the developer channel, it seems that this won't be merged because it tackles the problem from the wrong angle. It  limits the non witness portion of a tx to 100k.

With the LN, your transactions are not bitcoins, they are a proxy for bitcoins. Once off-chain, the transactions are supposedly pegged to the value of bitcoins but there is no 100% enforced and direct connection. The fact that both parties locked something in the bitcoin network is immaterial. The subsequent transactions are off-chain, no different from alt-coin transactions between parties.

You are transacting the same Bitcoins, you just aren't making changes on the main chain at this very moment. LN enables efficient use of your coins off-chain and enables settling on the main chain later. This is 100% enforced and there is a direct connection. I have no idea why you would say that there isn't one, as you have to lock coins and open a channel. Altcoin transactions are similar to a sidechain, not the LN.

Back to SW, someone recently pointed out that in an environment of 75% SW nodes, the malicious users only need over 37.5% of hash power to attack the network. This is because the rest 25% of non-SW nodes will not be able to detect the double spending since what they see is only empty blocks  

Who pointed this out and where? How did they make these calculations?
Update: Your last part is FUD.

<sipa> Lauda: incorrect; double spending rules are not changed by SW, and old nodes still see all inputs and outputs, they do not see empty blocks.
<jl2012> Lauda: the number of nodes has nothing to do with the hashing power

[johnyj]

Update: Your last part is FUD.

<sipa> Lauda: incorrect; double spending rules are not changed by SW, and old nodes still see all inputs and outputs, they do not see empty blocks.
<jl2012> Lauda: the number of nodes has nothing to do with the hashing power

Maybe double spend is not a good analogy, but you should do your own research instead of listen to others

The original post is here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41o6sd/question_about_segwit_security_and_its_protection/

------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reading the segwit presentation of Pieter W and discussions some time ago, I'm not yet convinced it does not pose a lot of extra security risks in a lot of areas.

The main thing that is puzzling me in the proposed implementation: All transactions will be signed with "Anyone can spend", to make them compatible with older versions so this 'feature' can get forced as softfork. But the SegWit minders/nodes also will accept those transactions if they have a newer segwit version than themselves, to make implementing new features easy.

(Previously when a new feature or script type was introduced, all older nodes would reject it, so it was important the network had enough (>50%) nodes supporting the new feature before someone could start using it. As I understand it, now it will be the other way around: old nodes will accept unknown scripts by default)

BUT: doesn't that make it so that when a dishonest miner would put a malicious SegWittransaction in its block of the latest version, and lets say only 10% of all miners are upgraded to this SegWitversion, that 90% of all hashing power will accept this invalid transaction because they are programmed to not oppose it?

So instead of the >50% of hashing power you need to do something malicious with a normal bitcoin transaction, I would think you will need a lot less with SegWit?

Can somebody tell me please where my thinking is wrong?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[bitcoin carpenter]

You can watch the vanilla coin network to see how a lightning network works in practice. 
Locked transactions on a side chain seem to be a very efficient way to reduce load.

Good. This block size thing is really doing my head in. Srsly.

Tell me everything.

Everything can be found on the vanilla coin websight www.vanillacoin.net
don't want to derail the topic here.

[Lauda]

BUT: doesn't that make it so that when a dishonest miner would put a malicious SegWittransaction in its block of the latest version, and lets say only 10% of all miners are upgraded to this SegWitversion, that 90% of all hashing power will accept this invalid transaction because they are programmed to not oppose it?

This makes no sense at all. You do realize that for the activation of a soft fork a high consensus threshold is needed?

Maybe double spend is not a good analogy, but you should do your own research instead of listen to others

The original post is here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41o6sd/question_about_segwit_security_and_its_protection/

This makes even less sense. If I do 'my own research' I'm essentially 'listening to others' because I'm reading their input. The best way to avoid false information is to directly ask different developers.

[SebastianJu]

What's so hard in seeing that bitcoiners use bitcoin and want to use bitcoin. If someone offers "Let's not use bitcoin but an alternative way outside of bitcoin, only finalizing on bitcoin." then clearly that is the alternative suggested. It's funny that the claims of the amount of worldwide possible transactions that can be done with LN instead with bitcoin, would not even work without the bitcoin blocksize being raised.

You are still using Bitcoin. LN is Bitcoin. You are just transacting off the main chain but you are transacting Bitcoin. Also, LN would work at 1 MB it is just the amount of TPS would be lower (much lower than Visa) but still much higher than what we have today.

I know what you mean but still the bitcoins on LN are pratically only virtual bitcoins that are moved virtually. Which means for these steps you effectively do not use bitcoin. You only use bitcoin when opening and closing payment channels. Everything between those 2 steps are bitcoin token, rights on owning a bitcoin. I think that is pretty similar to the virtual money moving in the banking system. I mean you know about bubbles and how they burst when people want to get the real value they virtually have? It might be not that bad since no bitcoins can be created in LN, hopefully no dev get's the idea that this would be needed someday , but still you deal with virtual tokens. Unless the single transaction at start and end.

And sure, such an offline system can deal with a lot more transactions, only thing is, these transactions have to be stored too, and since bitcoin is already pretty effective in storing transaction data i wonder how it can be less data to be stored. I think it can't be less. Only less for the enduser maybe, who is not able to control directly the security of the networks transactions like he would be with bitcoin core. (This last paragraph is only my theory.)

It would even be worse when the 1MB blocks led to really huge fees for bitcoin transactions. Maybe at one point in time fees will be so high that huge transactions have to be created so that the single ln-transactions are still relatively cheap. Which means who will hold these payment channels then? Corporations and banks? Normal users would only act in the ln-network then? That can't be named bitcoining anymore then. It would mean virtual bitcoins for the average user while the power of the real money is back in the hands of the banks.

It's a step backwards and contrary to what bitcoin started for.

Even when, what do you have against the fork when you claim there is no one in power? It shouldn't matter to you because it would be the normal way things go. Or would you prefer someone decides that no fork is allowed to happen?

I'll just shortly answer this without going much into detail: A) 2 MB blocks are not safe ATM; B) Handing over the commit keys to a much smaller group of newbie developers (except Gavin).

Well, to be honest, at this point in time i don't trust the core developers anymore. It simply is too strange how many arguments come out against a fully natural step for the future of bitcoin. Consensus is blocked and developers who think different are going away. Hearn is not the best example, he is corrupt, we all know this since ages. He had his own plans but that doesn't mean the idea of bigger blocks is inevitably needed.

I would not trust newbie developers too when i would not be sure that the wallet code will be properly reviewed by enemies and all. There would be no big surprise when using it. And bitcoiners still could use the wallet they feel comfortable with.

You have to put your bitcoins into otherwise you can't act with lightning network. If i'm wrong let me know.

You don't 'buy in' into anything. You are not buying altcoins. You are locking your Bitcoin so that you can transact with that amount on LN. This process takes 3 confirmations right now (might be changed), so ~30 minutes.

I know. But what happens then? The real bitcoins do NOT move until the payment channel gets closed. What is moved are bitcoin tokens. Which is different from real bitcoins moving. Only when the channel is closed real bitcoins move again.

I mean what is it with all the safety bitcoin brings when you have to start to use virtual bitcoins in your transactions? I know i would not feel comfortable binding many bitcoins when i know i can access them only when the channel is closed again. Which needs the other parties agreement or a timeout as far as i know. With real bitcoins i have the control about the real value all the time. I have no contracts for the right of having 2 bitcoins to be paid out to me. It's like we move from bitcoins to having bitcoin bonds only. It doesn't help much that you will have real bitcoins someday later, in LN you only deal with "I owe you's".

Right. Still, you have to give your coins ouf of your hands. And i believe the payment channel partner has to agree when you want the coins back before it's time. So waiting for your own coins to come back means you have to give them out of your hands. They might still be safe but bound.

The only time that you will wait for your coins is if/when something goes wrong between the second party that you're transacting with.

Yes. And we know since some time that this is the risk in multisig addresses. They are somewhat safe but still hold a risk. You have your own coins not under your full control anymore. Right?

Opening and closing the channel is bitcoin. Everything in between seems to be more like a virtual bitcoin circulating.

No, it is not. You are still transacting the very same Bitcoin, it is just that you are transacting them off the main chain. Is this so hard to comprehend? Once you are done with the off-chain they get settled.

Ok, i don't know why you stress that point so much. It simply is not the same like dealing with real bitcoins when you only are entitled to bitcoins at the time the channel closes. Do you tell me that it is the same for you to have bitcoins that you know will be in your wallet at one time later than having your bitcoins in your wallet instantly? Can you do everything with the "bitcoins" you have at ln? Surely not. So they are virtual until you really control them. It's like with cryptsy. Many have bitcoins there. But they won't ever get them because they only traded virtual bitcoins there. Might be that ln is safer but still, no real bitcoins are moved. Everything that is moved is your trust in LN.

If don't see a difference at all i will stop discussing that point with you.

I might be wrong but are the investments into ln a myth? If not how do you think these investments are planned to coming back, probably with profits?
Though maybe i was informed wrongly.

There is only 1 employee from Blockstream working on LN AFAIK. The Bitcoin community does not even deserve this. You are asking me how a company is going to ROI or get profit? A company that I'm not involved with?
That's not my concern and if I would guess it would be 'custom made' sidechains with 'technical support' or something of that sort. However, my guess could be completely wrong.

I don't really know who you are in reality. You mentioned you know the wallet code and you might be a core dev. If you don't know fine. What i heard is that a lot of investments went into blocksteam. Whoever invests in something is promising something from it. And that is normally profit and no act of altruism.

Though like i said, i might be wrong on that point and the investments are a myth.

You are right, they don't say "Use LN or die". They practically say "Use LN or leave." since when bitcoin became unuseable because of too high fees then there would be LN as alternative, right?
I guess they really don't like that the way more simple solution already exists.

No, they aren't and no there doesn't exist a 'simple solution'. 2 MB blocks are dangerous at the moment because a transaction could be created that would take too long to validate (10 minutes or more). SegWit gives us a similar amount of added space and thus the tps will rise similarly as it would with 2 MB blocks.

What i don't know yet, SegWit creates different blocks that can't be proved by old clients? Isn't hat a fork then too? Or how does it work?

And can you explain how such a transaction could be created and why it is not possible with 1mb blocks? Is this about outdated hardware working on validation?

But when i think about it... what a hypotetical threat. Who in their right mind would start creating such blocks? This could only do someone with a huge amount of miners so he can create blocks. Then screw the block and risk that the reward is going to dust fo him when he destroys that chain.

It's like with >50% attack. Who in their right mind would do it?

[SebastianJu]

This seems to be a controversial point. I believe even Adam Back thinks 2MB blocks are safe. I’d have to find the sauce tho...

Why do you say they are not safe?

Because it is possible to construct a transaction that takes too long to validate (10 minutes any more). I've said this multiple times. There's a proposal that aims to fix the quadratic scaling but it has not been implemented yet, meaning it won't be included in 0.12.

So the only thing to even kill that hypotetical threat would be to include that fix into bitcoin classic and you would say bitcoin classic is fine again?

-snip-

Your initial post mentioned 'dogecoin' which made no sense.

You have to keep track of the bitcoins that move inside of ln. Until you can move the actual bitcoins in the bitcoin network. It makes sense to ask that question since you could use an altcoin to keep track of that. However that coin has to be constructed.

It simply is a difference if you move actual bitcoins in the bitcoin network or virtual bitcoins that only moved outside of the bitcoin network.

[jonald_fyookball]

What i heard is that a lot of investments went into blocksteam. Whoever invests in something is promising something from it. And that is normally profit and no act of altruism.

$21M initial seed funding.  It could be considered 'a lot'...

Personally I'm surprised the community isn't more concerned
about Blockstream.  As for their supporters, I can only surmise that

A) some aren't aware of the potential conflict of interest or even who they are
B) some believe there is no real conflict of interest, or that there might be theoretically but
when it comes down to it, "they will do what's best for Bitcoin"
C) some acknowledge that Blockstream may have an agenda to profit, but they don't care
because they believe the core devs are best decision makers for Bitcoin.

 

[SebastianJu]

Thanks for the info.  I did not know about this.

Skimming over the comments... I wonder what's your rebuttal to this:

There's a pretty significant flaw in reasoning here: The other miners will be busy mining away on blocks that don't contain this hypothetical 11-minute transaction, so they'll likely surpass the chain that has it in the time it takes to verify it and build another on top... It is far more likely that the monster block would just get orphaned if it took that long to verify.

The problem is that every node on the network - not even just miners - will be validating that transaction, regardless of whether it ever actually ends up being in a mined block.  It is a valid transaction, which will be broadcast to all nodes.  And an attacker could broadcast many such transactions.

Do you say that this block does not need to verify at all? So in fact everyone could send out such a block, he must not even be a miner? Or does the miner have to put the transactions together, take 10 minutes for it so that he can find the block hash and then propagate?

I would await, when the block does not have to validate, and you could only create these blocks with your home computer, propagating them, then it would be no problem with 1mb blocks too. Simply create alot of these blocks, send them out and let the nodes die on them.

What's wrong in my paragraphs?

[SebastianJu]

Why would core include it if they're not going to raise the limit anyway? Makes sense.

It will be included (or it might be merged already, I'm not sure). In addition to this there is a BIP (143) that solves the validation time being quadratic, so that the time becomes O(n).

Why would core include it if they're not going to raise the limit anyway? Makes sense.

Maybe they are planning to raise it eventually?

It is highly likely that it will eventually be raised (probably after IBLT and similar improvements).

That's the best news i heard in months on that topic. I hope it's true and these things will happen. Though likely only after segwit and ln got to start anyway.

[jonald_fyookball]

Thanks for the info.  I did not know about this.

Skimming over the comments... I wonder what's your rebuttal to this:

There's a pretty significant flaw in reasoning here: The other miners will be busy mining away on blocks that don't contain this hypothetical 11-minute transaction, so they'll likely surpass the chain that has it in the time it takes to verify it and build another on top... It is far more likely that the monster block would just get orphaned if it took that long to verify.

The problem is that every node on the network - not even just miners - will be validating that transaction, regardless of whether it ever actually ends up being in a mined block.  It is a valid transaction, which will be broadcast to all nodes.  And an attacker could broadcast many such transactions.

i'm still not convinced because isn't that already the currently reality that an attacker can broadcast bogus transactions in some kind of DOS attempt?  How's this different?

[SebastianJu]

There is a common sense in decision making process of financial products: Risk aversion

And I think that's the reason XT was not welcomed by majority of the stake holders, because it makes a too large change that could have trigger many unpredictable behavior in the system thus greatly increase the risk

In fact the risk most wanted to avoid was named Hearn. *lol*

You speak like the jump from blocks being 0.1mb full to 0.2mb full were full of risks of all kind. The risk of jumping from 0.1mb to 0.5mb was really enourmous.

I really wonder where all this fear comes from suddenly. 2 months ago no one spoke about any risk at all coming from 2mb blocks. Guess it is the new "in" thing for those wanting to hold 1mb blocks.

This is similarly observed in SW and LN, since the amount of change in those solutions are so huge that they will impact many different parts of the whole ecosystem of bitcoin

I found Segwit to be very similar to the personal transportation device Segway. It looks very cool, only runs on two parallel wheels and it can maintain its position without moving. Then the first question people will ask is: Is this thing safe? Will I fall from it? The answer is yes, you will fall if you don't know how to operate it properly

Some people will start to play with it and learn how to control. And once they get used to it they will have some fun, and more questions followed: How long will the battery last? How fast it can go? What kind of road it can run on? What if the engine inside failed etc... because the inside mechanism is so complex that normal people will never understand how it works, so they have to ask all kinds of questions that they would never ask for a bicycle

Only thing is that these experiments are interesting but don't attract many users. I remember how ripple came out. Some tried, most were not interested. NXT, has a big community, but most stay with bitcoin only because no need for nxt.

No ln comes and i'm very sure it will have the same problems these projects had. Promises, come switch over but really, no big interest from the normal bitcoin community. Only some geeks interested in the tech behind and having a lot of time to spare to check things out are with it instantly. The rest... hard to catch.

So most of the people will just treat it like an exciting experience, but will never have confidence to use it in commercial traffic. And after learning that it can not run faster than a bicycle and not run well in a tilted condition, people will fall back to their old traditional way of riding a bicycle or moped

Back to SW, someone recently pointed out that in an environment of 75% SW nodes, the malicious users only need over 37.5% of hash power to attack the network. This is because the rest 25% of non-SW nodes will not be able to detect the double spending since what they see is only empty blocks  

Interesting point. Guess it has it's own risks. If true i would prefer the theoretical 10 minute confirmation time transactions with 2mb blocks.

This is just one example of the unpredictable behavior of the system when the system changed its way of working. There will be other problems caused by the fact that the communication between non-SW nodes and SW nodes is asymmetric. So from this point of view, SW must be implemented through a hard fork

[SebastianJu]

BUT: doesn't that make it so that when a dishonest miner would put a malicious SegWittransaction in its block of the latest version, and lets say only 10% of all miners are upgraded to this SegWitversion, that 90% of all hashing power will accept this invalid transaction because they are programmed to not oppose it?

This makes no sense at all. You do realize that for the activation of a soft fork a high consensus threshold is needed?

Maybe double spend is not a good analogy, but you should do your own research instead of listen to others

The original post is here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41o6sd/question_about_segwit_security_and_its_protection/

This makes even less sense. If I do 'my own research' I'm essentially 'listening to others' because I'm reading their input. The best way to avoid false information is to directly ask different developers.

But it is an interesting point. So when there are only 10% segwit nodes and 90% nonsegwit, then a user creates a block that is wrong, segwit nodes can't accept them as wrong but nonsegwit nodes will accept them because they can't see that it is a wrong block, then how will you avoid the fork to happen?

[SebastianJu]

What i heard is that a lot of investments went into blocksteam. Whoever invests in something is promising something from it. And that is normally profit and no act of altruism.

$21M initial seed funding.  It could be considered 'a lot'...

Personally I'm surprised the community isn't more concerned
about Blockstream.  As for their supporters, I can only surmise that

A) some aren't aware of the potential conflict of interest or even who they are
B) some believe there is no real conflict of interest, or that there might be theoretically but
when it comes down to it, "they will do what's best for Bitcoin"
C) some acknowledge that Blockstream may have an agenda to profit, but they don't care
because they believe the core devs are best decision makers for Bitcoin.

Ah, so it was. One has to be very blueeyed to see no potental risk in that. And when i think about it, the risk of going back to a banking system where only banks and corporations access bitcoin is not too far fetched. 1mb blocks can raise the fees exponentially if nothing is done. Which makes that a possibility.

[Lauda]

-snip-

You are unable to adapt to new things and are unable to see why LN is actually Bitcoin (off chain transactions vs on chain). It is not even remotely close to an altcoin (two chains). I'm not going to discuss this further as it is futile.

It would even be worse when the 1MB blocks led to really huge fees for bitcoin transactions. Maybe at one point in time fees will be so high that huge transactions have to be created so that the single ln-transactions are still relatively cheap. Which means who will hold these payment channels then? Corporations and banks? Normal users would only act in the ln-network then?

Bitcoin can not scale properly with the block size. Forget about it.

Well, to be honest, at this point in time i don't trust the core developers anymore. It simply is too strange how many arguments come out against a fully natural step for the future of bitcoin. Consensus is blocked and developers who think different are going away. I would not trust newbie developers too when i would not be sure that the wallet code will be properly reviewed by enemies and all. There would be no big surprise when using it. And bitcoiners still could use the wallet they feel comfortable with.

There are no good arguements for 2 MB blocks at this moment. Consensus is not blocked. The problem with newbie developers is not only their code, but their lack of understanding and planing. With no long term viable plan and potential features that they could deploy, there is no use in switching towards that group.

I know. But what happens then? The real bitcoins do NOT move until the payment channel gets closed. What is moved are bitcoin tokens. Which is different from real bitcoins moving. Only when the channel is closed real bitcoins move again.

There is no such thing as virtual Bitcoins. Your "real Bitcoins" are locked so that you can transact that amount and eventually it gets settled. This is how the system was designed.

It's like with cryptsy. Many have bitcoins there. But they won't ever get them because they only traded virtual bitcoins there. Might be that ln is safer but still, no real bitcoins are moved. Everything that is moved is your trust in LN.

Another failed attempt at an analogy. It is obvious that you either don't understand how the system works or are unable to comprehend how it works. Stop it.

I don't really know who you are in reality. You mentioned you know the wallet code and you might be a core dev. If you don't know fine. What i heard is that a lot of investments went into blocksteam. Whoever invests in something is promising something from it. And that is normally profit and no act of altruism.

I'm not a Core developer. Blockstream was funded in order to support development, but obviously any attempt at helping this community will end up in false accusations and propaganda.

What i don't know yet, SegWit creates different blocks that can't be proved by old clients? Isn't hat a fork then too? Or how does it work? And can you explain how such a transaction could be created and why it is not possible with 1mb blocks? Is this about outdated hardware working on validation?

SegWit changes how the data is stored (merkle tree). SegWit will be implemented as a soft fork. Validation time is quadratic. Such a transaction at 1 MB would take ~20-30 seconds to validate, at 2 MB that can already result in up to 10 minutes or more.

But when i think about it... what a hypotetical threat. Who in their right mind would start creating such blocks? This could only do someone with a huge amount of miners so he can create blocks. Then screw the block and risk that the reward is going to dust fo him when he destroys that chain. It's like with >50% attack. Who in their right mind would do it?

Anyone wanting to harm or destroy Bitcoin would.
Reduce the size of your posts. It is becoming tiring to answer and I feel like I'm a tutor.

But it is an interesting point. So when there are only 10% segwit nodes and 90% nonsegwit, then a user creates a block that is wrong, segwit nodes can't accept them as wrong but nonsegwit nodes will accept them because they can't see that it is a wrong block, then how will you avoid the fork to happen?

Either you have no idea how soft forks work or you are playing dumb. In no possible scenario, in no parallel universe/dimension where Bitcoin exists would there be a soft fork backed by consensus where only 10% is required. This is not an interesting point, it is an impossible one. 'a user' does not create a block, miners do. A soft fork only activates at a high threshold of consensus by the miners.