First Bitcoin Lightning Network Transaction Tested Successfully

[AgentofCoin]

A stupid question : If the LN is supposed to alleviate the load from the Blockchain, by having less transaction on the Blockchain, would these transaction still generate miners fees? Where are the fees going?

We all hope that in the future these fees will replace the block rewards, but if we implement <off-chain solutions> we are going to reach a point, where it would not be profitable for miners to continue mining, because the fees and the block rewards are too low.

Are these hubs still doing on-chain tx's and who is getting these fees? Is this like Xapo, where the host gets the fees, and only once tx's goes over to the Blockchain, then miners fees are generated.

I apologize in advance for the stupid question, but I do not grasp the whole concept yet. ^hmmmm^

All bitcoin txs that exceed a certain monetary value, such as 100 USD for example, will be transacted
on the bitcoin blockchain still. For all bitcoin txs below that value, the LN would, in theory, allow instant
confirmation and ability to process 1000's of txs per second. When on the LN, at some point in time, possibly
every few hours, or possibly once per day, the LN will "settle" all the prior "unsettled" LN txs, by a "master tx"
pushed to the bitcoin blockchain, thus inscribing and securing all those LN txs with the Bitcoin PoW blockchain.
This "master tx" will contain a fee for the miners. Maybe multiple "master txs" a day, as well, IDK.

The whole point is to get 1000s of txs within a single tx, thus facilitating the ability for bitcoin use in all daily life.
Instead of cramming more txs within a single block, in theory, we are cramming more txs within a single tx.

This is my understanding.

[Wind_FURY]

When you are saying "free" bitcoins, you are really referring whether that hub operator has a
large (100s of btc) or a little (1 btc) amount of bitcoins locked in that specific hub for the escrow handoffs.

What you are saying about "larger hubs" is true in theory, but it is important to remember that systems like LN
are not meant for individual txs over a value of 50 to 100 USD or so, those should still remain on bitcoin blockchain.
LN allows for rapid and numerous micro txs that will allow Bitcoin to scale for small daily purchases, while still allowing
the underlying blockchain system to remain resistant to numerous pitfalls, attacks, regulations, and legal or governmental
enemies. In theory, the majority of LN channels should be opened and immediately closed since most tx will involve simple
purchases that don't need complex arbitration, such as a coffee, petrol, simple food shopping, and etc.

Also, if you have a LN hub (or multiple ones) and you are locking 100s of btc within it, that is potentially very
risky and it would be wiser to have many hubs with low amounts of btc locked within. Large hubs with large amount of btc,
which may have become "centralized" over time are a major point of failure. They will be prone to attack either for their btc or
outright ddosed to hurt that "large centralized" operator. IMO LN hubs or other types of "second layer bitcoin transaction system"
should be small to spread the risk over the whole LN network. Just like Bitcoin node operators.

That is the ideal way to use it, yes. But then again comes the efficiency argument. It would be more efficient to have fewer but larger hubs that have more open channels to make the routing of transactions fewer and easier for sending coins from point A to point B. We as humans would tend to go for the more efficient and I believe people will set up large payment hubs for efficiency's sake and for sure even have a model for profit behind it. It is like being a bank in the Bitcoin network.

If in the future banks become the major and largest LN hub operators, they will need to own large amounts of bitcoin.
Possibly even more than they can afford to purchase and attempt to make a profit from. It would be more reasonable if
everyone who has 10 btc or less to start up a hub, lock 2 btc into it and make a small fee here and there like an interest account.

I just mentioned that as an example of what kind of institution in the real world would make a good payment hub. I did not mean that they will actually become payment hubs. I am just making a point.

When the LN hubs system is done and working properly and as "envisioned", bank "capital" will not be needed, just any bitcoin holder.

It is exactly what I have in mind. It will be like there will be a rebirth of the Medici clan in the Bitcoin network. What I am saying is all speculatory, please take it lightly.

[Carlton Banks]

In my reading and googling about the Lightning Network, I believe franky1 and I have the same understanding of the system. Now this is how it will usually go when payment hubs are set up, it will encourage centralization gravitating towards the larger ones to have more efficiency since they will have more "free BTC" and open channels. In other words the Lightning Network system will tend to have as minimum number of hubs possible with these larger hubs containing larger amounts of free BTC to maintain more channels. In the real world the institution that holds a lot of free capital are the banks. So in a way banks could be the perfect candidate to run payment hubs.  

That is just a speculation on what I think could happen. A small payment hub can only handle a smaller number if open channels because it has smaller "free" Bitcoins, while a larger one can handle more channels and is therefore more efficient because it can route more transactions from point A to point B. So users would then tend to go for larger hubs. So the result of this would be fewer larger hubs in operation.

So, do you "understand" the LN system, or are you just speculating? It can't be both, can it? Let us all know which it is before you carry on.

So in modern society today, what institution has the most liquidity or "free capital". Banks.

And which participant in the Bitcoin network holds the majority of the free capital in Bitcoin? Don't tell me you think it's the banks?


It's obvious that having just one Lightning Hub would maximise processing efficiency. Guess what that would do to the fees the Hub charges?

When you bear in mind that:

• Users will always choose the cheapest routing option
• The barrier to entry for competing Hubs couldn't be any lower

...then a monopoly Hub simply couldn't take control, because Hubs are in free market competition. Banks are not in free-market competition. Your point is invalid.

[Kakmakr]

A stupid question : If the LN is supposed to alleviate the load from the Blockchain, by having less transaction on the Blockchain, would these transaction still generate miners fees? Where are the fees going?

We all hope that in the future these fees will replace the block rewards, but if we implement <off-chain solutions> we are going to reach a point, where it would not be profitable for miners to continue mining, because the fees and the block rewards are too low.

Are these hubs still doing on-chain tx's and who is getting these fees? Is this like Xapo, where the host gets the fees, and only once tx's goes over to the Blockchain, then miners fees are generated.

I apologize in advance for the stupid question, but I do not grasp the whole concept yet. ^hmmmm^

All bitcoin txs that exceed a certain monetary value, such as 100 USD for example, will be transacted
on the bitcoin blockchain still. For all bitcoin txs below that value, the LN would, in theory, allow instant
confirmation and ability to process 1000's of txs per second. When on the LN, at some point in time, possibly
every few hours, or possibly once per day, the LN will "settle" all the prior "unsettled" LN txs, by a "master tx"
pushed to the bitcoin blockchain, thus inscribing and securing all those LN txs with the Bitcoin PoW blockchain.
This "master tx" will contain a fee for the miners. Maybe multiple "master txs" a day, as well, IDK.

The whole point is to get 1000s of txs within a single tx, thus facilitating the ability for bitcoin use in all daily life.
Instead of cramming more txs within a single block, in theory, we are cramming more txs within a single tx.

This is my understanding.

Ah, so we ditch the tx's that bring in the most fees? >$100 ^hmmmm^ Does that sound like a wise move, for a technology that would be funded in future only by the miners fees? Can you still trace all of these {small}tx's running through the hubs? < Transparency >? -- Bitcoin is currently a open public network, would the tx's that were done on the LN hubs, be private or still accessible to the public or functioning like a mixer service?

It looks like it works something similar to services like Xapo, where all internal/off-chain tx's are private and cheap, and then when you go on-chain, normal fees are applicable. Does these hubs function in the same way?

Who hosts these hubs?  



 

[franky1]

First, there is no "free btc". Are you thinking the "free btc" will exceed the 21 million coin limit?
Bitcoin exists past eight decimal places right now, ex: 0.0000,0000,0000,0001,
it is just that the current protocol only needs to go to 0.0000,0001 (aka 1 satoshi).
We can go below 1 satoshi if needed to facilitate "micro fees" for "micro txs".

Please elaborate, I do not understand.

bullcrap
seems you dont understand bitcoin at code level. because at code level there is no 21million bitcoin cap.
at code level the units of measure are not bitcoins but satoshi

its not bitcoin measured down. but satoshi measured up
where each block reward is not producing 12.5btc. but instead
1250000000 units
which halves every ~4 years

which calculates as 2100000000000000 unit cap by the year 2140.

by adding more units (decimals at the GUI front end) makes the amount of units per blockreward change from
1250000000 units to
1250000000000 units

which calculates as the year bitcoin stops producing units change from 2141 to 2181 and produce
2100000000000000000 units instead of
2100000000000000 units

but ofcourse thats if blockstream wanted to mess around with bitcoins 'unit of measure' to match the lightning unit of measure, instead of rounding the lightning unit of measure when closing the channel.

i can see future 'debates' of people arguing who 'benefits' from the rounding to fit bitcoins unit of measure. but i hope we never have to debate
changing bitcoins unit of measure to match lightning. otherwise that is SCREWING bitcoins rarity.

Second, please explain in detail why centralization will occur due to micro fee accumulation,
whether prior to or after the LN settlement action back onto the bitcoin blockchain.
If banks run LN hubs in the future, why would they have "free btc" or "free capital"?

Please elaborate, I do not understand.

locking funds into multisig is the same as putting funds into a 'managed' account where it requires duel signatures to settle funds movements.

LN can be useful for people that want to raid faucets for a few weeks to receive a few units without 'spamming' bitcoins blockchain. but
LN due to it being 'managed' by some entity should not be trusted as the 'forever solution' where people lock funds in forever.
LN due to it being 'managed' opens up new weaknesses. such as blackmail eg (hub:"we will not sign a tx unless you pay 1btc fee to get funds back"
similar comparisons can be made to pools now, not accepting transactions into a block unless you pay over 0.0001 btc

so its not only who benefits from the 'rounding' but also the corruption of changing/demanding more fee per tx just to close a channel to get funds out. ending up as costing the user more to settle blackmail style or forced to stay in the channel out of fear of losing more then they would getting out.

[Carlton Banks]

First, there is no "free btc". Are you thinking the "free btc" will exceed the 21 million coin limit?
Bitcoin exists past eight decimal places right now, ex: 0.0000,0000,0000,0001,
it is just that the current protocol only needs to go to 0.0000,0001 (aka 1 satoshi).
We can go below 1 satoshi if needed to facilitate "micro fees" for "micro txs".

Please elaborate, I do not understand.

2+2 = 22 beellion BTC

Second, please explain in detail why centralization will occur due to micro fee accumulation,
whether prior to or after the LN settlement action back onto the bitcoin blockchain.
If banks run LN hubs in the future, why would they have "free btc" or "free capital"?

Please elaborate, I do not understand.

Lightining Network is blackmail

Oh that's fascinating Franky, do tell us more

[franky1]

Ah, so we ditch the tx's that bring in the most fees? >$100 ^hmmmm^ Does that sound like a wise move, for a technology that would be funded in future only by the miners fees? Can you still trace all of these {small}tx's running through the hubs? < Transparency >? -- Bitcoin is currently a open public network, would the tx's that were done on the LN hubs, be private or still accessible to the public or functioning like a mixer service?

the uptopian concept is, to lock funds in you have to put funds into a bitcoin onchain tx to the multisig.
you then play around with the hubs 'millisats'
at the end a bitcoin onchain transaction including a bitcoin fee gets put on the bitcoin network to unlock funds.
EG
onchain:
user (0.04) -> hub (0.0399) (0.0001 on chain fee)

offchain (lets say offchain fee was 1sat(1000milisat)
user(3990000000) starbucks(0)
user(3499999000) starbucks(499999000) (user pays 0.005btc((500000000ms)=$3) to starbucks) (LN has 2sat 1 from starbuck 1 from user)
user(2999998000) starbucks(999998000) (user pays 0.005btc((500000000ms)=$3) to starbucks) (LN has 4sat 1 from starbuck 1 from user)
user(2499997000) starbucks(1499997000) (user pays 0.005btc((500000000ms)=$3) to starbucks) (LN has 6sat 1 from starbuck 1 from user)
user(1999996000) starbucks(1999996000) (user pays 0.005btc((500000000ms)=$3) to starbucks) (LN has 8sat 1 from starbuck 1 from user)
user(1499995000) starbucks(2499995000) (user pays 0.005btc((500000000ms)=$3) to starbucks) (LN has 10sat 1 from starbuck 1 from user)

so the user has paid 5sats to do 5 LN transactions
now lets settle

hub (0.04) -> the user (0.01489995) (0.0001 on chain fee)
hub (0.04) -> starbuck (0.02499995)
hub (0.04) -> LNs host (0.00000010)

so LN's host gets 10sats thanks to 5 offchain tx of 2 users at 1sat rate
and bitcoin miners gets 20000 sats thanks to 2 tx lock in and settle

It looks like it works something similar to services like Xapo, where all internal/off-chain tx's are private and cheap, and then when you go on-chain, normal fees are applicable. Does these hubs function in the same way?

Who hosts these hubs?  

[franky1]

First, there is no "free btc". Are you thinking the "free btc" will exceed the 21 million coin limit?
Bitcoin exists past eight decimal places right now, ex: 0.0000,0000,0000,0001,
it is just that the current protocol only needs to go to 0.0000,0001 (aka 1 satoshi).
We can go below 1 satoshi if needed to facilitate "micro fees" for "micro txs".

Please elaborate, I do not understand.

2+2 = 22 beellion BTC

Second, please explain in detail why centralization will occur due to micro fee accumulation,
whether prior to or after the LN settlement action back onto the bitcoin blockchain.
If banks run LN hubs in the future, why would they have "free btc" or "free capital"?

Please elaborate, I do not understand.

Lightining Network is blackmail

Oh that's fascinating Franky, do tell us more

lightning CAN be used for blackmail.. even people think that right now mining pools demand for txfee is blackmail. yet you call it a "free market" which you have openly said hubs/pools can choose to demand any fee they like 'because of the freemarket'

as for the units of measure, go read some code. please. as it seems even you have forgot/never knew the real unit of measure at code level,

but lets hope we never as a community have a proposal that bitcoins consensus rules need to change the units of measure to match LN. and only have to debate LN's rounding, and who the rounding is in favour of.

i feel you only see what the GUI and human brain calculates it to after the fact.
you seem to be, (using another example) a 'bitcoin averages 1block every 10minutes' (GUI mindset) kind of guy,
where as im more of a 2016 blocks every ~fortnight kind of guy (code level mindset and then flip it to a more fitting laymens understanding)

[Carlton Banks]

You can't simultaneously argue that you have a "code mindset", and also that you don't understand division. Sorry Franky, go home, this is just terrible stuff

[franky1]

You can't simultaneously argue that you have a "code mindset", and also that you don't understand division. Sorry Franky, go home, this is just terrible stuff

LOL you are failing. its you that doesnt understand. there is no division at code level.
at code level if bitcoin was to change to match LN its not dividing bitcoin, its increasing the units.
at code level it has always been 1sat UP not 1btc DOWN

again
changing the units of measure
2100000000000000 into
2100000000000000000 units which also changes when new coins stop being created. (from the year 2141 to the year 2181)

which makes the units less rare as now there are 1000 times more units to share.
but again i say lets hope we never have to debate such a proposal and only have to argue who 'wins' when rounding out return a real satoshi count

have a nice day in your bubble world of fake misinformation and propaganda

[Carlton Banks]

"fake misinformation and propaganda" is kind of problematic, considering what you're trying to push here lol

What Franky is, of course, failing to point out is that the total BTC monetary base would still need the positioning of the divisional point. So don't worry 1 BTC holders, Franky's magic math isn't going to put you into the Franky Mugabe 1000 BTC club overnight, lol

[franky1]

"fake misinformation and propaganda" is kind of problematic, considering what you're trying to push here lol

What Franky is, of course, failing to point out is that the total BTC monetary base would still need the positioning of the divisional point. So don't worry 1 BTC holders, Franky's magic math isn't going to put you into the Franky Mugabe 1000 BTC club overnight, lol

carlton.
wake up.

1 unit of measure UP =2100000000000000 cap

lets use gold as an example
1 grain of gold. with there being 2100000000000000 grains of gold in the world.
by even suggesting to add more grains of gold. ruins golds rarity. it even affects when 'all the gold' will be mined

even if you then say 100,000,000 grains was an ounce and now lets rename it so 100,000,000,000 grains = an ounce. doesnt change the fact that there are more grains of gold being created. it dilutes the value of each grain.

but its becoming obvious. carlton secretly wants to ruin bitcoins cap as he is really trying to push bitcoin eventually moving the units of measure as being a positive thing.

personally we should not even think about changing bitcoins unit of measure. and only debate who wins the math rounding of the offchain measures when converting back to real sats

[Seansky]

This is really good news if this is true. Maybe this is one of the reasons why the current bitcoin price is rising today. Hope that it will also be succeed in the real launch and all of us will benefit. If that happens, there will be more people that will likely join bitcoin and many more users will use btc for payment transactions because of lightning fast speed added with it's current features and low fees.

[Carlton Banks]

1 unit of measure UP =2100000000000000 cap

lets use gold as an example
1 grain of gold. with there being 2100000000000000 grains of gold in the world.
by even suggesting to add more grains of gold. ruins golds rarity. it even affects when 'all the gold' will be mined

even if you then say 100,000,000 grains was an ounce and now lets rename it so 100,000,000,000 grains = an ounce. doesnt change the fact that there are more grains of gold being created. it dilutes the value of each grain.

Whether or not the value of 1 satoshi is debased or inflated (or equally 1 BTC or any other amount) depends simply on where you place the division point. We've had this discussion before, and you were struggling to grasp it then as well, were you not? You're essentially saying "there's more Bitcoin than 21 million now", but what's really happened is that 8 decimal places has gone up to 11 decimal places. Great explanation, Franky lol

[davis196]

Developers at Blockstream has successfully conducted tests on the Lightning Network using Bitcoin testnet coins.

In the test, the developers used an ASCII cat picture as a demo product. The developer below can be seen manipulating a combination of bitcoind and lightningd, the Bitcoin daemon and Lightning daemon respectively, to instantly purchase a cat picture that developer Rusty Russell has up for sale. Some of the information in the video may be hard to understand, so we’ll do our best here to make it simpler.

http://bitcoinagile.com/8A1D4B/first-bitcoin-lightning-network-transaction-tested-successfully_stream

I don`t understand this stuff, but i guess that this will improve confirmation time

so it`s a great improvement which will boost bitcoin adoption and price.

What is a lighting network by the way?

[franky1]

Whether or not the value of 1 satoshi is debased or inflated (or equally 1 BTC or any other amount) depends simply on where you place the division point. We've had this discussion before, and you were struggling to grasp it then as well, were you not? You're essentially saying "there's more Bitcoin than 21 million now", but what's really happened is that 8 decimal places has gone up to 11 decimal places. Great explanation, Franky lol

you are failing to grasp the basics.
there are ~2100000000000000 units of measure that will ever be produced.. this has been the rule since the genesis block.
people at GUI and human interaction level can be free to call 100 units 'a bit' or 100000000 units a bitcoin. but at code level there are only going to be 2100000000000000 units created by the year 2141 (binary 111-01110101-11110000-01011010-00000111-01000000-00000000)

again AT CODE LEVEL and LOGICAL level of rarity.

if someone has (1btc) 100,000,000 units linked to their keypair..
(100,000,000sat(1btc) = binary 101-11110101-11100001-00000000 where each unit(sat) is binary 00000001)

its only the GUI that displays (binary 101-11110101-11100001-00000000) as 1btc..
its only the GUI that displays (binary 00000001) as 1sat..
if you want to add more units to bitcoin. you have to mess with the binary of units.

because  the code or blockchains stored ledger entry level does not show "btc" it shows and works with binary units. only the GUI displays btc
so
by adding units to the CODE...(changing the binary unit maths) then a decision must be made about how to display it on the GUI.
by making one sat (binary 00000001) to become (binary 00000011-11101000) so that there can be 1000 millisats (1millisat binary 00000001)
meaning because there are more units. the binary equivelent of 21m btc goes up to compensate
binary 111-01110101-11110000-01011010-00000111-01000000-00000000 becomes
binary 11101-00100100-10110010-11011111-10101100-01010010-00000000-00000000 to allow for 1000 extra measures
means things need to change on the GUI

decisions:
1)is each unit(binary 1) a 100 millionth part of a bitcoin. meaning there are 21billion bitcoins (you will say no)
but saying no, requires some how "crediting" a user with 1000x more units to keep them inline with having one 21millionth of the cap, to pretend there is still 21m btc..
so they dont suffer the rarity decline.
good luck trying to program that 'credit', as it requires rewriting old blocks so one sat (binary 00000001) becomes (binary 00000011-11101000) 1000 millisat to then have bitcoin holders still having one 21millionth of the cap

or
2) is each unit as 1000th of a satoshi.
1btc was (binary 101-11110101-11100001-00000000) but is now (binary 10111-01001000-01110110-11101000-00000000)
meaning that AT CODE LEVEL users who had 100,000,000 units still have only now only (binary 101-11110101-11100001-00000000) which at GUI level leaves them with 0.001btc to keep to the "21mill btc cap"

meaning anyone having funds from the last 7years would have their value diluted either way. but miners now get 1000x more units per reward and able to mine for another 40 years before the units are depleted.

please stop thinking about it from the fake GUI display end and think of it from the code protocol end. because you are really starting to reveal your lack of understanding bitcoin and the rules set in place

[AgentofCoin]

First, there is no "free btc". Are you thinking the "free btc" will exceed the 21 million coin limit?
Bitcoin exists past eight decimal places right now, ex: 0.0000,0000,0000,0001,
it is just that the current protocol only needs to go to 0.0000,0001 (aka 1 satoshi).
We can go below 1 satoshi if needed to facilitate "micro fees" for "micro txs".

bullcrap
seems you dont understand bitcoin at code level. because at code level there is no 21million bitcoin cap.
at code level the units of measure are not bitcoins but satoshi

its not bitcoin measured down. but satoshi measured up
where each block reward is not producing 12.5btc. but instead
1250000000 units
which halves every ~4 years

...

but ofcourse thats if blockstream wanted to mess around with bitcoins 'unit of measure' to match the lightning unit of measure, instead of rounding the lightning unit of measure when closing the channel.

i can see future 'debates' of people arguing who 'benefits' from the rounding to fit bitcoins unit of measure. but i hope we never have to debate
changing bitcoins unit of measure to match lightning. otherwise that is SCREWING bitcoins rarity.

Yes, I am not a programmer.
I have been advised on multiple occasions that if we needed to go below a satoshi and needed more divisibility,
it would be possible to do so. From a strict code point of view, you are correct since the whole system relies on
the denomination of satoshi to determine everything, currently.

I do not think Bitcoin developers will just add additional zeros into the current code, thus inflating the bitcoin supply
way ahead of schedule. That is not in anyway reasonable or acceptable. But why couldn't a decimal be placed
after the satoshi point, such as 100000000.00000000? Prior blocks and other systems that relied on a strict
satoshi denomination will remain and after a certain block in the distant future, the new format will take effect
which can include a new secondary "carryover block" which will contain the amount below a satoshi. Old nodes
that never upgrade can still exist and work at relaying the old format, but will ignore this secondary block. (which
doesn't matter since its intended only in/for second layer micro payment systems).
So future systems will have the "extended format", and old systems can still relay as before.

As for the issue of "milisato" and the LN micro fee system being below the satoshi denomination and does not
really exist, thus is an IOU, can't the LN burn 0.0000,0001 btc, and thus create 0.0000,0000,9999,9999 LN-btc
within the LN system? Isn't it no longer an IOU if that satoshi was burned? Like a Burn for Conversion into an
extended format only within the LN, and then round up to 0.0000,0001 only when so many extended 9s are made?

Second, please explain in detail why centralization will occur due to micro fee accumulation,
whether prior to or after the LN settlement action back onto the bitcoin blockchain.
If banks run LN hubs in the future, why would they have "free btc" or "free capital"?

Please elaborate, I do not understand.

locking funds into multisig is the same as putting funds into a 'managed' account where it requires duel signatures to settle funds movements.

LN can be useful for people that want to raid faucets for a few weeks to receive a few units without 'spamming' bitcoins blockchain. but
LN due to it being 'managed' by some entity should not be trusted as the 'forever solution' where people lock funds in forever.
LN due to it being 'managed' opens up new weaknesses. such as blackmail eg (hub:"we will not sign a tx unless you pay 1btc fee to get funds back"
similar comparisons can be made to pools now, not accepting transactions into a block unless you pay over 0.0001 btc

so its not only who benefits from the 'rounding' but also the corruption of changing/demanding more fee per tx just to close a channel to get funds out. ending up as costing the user more to settle blackmail style or forced to stay in the channel out of fear of losing more then they would getting out.

As for blackmail, why couldn't the fees be negotiated to only be within a certain ranged amount PRIOR to opening
a channel with that hub? When I go to do business with someone in some types of businesses, I get an estimate PRIOR
to work being performed. If they begin to exceed the agreed estimate, they need for me to authorize that increase
beyond our agreement. Otherwise any work performed beyond our original agreement is a violation of the terms of
the original estimate.

In order to prevent the blackmail aspect you describe, can't the LN system mandate release at the maxed agreed fee
amount? So for example, I want to pay for groceries, I open the LN system and find a "reasonable fee hub", it declares its
rule boundaries and is controlled by them, that when the total amount of fees owed comes close to 0.00001 btc, it automatically
closes the channel without prompting and in accordance with its declared boundaries.
So in the event the hub wants 1 btc to unlock my 3 btc, it will violate its own declaration and causes an auto closure of the channel.

[Carlton Banks]

you are failing to grasp the basics.

[Edited to excise Franky's "I am Neo, I am The FrankyOne" schtick, ROFL]

meaning anyone having funds from the last 7years would have their value diluted either way. but miners now get 1000x more units per reward and able to mine for another 40 years before the units are depleted.

please stop thinking about it from the fake GUI display end and think of it from the code protocol end. because you are really starting to reveal your lack of understanding bitcoin and the rules set in place

Franky, no amount of smoke-screen garbage about doing binary arithmetic is going to alter the basics that you're not grasping: divisional point. There is one. There are no new units, only finer division of the existing units.

Yes, the code deals with 64-bit unsigned integers, and yes, that may have to be changed to a variable type that can handle an amount of monetary deflation. You still can't turn division into multiplication with your magic maths, lol. This really is scraping the bottom of the barrel, a child could detect your comic propaganda, Saddam-era Iraq is missing a PR man, lol

[DooMAD]

The first thing that comes to mind after reading the discussion in this thread, is, if we can't even agree amongst ourselves exactly how it's going to work at the moment, how long is it going to be before anyone can successfully explain it to an average member of the general public?  Let alone making it stick and getting them to actually understand it?  I'm sure I recall a section on bitcoin.org stating that as the technology matured, it would become more accessible to the general public.  It feels like that particular goal is going to take somewhat longer now while we're in the process of making the learning curve that little bit steeper.

[franky1]

Franky, no amount of smoke-screen garbage about doing binary arithmetic is going to alter the basics that you're not grasping: divisional point. There is one. There are no new units, only finer division of the existing units.

Yes, the code deals with 64-bit unsigned integers, and yes, that may have to be changed to a variable type that can handle an amount of monetary deflation. You still can't turn division into multiplication with your magic maths, lol. This really is scraping the bottom of the barrel, a child could detect your comic propaganda, Saddam-era Iraq is missing a PR man, lol

one sat is stored on a hard drive as binary 0000001

you cannot get smaller then binary 1. and you cannot rewrite old blocks to be where 1 sat is 1000 units. (binary 0000001111101000)
if you tried to re-write old transactions. the signatures wont match, the txid's wont match and the blockhashes wont match. requiring rebuilding bitcoin from the start.
we should not even be discussing such a stupid idea that you(carlton) seem to desire.

so how about you think about it from a coding level where there is no division.. at code level it is multiplication
at GUI level people can play around by renaming combined clumps of units to "appear" as divisions. but from a practical, logical and realistic point
of view GUI representation is not fixed. thus meaningless.
nothing is stopping anyone from calling a bitcoin, a butcoin or a fish coin at GUI level..
nothing is stopping anyone from calling a bitcoin, 100,000,000,000 sats and make it so it appears there are only 210,000 bitcoins.
but to the code level there are still only 2,100,000,000,000,000 units(sats) and that should not change, because it screws with many things.

again code level, units need to be multiplied(due to how binary work)
again GUI/human level, they can play around with it in any way they choose to rename the clumps of units to anything they want. thus faking division while diluting peoples holdings to expend miners rewards for a longer period.. but at coding level its still multiplication

but why am i even trying to answer you. it has become obvious you hate bitcoin and want side chains, altcoins.
its obvious you loved the fee war, its obvious you love the idea of increasing the units to be created by miners.
its obvious you love anything that can mess/screw and destroy bitcoin.

i really think its time you just settle into your altcoin/fiat life because it seems you have no reason to care about bitcoin.

now back on topic. lets hope blockstream NEVER propose to increase bitcoins unit cap.. and instead the only thing we ever have to debate is who gains most from rounding the LN coins when forming the settlement transaction to be transmitted (in satoshis) onchain