SegWit and LN are really interesting altcoins... but that is not Bitcoin.

[Wind_FURY]

Interesting arguments from both sides, Carlton versus Franky and the OP, about LN's "currency" being an altcoin or not. For me technically it could be but it is not. But then again it could really be. What some see as bad, I see opportunity here. I view the Lightning Network as something like a pseudo bank account in which it can be made and used as a bridge between blockchains. Like a decentralized exchange.

Thank you OP for pointing out that LN could be really an "altcoin" because it just opened the possibilities of what it really is. I am very excited on how this all works in practice.

[franky1]

Interesting arguments from both sides, Carlton versus Franky and the OP, about LN's "currency" being an altcoin or not. For me technically it could be but it is not. But then again it could really be. What some see as bad, I see opportunity here. I view the Lightning Network as something like a pseudo bank[1] account in which it can be made and used as a bridge[2] between blockchains. Like a decentralized exchange.

Thank you OP for pointing out that LN could be really an "altcoin" because it just opened the possibilities of what it really is. I am very excited on how this all works in practice.

thats the right way to think about it
have an open mind and think about all possibilities good and bad
good: to benefit users
bad: to suggest solutions to benefit progress which benefits users
bad: to know it could divert security (hashpower / node counts) away from bitcoin.


keep that open mind and think of all possibilities... dont become close minded like carlton

[1]though its not a LN feature but a bitcoin a smart contract feature, you are also correct that when locking bitcoins into a multisig can lead to many possibilities.
such as
[2]you are then credited with units pegged at 1:XXXX in a different network or node to then use in a different system, the smart contract feature is the mechanism planned to be used for things like side chains, LN and other protocols in conception and production right now.

and like you say, these altcoins and sidechains and offchain payment systems can have different possibilities, but also some flaws and limitations. which is what the devs need to work on before making a public release.

[Wind_FURY]

The more and more I understand the Lightning Network the more I can see its similarities with the Ripple Network. Also it is better because it might have all the functionalities and none of that XRP tokens that are mostly held by the founders and the company behind it. The system on how to send value in the network is also better in the Lightning Network. Ripple uses financial institutions as gateways to transfer value to the network while LN uses its payment channel system.

[Lauda]

Reaction after reading title and first post:

Segwit has nothing to do with "altcoins". It is the same chain, because it IS Bitcoin. Anyone claiming otherwise is either a paid troll or delusional. For something to be an altcoin, it would need to have its own chain, right? LN is a 'collection of payment channels' in a sense, not an altcoin.

[poptartcat]

SegWit is not an altcoin since it is still the Bitcoin blockchain.

Great, then Omni/Mastercoin is also Bitcoin and CounterParty is also Bitcoin.  

SegWit is not the Bitcoin Blockchain.  The bitcoin blockchain is enforce by the protocol.  SeqWit is an alternative protocol.  

No, you are redefining known terms and systems.

Omni/Mastercoin are separate coins with separate blockchains that are mined and secured by non-bitcoin miners.
These are altcoins.

SegWit is a Bitcoin protocol proposal.
Bitcoin protocol is not static and changes with each new version.
Protocol does not equal an altcoin.
An altcoin is a competitor.

I don't think you understand how Counterparty and Omni work. They don't have their own blockchain, I believe they use OP_RETURN data on the bitcoin blockchain to create assets and transactions of those assets. So, they're not separate blockchains. Whether they are altcoins or something else is semantics I guess.

[Carlton Banks]

Qualify any of those statements with facts lol. Off you go to en.bitcoin.it Franky, see you back here in an hour, huh (Franky's doing his homework ). You might need to get dictionary.com ready in another tab, lol

A negroloid telling others to get a dictionary, lol.  Hey 'thug', how's life?

quoted for preservation

[pereira4]

When will people understand that we need to build on top of Bitcoin otherwise we will never properly scale? Did people back then complain that stuff was being built on top of the TCP/IP and therefore that was not Bitcoin? This is getting ridiculous with those trolls.

[davis196]

Why does Core call everything an 'alt' but their wildly variant version of Bitcoin gets entitled to be 'the Bitcoin'? 

Don't be fooled: SegWit is the alt.  Lightning is the alt.  These radical changes are being forced into the network because Blockstream has been able to convince a few Chinese miners (not decentralized) to follow their stupidly dangerous plan.

What is Segwit and what is LN?

What is the purpose of this thread?

Why do you care about Segwit and LN?

[Carlton Banks]

When will people understand that we need to build on top of Bitcoin otherwise we will never properly scale? Did people back then complain that stuff was being built on top of the TCP/IP and therefore that was not Bitcoin? This is getting ridiculous with those trolls.

Well, it's not an inability to understand. Given that the Bitcoin trolls are only ever interested in trying to scare non-techy Bitcoin users away, it's highly likely that the trolls are actually paid shills.

For instance, Franky1 almost certainly has more than one person using the account; there's one Franky that can spell, speak good English, type like they're sober etc.... and then there's another Franky (who turns up around 4-7 PM GMT) who doesn't have complete English grammar, can't spell, can't type etc.

When you consider that Franky posts all day long, for a constant 24 hours, I don't think there's much doubt. I put this to "him", he claimed he doesn't sleep at all, lol. And this is aside from his uber-troll false arguments, that's a whole other ball game.

[franky1]

carton fails to provide a reason why blockstreams LN is not an altcoin, even where:
it uses a different node
contains no bitcoin blockchain,
uses a different unit of measure,
uses a signed instant 'payment' method incompatible to bitcoin consensus(thus gets rejected if they tried broadcasting the 'payment')
requires deleting the 'payment' and setting up a hopefully ethical agreement when signing a bitcoin tx when settling(much like withdrawing exchange balance)

so he then meanders to attack the people that even dare to highlight the reality of stuff blockstream create.

i defend bitcoin(open financial system), carlton defends blockstream(dictatorship desiring corporation)

now my point.
its best to call a spade a spade and actually accept what a spade can do
and cannot do. then while remaining with reality realise that a spade is a useful tool for some people and able to clearly show what a spade does.

unlike some people who pretended NXT was bitcoin 2.0 and other things. which helped no one but purely done to defend and promote the business behind the concept rather then highlight the advantages and disadvantages of the technology/altcoin

lauda is correct segwit is part of bitcoin.
sidechains and blockstreams LN however is an altcoin, that is crediting users via a peg that suppose to represent bitcoin at certain ratios.

the funny thing is, if revealing the honest truth hurts. then there is something those hurt by the truth want to hide.

if you feel the technology is sound then be honest and show what it can and cannot do. rather then circle jerk the utupian dream of perfection purely to give some rep' points to the business conceiving it.

i personally do see the positives of where LN can be useful. but i also see the flaws.
there is no point "selling" the usefulness before its even usable, but highlighting the flaws can help fix the issues to make it useful.
and there is definitely no point "selling" the utopian dream of perfection to honour a business. its open source after all. the business should not matter

[Carlton Banks]

Lightning uses Bitcoins. On the Bitcoin blockchain.

That's where all the money going through Lightining channels is coming from, and going to. The Bitcoin blockchain.

Ergo, Lightning is not an altcoin.



Franky seems to think that his massively overcomplicated "explanation" is actually going to convince anyone who is worth convincing.

[franky1]

Lightning uses Bitcoins. On the Bitcoin blockchain.

lightning is OFFchain tech.. 'payments'/'trades' are not done onchain.. and thats the point of LN

That's where all the money going through Lightining channels is coming from, and going to. The Bitcoin blockchain.

LOL
lets word it a different way,
exchanges accept bitcoin but while an exchange holds the bitcoin, they separately allow users to play with their 'balances'(mysql database) to make orders.
exchanges are not bitcoin, they are a SERVICE/BUSINESS layer at the edges of bitcoin, but it is not bitcoin.
the trades do no appear on the blockchain. the trades are incompatible with bitcoin consensus
only the deposits and withdrawals are part of bitcoin. not the service offering itself.
LN is just a service layer.

even blockstream admit LN is a second layer.
even blockstream admit LN is OFFCHAIN.

seems carlton needs to go back and get retrained by his leaders

lets word it a different way.
exchanges are part of the community. but not the protocol of bitcoin
LN is part of the community. but not the protocol of bitcoin

atleast be honest and call a spade a spade. then be realistic about what a spade can do and cannot do

[Carlton Banks]

lets word it a different way,

Yes, that's your only weapon in this argument: playing with semantics, lol



All Lightning transactions are validated by all Bitcoin nodes, before they can be accepted at all as an open channel by the Bitcoin network. Opening a Lightning channel involves making a Bitcoin transaction, and all the units are BTC.

The fact that the units are being carved up a thousand times smaller is completely irrelevant, Franky is essentially trying to say that $ 1,000,000 dollars is one currency, but  $0.000001 cents is different currency completely, purely because the accounts system that deals with millions can't do 6 decimal places of accuracy.

Part of the point of Lightning is to make smaller denominations of Bitcoin usable; a transaction with less than 5430 satoshis of outputs is either invalid or non-standard right now, Lightning would enable 1 satoshi (or less) to be used. This will be needed if Bitcoin becomes worth $10,000-1,000,000, as it would only be possible to use Bitcoin to send a minimum of $1000 without.

This is such a simple, easily refuted lie, and it can only be a lie, not some kind of mistake or oversight. Trolling, in other words.

[franky1]

lets word it a different way,

Yes, that's your only weapon in this argument, playing with semantics, lol

All Lightning transactions are validated by all Bitcoin nodes, before they can be accepted at all as an open channel by the Bitcoin netowrk. Opening a Lightning channel involves making a Bitcoin transaction, and all the units are BTC.

your semantics are about the deposit and withdrawal. not LN itself.
it seems you fail to understand. so it requires wording it differently to hope you understand. but you instead just put your fingers in your ears and plead ignorance to everything

so how about go watch the demo video. read the details. that way you learn directly from your leader and probably wont have your fingers in your ears.
the guy made a payment ON BITCOIN(deposit). and the separately used the LN node for payments.
the payments within the LN node are NOT accepted by bitcoin. go watch the video
only the settlement (withdrawal) is accepted because a process is done to create a bitcoin transaction when the channel closes.

seriously carlton. watch the video, read the documentation and understand LN.


i know you admitted you have no understanding and blame your lack of desire to research LN on other people rather than yourself. but you are only failing yourself

Lol, I'm not going to check the details, just so i can speak to you, it's a waste of time after all

[Carlton Banks]

your semantics are about the deposit and withdrawal. not LN itself

Wrong, individual Lightning payments are validated by Bitcoin nodes, as Bitcoin transactions. Each and every one.

the guy made a payment ON BITCOIN(deposit). and the separately used the LN node for payments.
the payments within the LN node are NOT accepted by bitcoin. go watch the video
only the settlement (withdrawal) is accepted because a process is done to create a bitcoin transaction when the channel closes.

No, all Lightning payments are validated by Bitcoin nodes. They're validated in the mempool. Not on the Blockchain. Until the channel closes, when the net result of the transaction is stored on the Blockchain. Not as an altcoin, as you falsely claim. Stored as Bitcoin, and trnsacted as Bitcoin.

But that means that every Lightning transaction is validated in the mempool of every Bitcoin node.



To conclude:


Every Lightning transaction is validated in the mempool of every Bitcoin node. That's how it works.

[franky1]

LN payments in bitcoins mempool??

prove it. show me bitcoin-core code.
show me code in bitcoin core where millisat payments are logged in bitcoin-cores mempool

show it.
if you wont or cant. you have nothing more then empty arguments to get laughed at

i guess you forgot the LN node was not a bitcoin node
i guess you forgot the LN node had to connect to IRC to locate other peers, rather then using the bitcoin network IP discovery process
i guess you forgot LN uses millisats that are not sats
i guess you are stuck in a lucid dream.

wake up, deal with reality, not the dream you were sold

[Carlton Banks]

Don't need to, it's how everyone understood Lightning from the start (like, 2 years ago)

And Lightning specifics are not merged yet, so you're asking me to do something you know is impossible anyway, lol





Every Lightning transaction is validated in the mempool of every Bitcoin node. That's how it works.

[franky1]

How many millisats will the Bitcoin 21 million limit be inflated by? It's zero, isn't it?

because LNs millisats are not part of bitcoins sat
they are different nodes.

again lets do the theortic dream of yours of bitcoin changing its units of measure to include millisats
bitcoin miners right now produce 1250000000 units of measure per block. FACT (check the code)
USERS call this measure at the GUI, conversation end 12.5btc. but not at protocol/code/consensus level

in your dream scenario
bitcoin miners would produce 12500000000000 units of measure per block. DREAM
making miners stop producing units of measure as a blockreward in atleast 2181 instead of 2141 (screwing the production/rarity mechanism)
USERS call this measure at the GUI, conversation end 12.5btc. but not at protocol/code/consensus level

anyone can rebrand how many units a BTC is measured as.
last year people were proposing without even adding more units of measure. to call a btc just 1000 sats.
the community decided to leave a btc at 100,000,000 units and instead just use a different term 'bits' which is 100 units of measure

what people call a btc has no relevance to mining, no relevance to code.

WAKE UP!!!

[Carlton Banks]

how many Millisats will the Lightning "node" money supply be inflated by?

(note that this question doesn't even make any sense, I'm just using Franky's non-logic against him, lol)



You cannot provide a straight answer to this (or any) question, huh?

[franky1]

you fail to show knowledge of the concept of blockstream LN. you cannot even be bothered to look into it, and instead you bait an offtopic question involving the front end market of speculation.

how many Millisats will the Lightning "node" money supply be inflated by?

(not that this question doesn't even make any sense, I'm just using Franky's non-logic against him, lol)

You cannot provide a straight answer to this (or any) question, huh?

which no one can predict speculation accurately. all that can be learned is that changing the units of measure WILL change how people perceive it.
and it WILL affect things.
just like trying to rebrand a btc as 1000units does the same change to peoples perception of rebranding a btc to 100,000,000,000units

afterall you cant go back and rehash all the 7 years blocks to give users 100,000,000,000units instead of 100,000,000 to keep them on par with still having 1btc. (so your dream is flawed) due to older users losing out.

extending the reward creation cap from the year 2141 to 2181+ does has ramifications too
the best answer there is to your question
its inflation hidden by a rebranding of the metric to pretend there is no inflation.. but smart people will see through the ruse

but we all know you want to screw with bitcoin. because you dont care about bitcoin. you only care about is the dream of corporate dictatorship and control for financial profit.(you have no libertarian ideals nor ideals for protecting peoples assets against corporations)

how about instead of meandering off topic.
how about instead of crying that answering people is a waste of time
how about instead of crying that researching facts to answer people is a waste of time

you instead just do the research for your own understanding and your own benefit. then you wont be wasting your time failing each time