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

[Carlton Banks]

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.

Exactly, you're trying to affect people's perception of what a change like that would mean, using overcomplicated, vague and inaccurate descriptions deliberately contrived to lead people to think "well, I don't totally get it, but maybe something funny is going on". The only funny going's on is your warped description, though.

[franky1]

Exactly, you're trying to affect people's perception of what a change like that would mean,

and you pretend nothing will happen because your dreams tell you to think of fairy utopia's that corporate dictatorship is the solution to bitcoin, without understanding bitcoin
the funny thing is that carlton wants to screw with bitcoin to make LN compatible rather than making LN compatible with bitcoin.. (facepalm)

now thats settled your off topic question

back on topic,
prove with code, documentation and knowledge that LN signed payment can be broadcast to bitcoin and be accepted

remember
A)the deposit (prechannel) is not LN
B)the LN payment (in channel) on the LN node is LN
C)the withdrawal (post channel) is not LN

demonstrate (B)
stay on topic and talk about (B)


comparison
A)the deposit (pre-exchange trading) is not exchange trading
B)the LN payment (exchange trading) on the exchange is the exchange trading
C)the withdrawal (post exchange trading) is exchange trading

demonstrate a exchange trade-order can be broadcast to bitcoin
stay on topic and talk about exchanges and trade-orders

[Carlton Banks]

prove with code, documentation and knowledge that LN signed payment can be broadcast to bitcoin and be accepted

That's not what I said. When you offer a reply to a question that the other party didn't ask, that's called a strawman argument.



I said: Every Lightning transaction is validated by the mempool of the nodes on the Bitcoin network.

[franky1]

That's not what I said. When you offer a reply to a question that the other party didn't ask, that's called a strawman argument.
I said: Every Lightning transaction is validated by the mempool of the nodes on the Bitcoin network.

ok ill edit

prove with code, documentation and knowledge that Every Lightning transaction is validated by the mempool of the nodes on the Bitcoin network.

prove it..
you cant because you dont even know what an TN transaction is
but you you suggest you do know what a LN transaction is
PROVE IT

[Lauda]

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.

This is a false analogy. While you do not own the Bitcoins on a exchange, which is a service, you very much own the coins locked within a payment channel (with or without LN). *Nobody* can take these away from you, which is not the case with exchanges.

[franky1]

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.

This is a false analogy. While you do not own the Bitcoins on a exchange, which is a service, you very much own the coins locked within a payment channel (with or without LN). *Nobody* can take these away from you, which is not the case with exchanges.

the coins locked within the multisig require dual signatures. thus its not all your property. you require the second party to sign too..

[Carlton Banks]

you cant because you dont even know what an TN transaction is
but you you suggest you do know what a LN transaction is
PROVE IT

prove any of that.


You're the one with a long, long history of inventing nonsense claims about Bitcoin, the onus is on you

[franky1]

you cant because you dont even know what an TN transaction is
but you you suggest you do know what a LN transaction is
PROVE IT

prove any of that.


You're the one with a long, long history of inventing nonsense claims about Bitcoin, the onus is on you

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
not a single line of code deals with LN transactions
job done
not a single line of code deals communicating with LN nodes
job done
not a single line of code deals with storing inchannel payments on bitcoins mempool
job done
not a single line of code deals with LN's millisats
job done

[Lauda]

the coins locked within the multisig require dual signatures. thus its not all your property. you require the second party to sign too..

Correct. This, however, does not change the fact that no one can take these coins away from you regardless of whether the secondary party chooses to properly interact with you or not.

[franky1]

the coins locked within the multisig require dual signatures. thus its not all your property. you require the second party to sign too..

Correct. This, however, does not change the fact that no one can take these coins away from you regardless of whether the secondary party chooses to properly interact with you or not.

by the second party not signing. first party cant have them back, they remain locked. because it requires dual signing to release
by this i agree the second party cannot simply "take it from you" without your signature, because they remain locked, but you cant take it without theirs either

here is the point..
they can blackmail you to sign X over to them just to get an agreement. thus
taking it from you via extortion (they win)
or
locking you out of ever getting them back (no one wins, but second party feels good about screwing first party)

[Lauda]

by the second party not signing. you cant have them back. because it requires dual signing.
by this i agree the second party cannot simply "take it from you" without your signature, but you cant take it without theirs

IIRC there is a timeout period after one party initiates the closing of a payment channel. Please take this with a grain of salt, as I'm unsure and this would be a *stupid flaw* to enable the possibility of indefinite state of irresoluteness. I'll do some research on this once I find more time.

[Carlton Banks]

you cant because you dont even know what an TN transaction is
but you you suggest you do know what a LN transaction is
PROVE IT

prove any of that.


You're the one with a long, long history of inventing nonsense claims about Bitcoin, the onus is on you

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
not a single line of code deals with LN transactions
job done
not a single line of code deals communicating with LN nodes
job done
not a single line of code deals with storing inchannel payments on bitcoins mempool
job done
not a single line of code deals with LN's millisats
job done

well, you proved a strawman, well done!  (and you know you didn't check anything)


I've said already today: nothing used for Lightning is merged into mainline yet, apart from Segwit (merged a day or two ago).

[franky1]

by the second party not signing. you cant have them back. because it requires dual signing.
by this i agree the second party cannot simply "take it from you" without your signature, but you cant take it without theirs

IIRC there is a timeout period after one party initiates the closing of a payment channel. Please take this with a grain of salt, as I'm unsure and this would be a *stupid flaw* to enable the possibility of indefinite state of irresoluteness. I'll do some research on this once I find more time.

thank you for doing research
to help you
the timeout. is just a timeout. signatures still need to be signed.
hopefully a ETHICAL pre-channel transaction (the reset) was signed initially so the deposits can go back out the same way they came in.

but that can be then abused the other way.
EG previous post was party A deposits 1btc, B deposits nothing.. B can extort funds with UNETHICAL pre-channel transaction (the reset)

and flipping it to this new scenario
previous post was party A deposits 1btc, B deposits nothing..ethical reset created where A gets funds back. then A-B trade goods and services.
now A has the power. A refuses to sign unless he gets the majority back. and eventually A gets the whole thing back and keeps the goods because of the reset is released.

now the problem and flaw carlton is missing.

signing a transaction of 100,000,000,000units
results in a different signature AND TXID compared to
signing a transaction of 100,000,000units
bitcoin will reject it as an invalid tx.

also B cannot just broadcast an in-channel tx based on blockstreams current demonstration as the settlement tx onchain due to in-discrepancies.

LN only works if LN is measuring in sats.
LN will only work using milisats if (in carltons dream) bitcoin is measured in millisats

[franky1]

I said: Every Lightning transaction is validated by the mempool of the nodes on the Bitcoin network.

I've said already today: nothing used for Lightning is merged into mainline yet, apart from Segwit (merged a day or two ago).

proved yourself wrong
go research. atleast lauda seems awake to atleast try finding the truth. follow his mindset and atleast try

lastly

(and you know you didn't check anything)

ive read the code.
ive checked the code.
ive understand the code.

have a nice day

[Carlton Banks]

This is really where Franky comes into his forte, because I just can't be bothered to check this right now, it would involve taking Franky seriously


But as I've said: listen to Franky's propaganda at your own risk. He's the most blatant propaganda pusher on the board, and has a long long history as such.

[franky1]

because I just can't be bothered to check this right now, it would involve taking Franky seriously

carlton you have since 21 hours ago. be saying nonsense and avoided checking, learning, researching..
21 hours and you are still no further forward then you were yesterday

next time dont wast your 21 hours with baseless non factual dreams.
and instead
sleep for 9 hours.
wake up
do 2 hours of research and then using logic, documentation and facts to make a valid point.

which means IF you actually done some research you would have had a valid point HOURS ago, thus not wasting time.
by not researching and not making valid points you are only wasting your own time.

the funnier part is carlton has been tryng to make a point about LN since the 11th of the month on several topics.(4 days)
failing each time, getting no further forward then he did before.. learning not one extra thing to make a valid point.

i even suggested he take a break and try to learn something, to really think about it and try making a valid point.
kind of a shame he wastes his own time trolling and not learning

think about it... real hard. sit down have a cup of coffee and think about it

[Carlton Banks]

You're posting in a thread calld "SegWit and LN are altcoins", and you've tried already (and abandoned) to establish Segwit is an altcoin, when it isn't any kind of separate coin at all.

So this fake persona you present of an honest technical researcher is a total joke. You've been arguing easily refuted technical garbage already in this thread, and this is what you do all day every day. We all know, I'm just trying to warn newbies.

[franky1]

You're posting in a thread calld "SegWit and LN are altcoins", and you've tried already (and abandoned) to establish Segwit is an altcoin, when it isn't any kind of separate coin at all.

i didnt try to establish segwit as an altcoin

agreed LN in its blockstream concept is an alt.

segwit however is within bitcoin..

segwit debate over,
but nice try on diverting away from your lack of LN valid points.
care to take a break and research for an hour, to make a point...or waste an hour not making a point
your choice.
you really should learn though. id love to see a valid point backed up by research. within the hour
your only wasting ur own time if you just keep posting pointlessly within the hour

[Carlton Banks]

You're posting in a thread calld "SegWit and LN are altcoins", and you've tried already (and abandoned) to establish Segwit is an altcoin, when it isn't any kind of separate coin at all.

i didnt try to establish segwit as an altcoin

agreed LN in its blockstream concept is an alt.

segwit however is within bitcoin..

Lol nice edit job Franky


@Mods: remove Franky's ability to edit his posts, or keep a copy of every edit. I'd suggest doing the same for the other known Bitcoin trolls trying to sabotage the project

[TKeenan]

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

Thank you for doing that.  I hate when they delete my messages.  Assholes.