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

[Daisy14]

I suppose Segwit and LN were introduced as overall improvements to bitcoin... let's see how they will fare.

[johnyj]

LN's biggest problem is that it increases money supply. Notice that money supply means the available money in the market, not the base money supply, thus modern economy theories seldom use M0 to measure money supply, since a large part of the M0 is sitting there collecting dust without contributing to the economy activities

Comparing two cases:

1. you have 1 bitcoin to pay a merchant, when this 1 bitcoin is in transaction, it is unavailable for anyone else, so the money supply decreased by 1 bitcoin until the merchant received your coin and spent it. If he did not spend it in time, next time you must find a new bitcoin to pay him, this will create new demand for bitcoin

2. you have 1 bitcoin to pay a merchant, but your wallet operator and merchant's wallet operator opened a payment channel between them, and then you and the merchant can do any amount of trades without more bitcoin, because the amount of incoming and outgoing transactions are roughly the same between your wallet operator and merchant's wallet operator, thus their transactions basically cancel each other and no real settlement is required between them, the channel can be left open forever. As a result, you get some salary from your boss through another payment channel, and you pay the merchant through this payment channel, everything happens in payment channel, no real bitcoin is needed

So once payment channel and especially routing is established, all the bitcoin transactions can be done with a fraction of the total amount of required bitcoin, that will dramatically reduce the amount of bitcoin demand on market and cause the value to crash

Increased money supply always cause reduced money value, or inflation. Notice that not only new coins can cause inflation, any schemes that could increase the utility of the same bitcoin by multiple times is essentially another form of inflation, this includes payment channel, fractional reserve banking, and other forms of similar schemes

[AgentofCoin]

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.

You are partially correct.
After review, it seems that Omni/Mastercoin relies on the bitcoin blockchain for security.
So it is a protocol layer on top of the Bitcoin system.
But the original discussion was about whether SegWit is an altcoin to bitcoin's blockchain.

Omni & Counterparty have their own tokens that can be purchased in exchanges (mastercoin was also crowdfunded).
The LN token, in theory, only exists within the LN network and is not exchangeable outside that system.
The LN token is a proxy for BTC, it does not fall under the normal purpose of an altcoin.
The LN token, in theory, would not compete against BTC, since it is "escrowed locked BTC".

So, it is true that Omni/Mastercoin is in theory, not an altcoin and is a protocol layer. But the fact is, they are not
used for Bitcoin/bitcoin directly, but are protocol layers on the bitcoin blockchain for their own selfish enrichment.
I would call them "Bitcoin layered Altcoins", for lack of a better term. So, simply altcoins and not protocol layers.

So, if the LN token does become a coin traded on altcoin exchanges, it will become an altcoin.
Otherwise it is just a LN internal token for accounting of btc settlement txs.

[AgentofCoin]

LN's biggest problem is that it increases money supply. Notice that money supply means the available money in the market, not the base money supply, thus modern economy theories seldom use M0 to measure money supply, since a large part of the M0 is sitting there collecting dust without contributing to the economy activities
...
So once payment channel and especially routing is established, all the bitcoin transactions can be done with a fraction of the total amount of required bitcoin, that will dramatically reduce the amount of bitcoin demand on market and cause the value to crash.

Increased money supply always cause reduced money value, or inflation. Notice that not only new coins can cause inflation, any schemes that could increase the utility of the same bitcoin by multiple times is essentially another form of inflation, this includes payment channel, fractional reserve banking, and other forms of similar schemes

Every LN token is backed by its equivalent in BTC locked in multisig.

Where is this extra money coming from?
Who is the entity that is transferring the single BTC twice?
Who is the entity that loses their BTC when the settlement only goes to one of the two parties?


You are arguing that BTC will become more valuable over time if we keep 1MB blocks forever
and never create second layer systems? You are arguing "Velocity of Money" is bad with "digital gold".

[franky1]

what i feel johnyJ might be theorising is.
using LN people can "replay" doublespend to get goods whil other person is playing with LN tokens and the scammer has moved out the real bitcoins.


knitpickers: my next scenario has some assumptions
this is not about blockstreams current release of LN(very flawed) but how things are still not sussed out conceptually even in a more release worthy version.
this is not a blockstreams current release of LN with 1:1000 pegged LN tokens, instead its 1:1 LN tokens to allow instant signing of tx's that would get accepted by bitcoin

here goes:
imagine the date is: blockheight 450,000 (bitcoin doesnt care about calenders)

when Scumbag A and merchant B form a multisig. scumbag A deposits 1btc.
at first they both sign the reset transaction where A gets his 1BTC back.(rightfully so) date stamped to only be accepted at BlockHeight:460,000 (10 weeks from now)

then within LN A and B set up the channel and scumbag A is credited with the LN tokens, to represent 1btc
they do some trades and using the LN tokens. scumbag A gives some tokens to Merchant B for.. lets say a TV.
B gets A to sign a real bitcoin tx wher the outputs now give the merchant some bitcoin for the TV. date stamped to only be accepted BlockHeight:459,999 (9 weeks 6day, 23hours and ~50minutes from now)

but A doesnt care about the second TX, he cares and keeps the reset(a:1btc) tx and thats all he cares about
they keeps the channel open as if A and B will trade more next week.(meaning B does not broadcast the second tx)
later.. they keep trading, blah blah blah to keep the channel alive.
later..
10 weeks are nearly up they agree to extend the channel for another 10 weeks by signing a TX for blockheight 470,000.
merchant B thinks scumbag A deleted old tx's and is only holding the latest one of blockheight 470,000, wher merchant gets some btc.
scumbag A has never cared about the latest tx's and still has the first reset tx

so the channel carries on and they date passes block height 460,002
scumbag A broadcasts the reset transaction without telling merchant B and gets confirmed
merchant B was unaware and couldnt send out his latest one because its date stampted for 470,000
now all merchant B is left with is a hand full of LN proxy tokens, no TV, no bitcoin.

issues that have to be resolved.
1. using the time locks, limits the "infinite transactions" because each transaction needs to be one blockheight less than the other to remain most valid.(eg a 10k gap limits it to 10,000 transactions)
2. by suggesting a "channel never needs to close" means that trust is needed that the party with most at the start wont transmit that initial transaction to get back everything he first had, once time passes the time lock due to naive trust the party with most to lose didnt close in time

dont get me wrong. the time lock concept is good. but then saying a utopian dream of "never needs to close" and "unlimited transactions" reveals that the time locks can be used to scam, just by being patient and persuasive to keep the channel open beyond the first time lock

[AgentofCoin]

what i feel johnyJ might be theorising is.
using LN people can "replay" doublespend to get goods whil other person is playing with LN tokens and the scammer has moved out the real bitcoins.

LN tokens are not real, they are a temporary place holder for the BTC, prior to the BTC settlement.
All that matters is the settlement. If the scammer "moved out the bitcoins", there are no LN tokens.

knitpickers: my next scenario has some assumptions
this is not about blockstreams current release of LN(very flawed) but how things are still not sussed out conceptually even in a more release worthy version.
this is not a blockstreams current release of LN with 1:1000 pegged LN tokens, instead its 1:1 LN tokens to allow instant signing of tx's that would get accepted by bitcoin

here goes:
imagine the date is: blockheight 450,000 (bitcoin doesnt care about calenders)

when Scumbag A and merchant B form a multisig. scumbag A deposits 1btc.
at first they both sign the reset transaction where A gets his 1BTC back.(rightfully so) date stamped to only be accepted at BlockHeight:460,000 (10 weeks from now)

then within LN A and B set up the channel and scumbag A is credited with the LN tokens, to represent 1btc
they do some trades and using the LN tokens. scumbag A gives some tokens to Merchant B for.. lets say a TV.
B gets A to sign a real bitcoin tx wher the outputs now give the merchant some bitcoin for the TV. date stamped to only be accepted BlockHeight:459,999 (9 weeks 6day, 23hours and ~50minutes from now)

but A doesnt care about the second TX, he cares and keeps the reset(a:1btc) tx and thats all he cares about
they keeps the channel open as if A and B will trade more next week.(meaning B does not broadcast the second tx)
later.. they keep trading, blah blah blah to keep the channel alive.
later..
10 weeks are nearly up they agree to extend the channel for another 10 weeks by signing a TX for blockheight 470,000.
merchant B thinks scumbag A deleted old tx's and is only holding the latest one of blockheight 470,000, wher merchant gets some btc.
scumbag A has never cared about the latest tx's and still has the first reset tx

so the channel carries on and they date passes block height 460,002
scumbag A broadcasts the reset transaction without telling merchant B and gets confirmed
merchant B was unaware and couldnt send out his latest one because its date stampted for 470,000
now all merchant B is left with is a hand full of LN proxy tokens, no TV, no bitcoin.

...

With each new tx between User A and merchant B on the LN, I think a new reset must be created that invalidates the prior reset.
So Scumbag A can not use the first reset tx after performing hundreds of tx with that hub.
Scumbag A can only reset his most current tx, is my understanding.

[franky1]

what i feel johnyJ might be theorising is.
using LN people can "replay" doublespend to get goods whil other person is playing with LN tokens and the scammer has moved out the real bitcoins.

LN tokens are not real, they are a temporary place holder for the BTC, prior to the BTC settlement.
All that matters is the settlement. If the scammer "moved out the bitcoins", there are no LN tokens.

read the whole scenario again.. i explained this.
i made the quote below bold to emphasis when user A can spend the old tx. based on the promotion of "never closing channels" by describing how it would be possible to never close the channel even when the time was up. HINT: mutual /naive trust of each others honour, to have deleted old tx's

knitpickers: my next scenario has some assumptions
this is not about blockstreams current release of LN(very flawed) but how things are still not sussed out conceptually even in a more release worthy version.
this is not a blockstreams current release of LN with 1:1000 pegged LN tokens, instead its 1:1 LN tokens to allow instant signing of tx's that would get accepted by bitcoin

here goes:
imagine the date is: blockheight 450,000 (bitcoin doesnt care about calenders)

when Scumbag A and merchant B form a multisig. scumbag A deposits 1btc.
at first they both sign the reset transaction where A gets his 1BTC back.(rightfully so) date stamped to only be accepted at BlockHeight:460,000 (10 weeks from now)

then within LN A and B set up the channel and scumbag A is credited with the LN tokens, to represent 1btc
they do some trades and using the LN tokens. scumbag A gives some tokens to Merchant B for.. lets say a TV.
B gets A to sign a real bitcoin tx wher the outputs now give the merchant some bitcoin for the TV. date stamped to only be accepted BlockHeight:459,999 (9 weeks 6day, 23hours and ~50minutes from now)

but A doesnt care about the second TX, he cares and keeps the reset(a:1btc) tx and thats all he cares about
they keeps the channel open as if A and B will trade more next week.(meaning B does not broadcast the second tx)
later.. they keep trading, blah blah blah to keep the channel alive.
later..
10 weeks are nearly up they agree to extend the channel for another 10 weeks by signing a TX for blockheight 470,000.
merchant B thinks scumbag A deleted old tx's and is only holding the latest one of blockheight 470,000, where merchant gets some btc.
scumbag A has never cared about the latest tx's and still has the first reset tx

so the channel carries on and they date passes block height 460,002
scumbag A broadcasts the reset transaction without telling merchant B and gets confirmed
merchant B was unaware and couldnt send out his latest one because its date stamped for 470,000
now all merchant B is left with is a hand full of LN proxy tokens, no TV, no bitcoin.

...

With each new tx between User A and merchant B on the LN, I think a new reset must be created that invalidates the prior reset.
So Scumbag A can not use the first reset tx after performing hundreds of tx with that hub.
Scumbag A can only reset his most current tx, is my understanding.

invalidates the previous how?
right now the only concept of invalidating it, is the newest TX has a date lock one block less than the previous tx's lock.. as explained.
EG
tx1: possible release 460,000
tx2: possible release 459,999
tx3: possible release 459,998
so that when bitcoin has solved block 459,997. someone can broadcast tx 3 and have it accepted in 459,998 but cant broadcast tx1 as that wont be accepted for atleast~30 minutes.

this raises the importance of closing channels ontime BUT.
but then read the issues at the bottom of the last post. where that concept falls apart based on the "utopian" promotion of infinite transactions and never closing channels.
(mutual agreement based on naive trust of each other to make a new transaction for 470,000 and trust no one holds the tx's of releases 460,000 or 459,000)

i personally feel that when the latest tx (most soonest locktime) actually gets to the blockheight. it should ALWAYS close the channel, thus not allowing older tx's a chance to get broadcast when they finally get to their time.

which then although securing possible double spending to get a TV and bitcoin back. limits how long a channel is open for and how many tx's can be done within the channel before it needs to close.

[johnyj]

Every LN token is backed by its equivalent in BTC locked in multisig.

True

Where is this extra money coming from?
Who is the entity that is transferring the single BTC twice?
Who is the entity that loses their BTC when the settlement only goes to one of the two parties?

There is almost infinite money can be used in the payment channel, as long as the channel is open, and the money going from A to B is roughly the same as the money going from B to A every day

In bank settlement, although there are millions of transactions happened between Bank A's clients and Bank B's clients, at the end of the day, they typically cancel each other and make very small +/- for the amount to be finally settled between these two banks. Same thing happens between large LN hubs like online wallets, payment processors and exchanges

You are arguing that BTC will become more valuable over time if we keep 1MB blocks forever
and never create second layer systems? You are arguing "Velocity of Money" is bad with "digital gold".

I always support increase the block size depends on the technology capacity, since on-chain transactions require real bitcoin. But second layer systems will always increase the money supply, that is a fact thus should be avoided if possible, because it destroys value

[AgentofCoin]

what i feel johnyJ might be theorising is.
using LN people can "replay" doublespend to get goods whil other person is playing with LN tokens and the scammer has moved out the real bitcoins.

LN tokens are not real, they are a temporary place holder for the BTC, prior to the BTC settlement.
All that matters is the settlement. If the scammer "moved out the bitcoins", there are no LN tokens.

read the whole scenario again.. i explained this

If User A, receives the product from Merchant B but then broadcasts the original tx for a refund,
then User A stole from the merchant the same way Credit Cards do charge backs. My understanding,
which is limited, is that the merchant has the ability to push a corresponding tx that says that he sent
the product without getting paid, and the whole tx exchange falls into a new type of escrow negotiation
contract phase. I remember hearing some weird aspects where the merchant can be paid a % in the event
that the two parties can not come to an agreement, but this is beyond my knowledge, which is limited.

knitpickers: my next scenario has some assumptions
this is not about blockstreams current release of LN(very flawed) but how things are still not sussed out conceptually even in a more release worthy version.
this is not a blockstreams current release of LN with 1:1000 pegged LN tokens, instead its 1:1 LN tokens to allow instant signing of tx's that would get accepted by bitcoin

here goes:
imagine the date is: blockheight 450,000 (bitcoin doesnt care about calenders)

when Scumbag A and merchant B form a multisig. scumbag A deposits 1btc.
at first they both sign the reset transaction where A gets his 1BTC back.(rightfully so) date stamped to only be accepted at BlockHeight:460,000 (10 weeks from now)

then within LN A and B set up the channel and scumbag A is credited with the LN tokens, to represent 1btc
they do some trades and using the LN tokens. scumbag A gives some tokens to Merchant B for.. lets say a TV.
B gets A to sign a real bitcoin tx wher the outputs now give the merchant some bitcoin for the TV. date stamped to only be accepted BlockHeight:459,999 (9 weeks 6day, 23hours and ~50minutes from now)

but A doesnt care about the second TX, he cares and keeps the reset(a:1btc) tx and thats all he cares about
they keeps the channel open as if A and B will trade more next week.(meaning B does not broadcast the second tx)
later.. they keep trading, blah blah blah to keep the channel alive.
later..
10 weeks are nearly up they agree to extend the channel for another 10 weeks by signing a TX for blockheight 470,000.
merchant B thinks scumbag A deleted old tx's and is only holding the latest one of blockheight 470,000, wher merchant gets some btc.
scumbag A has never cared about the latest tx's and still has the first reset tx

so the channel carries on and they date passes block height 460,002
scumbag A broadcasts the reset transaction without telling merchant B and gets confirmed
merchant B was unaware and couldnt send out his latest one because its date stampted for 470,000
now all merchant B is left with is a hand full of LN proxy tokens, no TV, no bitcoin.

...

With each new tx between User A and merchant B on the LN, I think a new reset must be created that invalidates the prior reset.
So Scumbag A can not use the first reset tx after performing hundreds of tx with that hub.
Scumbag A can only reset his most current tx, is my understanding.

invalidates the previous how?
right now the only concept of invalidating it is the newest TX has a date lock then allows broadcast one block sooner.. as explained.
but then read the issues at the bottom of the last post. where that concept falls apart based on the "utopian" promotion of infitinte transactions and never closing channels

When a new purchase is created within the same  LN Hub, the prior LN tx will be overwritten.
The only tx that is important is the final LN to BTC tx that settles back to the bitcoin blockchain.
All the unbroadcasted txs you are referring to, I think, only exist within the LN.
When those txs are agreed or disputed, then it executes the "master tx" that settles the account.
This is my understanding. I am not an expert nor claim to be.

[AgentofCoin]

Every LN token is backed by its equivalent in BTC locked in multisig.

True

Where is this extra money coming from?
Who is the entity that is transferring the single BTC twice?
Who is the entity that loses their BTC when the settlement only goes to one of the two parties?

There is almost infinite money can be used in the payment channel, as long as the channel is open, and the money going from A to B is roughly the same as the money going from B to A every day

In bank settlement, although there are millions of transactions happened between Bank A's clients and Bank B's clients, at the end of the day, they typically cancel each other and make very small +/- for the amount to be finally settled between these two banks. Same thing happens between large LN hubs like online wallets, payment processors and exchanges

You are arguing that BTC will become more valuable over time if we keep 1MB blocks forever
and never create second layer systems? You are arguing "Velocity of Money" is bad with "digital gold".

I always support increase the block size depends on the technology capacity, since on-chain transactions require real bitcoin. But second layer systems will always increase the money supply, that is a fact thus should be avoided if possible, because it destroys value

I don't understand.

Can you explain the money creation aspect in detail as it relates to this, in simple terms.
I still do not see how 1 BTC can become 2 BTC from your statement.

Are you arguing that prior to the USA leaving the gold standard, that the USA was always using fractional reserve banking anyway?

[franky1]

If User A, receives the product from Merchant B but then broadcasts the original tx for a refund,
then User A stole from the merchant the same way Credit Cards do charge backs. My understanding,
which is limited, is that the merchant has the ability to push a corresponding tx that says that he sent
the product without getting paid, and the whole tx exchange falls into a new type of escrow negotiation
contract phase. I remember hearing some weird aspects where the merchant can be paid a % in the event
that the two parties can not come to an agreement, but this is beyond my knowledge, which is limited.

but now you are taking the control away from peer-to-peer and needing a middleman controlling the keys to mediate transactions and be the only one that broadcasts a tx to bitcoin. which is no different then bank accounts or depositing funds into middlemens permissioned services

invalidates the previous how?
right now the only concept of invalidating it is the newest TX has a date lock then allows broadcast one block sooner.. as explained.
but then read the issues at the bottom of the last post. where that concept falls apart based on the "utopian" promotion of infitinte transactions and never closing channels

When a new purchase is created within the same  LN Hub, the prior LN tx will be overwritten.
The only tx that is important is the final LN to BTC tx that settles back to the bitcoin blockchain.
All the unbroadcasted txs you are referring to, I think, only exist within the LN.
When those txs are agreed or disputed, then it executes the "master tx" that settles the account.
This is my understanding. I am not an expert nor claim to be.

will be over written? if i make a tx. i can copy it out of the LN mempool and keep it. even if the node deletes it, i still have it.
The only tx that is important: is the TX that gets accepted by a mining pool and confirmed in a block first.
When those txs are agreed or disputed, then it executes the "master tx" that settles the account. (the first reset tx)

i understand and have no complaints about you, and im not complaining, i actually feel you are willing to learn and think about scenarios and are trying to learn.

all im saying is LN is not a utopia of perfection some fanboys think it is. it still has flaws and people thinking about LN should recognise some limitations.

LN has got some good usecases, but should atleast admit to its limitations to reduce risk, find flaws and solve bugs. to then have something that will be useful for the usecases.

anyway ive digressed.
in the concept of LN being unlimited transactions (flaw due to locktime protection) and never needing to close(flaw of broadcasting older tx once X time passes) that it is possible to double spend. by a user having a TV and his btc back. leaving the other person with neither.

[AgentofCoin]

If User A, receives the product from Merchant B but then broadcasts the original tx for a refund,
then User A stole from the merchant the same way Credit Cards do charge backs. My understanding,
which is limited, is that the merchant has the ability to push a corresponding tx that says that he sent
the product without getting paid, and the whole tx exchange falls into a new type of escrow negotiation
contract phase. I remember hearing some weird aspects where the merchant can be paid a % in the event
that the two parties can not come to an agreement, but this is beyond my knowledge, which is limited.

but now you are taking the control away from peer-to-peer and needing a middleman controlling the keys to mediate transactions and b the only one that broadcasts a tx to bitcoin. which is no different then bank accounts or depositing funds into middlemens permissioned services

Its programmed within the LN code, so it is essentially like saying that all Ethereum
contracts and actions are also middleman controlling the keys.
LN is an automated escrow contracting system.

invalidates the previous how?
right now the only concept of invalidating it is the newest TX has a date lock then allows broadcast one block sooner.. as explained.
but then read the issues at the bottom of the last post. where that concept falls apart based on the "utopian" promotion of infitinte transactions and never closing channels

When a new purchase is created within the same  LN Hub, the prior LN tx will be overwritten.
The only tx that is important is the final LN to BTC tx that settles back to the bitcoin blockchain.
All the unbroadcasted txs you are referring to, I think, only exist within the LN.
When those txs are agreed or disputed, then it executes the "master tx" that settles the account.
This is my understanding. I am not an expert nor claim to be.

will be over written? if i make a tx. i can copy it out of the LN mempool and keep it.
The only tx that is important: is the TX that gets accepted by a mining pool and confirmed in a block first.
When those txs are agreed or disputed, then it executes the "master tx" that settles the account. (the first reset tx)

i understand and have no complaints about you, and im not complaining, i actually feel you are willing to learn and think about scenarios and are trying to learn.

all im saying is LN is not a utopia of perfection some fanboys think it is. it still has flaws and people thinking about LN should recognise some limitations.

LN has got some good usecases, but should atleast admit to its limitations to reduce risk, find flaws and solve bugs. to then have something that will be useful for the usecases.

anyway ive digressed.
in the concept of LN being unlimited transactions (flaw due to locktime protection) and never needing to close(flaw of broadcasting older tx once X time passes) that it is possible to double spend. by a user having a TV and his btc back. leaving the other person with neither.

I'm not sure, but I think the LN tx system is not the same as Bitcoins.
It would have other aspects besides the proof signatures.
I think there are programmable functions that must be fully met before the tx can validate.

I think the unbroadcasted LN tx system is contingent on unfinalized agreements.
If the two parties create a new agreement or update the agreement, the prior tx doesn't execute
correctly and would send back an error that says the agreement terms are new or updated.

When all conditions are met, then they are "finalized" and then the tx can broadcast and be validated.
I don't know what the truth is, this is what my basic understanding was.

But I agree in part, that this type of system will never be as trustless and secured as Bitcoin p2p.
I think the LN Devs admit that there are issues and problems, especially with trust and don't consider it "perfect".
But it is still worth experimenting and attempting to solve these problems.


Edit: As a reminder, I was always told that this system is for small exchanges, so a TV, depending on the price,
might be too risky in the LN system. A TV worth 500 USD should stay on the bitcoin blockchain, IMO.

[TKeenan]

I suppose Segwit and LN were introduced as overall improvements to bitcoin...

They are not improvements to bitcoin.  They are altcoins designed to enrich Blockstream - a privately owned company.

[Hazir]

So TKeenan what solution do you propose? Do we want to boycott both Lining Network and SegWit because these solution are not exactly a pure breed of bitcoin?
Do we have real options to enrich BTC without these upgrades? At some point bitcoin needs to be upgraded...

[Wind_FURY]

.....

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.

Speaking of flaws there could be another potential shortcoming in the system. Since the Lightning Network requires the locking of Bitcoins to open payment channels and then unlocking or "withdraw" them when you a channel, would this not send a heavier load on the blockchain and it might even cause a bottle neck? For example LN reaches a half of Visa's transaction and then for some reason a panic selling in the markets start and thousands of payment channels close at the same time to unlock people's Bitcoins.

In that scenario, what kind of strain will it bring to the whole Bitcoin network? Will it clog it and make it unusable for an "X" amount of time?

[Wind_FURY]

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.

I have read somewhere in the forum that the lock out time if in case there is an uncooperative channel is 2 weeks. It would be stupid of the developers not to put this feature, making it possible for your coins to be locked forever. I would suggest that the person opening the channel should be able to choose how long the minimum time out is as long as it is not less than 24 hours. I believe that would be better.

[TKeenan]

So TKeenan what solution do you propose? Do we want to boycott both Lining Network and SegWit because these solution are not exactly a pure breed of bitcoin?
Do we have real options to enrich BTC without these upgrades? At some point bitcoin needs to be upgraded...

Simple.  Make 4MB blocks tomorrow.  Still Bitcoin.  Always Bitcoin.  4MB will let the network expand for another 3 years maybe.  During those 3 years, we should work on some nice alternatives to scaling.  But for now, 4MB is a very conservative little adjustment.  Only a few lines of code to remove a limit that was put in long after the genesis block anyway.

[Wind_FURY]

So TKeenan what solution do you propose? Do we want to boycott both Lining Network and SegWit because these solution are not exactly a pure breed of bitcoin?
Do we have real options to enrich BTC without these upgrades? At some point bitcoin needs to be upgraded...

Simple.  Make 4MB blocks tomorrow.  Still Bitcoin.  Always Bitcoin.  4MB will let the network expand for another 3 years maybe.  During those 3 years, we should work on some nice alternatives to scaling.  But for now, 4MB is a very conservative little adjustment.  Only a few lines of code to remove a limit that was put in long after the genesis block anyway.

This is my opinion on the scaling debate. There are certain individuals or group of individuals that have their own agendas and their own self interests threatened by how slow the Bitcoin economy is growing. Those people have invested in Bitcoin companies and only to see them become stagnant. So they blame that the Bitcoin economy is not growing fast enough because it cannot scale, so there is the need for larger blocks and that the immediate effect to this is an expanding Bitcoin economy. But is it really that simple? Maybe those individuals are right but maybe they are also wrong. Why? A hard fork comes with great risk. Ethereum is a very good example of this.

I also believe that up to a certain point, the people who want bigger blocks want control over the development of Bitcoin.

[Carlton Banks]

I suppose Segwit and LN were introduced as overall improvements to bitcoin...

They are not improvements to bitcoin.  They are altcoins designed to enrich Blockstream - a privately owned company.

So, will you be selling all your SegWits then, ROFL? You'll be rich when you sell all your Lightning coins, Franky and jonny think Lightning inflates the money supply (although so far, the closest they've got to proving that is when Franky said "people will perceive the money supply growing"). Yeah, people that don't understand the difference between adding and dividing.

Lightning might add some extra decimal places, but saying that's adding to the system is incorrect. It is dividing the money supply.

The more you people hang on to these bizarre attempts at propagandising Bitcoin development, the more obvious it will be to even the most non-techy people out there. When do you ever get anyone chiming in with the trolls who's actually someone real in Bitcoin? The IRL contingent in favour of the trolls is tiny; it's basically Roger Ver and all his pedophile celebr-itarian friends.

[zimmah]

Segwit and Lightning both transact Bitcoins, on the Bitcoin network.

You're relying on your audience being too stupid or too lazy to check this for themselves. That's not a very good strategy, anyone can check for themselves, and confirm you're talking nonsense.

they would kill bitcoin since they steal mining fees and pocket it for their investors. This leaves miners without fees, and it would kill bitcoin in the long run, once block rewards become too small to cover the expenses for miners.