Scaling Bitcoin. Is consensus achievable?

[Meuh6879]

LN is Offchain Transactions ,

Whether anyone believes it or not , LN will open the door to Fractional Reserve Banking with BTC.

You can not use BTC not confirmed on LN.

It's not a fractionnal Reserve Banking, because ... at the end of the 10 minutes or LESS, all transactions (with 0-null movment) must be forward to the Bitcoin regular network.

If you have move 100 time your BTC in the LN and lost 10% = at the end of the 10 minutes, you LOOSE 10% on the Bitcoin network.

That's why the Fees of LN is not cheap (for the LN provider) ... because the LN must be withdrawn at the end with the most priority.

[1713498639]

1713498639

[1713498639]

1713498639

[1713498639]

1713498639

[1713498639]

1713498639

[1713498639]

1713498639

[kiklo]

if your Delusion was true , then why don't we just shut down the entire BTC network and move all of the BTC to LN and only use LN for everything.

It's clear from the protocol which you apparently don't even try reading, that LN needs onchain transactions, it can't work without them. Normally each channel produces 2 onchain transactions during it's whole lifetime.

Hey, I speed read it like everyone else, but I paid attention to the keywords that make the difference.
Example : OFFCHAIN,
you ignore this word and its definition during all of your conjecture.

By its very definition LN is a OFFCHAIN payment channel.
It has to be ONCHAIN, in order for the BTC to truly move across it, which means all BTC value on LN is a representation of a BTC not an actual BTC,
no other explanation should be needed.  

then why don't we just shut down the entire BTC network and move all of the BTC to LN and only use LN for everything.

You do realized, I made this as a sarcastic statement, so you would see BTC does not really move to the LN network.  

 

[kiklo]

LN is Offchain Transactions ,

Whether anyone believes it or not , LN will open the door to Fractional Reserve Banking with BTC.

You can not use BTC not confirmed on LN.

It's not a fractionnal Reserve Banking, because ... at the end of the 10 minutes or LESS, all transactions (with 0-null movment) must be forward to the Bitcoin regular network.

If you have move 100 time your BTC in the LN and lost 10% = at the end of the 10 minutes, you LOOSE 10% on the Bitcoin network.

That's why the Fees of LN is not cheap (for the LN provider) ... because the LN must be withdrawn at the end with the most priority.

OK, you really don't understand LN or English is not your 1st language.
Post some links to any article that agrees with your statement, it might help me understand what you are trying to say.

Because as it is:

You can not use BTC not confirmed on LN.

While on-chain transactions require confirmations before they’re considered secure, transactions on the Lightning Network are essentially settled instantly.

It's not a fractionnal Reserve Banking, because ... at the end of the 10 minutes or LESS, all transactions (with 0-null movment) must be forward to the Bitcoin regular network.

Sorry, this makes no sense, try a link to an article so I can understand what you are trying to say.
Especially considering :https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2015-December/000400.html

If we could lower the capital requirement, we'd lower the barrier for
people wishing to run a Lightning Network node.

Here are some thoughts:
   - The trust-based system you're proposing looks like a
   fractional-reserve banking system.
   - Such fractional-reserve hubs will provide lower transaction fees
   (because of lower capital requirements) — so the idea is worth pursuing.

That's why the Fees of LN is not cheap (for the LN provider) ... because the LN must be withdrawn at the end with the most priority.

The LN Devs stated the following
When estimating the costs of using the Lightning Network, Poon went as far as to say, “The fees people are going to charge are going to be effectively near zero.


 

[Carlton Banks]

There's a problem with your argument. Do you know what it is?

This should be good , show off that imagined superiority complex you got going for you. 
Waiting to be dazzled.

Here it is: what if people reading your posts actually go out and research and understand the Lightning Network? They're going to realise you're talking out of your ass.

[kiklo]

There's a problem with your argument. Do you know what it is?

This should be good , show off that imagined superiority complex you got going for you. 
Waiting to be dazzled.

Here it is: what if people reading your posts actually go out and research and understand the Lightning Network? They're going to realise you're talking out of your ass.

Man, how long did you have to try and sharpen that Dull Wit of yours to come up with that one. 

Notice when you post , it is nothing but your empty arrogance.   

When I post , if you bothered to look, I post reference links to articles , some of which are interviews with LN devs themselves.

Again:


 

[Carlton Banks]

My post was a great deal more factual than what you're spouting, and that was my intention, because you are talking nonsense. I notice that you're trying to be witty, however. With your Game of Thrones memes.

[kiklo]

My post was a great deal more factual than what you're spouting, and that was my intention, because you are talking nonsense. I notice that you're trying to be witty, however. With your Game of Thrones memes.

Hmm, no reference links to support your Empty arguments,
Sorry the more factual is in your imagination only. 

LOL,
You are even Wrong about the memes. 
That picture is from the SyFy series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defiance_(TV_series) .

 

FYI:
One thing to be proud of , is you are Consistent ,
Consistently Wrong!

[Carlton Banks]

rofl'ing, hard. Of course I don't know what ridiculous television memes you use, that was the purpose of the comment I've never even seen Game of Thrones, "do you watch game of Thrones" typically elicits my response "I'll be right back..."



              ------------------> The Point

              kiklo's head

[kiklo]

rofl'ing, hard. Of course I don't know what ridiculous television memes you use, that was the purpose of the comment I've never even seen Game of Thrones, "do you watch game of Thrones" typically elicits my response "I'll be right back..."

Actually the point is => You shoot your Mouth off when you are totally Wrong all of the Time.

Unlike others , I don't accept your empty arrogant falsehoods.  

 

[franky1]

i think the debate above has got out of hand where the term "fractional reserve" has the issue

one person lets call him (CB) thinking of it as the traditional meaning of if 10 is deposited then a bank can create 10 new money.
the other person call him (K) thinking. deposit 5 each (10 total). and do a craig wright to get 29.6 where collateral (trust of value) becomes value

EG
in a channel between X,Y they deposit 10 publicly on the blockchain to open the channel
X and Y 'spend' the 10 to another active channel user Z
asking Z to not use LN but to use Z's onchain balance address to pay 4.9 each to X,Y ONCHAIN and Z keep the 10 offchain, to spend later


X: i have control of 10 in LN, i have 4.9 personally ONCHAIN too. this is my 14.9 collateral. i can sign a message to my personal 4.9 and a message as part of the LN 10.
now give me a government grant,VC money up to 14.8

Y: i have control of 10 in LN, i have 4.9 personally ONCHAIN too. this is my 14.9  collateral. i can sign a message to my personal 4.9 and a message as part of the LN 10.
now give me a government grant,VC money up to 14.8

they receive VC funding to 29.6btc. where infact X, Y have ZERO LN collateral. and only 9.8 personal collateral.

fractional reserve is not just about money CREATION like (CB) thinks. its also about faking collateral you don't have or moving funds around, to profit from something that you dont have

now lets get back ontopic of scaling bitcoin

[European Central Bank]

is there not some way of operating a demo lightning network either by the testnet or other means that finally puts all this crap to bed? the proof would be in the pudding.

i know there are papers and the occasional youtube video. it would be a whole lot more compelling if anyone could log into to something and experiment.

[Carlton Banks]

is there not some way of operating a demo lightning network either by the testnet or other means that finally puts all this crap to bed? the proof would be in the pudding.

i know there are papers and the occasional youtube video. it would be a whole lot more compelling if anyone could log into to something and experiment.

Already been done, a few weeks ago (Segwit is activated already on Bitcoin testnet). No doubt the Lightning testing will ramp up as time goes on, I'm only aware that a single Lightning transaction was trialled. Rusty Russell performed the test, IIRC

[stdset]

EG
in a channel between X,Y they deposit 10 publicly on the blockchain to open the channel
X and Y 'spend' the 10 to another active channel user Z
asking Z to not use LN but to use Z's onchain balance address to pay 4.9 each to X,Y ONCHAIN and Z keep the 10 offchain, to spend later


X: i have control of 10 in LN, i have 4.9 personally ONCHAIN too. this is my 14.9 collateral. i can sign a message to my personal 4.9 and a message as part of the LN 10.
now give me a government grant,VC money up to 14.8

Y: i have control of 10 in LN, i have 4.9 personally ONCHAIN too. this is my 14.9  collateral. i can sign a message to my personal 4.9 and a message as part of the LN 10.
now give me a government grant,VC money up to 14.8

they receive VC funding to 29.6btc. where infact X, Y have ZERO LN collateral. and only 9.8 personal collateral.

fractional reserve is not just about money CREATION like (CB) thinks. its also about faking collateral you don't have or moving funds around, to profit from something that you dont have

now lets get back ontopic of scaling bitcoin

You described an interesting scenario. However X and Y need a very gullible investor to carry out such scam. Once LN is widespread, nobody will trust, that they really posses 10 BTC in 2 of 2 output, whose script they will anyway need to disclose to the investor, otherwise there is no way of checking whether that output really belongs to them. To prove those funds, they will probably need to show good and old P2PKH outputs, in which case their plan won't work. Still it's not fractional reserve banking, rather it's scamming.

[Quickseller]

is there not some way of operating a demo lightning network either by the testnet or other means that finally puts all this crap to bed? the proof would be in the pudding.

i know there are papers and the occasional youtube video. it would be a whole lot more compelling if anyone could log into to something and experiment.

blockchain.info has a competitor to LN called 'thunder' that I believe can actually be used now, although you should only transact with people that you trust with it because the lack of SegWit means that transactions can become invalid.

I don't think the question about LN is if LN works, I believe the question about LN is if LN is how Bitcoin should be used, and who should receive TX fees.

[Lauda]

Actually SegWit needs 95% of the Miner's Hash to be accepted ,
1 Mining Pool with 8% said they will block it in favor of a hard fork with larger block size.

If everyone else accepts it, they will either join them or get outhashed.

You only need ~70% of the hash to have a successful hard fork, so it is odd SegWit is pushed for more.

No. You need 95%.

A Hard Fork is no Big Deal, Schedule the update a few weeks later after the software is ready .

This is completely misleading. Such a hard fork would be very dangerous. I highly advise you to stop trolling now, you are very untrustworthy.

now lets get back ontopic of scaling bitcoin

A great options is available today, it just requires more awareness and support. Short-term scaling solved.

[stdset]

if we went with LN's rhetoric of never needing to close channels.. then bitcoins mainnet is never needed once funds are deposited.

Mainnet is still needed, even if channels never closed, because without possibility of emergency closing, channels effectively lose state. It's like nuclear deterrence. Nuclear weapons have great impact on international relations, even though never used.

rationally LN should regularly close channels.

Could you please elaborate. Why LN needs to frequently close channels?

[Soros Shorts]

rationally LN should regularly close channels.

Could you please elaborate. Why LN needs to frequently close channels?

I would imagine it would be to periodically force an audit the value of the coins in the channel by closing out the books, thus making sure no extra LN coins have been created out of thin air. There should be better ways to do this, though.

[stdset]

Could you please elaborate. Why LN needs to frequently close channels?

I would imagine it would be to periodically force an audit the value of the coins in the channel by closing out the books, thus making sure no extra LN coins have been created out of thin air. There should be better ways to do this, though.

What are LN coins and how they could be created out of thin air?

[Carlton Banks]

rationally LN should regularly close channels.

Could you please elaborate. Why LN needs to frequently close channels?

I would imagine it would be to periodically force an audit the value of the coins in the channel by closing out the books, thus making sure no extra LN coins have been created out of thin air. There should be better ways to do this, though.

Lightning nodes are connected to Bitcoin nodes, from which any inputs can of course be verified. So that can't happen.

[franky1]

if we went with LN's rhetoric of never needing to close channels.. then bitcoins mainnet is never needed once funds are deposited.

Mainnet is still needed, even if channels never closed, because without possibility of emergency closing, channels effectively lose state. It's like nuclear deterrence. Nuclear weapons have great impact on international relations, even though never used.

rationally LN should regularly close channels.

Could you please elaborate. Why LN needs to frequently close channels?

locktimes
EG say the locktime is  now+864000seconds (10days) 1480244302+864000seconds = 1481108302
LN does not stay active for 10 days
every transaction within LN uses a lock to keep latest relevance
in conception
tx z: unlock 1481108301
tx y: unlock 1481108300
tx x: unlock 1481108299
which means if in milliseconds a hub does 86400 tx's  it now has to close within 9 days of opening
which means if in milliseconds a hub does 172800 tx's  it now has to close within 8 days of opening
which means if in milliseconds a hub does 259200 tx's  it now has to close within 7 days of opening

also the secret is although being conceived that locktime of +864000 seconds means 864000 transactions are possible. its not
firstly. to secure relevance, there needs to be a gap between locks. so that the most relevant(x) doesnt time out and the next irrelevant(y) becomes relevant again due to there not being enough time to broadcast X before Y's time becomes relevant.

its going to end up that locktimes will be 10mins plus, to give a relevance 'grace' period.
eg
tx z: unlock 1481072302
tx y: unlock 1481036302
tx x: unlock 1481000302

meaning only 1440 transactions are possible in 10 days.

i used 10 days as a simple number because it displays limits clearly. but you might be saying well onchain lockin can be set to say 2 years.
i would counter that with the more complicated maths of hubs.. where by in the fantasy land of the 'visa comparable' scenarios or the 'one world currency' scenarios people are propagandising as to why LN is essential. that instead of happily processing just say 500 transactions per channel
for some day trader/gambler in 10 days.. a hub will be processing hundreds of thousands to millions of transactions (visa/oneworld scenario)

so although a 2 year lock effectively means upto 105120 LN tx (with relevance grace) over 2 years.. a hub will use up all of them 105120 locks very very fast.

eg. imagine onchain only copes with 4500 tx.. but at first LN is chosen by 10%. (450 tx)
yes LN free's up 450 tx no longer being onchain.

but now within LN 450 tx are done every 10 minutes instead of onchain. meaning the 2 year locks are used up within a fortnight due to the hub and spoke/multihop model

in short. if lock was set to 2 years. and 105120 were done in lets say 5 minutes. the channel needs to close in 5 minutes of opening and a new channel opened for 2 years

the benefit is obviously 105120tx are aggregated down to a final and single tx onchain. where bitcoins main net does see all the swaps of 105120tx and only sees 1tx of (laymens: final balance outputs)
but requires users to then re open a channel again which becomes a headache in a hub model