So who the hell is still supporting BU?

[RealBitcoin]

You're a foul mouth little Asshat ,

LN is Offchain Transactions , a Service that will Directly compete with the Miners for transaction fees.

LN will allow counterfeiting & banking style fraction reserves in to BTC.
A write cache would not allow counterfeiting & banking style fraction reserves in to BTC.

Thanks for emphasizing, I have a bad way of expressing myself.

Yes, what I was referring to in my above post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1771911.msg17834215#msg17834215

Was exactly this type of hijacking.

Bitcoin's purpose was to eliminate 3rd party middlemen and IOU based fractional reserve banking, Yet, now they want to reintroduce both.

What a joke!

[iCEBREAKER]

Lightning tx are trustless.  They are not some idiotic trusted 3rd party solution like Dash's Masternodes.

Lol

If you really believe this than every other alt is trustless in nearly same manner.

-> Go and use them.

Think:

1. How much energy goes into making bitcoin that trustless it is?

2. How much do you need for LN ?


Pls go and read physics or Shannon about entropy and order -> security.


On-chain scaling is the most secure thing one could do (here you have the biggest hardware + energy investors = miners behind) and we need this first or at least parallel to all the other triggy scalings on top.

Sorry, cupcake.  Not impressed.  Some of us went to school for this stuff...   

I'll see your Shannon and raise you Kolmogorov.  Don't make me break out Wiener and Von Neumann on you.

LN *is* Bitcoin, so it uses the same amount of energy for security.

Your failure to understand how Lightning inherits Bitcoin's security isn't anyone's problem but your own.

Educate yourself, then come back when you're ready to play with the big kids.

Here, I'll even spoon feed you like a baby to accelerate the bootstrapping process.

Is Lightning Bitcoin?

Yes. You pick a peer and after some setup, create a bitcoin transaction to fund the lightning channel; it’ll then take another transaction to close it and release your funds. You and your peer always hold a bitcoin transaction to get your funds whenever you want: just broadcast to the blockchain like normal. In other words, you and your peer create a shared account, and then use Lightning to securely negotiate who gets how much from that shared account, without waiting for the bitcoin blockchain.

See?  Lightning is 100% Bitcoin.  It's just a clever way to efficiently arrange blockchain writes, yielding massive gains in effective TPS.

Lightning isn't Layer 2, if that's what you're afraid of.  Think of it as layer 1.5 and maybe that might help you understand using spatial intuition.

[kiklo]

Did you ride a Short Bus to that School?  


LN is offchain , meaning it can never actually be a BTC, when can only truly exist ONCHAIN.

LN NOTES are only a Representation of the value of a BTC Nothing Else.

LN freezes the amount of BTC on the BTC onchain network,
what is transferred on LN is a representation of that value.
(No Different than when Banks allowed people to trade cash for gold.
The Gold is held somewhere else and the Cash is a representation of that amount of Gold.
Only redeemable upon request.)
IE: Banking (there is no difference between it & LN)

And here is the kicker, if LN is only a representation of a BTC, it is only a matter of time before a fractional BTC onchain is represented by more offchain on LN.
This becomes possible once LN can calculate how many people never remove their Locks on the BTC frozen on the BTC onchain network.
Study the history of Banking , this is exactly how they started.  
 
http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/6970/when-was-fractional-reserve-banking-introduced

In the past, savers looking to keep their coins and valuables in safekeeping depositories deposited gold and silver at goldsmiths, receiving in exchange a note for their deposit (see Bank of Amsterdam). These notes gained acceptance as a medium of exchange for commercial transactions and thus became an early form of circulating paper money. As the notes were used directly in trade, the goldsmiths observed that people would not usually redeem all their notes at the same time, and they saw the opportunity to invest their coin reserves in interest-bearing loans and bills. This generated income for the goldsmiths but left them with more notes on issue than reserves with which to pay them. A process was started that altered the role of the goldsmiths from passive guardians of bullion, charging fees for safe storage, to interest-paying and interest-earning banks. Thus fractional-reserve banking was born.

LN          = Goldsmiths, (which became Banks)
LN Coins =  Notes
BTC        =  Gold

Class Dismissed!    

 

[kiklo]

By the way the Chinese Miners will be able to make counterfeit LN Notes if they so choose.
LN notes can be Counterfeit
BTC can not be counterfeit.

We all know that LN is a Proposed Offchain solution to BTC backlog of Unconfirmed Transactions.

(Which could easily be fixed just with a blocksize increase or a faster BlockSpeed.)

But instead BTC core devs want to shove Segwit & LN down everyone throats.

Facts
LN Notes are a Offchain Representation of the value of a BTC (with the actual BTC locked in place on the actual BTC Onchain Blockchain)
LN Devs have continuously implied that BTC will be placed on LN and very rarely if ever be returned / unlocked on the real BTC Blockchain.
Combined the Chinese Mining Pools have over 51% necessary for an attack, (~68% at last count).
(With a 51% attack they can perform a history rewrite attacks, rewriting the blockchain.)
(A few years ago at the prompting of the BTC devs, a group (with over 51%) REWROTE the Last 12 Hours of the Blockchain to fix a fork, cause by a programming error.)
(So that was 76 Blocks that were rewritten.)
(We also know the Miners can choose which transactions are included in their blocks.)

So now : Exactly how do you Counterfeit BTC on LN.

Option 1 :
Form a group of collusion between the Miners that control 51%,
Send 50 BTC to an address. Now follow the steps on LN to Lock up that 50 BTC on the Blockchain.
Whether LN requires 1 or 3 confirmations , as soon as LN confirms the representation of LN notes match your amount.
You and your colluding friends, rewrite the blockchain and include a transaction moving that 50 BTC to another address before the lock took place.
You now still have your 50 BTC Free & Clear Onchain, and a representation value of 50 BTC Offchain on LN .(Which you can use for LN transactions forever.)

BTC Onchain Transactions ended Counterfeiting , LN Offchain Transactions will bring Counterfeiting into Crypto.  


 

[hv_]

Lightning tx are trustless.  They are not some idiotic trusted 3rd party solution like Dash's Masternodes.

Lol

If you really believe this than every other alt is trustless in nearly same manner.

-> Go and use them.

Think:

1. How much energy goes into making bitcoin that trustless it is?

2. How much do you need for LN ?


Pls go and read physics or Shannon about entropy and order -> security.


On-chain scaling is the most secure thing one could do (here you have the biggest hardware + energy investors = miners behind) and we need this first or at least parallel to all the other triggy scalings on top.

Sorry, cupcake.  Not impressed.  Some of us went to school for this stuff...   

I'll see your Shannon and raise you Kolmogorov.  Don't make me break out Wiener and Von Neumann on you.

LN *is* Bitcoin, so it uses the same amount of energy for security.

Your failure to understand how Lightning inherits Bitcoin's security isn't anyone's problem but your own.

Educate yourself, then come back when you're ready to play with the big kids.

Here, I'll even spoon feed you like a baby to accelerate the bootstrapping process.

Is Lightning Bitcoin?

Yes. You pick a peer and after some setup, create a bitcoin transaction to fund the lightning channel; it’ll then take another transaction to close it and release your funds. You and your peer always hold a bitcoin transaction to get your funds whenever you want: just broadcast to the blockchain like normal. In other words, you and your peer create a shared account, and then use Lightning to securely negotiate who gets how much from that shared account, without waiting for the bitcoin blockchain.

See?  Lightning is 100% Bitcoin.  It's just a clever way to efficiently arrange blockchain writes, yielding massive gains in effective TPS.

Lightning isn't Layer 2, if that's what you're afraid of.  Think of it as layer 1.5 and maybe that might help you understand using spatial intuition.

Only correct thing in this rage-post is: You did not dare arguing against:

'On-chain scaling is the most secure thing one could do (here you have the biggest hardware + energy investors = miners behind) and we need this first or at least parallel to all the other triggy scalings on top. '

I'll let you play with LN in LitecoiN - so you have time for self-education.

[kiklo]

I'll let you play with LN in LitecoiN - so you have time for self-education.

He will have to play with it on LTC testnet, the LTC miners are not going to allow segwit either.
It is less than 10% activated on their network.

Chinese dominate BTC & LTC, they are not going to agree for a competing service to steal their transactions fees.  
One guy even posted this:


 

[Lauda]

Bitcoin's purpose was to eliminate 3rd party middlemen and IOU based fractional reserve banking, Yet, now they want to reintroduce both.

Bullshit. In the traditional sense of third parties and IOUs, there is always one party that can take away your control of the asset in question. This is not the case with LN, because it is decentralized. There will be things like LN hubs for sure, which people will argue that are centralized, but they only serve for better routing purposes.

'On-chain scaling is the most secure thing one could do (here you have the biggest hardware + energy investors = miners behind) and we need this first or at least parallel to all the other triggy scalings on top. '

Actually, it is exactly the opposite. Changes which provide on-chain scaling are the most insecure, as you can break the protocol. If you break some 2nd layer, the main protocol will remain functional.

[hv_]

I'll let you play with LN in LitecoiN - so you have time for self-education.

He will have to play with it on LTC testnet, the LTC miners are not going to allow segwit either.
It is less than 10% activated on their network.

Chinese dominate BTC & LTC, they are not going to agree for a competing service to steal their transactions fees.  

 

 Even these are more educated ...

Funny thing is, even core devs claim for SW is needed to 'better secure LN' - it's simply different than bitcoin.

[hv_]

Bitcoin's purpose was to eliminate 3rd party middlemen and IOU based fractional reserve banking, Yet, now they want to reintroduce both.

Bullshit. In the traditional sense of third parties and IOUs, there is always one party that can take away your control of the asset in question. This is not the case with LN, because it is decentralized. There will be things like LN hubs for sure, which people will argue that are centralized, but they only serve for better routing purposes.

'On-chain scaling is the most secure thing one could do (here you have the biggest hardware + energy investors = miners behind) and we need this first or at least parallel to all the other triggy scalings on top. '

Actually, it is exactly the opposite. Changes which provide on-chain scaling are the most insecure, as you can break the protocol. If you break some 2nd layer, the main protocol will remain functional.

How can you brake LN = 2nd layer when it's same secure than bitcoin ?  (see rethoric inside )

And how would you brake the protocol if you go from 1MB -> 2MB ?

[Lauda]

How can you brake LN = 2nd layer when it's same secure than bitcoin ?  (see rethoric inside )

I wasn't specifically referring to LN, but any kind of 2nd layer solution. That question shouldn't even be asked. Everything can be hacked.

And how would you brake the protocol if you go from 1MB -> 2MB ?

Find me an implementation that does this change whilst safely covering for quadratic hashing with limitations? Right, there isn't one. There is something which is untested, unreviewed and which does a security 180 degree flip called "emergent consensus".

[kiklo]

Bitcoin's purpose was to eliminate 3rd party middlemen and IOU based fractional reserve banking, Yet, now they want to reintroduce both.

Bullshit. In the traditional sense of third parties and IOUs, there is always one party that can take away your control of the asset in question. This is not the case with LN, because it is decentralized. There will be things like LN hubs for sure, which people will argue that are centralized, but they only serve for better routing purposes.

'On-chain scaling is the most secure thing one could do (here you have the biggest hardware + energy investors = miners behind) and we need this first or at least parallel to all the other triggy scalings on top. '

Actually, it is exactly the opposite. Changes which provide on-chain scaling are the most insecure, as you can break the protocol. If you break some 2nd layer, the main protocol will remain functional.

LOL,  
mail me some of what you are smoking, I like fantasy realities too.

If you think the opposite is true , why are you not just using a bank (fraction reserve banking) ,
Blockchain is the only thing that prevents fractional reserve & counterfeiting that can occur OFFCHAIN.

@Lauda, Do you even read the white papers or just talk out of your Butt all day?
https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
Page 49 thru 51  

Improper Timelocks
Participants must choose timelocks with sucient amounts of time.  If insuf-
 cient time is given, it is possible that timelocked transactions believed to
be invalid will become valid, enabling coin theft by the counterparty.  There
is a trade-o  between longer timelocks and the time-value of money.  When
writing wallet and Lightning Network application software, it is necessary
to ensure that sucient time is given and users are able to have their trans-
actions enter into the blockchain when interacting with non-cooperative or
malicious channel counterparties

9.2    Forced Expiration Spam
Forced expiration of many transactions may be the greatest systemic risk
when using the Lightning Network.  If a malicious participant creates many
channels and forces them all to expire at once, these may overwhelm block
data capacity, forcing expiration and broadcast to the blockchain.  The re-
sult  would  be  mass  spam  on  the  bitcoin  network.   The  spam  may  delay
transactions to the point where other locktimed transactions become valid

9.3    Coin Theft via Cracking
As parties must be online and using private keys to sign, there is a possibility
that, if the computer where the private keys are stored is compromised, coins
will  be  stolen  by  the  attacker.   While  there  may  be  methods  to  mitigate
the threat for the sender and the receiver, the intermediary nodes must be
online and will likely be processing the transaction automatically.  For this
reason,  the  intermediary  nodes  will  be  at  risk  and  should  not  be  holding
a  substantial  amount  of  money  in  this  \hot  wallet."   Intermediary  nodes
which have better security will likely be able to out-compete others in the
long run  and  be able to  conduct greater transaction volume due to  lower
fees.  Historically, one of the largest component of fees and interest in the
 nancial system are from various forms of counterparty risk { in Bitcoin it
is possible that the largest component in fees will be derived from security
risk premiums.
A Funding Transaction may have multiple outputs with multiple Com-
mitment Transactions, with the Funding Transaction key and some Commit-
ment Transactions keys stored oine.  It is possible to create an equivalent
of a \Checking Account" and \Savings Account" by moving funds between
outputs  from  a  Funding  Transaction,  with  the  \Savings  Account"  stored
oine and requiring additional signatures from security services.

 

[-ck]

Bitcoins stagnation
https://medium.com/@p.g.tomlinson/bitcoins-stagnation-2098753b2e17#.6ou04fus8

Great article

I certainly don't think so. The fact he's been out of bitcoin for many years shows and he is no longer passing informed judgement. While he tries very hard to make it sound like "it's simple, just increase the blocksize and all will be better" he doesn't remotely seem to understand what a pure blocksize increase brings to the table in terms of quadratic scaling slowdowns and attack vectors. Additionally touting the slim block submission as some technical advantage when all it leads to is every single miner starting to mine empty unverified blocks on every block change is a significant step backwards. Segwit brings linear scaling transactions and core already has compact block propagation where possible without the backward step of encouraging unverified block propagation and mining on them. Scaling the block size alone brings problems with it beyond just the data transfer / storage issues while segwit actually brings added solutions to tackle the extra issues that come with block size increases, increasing both transactions allowed per block now but allowing safer block size increases in the future.

[hv_]

How can you brake LN = 2nd layer when it's same secure than bitcoin ?  (see rethoric inside )

I wasn't specifically referring to LN, but any kind of 2nd layer solution. That question shouldn't even be asked. Everything can be hacked.

And how would you brake the protocol if you go from 1MB -> 2MB ?

Find me an implementation that does this change whilst safely covering for quadratic hashing with limitations? Right, there isn't one. There is something which is untested, unreviewed and which does a security 180 degree flip called "emergent consensus".

And to what 'exact' threshold of max block size this will have an real effect to the security ? 2 MB ? 4 MB 10MB ?

This is the more serious Q&A to be formulated.

[kiklo]

Bitcoins stagnation
https://medium.com/@p.g.tomlinson/bitcoins-stagnation-2098753b2e17#.6ou04fus8

Great article

I certainly don't think so. The fact he's been out of bitcoin for many years shows and he is no longer passing informed judgement. While he tries very hard to make it sound like "it's simple, just increase the blocksize and all will be better" he doesn't remotely seem to understand what a pure blocksize increase brings to the table in terms of quadratic scaling slowdowns and attack vectors. Additionally touting the slim block submission as some technical advantage when all it leads to is every single miner starting to mine empty unverified blocks on every block change is a significant step backwards. Segwit brings linear scaling transactions and core already has compact block propagation where possible without the backward step of encouraging unverified block propagation and mining on them. Scaling the block size alone brings problems with it beyond just the data transfer / storage issues while segwit actually brings added solutions to tackle the extra issues that come with block size increases, increasing both transactions allowed per block now but allowing safer block size increases in the future.

How much is the staff & CB being paid to spread this BS that segwit is a good thing?

Cause really, you guys can't be that stupid?
or
Can you? 


FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Andresen
https://news.bitcoin.com/andresen-blocksize-limit-remove/

Blocksize Increase: ‘Nothing Bad Will Happen’
The comments were made in response to concerns about an increase to 2MB by longstanding r/btc subreddit user u/Pool30.
“I believe the network will eventually have so many problems, that an increase in blocksize will happen. But 2MB is not enough, lets push for 8MB or 20MB instead,” u/Pool30 wrote.

Andresen replied:

       Yes, let’s eliminate the limit.

        Nothing bad will happen if we do.

“And if I’m wrong, the bad things would be mild annoyances, not existential risks, much less risky than operating a network near 100% capacity,” he added.

 

[Lauda]

And to what 'exact' threshold of max block size this will have an real effect to the security ? 2 MB ? 4 MB 10MB ?

This is the more serious Q&A to be formulated.

It starts even at 2 MB. Please look into the original Bitcoin Classic. Gavin knew this was a problem, that's why the original proposal in Classic had additional TX size and sigops limitations (if I remember correctly). The higher you go the easier it becomes to attack via this vector.

FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Andresen
https://news.bitcoin.com/andresen-blocksize-limit-remove/

Andresen replied:

       Yes, let’s eliminate the limit.

        Nothing bad will happen if we do.

“And if I’m wrong, the bad things would be mild annoyances, not existential risks, much less risky than operating a network near 100% capacity,” he added.

If you're going to appeal to authority, let's just remember that this is the guy that claimed Craig Wright is Satoshi.

[kiklo]

Can't defend that , Galvin screwed up on Wright.
But he has more insight into BTC tech than you guys.
None of you have made a decent argument against block size increase.
And blockspeed changes would also work. (Litecoin proves that debate.)

how do you defend this :
You used to prefer PoS  
Seems like a little payment and your opinion changes.

I'm glad it at least a Proof of Stake coin think most of these little alts should start going that route.

I agree on this, imo POS is better, let's see how it goes with this coin, you never know.

 

FYI:  LOL, You claimed Galvin knew it was a problem, so you made him an authority in your post , which his own words refuted your post.  
https://news.bitcoin.com/andresen-blocksize-limit-remove/  

Yes, let’s eliminate the limit. Nothing bad will happen if we do.

If you're going to appeal to authority, let's just remember that this is the guy that claimed Craig Wright is Satoshi.

It starts even at 2 MB. Please look into the original Bitcoin Classic. Gavin knew this was a problem, that's why the original proposal in Classic had additional TX size and sigops limitations (if I remember correctly). The higher you go the easier it becomes to attack via this vector.

[hv_]

And to what 'exact' threshold of max block size this will have an real effect to the security ? 2 MB ? 4 MB 10MB ?

This is the more serious Q&A to be formulated.

It starts even at 2 MB. Please look into the original Bitcoin Classic. Gavin knew this was a problem, that's why the original proposal in Classic had additional TX size and sigops limitations (if I remember correctly). The higher you go the easier it becomes to attack via this vector.

Yep - and with BU you just set it to what such a security modeling is proofed to be ok -  so even you say it starts with 2MB - > 1.5 MB might be good or even 2.5MB - and with future improvments up to agreed 8MB?

Why the hack promoting 2nd layer gaming first?  (see the word game in it ? )

[iCEBREAKER]

Lightning tx are trustless.  They are not some idiotic trusted 3rd party solution like Dash's Masternodes.

On-chain scaling is the most secure thing one could do (here you have the biggest hardware + energy investors = miners behind) and we need this first or at least parallel to all the other triggy scalings on top.

LN *is* Bitcoin, so it uses the same amount of energy for security.

Is Lightning Bitcoin?

Yes.  You pick a peer and after some setup, create a bitcoin transaction to fund the lightning channel; it’ll then take another transaction to close it and release your funds. You and your peer always hold a bitcoin transaction to get your funds whenever you want: just broadcast to the blockchain like normal. In other words, you and your peer create a shared account, and then use Lightning to securely negotiate who gets how much from that shared account, without waiting for the bitcoin blockchain.

See?  Lightning is 100% Bitcoin.  It's just a clever way to efficiently arrange blockchain writes, yielding massive gains in effective TPS.

Only correct thing in this rage-post is: You did not dare arguing against:

'On-chain scaling is the most secure thing one could do (here you have the biggest hardware + energy investors = miners behind) and we need this first or at least parallel to all the other triggy scalings on top. '

I'll let you play with LN in LitecoiN - so you have time for self-education.

Lightning is on-chain scaling.  Rusty explains why Lightning is 100% Bitcoin in clear, simple words.  If you can't follow the technical discussion, too bad for you.

Your failure to understand how trustless bidirectional payment channels inherit Bitcoin's security isn't anyone's problem but your own.

[Lauda]

I agree on this, imo POS is better, let's see how it goes with this coin, you never know.

You're quoting something which was written by this account.. 4 years ago? Are you delusional?

FYI:  LOL, You claimed Galvin knew it was a problem, so you made him an authority in your post , which his own words refuted your post.  

No. Gavin is a fool. I referred to him only as he is the author of said proposal/implementation.

Yep - and with BU you just set it to what such a security modeling is proofed to be ok -  so even you say it starts with 2MB - > 1.5 MB might be good or even 2.5MB - and with future improvments up to agreed 8MB?

BU is a horrible nightmare. That "emergent consensus" thing is a complete revamp of the security model, and yet some supporters attack Segwit for potential security issues. That is quite hypocritical.

Why the hack promoting 2nd layer gaming first?  (see the word game in it ? )

If you're referring to Segwit, then you're wrong. The only thing that could be considered a "hack" is the way that luke-jr figured out to deploy Segwit as a soft fork. That's it.

[kiklo]

And to what 'exact' threshold of max block size this will have an real effect to the security ? 2 MB ? 4 MB 10MB ?

This is the more serious Q&A to be formulated.

It starts even at 2 MB. Please look into the original Bitcoin Classic. Gavin knew this was a problem, that's why the original proposal in Classic had additional TX size and sigops limitations (if I remember correctly). The higher you go the easier it becomes to attack via this vector.

Yep - and with BU you just set it to what such a security modeling is proofed to be ok -  so even you say it starts with 2MB - > 1.5 MB might be good or even 2.5MB - and with future improvments up to agreed 8MB?

Why the hack promoting 2nd layer gaming first?  (see the word game in it ? )

LTC has 1mb at 2½ minute block speed,

BTC could move to 4MB Blocksize at a 10 minute block speed and it would be the exact same transaction capacity.

Both are equally safe.

Or BTC could just move to a 2½ minute block speed and stay at 1mb, transaction capacity would still increase 4X.
However the block reward and halving dates would have to be updated, I guess the BTC core team is too stupid to use a calculator.