1MB block size forever is just silly

[kiklo]

I can promise you that LN would be dead in the water if there was even a remote chance of fractional reserve or an increase in the total coin cap.  It's one of those red lines that consensus will never cross.  You won't be able to settle a total on the blockchain greater than that which was initially locked.  All coins can be traced back to their coinbase origin, while sums created through fraction reserve would not have such an origin to be traceable to.  Network rules wouldn't accept or validate a transaction where the output was greater than the input and the additional coins appeared from nowhere.  Miners and nodes will never accept those particular rules changing.

LOL,  

You think they are going to tell you it will have the ability to do fractional reserves.
It is an offchain representation , there is nothing stopping them from adding an update ,that allows fractional reserves.

Whether "they" tell us or not, it will be apparent from the code, which people will look at before they run it.  People will see that you can't add to the balance once it has been locked.  The total can't be changed.  You aren't handing your coins to the custody of a third party where they can alter the balance.  And no, someone can't just "add an update that allows fractional reserves", because the code that governs the network is set in the client and users wouldn't update their client if the new code allowed fractional reserve.  Enough with the conspiracy theories.  It's clear from your posts that you haven't read a single thing about it.  You're only proving my point that the anti-blockstream hardliners are no better than anti-blocksize-adjustment hardliners.

It was apparent in Banking and that did not stop people from using Banks.
It will be apparent in LN, and the LN Hubs will update because they will profit from the fraud also.

And make no doubt , fractional reserve banking is nothing but outright fraud.

I have read the LN whitepaper , your attempts at smearing me with propaganda techniques is sad & pathetic.

LN will do exactly what the Goldsmiths did, you are naive & foolish not to see that.

Those that refuse to learn the lessons of history are forever doomed to repeat it.  

 

FYI:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1691802.msg16985041#msg16985041
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1691802.msg16985332#msg16985332
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1691802.msg16992577#msg16992577
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1776119.msg17758623#msg17758623

[1714993480]

1714993480

[1714993480]

1714993480

[1714993480]

1714993480

[DooMAD]

I have read the LN whitepaper , your attempts at smearing me with propaganda techniques is sad & pathetic.

Okay, I'm not the only one seeing it, surely?  It's like you and Carlton are the exact same person, only you believe the exact opposite things.  For a split second I thought I was reading one of his replies.  You're like Nega-Carlton.  

I must have stumbled upon the middle-ground if I'm now getting it in the neck from both sides.  

It was apparent in Banking and that did not stop people from using Banks.
It will be apparent in LN, and the LN Hubs will update because they will profit from the fraud also.

And make no doubt , fractional reserve banking is nothing but outright fraud.

Great, fractional reserve is fraud.  I agree there.  But I think it's an insult to those securing the network to assume that they would be so ignorant as to allow such a horrid change in Bitcoin.  It's nothing like a Bank that can alter its terms and conditions at any time without prior warning or consent and no one can say or do anything about it.  The rules are defined in the code and the code can't be changed unless there's a sufficient majority who accept the change.  

I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting with "the LN Hubs will update because they will profit from the fraud".  But if you mean there was such a thing as a hub running their own code to magically create new coins from nowhere, that software would be different to what everyone else was running.  Those transactions wouldn't be compatible and wouldn't be accepted into the blockchain.  

There are some legitimate concerns about Lightning, but fractional reserve isn't one of them and time will solve many of the others.

[franky1]

doomad

if you put aside the "21m coins" max logic, and instead think about the 2.1 quadrillian units of measure (satoshi's)
much like not thinking about $21 dollars but thinking about 2100 pennies (smallest sharable amount)

and then read the LN paper about their 'millisats', you realise that in contracts they want to transact in millisats
2,100quadrillian millisats instead of 2.1quadrillian sats.

though the '2.1million bitcoin' is not changing. the numbers of 'shares' / units / divisibility can be changed.this means it can mess with the mental psychology of scarcity.

imagine it another way.
you have a loaf of bread that can be cut into 20 slices of bread.
yes your thinking that a loaf of bread can only feed 20 people at most. no more. only 20 slices exist and only 1 loaf exists. now you can have people fighting over owning the whole loaf or fighting over the 20 slices.

now imagine a Baker comes in and decides to cut each slice into 10 strips per slice.

now suddenly there are 200 pieces of bread that can be shared around with 200 people

yes there is just one complete loaf. or 20 'slices' but there are now 200 shareable pieces
the whole supply/demand dynamic can change if people are able to have/receive more pieces

now here is the challenge,
get a $20 bank note
and find 2,000,000 people.

now shout out what the people are willing to trade with you for that $20
you will get lots of people offering you many things. upto a value they see as worth $20.. where by your the only holder so you can pick the best deal offered.

now change it for 2000 pennies.. suddenly when asking what people will offer you for it. less people will offer you the same deal as before for the entire 2000 pennies. most will start giving you lame deals for small amounts of sat 100 pennies.

now change it for 2,000,000 grains of pnny metal dust.
.... silence. no offers..
but technically you still have $20.

now you see the issue of making bitcoin more diverse.

its not technically fractional reserve, but more so 'diluting shares' mindset

[kiklo]

Great, fractional reserve is fraud.  I agree there.  But I think it's an insult to those securing the network to assume that they would be so ignorant as to allow such a horrid change in Bitcoin.  It's nothing like a Bank that can alter its terms and conditions at any time without prior warning or consent and no one can say or do anything about it.  The rules are defined in the code and the code can't be changed unless there's a sufficient majority who accept the change.  

I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting with "the LN Hubs will update because they will profit from the fraud".  But if you mean there was such a thing as a hub running their own code to magically create new coins from nowhere, that software would be different to what everyone else was running.  Those transactions wouldn't be compatible and wouldn't be accepted into the blockchain.  

There are some legitimate concerns about Lightning, but fractional reserve isn't one of them and time will solve many of the others.

BTC miners & BTC nodes secure the BTC ONCHAIN Network.

LN Hubs will Secure the LN Notes, BTC miners have no power to determine how LN handles it's OFFCHAIN Note system.  

Your link above, the guy that wrote it is an idiot, he says and I quote

Lightning Network transactions are bitcoin transactions.
It is incredibly important to remember this and repeat it to yourself over and over again.
The Lightning Network never holds custody of anyone’s funds.

Just a few lines down on the same page , he contradicts his earlier statement.

The Lightning Network has problems with exchanging significant amounts of value.
For the Lightning Network to function, it requires that users and businesses lock up as much bitcoin as they would ever expect to transact over a given period of time.

See when people lie , like he did , when they keep talking , the contradictions appear.  

LN=Goldsmiths/Banks

History unlike humans does not lie.

 

[Velkro]

I don't really know where else to go from that..   1MB will seem like 1KB soon enough.  What do..

 

Agree but that is conservative approach. 2 MB  would be good, but that would be precedence, that would be used to increase size further with rising risks of spam etc.

[leopard2]

I don't really know where else to go from that..   1MB will seem like 1KB soon enough.  What do..

 

Agreed, we have been sitting at 1MB for way too long already and it's holding bitcoin back by a lot.   
We are years behind because of it, and altcoins will overtake bitcoin if we keep the 1MB bitcoin for a while longer.

THIS.

And in order to keep things simple and blockchain not bloated, a simple increase to 2MB would be good. Right now transaction fees would be just about right, but if they go much higher Bitcoin gets hurt.

[DooMAD]

BTC miners & BTC nodes secure the BTC ONCHAIN Network.

LN Hubs will Secure the LN Notes, BTC miners have no power to determine how LN handles it's OFFCHAIN Note system.  

Your link above, the guy that wrote it is an idiot, he says and I quote

Lightning Network transactions are bitcoin transactions.
It is incredibly important to remember this and repeat it to yourself over and over again.
The Lightning Network never holds custody of anyone’s funds.

Just a few lines down on the same page , he contradicts his earlier statement.

The Lightning Network has problems with exchanging significant amounts of value.
For the Lightning Network to function, it requires that users and businesses lock up as much bitcoin as they would ever expect to transact over a given period of time.

See when people lie , like he did , when they keep talking , the contradictions appear.  

LN=Goldsmiths/Banks

History unlike humans does not lie.

 

That second part could probably have been phrased better, but if you've somehow come away with the impression that LN does hold custody of any funds, that's purely down to your misinterpretation of it.  He's not lying, you're just looking for a problem that isn't really there and somehow twisting the words to suit your preferred meaning.  Yes, for it to function, "it requires that users and businesses lock up as much bitcoin as they would ever expect to transact over a given period of time".  That's how it works.  You lock the total, then within that total you can send transactions back and forth.  When you're done, the same total remains, no more, no less.  I don't see how you think that's in any way a sign that someone can make some coins appear out of nowhere and then add them to the blockchain.  It simply can't happen.  

[kiklo]

BTC miners & BTC nodes secure the BTC ONCHAIN Network.

LN Hubs will Secure the LN Notes, BTC miners have no power to determine how LN handles it's OFFCHAIN Note system.  

Your link above, the guy that wrote it is an idiot, he says and I quote

Lightning Network transactions are bitcoin transactions.
It is incredibly important to remember this and repeat it to yourself over and over again.
The Lightning Network never holds custody of anyone’s funds.

Just a few lines down on the same page , he contradicts his earlier statement.

The Lightning Network has problems with exchanging significant amounts of value.
For the Lightning Network to function, it requires that users and businesses lock up as much bitcoin as they would ever expect to transact over a given period of time.

See when people lie , like he did , when they keep talking , the contradictions appear.  

LN=Goldsmiths/Banks

History unlike humans does not lie.

 

That second part could probably have been phrased better, but if you've somehow come away with the impression that LN does hold custody of any funds, that's purely down to your misinterpretation of it.  He's not lying, you're just looking for a problem that isn't really there and somehow twisting the words to suit your preferred meaning.  Yes, for it to function, "it requires that users and businesses lock up as much bitcoin as they would ever expect to transact over a given period of time".  That's how it works.  You lock the total, then within that total you can send transactions back and forth.  When you're done, the same total remains, no more, no less.  I don't see how you think that's in any way a sign that someone can make some coins appear out of nowhere and then add them to the blockchain.  It simply can't happen.  

It will happen inbetween the software layers, BTC onchain will show 1BTC, and the LN will Represent it as 4 BTC for all LN contracts.
Or it could be as simple as 4 BTC were originally in the onchain address and LN represents 4 BTC on their offchain system, but does not fully lock the entirely of the amount, say they only lock 1 BTC and the user transmits the 3 out to another BTC onchain address, with the LN system none the wiser and still reporting their initial amount.

It is an offchain system, there is Absolutely No way to guarantee they won't counterfeit coins or fraction reserve the amounts.
You are trusting a 3rd Party LN to report accurate data , but in truth , you can not be 100% sure , until the BTC Onchain transactions has been confirmed.

Also LN does have penalties that can be triggered to steal from you and you will not receive a balance back.

A breach remedy transaction goes beyond reclaiming the injured party's funds.
To discourage theft, the transaction also takes the entirety of the offending party's funds as a penalty.

 

FYI:
Onchain can be trusted, Offchain can never be trusted.

[Red-Apple]

I don't really know where else to go from that..   1MB will seem like 1KB soon enough.  What do..

 

Agreed, we have been sitting at 1MB for way too long already and it's holding bitcoin back by a lot.   
We are years behind because of it, and altcoins will overtake bitcoin if we keep the 1MB bitcoin for a while longer.

THIS.

And in order to keep things simple and blockchain not bloated, a simple increase to 2MB would be good. Right now transaction fees would be just about right, but if they go much higher Bitcoin gets hurt.

this is benefiting miners, they have been earning more money because of the increasing amount of fess. and guess what they have been the ones holding back on adopting any solution for block size (segwit or any other things).

[franky1]

this is benefiting miners, they have been earning more money because of the increasing amount of fess. and guess what they have been the ones holding back on adopting any solution for block size (segwit or any other things).

pools dont care much about fee's, for them a fee is just a bonus, not expected income.
pools care more about ensuring their blocks wont get orphaned/rejected. losing them the real income(reward) AND fee (bonus). so they are not going to push for something unless the nodes are ready for it.

50% node readiness = 50% orphan risk
95% node readiness = 5% orphan risk

so even though core thought bypassing a node vote would slide a change in under the rug, smart pools are not going to risk it, and are waiting to see a high node readiness even if the nodes dont officially get a vote.