It is glaringly a dispositive. During the previous 10,000 block period there were exactly 6 penalty transactions totaling 0.09746883 BTC.
Haha. Glaringly obvious indeed. Even when spoon-fed, you entirely miss the implication of my clearly-stated musing (see italic above).
Since you edited out my addressing of this point, let me re-insert it for you:
A penalty transaction has distinct characteristics:
LN channel = multisig UTXO.
To change channel balance write new tx spending the UTXO. Both sign but dont broadcast.
They all:
- are V0_P2WPKH type transactions
- are roughly the same size of 237-238 B, 121 vB, 483-484 WU
- use SegWit addresses
There is a way to filter through transaction data based on this criteria.
If his counterparties were on the beneficial side of a stale closing tx, what is their incentive to issue a penalty? They stand to win more through just letting the mistaken stale tx broadcasts lie as is. Seems we need to at least consider that possibility before closing the case. As at least one scenario.
So far none of the 400 nodes connected to him reported receiving any funds.
Hmm. None of the 400 unjustly-enriched parties reported unjust enrichment. Whodathunkit?
Or, perhaps its because they never received jack shit. Not ONE in 400 nodes is honest enough to report receiving more funds than they should have? Just think about it for a moment before responding.
What is more likely is he has the funds, can't access them, and they are far fewer than 4 BTC in total.
Sez you. Sure, it's a plausible argument. But it does not invalidate the alternative scenario which I present. Which, of course, is why I ask to see the evidence. Again, everything you present falls
far short of being dispositive.
Its a more plausible argument that yours, which is LN developers don't know what they're talking about when it comes to LN.
There are LN experts working pretty hard to help this guy recover his funds.
What ever does that have to do with the assertion that your last link is mere hearsay? Do you not understand the word itself?
You again edited out the link I provided to a discussion on the LN GitHub about the issue which as far as I can tell is comprised of the first and foremost members of the relevant COMMUNITY:
https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/issues/2468A couple of the "experts" indirectly referenced in the Bitcoinist article have been posting in that GitHub thread. That's why its not hearsay.
More germane, you have moved the goalposts from 'he made the whole thing up, case closed' to 'I kinda think sorta he might have exaggerated his losses'. Let us recall that this opened with an assertion made to the effect that it was all a lie, followed by me merely asking for evidence, for which you attacked me with the strawman of denial.
I don't know if you're being dishonest, or you are merely incapable of logic.
OK I'm making a concession that he may have lost a maximum of 0.1 BTC (though its still more likely he lost nothing), but it still seems like it was all to make a bullshit point about "the dangers of Lightning." Making a concession is hardly "moving the goalposts."
I was originally stressing that his claims of losing 4 BTC were bullshit. You're one of the most dishonest posters in this thread, so while you are an expert in that field, you aren't exactly in any position to go around claiming others are dishonest.
Poll
