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.
Still absofuckinglutely irrelevant. Congratulations.
How is filtering transaction data irrelevant to the identification of penalty claims?
You keep trying to harp on penalty claims, when over and over again I point out that penalty claims are not the exclusive means for losing funds in LN. Ergo, irrelevant.
In case you missed it, another possibility is that penalty txs were never issued. For the THIRD FUCKING TIME, dickwad.
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.
Do you deny that it is possible?
It is possible that not one of 400 nodes would have received "unjustified enrichment" without reporting it
Exactly. Thank you. In other words, it is possible that he/she did NOT 'make the whole thing up'.
Trying to get to the bottom of what happened requires actual evidence, not hearsay and supposition.
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.
Your third link was a news blurb containing allegations, totally devoid of links to evidence. It was -- again
definitively -- hearsay.
First of all, this isn't a courtroom. Second, the title of the article is "4 BITCOIN ‘LOSS’ ON LIGHTNING NETWORK IS FUD, SAYS COMMUNITY" --- the whole premise of the article is based on second-hand information. Third, the article does contain links to evidence, which contain links to more evidence.
- Bitcoinist article contains this paragraph:
A Twitter thread looking into the circumstances behind the loss and how it could be prevented in future, suggested that LN had been working as intended. The victim would have been fine if he had waited, but impatience caused him to “crash through multiple safety barriers,” as he was deemed “in over his head.”
- The referenced Twitter thread says this:
- The referenced Reddit thread says this:
@guggero (LN developer) says this in the GitHub issue thread:
I'm going to write a script that goes through all your 400 channels and looks at the TX outputs if there is still something to be claimed. This should also give us a final account of how much was actually lost because of justice transactions (if any).
So if you are willing to DYOR you can see that nothing is unsubstantiated, and while the issue may not technically be "FUD", it sounds like the guy didn't actually lose any coins at all, in spite of what appears to be his best attempts to do so.
There is exactly zero _evidence_ in your examples above.
SAYS COMMUNITY
suggested, would have , if
reddit pile-on full of speculation and allegation, devoid of evidence
may help
going to - and the crux of the biscuit - 'justice transactions'
sounds like
As I said, all hearsay, zero evidence.
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.
No, you jumped down my throat for merely asking to see some actual evidence supporting the claim that the entire incident was not made up from whole cloth. From 'case closed, he made the whole thing up' to 'I think he's exaggerating' is the motherfuckin canonical example of moving the goalposts.
Stop being such a baby. If suggesting you verify information for yourself is the same thing as "jumping down your throat" then you're not cut out to talk on an internet forum and should probably go join a sewing circle.
Go fuck yourself twice. I'm just fine on these here innerwebs. But you don't get to move the goalposts without me calling you on it.
He still may have put himself in this situation on purpose, though now I believe he earnestly just made a major fuckup -- for whatever reason is beyond me. Its a one-of-a-kind issue though so its good for LN devs to iron this sort of thing out now rather than later.
Maybe somewhere along the process, some actual evidence will be surfaced. Most probably, some has. But it for damned sure wasn't in your initial post that sent us down this sorry-ass twig.
Admitting to changing my opinion on something after learning more about it is only "moving the goalposts" if you come from the viewpoint that you are trying to score a goal.
Go fuck yourself. You're the one trying to twist things around to make it appear that you said something other than that which you did.
No, I didn't. I admitted that I changed my stance from "he's a liar" to "he may have accidentally fucked up."
IOW, you moved the goddamned goalposts. Man up / woman up and admit it.
I still maintain that nowhere near 4 BTC was lost. Sounds like he lost nothing.
Maybe, maybe not. Still waiting on evidence.....
For the record, I'm ambivalent on the matter. I don't know, (and I don't much care) whether or not the described event occurred as described (although I know it to be
possible within the design of LN, which may or may not give the passerby pause). But I am not willing to propagate hearsay as fact -- something which you are demonstrably altogether happy to do.
Poll
