Jihan and a part of miners afraid that will lost fee market from LN

[chek2fire]

It seems that Jihan and part of Chinese miners affraid that with lighting network they will lost their fee market.
This post came today from Jihan in chinese 8btc forum and is very clear to this

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/60gem4/jihan_wus_latest_weibo_post_looks_like_an_offer/#oo

It seems is and the main reason why they block segwit activation obviously because lighting network cant work properly without segwit.
Always bitcoin ecosystem has different parts with different economical profit models.
Miners profits from fees, high bitcoin price and from many bitcoin transaction in blocks.
Exchanges profit from trade orders and price volatility.
Bitcoin startups like Blockstream profit when their technical solution can farther develop.
The problem now is how all of them come together and agree to a win-win solution?

[1713560160]

1713560160

[1713560160]

1713560160

[1713560160]

1713560160

[1713560160]

1713560160

[lukew]

Let BU fuck off and fork, the Core chain difficulty will plummet as the biggest miners are supporting BU, and for a while at least, the smaller guys can get some decent income, may even have GPU mining worth while for a short time.

[chek2fire]

the problem is that will never fork off that easy . the only can happen is bitcoin to be stall for the next months, years? who knows

[franky1]

BU and other non-core implementations never has and never will want contentious or bilater splits..  if they did they would have
set deadlines
set threasholds
added ban hammer code
.. oh and logically.. done something already!!

but no. non-core implementations want to use the real consensus of bitcoin to be part of a PEER network.

it is core that hate the other peers,
it is core that prefer a TIER network where they are the upstream filters
it is core that have the deadlines the zealous ban hammer scores the bip9 and UASF banning triggers
it is core that have begged non-core implementations to split but they laughed at core devs.

in essense it is core that are having the fear of losing their chance of being in control of a TIER network and having to either be part of a consensus PEER network, or activate their own banning mechanisms to start their own alt.

just ask yourself. BU, classic, xt and a dozen other implementations have been happily plodding away for 2 years on mainnet just leaving it up to the community to decide if they want it or not. so if non-core want to cause drama. why not set deadlines and split off like all the fake propaganda from core suggests will happen. because its just more drama by core to make people afraid of open diverse Peer network.

yet core have done all they can to drum up the drama and point fingers and play the victim card while desperate to push their money making LN hubs into action while keeping bitcoin native utility at a minimum to force it.
and that link to "jihan" is an article wrote by someone else. and has been taken out of context...

miners will still get paid their rewards happily for a few decades and get bonuses by means of all the open/close channels of LN's so its not going to impact miners pockets.

but i do find it funny how the twisting of words tries to make it sound like segwit is needed.

[chek2fire]

BU never has and never will want contentious or bilater splits..  if they did they would have
set deadlines
set threasholds
addd ban hammer code

but no. non-core implementations want to use the real consensus of bitcoin to be part of a PEER network.

it is core that hate the other peers,
it is core that prefer a TIER network where they are the upstream filters
it is core that have the deadlines the zealous ban hammer scores the bip9 and UASF banning triggers
it is core that have begged non-core implementations to split but they laughed at core devs.

in essense it is core that are having the fear of losing their chance of being in control of a TIER network and having to either be part of a consensus PEER network, or activate their own banning mechanisms to start their own alt.

just ask yourself. BU, classic, xt and a dozen other implementations have been happily plodding away for 2 years on mainnet just leaving it up to the community to decide if they want it or not.

yet core have done all they can to drum up the drama and point fingers and play the victim card while desperate to push their money making LN hubs into action while keeping bitcoin native utility at a minimum to force it.

yeah the answer is Aliens...

[-ck]

Did not everyone know that was what miners were actually protesting about...?

[Carlton Banks]

Did not everyone know that was what miners were actually protesting about...?

You're naive


Don't the miners know that Lightning's orders-of-magnitude increase in transaction rate increase the network effect by the same factor, and in turn the market price of the commodity they produce? And that on-chain transactions will be required not just for Lightning, but in their own right?


The truth is, miners like ideas such as BIP100 or EC, as they know they will have far more control.




Did you know: when someone wants to deceive to get what they really want, telling lies is a requirement  

[lukew]

Did not everyone know that was what miners were actually protesting about...?

You're naive


Don't the miners know that Lightning's orders-of-magnitude increase in transaction rate increase the network effect by the same factor, and in turn the market price of the commodity they produce? And that on-chain transactions will be required not just for Lightning, but in their own right?


The truth is, miners like ideas such as BIP100 or EC, as they know they will have far more control.




Did you know: when someone wants to deceive to get what they really want, telling lies is a requirement  

Plus those lovely transaction fees that they won't get with LN transactions

[franky1]

Don't the miners know that Lightning's orders-of-magnitude increase in transaction rate increase the network effect by the same factor, and in turn the market price of the commodity they produce? And that on-chain transactions will be required not just for Lightning, but in their own right?

pools know it.
pools dont care about fee's or no fee's, to them tx's and tx fee's are not the main income stream and not the real thing they care about today.
its the core propaganda that are putting words into pools mouths.

LN can function without segwit. so its meaningless to argue for segwit as its not needed. pools know this.
thier debate is deeper than the fee issue that they have been painted with

pools are more about the longevity of bitcoin as an open diverse peer network

[andron8383]

***
It seems is and the main reason why they block segwit activation obviously because lighting network cant work properly without segwit.
Always bitcoin ecosystem has different parts with different economical profit models.
Miners profits from fees, high bitcoin price and from many bitcoin transaction in blocks.
Exchanges profit from trade orders and price volatility.
Bitcoin startups like Blockstream profit when their technical solution can farther develop.
The problem now is how all of them come together and agree to a win-win solution?

Lets face it noone likes fees like 1$, but current price of BTC like 1000$ cause fee 0.0002 so 0.2$ and now we have slow inefficient bitcoin.
Bitcoin starts loosing ground for other alts. And you see that on coinmarket cap BTC have trading volume like 55% now with 70% market cap dominance
Look at that in 3 years from now and alts will have 90% volume and BTC will have 10% becouse it cannot scale.

I feel that alts like ETH/Dash/Doge are good "LN" (lighting network and example ) those alts show that for end customer doesn't count "BTC" brand
but also costs and speed. You will never buy coffee without 2nd layer solution like LN.
Miners will see in market cap that BTC will lose value against alts.
Miner and fees are part of ecosystem but price rise becouse of USERS not becouse of miner...
If price of BTC would rise because more miners come and more hash-rate network have BTC would be never dumped...
Do you think that miners are more important than users ?

Do miners want see customers middle finger i think there is very close to that.
Sorry guys customers showed that finger already by falling BTC dominance.

Today customers have good alternatives ETH/DASH have quite good volume and are cheap.
Do BTC miners have any benefits form those alts rise ? They are helping those alternatives.
To be over pumped.

If we think about BTC of store of value people will always see BTC for savings like they pay premium for gold and silver.
Higher fees won't deter savers.

Ah one more thing most trades and transfers are now of-chain on exchanges miners have nothing from those trades and they have to live with it because it helps BTC network.
Lighting network will kick out of road most alt current pump and back $ capital to BTC.
Is better to have fees from 1000 billion market than 15 billions.
But miners will learn lesson with falling BTC price i bet on that.

[chek2fire]

for many ppl lighting network will have a huge rise to transactions and to miners fees.
I dont think Jihan not know this but they like the great opportunity that gives BU to miners to control fee market block size forever.
The next question is why Jihan is such in hurry for this? Because we can all agree that BU is completely broken with many flaws and can work as it is now.
Why he is in hurry? What he is afraid to happen if the time pass?

[-ck]

The solution is actually simple (in concept, if not in implementation): A mature non-segwit version of the Lightning network needs to be deployed NOW, with the segwit malleability protection requirement being added in the future when segwit activates. That way it can be made clear to miners that segwit is NOT required to create a 2nd layer network and LN can be created whether they want it or not. Alas LN isn't actually production ready yet and most implementations have segwit in mind (is my understanding at least.)

[franky1]

The solution is actually simple (in concept, if not in implementation): A mature non-segwit version of the Lightning network needs to be deployed NOW, with the segwit malleability protection requirement being added in the future when segwit activates. That way it can be made clear to miners that segwit is NOT required to create a 2nd layer network and LN can be created whether they want it or not. Alas LN isn't actually production ready yet and most implementations have segwit in mind (is my understanding at least.)

LN's issues are not solved by segwit.
LN has other problems and attack vectors.
many dev groups have been playing with possible LN's ever since the existence of multisig.

the real problems of LN is not malleation, or quadratics. but instead

1. lack of guarantee a tx gets added to a block (like any tx for the last 8 years)
2. address-reuse (signing many times allows the LN counterparty to consturst possible privkey from the data that gets signed multiple times within an LN for the ln counter party to sign both sides without the first parties consent)
3. the UTXO count of say 1 billion people depositing into a multisig = 2billion UTXO's (each channel having 2in-2out)
4. multiple other blackmail/extortion risks

multisigs are not 'broke' but nothing segwit offers guarantee's fixes either.

but the big picture is not about just getting LN live for user adoption as a voluntary side service. its to get core in control as the top tier upstream of the network. and also biasedly in control of what gets relayed to ensure their LN hubs reign supreme. as well as all the fee war tactics of rmoving efficient fee mchanisms to push onchain to being expensive to really force the need for commercial blockstream hubs to be the end goal

[Carlton Banks]

The solution is actually simple (in concept, if not in implementation): A mature non-segwit version of the Lightning network needs to be deployed NOW, with the segwit malleability protection requirement being added in the future when segwit activates. That way it can be made clear to miners that segwit is NOT required to create a 2nd layer network and LN can be created whether they want it or not. Alas LN isn't actually production ready yet and most implementations have segwit in mind (is my understanding at least.)

That's perfectly logical, but the real antagonistic miners are clearly not interested in thinking through the consequences of something as pesky as the code (and the consequences of the code).

Do you really think the behaviour of Bitmain is a consequence of them reading and understanding either the BU code or the Lightning code? Come on, now

[chek2fire]

The solution is actually simple (in concept, if not in implementation): A mature non-segwit version of the Lightning network needs to be deployed NOW, with the segwit malleability protection requirement being added in the future when segwit activates. That way it can be made clear to miners that segwit is NOT required to create a 2nd layer network and LN can be created whether they want it or not. Alas LN isn't actually production ready yet and most implementations have segwit in mind (is my understanding at least.)

LN's issues are not solved by segwit.
LN has other problems and attack vectors.
many dev groups have been playing with possible LN's ever since the existence of multisig.

the real problems of LN is not malleation, or quadratics. but instead

1. lack of guarantee a tx gets added to a block (like any tx for the last 8 years)
2. address-reuse (signing many times allows the LN counterparty to consturst possible privkey from the data that gets signed multiple times within an LN for the ln counter party to sign both sides without the first parties consent)
3. the UTXO count of say 1 billion people depositing into a multisig = 2billion UTXO's (each channel having 2in-2out)
4. multiple other blackmail/extortion risks

multisigs are not 'broke' but nothing segwit offers guarantee's fixes either.

but the big picture is not about just getting LN live for user adoption as a voluntary side service. its to get core in control as the top tier upstream of the network. and also biasedly in control of what gets relayed to ensure their LN hubs reign supreme.

you are not worry about miners that will central control fee market and you afraid about lighting network?
You are not afraid about the governance new system  from Bitcoin Unlimited with an elected president, even with ministry of propaganda and you afraid the developers that maintain bitcoin for 8 years now?

[-ck]

The solution is actually simple (in concept, if not in implementation): A mature non-segwit version of the Lightning network needs to be deployed NOW, with the segwit malleability protection requirement being added in the future when segwit activates. That way it can be made clear to miners that segwit is NOT required to create a 2nd layer network and LN can be created whether they want it or not. Alas LN isn't actually production ready yet and most implementations have segwit in mind (is my understanding at least.)

That's perfectly logical, but the real antagonistic miners are clearly not interested in thinking through the consequences of something as pesky as the code (and the consequences of the code).

Do you really think the behaviour of Bitmain is a consequence of them reading and understanding either the BU code or the Lightning code? Come on, now

Not at all, but the actual deployment of LN would realise their alleged 'worst fears.' They won't need to understand code to know that it's already working.

[franky1]

you are not worry about miners that will central control fee market and you afraid about lighting network?

LN has a niche.. as a voluntary side service

i do fear blockstreams TIER control and pushing people into blockstream managed LN hubs due to independant LN hops being more costly

You are not afraid about the governance new system  from Bitcoin Unlimited with an elected president,

alot less fear than blockstreams president.
BU wants to work with other peers on a level playing field and if core dropped blockstream dominance. so that core is back on the same level playing field by core adding a few lines of code to be dynamic capable. then it decentralises and diversifies the network back to independence where the network has no president. even if the "team" of each brand do...

even with ministry of propaganda and you afraid the developers that maintain bitcoin for 8 years now?

core came around 2013 (4 years).. assuming core are the 'satoshi crew'/default bitcoin owner is misleading, false and a major laugh

[chek2fire]

you are not worry about miners that will central control fee market and you afraid about lighting network?

LN has a niche.. as a voluntary side service

i do fear blockstreams TIER control and pushing people into blockstream managed LN hubs due to independant LN hops being more costly

You are not afraid about the governance new system  from Bitcoin Unlimited with an elected president,

alot less fear than blockstreams president.
BU wants to work with other peers on a level playing field and if core dropped blockstream dominance. so that core is back on the same level playing field by core ading a few lines of code to by dynamic capable. then it decentralises and diversifies the network back to independance where the network has no president. even if the "team" of each brand do...

even with ministry of propaganda and you afraid the developers that maintain bitcoin for 8 years now?

core came around 2013 (4 years).. assuming core are the 'satoshi crew' is misleading false and a major laugh

the most of ppl in bitcoin ecosystem seems to be happy if you guys fork off the network because it seems you are the most toxic ppl.
Even in this post that made to anyone discover the root problem from miners action, even and here you came to spread your conspiracy lunatic theories.
gz... :p You will not miss you after the day zero of BTC. That for sure 

[Carlton Banks]

Not at all, but the actual deployment of LN would realise their alleged 'worst fears.' They won't need to understand code to know that it's already working.

I am clearly not communicating what I'm saying well enough, or you just don't want to hear it


If the miners are claiming that LN is their problem, they're lying. It doesn't make sense.



Presumably your explanation will be that these successful businessmen are sufficiently idiotic that they are incapable of understanding, despite being successful businessmen

[franky1]

the most of ppl in bitcoin ecosystem seems to be happy if you guys fork off the network because it seems you are the most toxic ppl.

lol
first you blockstreamers spread fear of a fork....
then you beg and demand a fork

yet the non-blockstreamers want to remain as one independant diverse consensus single network.

so i will just laugh at all the fear then begs of fork hypocrisy