Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell

[jonald_fyookball]

I don't know how you could get "There is not really a technical issue" from what I wrote.  I think you just made that up in your head.

For the sake of clarity, I think you and many others like you chose to jump for the low-hanging fruit (bigger blocks) that pretends to be a scaling solution for Bitcoin, just because it is quick and dirty, and stands to potentially net a quick return as (stupid) people are fooled into believing the scaling issue is solved.

There is another solution (for those who believe there is a problem) that is clearly technically superior, and which is a lot more likely to allow Bitcoin to remain decentralized and retain its core value proposition.  The only way anyone can ignore that is if they just don't care.

I am sure you will disagree with the points I make above, but the technical discussion of this stuff has been beat to death here, and if you don't agree with me by now, I'm sure you never will.  I don't expect that you will stop your constant harangue against Blockstream and Core and all the evil you perceive in them.  But I hope you will at least take a second to consider what your motivations really are.

if you're referring to LN, i'm all for it, its very exciting technology...but I see no reason we can't have bigger blocks now (actually 2 years ago) and LN later.  My beef with BSCore is that they seem to be standing in the way of the 'bigger blocks now' part.   Whether that is out of sheer stubborness, or selfishness, or some grandmaster moves that are far ahead of us, and good for all of us, well that's up to you to judge and decide for yourself.  My motivations aren't really that interesting.  Mostly intellectual stimulation. I believe in what I say but I don't believe I have any real impact.  Maybe I will change a few minds here or there and maybe just maybe tip the scales in the group consciousness toward what I believe is the better way to go.  Hope I answered your question.



  

[1715119692]

1715119692

[1715119692]

1715119692

[franky1]

I don't know how you could get "There is not really a technical issue" from what I wrote.  I think you just made that up in your head.

For the sake of clarity, I think you and many others like you chose to jump for the low-hanging fruit (bigger blocks) that pretends to be a scaling solution for Bitcoin, just because it is quick and dirty, and stands to potentially net a quick return as (stupid) people are fooled into believing the scaling issue is solved.

There is another solution (for those who believe there is a problem) that is clearly technically superior, and which is a lot more likely to allow Bitcoin to remain decentralized and retain its core value proposition.  The only way anyone can ignore that is if they just don't care.

I am sure you will disagree with the points I make above, but the technical discussion of this stuff has been beat to death here, and if you don't agree with me by now, I'm sure you never will.  I don't expect that you will stop your constant harangue against Blockstream and Core and all the evil you perceive in them.  But I hope you will at least take a second to consider what your motivations really are.

calling segwit a scaling solution.. lol
1. its a single step .. not a scale. you cant resegwit a segwit
2. its not a fix/solution. even if activated it then requires people to be in a tier network and then move funds to new keypairs..
3. the moving of funds is a half promise gesture which wont meet the promises/expectations because not everyone will move funds to disarm themselves.
4. segwit is just about letting in more "soft" changes without consensus.. in technical terms this is called opening a backdoor into bitcoin

if you think LN is a scaling solution then get your calculator out.
1. it take 3tx to open/close a channel so not everyone will see the benefits of it.
2. not everyone uses bitcoin daily. LN has a niche for things like faucets. but most are already using xapo offchain already. so not much change
3. neither LN or segwit stops spamming. by keeping the 1mb base limit nothing has made it harder for spammers.
4. if spammers stick with native keys, it limits how many segwit tx's can get in and how many LN channels are used.

read the code next time not the reddit utopian 30 second elevator sales pitch thats full of holes.
oh. i havnt even told you all the new attack vectors segwit and LN open. but ill leave that for a different topic

[jonald_fyookball]

Frankie, aside from the current "we're not raising the 1mb" stuff, what is concerning me about LN is this:

-- Bitcoin already provides everything LN needs (correct me if i'm wrong)
-- In theory, the "everyone can connect to everyone else" would be possible, but...
-- companies like Blockstream and others who are building implementations of Lightening will likely not build it that way as it would be much simpler
   for them to build a channel between themselves and each customer (hub and spoke model)
-- this creates centralization and a point of regulation

so that is concern #1.

Concern #2 is:  What happens when the next generation of coders comes along in 5 years and just builds an open source implementation of lightening
that actually DOES connect everyone to everyone else with smart lookups to find pathways to your friend and smart clients that can use permissioned
yet trustless cooperation as described in the LN paper... because you know that's coming next right?  ...so what are Blockstream and the pioneers
trying to sneak in now to make sure they stay in business in 5,10, 20 years?  I don't even know what I don't know... but I know if I was them I
would be thinking the same thing...and you've maybe hinted at some concerns.

[franky1]

Frankie, aside from the current "we're not raising the 1mb" stuff, what is concerning me about LN is this:

-- Bitcoin already provides everything LN needs (correct me if i'm wrong)
-- In theory, the "everyone can connect to everyone else" would be possible, but...
-- [1]companies like Blockstream and others who are building implementations of Lightening will likely not build it that way as it would be much simpler
   for them to build a channel between themselves and each customer (hub and spoke model)
-- this creates centralization and a point of regulation

so that is concern #1.

Concern #2 is:  What happens when the next generation of coders comes along in 5 years and just builds an open source implementation of lightening
that actually DOES connect everyone to everyone else with smart lookups to find pathways to your friend and smart clients that can use permissioned
yet trustless cooperation as described in the LN paper... because you know that's coming next right?  ...so what are Blockstream and the pioneers
trying to sneak in now to make sure they stay in business in 5,10, 20 years?  I don't even know what I don't know... but I know if I was them I
would be thinking the same thing...and you've maybe hinted at some concerns.

concern#1 --[1].. hint: LN DNS seed.
located on a blockstream server containing IP's of hubs/spokes that blockstream can prioritise/handpick

concern #2
say we have
alice<>bob<>chuck<>dave
and say a 'ln payment' was just 1sat (lowest allowable amount)

for alice to pay dave. alice has to pay bob and chuck too. so it costs alice 3sats to pay dave
decentralised hop(spoke) models cost more than hub
making the whitepaper utopian dream of cheap hop(spoke) model costly because you got to pay each peer on the route.
many naive people think they will get a free sat per payment just by being on the route. and thats where all the excitement is coming from.. people thinking they finally get paid to be a node..

however knowing hop(spoke) model costs fee*hops-1. can end up being alot compared to hubs. so naturally. spenders would find the cheapest method.. leading to hubs

now imagine the hub model
               bob
                ^
                v
alice <> blockstream <> dave
                ^
                v
              chuck

now alice can pay anyone for 1 sat and blockstream are the only ones that get the fee.
blockstream can go one step further by 'pretending' to be more decentralised by making it 'appear' like a hop/spoke model

alice <> BSemployee <>blockstream <> BSemployee <> dave

now alice is back to paying 3sat and being told her payment needed to loop through 3 nodes.. but guess who owns the nodes..
this is a hub emulating a hop/spoke model.. similar to running a sybil / pool of nodes to take advantage of getting more fee's.

all because of the LN DNS seed being in the hands of blockstream

..
as for concern 2 about someone else coming in in 5..10 years with a better plan with a proper open LN DNS seed. forget it
blockstream will REKT campaign it and suggest that the DNS seed of anything not blockstream invented is prioritised in favour of the opposition (turning their own trick to sound like only the opposition are doing it even if the opposition are not. as seen already with current blockstream plans)

[andyatcrux]

Is Jihan Wu actually a large investor in Rootstock? Evidence that he has been very supportive of it is only a google search away, but I have yet to see any evidence that he is a large financial investor. I bring it up because the Segwit vs. BU debate would seem foggier given that (correct me if i am wrong) Rootstock will heavily rely on the underlying tech of Segwit. If that was the case why would Wu be for BU?

[jonald_fyookball]

snip

not fully following you.  i thought the whole advantage to LN was that you can do many more things offchain and just settle once, so why would it cost more?

lets say my channel with Alice is open for a month and a bunch of people use my channel, i would get their small fee but doesnt it cost me exactly the same when i close it?

[Killerpotleaf]

Is Jihan Wu actually a large investor in Rootstock? Evidence that he has been very supportive of it is only a google search away, but I have yet to see any evidence that he is a large financial investor. I bring it up because the Segwit vs. BU debate would seem foggier given that (correct me if i am wrong) Rootstock will heavily rely on the underlying tech of Segwit. If that was the case why would Wu be for BU?

its not like BU isn't planning a TX_ID fix

the only thing core is promising, that BU isn't, is totally control over blocksize ( and the 75% sig discount thing ) oh and bug free code 

[franky1]

Is Jihan Wu actually a large investor in Rootstock? Evidence that he has been very supportive of it is only a google search away, but I have yet to see any evidence that he is a large financial investor. I bring it up because the Segwit vs. BU debate would seem foggier given that (correct me if i am wrong) Rootstock will heavily rely on the underlying tech of Segwit. If that was the case why would Wu be for BU?

http://dcg.co/portfolio/#r
DCG (the blockstream cartel group that think anything not core is an alt) have invested in rootstock

[franky1]

snip

not fully following you.  i thought the whole advantage to LN was that you can do many more things offchain and just settle once, so why would it cost more?

lets say my channel with Alice is open for a month and a bunch of people use my channel, i would get their small fee but doesnt it cost me exactly the same when i close it?

the onchain transactions would be
you deposit $60  - pay the onchain mining fee of say $1(whatever the onchain mining fee is at the time)
alice deposit $60  - pay the onchain mining fee of say $1(whatever the onchain mining fee is at the time)
this then logs the opening of the channel

and when you close its 1 onchain tx of $1(whatever the onchain mining fee is at the time)
 to payout whoever has whatever share of the $120(combined funds of the channel)

..
but within LN
if its just you and alice buying stuff from each other then no internal fee unless one of you demand it.
...

but if alice wanted to pay bob. firstly you would have to have a channel between you and bob aswell.
you deposit $60  - pay the onchain mining fee of say $1
bob deposit $60  - pay the onchain mining fee of say $1
this then logs the opening of the 2nd channel

so now you have 2 channels open..
alice<> you <> bob

now because you are just being used as a hop(spoke)/hub to bob.. alice must pay you something as a 'thankyou' for routing it.
just to ensure you dont mess things up for alice and bob. so thats where you would get your 1sat from.

all of the OFFCHAIN 1sat fee's are YOUR PROFIT..
the onchain settlement closing fee is still $1 per channel(whatever the onchain mining fee is at the time) no matter how many offchain payments were made in that month. or how much you earned OFFCHAIN by being a hub/spoke route.

but for alice in this example if she had to pay bob 1000 times in that month. it has cost her 1000sat as she has had to say thank you to you 1000 times for helping her and bob.
meaning out of you and alices channel of $120 combined.  to cover the thank you's for being a route to bob

[jonald_fyookball]

Frankie, that wasn't my understanding of how LN works (not saying i'm right .cause im just
learning how this is all supposed to work...) but the point is: if Alice already has a channel
with Bob , I dont need to open a channel with Bob myself cause i can just go through Alice.

What am I missing, or why are we not on the same page here?

[Wind_FURY]

Frankie, that wasn't my understanding of how LN works (not saying i'm right .cause im just
learning how this is all supposed to work...) but the point is: if Alice already has a channel
with Bob , I dont need to open a channel with Bob myself cause i can just go through Alice.

What am I missing, or why are we not on the same page here?

Yes. That is why it is important to only open payment channels with people that you trust. You would not want to be the person connecting payments with a criminal or a terrorist. You do not want the FBI knocking on your door. Hehe.

A serious LN feature would be to make it anonymous. Another possibility I like is that it can become a bridge for other blockchains.

[jonald_fyookball]

Frankie, that wasn't my understanding of how LN works (not saying i'm right .cause im just
learning how this is all supposed to work...) but the point is: if Alice already has a channel
with Bob , I dont need to open a channel with Bob myself cause i can just go through Alice.

What am I missing, or why are we not on the same page here?

Yes. That is why it is important to only open payment channels with people that you trust. You would not want to be the person connecting payments with a criminal or a terrorist. You do not want the FBI knocking on your door. Hehe.
 

Well, there's 2 possibilities that I can envision right now (there may be more)

#1:) You have big companies, lets say Blockstream, that provides a 'blockstream' channel... so if I want to send a payment to Bob, and we both have a channel with Blockstream, we could do it through them.

#2:) You have some kind of smart wallet that automatically accepts third party requests on your behalf , and it handles all the details so you do not have to trust them, and if one of those third parties happens to be an unscrupulous character, well you can certain easily claim plausible deniability just as if some anonmymous person was downloading a torrent...all the wallet sees is an IP address.  Obviously we want to stay private, get more privacy, not less.

EDIT:  If we cannot describe exactly how scenario #2 is going to be implemented (and we can't describe another scenario), then the alternative is that you are going to be using a big company (like Blockstream) cough paypal2.0 cough and relying on them to transact.  so.... i am wondering how deeply people who are really excited about LN have thought this through and would like to hear others' thoughts.

[royalfestus]

Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell

You are going to end up with $0 if you acquire fake BTU tokens instead of real Bitcoins.

It isn't my opinion. Rather it is the economics and technological facts. You can choose to pursue reality or delusion, but only reality is what you will get.

I`m newbie in many things, can you please explain to me what is the difference between real and fake bitcoins? How can we notice the difference?
I understand that some dev`s have different opinion on how should bitcoin be upgraded, many things are complicated for me to understand, can someone clear up things for me?
Whom to trust, I noticed some names, and many people argue what is right, and everyone tell some other story. I`m ordinary man, and I think there is many people here just like I`m, how can we know who tells the truth and really wish good for bitcoin, and who is looking for fast profit?

there is no fake bitcoin yet but it will be if the BTU and sorts were created, Besides they dont really mean a fake but somehow altcoin. Every news u get depends on who is sending it/ what he or she believe could be done to improve bitcoin efficiency. I dont want to influence your opinion but most of the ideas are selfish. just like u might also be. It is more also of the leadership in currency management.

[franky1]

Frankie, that wasn't my understanding of how LN works (not saying i'm right .cause im just
learning how this is all supposed to work...) but the point is: if Alice already has a channel
with Bob , I dont need to open a channel with Bob myself cause i can just go through Alice.

What am I missing, or why are we not on the same page here?

now your flipping the scnario.. edit... oops sorry i flipped it.. anyways

if alice has one with you..
and alice has one with bob

then alice does not need you to pay bob.

so you wont get a thank you as you are not involved with alice paying bob.

but if you want to pay bob. without you having a channel with bob direct... you then need to pay alice a small thank you fee as she was the router between you and bob..

anyway. lets go back to the first scenario(they way i wrote it) where alice and you have a channel .. and you and bob have a channel.. and alice wants to pay bob via you...

this image may help

[jonald_fyookball]

right, so my point is : i'm gonna be paying that channel fees anyway, cause i want shirts and socks etc... so it costs me nothing extra to get the 1 penny for routing.

[franky1]

right, so my point is : i'm gonna be paying that channel fees anyway, cause i want shirts and socks etc... so it costs me nothing extra to get the 1 penny for routing.

i realised my scenario was where you were connected to bob and it was alice that wanted to pay bob

if its just inside channel.. EG you and alice NO FEE either side for all the offchain payments of just you and alice..

but whoever is acting as a route to another channel deserves a thankyou fee in which case

if alice had 2 channels YOU-alice... bob-alice.
and you wanted to pay bob... you would give alice a small fee, a tip as it were..

if alice had 2 channels YOU-alice... bob-alice.
and alice wanted to pay bob... you have no involvement. as its all done on bob-alice channel. costs you nothing. you see nothing . know nothing

if you had 2 YOU-alice. You-bob
and you wanted to pay bob... alice have no involvement. as its all done on you-bob channel. costs alice nothing. alice sees nothing . knows nothing

if you had 2 YOU-alice. You-bob
and alice wanted to pay bob... alice you would give you a small fee, a tip as it were..

[jonald_fyookball]

right, so my point is : i'm gonna be paying that channel fees anyway, cause i want shirts and socks etc... so it costs me nothing extra to get the 1 penny for routing.

if its just insid channel.. you and alice NO FEE either side.

but whoever is acting as a route to another channel deserves a thankyou fee

ok... but somehow i don't think Blockstream intends to empower the people in this way.  Why should they? There's no profit in that.  The obvious business model is become paypal 2.0

And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that if they want to build it (blocksize debate aside)...but i think people will be in for a rude awakening when they realize the plan.

They may even do some kind of white label lightening hub program , where it looks like theres many providers (i can already hear the forum shills saying "are you a dumbass, there's 300 companies doing this, its totally decentralized") but a portion of the proceeds all go to blockstream (or one of the other big companies actually building a network).

But again, it is in all of these guys best business interests (anyone in the LN business) to keep on chain fees high.

[franky1]

right, so my point is : i'm gonna be paying that channel fees anyway, cause i want shirts and socks etc... so it costs me nothing extra to get the 1 penny for routing.

if its just insid channel.. you and alice NO FEE either side.

but whoever is acting as a route to another channel deserves a thankyou fee

ok... but somehow i don't think Blockstream intends to empower the people in this way.  Why should they? There's no profit in that.  The obvious business model is become paypal 2.0

And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that if they want to build it (blocksize debate aside)...but i think people will be in for a rude awakening when they realize the plan.

which is where i told you the utopian dream of decentralsied nodes getting paid for just being routes wont happen
blockstream owning the LN DNS SEED. to ensure everything routes through them. will make sure they get the fee's to repay their $70m debt to VC

[jonald_fyookball]

right, so my point is : i'm gonna be paying that channel fees anyway, cause i want shirts and socks etc... so it costs me nothing extra to get the 1 penny for routing.

if its just insid channel.. you and alice NO FEE either side.

but whoever is acting as a route to another channel deserves a thankyou fee

ok... but somehow i don't think Blockstream intends to empower the people in this way.  Why should they? There's no profit in that.  The obvious business model is become paypal 2.0

And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that if they want to build it (blocksize debate aside)...but i think people will be in for a rude awakening when they realize the plan.

which is where i told you the utopian dream of decentralsied nodes getting paid for just being routes wont happen
blockstream owning the LN DNS SEED. to ensure everything routes through them. will make sure they get the fee's to repay their $70m debt to VC

what is this so called LN DNS SEED and why can't other developers create their own LN DNS?

[franky1]

what is this so called LN DNS SEED and why can't other developers create their own LN DNS?

a DNS is like a directory of who and where..
its used to link people together by listing the routes in the DNS.

simply by only listing blockstream in the DNS. everyone connects to blockstream making blockstream the super hub

They may even do some kind of white label lightening hub program , where it looks like theres many providers (i can already hear the forum shills saying "are you a dumbass, there's 300 companies doing this, its totally decentralized") but a portion of the proceeds all go to blockstream (or one of the other big companies actually building a network).

But again, it is in all of these guys best business interests (anyone in the LN business) to keep on chain fees high.

there are other brands. for instance bitfury have Flare. another brand has Thunder.

but as we all know.. if its not blockstream sanctioned and managed.. expect them to be REKT with all the accusations of 'its not good enough' its an altcoin service, its not been independently reviewed. its buggy, their devs are crap. etc (standard blockstream shill script)