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

[NLNico]

Lol, all you guys can do is come up with idiotic, false and just stupid conspiracy theories? If Blockstream will somehow charge money for their Lightning implementation, we will just use one of the other implementations. It's a decentralized open-source protocol, you must be rather stupid to think they will get rich from it.





There are 6 separate implementations of the LN protocol:

* Amiko-Pay
* Eclair (ACINQ)
* lightningd (Blockstream)
* lit (MIT Digital Currency Initiative)
* lnd (Lightning Co) - extra projects on top of 'lnd': Colu, lncli-web, lnd-gui
* Thunder (Blockchain.info)

The middle 4 projects are most active and working on implementing the same BOLT standard, so they will be fully compatible with each other. You can test them with Bitcoin's regtest and some do work on testnet (with Segwit-enabled) already.

[1714819462]

1714819462

[1714819462]

1714819462

[jonald_fyookball]

thanks for the info!

so then please, tell us..what is the business model here? Why are six companies working on this? 

[NLNico]

Because it is potentially very cool innovation on top of bitcoin!

I say "potentially" because of course it still has to prove itself. But instant micro/small bitcoin transactions with very low fee, sounds pretty nice to me!





Note that Blockstream just has 2 people working on Lightning (from their 30-something? employees.) It is definitely not like their whole business is based on Lightning. If Lightning proves itself to be really a proper decentralized second layer solution for microtransactions, every company that wants to use it, could use one of those implementation. But I could imagine that some bigger companies wouldn't mind to hire an expert consultant (and pay them decent $$$) to ensure that their Lightning implementation works good for their business. So I could imagine that this would be 1 potential future revenue source for any company/developer spending time on Lightning right now.

[jonald_fyookball]

ok but don't you agree these will generally be (If not all) profit driven projects , why would they build it for free when the companies building can set themselves up as a hub

[franky1]

Lol, all you guys can do is come up with idiotic, false and just stupid conspiracy theories? If Blockstream will somehow charge money for their Lightning implementation, we will just use one of the other implementations. It's a decentralized open-source protocol, you must be rather stupid to think they will get rich from it.

There are 6 separate implementations of the LN protocol:

* Amiko-Pay
* Eclair (ACINQ)
* lightningd (Blockstream)
* lit (MIT Digital Currency Initiative)
* lnd (Lightning Co) - extra projects on top of 'lnd': Colu, lncli-web, lnd-gui
* Thunder (Blockchain.info)

The middle 4 projects are most active and working on implementing the same BOLT standard, so they will be fully compatible with each other. You can test them with Bitcoin's regtest and some do work on testnet (with Segwit-enabled) already.

amiko-pay: "Cheap Amiko Pay transactions are expected to be much cheaper than regular Bitcoin transactions,"

eclair "default-feerate-perkw = 1000        fee-base-msat = 546000"
.. and so on..

none are offering zero fee for hopping(spoke)/routing.. but where some are charging 500-1000sat. blockstream are charging less (in millisat amounts in some cases)
oh.. and if the others are running hops(spoke) expect each hop to cost. EG if it takes 10 hops.. thats 9 perks/tips/thankyous the initial person has to pay to ensure each of the other 9 parties route the payment

this is where blockstream will be the mega hub because people only paying 1 sat to blockstream is savvi compared to just being a hop(spoke)  where it but costing the user 9000sat internally to hop(spoke) through 10 channels

all blockstream need to do is limit the hops needed (centralise it to a hub) and then they can have the lowest fee's around while rake it all in by being centralised.


whats better occasional ~700sat nor and again if lucky.. or 1sat each from millions of people...
people wont pay 9000 just for the sake of 'oh it took 10 decentralised hops.. happy days' they would be like 'i wanna pay 1sat'

[NLNico]

ok but don't you agree these will generally be (If not all) profit driven projects , why would they build it for free when the companies building can set themselves up as a hub

I think that being an expert consultant is worth a lot of money. Even just a presentation at some conference can earn nice $.

Since everyone, including you and I, can have their own Lightning node (="hub") and earn some small fees (which drives fees to be even lower), I do not see that as part of their potential profits.




@franky1: do you base their on their routing algorithms and such or are you just "guessing"? No one working on Lightning wants to see 1 big node as that is obviously a fail in a decentralized protocol. I am skeptical too about such details, but I do not see it as reason to make a lot of conspiracies here and effectively block such innovation from even trying. If Segwit would be enabled on mainnet, Lightning would be still experimental (and therefor only for small transactions) and routing details can be still adjusted to ensure no 1 big node will exist - obviously no one wants that.

[jonald_fyookball]

ok but don't you agree these will generally be (If not all) profit driven projects , why would they build it for free when the companies building can set themselves up as a hub

I think that being an expert consultant is worth a lot of money. Even just a presentation at some conference can earn nice $.

Since everyone, including you and I, can have their own Lightning node (="hub") and earn some small fees (which drives fees to be even lower), I do not see that as part of their potential profits.




@franky1: do you base their on their routing algorithms and such or are you just "guessing"? No one working on Lightning wants to see 1 big node as that is obviously a fail in a decentralized protocol. I am skeptical too about such details, but I do not see it as reason to make a lot of conspiracies here and effectively block such innovation from even trying. If Segwit would be enabled on mainnet, Lightning would be still experimental (and therefor only for small transactions) and routing details can be still adjusted to ensure no 1 big node will exist - obviously no one wants that.

well first of all, I am still trying to better understand LN.

but generally, yes everyone can be their own hub if they want to start their own hub business (until regulators say you cant because youre a money transfer company)... I guess I was hoping we wouldn't need all these hubs...and there would be something even better, some kind of decentralized network of networks (kind of like the world wide web) that would just help you route your payment to anyone else in the world through open channels.

has this been discussed?  Because all i'm seeing (and I'm not trying to be combative) -- alls I am seeing is more paypal 2.0s

[franky1]

@franky1: do you base their on their routing algorithms and such or are you just "guessing"? No one working on Lightning wants to see 1 big node as that is obviously a fail in a decentralized protocol. I am skeptical too about such details, but I do not see it as reason to make a lot of conspiracies here and effectively block such innovation from even trying. If Segwit would be enabled on mainnet, Lightning would be still experimental (and therefor only for small transactions) and routing details can be still adjusted to ensure no 1 big node will exist - obviously no one wants that.

have you seen where blockstream have actually been TRULY decentral and diverse.
seen any cases where they have welcomed different brands of nodes(which are not just blockstream with a different sticker.. EG knots (Luke Jr->Blockstream)

or

have you seen all the REKT campaigns against anything not blockstream sanctioned/employed/funded.(xt, classic, bu, and others)

..
imagine it this way
"its decentralised because there are atleast 100 superhubs in the DNS" .. (100 nodes owned by core devs/intern spellcheckers)

[NLNico]

ok but don't you agree these will generally be (If not all) profit driven projects , why would they build it for free when the companies building can set themselves up as a hub

I think that being an expert consultant is worth a lot of money. Even just a presentation at some conference can earn nice $.

Since everyone, including you and I, can have their own Lightning node (="hub") and earn some small fees (which drives fees to be even lower), I do not see that as part of their potential profits.




@franky1: do you base their on their routing algorithms and such or are you just "guessing"? No one working on Lightning wants to see 1 big node as that is obviously a fail in a decentralized protocol. I am skeptical too about such details, but I do not see it as reason to make a lot of conspiracies here and effectively block such innovation from even trying. If Segwit would be enabled on mainnet, Lightning would be still experimental (and therefor only for small transactions) and routing details can be still adjusted to ensure no 1 big node will exist - obviously no one wants that.

well first of all, I am still trying to better understand LN.

but generally, yes everyone can be their own hub if they want to start their own hub business (until regulators say you cant because youre a money transfer company)... I guess I was hoping we wouldn't need all these hubs...and there would be something even better, some kind of decentralized network of networks (kind of like the world wide web) that would just help you route your payment to anyone else in the world through open channels.

has this been discussed?  Because all i'm seeing (and I'm not trying to be combative) -- alls I am seeing is more paypal 2.0s

Every LN node is effectively a hub. It is a peer to peer network. You are correct, the more nodes/hubs, the more resistant it will be against governments. Lightning is very strongly based on the six degrees of separation (everyone in the world is 6 steps away from each other - proven in FB research too.) Of course I could imagine that gambling sites, miners, exchanges, businesses, etc who have more money might become bigger nodes. But decentralization is definitely most important.





@franky1: nothing stops you from making a LN node/hub even if you are "anti-core".

[franky1]

@franky1: nothing stops you from making a LN node/hub even if you are "anti-core".

i have been using multisig for offchain transactions for a long while already.

but, its worth those looking into all the LN's, to concentrate on the DNS seeds as that is the most exploitable point of setting selves up as a superhub
to grab the max routing fee's.

[jonald_fyookball]

Every LN node is effectively a hub. It is a peer to peer network. You are correct, the more nodes/hubs, the more resistant it will be against governments. Lightning is very strongly based on the six degrees of separation (everyone in the world is 6 steps away from each other - proven in FB research too.) Of course I could imagine that gambling sites, miners, exchanges, businesses, etc who have more money might become bigger nodes. But decentralization is definitely most important.

so then do you see this kind of development as having a limited window (say 5 years or so) while companies like Blockstream can make some decent money pioneering LN before the market gets completely saturated with free solutions?

[NLNico]

Every LN node is effectively a hub. It is a peer to peer network. You are correct, the more nodes/hubs, the more resistant it will be against governments. Lightning is very strongly based on the six degrees of separation (everyone in the world is 6 steps away from each other - proven in FB research too.) Of course I could imagine that gambling sites, miners, exchanges, businesses, etc who have more money might become bigger nodes. But decentralization is definitely most important.

so then do you see this kind of development as having a limited window (say 5 years or so) while companies like Blockstream can make some decent money pioneering LN before the market gets completely saturated with free solutions?

You misunderstood me. Lightning is a completely free solution. There are already multiple free open-source implementations right now, only 1 from Blockstream. Every site can very easily implement Lightning by just using their free open-source software.





All I am saying, is that bigger companies with plenty of money, don't mind paying some expert consultants to help their own developers for the implementation. Even if it is not completely necessary, simply to make optimal usage of Lightning and know the possibilities/limitations. Just like they hire bitcoin experts now.

For example: I am also planning to learn a bit more about Lightning and work a bit with some of the implementations to gain knowledge. If Lightning will really work well in 1 year, I can definitely imagine that some gambling site owners could be interested in paying me a fee just to help them a bit on their Lightning implementation (just an example.) But in the end, any developer can gain this knowledge and it is a free open-source solution.

[traincarswreck]

Turns out BU's constitutional framework simply secures the President as a dictator over bitcoin: https://medium.com/@rextar4444/the-dictatorship-of-the-bitcoin-proletariat-a51e7cd87605

Highlights:

There is no democratic way to kick something like this off so I am just going to be autocratic about it. I’m defining myself judge, jury and executioner (with the valuable input of those who have been interacting with me of course!) with the power to appoint the initial members. These initial members will then proceed to invite new members.

Only members can submit proposals and such proposals must first go through the President

In the case of abrupt departure, an interim person may be appointed by the President, including someone currently holding another role. In that case s/he will not vacate the originally elected role.

I. Any unallocated funds raised shall be held in a 2-of-3 multi-signature account with the President, Secretary, and Developer holding the keys.

Funds donated to Bitcoin Unlimited may be applied to any purpose (including the Bitcoin Unlimited Pool) that furthers the project’s goals and is authorized by majority vote via line items in a President’s “Operational BUIP”

Donations may not be used to pay salaries, bonuses, etc. for the President, Secretary, Developer or Pool Operator. These volunteer roles are unpaid, with the expectation that these individuals will benefit from Bitcoin’s success.

However, the people fulfilling these roles may be paid upon completion of particular tasks that exceed their stated role.

The source repository administrative account shall be held by the President.

51% Risk
 To alleviate real or perceived risk of this pool gaining more than 50% of total network hash power, if the pool’s hash power exceeds an average of 30% for more than 30 consecutive days, it must disband into two completely separate entities with no personnel overlap.

Anyone that supports this is an enemy of decentralization.

[Killerpotleaf]

[traincarswreck]

so then do you see this kind of development as having a limited window (say 5 years or so) while companies like Blockstream can make some decent money pioneering LN before the market gets completely saturated with free solutions?

Seems better than the dictatorship you have been advocating for:

Proposals are made, debated, and then resolved (voted on) and the Proposer and BU officers have the power to force this process to occur in a timely fashion.

Why are you trying to give the power of bitcoin away to an obvious and admitted dictatorship? Or did you not read the articles you were signing up to?

[qiwoman2]

Well the Bitcoin scaling problem has to be sorted out fast because if Bitcoin loses it's momentum now there will be no turning back and other Altcoins will surpass bitcoin in both usage and marketcap and it will end up as a pile of dinosaur dust on a rubbish heap. Something has to be sorted and Egos have to be set aside to find a solution.

[traincarswreck]

Well the Bitcoin scaling problem has to be sorted out fast because if Bitcoin loses it's momentum now there will be no turning back and other Altcoins will surpass bitcoin in both usage and marketcap and it will end up as a pile of dinosaur dust on a rubbish heap. Something has to be sorted and Egos have to be set aside to find a solution.

Firstly your story here is bullshit and untrue.  Second so you are implying we just handed to an admitted dictatorship for "speed" purposes?

[franky1]

Turns out BU's constitutional framework simply secures the President

and who let the community vote who gets to be CEO CTO of blockstream

oh. and when satoshi left who voted gavin as the core top guy.
oh. and when gavin left who voted Wladimir as the core top guy.

are their yearly elections for core. is their a boardroom team of VC investors that can sack adam/greg from blockstream, or elect someone else to replace them...

.. hmm seems not

[traincarswreck]

and who let the community vote who gets to be CEO CTO of blockstream

Wait are you saying we should give power to an admitted dictatorship that wants to control the entire network mining pools and all?

[crazyivan]

Another thread about the death of BTC, it 5 days old and s already got 22 pages.

Damn people, when will you accept the fact Bitcoin s not going to die, at least not in your lifetime. If you purchased it high, just have some patience, these price swings have happened before and will happen again. In 3 months time, the price will go over 1500 and everyone ll be merry again.

Be patient, dont check exchange candles every 5 minutes.