even r/bitcoin admits, LN still requires huge blocks to scale

[jonald_fyookball]

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/62170e/beyond_ln_if_all_bitcoin_transactions_were/

So if we're going to need bigger blocks anyway... and 2-4mb is really no big deal...
and not having an upgrade for years is causing problems... then why the hell
should we be waiting any longer to upgrade?

Are we really going to wait another year for the core devs to 'allow' us to
upgrade?  Or for the miners to reach consensus?

Even if you're a small blocker or believe we should be scaling slowly,
I mean when is enough enough?  Do we have to get overtaken by ethereum
before people wake up?  What's it going to take ?

[Viscount]

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/62170e/beyond_ln_if_all_bitcoin_transactions_were/

So if we're going to need bigger blocks anyway... and 2-4mb is really no big deal...
and not having an upgrade for years is causing problems... then why the hell
should we be waiting any longer to upgrade?

Ask these currupt BU miners and Vermin why they don't want to increase capacity.

[jonald_fyookball]

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/62170e/beyond_ln_if_all_bitcoin_transactions_were/

So if we're going to need bigger blocks anyway... and 2-4mb is really no big deal...
and not having an upgrade for years is causing problems... then why the hell
should we be waiting any longer to upgrade?

Ask these currupt BU miners and Vermin why they don't want to increase capacity.

lol... pretty sure you got it backwards sonny.... The core devs are the ones who
refused to raise the 1mb for years.  BU is attempting to push for bigger blocks.

Where are you getting this misinformation from?

[franky1]

2mb blocks = 4000tx~  yep i agree with that..(if it was 2mb baseblock or 2mb of users using segwit keys with a 1mb baseblock ((2mb weight)))
but then the maths gets funky

over a year. (144blocks * 365=52560blocks)
4000tx * 52560 blocks = 210,240,000tx a year

knowing that a channel is 2 party (2 people deposit their funds to co-sign) means to have a channel, 2 deposit tx's and one combined withdrawal tx. thats 3 onchain tx's for 2 people

knowing most users will have ~2 channels+ to be part of the routing system
it is not just 3 onchain tx's for 2 people.. but average 6 onchain tx's used to set up the LN routing

so lets just round it to 3tx's per person just to keep the variables simple

so at 2mb blocks with a 1 year locktime thats=70,080,000 users
20mb blocks with a 1 year locktime thats=700,800,000 users
200mb blocks with a 1 year locktime thats=7,008,000,000 users
the funky things to think about.
who would be able to survive a year by instead going with just rusty russels LN's pre-set ~$60 allowable suggested deposit.
-end result people close and open more channels per year to refresh their deposits.
or
who would willingly lock in their whole hoard for a year just to avoid the fortnightly utility of ~$60
-end result people close and open more channels per year to refresh their deposits.

its suggested a 2 week lock for $60 average safe spend. thus countering debates of
whole hoards for a year locked into permissioned 'accounts'
or
whole year with only $60 locked into permissioned 'accounts'
(remember you need other party to co-sign, so dont pretend its permissionless)

meaning 200mb blocks(year) *26(fortnight) = 5.2gb blocks for 2week locktimes for 7bill people
or at this years ~2mb per fortnight = 2,695,384 users


this is why even LN is not the "visa by midnight" solution.
because 2week locks=2.6m users at 2mb blocks or 7bill users at 5.2gb blocks
because 1year locks=70m users at 2mb blocks or 7bill users at 200mb blocks

this is where once segwit is activated and people see not everyone is using segwit keys to achieve the 4000-4500tx estimate
(which actually makes the LN numbers worse than the numbers i emboldened)
where LN wont achieve more than 2.6mill users for 2mb blocks with a 2week locktime..

those cough decision makers cough
next will be promoting sidechains(altcoins) as the real "visa" by midnight.
where peoples hoards are permanently moved and locked into a sidechain of 1:1 value so they never need to open close on bitcoins mainnet.
because they will be opening and closing on other altcoins (sidechains)

P.S people wont lock funds into LN because it is (sorry to burst bubble) permissioned (required counter party online/active to co-sign)

thus leading to... yep hyper ledger..of multiple chains, making bitcoin useless by being blocked by all the locking tx's moving funds to other altcoins.
and the excessive weight of UTXO of 7billion people making it undesirable to be a node for bitcoin. especially if your not using bitcoin because your on a altcoin(sidechain)

[jonald_fyookball]

LN isn't permissioned in the sense you need a third party -- you just need a second party (the one you are transacting with).

But Frankie, do you know of any good articles that explain how the 'i won't have to open a channel with everyone else' problem
is actually solved (presumably with decrementing timelocks?)   The white paper is fairly vague.

[bitpop]

If ver bu corruption was gone, we could have nice things

[franky1]

LN isn't permissioned in the sense you need a third party -- you just need a second party (the one you are transacting with).

LN pretends to be permissionless by saying about no third party(word play).. but LN hides the requirement of 2nd party(again word play).

funny part is. LN is permissioned.. even without a 3rd party 'bank'.. they try to trivialise 2nd party
try to put $100 into your spouses handbag. and then knowing you need her agreement to move it. is needing her permission.
if you ever had a dual bank account with a partner you know arguments erupt when you want to buy another woman some jewellery but need your wifes signature.

But Frankie, do you know of any good articles that explain how the 'i won't have to open a channel with everyone else' problem
is actually solved (presumably with decrementing timelocks?)   The white paper is fairly vague.

there are many LN concepts.
several called lightning, and others called things like thunder, flare etc. all with different mechanisms.

at the moment the concepts are changing and finding new ways of working due to many attack/blackmail/internal contract squabbling that can occur to break contracts

id say there isnt really an upto date paper thats articulate and finalised. even now the LN devs are hating HTLC and preferring to go the route of schnorr+other mechanism

[franky1]

If ver bu corruption was gone, we could have nice things

if you stop reading reddit for bitcoin information
if you stop watching FOX for world information.

and instead only look for the source information, you will have nice facts

[bitpop]

If ver bu corruption was gone, we could have nice things

if you stop reading reddit for bitcoin information
if you stop watching FOX for world information.

and instead only look for the source information, you will have nice facts

fox = /btc
cnn = /bitcoin

[Darkbot]

LN isn't permissioned in the sense you need a third party -- you just need a second party (the one you are transacting with).

LN pretends to be permissionless by saying about no third party(word play).. but LN hides the requirement of 2nd party(again word play).

funny part is. LN is permissioned.. even without a 3rd party bank..
try to put $100 into your spouses handbag. and then knowing you need her agreement to move it. is needing her permission.
if you ever had a dual bank account with a partner you know arguments erupt when you want to buy another woman some jewellery but need your wifes signature.

But Frankie, do you know of any good articles that explain how the 'i won't have to open a channel with everyone else' problem
is actually solved (presumably with decrementing timelocks?)   The white paper is fairly vague.

there are many LN concepts.
several called lightning, and others called things like thunder, flare etc. all with different mechanisms.

your asking mainly about hub and spoke.

Poor Franky1, another day spewing out his daily FUD. How much are you going to earn today with all that trolling? Dont you got nothing better to do than sitting behind youre pc with youre fat ass making troll post after troll post? Youre noob ass will be raped at Github when they see all this bullshit.

[maku]

We don't need bigger blocks right now. What we truly need is better protection from spam.
Say, we increase block size to 2 MB today. That barely solve anything, space is still limited.
As long as there will be someone willing to pay for spam, and no countermeasures, problem with block size will remain.

[Xester]

LN isn't permissioned in the sense you need a third party -- you just need a second party (the one you are transacting with).

But Frankie, do you know of any good articles that explain how the 'i won't have to open a channel with everyone else' problem
is actually solved (presumably with decrementing timelocks?)   The white paper is fairly vague.

I do admit that even segwit or LN needs huge blocks to scale and that is their weakness that was exposed by the bitcoin unlimited group. Both group has its own weakness and strength. For the LN it is the problem on scaling while for the BU it is the bugs in their system. But there is another group that is making an entrance and that is the UASF, this time it is not the miners but the bitcoin holders, economic players, exchanges and payment processor that will dictate on what changes must be accepted to develop bitcoin. I dont know how it works but at least it will make the miners realize that it is the holders who must determine the fate of bitcoin and not the miners.

[jonald_fyookball]

We don't need bigger blocks right now. What we truly need is better protection from spam.
Say, we increase block size to 2 MB today. That barely solve anything, space is still limited.
As long as there will be someone willing to pay for spam, and no countermeasures, problem with block size will remain.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong: we do need bigger blocks right now.
Bigger blocks are the ONLY way to protect from spam.  If you know another way, let me know.

Maybe this will clear things up for you:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1846510.msg18377356#msg18377356

[franky1]

Poor Franky1, another day spewing out his daily FUD. How much are you going to earn today with all that trolling? Dont you got nothing better to do than sitting behind youre pc with youre fat ass making troll post after troll post? Youre noob ass will be raped at Github when they see all this bullshit.

all i hear is whistles in the wind

[spartacusrex]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong: we do need bigger blocks right now.
Bigger blocks are the ONLY way to protect from spam.  If you know another way, let me know.

FFS..

Jhonny - I don't get it - you're obviously not a moron.. BUT you're becoming MORE ignorant as your incessant ranting continues !?. You've got to stop listening to Franky1. He is a moron.

BIGGER BLOCKS = LOWER FEES = MORE CHEAP SHITTY SPAM IN BLOCK.

SMALLER BLOCKS = HIGHER FEES = LESS/NO CHEAP SHITTY SPAM IN BLOCK. (hint: Because it's not cheap)

please..

[K128kevin2]

Bigger blocks are the ONLY way to protect from spam.

That's not protecting from spam, that's making it even easier for spammers.

[jonald_fyookball]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong: we do need bigger blocks right now.
Bigger blocks are the ONLY way to protect from spam.  If you know another way, let me know.

FFS..

Jhonny - I don't get it - you're obviously not a moron.. BUT you're becoming MORE ignorant as your incessant ranting continues !?. You've got to stop listening to Franky1. He is a moron.

BIGGER BLOCKS = LOWER FEES = MORE CHEAP SHITTY SPAM IN BLOCK.

SMALLER BLOCKS = HIGHER FEES = LESS/NO CHEAP SHITTY SPAM IN BLOCK. (hint: Because it's not cheap)

please..

I appreciate that...you're not a moron either.
 
But here is your mistake: You are ignoring half of the supply/demand equation.

You are saying: bigger blocks have lower fees, and lower fees is lower cost to the spammer,
while completely ignoring the fact that there's a lot more of them they would have to pay
to fill up the block...and this is especially true if the blocks are mostly full already because
then there's only a small amount of transactions the spammer needs to overfill the blocks,
whereas conversely: when blocks are big (supply is bigger than demand), the spammer needs
to fill ALL that extra space up.  

Also, Alex points out another aspect of this that I hadn't even considered, which is that
spammers can pay ZERO fees once the mempool is full , just to keep the attack going.
his post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1846510.msg18377356#msg18377356

[Lauda]

Jeesh jonald, what has gotten in to you? Assuming you are not a paid shill, you seem to be very anxious/in panic mode. You've never been creating so many threads in a short time span.

Are we really going to wait another year for the core devs to 'allow' us to
upgrade?  Or for the miners to reach consensus?

What are you talking about? The Core developers have given you a compromise, Segwit. Segwit will create 2-4 MB blocks. Stop with these delusional and misleading statements.

[Kprawn]

Was the due date for signalling for SegWit not shortened to 1 Aug 2017? You cannot blame Core devs for the "blocking" of the Block size upgrade, if

they incorporated a Block size upgrade in SegWit and LN. If BU were not in the picture, this would have been implemented months ago.... but they are

stalling this with the introduction of BU to give OpenLedger and Ethereum and Dash a chance to catch up with Bitcoin. 

[Lauda]

Was the due date for signalling for SegWit not shortened to 1 Aug 2017?

No. That is BIP148, which is not added into Core.

If BU were not in the picture, this would have been implemented months ago.... but they are stalling this with the introduction of BU to give OpenLedger and Ethereum and Dash a chance to catch up with Bitcoin. 

BU brought nothing good to Bitcoin if you really look at it. Segwit would have been activated by now; no 'divide and conquer', no HF propaganda (which caused the price drop). Who knows where we would have been.

[jonald_fyookball]

Jeesh jonald, what has gotten in to you? Assuming you are not a paid shill, you seem to be very anxious/in panic mode. You've never been creating so many threads in a short time span.

Are we really going to wait another year for the core devs to 'allow' us to
upgrade?  Or for the miners to reach consensus?

What are you talking about? The Core developers have given you a compromise, Segwit. Segwit will create 2-4 MB blocks. Stop with these delusional and misleading statements.

Segwit isn't even close to acceptance by half the miners, let alone the 95% it needs to activate... so, no your beloved
Core developers haven't given jack shit. 
 
To me, its pretty clear you are shilling (paid or not), but I supposed you can claim that
you didn't know exactly what I meant when I asked 'are we really going
to wait...for the miners to reach consensus' (on ANY scaling solution).
 
You are familiar with the various scaling solutions being currently
voted on?  Then what the hell are you talking about with these
accusations of me being 'delusional' or 'misleading'?

There's people I disagree with but still respect (like Holliday and AgentofCoin) 
and then there's people that continually spin, twist, distort, divert, and scream.


 

[Lauda]

Segwit isn't even close to acceptance by half the miners, let alone the 95% it needs to activate... so, no your beloved
Core developers haven't given jack shit.  

This is complete bullshit and you know it. Core developers delivering something != miners adopting it. They have no control over the network. If the developers could control what should be adopted and what not, we wouldn't call the coin Bitcoin, we would call it Ethereum.
  

To me, its pretty clear you are shilling (paid or not)..

I am not the one creating a new thread every two-three days, am I?

You are familiar with the various scaling solutions being currently voted on?  

There is Segwit, there are a few block size increase proposals (e.g. Bitpay) and there is the radical 'emergent consensus' that the economic majority does not want.

Then what the hell are you talking about with these accusations of me being 'delusional' or 'misleading'?

Stop opening new threads every few days.

There's people I disagree with but still respect (like Holliday and AgentofCoin)  and then there's people that continually spin, twist, distort, divert, and scream.

There are such people on both sides. If you don't think that various corporate and government agencies haven't infiltrated both sides of the community long ago, then you are very much 'ignorant' as the average Joe. Time to wake up Jonald, and see what is really going on.

[jonald_fyookball]

Instead of agreeing to a 1 line of code (lets say 2mb) that
everyone could have supported, Core
played every stalling tactic in the book
from broken Hong Kong agreements to
scaling conferences where no one was
allowed to agree to anything, to coding
up 5000 lines of Segwit and then require 95%
consensus for it.

You call that delivering... and you blame the miners.

You may never agree with me Lauda, and that's fine.
God bless you and your cats, but to everyone else I ask again: when is enough going to be enough?

[Lauda]

There is so much wrong in your post.

Instead of agreeing to a 1 line of code (lets say 2mb) that everyone could have supported,

A 2 MB increase is not a single line of code; HF's are dangerous and the implications that they have on incentives such as centralization need to be factored in. Do I have to remind you about the DOS attack vector?

Core played every stalling tactic in the book from broken Hong Kong agreements to scaling conferences where no one was allowed to agree to anything

Wrong. There is no "Core" did that or did this. A few Core contributors and Adam Back wanted to reach consensus with the miners, which ultimately failed when F2Pool mined a Classic block. Most (if not all) of these people now even regret trying that.

to coding up 5000 lines of Segwit and then require 95% consensus for it.

There is nothing wrong with that. Segwit is an amazing (whilst not perfect) change.

You may never agree with me Lauda, and that's fine.

I can't agree with false information. Why do you keep doing this? Are you reading r/btc daily?

[jonald_fyookball]

I can't agree with false information. 

 

[franky1]

There is so much wrong in your post.

Instead of agreeing to a 1 line of code (lets say 2mb) that everyone could have supported,

A 2 MB increase is not a single line of code; HF's are dangerous and the implications that they have on incentives such as centralization need to be factored in. Do I have to remind you about the DOS attack vector?

blockstreams idea is thousands of lines of code.. and if people dont sheep follow and pass the network to blockstream as the upper tier.. then.. guess what something worse than hard consensus..
blockstream want to pull the mining nuclear bomb and make it mandatory to use segwit..
thus still avoiding hard consensus and moving straight to a hard split.

come on lauda.. even you should be able to see the truth that blockstream are pulling the strings

going soft to avoid community node (hard) consensus, then going PoW heavy again to avoid node consensus.

yes by even trying to then go super over the top PoW change and mandatory activation is still avoiding community consensus.

wake up. get that blockstream defender hat off your head and burn it.. put a logical hat on and think about decentralised bitcoin.
stop thinking of things through the butcheeks of blockstream

please for once in a year be unbiased and logical about bitcoins ethos of diverse decentralised open network

wake the hell up

[K128kevin2]

I can't agree with false information. 

 

So you're knowingly and willingly spreading false information and... you don't care?
I hope all of the money Ver is paying you helps you sleep well at night.

[jonald_fyookball]

So you're knowingly and willingly spreading false information and... you don't care?
I hope all of the money Ver is paying you helps you sleep well at night.

No... I don't care if Lauda thinks its false... because its not.

The fact of the matter is that the Bitcoin network
as of TODAY has not scaled beyond the 1mb put
in place 7 years ago.

You can make all the excuses you want for it
(which is what he does and continues to do)
but it doesn't change that fact.

To me, he (she?) is just trolling/shilling and a waste
of time to argue with.

[Lauda]

No... I don't care if Lauda thinks its false... because its not.

I don't think that it is wrong. The things that I've outlined are facts. Those can not be changed regardless how much money you pay people.

The fact of the matter is that the Bitcoin network
as of TODAY has not scaled beyond the 1mb put
in place 7 years ago.

Straw man. How Classic, or should I say Unlimited?

[franky1]

Wrong. There is no "Core" did that or did this. A few Core contributors and Adam Back wanted to reach consensus with the miners, which ultimately failed when F2Pool mined a Classic block. Most (if not all) of these people now even regret trying that.

your wrong
luke back tract and pretty much denounced his level of involvement in core within hours of signing

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46rk3d/final_version_bitcoin_roundtable_consensus/d07jdup/

We can only represent ourselves, not the entire team.

which led to luke saying he cant guarantee 2mb BASE 4mb weight because he has no power or control of core.
which led people to think that the core signatures could have just sent in their janitor and floor sweeper to sign it.. thus rendering the agreement void
nothing at all related to F2pool.

..

secondly lauda
to address the other matter you have been argumentative over for the last year+ now
 you think that segwit offers 2mb right at activation for everyone.. here lukes own words

SegWit doesn't change storage of any data, merely changes the way [segwit-enabled] transactions are hashed for the txid. Currently, all transactions are hashed by serially going over the version, inputs, signatures, and outputs. New transactions are instead exclude signatures from the hashing, so that the txid does not change if [only] the signature is modified. Because old nodes only understand the old method of hashing the transaction, the signatures effectively become invisible to them, and they don't count it against their "block size limit" rule, but they're still part of the real block itself.

If nobody uses SegWit, then none of the signatures are invisible to old nodes, so the entire size must be counted by old nodes and no gains in the limit are accomplished. So the expanded block space can only be used by wallets which upgrade

meaning its about people moving funds from native keys to segwit keys to even start to use the 3mb spare weight.. which you and others are stating 1mb base and 1.1mb spare weight for the sigs will be utilised at best..(totalling 2.1mb) IF(the bit you forget to add is the if) people use segwit keys.

this was all crystal clear a year ago[feb'16] even before segwit was even ready for public testing[summer'16] and obviously before 0.13.1 release [oct'16]

emphasis if they use segwit keys.

[quake313]

Advice for those arguing with jonald_fyookball and franky1: Don't waste your time, paid shills are PAID to shill, arguing is what they want. They can not be convinced or swayed only bought and paid.

[jonald_fyookball]

Advice for those arguing with jonald_fyookball and franky1: Don't waste your time, paid shills are PAID to shill, arguing is what they want. They can not be convinced or swayed only bought and paid.

or maybe we just own a lot more bitcoins than you and have a lot more to lose if bitcoin is subverted.

[franky1]

Advice for those arguing with jonald_fyookball and franky1: Don't waste your time, paid shills are PAID to shill, arguing is what they want. They can not be convinced or swayed only bought and paid.

my income does not come from protecting a brand. and certainly nothing to do with any particular brand

my income is from a business selling products and service completely unrelated to BU or any brand.
you can try pigeon holing me into any brand your side is REKT campaigning at anytime. but it wont help you.

but atleast admit your part of a REKT campaign thats only desire is to protect blockstream devs..
and atleast admit your REKT campaigns have nothing to do with a diverse decentralised PEER network.

otherwise your just being a hypocrit.

and i too have many coins and prefer a single network of diverse decentralised peers.
not a TIER network with one brand control

there would be less argument from me if cor got rid of their puppet masters blockstream. and the core 'independent' devs actually acted independently to help any and all 'brands'.. rather than locking themselves up into one brand and demanding it be the king brand of bitcoin