So we tried out Lightning tonight at ROOM77

[Malooka]

Ripple is ready to go and way past testing, why not use it instead? Besides, I trust Stefan Thomas (ripple) much more than the town crier for the failed Bitcoin Foundation pack of thieving liars.

Because Ripple is a bank coin.

[1714017457]

1714017457

[1714017457]

1714017457

[1714017457]

1714017457

[1714017457]

1714017457

[1714017457]

1714017457

[kiklo]

LN is not safe at all until segwit is activated, so you have to trust all of your LN Clients Completely.

Testnet has Segwit activated. Read the thread.

Counterfeiting and stealing BTC thru LN is not only a possibility but a probability.

No.

LN IS NOT SAFE UNTIL SEGWIT IS ACTIVATED. (On the Actual BTC Blockchain)
That is an accurate Statement.

Testnet is play money.

@Lauda ,
aside from being a paid shill, you don't have authority for jack.

Anyone that reads the LN Whitepaper , can see stealing BTC from LN, requires nothing more than evading their time locks.
So you know , you can shove your No where the sun don't shine.

 

[kiklo]

Gonna' have to add.. Since this is really VERY cool..

I'm seeing a scenario play out in slow motion :

So your bar runs a LN node.

Your customers have LN payment channels with you, on your LN node.

They can now pay you instantly with BTC, and you can refund them instantly. Either of you can cash out on chain at any time.

...Now.

Another bar starts an LN node.

Your node and the other node communicate.

Your customers can now pay at ANY bar with an LN node connected to yours, and VICE VERSA.. so their customers can spend at yours.

All instantly. Off chain. Trustless. With BTC.

.. it's pretty awesome. ( Come on Franky.. even you must be a little impressed..?)

..

( Just thinking about Vegas, and all those casinos.. )

LOL, don't wet your pants over it, it is not new.

It is called Banking, fractional reserves won't be far behind.

Like when you write a check or use a Credit card, you are trading fake money , in the hopes they honor it , when you need to withdraw.

Nothing new , old scam different package.

 

FYI:
Vegas could just let your deposit your BTC into an account and they give you an offchain representation of the value to use for your gambling, and let you cash out when finished.
The Plus side to this way, if they don't honor your withdrawal , you can Sue them.

If LN screws up , which it will , who are you going to sue, to try and reclaim your money.
Cause the other person is going to claim , you never had full possession of their funds anyway, so you had no actual right to claim them.  
By using LN service as a 3rd party in the transactions, it blocks you from being able to sue the other person if they cheat you.
LN will no doubt have a disclaimer denying you the ability to sue them, so you are fucked, when LN screws up.

[franky1]

Anyone that reads the LN Whitepaper , can see stealing BTC from LN, requires nothing more than evading their time locks.
So you know , you can shove your No where the sun don't shine.

there are a few techniques
even i wouldnt risk more then $60 and definitely not with someone i didnt trust.
and even then i wouldnt be comfortable

to me its just a side service. not something that should be treated as bitcoin. just a side service.. like escrow

segwit on the other hand. now that is a think of empty gestures and a shambles of code just made to set up a tier network and delay real onchain growth to try to push people into thinking LN is the end goal...
.... right up until the point that people use LN and then realise its limitations and then transfer out to sidechains(altcoins)

[QuestionAuthority]

Ripple is not decentralized trustless, so not a 'real crypto'

That's not true. I don't think anyone on this forum ever really understood ripple. Yes, some banks are buying into the idea because it's a smart move. It's a direct point-to-point settlement system with no central operator, a fully decentralized network and provides transaction immutability and information redundancy just like bitcoin. It will work with any and between any currency worldwide (that includes all cryptos). It's a blockchain product just like all the others popping up.

You do realize Lightning Network isn't bitcoin, right?  It's a private network of participants that agree to use smart contract scripting language to settle debts. It only uses bitcoin for its final reconciliation. You can completely work with LN transactions (even spending from them) without ever involving the bitcoin blockchain. Well, that's just another blockchain based payment system product like ripple. It ain't bitcoin.

[Carlton Banks]

It only uses bitcoin for its final reconciliation. You can completely work with LN transactions (even spending from them) without ever involving the bitcoin blockchain.

No

Bitcoin is used before, during and after Lightning transactions are sent. Not just after, as you falsely state.


1 Bitcoin transaction is used to open a channel to start with

That transaction is used to check that the BTC being sent over Lightning is the real thing (how else do you stop people just faking that they have some BTC on the Lightning Network, huh?)

1 Bitcoin transaction closes the channel


Furthermore, Lightning Network isn't a blockchain at all, it uses Bitcoin's blockchain, and that's the only blockchain involved. You don't know much about it, you need to actually be informed on a subject before you can make such confident comments.

[QuestionAuthority]

It only uses bitcoin for its final reconciliation. You can completely work with LN transactions (even spending from them) without ever involving the bitcoin blockchain.

No

Bitcoin is used before, during and after Lightning transactions are sent. Not just after, as you falsely state.


1 Bitcoin transaction is used to open a channel to start with

That transaction is used to check that the BTC being sent over Lightning is the real thing (how else do you stop people just faking that they have some BTC on the Lightning Network, huh?)

1 Bitcoin transaction closes the channel


Furthermore, Lightning Network isn't a blockchain at all, it uses Bitcoin's blockchain, and that's the only blockchain involved. You don't know much about it, you need to actually be informed on a subject before you can make such confident comments.

And you need to learn how to read dumbass. I said it's a scripting language fool. Reconciliation means that it uses Bitcoin as a ledger only not for the transaction. You're so fucking stupid why do you even bother reading?

[kiklo]

It only uses bitcoin for its final reconciliation. You can completely work with LN transactions (even spending from them) without ever involving the bitcoin blockchain.

No

Bitcoin is used before, during and after Lightning transactions are sent. Not just after, as you falsely state.


1 Bitcoin transaction is used to open a channel to start with

That transaction is used to check that the BTC being sent over Lightning is the real thing (how else do you stop people just faking that they have some BTC on the Lightning Network, huh?)

1 Bitcoin transaction closes the channel


Furthermore, Lightning Network isn't a blockchain at all, it uses Bitcoin's blockchain, and that's the only blockchain involved. You don't know much about it, you need to actually be informed on a subject before you can make such confident comments.

LOL,  

Sorry CB ,
QuestionAuthority is correct,  LN can be used with any segwit infected Blockchain.
Which is why LTC and others are also voting on the segwit trojan.

LN does nothing but place a timelock on the BTC or LTC or Altcoin, so no one can move it.
Once those timelocks expire the parties may move those BTC or LTC or Altcoin to different addresses,
unless of course, the locks had expired early , or were never actually there to begin with.
Any 51% attack can fund a LN channel , and then rewrite the blockchain , so the BTC was never time locked, Ie: Counterfeiting the LN Funds  

 

FYI:
BTC & Crypto onchain transactions Ended Counterfeiting
LN/Banking Cartels Offchain Transaction brings back the ability to Counterfeit funds, and fractional reserve system to Crypto

[stdset]

And you need to learn how to read dumbass. I said it's a scripting language fool. Reconciliation means that it uses Bitcoin as a ledger only not for the transaction. You're so fucking stupid why do you even bother reading?

Just quoted this for posterity. In the case the author later decides to delete/edit this reply.

LN does nothing but place a timelock on the BTC or LTC or Altcoin, so no one can move it.
Once those timelocks expire the parties may move those BTC or LTC or Altcoin to different addresses,
unless of course, the locks had expired early , or were never actually there to begin with.
Any 51% attack can fund a LN channel , and then rewrite the blockchain , so the BTC was never time locked, Ie: Counterfeiting the LN Funds 

I'm trying to look at LN from your perspective. Care to elaborate? More about timelocks? How an attack can fund a channel?

[spartacusrex]

Anyone that reads the LN Whitepaper , can see stealing BTC from LN, requires nothing more than evading their time locks.

That is true for any 'refundable' time locked txn, like Atomic Cross Chain Transfers.

If I can stop you from claiming the coins before the time lock expires, i can refund them back to myself (after I have taken your coins aswell that is).. Just have to prevent your TXN from getting on chain.

This is much harder to do than I think you are implying.

[kiklo]

And you need to learn how to read dumbass. I said it's a scripting language fool. Reconciliation means that it uses Bitcoin as a ledger only not for the transaction. You're so fucking stupid why do you even bother reading?

Just quoted this for posterity. In the case the author later decides to delete/edit this reply.

LN does nothing but place a timelock on the BTC or LTC or Altcoin, so no one can move it.
Once those timelocks expire the parties may move those BTC or LTC or Altcoin to different addresses,
unless of course, the locks had expired early , or were never actually there to begin with.
Any 51% attack can fund a LN channel , and then rewrite the blockchain , so the BTC was never time locked, Ie: Counterfeiting the LN Funds 

I'm trying to look at LN from your perspective. Care to elaborate? More about timelocks? How an attack can fund a channel?

Elaboration

We all know that LN is a Proposed Offchain solution to BTC backlog of Unconfirmed Transactions.

(Which could easily be fixed just with a blocksize increase or a faster BlockSpeed.)

But instead BTC core devs want to shove Segwit & LN down everyone throats.

Facts
LN Notes are a Offchain Representation of the value of a BTC (with the actual BTC locked in place on the actual BTC Onchain Blockchain)
LN Devs have continuously implied that BTC will be placed on LN and very rarely if ever be returned / unlocked on the real BTC Blockchain.
Combined the Chinese Mining Pools have over 51% necessary for an attack, (~68% at last count).
(With a 51% attack they can perform a history rewrite attacks, rewriting the blockchain.)
(A few years ago at the prompting of the BTC devs, a group (with over 51%) REWROTE the Last 12 Hours of the Blockchain to fix a fork, cause by a programming error.)
(So that was 76 Blocks that were rewritten.)
(We also know the Miners can choose which transactions are included in their blocks.)

So now back to the Title of this OP, Exactly how do you Counterfeit BTC on LN.

Option 1 :
Form a group of collusion between the Miners that control 51%,
Send 50 BTC to an address. Now follow the steps on LN to Lock up that 50 BTC on the Blockchain.
Whether LN requires 1 or 3 confirmations , as soon as LN confirms the representation of LN notes match your amount.
You and your colluding friends, rewrite the blockchain and include a transaction moving that 50 BTC to another address before the lock took place.
You now still have your 50 BTC Free & Clear Onchain, and a representation value of 50 BTC Offchain on LN .(Which you can use for LN transactions forever.)

BTC Onchain Transactions ended Counterfeiting , LN Offchain Transactions will bring Counterfeiting into Crypto.   


 

LN Does Needs Segwit so that LN can be trust less.
Otherwise LN requires a separate Trust system in place or very long extensive Time Locks , Both of which LN Devs don't want.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5eqm2b/can_ln_work_without_segwit/?st=izzovrzk&sh=b2fe8b0a

Yeah you can do LN without segwit. It's less efficient, and there are some features you won't be able to do.

With segwit, you can have a 3rd party "watch" your channel for you in case your counterparty tries to broadcast an old, fraudulent transaction.
The 3rd party can automatically grab your money back for you. And the watcher doesn't even know about your transactions or your balances while watching.

That whole feature is pretty much gone without segwit.
You'd have to tell the watcher everything about your channel, and the only thing they'd be able to do is e-mail you to let you know if fraud occurred.

The other main disadvantage to segwit-less LN is that channels would have a preset duration. That's a pretty big downside.

If segwit doesn't activate after a long time, we could re-program some of the current code to work without segwit.
I think everyone's hoping we don't have to as that'd be a bit disappointing, but doable.
As I meme'd at scaling HK, there are levels of LN we are prepared to accept

In Short , without Segwit any version of LN is going to be crap.

 

[kiklo]

Anyone that reads the LN Whitepaper , can see stealing BTC from LN, requires nothing more than evading their time locks.

That is true for any 'refundable' time locked txn, like Atomic Cross Chain Transfers.

If I can stop you from claiming the coins before the time lock expires, i can refund them back to myself (after I have taken your coins aswell that is).. Just have to prevent your TXN from getting on chain.

This is much harder to do than I think you are implying.

Hard for you & me , yes it is.

But the rich guys that can collude to 51% attack or the rich guys that can spam the network until your timelocks expire, it is easy as pie.
* The only poor people able to pull it off , are the Hackers that learn to Hack the LN Nodes, and modify the timelocks ahead of schedule.*

 

[stdset]

LN Does Needs Segwit so that LN can be trust less.
Otherwise LN requires a separate Trust system in place or very long extensive Time Locks , Both of which LN Devs don't want.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5eqm2b/can_ln_work_without_segwit/?st=izzovrzk&sh=b2fe8b0a

Yeah you can do LN without segwit. It's less efficient, and there are some features you won't be able to do.

With segwit, you can have a 3rd party "watch" your channel for you in case your counterparty tries to broadcast an old, fraudulent transaction.
The 3rd party can automatically grab your money back for you. And the watcher doesn't even know about your transactions or your balances while watching.

That whole feature is pretty much gone without segwit.
You'd have to tell the watcher everything about your channel, and the only thing they'd be able to do is e-mail you to let you know if fraud occurred.

The other main disadvantage to segwit-less LN is that channels would have a preset duration. That's a pretty big downside.

If segwit doesn't activate after a long time, we could re-program some of the current code to work without segwit.
I think everyone's hoping we don't have to as that'd be a bit disappointing, but doable.
As I meme'd at scaling HK, there are levels of LN we are prepared to accept

In Short , without Segwit any version of LN is going to be crap.

OK, we are getting somewhere.
First of all, I'd like to note, that when I mention LN without explicitly stating which version, I mean segwit LN.
Secondly, with CLTV and CSV (already adopted on Bitcoin mainnet), permanent channels are possible even without malleability fix: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1711460.0 Their opening is a bit cumbersome and involves temporarily locking additional (to what is going to be put in a channel) funds, but after all, permanent channels are possible even without fixing malleability.

LN Notes are a Offchain Representation of the value of a BTC (with the actual BTC locked in place on the actual BTC Onchain Blockchain)
LN Devs have continuously implied that BTC will be placed on LN and very rarely if ever be returned / unlocked on the real BTC Blockchain.
Combined the Chinese Mining Pools have over 51% necessary for an attack, (~68% at last count).
(With a 51% attack they can perform a history rewrite attacks, rewriting the blockchain.)
(A few years ago at the prompting of the BTC devs, a group (with over 51%) REWROTE the Last 12 Hours of the Blockchain to fix a fork, cause by a programming error.)
(So that was 76 Blocks that were rewritten.)
(We also know the Miners can choose which transactions are included in their blocks.)

So now back to the Title of this OP, Exactly how do you Counterfeit BTC on LN.

Option 1 :
Form a group of collusion between the Miners that control 51%,
Send 50 BTC to an address. Now follow the steps on LN to Lock up that 50 BTC on the Blockchain.
Whether LN requires 1 or 3 confirmations , as soon as LN confirms the representation of LN notes match your amount.
You and your colluding friends, rewrite the blockchain and include a transaction moving that 50 BTC to another address before the lock took place.
You now still have your 50 BTC Free & Clear Onchain, and a representation value of 50 BTC Offchain on LN .(Which you can use for LN transactions forever.)

BTC Onchain Transactions ended Counterfeiting , LN Offchain Transactions will bring Counterfeiting into Crypto.  

LN isn't a separate blockchain. LN BTC are real, same BTC as BTC you are transacting today. Say Alice and Bob have a bidirectional channel. For outside world the channel looks like a 2 of 2 multisignature output. Both participants of the channel, as well as other interested parties, can very easily check existence of that output. If the output is gone, so is the channel with all it's funds.

[andrew24p]

Except lightning will not be working at its full capacity if segwit isnt put in place and that wont happen without a fork because BU wants to make a point rather than actually use good tech.

[kiklo]

LN isn't a separate blockchain. LN BTC are real, same BTC as BTC you are transacting today. Say Alice and Bob have a bidirectional channel. For outside world the channel looks like a 2 of 2 multisignature output. Both participants of the channel, as well as other interested parties, can very easily check existence of that output. If the output is gone, so is the channel with all it's funds.

LN's Code is nothing but a fancy series of Time Locking scripts.  

An LN Hub can place a time lock on any Segwit Infected Blockchain coins.
Meaning if BTC & LTC vote yes for segwit (doubt it) , you would be able to lock BTC or LTC in place on their respective chains.

LN is nothing but some code that lets you time lock the coins Onchain so they can not be moved.
LN Notes are like Bank Notes, completely worthless unless someone is willing to trade you something for it.
LN transfers happen Offchain , so their is no verification by the actual blockchain, that what you are trading for even exists, until you cash out.
When you cash out , then and only then do you find out if your coins were counterfeit or stolen before you tried to remove them.
Until that point you are trading Fake Notes, because they only prove to be real notes, if their is a payout of the value it is representing. 


 

[jonald_fyookball]

No one really has done a study on whether LN will be practical to do as a true P2P network  Vs. only big hubs/spoke-and-wheel/paypal2.0

[kiklo]

@joecooin, you never answered my question.

Did you record your Customers Names & Address when you accepted Zero Confirmations, in case they ever used a DoubleSpend trick on you?
(It is quite easy to doublespend on a Zero Confirmation.)

 

[stdset]

An LN Hub can place a time lock on any Segwit Infected Blockchain coins.

Even those which which are not part of the hub's channels?

LN Notes are like Bank Notes, completely worthless unless someone is willing to trade you something for it.

There are no LN notes. LN will be transacting BTC.

LN transfers happen Offchain , so their is no verification by the actual blockchain, that what you are trading for even exists, until you cash out.

Verification is very easy for channel participants. It's as easy as checking an address in a blockexplorer today.

Say Bob and Carol have a channel with current funds distribution Bob - 3BTC, Carol - 2BTC. Let's represent this as
Bob-3:2-Carol
Alice wants to pay Carol 1 BTC, but opens a channel with Bob (he plans to build a hub, charges no fee for now), she loads 1 BTC to the channel. So now our small piece of LN looks like:
Alice-1:0-Bob-3:2-Carol
There are 2 channels: Alice-Bob with 1 BTC in it and Bob-Carol with 5 BTC. Bob owns 3 BTC: 0 in his channel with Alice and 3 in his channel with Carol. Alice owns 1 BTC, Carol - 2 BTC.

Now Alice pays 1 BTC to Carol via Bob:
Alice-0:1-Bob-2:3-Carol
As expected, Bob still owns 3 BTC: 1 in his channel with Alice and 2 in his channel with Carol. Alice couldn't pay more than 1 BTC. But now she can use her channel with Bob for receiving up to 1 BTC. For the whole lifetime of a channel, this channel's BTC never leave it.
If now, due to a 51% attack, Alice-Bob channel is no more, this directly affects only Bob, he looses 1 BTC, Alice gains it and can spend again, effectively performing a doublespend, just like with good old onchain transactions. Carol isn't affected, she has all info about her channel with Bob. Bob's problems aren't her problems.

[Amph]

LN isn't a separate blockchain. LN BTC are real, same BTC as BTC you are transacting today. Say Alice and Bob have a bidirectional channel. For outside world the channel looks like a 2 of 2 multisignature output. Both participants of the channel, as well as other interested parties, can very easily check existence of that output. If the output is gone, so is the channel with all it's funds.

LN's Code is nothing but a fancy series of Time Locking scripts.  

An LN Hub can place a time lock on any Segwit Infected Blockchain coins.
Meaning if BTC & LTC vote yes for segwit (doubt it) , you would be able to lock BTC or LTC in place on their respective chains.

LN is nothing but some code that lets you time lock the coins Onchain so they can not be moved.
LN Notes are like Bank Notes, completely worthless unless someone is willing to trade you something for it.
LN transfers happen Offchain , so their is no verification by the actual blockchain, that what you are trading for even exists, until you cash out.
When you cash out , then and only then do you find out if your coins were counterfeit or stolen before you tried to remove them.
Until that point you are trading Fake Notes, because they only prove to be real notes, if their is a payout of the value it is representing. 


 

putting LN like this make it sound like sidechain isn't it? sidechin are also worthless until the proper amount of bitcoin are locked, for that particular chain and you cna use that value on that chain now

are they abandoned the initial idea of sidechain for LN? what i don't like about the LN is the centalized HUB, they want to get rid of possible centralization that major block would bring but then they want to go with LN...

[stdset]

No one really has done a study on whether LN will be practical to do as a true P2P network  Vs. only big hubs/spoke-and-wheel/paypal2.0

This is the only argument against LN. Such study would be very difficult to do, too few people would trust it. Because too many parameters are involved. If we can't reliably measure all those parameters, it's garbage in - garbage out study. People are different. Some will be OK transacting via an excessively big hub. Some won't be doing it, some will be running small low fee hubs on principle.
My opinion is that entry barrier is very low, so there will be enough hubs.