Lightening Network is a Trap.

[Mazt rhiezt]

If LN gets you in trouble leave it and just play it safe with altcoin.
Maybe someday the government will take a step but not that heavy.
There are many roads out there so you can take and strengthen your stance.

[1715662574]

1715662574

[1715662574]

1715662574

[1715662574]

1715662574

[1715662574]

1715662574

[d5000]

Segwit will mess everything up because the ability to do a 51% attack will be able to reverse all previous transactions. As it stands now if someone did a 51% attack they would only be able to only reverse 2 or 3 or 4 of the last blocks.

Segwit will make it so everything ever done can be reversed and mess it all up. Don't do it.

You are referring to Craig Wright's recent article, right?

I don't think this is a very likely scenario. A reversal of old Segwit transactions (reverting to the old protocol) would have destructive consequences for the Bitcoin ecosystem. The Bitcoin price would plummet instantly to near-zero and so would the stolen Bitcoins (and the mining rewards, too). It would be equivalent to a miner cartel trying to increase the block reward. After both events, only a hard fork could "save" Bitcoin - and most likely, this hard fork would not only reverse the "reversed transactions", but also include a PoW change - and the miners shot themselves in their leg because they never would be able again to make profits from Bitcoin mining.

Remember: It's only game theory that forces miners to play fair - they could do nearly everything with the blockchain if they colluded, but as they need mining profits, they won't do that.

[jonald_fyookball]

Segwit will mess everything up because the ability to do a 51% attack will be able to reverse all previous transactions. As it stands now if someone did a 51% attack they would only be able to only reverse 2 or 3 or 4 of the last blocks.

Segwit will make it so everything ever done can be reversed and mess it all up. Don't do it.

You are referring to Craig Wright's recent article, right?

I don't think this is a very likely scenario. A reversal of old Segwit transactions (reverting to the old protocol) would have destructive consequences for the Bitcoin ecosystem. The Bitcoin price would plummet instantly to near-zero and so would the stolen Bitcoins (and the mining rewards, too). It would be equivalent to a miner cartel trying to increase the block reward. After both events, only a hard fork could "save" Bitcoin - and most likely, this hard fork would not only reverse the "reversed transactions", but also include a PoW change - and the miners shot themselves in their leg because they never would be able again to make profits from Bitcoin mining.

Remember: It's only game theory that forces miners to play fair - they could do nearly everything with the blockchain if they colluded, but as they need mining profits, they won't do that.

They would steal coins and sell them even at a 90% discount on the way out.  Well worth it as the honeypot gets huge. 

Segwit is a bad idea for this and other reasons.

[krishnapramod]

Lightening Network is a Trap?


Just finished reading about Lightening Network on the Internet, to be frank, am not comfortable with what I just saw.
Am beginning to think that Lightening Network is a Government tool or idea to have total control of all Bitcoin.


My questions:
1. Seems like only Signed Contract will be passing through Lightening Network and not the Bitcoin itself, right?

2. Will government be able to cease people's Bitcoin after implementation of lightening Network if they wish to?

3. Is Lightning Network implementation mandatory or just optional?


Here are what am sure will happen if Lightening Network is mandatory:  

* Government will be able to Monitor all Bitcoin transaction.

* Every single Bitcoin company will be forced to obtain license before using the Network

* Finally,  Government can able to stop all Bitcoin transaction any time & as long as they want.

1. A bitcoin transaction is a signed message, ownership of value is transferred. In the case of on chain transaction, the signed message is broadcasted publicly and it is picked by nodes and validated. In the case of LN, a transaction or a signed message is processed off-chain through hubs using multi-sig, so kind of a double-signed message. Once this transaction is broadcasted to the network it is as valid as an on-chain transaction.

2. I do not get the logic behind this. Almost all major exchanges or wallets are centralized. Take for example, Coinbase, one of the most popular and it is heavily regulated by the government, but still they have a huge user base because people are comfortable using it. There is no complete centralization, more precisely bitcoin users do have a choice, to choose between market-based centralization and decentralization. If someone don't want to use Coinbase, they don't have to, they have options, same thing with LN. Merchants or users who prefer low fee, instant, micro transactions would use it even if LN turns out to be operating on the same level as Coinbase.

3. LN is neither a soft nor hard fork, an additional layer so it is optional.

4. This again seems a bit absurd, the government still can monitor your transactions if they want to.

5. LN is open source, anyone can run a node. I do not know what it specifically has to do with obtaining license.

6. For security, LN is completely dependent on the bitcoin network, it does not have its own Blockchain so basically you are in full control of your funds while using payment channels, even in the event of hack or a hub going offline, your funds are still in Blockchain.

As far as centralization is concerned, there is a possible scenario that big bitcoin businesses, mostly exchanges, like Coinbase would be having a large network of hubs. Is it true centralization? No way, like right now, some people use Coinbase, other Kraken, Poloniex, this centralization already exists. LN is open source so as new businesses start offering bitcoin services this so called centralization would become non-existent.

LN would not make bitcoin more centralized than the current mining scenario.

[DoublerHunter]

Lightening Network is a Trap?


Just finished reading about Lightening Network on the Internet, to be frank, am not comfortable with what I just saw.
Am beginning to think that Lightening Network is a Government tool or idea to have total control of all Bitcoin.


My questions:
1. Seems like only Signed Contract will be passing through Lightening Network and not the Bitcoin itself, right?

2. Will government be able to cease people's Bitcoin after implementation of lightening Network if they wish to?

3. Is Lightning Network implementation mandatory or just optional?


Here are what am sure will happen if Lightening Network is mandatory:   

* Government will be able to Monitor all Bitcoin transaction.

* Every single Bitcoin company will be forced to obtain license before using the Network

* Finally,  Government can able to stop all Bitcoin transaction any time & as long as they want.

Based on your statements, it seems that lightening network is a just a strap but i think even though the government is having that tool, it is still alright for me because if the government can do those things they can easily track down the illegal person who are using bitcoin in their illegal activities and they can stop illegal transactions which is still fine for me.

[The One]

You are funny.

Just that the node consensus will then be in the hands of the majority, AKA Bitmain, because they will be the only ones left mining...and they have the resources for gigabyte blocks.

 

you are even funnier
it doesnt matter if a block was solved with 50,000,000,000 hash attempts or just 50 hash attempts.. the mining side is useless without the symbiotic relationship of the usernodes.

if the entire network rejects a block because its bigger than the nodes like. then that block is rejected.

evenBU learned that lesson in about 3 seconds after trying it by accident.

yep they made a block bigger than what the nodes prefered so within 3 seconds of seeing the block.. it was gone... drama over.
no argument of hash, no argument ovr brand. just simply, it didnt fit the general rules of consensus, so wasnt accepted.

it appears people simply do not understand consensus but will stupidly follow the reddit scripted fud

You are fake news. How much are you getting paid?

Is that the best response you got? How about you doing your due diligence of all proposals and think for yourself.

[gentlemand]

Well, I can't ever see myself finding a use for it in the form it's currently being presented to me. Transactions are limited to 0.042 and a player like me never spends that little.

I'm dead keen to see what it does look like when it arrives. As ever all of the predictions here are worthless bilge not deserving of the slightest attention. Let it roll out and then judge it.

[d5000]

They would steal coins and sell them even at a 90% discount on the way out.  Well worth it as the honeypot gets huge. 

Segwit is a bad idea for this and other reasons.

I still fail to see a significant difference between this scenario and a scenario where the miners simply collude to increase their block reward - and in this case, the honeypot is potentially "infinitely" high.

In both cases, people would notice the malicious changes in minutes - and economic actors like exchanges would instantly take measures, e.g. blacklisting the colluding miners and not accepting their blocks nor their coins, so they would have to sell their stolen coins on shady darknet marketplaces. The scenario could play out like in the TheDAO fiasco - with a likely PoW-changing hardfork that would throw the miners out of the game and they would lose a lot of income.

[franky1]

You are funny.
Just that the node consensus will then be in the hands of the majority, AKA Bitmain, because they will be the only ones left mining...and they have the resources for gigabyte blocks.

you are even funnier
it doesnt matter if a block was solved with 50,000,000,000 hash attempts or just 50 hash attempts.. the mining side is useless without the symbiotic relationship of the usernodes.
if the entire network rejects a block because its bigger than the nodes like. then that block is rejected.
evenBU learned that lesson in about 3 seconds after trying it by accident.
yep they made a block bigger than what the nodes prefered so within 3 seconds of seeing the block.. it was gone... drama over.
no argument of hash, no argument ovr brand. just simply, it didnt fit the general rules of consensus, so wasnt accepted.
it appears people simply do not understand consensus but will stupidly follow the reddit scripted fud

You are fake news. How much are you getting paid?

dont use reddit.
instead, google it

000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5

2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)

gone in 3 seconds

as for the topic, for the other people that want to learn

LN is a side service, like coinbase/xapo where you have to hand funds into an address that is no longer 100% in your control
(research multisig / smart contracts)

then put some logic/psychology into some scenario's.
EG if your no longer using the blockchain many MANY wont care about protecting the blockchain because they will prefer to just run an LN SPV node for their daily use.

EG those using coinbase/xapo as their daily use wallet.. do they bother using a full node aswell(answer: majority no).. i guarantee you the numbers of using side services as the daily wallet and running a full node is not high

LN is not the end solution to scaling nor is it the side service that can be trusted with your entire hoard.
just think of it as a daily spend side service which you only trust with just a small pocket money amount and you will / should be ok

[jonald_fyookball]

They would steal coins and sell them even at a 90% discount on the way out.  Well worth it as the honeypot gets huge. 

Segwit is a bad idea for this and other reasons.

I still fail to see a significant difference between this scenario and a scenario where the miners simply collude to increase their block reward - and in this case, the honeypot is potentially "infinitely" high.

In both cases, people would notice the malicious changes in minutes - and economic actors like exchanges would instantly take measures, e.g. blacklisting the colluding miners and not accepting their blocks nor their coins, so they would have to sell their stolen coins on shady darknet marketplaces. The scenario could play out like in the TheDAO fiasco - with a likely PoW-changing hardfork that would throw the miners out of the game and they would lose a lot of income.

You could be right --i'd have to think about that one more.  Theoretically, anyone can fork at anytime with any rules they want.  I plan to read Dr Craig's article more thoroughly and understand the game theory a bit more.

[jonald_fyookball]

you should take a look at Peter R's talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8gWv5lqG9A&feature=youtu.be&t=1500

Pretty interesting stuff.

Most interesting is at the end how he's saying if miner steal segwit coins, you wouldn't even be able to prove; conveniently the signatures would be missing.

[franky1]

you should take a look at Peter R's talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8gWv5lqG9A&feature=youtu.be&t=1500

Pretty interesting stuff.

Most interesting is at the end how he's saying if miner steal segwit coins, you wouldn't even be able to prove; conveniently the signatures would be missing.

look into schnorr too
it hides how many people are involved in a multisig and hides which signers signed. thus you may find what you thought was a 2-of-2 ends up being a 2-of-3 where the counter party has 2 keys and you only have 1

[RedditMaster]

Sorry, but all I can think about when reading this title is the Star Wars meme... "It's a trap!" xD hehehe

[hv_]

you should take a look at Peter R's talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8gWv5lqG9A&feature=youtu.be&t=1500

Pretty interesting stuff.

Most interesting is at the end how he's saying if miner steal segwit coins, you wouldn't even be able to prove; conveniently the signatures would be missing.

Sh..t. If SW runs I would miss much more...