Concerns regarding SegWit + Lightning Network?

[RNC]

Assuming you aren't foolish enough to spend from anything but the most recent commitment transaction, there won't be any disputes.  Once the software is more user-friendly, chances are it won't even give you the option to mess it up.  

I don't think that the exodus wallet will offer these option let alone would anyone understand input/outputs
unless they have taken years to learn about Bitoins.

Your logic is the only single point of failure here.  There isn't one single hub that controls everything.  There will be many channels.  Lightning will never "go down", just like Bitcoin itself never will.  You'll simply take another route through different channels and probably won't even notice.

Your rudeness shows that you have lost the debate and if a user only pays to open a channel to one banking hub at a time
because these things cost money then if the banks goes down then the user is stuck. Words smith will not change this fact
and is known in technical terms as "Centralization"    

Again, not an actual issue if you understand how it works.

Maybe it is because I have taken the time to look at how it works instead of looking for candy.

There are no "banks" charging "interest" for "keeping BTC in the ledger".  Most people would struggle to fit that much wrongness into a single sentence.  If you genuinely want to gain an understanding of how fees and revocation in LN work (but I'm starting to suspect there's nothing genuine about your posts at all), there are plenty of resources available.  I strongly recommend stackexchange.  

Again I can only refer you back to the lightning white paper, specifically the part about bi-directional channels needing BTC from both
parties in the ledger or do you think that some nice man you don't know is going to tie up his money for you free of charge inside a ledger.

If you think Lightning works like a joint business venture or defrauding someone out of a controlling share in a company, I'm afraid there's not much we can do for you here.

$5bn missing in Bitcoin did seem like big news but I am sure fraud is never involved when it comes to Bitcoins because we have the block-chain
to protect us right.

Start what, exactly?  Making shit up?  That's not how you debate.

Mr Angry Bird is now trying to give out advise on how to debate but was he to read the white paper
https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
and to do a word count on the term "Fee" or "Fees" then he might notice that it is mentioned forty five times
in the document and then lets see who's "Making shit up" here.

[1715208287]

1715208287

[1715208287]

1715208287

[1715208287]

1715208287

[1715208287]

1715208287

[1715208287]

1715208287

[1715208287]

1715208287

[DooMAD]

Your rudeness shows that you have lost the debate and if a user only pays to open a channel to one banking hub at a time
because these things cost money then if the banks goes down then the user is stuck. Words smith will not change this fact
and is known in technical terms as "Centralization"

If, of your own volition, you only use one channel when multiple channels are available, it's wholly unjustified to then complain about centralisation.  It's your choice.  Use as many channels as you need.  If you only had the choice of using one hub, then yes, that would be centralised.  I would be right there with you saying what a terrible idea it is.  But there isn't one hub.  So it isn't centralised.  So it's fine.  I don't know who 'Words Smith' is, but he won't change this fact.  

Again I can only refer you back to the lightning white paper, specifically the part about bi-directional channels needing BTC from both
parties in the ledger or do you think that some nice man you don't know is going to tie up his money for you free of charge inside a ledger.

Still not the same thing as "banks charging interest", but if you want to continue to harm your own credibility by calling it that, be my guest (but I'll continue to point out you're wrong).  Plus, anyone who actually understands Lightning isn't going to believe you, so you're only doing yourself a disservice in the long run. 

Mr Angry Bird is now trying to give out advise on how to debate but was he to read the white paper
https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
and to do a word count on the term "Fee" or "Fees" then he might notice that it is mentioned forty five times
in the document and then lets see who's "Making shit up" here.

Yes, there are fees.  If the fees with LN are smaller that using a standard on-chain transaction, then use it.  If not, don't.  No one is saying you have to use Lightning 100% of the time.  Just use it when it's cost-effective for you.  But the more you use Lightning, the more advantageous it will become to you.  If you don't want to take advantage of it, by all means use something else.  If you don't like having fees at all, go use DogeCoin or some other altcoin entirely.  Everything about this is 100% optional.

But what's definitely not an option is thinking we're going to sit here and accept you taking a steaming shit all over Lightning by cherry-picking the parts of the whitepaper that sound negative based on your limited comprehension of it.  Troll harder.

[RNC]

If, of your own volition, you only use one channel when multiple channels are available, it's wholly unjustified to then complain about centralisation.  It's your choice.  Use as many channels as you need.  If you only had the choice of using one hub, then yes, that would be centralised.  I would be right there with you saying what a terrible idea it is.  But there isn't one hub.  So it isn't centralised.  So it's fine.  I don't know who 'Words Smith' is, but he won't change this fact.  

Well when i first started looking at Lightning the cost of on-block transactions was $40 and more so yes I would assume people would only want to open
one channel and you are making assumptions if you think they won't rise that high again and a words smith FYI is someone that plays with words.

Still not the same thing as "banks charging interest", but if you want to continue to harm your own credibility by calling it that, be my guest (but I'll continue to point out you're wrong).  Plus, anyone who actually understands Lightning isn't going to believe you, so you're only doing yourself a disservice in the long run. 

Charges on BTC needed from the counter party to finance a bi-directional channel is interest on the money and as for understanding Lightning I gave you
the link to the white paper so argue with that and see who's losing credibility here.

Yes, there are fees.

YES YES YES Both unfixed Tx fees and interest or noddy fees if you want to call it that instead of interest and if those that host the block-chain
can push fees up to $55 by acting as a cartel then what do you think they are going to do here. Yes miners host these banking hubs and here is a map
lnmainnet.gaben.win

Alice now has 2,000 friends and $200,000 to finance all of the channels needed for each of her friends and poor old Bob has to pay a banking hub
(guessing) $10 a month even if he no longer wants a cup of coffee from Alice anymore.

If the fees with LN are smaller that using a standard on-chain transaction, then use it.  If not, don't.  

Not an option for us to pay $1.00 for a coffee and $0.10 in fees on-block because it won't scale and I am not about to pay
some miner/banker $10 per month to keep my channel open in case I buy 50 cups a month but only purchased one and I didn't
change the game from a year ago where pay-as-you-go was possible.

We have been feed problem-reaction-solution and I am not buying it with no blank guarantee like we had before when fees
hit $55 just to send $10 and see the block-chain itself becoming more like a central bank leaving the mini-banks to do what they
please by tweaking the so called "Smart Contracts" that allows them to up the fees just like we see now with near zero base rates
from central banks but borrowing money cost you or me 10% plus and it's our own money in the first place to make maters worse.

But what's definitely not an option is thinking we're going to sit here and accept you taking a steaming shit all over Lightning by cherry-picking the parts of the whitepaper that sound negative based on your limited comprehension of it.  Troll harder.

Mr Angry Bird I give you logic and reason along with facts but it seems you have "steaming shit all over" your ears
and need to clean them out because your gutter talk only shows that you have lost the debate and have no answers.

[DooMAD]

If, of your own volition, you only use one channel when multiple channels are available, it's wholly unjustified to then complain about centralisation.  It's your choice.  Use as many channels as you need.  If you only had the choice of using one hub, then yes, that would be centralised.  I would be right there with you saying what a terrible idea it is.  But there isn't one hub.  So it isn't centralised.  So it's fine.  I don't know who 'Words Smith' is, but he won't change this fact.  

Well when i first started looking at Lightning the cost of on-block transactions was $40 and more so yes I would assume people would only want to open
one channel and you are making assumptions if you think they won't rise that high again

Let's assume the fee is $40.  Which option is cheaper?

• Option 1:  Sending 4 standard Bitcoin transactions to the same person over the course of a few weeks and spending $40 in fees each time
• Option 2:  Paying $40 to open a channel, sending 4 transactions for free because it's a direct channel, then paying a second $40 to close the channel
• Option 3:  Because you've used Lightning regularly and already paid to have a channel open with someone else for a completely different transaction, but they also happen to have a channel open with the person you need to pay, you don't have to pay $40 at all, and just pay a few satoshi for each hop along the way for each of the 4 transactions you need to send.

Hmm... Is it possible that both of the options involving LN are cheaper?  But by all means, continue to be completely obstinate, don't learn anything, use Option 1 and keep telling us that Lightning is a bad idea.

[Kenneth.Wise]

I think it's really important for bitcoin to scale in a secure way. This is very important. However the ultimate survival of the coin would be my primary concern and with the fees we saw over Christmas bitcoin needs some improvement otherwise the incoming masses will look at bitcoin like some old artifact. The lightning network does have some centralisation issues but compared to everything else out there it's stillbhead and shoulders above

[pebwindkraft]

... But by all means, continue to be completely obstinate, don't learn anything, use Option 1 and keep telling us that Lightning is a bad idea.

Yes, but tomorrow all people on the planet will open a network channel at the same time, the fees will go through the roof, up to 10000 US dollars, making only the banksters rich, and the centralized servers cannot manage the volume, because the banking hubs have a connection problem with the blockchain, and this can change the values of the FIAT world, and, and, and... people like to throw shells to predict the future, with any type of assumptions in their limited understanding.

@DooMAD: This whole gibberish is exactly the tone and voice of Anti-Cen and dinofelis. Even the low level newbies here in the forum can make a text comparison on the posts, and understand that there is the same incentive, just under different names.

Don‘t loose your time :-)

[RNC]

Let's assume the fee is $40.  Which option is cheaper?

Let's not assume and lets consider that we have other options and don't need to be held to ransom by the miners come bankers
and make a purely logical financial decision based on facts.   

Go on, you can go first ?

[RNC]

@DooMAD: This whole gibberish is exactly the tone and voice of Anti-Cen and dinofelis. Even the low level newbies here in the forum can make a text comparison on the posts, and understand that there is the same incentive, just under different names.

You are right, 100% right and indeed I am anti-cen which is short for anti censorship but here i met a nazi in the form of a moderator
who dare not allow open debate which I have reported and advise him to return back to 1930's Germany so that he can burn a few more books.

Yes please laugh by exposing a banned account but really the joke is on you if you need the service of a bias PR officer to protect you from a
few home truths around here.

The "newbies" here would be the ones your trying to convert into harden gambling addicts with the loaded propaganda that is being pumped out
here and this is why you fear me and ban number two is coming up so credit for spotting the obvious but i did not try to hide it anyway but your not that
smart because no one writes like me and you now need to apologize to dinofelis because your witch hunt lead you to an innocent man.

Would you like me to PM you a list of the bottom sniffers I have compiled here, paid thugs they send in since we are exchanging names not that your on the list and
I don't even hold it against you for exposing my real name that I would like back anyway.

Holly shit batman, RNC is Anti-Cen in disguise so I wonder why he's is having to do that Batman



 

[DooMAD]

Holly shit batman, RNC is Anti-Cen in disguise so I wonder why he's is having to do that Batman

It's beyond precious that you think anyone cares who you are.  More humorous still is that you think you're helping make the forum a better place with your inane flawed reasoning and paranoia.  Where the mods see mindless drivel and FUD, they remove it.  If you don't want your posts (and accounts) to be removed, try not to meet that criteria every time you hit "post".  

[desmodiAN]

>>Segwit destruction will snowball.  One miner will figure out it is more profitable to skip verifying signatures.  Then two and three figure it out.

you forgot the risk, that a mined block is invalid. because nodes will check signatures and might not accept the mined block as a proper block.
even if a miner finds a block, but accidentally a non verified sig is inside, this block will not be the main chain.

the already low chance of finding a block will be accompanied by the risk of having found an invalid block.


Remember:
The sender shows the pubkey when spending from whatever address the bitcoins are in. As part of the verification, the receiver (actually, every node in the network), can verify that the pubkey hashes to the address given and then and only then verifies the signature
 

[RNC]

It's beyond precious that you think anyone cares who you are.  More humorous srill is that you think you're helping make the forum a better place with your inane flawed reasoning and paranoia.  Where the mods see mindless drivel and FUD, they remove it.  If you don't want your posts (and accounts) to be removed, try not to meet that criteria every time you hit "post". 

As the record shows you cannot debate me or others about the Lightning Network because we have our
facts right and you are left with talking FUD and name calling

"Where the mods see mindless drivel and FUD, they remove it"

Yes I know, truth has become treason around here in many cases and members defending the faith (Lots of fake merits)
are allowed to be rude around here because we get banned even if we don't dish it back to them but as a developer I have
every right to be here so maybe you need to check you own criteria when you hit post.

[RNC]

you forgot the risk, that a mined block is invalid. because nodes will check signatures and might not accept the mined block as a proper block.
even if a miner finds a block, but accidentally a non verified sig is inside, this block will not be the main chain.

You make a good point and hopefully the development team coded around this issue but all open source code can be
changed and I am guilty of using a very short, quick and fast bit of encryption code that would be hard to crack was
it not for the code being open-source.

Segwit seem like a good fix to buy some time for me if only they didn't break existing wallet code or if they did then
converting to a 03 address should had been free from miner fees.

[DooMAD]

As the record shows you cannot debate me or others about the Lightning Network because we have our facts right and you are left with talking FUD and name calling

If you're so good at presenting a factual and coherent argument, you wouldn't have deliberately evaded that question about Options 1, 2 and 3 when I asked.  So here's the challenge:

Whatever the standard fee happens to be at the time, if you are capable of explaining why paying for 4 standard Bitcoin transactions, SegWit or otherwise, to the same person (Option 1) is cheaper than opening a Lightning channel and only paying two of those standard fees (Option 2), I will stop calling you names, whatever alias you happen to be using to avoid your latest ban.

I'll even make it easy for you and let you forget all about "Option 3" (even though it's clearly devastating to your dismal attempt at an argument).  However, if you can't answer that question without lying or twisting the facts (and you'll struggle, because paying 4 fees is clearly going to cost more than paying just 2 fees), you have to concede that you're just trolling and that Lightning is perfectly capable of saving users money.  I eagerly await your response.

but as a developer I have every right to be here

I literally can't wait to see what you're working on if you honestly believe you can do better than the three separate teams of developers working on Lightning.  Please enlighten us with your infinite wisdom and knowledge how you're going to create something better.  How are you going to help with the scaling issue?  

[RNC]

If you're so good at presenting a factual and coherent argument, you wouldn't have deliberately evaded that question about Options 1, 2 and 3 when I asked.  So here's the challenge:

The argument that using LN is cheaper than on-block transactions that you present is fictional even if it does
save me money and the point I was making is that I am free to use another alternative means of payment to make
much bigger saving.

I won't pay main street banks $20 per month to keep an account open when I am in credit and I am not about to
start now by paying LN hub bankers a penny for a second rate service that is "off-Block"

No dispute about it, (coherent argument) that the development team are in bed with the miners or else tx fees
would never had got as high as they did so forget the theory about market forces and competition keeping a lid
on fees being charged by banking hubs because the president has already been set.

The LN hubs are a patch up for a badly designed system but if it was a free service then I would say it was quite
a good short term solution for something that should had been fixed eight years ago but as it is we are being feed
problem-reaction-solution and you don't have a clue how high these LN fees will be in a years time so why are you
trying to defend the indefensible.

[nullius]

Ban evasion is a permanban offense.  I am now gathering evidence for a new thread I will start have started in Meta.  For the sake of sanity, I ask everybody to stop replying to “RNC”.  I also ask the moderator to not delete anything until I get all the evidence.  Thank you.

@DooMAD: This whole gibberish is exactly the tone and voice of Anti-Cen and dinofelis. Even the low level newbies here in the forum can make a text comparison on the posts, and understand that there is the same incentive, just under different names.

Nailed it, pebwindkraft.  Big merit will be coming your way.  I noticed the same thing, long ago.  I don’t always immediately speak out on what I see; I await the right moment; and it seems you hit exactly the right moment!  Thank you.

@DooMAD: This whole gibberish is exactly the tone and voice of Anti-Cen and dinofelis. Even the low level newbies here in the forum can make a text comparison on the posts, and understand that there is the same incentive, just under different names.

You are right, 100% right and indeed I am anti-cen which is short for anti censorship but here i met a nazi in the form of a moderator
who dare not allow open debate which I have reported and advise him to return back to 1930's Germany so that he can burn a few more books.

Yes please laugh by exposing a banned account but really the joke is on you if you need the service of a bias PR officer to protect you from a
few home truths around here.

The "newbies" here would be the ones your trying to convert into harden gambling addicts with the loaded propaganda that is being pumped out
here and this is why you fear me and ban number two is coming up so credit for spotting the obvious but i did not try to hide it anyway but your not that
smart because no one writes like me and you now need to apologize to dinofelis because your witch hunt lead you to an innocent man.

Would you like me to PM you a list of the bottom sniffers I have compiled here, paid thugs they send in since we are exchanging names not that your on the list and
I don't even hold it against you for exposing my real name that I would like back anyway.

Holly shit batman, RNC is Anti-Cen in disguise so I wonder why he's is having to do that Batman

Archived:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180302172447/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2617240.msg31377296#msg31377296

[Anti-Cen]

I noticed the same thing, long ago.  I don’t always immediately speak out on what I see; I await the right moment; and it seems you hit exactly the right moment!  Thank you.

No I don't think you did and as you can see I am back to my old self now and will see you in your next thread where you
keep deleting posts that don't agree with you in an effort to make yourself seem smart.

Not being one of "the boys" here I don't have many merits to give away but I too will send pebwindkraft a merit

Ban evasion is a permanban offense.  I am now gathering evidence for a new thread I will start have started in Meta.  For the sake of sanity, I ask everybody to stop replying to “RNC”.  I also ask the moderator to not delete anything until I get all the evidence.  Thank you.

Shut up drama queen, send the link and I will join in too   and stop begging for donations in your footer because I am sure that
is also against the terms and conditions here too.

[cellard]

Im ok with people questioning segwit and lightning, hell even Peter Todd recently pointed out at how LN is weak at the moment. Any ideas in how to kill bitcoin are welcome since that is how it gets stronger.

What I at this point consider straight trolling and even terrorism against bitcoin is the anti-full node agenda. Namely, these that think only corporations should run full nodes. After having debated this for years I just don't see any rational argument for defending this nonsense.

[Anti-Cen]

What I at this point consider straight trolling and even terrorism against bitcoin is the anti-full node agenda. Namely, these that think only corporations should run full nodes. After having debated this for years I just don't see any rational argument for defending this nonsense.

100% with you on keeping the corporations out but "full nodes" won't scale as Bitcoin has been implemented and they need to
move towards DNA to spread the load across the nodes instead of having to patch it up with 'off-block' lightning and I am not
phased by introducing specialist cluster type nodes to Bitcoin.

 

[bob123]

>>Segwit destruction will snowball.  One miner will figure out it is more profitable to skip verifying signatures.  Then two and three figure it out.

the already low chance of finding a block will be accompanied by the risk of having found an invalid block.

You do realize that 'finding blocks' isn't like flipping stones to find something below it?
You describe it as you were searching for those blocks in the woods and sometimes find a broken one.

If a miner publishes an invalid block, it won't get accepted. The next valid block will be added to the chain (and is going to be used for the work of the next block).

I suggest you lookup what a block [1] and a transaction [2] is. You might also read the bitcoin whitepaper [3].


[1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block
[2] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transactions
[3] https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

[pebwindkraft]

Wherefore ideas such as Malice Reactive Proof of Work Additions (MR POWA) (blogged, reblogged, discussed on this forum—theymos immediately pointed out one obvious problem).  
...

We have sidechains/drivechains/Alpha Elements, where new concepts can be tested. I wouldn't expect something being "the right thing" from the very beginning, but the more development we have, the better it secures bitcoin future. And everything which looks at things that are more than low-level increase of blocksize or amount of coins should benefit future work.
There are many people worried about miner centralization(three countries: Canada, Island and China...), unhappy situation with ASIC miners and BCH support, and possibly growing size of blockchain... And then we learned, hard forkes are probably a "no-go". Further development is necessary.
So if UASF inspired hardforks are a no-go for MR POWA (wow, what a combination of buzz words!) is not visible, we should encourage ongoing research from many areas, and not only Altcoins, also sidechains can be used.

I want to see commodity SHA-256 ASICs sold cheaper than GPUs, and as readily available.  I think that’s probably the best solution, long-term. Too bad I am not a hardware guy.

Yes, in principle I agree. Economies of scale in the manufacturing environments have shown centralization. So even if we find new ASICs with independency from the evil ASIC provider of today, I would guess, that after finding a new cheap SHA256 ASIC cheaper as GPUs, we'd do the race again and find centralization of manufacturer of these new devices, and maybe they implement then a hidden function to flood the blockchain with invalid blocks, bringing new attack vectors to light... Decentralization (to keep independency) is a very, very hard topic. Economically and especially at sociological level...