Lightning Network is a banker scam part one

[Anti-Cen]

In the promotional video shown below Bob wants to buy Coffee from a Coffee shop at $1.50 a day for the next month
(As if that's going to happen very often) so a channel is created between Bob and the Coffee shop and Bob
deposits (Locks coins in BTC Block chain) $40 in BTC into a multi signature account (Private off block ledger) that they both now share.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrr_zPmEiME

Bob buys twenty cups of Coffee during the month and they both agree that Bob now owes the shop $30 so at the end
of the month the channel get closed and $30 is sent from Bob's BTC account to the Coffee shop but then Bob gets hit
with the miners transaction fee of $30 so each cup of Coffee has now cost Bob $3.00 a cup instead of $1.50



Being a modern day Bitcoin Lover Bob would also need to open Channels with his local grocery shop, food bar, Newspaper store
and at today's costs of $30 in transaction fees his expenses has gone up by $120.00 for the month.

if the bitcoin prices goes down during the month then all over sudden Bob the builder does not have enough finances in the
off block private ledger to cover the bills so by the end of the month he is having to go without his morning Coffee.

Now the propaganda really starts to pile on in the video because Bob has a friend called Alice who lives in the same street
and she also like to drink Coffee from the same Coffee shop as Bob and as miraculous as it sounds she purchased Bob's old TV
for $70 but because both Bob and Alice know each other she over pays Bob $30 for the TV so the channel between the two was kept open
for the whole month.

Alice ---------------------------- > Bob -------------------------> Coffee shop
Deposit              $100                                    $50



This will now allow Alice to purchase Coffee from the shop but she likes breakfast at the same time so once again Bob
is out of luck long before the end of the month and now the BTC miners have managed to earn themselves $60 in fees
instead of the two just using regular cash and was Alice not to over deposit money in the Bob channel then this arrangement
becomes null and void.

Clearly the "Lightning Network" (LN) designers want this to look like a peoples bank (Bank of China is more like it) but for
obvious reasons it is not practical to use LN in the way they are suggesting it and they must think that the world of full of Bob the builders and Wendy's
so in the next part of the article we will cover Hubs and how they are really banks that will be charging fees on top of the crazy BTC miner transaction fees

Also read the link below from Coindesk if not totally convinced by now.
https://www.coindesk.com/lightning-network-may-not-solve-bitcoins-scaling-trilemma/

[Cyndre]

I am not sure this is how it works 100%, but I think you have some of it right.  I felt the same way you did so I came up with http://cpay.today screenshots on facebook -> https://www.facebook.com/cpaytoday/   All support is appreciated.

My main goal is for instant free sending of crypto currencies.

[Anti-Cen]

In this story it doesn’t sound like the transaction fees ended up any lower than they are now. I sure hope the lightning network wont be as useless as stories like this imply.

The Alice and Bob story with the Coffee shop is the fob off story the lightning team are using here and clearly
it won't work in reality for the reasons that I have listed and documented but in part two I will
cover the real deal of how it will work once people see the hubs for what they are, Banks and then
yes it could save you money but only if you open a bank account.............. err...... sorry........channel
and deposit you own coins by having locks placed on you BTC coins at the central banks .... err...... I mean
Bitcoin block-chain

Forget any talk about Bitcoin then being able to process 596 or a billion transactions per second even if we
ignore the hubs being banks and fees grandly increasing (Miner will run the banks) because the best this
"Lightning Network" will achieve in terms of performance increase is something like a factor of ten unless we
all significantly change our behavior and start acting like Bob the Builder because inter bank, sorry Hub settlement
will also add extra transactions to the Bitcoin main block-chain that can only process seven transactions per second.

oh yes anyone can close a channel (well for now anyway  ) so if your in credit with a banking hub and you force the bank to send you $1 that
is owed back to you so they get hit with the main block-chain $30 transaction fee then they are not going to be very happy so do read
the terms and conditions before signing any contract with bankers and watch out for credit agency checks.

So far I have assumed that locking coins on the main block-chain is free but the poor old miners not
getting $30 per transaction might well have other plans about that little free service

[CryptoRyuzaki]

Interesting take on the Lightning Network. Based on what I have read, there seems to be a decrease in fee, but not in a big magnitude (it seems the fee reduction to be in the range of 10% to 50%).

Waiting for the 2nd part

[Anti-Cen]

Interesting take on the Lightning Network. Based on what I have read, there seems to be a decrease in fee, but not in a big magnitude (it seems the fee reduction to be in the range of 10% to 50%).

Waiting for the 2nd part

Well i am hearing that Segwit wallets are only saving people 20% and not 50% and we should demand a reduction
in running cost since it's a second class service being "Off-Block" so they are back peddling really and other systems
that do scale can keep all transactions on-block.

Fees should be below $1.00 per transaction and that's high, never mind signing up with a bank who will themselves
be charged the BTC $30 mining fees if you close the channel and they have a credit on the balance sheet for your
account. No way on this earth will this work like they are making out unless you think some unknown middleman
is happy to incur a $30 cost just to ensure that you get your money. 

[CryptoRyuzaki]

Transaction fee is one major thing which is preventing bit coin to be used more commonly and widely. The current transaction fees are very high (For eg: For doing a transaction of 0.002000 BTC, the transaction fee is 0.000500 (1/4th of the amount being sent). I wanted to learn the ropes of cryptotrading and started with a small amount of ~40 USD. But due to the high transaction fee, it is just laying idle without being transferred to a cryptocurrency exchange like Binance!

[Anti-Cen]

Transaction fee is one major thing which is preventing bit coin to be used more commonly and widely. The current transaction fees are very high (For eg: For doing a transaction of 0.002000 BTC, the transaction fee is 0.000500 (1/4th of the amount being sent). I wanted to learn the ropes of cryptotrading and started with a small amount of ~40 USD. But due to the high transaction fee, it is just laying idle without being transferred to a cryptocurrency exchange like Binance!

Was i to be you and looking for an adventure and wanting an education at the same time then I would
watch trades on Binance until you think you know the ropes of when to buy and sell and then have a
flutter and see if you can edge your way up a well oiled pole

it could provide fun for hours but if over a week you can turn $10 into $100 doing say 50 trades
buying and then selling then you know you have what it takes otherwise you know that it was not for you.

please come back and let me know if you get the $100 because I am looking for a trader like that
myself that i can team up with and then I won't call you a slot-machine player anymore 

[sjefdeklerk]

I'm confused, who pays the miner fee for opening/closing the channel? Isn't this split according to the funding ratio?

Regardless, even if they'd split the fees, it's quite expensive.

[jargal]

Interesting viewpoint...

[nc50lc]

When I realized how Lightning Hubs works, I thought of the same thing too.

If they all want Bitcoin to be used in purchasing coffees, use/integrate/partner with a 3rd-party wallet that was designed for micro transactions.
Designed to send and receive (without using the blockchain) funds within their system.
It is meant for small payments so, you only need to send some funds to that wallet to be used for buying coffee or something else.
Find a coffee shot that accepts "that" payment method and Voala! no transaction fee micro-transaction.

Bitcoin needs improvements in the system not in this type of usability options.
To minimize conflicts, keep Bitcoin as it is while improving the transactions and let the world develop services above it.

Like today's web programming, binaries are in the bottom and CSS/HTML as the front-end.
Let bitcoin become the foundation (the binaries) of future services.

[Kakmakr]

What you are not adding in your "story" is the following. When the Lightning Network is implemented, most of the micro transactions clogging the network at the moment, goes off-chain and this leads to a reduction in the miners fees. <You cannot convenietntly use $30 miners fees, which is currently happening with a congested network, to make your point stronger>

Even with the LN the Mempool will become congested again in the future. <because adoption increase> and then the Block sizes can be increased to manage that. <As Satoshi suggested>

Everyone seem to think, the Block size with the LN, should be fixed, but it is not the case.  

[Anti-Cen]

What you are not adding in your "story" is the following. When the Lightning Network is implemented, most of the micro transactions clogging the network at the moment, goes off-chain and this leads to a reduction in the miners fees. <You cannot convenietntly use $30 miners fees, which is currently happening with a congested network, to make your point stronger>

Fees of $30 is not far of the current price and no one with a brain cell is doing micro-transactions using Bitcoin just now
unless you consider $100 as being micro payments instead of a few cents so I cannot agree with you here.

Even with the LN the Mempool will become congested again in the future. <because adoption increase> and then the Block sizes can be increased to manage that. <As Satoshi suggested>

Everyone seem to think, the Block size with the LN, should be fixed, but it is not the case.  

Playing with block size and timings like ETH has done can improve the network and in theory Segwit should had
helped but in practice fees continued to increase since its introduction so we must all be using the currency wrong.

What the developers are doing here is saying the car engine is broken, you need a new one that runs on "Banks"
instead of "gas" but really the old engine just needs fixing and they need to apply distributed processing to the
block-chain itself and brake it down into manageable sized chunks.

Block headers are quite small and are connect like a linked list to each other but instead of containing the block
itself it could just become a pointer to a collection of nodes that process the block data or we could have block ranges
in the header like is used in Whois

This approach for sure would turbo boost the network way above IOTA speeds but would still be kicking the can down the road
because the headers would become too big in time if we all start sending $0.01 to view VIP web-pages but all
spending over say $0.99 should be on the public BC or we may as well not have one in the first place and if other
networks can present a public view of a large block-chain then so can we without using banks

Here is the white-paper https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
needs chucking in the bin if you ask me and I am far from being alone in saying this






 

[Anti-Cen]

When I realized how Lightning Hubs works, I thought of the same thing too.

If they all want Bitcoin to be used in purchasing coffees, use/integrate/partner with a 3rd-party wallet that was designed for micro transactions.
Designed to send and receive (without using the blockchain) funds within their system.
It is meant for small payments so, you only need to send some funds to that wallet to be used for buying coffee or something else.
Find a coffee shot that accepts "that" payment method and Voala! no transaction fee micro-transaction.

The trouble comes at the end of the month when you settle the account and get hit with a $30 as you coffee bill
gets added to the block-chain so this is P2P and without banking hubs you would need to also open and then pay to close
channels with your food store and the burger stand each month.

I spent an hour reading the lightning white-paper today for a second time and regular wallets that you or I use
won't implement everything in the protocol because it becomes complicated but you can guarantee that the banker
hubs will take an advantage of this to their advantage and understand all the tricks in the book.

Financial Smart Contracts and Escrow. Financial contracts are especially
time-sensitive and have higher demands on blockchain computation.
By moving the overwhelming majority of trustless transactions
off-chain, it is possible to have highly complex transaction contract
terms without ever hitting the blockchain.

and also

Miners may elect to refuse to enter in particular transactions (e.g. Breach
Remedy transactions) in order to assist in timeout coin theft. An attacker
can pay off all miners to refuse to include certain transactions in their mempool
and blocks. The miners can identify their own blocks in an attempt to
prove their behavior to the paying attacker.

What button will I press in my wallet to create "highly complex transaction contract" and
where is the button I press to bribe the miners to do XYZ


if things are getting this complicated just to record balances in a public BC then
something is looking very wrong to me

[amishmanish]

Your posts are pretty much incoherent to analyse the argument except that it sounds like you are hell bent on kicking dust. I am sure most of the notable members on BCT don't want to indulge people like you who just want to come up with the worst-possible imaginary situations. So I'll try in whatever humble manner I can.

you make this argument about the settlement transaction. LN aims to enable micropayments and it does that quite well. The settlement transaction when closing the channel is a one-time cost which will not be the 30$ owing to de-congestion as smaller payments move to LN. That will become clearer from the state of mempool once LN starts to be used by exchanges/ merchants.

You won't need to open channels with every individual/ store you want to transact with. It'll be a multi-hop transaction as explained in the videos quite well. You will anyways have a channel with some major hub whenever you make your first purchase. Depending on how that services you, you can always change it to someone else when you settle your transaction and open a new channel.

Playing with block size and timings like ETH has done can improve the network and in theory Segwit should had
helped but in practice fees continued to increase since its introduction so we must all be using the currency wrong.

Segwith adoption is still low due to which its positive effects are not being felt. This is a community project and of course the "üser" community needs to do its part. Bitcoin developers don't owe anything to anybody. They give you an elegant solution and you don't use it. Its not on them to market it like Mr. Ver and form a circlejerk of Bcash tipping idiots.

What the developers are doing here is saying the car engine is broken, you need a new one that runs on "Banks"
instead of "gas" but really the old engine just needs fixing and they need to apply distributed processing to the
block-chain itself and brake it down into manageable sized chunks.

Same repeated argument. You want to use keep using the fear psychosis of "Banks". With funds committed to an LN channel, EVERYONE is a BANK. Everyone is in it together. Of course some will be bigger, some medium and some smaller.

Block headers are quite small and are connect like a linked list to each other but instead of containing the block
itself it could just become a pointer to a collection of nodes that process the block data or we could have block ranges
in the header like is used in Whois

Are you a developer? Do you have a working code for this "Idea" you are proposing? If yes, you are welcome to go join the github and propose it there. If you can't do this and have only thought of this in some algorithmic way then how are you talking about Pointers to collection of nodes??!! All nodes are supposed to be equal. What are you even doing here if you think that its okay for only a few masternodes to process the block data. There's SPV wallets for that.

Here is the white-paper https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
needs chucking in the bin if you ask me and I am far from being alone in saying this

Yeah, sure. Coming from someone who cannot form more than a couple of coherent sentences, this is good advice /s

[Anti-Cen]

Your posts are pretty much incoherent to analyse the argument except that it sounds like you are hell bent on kicking dust. I am sure most of the notable members on BCT don't want to indulge people like you who just want to come up with the worst-possible imaginary situations. So I'll try in whatever humble manner I can.

I like to deal in facts friend and will often backup what I say with links to articles or youtube and if you watched the video about Bob buying a coffee a
day for a month from the same shop then I say that someone is presenting the "best-possible imaginary situations" so lets have some balance
here.

you make this argument about the settlement transaction. LN aims to enable micropayments and it does that quite well. The settlement transaction when closing the channel is a one-time cost which will not be the 30$ owing to de-congestion as smaller payments move to LN.

That is an assumption you are making and does not take into account inter banking settlement between the large banking hubs that will be added
to the BC and what do you make of this from the white-paper

A tradeoff exists between locking up transaction fees on each
hop versus the desire to use as small a transaction amount as possible (the
latter of which may incur higher total fees). Smaller transfers with more
intermediaries imply a higher percentage paid as Lightning Network fees to
the intermediaries.

My understanding is that I am using my own money in the ledger held by me and the first hub/bank in the route
but then the bank is forced to use it's own money for the next stage of the hop and will want interest payments
from me for the service. In other words a credit in the left hand ledger does not become a credit in the right hand
ledger

You won't need to open channels with every individual/ store you want to transact with. It'll be a multi-hop transaction as explained in the videos quite well. You will anyways have a channel with some major hub whenever you make your first purchase. Depending on how that services you, you can always change it to someone else when you settle your transaction and open a new channel.

Yes I sign up with a large banks who charges fees and interest but I am free to leave and pay $30 BC Tx fee and join another bank
so why the Bob and the Coffee shop story is just fantasies just like I said

Segwith adoption is still low due to which its positive effects are not being felt. This is a community project and of course the "üser" community needs to do its part. Bitcoin developers don't owe anything to anybody. They give you an elegant solution and you don't use it. Its not on them to market it like Mr. Ver and form a circlejerk of Bcash tipping idiots.

Elegant when changing a back end database does not include telling everyone that they not only need a new telephone number but they need
a new telephone (Wallet in this case) too. Lets not start blaming others for the mistakes of the past I say.

Same repeated argument. You want to use keep using the fear psychosis of "Banks". With funds committed to an LN channel, EVERYONE is a BANK. Everyone is in it together. Of course some will be bigger, some medium and some smaller.

I have already addressed the question of Bob being a bank/hub for Alice so please go back and read it because the argument falls flat on it's face
and poor old Bob ends up going without his morning coffee at the end of the week.

Seems to me that you have no technical argument to present here and just want to be rude in case people cotton on to the facts that
Lightning attempt to solve the scaling issue is by introducing banks to Bitcoin which is not quite as bad as starting CPU-Wars all over
the internet between miners to solve the problem of generating new coins which others have managed without having to burn out CPU's

Are you a developer? Do you have a working code for this "Idea" you are proposing? If yes, you are welcome to go join the github and propose it there. If you can't do this and have only thought of this in some algorithmic way then how are you talking about Pointers to collection of nodes??!! All nodes are supposed to be equal. What are you even doing here if you think that its okay for only a few masternodes to process the block data. There's SPV wallets for that.

Yes developer, no not Linux based but I will offer up this one line of code

public static money MaxFees =1.50 // 20,000 miners not need to process 7 TPS, too little work to pass around to feed all of Africa

Nodes doing distributed processing can all be the same, part of smaller group processing 1/50th of the BC so not sure what your going on about
"All nodes are supposed to be equal" because some are running $300 hardware and others are running $50,000 hardware anyway

Yeah, sure. Coming from someone who cannot form more than a couple of coherent sentences, this is good advice /s

I know when I have won a debate when the other side feels the need to use insults but what about the "green crypto mining ICO" " under your
name because 20,000 miners on Bitcoin doing CPU-Wars is not green so forgive me when I say it looks like you will say anything that you are being paid to say

[amishmanish]

Your posts are pretty much incoherent to analyse the argument except that it sounds like you are hell bent on kicking dust. I am sure most of the notable members on BCT don't want to indulge people like you who just want to come up with the worst-possible imaginary situations. So I'll try in whatever humble manner I can.

 I like to deal in facts friend and will often backup what I say with links to articles or youtube and if you watched the video about Bob buying a coffee a day for a month from the same shop then I say that someone is presenting the "best-possible imaginary situations" so lets have some balance here.

Thanks for the better constructed sentences and thought out replies this time. I won't have to strain to understand you. This makes the discussion worth our while. The scenario of Bob buying his coffee is pretty simple. Its just a pessimistic, worst-possible imaginary situation because you have assumed that:
1. Bob needs to open a channel with everyone he deals with. Not necessary. He doesn't have to do that. The network does that for him.He just needs one payment channel with another node.
2. Bitcoin price decreases and he doesn't have enough finances. How is that not a negative scenario? Further, you are assuming that if fiat varies the merchant changes the amount in BTC. (which does happen, but then you miss the point that widespread adoption means BTC has its own value. As people keep repeating at the forum and elsewhere. 1 BTC is always 1 BTC.)
3. You assume that On-chain fees remain 30$. You again assume this ignoring the fact that the  avg. fees have already come down to ~20$ https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html#3m and that with LN, a lot of transactions clogging the network will be gone.

Quite simply, you are imagining the worst cases because you are on the other side of the debate. Anyways, Moving on.

you make this argument about the settlement transaction. LN aims to enable micropayments and it does that quite well. The settlement transaction when closing the channel is a one-time cost which will not be the 30$ owing to de-congestion as smaller payments move to LN.

That is an assumption you are making and does not take into account inter banking settlement between the large banking hubs that will be added to the BC and what do you make of this from the white-paper

Multiple transactions for the cost of one transaction. This is a big positive for individual users. Or do you imagine a utopian situation where we will have visa-level transactions on a decentralized, secure, trustless network and there won't be any fees?

You won't need to open channels with every individual/ store you want to transact with. It'll be a multi-hop transaction as explained in the videos quite well. You will anyways have a channel with some major hub whenever you make your first purchase. Depending on how that services you, you can always change it to someone else when you settle your transaction and open a new channel.

Yes I sign up with a large banks who charges fees and interest but I am free to leave and pay $30 BC Tx fee and join another bank so why the Bob and the Coffee shop story is just fantasies just like I said

Major hubs are not the same as today's banks, no matter how much you want to continue beating that drum. You are not trusting them with your money. It stays in a multi-sig wallet and only the latest updated state of payments can be broadcast to the main chain.

Segwit adoption is still low due to which its positive effects are not being felt. This is a community project and of course the "üser" community needs to do its part. Bitcoin developers don't owe anything to anybody. They give you an elegant solution and you don't use it. Its not on them to market it like Mr. Ver and form a circlejerk of Bcash tipping idiots.

Elegant when changing a back end database does not include telling everyone that they not only need a new telephone number but they need a new telephone (Wallet in this case) too. Lets not start blaming others for the mistakes of the past I say.

You only need to use the Segwit address as a user. Use an Electrum wallet and there are enough instructions available to make a Segwit enabled wallet. Here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Electrum/comments/7llnll/here_is_how_to_create_segwit_bip49_wallets_and/
I do agree that bitcoin hasn't yet evolved to suit the most basic user who just want to install an app and start payments. To be honest, bitcoin's awareness has gone from the slightly tech oriented to everyone's grandma now. There is a lot of catching up to do in terms of user experience. How LN will incorporate all the underlying details is yet to be seen.

Same repeated argument. You want to use keep using the fear psychosis of "Banks". With funds committed to an LN channel, EVERYONE is a BANK. Everyone is in it together. Of course some will be bigger, some medium and some smaller.

I have already addressed the question of Bob being a bank/hub for Alice so please go back and read it because the argument falls flat on it's face and poor old Bob ends up going without his morning coffee at the end of the week.

Seems to me that you have no technical argument to present here and just want to be rude in case people cotton on to the facts that
Lightning attempt to solve the scaling issue is by introducing banks to Bitcoin which is not quite as bad as starting CPU-Wars all over
the internet between miners to solve the problem of generating new coins which others have managed without having to burn out CPU's

Once again, my being rude to you has only to do with your constant harking on "its a bank". And maybe also because you seem to have an agenda to fill the forum with such posts. "others have managed without having to burn CPU/GPU/ASICS?". Are you talking about IOTA etc. I have no intention of being an apologist for LN. I truly believe that such innovative methods are a better answer than relying on unlimited block sizes.

Are you a developer? Do you have a working code for this "Idea" you are proposing? If yes, you are welcome to go join the github and propose it there. If you can't do this and have only thought of this in some algorithmic way then how are you talking about Pointers to collection of nodes??!! All nodes are supposed to be equal. What are you even doing here if you think that its okay for only a few masternodes to process the block data. There's SPV wallets for that.

Yes developer, no not Linux based but I will offer up this one line of code
public static money MaxFees =1.50 // 20,000 miners not need to process 7 TPS, too little work to pass around to feed all of Africa
Nodes doing distributed processing can all be the same, part of smaller group processing 1/50th of the BC so not sure what your going on about "All nodes are supposed to be equal" because some are running $300 hardware and others are running $50,000 hardware anyway

C'mon. You said "Pointers to blocks of data" and now you come up with this argument of capping maximum fees. You just changed the goalpost. All nodes should be able to verify the chain for themselves and take part in accepting or rejecting a new block. Your idea to only have a few super-nodes that carry the burden of verifying the blockchain is nowhere near what bitcoin is supposed to be.

Yeah, sure. Coming from someone who cannot form more than a couple of coherent sentences, this is good advice /s

I know when I have won a debate when the other side feels the need to use insults but what about the "green crypto mining ICO" " under your name because 20,000 miners on Bitcoin doing CPU-Wars is not green so forgive me when I say it looks like you will say anything that you are being paid to say

This was in response to your statement:

"Here is the white-paper https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf needs chucking in the bin if you ask me and I am far from being alone in saying th"

Its easy to say things like that when YOU are not the one coming up with the solutions. I called you out only for showing such disregard to someone else's hard work.After doing that, you don't get to be the victim by saying things like "people are being rude" or that "they need to use insults" .
About the "green crypto mining ICO", You are welcome to check it out. Its a signature campaign. PoW isn't going anywhere for a long time. What you can try is to make it green by efficiency and using Renewable energy sources. I think its a good idea.

[Anti-Cen]

Multiple transactions for the cost of one transaction. This is a big positive for individual users. Or do you imagine a utopian situation where we will have visa-level transactions on a decentralized, secure, trustless network and there won't be any fees?

Yes and now we are back to Bob buying coffee for the month each morning from the same shop and
you can stop speculating with what the transactions fees might be in a years time because you don't
know and you don't know what the banking hub fees will be or the interest payments on money on
loan because again you don't know

Quite simply you don't get it because you don't want to get it and my intellect has better things to do than
trade insults with you so drink your coffee Bob and get on with them "Signature Campaigns"   

[ShoeSalesman]

Multiple transactions for the cost of one transaction. This is a big positive for individual users. Or do you imagine a utopian situation where we will have visa-level transactions on a decentralized, secure, trustless network and there won't be any fees?

Yes and now we are back to Bob buying coffee for the month each morning from the same shop and
you can stop speculating with what the transactions fees might be in a years time because you don't
know and you don't know what the banking hub fees will be or the interest payments on money on
loan because again you don't know

Quite simply you don't get it because you don't want to get it and my intellect has better things to do than
trade insults with you so drink your coffee Bob and get on with them "Signature Campaigns"  

Quite simply your arrogance is off-putting and even if you did have valid arguments, your “superior intellect” failed to understand that this is, after all, a forum dedicated to bitcoin occupied by lots of people who are invested in it, so doomsayers like yourself will naturally be treated with scepticism, since most of their “arguments” are rooted in the fact that they themselves have failed to ride the wave (and for some reason, still refuse to grab opportunies) and so (fueled by envy?) don’t want to see bitcoin do well.

I appreciate your input but like I said above, will treat it with scepticism.

[amishmanish]

Quite simply your arrogance is off-putting and even if you did have valid arguments, your “superior intellect” failed to understand that this is, after all, a forum dedicated to bitcoin occupied by lots of people who are invested in it, so doomsayers like yourself will naturally be treated with scepticism, since most of their “arguments” are rooted in the fact that they themselves have failed to ride the wave (and for some reason, still refuse to grab opportunies) and so (fueled by envy?) don’t want to see bitcoin do well.

I appreciate your input but like I said above, will treat it with scepticism.

Its not just their envy. Some of them even have an agenda to fulfill by creating FUD about bitcoin's innovations. These same people were spreading lies about SegWit and now they have a new drum to beat.

I just replied to this thread so that the FUD doesn't go unchallenged. It is a fact that understanding SegWit, LN, heck even Bitcoin is not easy for newcomers. We are all learning on the go. It takes a bit of effort and encouragement.This forum is supposed to provide that encouragement to explore how bitcoin gives you control of your money and has helped me a lot. Lot of good work is being done for Bitcoin scaling and its an ongoing community project. Good info on the roadmap can be seen here.

[Anti-Cen]

I appreciate your input but like I said above, will treat it with scepticism.

You are free to read the white paper yourself

doomsayers like yourself will naturally be treated with scepticism

The tone of your voice needs to also be called into question too before you lecture me about how to
act in a forum so lets try sticking with facts and deal with the source please