Lightning’s Bitcoin mainnet: the phenomenal growth

[franky1]

Lightning network really is a work of art and people aren't being appreciative enough of all the hard work that went into it, this is a complete game changer for the bitcoin ecosystem.

not a work of art. even the devs are shouting out the risks. seems maybe you should use it before promoting it.

here is a hint. a company called fold done a pizza campaign recently. 1500 users tried it but only 150 succeeded.
this 150 was not due to issues with fol not following through with pizza or not having balance to pay pizza company. but because LN and its routing system had issues so transactions could not even complete

might be worth you doing some research
lastly LN is not a bitcoin unique feature. many coins can use LN and so its not something that will 'promote bitcoin adoption'
as others have already highlighted . pushing bitcoin fee's up to promote LN, does not help bitcoin. it infact helps promote altcoins to be the onramp in and out of LN

[1714614584]

1714614584

[Wind_FURY]

*Assorted drivel*

So rather than even attempting to counter a single point I made, you just repeat all the same incorrect assertions and outright lies you've made dozens of times before in a slightly different way.  Your entire argument hinges on the absurd notion that nobody on the Bitcoin network likes what Core are doing, but still continue to run their code anyway.  You're insane.

You keep telling people that Bitcoin doesn't work in the way it clearly does and instead works in the way you imagine it does.  Then, at the same time, you somehow complain about the way in which Bitcoin does currently work (because it actually doesn't work like how you imagine) and why you think Bitcoin would be better if it did work the way you imagine.  It demonstrably doesn't work like you imagine and never will.  Now clean out the mess between your ears that you have the audacity to call a brain and get back to us when you have a clue.

go do some research. stop wearing the core defense cap. its not attractive on you

It's not a defense on Core. It's the community who came in consensus on what we consider Bitcoin. Unless you are trying to sneak the "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin" narrative again. Because there is no debate there.

[DooMAD]

go do some research. stop wearing the core defense cap. its not attractive on you

It's not a defense on Core. It's the community who came in consensus on what we consider Bitcoin. Unless you are trying to sneak the "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin" narrative again. Because there is no debate there.

Yes.  And it's also a defence of all developers being equal.  Each client survives on its merits.  We currently have a level playing field, but because some people are of the mistaken opinion that one dev team have an advantage, they propose hamstringing that dev team and handing a natural advantage to others.  If effect, creating an imbalance of power.  I'm beginning to suspect that's their goal.  Fortunately, I don't think anyone here is foolish enough to buy into that idea being preferable to what we currently have, though.

[Wind_FURY]

go do some research. stop wearing the core defense cap. its not attractive on you

It's not a defense on Core. It's the community who came in consensus on what we consider Bitcoin. Unless you are trying to sneak the "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin" narrative again. Because there is no debate there.

Yes.  And it's also a defence of all developers being equal.  Each client survives on its merits.  We currently have a level playing field, but because some people are of the mistaken opinion that one dev team have an advantage, they propose hamstringing that dev team and handing a natural advantage to others.  If effect, creating an imbalance of power.  I'm beginning to suspect that's their goal.  Fortunately, I don't think anyone here is foolish enough to buy into that idea being preferable to what we currently have, though.

Look at it this way, Roger Ver, with the help of Jihan Wu, and Peter Rizen and some developers did a hard fork, and split from the main chain. What's the consensus on what the main chain and minority chain is?

Some people believe "the real Bitcoin is Bitcoin Cash", because "Satoshi's vision".

[franky1]

go do some research. stop wearing the core defense cap. its not attractive on you

It's not a defense on Core. It's the community who came in consensus on what we consider Bitcoin. Unless you are trying to sneak the "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin" narrative again. Because there is no debate there.

1. the community did not decide using a fair commmunity inclusive consensus. actually read some code, speak to devs and look at blockchain data.
before the activation even occured(consensus) core devs had code to disband parts of the community, which they did. they didnt need the community. all they needed was nodes controlled by matt corrola's fibre network to control what blocks the relay network gets. the core devs to change the dns seed node listings to only include certain nodes. and also barry silberts NYA agreement to sway the laggers that were 'compatible' that sticking with cores roadmap would allow them to spend coin. in short it didnt need 10,000-60,000 nodes/community users. the adoption of segwit and the following of core was done with far far far far less involvement of the community and far far more involvement of the group of devs and those siding with the devs.

2. cores mandatory code came first not bitcoin cash. also cores implementation triggered before bitcoin cash. bitcoin cash didnt even make an independent block for themselves for hours AFTER cores mandatory splits kicked in. so it was core striking first not the other way round

3. but seeing as you refuse to look at code/stats/data and only interested in social drama here is some. did you know that bitmain was on the NYA. did you know blockchain.info and bitpay(Rver gets money from) is barry silbert funded and peter rizen works for coindesk(a barry silbert company). thus bitcoin cash was just a false option and fake choice and inevitably a worthless altcoin used just to benefit core for social drama

4. as for you echo chamber response of if not a fan of core people must be team bitcoin cash with your suggestion that im trying to sneak in some bitcoin cash narrative. i have nor ever will be team bitcoin cash. so dont even try playing that game

5 i think its time you stop circling the foolish things being scriptd to you from your buddies. as you not gaining any traction nor supplying or able to supply any counter argument bar "wrong because X persona said it"
just try for once to actually do some research about what actually happened. and try to avoid the social drama rhetoric your buddies inform you of, because its not helping you.

[DooMAD]

1. the community did not decide using a fair commmunity inclusive consensus

D'awww, does poor widdle fwanky think someone didn't play nice?  Diddums.

Tell us how you're going to make us meet your definition of "fair" going forwards.  Oh that's right, you can't.  

Bitcoin doesn't acknowledge or recognise whether you think it's fair or not.  Bitcoin is only what the users instruct it to be.  Those users continue to decide with every single block that this is what Bitcoin is.  You've been crying about it for a couple of years now and you can keep crying for a couple more, because you don't have the numbers behind you to make the slightest hint of difference.

[franky1]

1. the community did not decide using a fair commmunity inclusive consensus

D'awww, does poor widdle fwanky think someone didn't play nice?  Diddums.

Tell us how you're going to make us meet your definition of "fair" going forwards.  Oh that's right, you can't.  

Bitcoin doesn't acknowledge or recognise whether you think it's fair or not.  Bitcoin is only what the users instruct it to be.  Those users continue to decide with every single block that this is what Bitcoin is.  You've been crying about it for a couple of years now and you can keep crying for a couple more, because you don't have the numbers behind you to make the slightest hint of difference.

doomad.. sober up
you keep on thinking that i am writing code and trying to change bitcoin under some big campaign
1. show me code i wrote
2. show me the campaign of numbers you think i dont have enough of

what you try to do is try to suggest i am campaigning an opposition and change of state. when the reality is i am just correcting the misinformation that a certain group spouts out about how they pretend to be a fair open system
now if the brand/team was not core that done the exact same things core did. you would be the first in line to support correcting the mis information. you would be happy that people are pointing out the trojan and consensus bypass methods used to gain control. you would actually be salivating and taking every opportunity to announce how a brand achieved control unethically. but because core done it, you just want people to shut up and not talk about it
you cant counter the stats/code/devs admissions. so all you can do along with windfury, is just keep circling the social drama games of "wrong coz franky said it"

now go try to learn some stats/code/data and stop wasting time on your social games. if you actually started to care about the bitcoin network and not care about a certain brand. your motives and messages would differ compared to your current rhetoric

as for A mthod of a fair consensus. hint not my idea, not me making any campaign, but just informing of what consensus is
1. no mandatory aparthied/segregation pre consensus vote activation ( meaning no faking the vote)
2. require nodes to actually opt-in rather than sheepishly being 'compatible' (meaning no faking the vote)
3. understanding consensus is consent of the majority. meaning there is a majority and a need for majority consent
4. not faking a majority by removing parties pre count

the whole point of bitcoins important solution that was so revolutionary in 2009 was that it invovles uniting parties to an agreed consensus. NOT throwing out parties until all thats left is a smaller group of agreement
thus if a brand wants to change the network rules they need to provide a proposal of new rules that the REAL community can find unity around. without needing to just make up random rules and just push out opposition to force the rule into affect

anyway. here is another hint that will save you circling.
devs ADMIT their actions. they dont need you or windfury to pretend things didnt happen. so you again are wasting your time being a core defense script reader when core dont need you defending them.
so just try to spend more time caring about bitcoin and not a team of devs. and you will start to have a something worthy of spending your time discussing

[DooMAD]

1. the community did not decide using a fair commmunity inclusive consensus

D'awww, does poor widdle fwanky think someone didn't play nice?  Diddums.

Tell us how you're going to make us meet your definition of "fair" going forwards.  Oh that's right, you can't.  

Bitcoin doesn't acknowledge or recognise whether you think it's fair or not.  Bitcoin is only what the users instruct it to be.  Those users continue to decide with every single block that this is what Bitcoin is.  You've been crying about it for a couple of years now and you can keep crying for a couple more, because you don't have the numbers behind you to make the slightest hint of difference.

as for A mthod of a fair consensus. hint not my idea, not me making any campaign, but just informing of what consensus is
1. no mandatory aparthied/segregation pre consensus vote activation ( meaning no faking the vote)
2. require nodes to actually opt-in rather than sheepishly being 'compatible' (meaning no faking the vote)
3. understanding consensus is consent of the majority. meaning there is a majority and a need for majority consent
4. not faking a majority by removing parties pre count

the whole point of bitcoins important solution that was so revolutionary in 2009 was that it invovles uniting parties to an agreed consensus. NOT throwing out parties until all thats left is a smaller group of agreement
thus if a brand wants to change the network rules they need to provide a proposal of new rules that the REAL community can find unity around. without needing to just make up random rules and just push out opposition to force the rule into affect

I said tell us HOW, not "make a fantasy list of improbable things you'd ideally like to see in Bitcoin".  How would you get the rest of us to run code supporting any of that?  Even if you could convince someone to write code to enforce all four points (and I'm highly doubtful that you ever will), we could all just keep running the code we currently run to completely ignore all your bullshit changes and keep doing all the things we're currently doing to piss you off so much (and it's fun to watch, so I'm personally in no hurry to see it change).  The only way you can have your sad little wishlist is if other users want it.  You need to find people who share your beliefs.  This is what you are incapable of comprehending.  None of your tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy crackpot lunacy changes any of it.  If people on this network wanted the things on your basket-case wishlist, they would run code to enact it.  So you need to find a network where people want what you want.  Clearly that isn't this one.  Now go be a pathetic crybaby loser somewhere else, please.

We're doing Lightning.  Decision made.  You can't stop us.  No one cares if you think it's fair or not.

[franky1]

goodnight doomad.
your dream of consensus meaning if users dont like it find another network. shows how little you know about consensus and the thing satoshi solved in 2008
by the way heres another hint. its users finding agreement is called commUNITY not comSLITTY

see you one day when you wake up

[wattcrypto]

and then you add in the fact that amazon will now be accepting payments which is pretty huge! I am excited to see what happens over the next couple months

[incomefromcoins]

With lightning bitcoin manner we can expect more mass adoption of crypto in the market we can see online and offline merchants accept bitcoin positive news for crypto currency

[Wind_FURY]

go do some research. stop wearing the core defense cap. its not attractive on you

It's not a defense on Core. It's the community who came in consensus on what we consider Bitcoin. Unless you are trying to sneak the "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin" narrative again. Because there is no debate there.

1. the community did not decide using a fair commmunity inclusive consensus. actually read some code, speak to devs and look at blockchain data.
before the activation even occured(consensus) core devs had code to disband parts of the community, which they did. they didnt need the community. all they needed was nodes controlled by matt corrola's fibre network to control what blocks the relay network gets. the core devs to change the dns seed node listings to only include certain nodes. and also barry silberts NYA agreement to sway the laggers that were 'compatible' that sticking with cores roadmap would allow them to spend coin. in short it didnt need 10,000-60,000 nodes/community users. the adoption of segwit and the following of core was done with far far far far less involvement of the community and far far more involvement of the group of devs and those siding with the devs.

2. cores mandatory code came first not bitcoin cash. also cores implementation triggered before bitcoin cash. bitcoin cash didnt even make an independent block for themselves for hours AFTER cores mandatory splits kicked in. so it was core striking first not the other way round

3. but seeing as you refuse to look at code/stats/data and only interested in social drama here is some. did you know that bitmain was on the NYA. did you know blockchain.info and bitpay(Rver gets money from) is barry silbert funded and peter rizen works for coindesk(a barry silbert company). thus bitcoin cash was just a false option and fake choice and inevitably a worthless altcoin used just to benefit core for social drama

4. as for you echo chamber response of if not a fan of core people must be team bitcoin cash with your suggestion that im trying to sneak in some bitcoin cash narrative. i have nor ever will be team bitcoin cash. so dont even try playing that game

5 i think its time you stop circling the foolish things being scriptd to you from your buddies. as you not gaining any traction nor supplying or able to supply any counter argument bar "wrong because X persona said it"
just try for once to actually do some research about what actually happened. and try to avoid the social drama rhetoric your buddies inform you of, because its not helping you.

franky1, instead of making us read all that long, confusing dribble, please go straight to the point. Because as far as EVERYONE is concerned, Bitcoin Cash is a contentuous hard fork. Ask Peter Rizen, even he will admit that.

[DooMAD]

and then you add in the fact that amazon will now be accepting payments which is pretty huge! I am excited to see what happens over the next couple months

To clarify, "Amazon" are not accepting payments via Lightning.  Someone has made a third-party plugin for people to use on Amazon's website that will enable Lightning payments to be made.  Amazon are not directly involved at this stage.  It's a small but crucial distinction.

[misterjo]

lightning network is still in the testing phase, more development is lacking for its implementation in commerce, but it is quite positive that the network is growing

[franky1]

franky1, instead of making us read all that long, confusing dribble, please go straight to the point. Because as far as EVERYONE is concerned, Bitcoin Cash is a contentuous hard fork. Ask Peter Rizen, even he will admit that.

instead of even replying. how about
learn about bitcoin
learn about LN
reply using code, dev quotes, data, stats. and not just social drama about people that are not writing bitcoin protocol rules

P.S the event of august 1st which gregmaxwell calls a bilateral split (2 sides split) was a contentious fork event. but remember the data found on the blockchain shows it was core devs code that triggered the event. as for mentioning bitcoin cash. thats just you trying to meander the topic away from talking about bitcoin and LN. because you still dont have the knowledge of bitcoin and LN to talk about it.

your more then welcome to reply about bitcoin and LN but atleast keep it in context by actually including code, data, stats that can actually back your assumptions. without your replies just sounding like "x because y said it"

but to again jump back to your meander. cores segwit was also contentious. both sides split below a majority threshold

[deisik]

and then you add in the fact that amazon will now be accepting payments which is pretty huge! I am excited to see what happens over the next couple months

To clarify, "Amazon" are not accepting payments via Lightning.  Someone has made a third-party plugin for people to use on Amazon's website that will enable Lightning payments to be made.  Amazon are not directly involved at this stage.  It's a small but crucial distinction

Totally agree with this point

It is like someone claiming that a famous sports car manufacturer (think Lambo here) started to sell its cars for crypto, while in reality it is only some obscure car dealer offering a cryptopayment option to their buyers (in order to get some free publicity and advertising). Looks like pretty much the same as with this "Amazon"

And while we are at it, does anyone know a resource which gives stats about real use of payment channels, i.e. not their number or the number of active nodes like what 1ML does but how many bitcoins that they have actually pushed through? I've seen a site where they offered such stats for a fee, but I'm not sure how legit they are (and whether it is possible to track this number at all)

[franky1]

And while we are at it, does anyone know a resource which gives stats about real use of payment channels, i.e. not their number or the number of active nodes like what 1ML does but how many bitcoins that they have actually pushed through? I've seen a site where they offered such stats for a fee, but I'm not sure how legit they are (and whether it is possible to track this number at all)

LN's over promises were that it meant to be more private than what blockchain coins are. so if there are stats available for LN, it shows LN is not as private as thought. i kinda laugh that 1ML shows the country and IP addresses of nodes. it is funny

also, because HTLC's are not actually tethered to blockchain coins via any fixd network punishable rule. people can open HTLC and have an agreement with a counterpart without the tether. infact as thor turbo proves and even some other scenarios prove, that the numbers of balance can be faked

infact recently i done a private scenario with a friend. i set the funding as a pair of shoes(sneakers) where by he agreed a value $60(denoted as millisats of btc(1100000000msat)) so we made a HTLC of $30(550000000msat) each and we set it so that balance would be left open to be used for others to route(we would not spend for personal use) and whichever directions routes went, when all balance leaned to one side, that party gets to own the shoes.

yep no tethered bitcoin blockchain tx, yep routes actually went through us and yep who owes what changed. yet the agreed 'settlement' was a pair of shoes not btc even though the 'value' in the HTLC supposedly represented btc

[Wind_FURY]

franky1, instead of making us read all that long, confusing dribble, please go straight to the point. Because as far as EVERYONE is concerned, Bitcoin Cash is a contentuous hard fork. Ask Peter Rizen, even he will admit that.

instead of even replying. how about
learn about bitcoin
learn about LN
reply using code, dev quotes, data, stats. and not just social drama about people that are not writing bitcoin protocol rules

You act like you know more, but you tell us there are issued "IOU pegged promises to pay tokens" in Lightning. There are none.

Were you also with the "only miners should run full nodes" camp?

P.S the event of august 1st which gregmaxwell calls a bilateral split (2 sides split) was a contentious fork event. but remember the data found on the blockchain shows it was core devs code that triggered the event. as for mentioning bitcoin cash. thats just you trying to meander the topic away from talking about bitcoin and LN. because you still dont have the knowledge of bitcoin and LN to talk about it.

your more then welcome to reply about bitcoin and LN but atleast keep it in context by actually including code, data, stats that can actually back your assumptions. without your replies just sounding like "x because y said it"

but to again jump back to your meander. cores segwit was also contentious. both sides split below a majority threshold

Before we debate, let's first ask Greg Maxwell to clear that up. I will PM him. Plus I brought up Bitcoin Cash as an example of a contentious split from Bitcoin, and it will always be brought up again.

[Harris Stevens]

This is great as the transaction cost is reduced and will encourage people to accept it more.

[franky1]

franky1, instead of making us read all that long, confusing dribble, please go straight to the point. Because as far as EVERYONE is concerned, Bitcoin Cash is a contentuous hard fork. Ask Peter Rizen, even he will admit that.

instead of even replying. how about
learn about bitcoin
learn about LN
reply using code, dev quotes, data, stats. and not just social drama about people that are not writing bitcoin protocol rules

You act like you know more, but you tell us there are issued "IOU pegged promises to pay tokens" in Lightning. There are none.

Were you also with the "only miners should run full nodes" camp?

Msats are a token that exists within LN and only LN... bitcoins network does not recognise masts.
if you even tried to broadcast a LN htlc to the bitcoin network, it would not relay, it would not enter mempool and it would not get added to a block to confirm.
LN htlc's are not balances of actual bitcoins. bitcoins never leave the bitcoin network
if you cant understand that then you will never understand the pegging that occurs. and you will just circle around in your own absance of information like someone sticking head in the sand. which is why i keep saying to learn about this stuff so you dont just keep this whole circular empty thought you keep having.
for your own benefit, learn this stuff


as for the IOU. again because its not real btc because its not even guaranteed that a HTLC will convert to a blockchain CLTV and because theres no guarantee that the bitcoin CLTV will unlock to settle out in the amounts alloted in comparison to the HTLC.. the HTLC is not a final guaranteed settled fund. its just a agreement of who owes who what. thus iou agreement

lastly i was not the one that was "only miners should run full nodes".
my words were
the importance for average joe that only needs to check 1tx a day/month compared to a retailer/business or pool. means that
catering full nodes should be more aimed at those that actually need to be full nodes the most. such as businsses, rgular spenders and pools.

the fact that most average joe users are not technical and not interested in whats good or bad code, they would run 'compatible nodes' just because of lame reasons
if they have internet issues and are not in actual need to validate transactions regularly, they would benefit themselves from running lite wallets
the fact that with most average joe who does have limited internet they are not actually helping the network by throttling up 100+ connections. they can easily benefit their own phone bill and also the data transfer rate to other peers by only connecting to 1-3 nodes if they stayed running a full node.

trying to have bitcoins network on the whole stifled and deburdened of utility purely with the lame mindset that bitcoin should remain at low capacity for the odd small user that doesnt NEED to be a full node. it displaces, annoys and hurts the many businesses, users and pools that could take advantage of a better utility/capacity network thats not stifled.

its much the same argument as saying EA games should not release HD online shoot-em-ups because some users are on dial up. but then promote another company to handle HD games and then try to sway the majority of the community to deburden themselves of using EA games