LN: Bitcoin could theoretically scale beyond VISA.

[hugeblack]

Great news from LN: According to Decker

https://coinjournal.net/scaling-layer-2-and-cryptographic-innovations-discussed-at-consensus-2018/]

each channel can process about 500 transactions per second. With thousands of channels being utilized at once, Bitcoin could theoretically scale beyond not only any other cryptocurrency but any other payment method, including VISA.

In addition to the talk about scaling, Decker explained that using the lightning network would be impossible to track sending/receiving bitcoins, as long as the user has more than one open channel.
After all this, Bitcoin Cash fans are still surprised by all the positive about the lightning network.

Read more and source https://coinjournal.net/scaling-layer-2-and-cryptographic-innovations-discussed-at-consensus-2018/ *
* This text from the middle of the conversation.[Scroll down the cursor]

[1714975487]

1714975487

[1714975487]

1714975487

[1714975487]

1714975487

[1714975487]

1714975487

[ABCbits]

We already know LN or other 2nd layer are the good solutions for cryptocurrency (and some decentralized blockchain) scaling while maintain decentralization and ensure people can run full nodes without very high cost, even though most people haven't realize this yet.
But without user-friendly wallet/client/nodes, LN isn't really useful. But some developer already make one, even though i think it's not friendly enough.

But the part of news that i like is :

Missing from all these speeches, was the idea of increasing the block size to infinity, much to Roger Ver’s chagrin.

[virendarnagpal]

Nice issue posted for people having lesser knowledge about bitcoin how it works; and how more inventions are being made to make the bitcoin faster, anonymous, and faster as is evident from the following statement provided in the link above post;

Following statement indicating the safety and security of bitcoin;
"In layman terms, Lightning works by opening off chain channels between different participants. A bunch of transactions are grouped together and then added to the blockchain in one large group. The money is held in the meantime and can’t be spent elsewhere".

Fast movement of bitcoin is stated in the statement given below
"According to Decker, each channel can process about 500 transactions per second. With thousands of channels being utilized at once, Bitcoin could theoretically scale beyond not only any other cryptocurrency but any other payment method, including VISA."

Bitcoin will become more and more privately transacted currency:-
"Decker also explained that the Lightning Network will provide more privacy than on-chain transactions. With the transactions being grouped together it would be impossible for blockchain analysts to track who sent what to who"

So we see that not only the present but the future of the bitcoin is more and more bright.

[freesia_pnp888]

lightning network is impressive though, yes the first start and entry was a lil tacky but seem now it's fine.

[squatz1]

This is true, and this is what bitcoin needs to go into the next level of being accepted. If we don't do such a thing, then we're not going to be able to compete in the real world with big merchants such as visa, paypal, etc. If we're unable to get to this point, then we're going to have problems when the network is congested (such as high fees, long wait times for confirmations, and a holdup of the entire network)

I'm really hoping for large-scale LN adoption once it's ready.

[sandialoveth]

Nowadays we all know about bitcoin and this bitcoin is helping us in many ways it gives us that facility to buy restriction free trading. If we want to see our bitcoin in vast area so bitcoin authorities should mutual with visa and paypal system so that everyone can use this frequently. I think bitcoin authority already trying to solve this issues.

[chidrawarster]

Yes its highly possible that btc may be used as the same option like visa for payments methods and all. Btc has got a lightning speed and a good network as well and also the technology is strong enough to capture the high volume of transactions in real time. May be we may see the same thing in the future and alternative will be ready for making payments mode even more competitive.

[luisowens]

Thanks for such post. It's a useful one to the newbies or people who harly knows about bitcoin. It shows bitcoin is privately transacted. It safe and secured than other coins. People can have full trust on it. It won't hamper your security issue.

[brickafterbrickwalldpt]

Thanks for such post. It's a useful one to the newbies or people who harly knows about bitcoin. It shows bitcoin is privately transacted. It safe and secured than other coins. People can have full trust on it. It won't hamper your security issue.

Bitcoin itself isn't private. It is partially anonymous, your indentity still can be easily revealed. The whole point is that Lightning Network allows for even more decentralised payments. The only thing we need to send a transaction is a connection between your node and the one that is accepting the payment. It can be easily achieved by routing your payment through other participants of the network. Technically, it's more anonymous since no one except nodes which route your payments knows that you are the sender of the transaction.

[jamesmitchel018]

The concept of LN which stands for Lightening network is pretty amazing. I am hopeful that this will help Bitcoin and other cryptos to flourish even more. This is what we actually need to compete with biggies like like visa,paypal etc.

[ManaMan]

It is good to see that it can scale + because of the fact that it adds up an extra layer of privacy which is not perfect but at least I am positive about bitcoin since it is moving in that direction. The problem LN can face is slow integration within various wallets and services out there. Because if we are looking at today not many have support even for SEGWIT addresses that begins with bc1.

[franky1]

lol
here we go again. the over promised hyped up LN utopia. and the many sheep thinking its the end goal solution to bitcoins woe's

i really hate it when people say theoretical because they have not ben bothered to do the physical act of using it in real scenarios of real bruteforce testing the system.
the 0.002 is based on a over promised statistic of a rout with minimal hops thats pre setup the route, the hops(channels) in the route are all fully funded and have the minimal fee set up and agreed on. everyone is online and then bam its then timed... in actual fact i dont think even that its 0.002seconds. decker probably just done some maths on validation of signature times to treat payment is accepted, rather than real scenario time

1. it cant do 500 tx a second regularly/everytime guaranteed. that 0.002 is only possible AFTER it has found its routes and only transacts through those routes theirafter.
yet to find a route and make a payment takes longer, because with each hop (channel) it has to pass through causes a payment to take longer. and finding a route that has funds available and an acceptable fee. takes longer

2. emphasis the theoretics are of if you had a active connection to a very nearby channel that is online and active and accepting payments

so imagine you set up a route to buy starbucks coffee. once that route is set up. then yes theoretically you can pay starbucks in 0.002 using an existing route(deckers 500/sec stat). but imagine one of the hops in the route does not have the funding reserve to hotpotato your payment through. you then have to find a new route. which means it wont be 0.002seconds. also this 0.002sconds is for a theoretical route with very minimal hops. as i said the more hops the longer it takes.

also imagine instead of wannting to buy coffee from starbucks you then want to buy groceries at walmart. this is not a 0.002second payment because you have not pre-setup the route and also its harder to find hops(channels) with more than $2 to guarantee payment flow.

3. because not all channels will have say $100 per participant/per channel to hot potato your walmart grocery payment. EG to be a reliable participant in a network of say 5000 users either requires a node to have 8 channels for it to take 5 hops to get end to end
in short to allow everyone just 1 payment. each node has to have $800($100 per channel) on reserve MINIMUM just to allow a few people to make that 1 payment. before some routes have to close

X[$100 - $100]A   A[$100 - $100]B   B[$100 - $100]C   C[$100 - $100]D   D[$100 - $100]WALMART
imagine X wants to buy $100 of groceries. above shows A xinging a healthy route. now each HOP(a,b,c,d) has just 2 channels for easy display
lets see what happens when the payment is made

X[$0 - $200]A   A[$0 - $200]B   B[$0 - $200]C   C[$0 - $200]D   D[$0 - $200]WALMART
X has now paid walmart. problem now is (a,b,c,d) dont have $100 on their side to make another X-> walmart payment.
infact A cant buy anything from walmart because (b,c,d) are empty
infact B cant buy anything from walmart because (c,d) are empty
infact C cant buy anything from walmart because (d) is empty

all that is able to be done is a refund backwards

this is why nodes end up needing more than a couple channels and needing even more funding than $200($100 per channel)
take D for instance if D wants to be a reliable route for walmart just for 4 participants D would need $500 just to allow each participant to buy their weekly shop once each. C would need $400 Bwould need $300 A would need $200 and X would need $100.. and thats without preloading the reverse channels

by reverse channels i mean both directions are not loaded and its treated as a one direction payment x->walmart.. as shown here
X[$100 - $0]A   A[$200 - $0]B   B[$300 - $0]C   C[$400 - $0]D   D[$500 - $0]WALMART
at this point walmart cant pay D anything. D cant pay C any thing. and so on. its not a walmart -> x direction route

anyway lets allow X to buy walmart groceries
X[$0 - $100]A   A[$100 - $100]B   B[$200 - $100]C   C[$300 - $100]D   D[$400 - $100]WALMART
now A can buy groceries
X[$0 - $100]A   A[$0 - $200]B   B[$100 - $200]C   C[$200 - $200]D   D[$300 - $200]WALMART
now B can buy groceries
X[$0 - $100]A   A[$0 - $200]B   B[$0 - $300]C   C[$100 - $300]D   D[$200 - $300]WALMART
now C can buy groceries
X[$0 - $100]A   A[$0 - $200]B   B[$0 - $300]C   C[$0 - $400]D   D[$100 - $400]WALMART
now D can buy groceries
X[$0 - $100]A   A[$0 - $200]B   B[$0 - $300]C   C[$0 - $400]D   D[$0 - $500]WALMART

ok so now all 5 users have bought 1 week of groceries. but now they cant buy next weeks groceries

hopefully this shows that with just being a route of 2 channels would mean that you would have to in a 5 hop system hold $500 to be able to be a route of 4 others and yourself for just 1 payment each.

now imagine having 4 channels, = more funds needed and pre participants routing through you... if everyone were only 4-5 hops away walmart .. then D would need $12100 just for him and 120 others to buy just 1 week of groceries

as this shows.


take a good look at that image.. imagine that after the first week D done the groceries. now everyone needs to refill (close open channels) all over again and the main route A,b,C,D would need to have the big extra buffer reserves for all the connections.. ABCD cant just have $100 in the route reserve. even if they only personally spend $100 on themselves
and this is only amounts for 120 users only wanting to spend $100 a week..
i dare anyone to start running scenarios of a decentralised (non factory hub/node) where by it doesnt require people to have more than 8 connections and doesnt need to be more than 8 hops away.. where by everyone can be connected up to 1 billion people.

do the maths people how many hubs/hops/channels and funding pr channel would be needed for a reliable network of
20,000 people
100,000 people
1million people
100million people
1billion people

you will be shocked at how a decentralised system wont work.

take banks. in america there are 95,000 banks serving 300mill people. imagiine that like each bank branch having 3157 channels (customer accounts)
and each bank has to communicate. there would need to also have
~95000 connections to be 1 hop from another hub(bank)
~308 connections to be 2 hop from another hub(bank)
~46 connections to be 3 hop from another hub(bank)

so work out how many channels each individual person would need to not be in a bank branch hub situation
and how much funding per channel that individual would need.
and how many hops away (degrees of separation) to be connected to everyone

then look at the banker branch situation of hubs with ~4000 channels where each individual is only atmost 4 hops away

youll soon se a decentralised hop model does not work, due to reliance of multiple hops all bing online funded. by the cost to each individual to be funded and the time to route and make payment.

LN's utopia only works in a bank branch (hub) model where your multisig counterpart has authorisation over thousands of users

LN's model/niche/ appeal is not as a scaling solution for everyones needs. it should be treated as a 3rd party srvice managed by hubs(paypal2.0) and used for those making regular paypnts to a regular end recipient..
not a pay anyone anywhere anytime instantly..
but a pay regularly to known recipients service

[hatshepsut93]

It's great that developers already see this potential, I think in the next 10-15 years people will radically improve Bitcoin to the point were it will be the biggest threat to banks and other centralized systems. People often say that Bitcoin will be replaced by some new coin, but so far I see that Bitcoin is the only coin that keeps getting improved with every year, while altcoins are just vaporware. Bitcoin is still a great long-term investment now, and not only in monetary sense - people with Bitcoin-related skills and knowledge might be needed in the future.

[franky1]

It's great that developers already see this potential, I think in the next 10-15 years people will radically improve Bitcoin to the point were it will be the biggest threat to banks and other centralized systems. People often say that Bitcoin will be replaced by some new coin, but so far I see that Bitcoin is the only coin that keeps getting improved with every year, while altcoins are just vaporware. Bitcoin is still a great long-term investment now, and not only in monetary sense - people with Bitcoin-related skills and knowledge might be needed in the future.

you do know segwit+LN was never about malleability... but was about BC1q addresses and multisig features. so that bankers can be our co-signer(owner of funds) and so that.. (yes yes i know many will orgasm at this rvelation) so that U.S banks can have USD1q addresses and UK banks can have GBP1q addresses so that banks can then do currency swaps on their hubs(bank branches) within LN

yes LN is not the solution to bitcoin decentralisation. its the pathway to non immutible banker co-signed offchain fund management.

but hey i bet most are just salivating at the prospect of people having their funds locked into bankers "factory" UTXO's and having to endlessly user bankers hubs, just for the ability of jumping in and out of fiat.

[yoseph]

Thanks for such post. It's a useful one to the newbies or people who harly knows about bitcoin. It shows bitcoin is privately transacted. It safe and secured than other coins. People can have full trust on it. It won't hamper your security issue.

Bitcoin itself isn't private. It is partially anonymous, your indentity still can be easily revealed. The whole point is that Lightning Network allows for even more decentralised payments. The only thing we need to send a transaction is a connection between your node and the one that is accepting the payment. It can be easily achieved by routing your payment through other participants of the network. Technically, it's more anonymous since no one except nodes which route your payments knows that you are the sender of the transaction.

If the Lightning Network is going to provide another layer of anonymity for it's users then i believe it's really going to help the Bitcoin community grow by bringing people who very much want to protect their privacy whenever they are making an transaction.

[franky1]

If the Lightning Network is going to provide another layer of anonymity for it's users then i believe it's really going to help the Bitcoin community grow by bringing people who very much want to protect their privacy whenever they are making an transaction.

for a reliable use without needing multiple channels all prefunded and without neding mutiple hops of many middlemen agreements. people will use the banker hubs (custodials) which will end up being AMLKYC

[pooya87]

But without user-friendly wallet/client/nodes, LN isn't really useful. But some developer already make one, even though i think it's not friendly enough.

well it is new. and i guess it may be possible that they don't want to make it user friendly now because the developers have been saying how it is not ready and you shouldn't risk big amounts in it. with time it will be come more user friendly and will have more clients.
there are even works done on light weight clients for regular users such as Electrum (the most famous SPV wallet) to be used on LN.

[bontkoli01]

It is really great to know that scaling, layer 2 and cryptographic innovations are discussed in consensus 2018. All these topics were the most confusing issue in this industry. I hope from the discussion that we are going to get a reliable solution very soon.

[Zin-Zang]

Great news from LN: According to Decker

each channel can process about 500 transactions per second. With thousands of channels being utilized at once, Bitcoin could theoretically scale beyond not only any other cryptocurrency but any other payment method, including VISA.

In addition to the talk about scaling, Decker explained that using the lightning network would be impossible to track sending/receiving bitcoins, as long as the user has more than one open channel.
After all this, Bitcoin Cash fans are still surprised by all the positive about the lightning network.

OK,

Sorry to Burst your Bubble, but Any Coins , even the ones that don't use segwit or LN can all achieve Unlimited OffChain Scaling.

All they have to do is be on Multiple exchanges that offer Offchain Transactions such as Cryptopia or Trade Satoshi  or any other 3rd party that wants to offer offchain transactions. Also since their transactions are offchain, no tracking is possible, unless the exchange complies with a warrant.
(But if no one know what exchange you are using , they would not know where to send a warrant. )  

The Exchanges work right now without the complexities / confusion  of LN.

Here is the kicker , any coin on the exchange can do it.

Exchanges don't have the time locks or limitations of LN and will probably be cheaper than LN fees.
Time will tell.

FYI:
LN hubs , use their own LN Notes (promises to redeem/pay bitcoin), all LN hubs will be required to conform to AML/KYC regulations.
So LN transactions will not stay private and will be reported.
No Governments are going to allow LN Hubs=Unlicensed Banks to bypass all of their AML/KYC regulations.
They will eventually require a banking license for all LN Hubs and full reporting compliance.

[earnetheasy]

Bitcoin is the first currency in the crypto currency market. It has the decentralized network that allows the user to make transaction by them. But now people are saying that it has some problem in the network. But it’s not a big deal. Bitcoin is still doing transaction successfully with fast speed. If it sees that there is a problem, it will be solved within a short time.

[DooMAD]

All they have to do is be on Multiple exchanges that offer Offchain Transactions such as Cryptopia or Trade Satoshi  or any other 3rd party that wants to offer offchain transactions. Also since their transactions are offchain, no tracking is possible, unless the exchange complies with a warrant.
(But if no one know what exchange you are using , they would not know where to send a warrant. )  

The Exchanges work right now without the complexities / confusion  of LN.

Here is the kicker , any coin on the exchange can do it.

Exchanges don't have the time locks or limitations of LN and will probably be cheaper than LN fees.

*Decries LN "banks" which aren't actually banks at all, then tells people to use exchanges like actual banks*  

You realise that's pretty stupid advice right?  With exchanges, you're trusting that third party to be the custodian of those funds.  You are giving them your money, making them the owner of that money, and asking them to look after it for you.  With a multisig setup, you still have control over your funds.  I don't care how complex or confusing you think it is, it's still more secure to control your own private keys.

If you want to hand your money over to total strangers on the internet, go right ahead.  Don't come crying to us when you lose it.

FYI:
LN hubs , use their own LN Notes (promises to redeem/pay bitcoin), all LN hubs will be required to conform to AML/KYC regulations.
So LN transactions will not stay private and will be reported.
No Governments are going to allow LN Hubs=Unlicensed Banks to bypass all of their AML/KYC regulations.
They will eventually require a banking license for all LN Hubs and full reporting compliance.

Centralised exchanges are far more likely to be subject to KYC/AML than LN is, again demonstrating the absurdity of your argument.  But again, go right ahead and take the "too dim to understand the benefits" option and hand your money over to strangers.  It's not like you'll have any other option if you're using BCH anyway.  At least BTC is giving users a choice over how they want to handle their privacy and security.  I would much rather open a payment channel over depositing funds to an exchange.  

Plus, for altcoin trading, we won't even need exchanges anymore when atomic cross chain transfers mean we can hop from one blockchain to another without any middlemen holding funds in between.  Although, again, BCH users won't have the option to attend that party due to their limited vision.  LN is a step towards the death of custodial banking, the exact opposite of what you attempt to portray it as.

[laryillary]

Even Visa's partnership with WaveCrest was suspended due to the continuing non-compliance with the rules of working with us. As a result, all WaveCrest programs associated with Visa cards will be closed.

[bellamente]

Theoretically, the legalization of cryptocurrencies can lead to an increase in the rate of bitcoin. Instant transactions can be converted into fiat money

[franky1]

lets interject my thoughts on that debate you two are having.

LN is a step towards the death of custodial banking, the exact opposite of what you attempt to portray it as.

did you just say that? i am so facepalming that

onchain sole privkey control is a step towards the death of custodial bankers.
LN uses multisig. its literally the definition of custodial so multiig is a step towards custodial bankers
LN cannot scale as a hop and spoke model. and will requre hubs (bank branches) so LN hubs are another step towards custodial banking
LN has fund locks, revocations. so CLTV/CSV/revokes are a step towards custodial banking

LN features are multiple steps towards custodial banking.

one thing you need to learn about banking is this. dont think of american banks as one computer holding 300million accounts.
think of it as 95,000 bank branches DISTRIBUTED in different towns. with an average 3,200 accounts per branch

now
swap "hub" for "bank branch"
swap "channel" for "account"
swap multisig countrpart for authoriser
swap hub authoriser for bank manager
swap "route" for "wire transer"
swap "LN" for "swift network"

any system that has a punishment for moving funds without someone elses consent is a banking system.. and is not what bitcoin was originally built for

[oni4an]

This would be a great thing for everyone because the stronger and better bitcoins the weaker the monopoly of financial transfers. In competition are born really good things.

[boy130]

There are already cryptocurrencies that are infinitely scaling that don't require offchain transactions. The sharding approach used by Zilliqa (and soon Ethereum I hear) can also be applied to Bitcoin. Sure it will take a hard fork, but it's definitely much easier to achieve than requiring thousands of lightning channels around the world.

[DooMAD]

LN uses multisig. its literally the definition of custodial

No it isn't.  Exchanges are custodial because they, and only they, hold the keys.  Multisig (and the clue is in the name, so this shouldn't be so difficult for you) means multiple people can hold the keys.  But even with multiple people involved, Lightning still allows each user to control their portion of the funds in that channel.  Even when you open a channel with another person/business/hub/whatever, they don't have control of your portion of the funds until you send a transaction within that channel to them, effectively signing control of those funds over to them.  Which is how a payment should work.

It seems like definitions really aren't your strong suit.  You always seem to assume words mean whatever happens to fit your warped conclusions best.  

LN cannot scale as a hop and spoke model

LN already supports more transactions per second than BCH does.  Maybe throw stones about scaling after you get out of your glass house.

LN has fund locks, revocations. so CLTV/CSV/revokes are a step towards custodial banking

Revocations are only there to disincentivise cheating.  In practice, they shouldn't often be used.  The only think being revoked is permission to spend from anything but the most recent balance, because if you could freely spend from an older balance without consequence, it would be easy to steal money and no one would use it.  

Revocations are also very much proof that you're wrong about LN hubs being equivalent to banks.  If hubs could control your money like a fiat bank or exchange does, there would be no need for revocations.  So thanks for undermining your own (ridiculous) argument with that one.  



Any more shots you'd like to aim directly into your own foot?  

[ebliever]

OK,

Sorry to Burst your Bubble, but Any Coins , even the ones that don't use segwit or LN can all achieve Unlimited OffChain Scaling.

All they have to do is be on Multiple exchanges that offer Offchain Transactions such as Cryptopia or Trade Satoshi  or any other 3rd party that wants to offer offchain transactions. Also since their transactions are offchain, no tracking is possible, unless the exchange complies with a warrant.
(But if no one know what exchange you are using , they would not know where to send a warrant. )  

The Exchanges work right now without the complexities / confusion  of LN.

Here is the kicker , any coin on the exchange can do it.

Exchanges don't have the time locks or limitations of LN and will probably be cheaper than LN fees.
Time will tell.

FYI:
LN hubs , use their own LN Notes (promises to redeem/pay bitcoin), all LN hubs will be required to conform to AML/KYC regulations.
So LN transactions will not stay private and will be reported.
No Governments are going to allow LN Hubs=Unlicensed Banks to bypass all of their AML/KYC regulations.
They will eventually require a banking license for all LN Hubs and full reporting compliance.

Your criticism is based on your blind faith about LN hubs being forced into AML/KYC by government regulation - despite the complete absence of such regulation currently. It would make more sense to assume that the centralized exchanges you mention would be targeted far earlier and far more effectively. Because if an exchange is targeted it must comply or it will be shut down and personnel hauled off to prison, and exchanges make big fat juicy targets.

It's funny that a bcasher (as a I assume you are) places such blind faith in centralized exchanges despite their miserable track record. Kinda fits with Ver's endorsement of Mt. Gox, come to think of it. But makes a laughingstock of their claims to favor decentralization because they choose centralization and authoritarian control at every opportunity.

If I'm a random LN node operator and some government passes a law demanding I comply along with a million other nodes/people, that government is going to have a miserable time finding out I'm even in their jurisdiction, and then tracking me down to force compliance. All for a node that might have all of $20 in funds in it. If they try this we'll bleed the government dry with guerrilla warfare tactics. It will be one huge game of whack-a-mole that the government will keep miserably losing at.

So give the bcash FUD a rest, it's just an expression of their delusional raving, as usual.

[franky1]

LN uses multisig. its literally the definition of custodial

No it isn't.  Exchanges are custodial because they, and only they, hold the keys.

lol
you make me laugh
so if your dad has custody of you. your mom cant have custody of you. and you cant do your own thing because only one person has custody??
and as a offspring of parents you have no responsibility to maintain and keep yourslf safe too?

so if you were evr arrested and in police custody. there is only one police officer in the world with the handcuff keys? and you no longer have rights to your own self preservation?

a apartment custodian has a key to the apartments to secure and maintain an apartment. so you cant have a key to your apartment anad your not responsible for also maintaining and securing your apartment

a custodian is not a sole controller. so dont even think that something like coinbase can avoid being a custodian by simply implementing multisig vaults. sorry to burst your bubble but coinbase would still be a custodian.

maybe you need to revisit the definition of custodian

LN cannot scale as a hop and spoke model

LN already supports more transactions per second than BCH does.  Maybe throw stones about scaling after you get out of your glass house.

actually it doesnt. though i am not sure why you are endlessly bringing BCH up. seems you are stuck in the reddit mindset of there only being 2 camps
which seems a narrowminded point of view to have in a decentralised ecosystem

anyway, using a legacy native tx i can make more payments faster than LN can.
ill give you a few days to think about that. have a nice time thinking about that

LN has fund locks, revocations. so CLTV/CSV/revokes are a step towards custodial banking

Revocations are only there to disincentivise cheating.  In practice, they shouldn't often be used.  The only think being revoked is permission to spend from anything but the most recent balance, because if you could freely spend from an older balance without consequence, it would be easy to steal money and no one would use it.  

Revocations are also very much proof that you're wrong about LN hubs being equivalent to banks.  If hubs could control your money like a fiat bank or exchange does, there would be no need for revocations.  So thanks for undermining your own (ridiculous) argument with that one.  

you said earlier a person has full control of their funds. and could not control the other persons funds, there would be no need for revocations.
again have a long think about that.
use your own scenario and alpha test your own scenario against yourself. dont run utopian scenarios of perfect condition 'does it work' tests. but be a debugger/bruteforcer/blackhat and run 'does it break' tests. make yourself go into the mindset of how you could steal from your wife if you had a joint bank account with her. run scenarios of if you were both sides of a mutlisig how you could gain the edge and blackmail, extort, steal from yourself.  you will be surprised.
ill give you a hint. due to a varience of onchain fee's at different times. a hub would like to adjust the fee when it broadcasts and would prefer to be the broadcaster because your payment affets other people the hub is linked to. so the hub would like the upper hand.
ill mention one such upperhand.. sighash_none.. but be warned there are many more things a hub will have, to have the upper hand.
but enjoy playing a blackhat of 'will it break' instead of asskissing 'utopia works'.. you will surprise yourself


dont assume utopia
dont assume because someone renames a chargeback as being called "revocation" that its not a chargeback
dont assume because someone names a bank branch a hub that its not a bank branch
dont assume because someone names a bank HQ a 'factory' that its not a HQ for hubs(bank branches)
dont assume because maths theory says a tx can be validated in 0.002 seconds, that 0.002 seconds is what real people using the system in real life will experience.

once you get out of your wood cabin named the core retreat. and started to test the walls instead of hugging the people in it. you will see the termites fall out the holes in the wall, when you hit it.
but although i dont live in a glass house. id prefer to live in a glass house than a wood cabin. due to being able to see beyond the wood. and yes i would not fear throwing stones.. no one should fear throwing stones. its the best way to find out whats easy to break and whats bulletproof

but id be the person that throws stones when the glass is being made. not wait until the house is built. but anyway go watch let them build your wood cabin and invite your core friends. live in cabin fever. and only notice th holes once the termites have already invaded

[Zin-Zang]

All they have to do is be on Multiple exchanges that offer Offchain Transactions such as Cryptopia or Trade Satoshi  or any other 3rd party that wants to offer offchain transactions. Also since their transactions are offchain, no tracking is possible, unless the exchange complies with a warrant.
(But if no one know what exchange you are using , they would not know where to send a warrant. )  

The Exchanges work right now without the complexities / confusion  of LN.

Here is the kicker , any coin on the exchange can do it.

Exchanges don't have the time locks or limitations of LN and will probably be cheaper than LN fees.

*Decries LN "banks" which aren't actually banks at all, then tells people to use exchanges like actual banks*  

You realise that's pretty stupid advice right?  With exchanges, you're trusting that third party to be the custodian of those funds.  You are giving them your money, making them the owner of that money, and asking them to look after it for you.  With a multisig setup, you still have control over your funds.  I don't care how complex or confusing you think it is, it's still more secure to control your own private keys.

If you want to hand your money over to total strangers on the internet, go right ahead.  Don't come crying to us when you lose it.

Exchange are up and running right now.  The only really stupid advice I see is yours.  
You say wait for LN, you think LN will bypass all AML/KYC regulations.  
You are confused and think that multisig means no one can take your coins, fact LN has a fee system which means they will take a % of your coins,
fact LN has a thing in place to Confiscate your entire amount if they believe you tried and broadcast an old LN transaction.

If you want to be secure, you don't give any one access to your coins, however if you are going to spend the coins anyway , you only have to send the amount that you are spending to the exchange , not all of your coins. Again you seem the stupid one.

FYI:
LN hubs , use their own LN Notes (promises to redeem/pay bitcoin), all LN hubs will be required to conform to AML/KYC regulations.
So LN transactions will not stay private and will be reported.
No Governments are going to allow LN Hubs=Unlicensed Banks to bypass all of their AML/KYC regulations.
They will eventually require a banking license for all LN Hubs and full reporting compliance.

Centralised exchanges are far more likely to be subject to KYC/AML than LN is, again demonstrating the absurdity of your argument.  But again, go right ahead and take the "too dim to understand the benefits" option and hand your money over to strangers.  It's not like you'll have any other option if you're using BCH anyway.  At least BTC is giving users a choice over how they want to handle their privacy and security.  I would much rather open a payment channel over depositing funds to an exchange.  

Plus, for altcoin trading, we won't even need exchanges anymore when atomic cross chain transfers mean we can hop from one blockchain to another without any middlemen holding funds in between.  Although, again, BCH users won't have the option to attend that party due to their limited vision.  LN is a step towards the death of custodial banking, the exact opposite of what you attempt to portray it as.

The fact is Banks process Bank Notes (A Note is a promised to Redeem/Pay)
The fact is LN Hub process LN Notes  (a promised to redeem/pay in bitcoin),
your lack of financial knowledge is a sign of your ignorance on the subject.

Exchange allow direct exchange between individuals, they do not process their own note system, ie: Exchanges can not be classified as a bank without a Note system.
Anon coins will be banned from many exchanges as the Governments begin their crack down. But non-anon coins are unaffected.  
https://cointelegraph.com/news/hacked-crypto-exchange-coincheck-confirms-removal-of-four-anonymity-focused-altcoins
Exchange offchain systems works right now, is simple verses complicated , you send to a user name instead of an address.

You are just a LN zealot that refuses to deny it is a poorly designed system and the exchanges are cheaper , faster , and under less reporting requirements.
LN requires all funds to be used be Time Locked.  Exchanges do not require time locking , so it is superior to LN.

Another example is Banks have CDs where they time lock your money for specific lengths of time.
LN hub/unlicensed bank time locks your bitcoin.

LN Hubs=Unlicensed Banks and that is apparent to anyone with any financial knowledge.  

Feel free to make your weak arguments to your government officials when they make the AML/KYC regulations official on LN hubs.
I can already tell you , you're going to lose, they are just waiting for LN to actually work and they will act.

[Zin-Zang]

OK,

Sorry to Burst your Bubble, but Any Coins , even the ones that don't use segwit or LN can all achieve Unlimited OffChain Scaling.

All they have to do is be on Multiple exchanges that offer Offchain Transactions such as Cryptopia or Trade Satoshi  or any other 3rd party that wants to offer offchain transactions. Also since their transactions are offchain, no tracking is possible, unless the exchange complies with a warrant.
(But if no one know what exchange you are using , they would not know where to send a warrant. )  

The Exchanges work right now without the complexities / confusion  of LN.

Here is the kicker , any coin on the exchange can do it.

Exchanges don't have the time locks or limitations of LN and will probably be cheaper than LN fees.
Time will tell.

FYI:
LN hubs , use their own LN Notes (promises to redeem/pay bitcoin), all LN hubs will be required to conform to AML/KYC regulations.
So LN transactions will not stay private and will be reported.
No Governments are going to allow LN Hubs=Unlicensed Banks to bypass all of their AML/KYC regulations.
They will eventually require a banking license for all LN Hubs and full reporting compliance.

Your criticism is based on your blind faith about LN hubs being forced into AML/KYC by government regulation - despite the complete absence of such regulation currently. It would make more sense to assume that the centralized exchanges you mention would be targeted far earlier and far more effectively. Because if an exchange is targeted it must comply or it will be shut down and personnel hauled off to prison, and exchanges make big fat juicy targets.

It's funny that a bcasher (as a I assume you are) places such blind faith in centralized exchanges despite their miserable track record. Kinda fits with Ver's endorsement of Mt. Gox, come to think of it. But makes a laughingstock of their claims to favor decentralization because they choose centralization and authoritarian control at every opportunity.

If I'm a random LN node operator and some government passes a law demanding I comply along with a million other nodes/people, that government is going to have a miserable time finding out I'm even in their jurisdiction, and then tracking me down to force compliance. All for a node that might have all of $20 in funds in it. If they try this we'll bleed the government dry with guerrilla warfare tactics. It will be one huge game of whack-a-mole that the government will keep miserably losing at.

So give the bcash FUD a rest, it's just an expression of their delusional raving, as usual.

Again, your assumptions are incorrect
1.  LN hubs / unlicensed banks will be required to follow AML/KYC regulations.

2. You actually think you can hide on the Public internet.
LOL, that is funny, IP address can be followed to physical locations. Ethernet card address are stored in a database connected to your PC's serial #.
Did you buy that PC with a credit card, now they have your name and address.
Over Half the tor nodes are compromised by the FBI, so good luck with that.  

3.  I could care less what happens to BCash, I don't own any of it.

4. My main point was this:

Any coin can have unlimited scaling using offchain transactions provided by a 3rd party such as exchanges or someone else.

Trying to pretend like LN is the only way to scale offchain is where I call bullshit.
 

FYI:  https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-issues-guidance-virtual-currencies-and-regulatory-responsibilities

March 18, 2013
Describes Circumstances Where "Money Transmitter" Definition Applies

VIENNA, Va. - To provide clarity and regulatory certainty for businesses and individuals engaged in an expanding field of financial activity, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) today issued the following guidance, Application of FinCEN's Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies. The guidance is in response to questions raised by financial institutions, law enforcement, and regulators concerning the regulatory treatment of persons who use convertible virtual currencies or make a business of exchanging, accepting, and transmitting them. Convertible virtual currencies either have an equivalent value in real currency or act as a substitute for real currency.

FinCEN's rules define certain businesses or individuals as money services businesses (MSBs) depending on the nature of their financial activities. MSBs have registration requirements and a range of anti-money laundering, recordkeeping, and reporting responsibilities under FinCEN's regulations. The guidance considers the use of virtual currencies from the perspective of several categories within FinCEN's definition of MSBs.

Contact FinCEN when you are ready to have your LN hub/unlicensed Banks won't be required to comply Bubble Burst.  

[DooMAD]

so if you were evr arrested and in police custody. there is only one police officer in the world with the handcuff keys?

Another apt demonstration you haven't got the slightest clue how it works.  You both have keys, that's the entire point.  You are equals in this scenario, the other person in the channel doesn't have more power over you than you have over them.

FYI:  https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-issues-guidance-virtual-currencies-and-regulatory-responsibilities

March 18, 2013
Describes Circumstances Where "Money Transmitter" Definition Applies

VIENNA, Va. - To provide clarity and regulatory certainty for businesses and individuals engaged in an expanding field of financial activity, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) today issued the following guidance, Application of FinCEN's Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies. The guidance is in response to questions raised by financial institutions, law enforcement, and regulators concerning the regulatory treatment of persons who use convertible virtual currencies or make a business of exchanging, accepting, and transmitting them. Convertible virtual currencies either have an equivalent value in real currency or act as a substitute for real currency.
FinCEN's rules define certain businesses or individuals as money services businesses (MSBs) depending on the nature of their financial activities. MSBs have registration requirements and a range of anti-money laundering, recordkeeping, and reporting responsibilities under FinCEN's regulations. The guidance considers the use of virtual currencies from the perspective of several categories within FinCEN's definition of MSBs.

Contact FinCEN when you are ready to have your LN hub/unlicensed Banks won't be required to comply Bubble Burst.  

Congratulations, that description encapsulates every single cryptocurrency and all on-chain transactions too.  If it applies to LN, it also applies to literally everything else in the cryptoverse, particularly centralised exchanges which are already subjected to such regulations.  Remind me again what your point was?

Exchanges do not require time locking , so it is superior to LN.

Tell that to all the people who had their accounts frozen and had to wait weeks or sometimes months to get their money back.  Better yet, tell that to the people who never got their money back.  

Centralised exchanges are a throwback to the outdated "traditional" finance system.  Bitcoin was specifically designed as a transaction between a sender and a recipient.  It was not designed so you could hand over your money to total strangers on the internet and ask them not to lose it.  Engaging in such archaic behaviour is not "superior", it's downright backwards.  

Still, not everyone can be enlightened enough to understand progress.  You should head back to the comforting familiarity of your cave, neanderthal man.

4. My main point was this:

Any coin can have unlimited scaling using offchain transactions provided by a 3rd party such as exchanges or someone else.

Trying to pretend like LN is the only way to scale offchain is where I call bullshit.

It's clearly not the only way.  Show me a link to where anyone has ever uttered the words "Lightning is the only way to scale Bitcoin".  If you can find one, I'll happily go on record to say they're as braindead as you clearly are.

You are just a LN zealot

Said the Anti-LN (or should that be Anti-Cen?) troll.  You sound roughly on par with that level of utter gormlessness.

[Zin-Zang]

4. My main point was this:

Any coin can have unlimited scaling using offchain transactions provided by a 3rd party such as exchanges or someone else.

Trying to pretend like LN is the only way to scale offchain is where I call bullshit.

It's clearly not the only way.

And that was my Point, as the title of this topic subliminally implied it was,
by failing to mention the Offchain alternatives which are already working without LN's limitations.

Your level of ignorance is beyond my time to try and educate, so I will leave you to it for it to extract it's own penalty upon you.

[Pan Troglodytes]

Great news from LN: According to Decker

each channel can process about 500 transactions per second. With thousands of channels being utilized at once, Bitcoin could theoretically scale beyond not only any other cryptocurrency but any other payment method, including VISA.

In addition to the talk about scaling, Decker explained that using the lightning network would be impossible to track sending/receiving bitcoins, as long as the user has more than one open channel.
After all this, Bitcoin Cash fans are still surprised by all the positive about the lightning network.
Read more and source https://coinjournal.net/scaling-layer-2-and-cryptographic-innovations-discussed-at-consensus-2018/ *
* This text from the middle of the conversation.[Scroll down the cursor]

Lightning Network is an off-chain solution, it is just a third party service offered to bitcoin users. What Bitcoin needs is an on-chain solution being able to accomodate an increased incoming transaction stream without the effect of fees rising astronomically. Only then you can speak about a decentralized payment system.

What LN offers, an off-chain solution, a third party payment service - well, it can be built upon anything, glass beads or shells too.

[Red-Apple]

Exchange ....

it has not been that long since the last time an exchange got hacked and people lost a lot of their money. and each year we have at least two exchanges that either scam their users or get hacked and run away. you still are advertising exchanges as a solution!!!
even a child can tell you that is not safe...

[nganhaj]

I think bitcoin is a property such as gold is not money, up no need to try to move so fast, of course moving fast is a good thing, bitcoin too expensive to buy a bread

[audaciousbeing]

Great news from LN: According to Decker

each channel can process about 500 transactions per second. With thousands of channels being utilized at once, Bitcoin could theoretically scale beyond not only any other cryptocurrency but any other payment method, including VISA.

In addition to the talk about scaling, Decker explained that using the lightning network would be impossible to track sending/receiving bitcoins, as long as the user has more than one open channel.
After all this, Bitcoin Cash fans are still surprised by all the positive about the lightning network.
Read more and source https://coinjournal.net/scaling-layer-2-and-cryptographic-innovations-discussed-at-consensus-2018/ *
* This text from the middle of the conversation.[Scroll down the cursor]

I am still trying to understand the technicalities that surrounds the Lightening Network as those jargon are too difficult for someone less technically inclined but I am hopeful that this is one that would further makes this technology a bigger one and of the mere fact of comparison with Visa and projected to go beyond Visa in terms of transactions handling based on the what I estimated Visa to be handling every second is surely a project to behold. Just like SegWit, until when I saw how this reduced transaction fees significantly, it still does not make sense to it.

The best is for everyone to be ready to key in this, rather looking for ways to criticize and pull it down without even giving it a chance to prove itself.

[Kimchu kuno]

Bitcoin is the first currency in the crypto currency market. It has the decentralized network that allows the user to make transaction by them. But now people are saying that it has some problem in the network. But it’s not a big deal. Bitcoin is still doing transaction successfully with fast speed. If it sees that there is a problem, it will be solved within a short time.

It's nice to hear processing visa become faster and easier and of course affordable.

[Zin-Zang]

Exchange ....

it has not been that long since the last time an exchange got hacked and people lost a lot of their money. and each year we have at least two exchanges that either scam their users or get hacked and run away. you still are advertising exchanges as a solution!!!
even a child can tell you that is not safe...

And if you look at CoinmarketCap ,

You can see the majority Do not share your Opinion about exchanges.

You Determine how much you leave on the exchange ,
since the transfers are not time locked you can move funds in and out at a faster speed and not have the majority of your funds at risk.

Need to spend $100 offchain, deposit it and pay the other party. (Your only risk the $100)
Get Pay $100 offchain, withdraw it immediately to your onchain wallet. (Again Your only risk the $100)
Since their is no time locking like in LN you can immediately deposit or withdraw, protecting you from excessive risk.


If you are dumb enough to leave the majority of your funds under a 3rd party's control, well that is your personal call.
But using the exchanges that is a choice not a requirement.


*At this point in time , LN has yet to be proven safe and has reported loss of time locked funds.*
https://www.ethnews.com/lightning-network-users-report-losing-bitcoin-due-to-bugs

two Twitter users, one of whom is a Lightening developer, reported losing bitcoin as a result of one or more bugs related to the closing of payment channels.

*Almost 4 Months later, the Lost LN's Notes for bitcoins have not yet been reported as recovered.*

[franky1]

so if you were evr arrested and in police custody. there is only one police officer in the world with the handcuff keys?

Another apt demonstration you haven't got the slightest clue how it works.  You both have keys, that's the entire point.  You are equals in this scenario, the other person in the channel doesn't have more power over you than you have over them.

LOL
so when you set up a channel with starbucks and you deposit $60 to cover $2 coffee for a month. do you really expect starbucks to deposit $60 also??
imagine a starbucks hub(local town branch) with 8000 customers. do you really think that starbucks is going to stake $480,000.
no its going to be more like
customer[$60 - $0]starbucks
starbucks will have nothing to lose. so it is NOT a "mutual destruction" scenario

and it will be starbucks that will set up the channel and offer the initial deposit rules, fee's and punishments. and its starbucks that can. du to nothing to lose refuse to sign their half. forcing a customer to broadcast an older tx. so that then starbucks can then sign the refuted tx to then use as a rvocation(chargeback) to punish the customer.

i think you need to run more scenarios based on a "can i break it" mindset. not a "utopia, it works" mindset.

there are other things starbucks can do too. i can think upp multiple blackmail extortion methods. and also due to not involving community validation(blockchain). ways a LN hub can tweak its code to have the upper hand. such as being best frinds with the DNS seed nodes so that their hub is part of the initial list fresh nodes see. and thus grabs as many users as possible. and becomes the hanshaker not the handshakee. to ensure the hub gets the customer to sign first. to ensur the customer is on the losing side and makes the hub th real controller of funds

again run some scenarios. it will shock you.
but even th devs have been public to say that you should not use LN unless prepared to lose because they know there are many flaws. they are still only tsting the handshaking to make a payment. they ar still not at the test it to break it until it doesnt break no more stage

[BitHodler]

The best is for everyone to be ready to key in this, rather looking for ways to criticize and pull it down without even giving it a chance to prove itself.

The problem isn't really LN, but the general idea that Bitcoin makes a step forward towards mass adoption. Some people just can't and don't want to see Bitcoin progress and become a mainstream instrument.

After LN we'll have other implementations that people will jump on and try to talk down on it. I'm used to how everything goes and can only laugh at how desperate these attempts to tarnish Bitcoin are.

I'm sure that even when Bitcoin has surpassed gold and does everything better in all aspects, there still will be skeptics trying to talk it down. Just let it go. Some people just can't be pleased, regardless of what you show them.

[DooMAD]

so when you set up a channel with starbucks and you deposit $60 to cover $2 coffee for a month. do you really expect starbucks to deposit $60 also??
imagine a starbucks hub(local town branch) with 8000 customers. do you really think that starbucks is going to stake $480,000.
no its going to be more like
customer[$60 - $0]starbucks
starbucks will have nothing to lose. so it is NOT a "mutual destruction" scenario

and it will be starbucks that will set up the channel and offer the initial deposit rules, fee's and punishments. and its starbucks that can. du to nothing to lose refuse to sign their half. forcing a customer to broadcast an older tx. so that then starbucks can then sign the refuted tx to then use as a rvocation(chargeback) to punish the customer.

i think you need to run more scenarios based on a "can i break it" mindset. not a "utopia, it works" mindset.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.  It almost sounds like you're raising a legitimate concern that could genuinely affect users, rather than just spouting mindless propaganda about "banks".  You actually managed to make an entire post without blaming a particular group of developers for everything, well done.  That must have been difficult for you.  Why couldn't you just open with something that sounds reasonable like this, rather than the reams of utter drivel you've been posting lately?  I might have actually taken you seriously.  

If I soften my stance and concede there might be the occasional instance where this is an issue, is there a chance you might be able to soften your stance and concede there might actually be the occasional benefit to using the Lighting Network?  Maybe compromise and find a fair-minded middleground?  Or was this just another attempt at a cheap points-scoring exercise and you have no interest in being fair-minded or neutral about it because you're the embodiment of the tribalism you opportunistically use as a smokescreen for your attacks?  Is there some remote possibility that you might be able to say something positive about Lightning for once?

But as you've said, "don't assume, don't assume, don't assume", so let's run that scenario:

If Starbucks don't sign their half of the transaction, they've effectively let a customer walk out without paying for their coffee.  That customer could conceivably think the best course of action is to broadcast from an older transaction, but that's not really in the customer's best interests.  The more likely scenario is that when the customer goes back for another coffee, they say "Hey, you didn't sign the transaction for my last coffee, you need to do that before I can pay for today's coffee".  And the Starbucks staff would say "Oh yeah, we're a business and we need to accept money for our products and services or we'll go out of business, duh".  Well, okay, maybe they wouldn't say it quite like that, but clearly the financial incentive is there for Starbucks to hold up their end of the deal.  It's not like they don't have anything at stake.  They have operating costs to cover just like any other business.  And to cover those costs, they need to actually sell the coffee, not try to screw their customers over.

Companies want to accept your money.  Because companies that place barriers to transact will naturally lose customers.  And if a company deliberately tried to rip people off, like your scenario, that would probably involve larger problems, like negative publicity, a tarnished brand and possibly even consumer protection agencies, watchdogs and regulators getting involved.  In extreme cases, fines and other criminal proceedings.  

The path of least resistance (and consequence) is the honest one in this scenario (and many others).

[iyemroker]

it's great there will be a network of lightning, it can make Bitcoin more clever and faster in terms of transactions.

because Bitcoin or Altcoins should always update the system and let not be considered by the user's own ancient itself.

[DooMAD]

Nearly three weeks and still no reply, franky1?  I was enjoying our little exchange.  Still running those scenarios?   

I'll happily give you a bit more time to come up with a convincing argument.  You clearly need it.   

[BelieveInBTC]

Lightning Network is not centralised and because of that it will take a longer period of time for it to become more popular. VISA will face serious problem due to growing number of users or... maybe lack of them. Lightning Network scales better because every individual is able to create their own node and earn a little money on it which encourages people to run it.

[angchosenone]

This is valid, and this is the thing that bitcoin needs to go into the following level of being acknowledged. On the off chance that we don't do a wonder such as this, at that point we're not going to have the capacity to contend in reality with enormous traders, for example, visa, paypal, and so forth. In case we can't get to this point, at that point we will have issues when the system is congested, (for example, high charges, long sit tight circumstances for affirmations, and a burglary of the whole system)

[richardsNY]

Lightning Network scales better because every individual is able to create their own node and earn a little money on it which encourages people to run it.

I like how that will give people incentive to run their own nodes and compete with others when it comes to offering the lowest possible rates for the 'services' as node. I find it quite funny how the BCash squad keeps pointing at banking hubs and that it will destroy Bitcoin, while in reality BCash has been destroyed already. It's centralized around the Roger Ver cartel, and the most hilarious thing is that they might be planning to upgrade their block size to 1TB, which is beyond insane. Their reasoning is that everyone can buy a $50 HDD and have insane internet speeds. These idiots don't understand that people will NOT upgrade just to run a full node of something, and especially not when it comes to an altcoin.

[Winifredinme825]

Bitcoin may theoretically extend beyond VISA. But the speed of processing it can not be as fast as a visa.

[Pursuer]

Bitcoin may theoretically extend beyond VISA. But the speed of processing it can not be as fast as a visa.

if you are hinting at confirmation speed then you should know that bitcoin's transaction confirmation speed is already ridiculously faster than VISA's confirmation speed!
for example as a merchant when you receive bitcoin it will only take about 10 minutes on average to get 1 confirmation and be sure of the payment. but with VISA it will take a couple of days (up to 3) to have it confirmed and receive actual money.

[franky1]

so when you set up a channel with starbucks and you deposit $60 to cover $2 coffee for a month. do you really expect starbucks to deposit $60 also??
imagine a starbucks hub(local town branch) with 8000 customers. do you really think that starbucks is going to stake $480,000.
no its going to be more like
customer[$60 - $0]starbucks
starbucks will have nothing to lose. so it is NOT a "mutual destruction" scenario

and it will be starbucks that will set up the channel and offer the initial deposit rules, fee's and punishments. and its starbucks that can. du to nothing to lose refuse to sign their half. forcing a customer to broadcast an older tx. so that then starbucks can then sign the refuted tx to then use as a rvocation(chargeback) to punish the customer.

i think you need to run more scenarios based on a "can i break it" mindset. not a "utopia, it works" mindset.

If Starbucks don't sign their half of the transaction, they've effectively let a customer walk out without paying for their coffee.  That customer could conceivably think the best course of action is to broadcast from an older transaction, but that's not really in the customer's best interests.  The more likely scenario is that when the customer goes back for another coffee, they say "Hey, you didn't sign the transaction for my last coffee, you need to do that before I can pay for today's coffee".  And the Starbucks staff would say "Oh yeah, we're a business and we need to accept money for our products and services or we'll go out of business, duh".  Well, okay, maybe they wouldn't say it quite like that, but clearly the financial incentive is there for Starbucks to hold up their end of the deal.  It's not like they don't have anything at stake.  They have operating costs to cover just like any other business.  And to cover those costs, they need to actually sell the coffee, not try to screw their customers over.

your too stuck in the utopian mindset. plus your thinking of the hub as the honourable party..
so lets use some real names that might make you think
trendon shavers, mark kerpeles, bitconnect, butterfly labs, cloudminers, ico scammers, any exchange that claimed "we been hacked"
 
lets clarify this.. in normal bank chequing account terms

customer and naferious have a joint bank account requiring 2 signatures.  and if a bank gets 2 cheques. it accept the highest cheque number
..
cheque one. customer pays $3 to naferious. both sign cheque includes punishment to take customers whole funds if cheque1 is sent but cheque 2 is presented aswell

cheque two. customer pays $3 to naferious. naferious refuses to sign. and says "im going offline and locksing customrs funds forever."

customer gets compelled to send cheque 1 because the customer still has $57 in limbo(but got a free coffee).. and cheque one is the only duel signed cheque customer has..

then as cheque 1 is being broadcast. naferious signs cheque 2. and broadcasts it.
now cheque 2 initiates the revoke and steals $57 from customer

...
also look into the issues of sighash_noinput and the other opcodes the devs are implementing. even they are agreeing its dangerous and would require users to actually read the raw tx data before signing to know what they are signing.

LN has many holes.. the devs themselves dont even trust it and warn people of using it. stop promoting it as utopia
do you know why after decades of digital money. bitcoin was invented instead of just having dual managed/signed accounts. do you understand what the purpose of the blockchain is and why doing things offchain is the reverse of rvolutionary.

think about it

[gladydark]

This is obvious. In the next ten years, the utilization rate of VISA will be greatly reduced, and the encrypted currency can well fill the needs of these customers.

[DooMAD]

your too stuck in the utopian mindset. plus your thinking of the hub as the honourable party..
so lets use some real names that might make you think
trendon shavers, mark kerpeles, bitconnect, butterfly labs, cloudminers, ico scammers, any exchange that claimed "we been hacked"
 
lets clarify this.. in normal bank chequing account terms

customer and naferious have a joint bank account requiring 2 signatures.  and if a bank gets 2 cheques. it accept the highest cheque number
..
cheque one. customer pays $3 to naferious. both sign cheque includes punishment to take customers whole funds if cheque1 is sent but cheque 2 is presented aswell

cheque two. customer pays $3 to naferious. naferious refuses to sign. and says "im going offline and locksing customrs funds forever."

customer gets compelled to send cheque 1 because the customer still has $57 in limbo(but got a free coffee).. and cheque one is the only duel signed cheque customer has..

then as cheque 1 is being broadcast. naferious signs cheque 2. and broadcasts it.
now cheque 2 initiates the revoke and steals $57 from customer

Wow, so you're saying that if people transact with scammers, there's a chance they might get ripped off?  What a truly shocking revelation!  

I mean, you might have noticed how Karpeles, BitConnect, BFL, ICO scammers, etc didn't actually need to use Lightning to steal peoples' money?  So firstly, in what conceivable way is that an argument against Lightning?

Secondly, Lighting isn't a chequing account or a bank.  You are utterly incapable of understanding the meaning of words if you think it is.

And thirdly (the main point), your hypothetical scenario still makes no sense in the real world.  You don't appear to be grasping the timelock part correctly (or pretty much Lightning in its entirety for that matter).  CLTV means that if the transaction isn't signed by the recipient within a set time, the sender gets their coins back.  

It doesn't mean the customer's funds are "locked forever".  If that's what you think it means, you need to forget everything you think you know and start again from scratch.  You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.  But, chances are, you probably do know it doesn't mean what you've been saying and you're just spreading FUD to make newbies think it's something bad.  That's seemingly just the kind of person you are.  Deceitful.

And the customer would still be incredibly unwise to spend from an older state, regardless of how much money is in the channel.  The funds are not "in limbo", either.  What drugs are you even on?  Try learning something for once, rather that just shouting "BANKS BANKS BANKS" like a total buffoon.  

I hear the PM needs a new Foreign Secretary, I think you'd make a great replacement for that bumbling imbecile Boris.  I read all your posts in his voice now.  You're pretty much on par with his level of dishonest propaganda.  All you need now is a bus:

also look into the issues of sighash_noinput and the other opcodes the devs are implementing. even they are agreeing its dangerous and would require users to actually read the raw tx data before signing to know what they are signing.

LN has many holes.. the devs themselves dont even trust it and warn people of using it. stop promoting it as utopia

It's called beta software.  No one is under any illusion about the fact it's not ready for mainstream usage yet, you contemptible, manipulative little weasel.  No responsible developer would encourage people to throw large sums of money at something that's still in development, so stop trying to twist decency on their part into something sinister.  You are a total and utter disgrace.  Is there nothing you won't try to distort or pervert with your insidious rhetoric?

Again, none of the wasted keystrokes you've expended here come close to forming an argument against continuing to develop Lightning.  I hope everyone sees you for the hollow, morally bankrupt vermin you are.  Troll harder.

[necessary]

I know LN is a good solution for electronic money (and some blockchain decentralization) ensures everyone can run full nodes without the high cost.

[ETHtotheMOON1]

Great news from LN: According to Decker

each channel can process about 500 transactions per second. With thousands of channels being utilized at once, Bitcoin could theoretically scale beyond not only any other cryptocurrency but any other payment method, including VISA.

In addition to the talk about scaling, Decker explained that using the lightning network would be impossible to track sending/receiving bitcoins, as long as the user has more than one open channel.
After all this, Bitcoin Cash fans are still surprised by all the positive about the lightning network.
Read more and source https://coinjournal.net/scaling-layer-2-and-cryptographic-innovations-discussed-at-consensus-2018/ *
* This text from the middle of the conversation.[Scroll down the cursor]

I'm really excited about the lightning network either. What we need to do though is to make sure regular users won't even recognize that there is any difference while using it, otherwise it might be too confusing for them

[vual]

 Of course, their remarkably probable that will BTC can be employed because of very same selection similar to visa pertaining to installments procedures along with most. Btc seems to have a new lightning rate and also a very good multilevel also along with the technological innovation can be solid ample for you to get your substantial number of deals instantly. Could possibly be natural meats discover exactly the same thing down the road along with substitute will certainly be ready for generating installments method more cut-throat.

[allthebitandbobs]

anything new is very hard to get introduced especially to bitcoin which is very set in it ways

[takesomethingaway]

Some developers have made the following statement indicating the security and privacy of bitcoin;
"According to Decker, each channel can process about 500 transactions per second. Decker also explains that Lightning Network will provide more privacy than online transactions."

[Herbert2020]

anything new is very hard to get introduced especially to bitcoin which is very set in it ways

true, but Lightning Network is going to work on top of bitcoin, it doesn't need you to change any of your "ways". you just have to install a new application (an LN node app) if you wanted to use it and if not you can continue your "ways" as before.
and it is already happening, LN has grown huge even though it is still in testing phase.

[Zin-Zang]

anything new is very hard to get introduced especially to bitcoin which is very set in it ways

true, but Lightning Network is going to work on top of bitcoin, it doesn't need you to change any of your "ways". you just have to install a new application (an LN node app) if you wanted to use it and if not you can continue your "ways" as before.
and it is already happening, LN has grown huge even though it is still in testing phase.

Actually Lightning network can work with any segwit infected coin. ie: bitcoin / litecoin / groestlcoin
What will the bitcoiners say, if LN becomes more popular using litecoin or groestlcoin than bitcoin.  

LN is nothing more than a virtual banking system, and it can use any coin that activated segwit.
It is not specific to bitcoin only.

FYI:
Groesltcoin is the only one that used a hard fork to make their segwit active.
BTC & LTC only used a soft fork, not enforced by program code.
LTC & Groestlcoin have a much greater Onchain Capacity , so theft from bad time locking is less likely with their coins.

[franky1]

Wow, so you're saying that if people transact with scammers, there's a chance they might get ripped off?  What a truly shocking revelation!  

I mean, you might have noticed how Karpeles, BitConnect, BFL, ICO scammers, etc didn't actually need to use Lightning to steal peoples' money?  So firstly, in what conceivable way is that an argument against Lightning?

firstly you have not used LN.. thats obvious
secondly. in bitcoin you need to push funds to a scammer, so many people will say its the victims fault for not doing due dilegance.
in LN. there are MULTIPLE ways to tap away at someones funds without even having to be a channel partner. and without the victim needing to manually decide to make a payment to someone they dont know.

the LN devs themselves have said there are risks of losing funds.. yes the devs themselves.

Secondly, Lighting isn't a chequing account or a bank.  You are utterly incapable of understanding the meaning of words if you think it is.

you do not have 100% signing authority over btc in LN.. with banks you dont either. even if you think its just you signing a cheque, thee banks can refuse to authorise the cheque(refuse to sign their part you dont see). you also need to pre fund a ledger entry that is co managed.. for LN and banks. unlike onchain where you can push the funds to anywhere you please without needing to find the right routing system (americans call banking system routing numbers.(if thats not enough of a hint). uk calls it sort-code..

right now LN devs are concepting factories (fortknox) and channel managers for when your asleep or offline
..
it might be worth you stop reading reddit and start using LN, and not under the selctively find the merchant you want and only fund $3 to make a one time $3 payment.. but a more realistic deposit a months salary of testnet coins and then try finding 84 mrchants and try paying them randomly over 2 months.(more realsitic to real life scenario)

And thirdly (the main point), your hypothetical scenario still makes no sense in the real world.  You don't appear to be grasping the timelock part correctly (or pretty much Lightning in its entirety for that matter).  CLTV means that if the transaction isn't signed by the recipient within a set time, the sender gets their coins back.  

you are wrong.
CLTV means the funds are not spendable for a certain time even after confirmation onchain EG 3-5 days (ELI-5 like mined coins 100block maturity)
and CSV is where by your counterpart can show a signature and take the funds from you (chargeback) in that unmatured timeframe

again learn LN

It doesn't mean the customer's funds are "locked forever".  If that's what you think it means, you need to forget everything you think you know and start again from scratch.  

seems your stuck at th now 2 year old glossy leaflet utopia image of LN..
maybe you need to start from scratch.. learn things like auto-pilot, factories, managed channels.. but maybe first start with multisig. because it sounds like you dont even know what a multisig requires.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.  But, chances are, you probably do know it doesn't mean what you've been saying and you're just spreading FUD to make newbies think it's something bad.  That's seemingly just the kind of person you are.  Deceitful.

you might want to check your research.. factories(fortknox).. where funds are locked and then allow you to fund channels from the factory. when you close channels you dont settle/unlock to blockchain freeing them up back to your sole control.. . but it just updates the factory 'balance' and then you just use the balance to set up new channels if you have funds available in the factory to do so. thus keeping the funds locked into LN
again do some research.

And the customer would still be incredibly unwise to spend from an older state, regardless of how much money is in the channel.  The funds are not "in limbo", either.  What drugs are you even on?  Try learning something for once, rather that just shouting "BANKS BANKS BANKS" like a total buffoon.  

stop hyping up stuff you have not used or not researched. and then insulting people that have used it and are purely not going to just toe the party line of kissing ass and screaming utopia is near..
the worse type of people are thos that scream everything is great and perfect. as they are the ones in dream land. its better to be open and honest and admit there are issues then promote something broken as if its utopia

also look into the issues of sighash_noinput and the other opcodes the devs are implementing. even they are agreeing its dangerous and would require users to actually read the raw tx data before signing to know what they are signing.

LN has many holes.. the devs themselves dont even trust it and warn people of using it. stop promoting it as utopia

It's called beta software.  No one is under any illusion about the fact it's not ready for mainstream usage yet, you contemptible, manipulative little weasel.  No responsible developer would encourage people to throw large sums of money at something that's still in development, so stop trying to twist decency on their part into something sinister.  You are a total and utter disgrace.  Is there nothing you won't try to distort or pervert with your insidious rhetoric?

Again, none of the wasted keystrokes you've expended here come close to forming an argument against continuing to develop Lightning.  I hope everyone sees you for the hollow, morally bankrupt vermin you are.  Troll harder.

funny part is. i have highlighted issus about segwit a couple years ago and the devs after fighting their utopian mantra, eventually twisted their own words and gameplan to then work around the issues i mentioned ..
ask the devs why they didnt release segwit address/wallet utility until way after segwit activation.. then look back to 2016 and my gripes about 'anyonecanspend'

as for lightning some devs have reacted to what i have said and changed their game plan and adjusted a few things..
even now they are arguing about a few things.. right now they have just realised that a few opcodes thee added has rintroduced malleability.. i am laughing mega hard at that.

but what i do find completely irrelevant is people who advertise LN as the bitcoin solution.. especially those saying its great, perfect, the thing bitcoin really needs. even though its obvious those propagandists have not even usd it, let alone researched it.

when its not a feature just for bitcoin. not something that all users will need and for those that dont need it, those non LN users are still stuck. meaning bitcoins issues have not been solved.
by this i mean its not advantageous for people who are not daily spenders or have a good continual 100% guaranteed routeS to all their merchants as and when needed to trust thier funds in channels for lengthy periods


maybe you should use it under real life scenario with a critical mindset, put a blackhat on and act as if you are more interested in finding the holes in it to fix it, then you might get something positive.. instead of pretending its utopia already yet not even used or researched it.. as thats you wasting your keystrookes

have a nice day
and dont reply until you have used it for more then one selective test purchase.
run proper scenarios, research the concepts look at the features. and you will start to see

[cellard]

franky1, your criticism of LN and segwit and whatever else (even if I haven't reviewed them yet) are as valid as the next guy, I have doubts myself, the problem is when you guys are selling BCash as the solution, when it's even worse.

I don't think there will be a way to scale Bitcoin up to a point where even african people in villages can use it, it's just delusional. There would be tradeoffs of sorts in there. If you are ok with some tradeoffs then good for you, but keep these at second layer tiers, this is why the layer 0 must not change, and this is why blocksize scaling is yet another delusional dead end.

[franky1]

franky1, your criticism of LN and segwit and whatever else (even if I haven't reviewed them yet) are as valid as the next guy, I have doubts myself, the problem is when you guys are selling BCash as the solution, when it's even worse.

first of all. i am not advertising bitcoin cash. thats the redit narrowmindset of if you hate how devs have stiffled and ignored the bitcoin community then you must be group X

i hate the devs because they have stiffled bitcoin core network innovation, ethos, revolution of 20109-2013.
they have not been open to having other teams as reference clients on bitcoins mainnet. hense why i now deem it as the core network because only core want to OWN IT. and all other teams that want to use the network and come up with their own innovations are deemed as attackers of core..
this does not mean i love or want bitcoin cash. this means i hate what bitcoin core network has stagnated into.

I don't think there will be a way to scale Bitcoin up to a point where even african people in villages can use it, it's just delusional. There would be tradeoffs of sorts in there. If you are ok with some tradeoffs then good for you, but keep these at second layer tiers, this is why the layer 0 must not change, and this is why blocksize scaling is yet another delusional dead end.

you say layer 0 must not change.. dang you either have no clue or you know exactly the commercial advantage of why layer zero has not changed
there are many manyways to innovate the mainnet and scale it up. the devs have ignored it all because they have a over $100m financial burden to push people into using commercial services so that they can repay their investors.
.. oh wait. you thought the devs that invented segwit and LN got paid fia sponsorship/donations.. nope. it was done via investor contracts wher investors hope for returns... now think how can a paid core dev repay their investors if core doesnt sell anything.
the answer is to stifle the core network to pus people into services where investors can make money. think about it(with a critical mind not a core kiss ass defender hat)



as for your 'its delusional'.
kodak said how digital media wont scale up and how they will stick with film media because floppy disks can only handle 1.44mb of photos...... look what happened to kodak

if you want to argue that users cant handle more thn a couple mb of data every 10 minutes.. then you should 'do a kodak', but modernise it.. go tell twitch.tv that streaming video wont work. tell youtube users cant live stream. go tell EA games that online gaming wont work. tell skype. even go and tell netflix that users wont get to watch HD movies.

..... oh wait. users can...... hmm

[cellard]

first of all. i am not advertising bitcoin cash. thats the redit narrowmindset of if you hate how devs have stiffled and ignored the bitcoin community then you must be group X

i hate the devs because they have stiffled bitcoin core network innovation, ethos, revolution of 20109-2013.
they have not been open to having other teams as reference clients on bitcoins mainnet. hense why i now deem it as the core network because only core want to OWN IT. and all other teams that want to use the network and come up with their own innovations are deemed as attackers of core..
this does not mean i love or want bitcoin cash. this means i hate what bitcoin core network has stagnated into.

I may be wrong, but I reckon you used to vehemently defend BCash as the be-all-end-all solution. "Let's just raise the blocksize" and you pointed at how the famous "gigabytes by midnight" claim to sort of point at how it wasn't a problem.

Also, no one is forcing people to use Bitcoin Core. People freely Core as the most used full client software. Again, no one is forcing them. And anyone is free to use any of the other implementations, or create their own and try to convince people to use it.

OMG its delusional. kodak said how digital media wont scale up and how they will stick with film media because floppy disks can only handle 1.44mb of photos...... look what happened to kodak

if you want to argue that users cant handle more thn a couple mb of data very 10 minutes.. then you should do a kodak, but modernise it.. go tell twitch.tv that streaming video wont work. tell youtube users cant live stream. go tell EA sports that online gaming wont work. tell skype. even go and tell netflix that users wont get to watch HD movies.

..... oh wait. users can...... hmm

The actual delusion is in which people think:

1) Raising the blocksize is actually possible (it's not, not if you get everyone on board, which I claim will not happen)
2) It does not centralize

Even if 2) was a reasonably low level of increase centralization due technology advancing, you still have to deal with 1). Good luck getting all the whales and everyone else with relevancy on Bitcoin on board.

[franky1]

I may be wrong, but I reckon you used to vehemently defend BCash as the be-all-end-all solution. "Let's just raise the blocksize" and you pointed at how the famous "gigabytes by midnight" claim to sort of point at how it wasn't a problem.

bitcoin cash is august 2017
"gigabytes by midnight" reddit propaganda has been going on since 2014-2015.. and has been show as propaganda because no implementation that wanted to run on the main net or as a altcoin competitor ever even said gigabytes.. the actual REAL debate was 2mb. and that was a compromise from 8mb. but the core supporters who wanted to REKT any core opposition so it was th core fanboys who were the ones screaming gigabytes by midnight. to drown out the real proposals

Also, no one is forcing people to use Bitcoin Core. People freely Core as the most used full client software. Again, no one is forcing them. And anyone is free to use any of the other implementations, or create their own and try to convince people to use it.

again bitcoin cash is august 2017
but any attempt to offer anything else that is deemed as a full validationa and archival node to run on the mainnet and offer an alternative got met with and treated as an attack.
yea Luke JR pretends his client is an independant second free choice of a full validation archival node.. but the hint is in the name of the creator that its still part of the core roadmap..

so tell me one full validation, full archival node solution that runs on mainnet where none of the devs are funded by the same investors as core... and where the nod has its own 'proposals'program that do not sheep cores.
show me the freedom of choice.

OMG its delusional. kodak said how digital media wont scale up and how they will stick with film media because floppy disks can only handle 1.44mb of photos...... look what happened to kodak

if you want to argue that users cant handle more thn a couple mb of data very 10 minutes.. then you should do a kodak, but modernise it.. go tell twitch.tv that streaming video wont work. tell youtube users cant live stream. go tell EA sports that online gaming wont work. tell skype. even go and tell netflix that users wont get to watch HD movies.

..... oh wait. users can...... hmm

The actual delusion is in which people think:

1) Raising the blocksize is actually possible (it's not, not if you get everyone on board, which I claim will not happen)
2) It does not centralize

Even if 2) was a reasonably low level of increase centralization due technology advancing, you still have to deal with 1). Good luck getting all the whales and everyone else with relevancy on Bitcoin on board.

gotta laugh that you think raising the blocksiz is impossible..  oh and by the way there are multiple other ways of scaling up the mainnet without losing peoples independant control of their funding, emphasis sacraficing their independant control for convenience, which is only caused by innnovation stagnation to require such sacrifice

and something we do agree on.. not al 7 billion people will use bitcoin. and not all will use it 5-10 times a day
which is another laughing point about th core fanboys screaming gigabyts by midnight because the real debate has never been about a be-all-for everyone coin by midnight...
a one world single currency is worse than fiat
people in reality dont do 5-10 transactions a day.
my mindset is about growth and SCALING. (you know progress over time) to kep bitcoin innovative and feature rich compared to other coins
not halting because something cant happen in 5 hours so it should never happen, to then push people away from using bitcoin

and the other point about the whales.. yep we can both agree those circling around the core team with deep pockets are whales and yes they do have power over the devs to not sway them off th commercial direction the devs have taken since 2013.

.. now.. here is something you dont realise
if people advertised LN in the same mindset as advertising other offchain gateways. where they HIGHLIGHT thats its not the real 100% control technology revolution of 2009-2013, but just a side service for those that need it, but willing to sacrifrce the bitcoin ideology for convenience..
if people then admit they hate it that devs have said btc is broke and cant scale. and instead think.. well maybe that dev is not the one to do it because he might have an agenda
if people actually cared more about the mainnet/ethos/revolution of bitcoin.. and not be defending a certain team of PEOPLE..
then my comments would be completely different.

[DooMAD]

secondly. in bitcoin you need to push funds to a scammer, so many people will say its the victims fault for not doing due dilegance.
in LN. there are MULTIPLE ways to tap away at someones funds without even having to be a channel partner. and without the victim needing to manually decide to make a payment to someone they dont know.

the LN devs themselves have said there are risks of losing funds.. yes the devs themselves.

No one is denying there are ways in which you can lose your funds, but you're embellishing the risks.  The threat of losing funds is the required disincentive to cheat.  You're criticising the very thing that makes it work.  If there were no revocations in LN, it would be easier to steal funds.  Try learning the basics, perhaps?

and not under the selctively find the merchant you want and only fund $3 to make a one time $3 payment.. but a more realistic deposit a months salary of testnet coins and then try finding 84 mrchants and try paying them randomly over 2 months.(more realsitic to real life scenario)

Yes, it does sound realistic that you would deliberately use something in a way it wasn't meant to be used at this stage to make it sound like it can't do anything.  Way to be the extremist I recognise you as.  You are fully aware (since you've said it in other threads) that, in the early stages, LN will be most ideally suited for recurring payments to the same recipient, not random one-off payments to 84 different recipients.  Obviously there's no practical way to conduct transactions like that yet with the limited number of users.  

It's also worth noting that if you are using the testnet, that now has fewer nodes than mainnet does.

However, as Lightning usage grows and matures over time, spending in that manner might, in future, start to become a plausible option, depending on adoption and how people freely choose to use it.  Market forces are in action so the outcome is not predictable.  We'll just have to wait and see how it all unfolds (as it's clearly not going to stop, despite your incessant protests).

You really are contemptible if you think that it not being perfect out of the box is a good reason to give up on it.  Particularly if you then use the double standard to claim that other people are saying it's already perfect (when it obviously isn't), when you're the one arguing it has to be all or nothing straight off the bat.

And thirdly (the main point), your hypothetical scenario still makes no sense in the real world.  You don't appear to be grasping the timelock part correctly (or pretty much Lightning in its entirety for that matter).  CLTV means that if the transaction isn't signed by the recipient within a set time, the sender gets their coins back.  

you are wrong.
CLTV means the funds are not spendable for a certain time even after confirmation onchain EG 3-5 days (ELI-5 like mined coins 100block maturity)
and CSV is where by your counterpart can show a signature and take the funds from you (chargeback) in that unmatured timeframe

again learn LN

"A certain time" is not the same as "Forever".  If you have spent from an old transaction state, they can issue a penalty transaction and take all the funds.  If you haven't spent from an old transaction state and they close the channel unilaterally while the CLTV is in effect, they get their portion of the funds in the channel back, not your portion.  If the innocent party went offline and the CLTV elapses, the malicious party then has the opportunity to steal all the funds.  You learn LN.

I'm tired of trying to explain it to you, so I'm just going to quote other sources (rather than just making up a total load of bullshit like you are):

Are LN hubs the same as banks?

I hope by now it’s clear the answer is — no, not at all.

The most important difference in my view is that, unlike banks, LN hubs don’t hold your money. Your money is stored in a channel, anchored to the Bitcoin blockchain, and only you can authorize its movement. In any case that the channel counterparty refuses to cooperate, due to malice or incompetence, you can unilaterally close the channel and receive the money back as normal bitcoins.

This ability needn’t be exercised to be useful. Simply knowing that you can easily quit encourages the counterparty to behave and offer a good service. And it alone means that even in the extreme case of a completely centralized lightning “network” with a single hub connected to everyone, this is a marked improvement over traditional banking.

#4 — Lightning Forces us to “Lock Up” Our Money

This is an often heard claim that completely misses the point and, like many Lightning complaints, leverages negative language to make it sound like something that it isn’t (we will hit the “IOU” claim later). Its analogous to complaining that to use roads you have to “lock” yourself in a car and therefore who would ever want to do that. Or maybe that to use the internet you have to “lock” your computer with a single IP address.

It’s not “locking” your money unless you do it to a node that doesn’t have any other routes. Same as if you connected to an ISP with no other connections, or exited onto a road that goes to a dead end. During these situations on Lightning, you can simply mutually close the channel, or in the case of the node disappearing you may have to wait for the time-lock. But with a fully fledged LN and a plethora of reliable nodes, “locking” your coins is akin to establishing and “locking” a route onto the internet. It is much less a “lock” than it is a doorway, as you will be able to spend your “locked” coins, at practically any location that also has a connection to the Lightning Network.

During a time when nodes are going offline, this can, indeed, be a real hassle. I wrote an article on yalls.org about this very issue. But these are extremely early days and we haven’t even seen the first release of a major app on the Lightning Network. So to complain about reliability problems at this stage as if they negate the entire technology itself, is similar to claiming the difficulty of connecting with a 56k modem and establishing your own email server is the reason the internet will never be useful.

You need to let go of your preconceived misconceptions and bias before you will understand this stuff properly.  I know that's easier said than done, but it would help if you at least made a slight effort to reform your ways.  If you aren't going to make an effort, I'm going to keep assuming you're a troll.  

And the customer would still be incredibly unwise to spend from an older state, regardless of how much money is in the channel.  The funds are not "in limbo", either.  What drugs are you even on?  Try learning something for once, rather that just shouting "BANKS BANKS BANKS" like a total buffoon.  

stop hyping up stuff you have not used or not researched. and then insulting people that have used it and are purely not going to just toe the party line of kissing ass and screaming utopia is near..
the worse type of people are thos that scream everything is great and perfect. as they are the ones in dream land. its better to be open and honest and admit there are issues then promote something broken as if its utopia

No one is suggesting it is perfect.  They are suggesting it has a great deal of potential for the future.  As in, not right now, in case you need it explained what "the future" means.  I'm merely suggesting that:  

a) you are totally exaggerating the downsides,
b) you are resorting to outright FUD and manipulation,
c) you clearly don't understand it well enough to be in a position to comment and I'm not convinced you have actually used it,
d) comparing LN to banks makes you look like either a totally ignorant newb or a malicious troll (and it's honestly hard to tell which it is with you).

People are allowed to be excited about new features.  Just because you're a dour detractor, doesn't mean everyone has to share your dismal and bleak outlook.

It's called beta software.  No one is under any illusion about the fact it's not ready for mainstream usage yet, you contemptible, manipulative little weasel.  No responsible developer would encourage people to throw large sums of money at something that's still in development, so stop trying to twist decency on their part into something sinister.  You are a total and utter disgrace.  Is there nothing you won't try to distort or pervert with your insidious rhetoric?

Again, none of the wasted keystrokes you've expended here come close to forming an argument against continuing to develop Lightning.  I hope everyone sees you for the hollow, morally bankrupt vermin you are.  Troll harder.

funny part is. i have highlighted issus about segwit a couple years ago and the devs after fighting their utopian mantra, eventually twisted their own words and gameplan to then work around the issues i mentioned ..
ask the devs why they didnt release segwit address/wallet utility until way after segwit activation.. then look back to 2016 and my gripes about 'anyonecanspend'

as for lightning some devs have reacted to what i have said and changed their game plan and adjusted a few things..
even now they are arguing about a few things.. right now they have just realised that a few opcodes thee added has rintroduced malleability.. i am laughing mega hard at that.

Again, absolutely none of that is a reason not to develop and improve it.  What?  You spotted something wrong so that means we should drop everything and do what you want instead?  You think that's how life works?  Go ahead and have your little tantrums about it.  No one cares.  

Also, I'm highly skeptical that you managed to have any influence whatsoever on the development process, so I'm going to need someone with an actual reputation to corroborate that claim.

maybe you should use it under real life scenario with a critical mindset

I'm still waiting for you to do that, as you seemingly don't live in the real world.  Again, you're arguing that everything has to be 100% perfect for it to be even remotely acceptable, whilst simultaneously arguing  that the fact it's not perfect (which everyone already knows and understands) means we should abandon it to focus on on-chain features.  On-chain features are being developed.  Stop being a petulant child about this.  Market forces are at work and you don't get to make the call about who develops what.  

Lightning is not perfect, but people are going to keep working on it because they want to.  That's their choice.  Nothing to do with you.  None of your goddamn business.  If you want more on-chain development, go develop something, rather than talking out of your arse and trying to derail legitimate work with your FUD nonsense.  No one is saying it's perfect, drop the damn strawman already.

[franky1]

dooMad. do you even read the quotes you grabbed as your defense.
read them properly. maybe read them 3 times. look at how they gloss over the issues.
EG
you keep trying to flip the cons into pro's by thinking the world is innocent and will not use a loop hole to get free coins. thats your utopian mindset and not realistic mindset at work.
in a good secure system neither innocent or malicious people should be able to use a loop hole.

as for saying no one should voice an opinion. and its none of anyones business.. sorry but. thats just letting bitcoin stagnate or get twisted into centralisation by just sticking head in the sand and not voicing an opinion..
im guessing your the type that never votes at elections and think no one should vote apart from senators and corporations

anyway

take the bit where you quoted
"The most important difference in my view is that, unlike banks, LN hubs don’t hold your money. Your money is stored in a channel, anchored to the Bitcoin blockchain, and only you can authorize its movement. In any case that the channel counterparty refuses to cooperate, due to malice or incompetence, you can unilaterally close the channel and receive the money back as normal bitcoins."

read it 3 times.. can you see the flaws and loop holes?? .. if you cant, thats your problem not mine

maybe its best you dont get involved in advertising LN as bitcoins sole utopian solution.
because if you cant see the flaws. then you either have not used LN to notice it. or you dont care about bitcoin and just want to pump LN as the only innovation of the future

insult me all you like but you are just digging your head in the sand saying it will be alright in the end is just what they want you to do.

your the type of person thats now of the mindset of:
'if you dont like bitcoin becoming centralised/stagnant and commercialed, shut up and F**k off to an altcoin

sorry but the bitcoin community need to know the stuff beyond the glossy commercial leaflets pretending to be open. to see what bitcoin is actually turned into and what the devs are pushing users into.
if you cared about bitcoin you would not be telling people to shut up and put their head in the sand

[franky1]

oh as for asking you to run scenarios. if your rebuttle for refusing to use testnet is lack of nodes (i was being helpful by suggesting testnet so you dont lose real value) you can do it on mainnet. but dont blame me for risking your funds.. or you can grab some paper and a pen and run scenarios using ink and imagination. that way you can quantify as many nodes as you like by simply drawing lines and dots. thus able to run many scenarios without needing to load up thousands of physical nodes just to test things.
so instead of using insults and excuses to avoid running scenarios.. just do it. run some scenarios.

even without mentioning all the diffrent malicious ways to scam people out of funds. there are also no guarantees of paying a recipient. because it relies on everyone in a route to agree.. and everyone in the route to have funding

emphasis again: run some scenarios. dont reply with insults and excuses to explain your avoidance of running scenarios
here ill start you off with a non technical scenario about lack of of just a couple nodes can ruin it for dozens.. or lack of funding of 4 chanels can ruin it for 100 people.
and yes no testnet or main net coins will be used.. just drawings an imagination.. even you should manage to achieve this..


take a 100 node scenario. where each node only had upto 4 channels.
seems someone done one here

imagine each line as a channel where the line is represented as [0.01 <> 0.01] or [$80 <> $80] .. whichever is easy for you

now pretend you are node  number 90(top left)
meaning you have $320 in LN separated as $80 in the 4 chanels and your channel partner and thir partnrs do the same
and you want to pay number 54 (near middle)
how many hops would you need to go through to get to it.
ill save you time.. best routes available have minimum of 8 hops..


yes there are many many routes of 8 hops..
sticking with all of the routes of just 8 hops imagine just 53, 64 made a payment to 54 of $50 an hour ago...

and then run scenarios where you know you have $320 in total of your 4 channels.. and you want to pay number 54 $160
using just the 8 hop routes... oh look you cant
mhm.. you got $320 but you cant pay a person $160 in 8 hops even though you personally have $160 value in those routes
and there are many routes of 8 hops. .. all due to 2 nodes beign either offline or insufficiently funded.


 so next viable route is 10 hops.. imagine that 53,64,55,44 are not sufficiently funded or some are offline.

yes there are many many more routes to it
also think about scenario where node 80 and 91 went offline. and how that would change things.

play around with scenarios like above.
then realise the scenarios above are for just 100 participants..

now imagine there were 1000 nodes. how many hops would be needed to get from the top corner to a node in the center.
how many extra channels would a node need to decrease the amount of hops thus decrease the amount of risk of a route not having funds

now imagine there were 10,000 nodes. how many hops would be needed to get from the top corner to a node in the center.
how many extra channels would a node need to decrease the amount of hops thus decrease the amount of risk of a route not having funds
 
now imagine there were 100,000 nodes. how many hops would be needed to get from the top corner to a node in the center.
how many extra channels would a node need to decrease the amount of hops thus decrease the amount of risk of a route not having funds

now imagine a network of only 100,000 people.
again thinking about the number of channels needed to decrease the hops required risk.
but then the amount of funds a node has deposited in total (add up the channel funds by th number of channels)

and start to see the other problems of the balance between hop risk and hub risk

[DooMAD]

oh as for asking you to run scenarios [snip]

Riiiiiiiight...  

So, when I point out that your entire argument effectively boils down to:

"Lightning isn't perfect, so people shouldn't be allowed to have the option of using or developing it"

your response to that is:

"If you run some scenarios and make a really long post with pictures and everything, you'll see that Lightning isn't perfect, so people shouldn't be allowed to have the option of using or developing it"

Well, that changes everything.  I'm totally convinced now.  



Seriously, are you blind or something?  I'll use all the emphasis this forum software has to offer, just for good measure:  

I already accept that Lightning isn't perfect.

Is that clear enough for you?  Do I need to make it blink or use a <banner> tag like something from the geocities-era of the internet to get you to notice?  I am running scenarios.  I recognise the potential pitfalls.  I acknowledge there are risks.  I accept it is possible to lose funds.  I understand that routing won't have a flawless, magical guarantee.  How many more ways do I need to say it before it sinks in to your head?

The thing I am questioning is not your ability to make increasingly technical posts to explain why it isn't perfect.  I am questioning the premise of your argument.  The entire basis of it.  The part where you seem to think it's a valid argument to say that because there are risks of losing funds and it isn't perfect, that we shouldn't be allowed to even try.  That is a stupid premise.  Bitcoin and the whole crypto movement would never have got off the ground to begin with if people weren't prepared to take some risks.  And risks aren't justification to say we can't do it.  We are allowed to do whatever we like and, providing enough of us agree, no one can stop us.

Look at how many people have already lost untold fortunes in Bitcoin's fairly brief history by losing their password, private key or seedwords.  At any time over the course of the last few years, there could have been an undiscovered exploit that someone used to compromise the security of the network and the whole thing would have come crashing down.  Everyone could lose everything.  Does that mean we should have stopped using and developing Bitcoin itself because there's the potential for people to lose money?  Is that really what you're arguing?  Because it sure as hell sounds like that's what you're arguing.  

There are risks of losing funds if you keep most or all of your money on centralised exchanges or webwallets.  We've already seen people lose everything they had.  But I don't see you vehemently pissing into the wind to say we can't have those.  Where are your unrelenting attacks on third parties in full control of customer funds?  We can keep arguing the toss over exactly how much control users have of their funds in Lightning, but I don't think even you have the gall to claim it's less control than users have with an exchange.  Why isn't that the issue you literally won't STFU about?

If you want a brand new technology with zero risks to the people using it, I suggest you go invent one.  We don't have those here in crypto.  If you want a safety net and someone to hold your hand or give you a cuddle because all this stuff is a bit too scary for you, tough shit, we can't help you.  Run crying to Mummy if you need comforting.  All we have to offer are personal responsibility and freedom.  You do what you want with your funds, you follow whatever chain you want to follow, you decide what risks you're prepared to take.  But at no point do you get to tell us what to do.  We've decided what we're doing.  You can't stop us.  End of.

sorry but the bitcoin community need to know the stuff beyond the glossy commercial leaflets pretending to be open.

They also need to know how Lightning actually works, which is why I have to keep correcting you when you make flagrantly false claims and totally exaggerate the risks.  When I refute you, I'm doing it because you are taking things to extremes.  I'm merely trying to drag you, kicking and screaming like the total infant you are, back to the sensible middleground.  I'm not saying Lightning is a magical land of rainbows and fairies and chocolate fucking raindrops.  It clearly isn't.  But nor is it some sordid conspiracy to recreate the banking sector, you total crackpot.

If you just approached things from a moderate perspective instead of being some hardline fundamentalist about it, I'd consider going a little easier on you.  Until then, I'm happy to keep ridiculing you.  If it looks, talks and acts like a fool, I'm going to call it a fool.

[franky1]

and here is your mis understanding.

my premiss is not that Lightning should be thrown away.
my premiss is the 'lightning utopian perfect and only scaling option for bitcoin' mindset should be thrown away..emphasis should not be advertised as a bitcoin sole solution.

people need to stop over promoting over promising and treating LN as utopia. and instead realise its
just a side service for a niche user case..
not a feature to make bitcoin great (other coins use it too so its not a unique selling point for bitcoin)
not asunlimited, frictionless easy, decentralised as promised(hint your not going to take laptop /desktop to stabuck so LN will ber server<-lightwallet based, and funds nneed other party authorisation)

and then get the devs to actually care about bitcoins mainnet protocol scaling and bringing back the featurs/ethos that made bitcoin revolutionary in 2009-2013

[franky1]

sorry but the bitcoin community need to know the stuff beyond the glossy commercial leaflets pretending to be open.

They also need to know how Lightning actually works, which is why I have to keep correcting you when you make flagrantly false claims and totally exaggerate the risks.  When I refute you, I'm doing it because you are taking things to extremes.  I'm merely trying to drag you, kicking and screaming like the total infant you are, back to the sensible middleground.  I'm not saying Lightning is a magical land of rainbows and fairies and chocolate fucking raindrops.  It clearly isn't.  But nor is it some sordid conspiracy to recreate the banking sector, you total crackpot.

If you just approached things from a moderate perspective instead of being some hardline fundamentalist about it, I'd consider going a little easier on you.  Until then, I'm happy to keep ridiculing you.  If it looks, talks and acts like a fool, I'm going to call it a fool.

you say they need to know how lightning works. but the glossy utopia leaflet illustrations is only showing perfect scenario..
if there are loop holes/flaws. guess what. people will use them. its fre money they'll get after all. so its not me being extreme to point it out. its me revealing the less then utopian perfect scenario

[franky1]

There are risks of losing funds if you keep most or all of your money on centralised exchanges or webwallets.  We've already seen people lose everything they had.  But I don't see you vehemently pissing into the wind to say we can't have those.  Where are your unrelenting attacks on third parties in full control of customer funds?  We can keep arguing the toss over exactly how much control users have of their funds in Lightning, but I don't think even you have the gall to claim it's less control than users have with an exchange.  Why isn't that the issue you literally won't STFU about?

actually i do inform people about exchanges. i even highlighted exchangs that do dodgy crap with false claims of "we been hacked"
i have told exchanges about effective ways to control funds without needing privatekeys on their wbservers.
i have told users to not use exchanges as wallets/banks. but to deposit, do trade, withdraw
i have done alot of stuff over the years..

but what you dont realise is that you only spot something thats seems meaningful to you at the time.
EG (analogy) ever think before buying a car, its unique you dont see it on the streets much.. but as soon as you buy it you start noticing the same brand/model more often on the streets. and you get angry that your not the trend setter you thought you were


when you have put your love and soul into something and made it your dream... you will start to notice when others talk about it or have it mor often..
my point:
maybe its you ignoring my other posts about other content but when you see me talk on a LN topic, you think its all i talk about.. without you realising that it was you that clicked on the specific topic, and if i happen to be on that topic.. suddenly its my fault??

same way you ignore how i laugh and facepalm ver and craig wright.. as its obvious that you think im team cash because you dont see me point out issues of other topics. Ver is not a programmer. and craig wright is a scammer. they are actually both paid by the same investors as blockstream and the whole bitcoin cash drama is just the same drama as the kardashians. two sides of the same family. shown as fighting each other and arguing. but behind the scenes they are just centralising everying into their rich family brand


your too blinkered by the utopia of lightning and you absolutely hate it when people point out its not the utopian advert that garnered your interest in it.
i see many people who see the 2018 utopian propaganda of both LN and bitcoin. by using the now broken ethos of 2009. these people think they have found the fountain of youth, utopia. they thinnk they have woken up from their deep financial sleep and finaly found their freedom..
but then when i point out the issues that need addressing due to devs deciding to stifle the inovation/revolution.. its me that gets the hostility and the devs get to continu to do the shoddy crap they have done.. (facepalm)

my mindset is to be brutaly honest about the flaws to ensure people are not hyped into a utopian dream.. that way 3 things happen
1. issues get fixed
2. people who ar fooled by the utopia. realise early on that its devs that have stifled the revolution and as such also help to push point 1.
3. help people learnearly so people dont learn the hard way and end up just calling bitcoin a gimmick.

p.S
summary
if i see new topics where people are talking about LN utopia. be prepared to see me post in that topic about its flaws. if you dont like it or if you have already read what flaws exist. then instead of telling me to shut up. realise im addressing the utopian believer crowd. and those that do tell me to shut up usually are the ones still believing LN is bitcoins sole future to scaling.
so if you dont like me pointing out flaws. simply move onto another topic

[DooMAD]

summary
if i see new topics where people are talking about LN utopia. be prepared to see me post in that topic about its flaws. if you dont like it or if you have already read what flaws exist. then instead of telling me to shut up. realise im addressing the utopian believer crowd. and those that do tell me to shut up usually are the ones still believing LN is bitcoins sole future to scaling.
so if you dont like me pointing out flaws. simply move onto another topic

If you ever learn how to point out the flaws without giving misleading information in the process, then by all means do that.  I don't want this place to become an echo-chamber.  I welcome dissent.  But FUD is not the same thing as dissent.  Funds are not "locked forever".  Multisig in LN doesn't mean they have equal control over your portion of the funds in the channel (a standard multisig wallet would mean they do, but LN makes use of smart contracts).  Funds are never "in limbo", they are always anchored to a blockchain.  None of those things you claimed are true.  There are probably other examples, but I really can't be bothered re-reading the thread to point them out.  But surely, whatever you actually believe, you must know that anyone who understands LN will recognise that those things you've said are untrue.  If you have no self respect and your credibility doesn't matter to you, you're on the right path.  You can't just make shit up and then claim you're only trying to be neutral.  You can't be "brutally honest" if what you're saying is demonstrably false.  Someone will call you out on it.  Plus, it doesn't do your cause any favours.  If people can't trust you, they're more likely to believe the people you say you're fighting against.  Now be honest, did you genuinely not understand that some of the things you've said were factually incorrect (which is something we can forgive and move on from)?  Or are you being willfully insincere and manipulative?

There's a difference between 'balancing the scales' and 'smashing the scales with a sledgehammer and then flipping the table like a total asshat'.  If you're doing the latter, people are naturally going to assume you aren't attempting to be neutral.  That's clearly not the behaviour of someone with pure intentions.  Maybe try aiming for balance for once if that's what you claim you're trying to do.  If I can admit there are some negatives, then you need to admit there are some positives.  Or don't.  I can keep playing this game of whack-a-FUD and keep calling you a troll, zealot, extremist, fundamentalist, etc.  It's up to you.  As always, you're totally free to choose.  But choices have consequences, so choose wisely.  My preference is that you admit your mistakes and we can have a more civilised conversation going forwards.

Also, how would anyone believe LN is the sole future for scaling?  Again, there's Schnorr, MAST, AMP (which, admittedly, is an add-on to Lightning, but still), plus whatever other features I've already forgotten about in the pipeline.  And if we find it's needed along the way, there's still the option of larger blocks.  But aside from larger blocks, what other developments did you have in mind for scaling?  

sorry but the bitcoin community need to know the stuff beyond the glossy commercial leaflets pretending to be open.

They also need to know how Lightning actually works, which is why I have to keep correcting you when you make flagrantly false claims and totally exaggerate the risks.  When I refute you, I'm doing it because you are taking things to extremes.  I'm merely trying to drag you, kicking and screaming like the total infant you are, back to the sensible middleground.  I'm not saying Lightning is a magical land of rainbows and fairies and chocolate fucking raindrops.  It clearly isn't.  But nor is it some sordid conspiracy to recreate the banking sector, you total crackpot.

If you just approached things from a moderate perspective instead of being some hardline fundamentalist about it, I'd consider going a little easier on you.  Until then, I'm happy to keep ridiculing you.  If it looks, talks and acts like a fool, I'm going to call it a fool.

you say they need to know how lightning works. but the glossy utopia leaflet illustrations is only showing perfect scenario..
if there are loop holes/flaws. guess what. people will use them. its fre money they'll get after all. so its not me being extreme to point it out. its me revealing the less then utopian perfect scenario

Again, I don't mind you pointing out genuine faults.  There are actually a few things you said where I agreed, because they are genuine issues.  There are ways in which you can lose funds.  Routing isn't faultless.  Lightning isn't perfect.  It's not ready for the average user yet.  By all means continue to point those things out if it sounds like people are 'all aboard the hype-train'.  Those responses are perfectly valid.  But so much of what you've said is factually incorrect, there's no other conclusion I can arrive at than you being an idiot or a troll.  You need to understand that if I see someone constantly posting things that aren't true, I'm going to give that person a hard time, whether it be about Lightning or anything else.  You don't combat extreme hype with extreme FUD.  You debate using reasoned and well-researched responses.  You demonstrate that you are capable of being neutral and considering both the positives and the negatives.  Show me where you have considered the positives.  There's no evidence of it in this thread that I can recall.  If you can start being reasonable and moderate about this stuff, I'll stop giving you grief.  I don't think that's too much to ask.  

[franky1]

summary
if i see new topics where people are talking about LN utopia. be prepared to see me post in that topic about its flaws. if you dont like it or if you have already read what flaws exist. then instead of telling me to shut up. realise im addressing the utopian believer crowd. and those that do tell me to shut up usually are the ones still believing LN is bitcoins sole future to scaling.
so if you dont like me pointing out flaws. simply move onto another topic

If you ever learn how to point out the flaws without giving misleading information in the process, then by all means do that.  I don't want this place to become an echo-chamber.  I welcome dissent.  But FUD is not the same thing as dissent.  Funds are not "locked forever".  Multisig in LN doesn't mean they have equal control over your portion of the funds in the channel (a standard multisig wallet would mean they do, but LN makes use of smart contracts).  Funds are never "in limbo", they are always anchored to a blockchain.  None of those things you claimed are true.

learn factories. hint.
a factory (multisig) receives blockchain confirmed funds.
a multisig locks those funds. and the group agree which nodes get which amount.
channels are open using a OFF CHAIN tx from the factory
when you close the channel its not broadcast to the blockchain. its 'out' is back to the factory whereby the factory updates the lock and thn re sends the funds out to agred channels

this concept is so that users dont need to run full bitcoin core nodes to check the blockchain when setting up a channel/closing a channel. they can just check (and trust) the factory. thus allow users to use phone apps to pay for coffee instead of having to
take their laptops into starbucks to pay for coffee and check the blockchain using their full node..

so. channels will not be a "you have 100% control of your funds"..
LN wont be a no locks thing..
your funds are locked. not just by a channel. but also by an outer ring (factory)

yes the latest concept is to not need to broadcast back to the blockchain. but to cycle funds back to a factory. and the only way to do that is to extend the locks of a factory beyond the locks of a channel so that people cant easily exit the factory.

[franky1]

anyway. lets simply talk about the channel partnership (old 2016 concept.. which is where i think your stuck in).
imagine if i deposited 1btc into a channel direct. and i retained 100% control of that. when i buy a coffee... star bucks needs some security that it will get those funds.
guess what. starbucks gets control of the original 1btc...
this is the chargeback.. (oops i said a dirty word...) .. i mean revoke punishment
think about it. if i always had 100% control of the input from the blockchain of 1btc(utxo). and starbucks never had control of that 1btc blockchain UTXO
i could buy 3000 coffee's and then broadcast my UTXO as if its a a standard tx thus get my coffee and kep my 1btc.

now here is a big hint. smart contract.. emphasis .. contract.
contracts are multiparty

things have moved on from the glosy promsise adverts you may have read. i think its time you go and use it or atleast run some scenarios

i think your maybe still reading old whitepapers from ~2016 which was before revokes were even coded. yea they may have ben mentioned by from reading what you perceive as what concept version you understand. it seems your about 2 years behind
..
p.s
i have said for a small niche LN has uses. but its not
a sole solution for bitcoin.
a feature just for bitcoin to make bitcoin great again
a scaling solution. (even rusty russel admits LN cant scale)
again because its not a feature jsut for bitcoin. its not a scaling solution for bitcoin
not a decentralised system to avoid servers(banks2.0)

its a separate network. for many coins. where funds are locked up. and yes servers will be king (re read first paragraph about the mobile wale/lightwallet requirements)

i may have facepalmed your comments a few times. but i have also asked you to do something positive. which is to learn LN by running scenarios..
if i passed our comments onto a language analyst you will see that i have been more civilised.
i have shown examples. i have highlighted issues.
it has been you that has evaded running scenarios or actually explain chennels, factories, how funds move, how revokes work.
you have just replied with insults.

anyway. let me step back 2 years. back to the concept you understand
lets imagine users had 100% control
in: 1blockchainfranky1address 1btc -> out bc1qLNnodefranky1 1btc lock:4032blocks(1month) <only franky signs>
in: 1blockchainDooMadaddress 1btc -> out bc1qLNnodelDooMad 1btc lock:4032blocks(1month) <only Doomad signs>

you have no control of my funds.. but.. for 1 month i dont have control of my funds..
now heres where the 2015 concept fell apart.
lets stop at this point. thers no point describing the concept of smart contracts. as we have hit the first flaw before we even gt to that part
firstly
whats stopping me using my node funds on separate channels
EG pretending i offchain am putting my
in:
bc1qLNnodefranky1 1btc
out
1blockchainfranky1address 0.5btc
1blockchainDooMadaddress 0.5btc

but secretly i done this with someone else
in:
bc1qLNnodefranky1 1btc
out
1blockchainfranky1address 0.5btc
1blockchainJANECafeaddress 0.5btc

solution. ONCHAIN you need to fund a co-signed address.
so lets move back to bfore setting up .. but moved to nwer concept from the 2015 concept heres how it looks early 2016
bc1qLNnodefranky1 + bc1qLNnodeDooMad = bc1qLNchannelfranky1DoomadA
bc1qLNnodeDooMad + bc1qLNnodefranky1 = bc1qLNchannelfranky1DoomadB

ONCHAIN
i send 1blockchainfranky1address 1btc -> out bc1qLNchannelfranky1DoomadA 1btc lock:4032blocks(1month)
you send 1blockchainDooMadaddress 1btc -> out bc1qLNchannelfranky1DoomadB 1btc lock:4032blocks(1month)
the lock prevents it even getting into a block for a month

now i cannot use funds with jane offchain. because the funds are locked between me and you. and we need to co-sign
i know what your thinking. that we have separate transactions. your right.
i PLAY with A
in
bc1qLNchannelfranky1DoomadA 1btc
out
1blockchainfranky1address 1.0btc
1blockchainDooMadaddress 0btc
<both need to sign>

you PLAY with B
in
bc1qLNchannelfranky1DoomadB 1btc
out
1blockchainfranky1address 0btc
1blockchainDooMadaddress 1btc
<both need to sign>

now heres the flaw in your thinking.. PLAY does not mean full control
although you get to PLAY with the AMOUNTS of B.. guess what we both need to SIGN B
again for emphasis

although i PLAY with A and you PLAY with B..  we both need to sign A and both need to sign B

[franky1]

now to add onto that. now you know although you play with a separate tx. BOTH need to sign it.

ill add another point where YOU lose even more control

you also have to provide me with a temporary address and i provide you with a temporary address
so now your PLAY tx is like this
payment 1
bc1qLNchannelfranky1DoomadB 1btc
out
1blockchainfranky1address 0btc
BC1qDooMadaddresstemp1 1btc confirm maturity 432blocks
<both need to sign>

the maturity lock means after a month lock. if you broadcast payment 1. it will confirm, but YOU cannot spend the temp1 funds for a further 432 confirms (like mining pools cant spend fresh minned coins for 100 confirms.. but this example maturity is 432confirms(3 days))
anyway lets step back intime back to the month lock where paymnt 1 has not been broadcast.

if there is a payment 2. you give me the private key of temp1 address when we make payment 2 offchain thus making it not an advantage to send payment 1
now.. next flaw

imagine we are making payment 2. and as this is all offchain. i have tweaked my node to request you sign my payment 2 first.
you sign my payment two. (i have yet to send you my paymnt 1 temp1 privkey

and i refuse to sign your payment 2 unless you give the private key of payment 1. as there is no way i wil trust that payment 1 is dis-advantaged to then be confident to sign payment 2.
you send temp1 private key.. but i have NOT send you MY temp1 privkey.. and not sent you the sig for your payment 2.

i then.. because its all offchain theres no way to stop me.. i continue to refuse to sign your half of payment 2
the only valid payment you can spend is your payment 1. so if you send payment 1. the only paymnt you have thats valid...

guess what. i can spend your temp1 funds within those 3 days
as this is the revoke punishment.

[franky1]

another thing.. moving forward to 2018 concepts. when you learn factories. these are also multisig. so your funds are even less your control.
yes yo can play with amounts. but you need other people to sign them.

..

now all thats said.
im going to presume that you will say that locks wont be a month long for just the channels.
well knowing the 100 node image scenario i providd you the other day. 4 channels per node is still iffy even for just a village of 100 population.
the average is suggested 4-8 nodes for 100 node network and 14 channels for a 1000 node network. and ven mor channels for more population to be reliable.. (under an old hop decentralised network without factories/bank hubs)

now real life thinking. are you going to make lets say 4 channels and make 4 onchain tx's to fund them channels knowing it will be 4 settlemnt onchan tx at the end (8 onchain transactions) for just a couple days of spendiing.
think about it

real stats
visa card users only do 42tx a month (~1.5tx a day) each
so will you open these 4 channels for a reliableish routes around your small village with only a 4 day lock knowing you will only on average spend your funds 6 times.

nope.
you end up thinking with the time wasted setting it up and ultimatly having 8 onchain tx's just for 6 coffee's not benficial.. so you end up planning out a month lock in.. (devs say 3-6 months.. but the reality is no one can preplan beyond a few weeks to 1 month.. so lets go with a month)
which if advantagious that LN has saved you funds. you woul put funds back in..
(this uis undr the 2016 concept)

..
now move on to the 2018 concept of factories. to not have the hassle of redistributing factory funds(which would have been settle onchain but now just curculatd through factories) you will keep your channels at a month. and then to secure the factory the factory tx would need to be longer then a multiple of months... other thing to note. is that instead of a month of just coffe you put in all your salary.. or atleast alot mor thn just coffee

now look at real life
the early 19th century with the gold scenario.
putting gold into (banks)'factories' and then they give you bonds. and you use those bonds with local bank branches and then play around with local bank branch notes.. yep many banks had their own design of bank notes.

how often do you think people ended up getting their gold out of the vaults...

last point
i would not have had to make such long posts. if you ran some scenarios to have seen the issues for yourself.

[DooMAD]

*sigh*

I suppose I asked for this by trying to be reasonable and giving you the benefit of the doubt.  I gave you an inch and you took a mile, or several miles, even.  Won't make that mistake again.  It's zero-tolerance for franky1 bullshit from here on in.  

anyway. lets simply talk about the channel partnership (old 2016 concept.. which is where i think your stuck in).
imagine if i deposited 1btc into a channel direct. and i retained 100% control of that. when i buy a coffee... star bucks needs some security that it will get those funds.
guess what. starbucks gets control of the original 1btc...
this is the chargeback.. (oops i said a dirty word...) .. i mean revoke punishment
think about it. if i always had 100% control of the input from the blockchain of 1btc(utxo). and starbucks never had control of that 1btc blockchain UTXO
i could buy 3000 coffee's and then broadcast my UTXO as if its a a standard tx thus get my coffee and kep my 1btc.

Quoting this for posterity just so you can't go back and edit it later.  I literally... can't... even... words fail me.  Wow.  Best "scenario" yet.


I've got a scenario for you to run.  If LN really is as horrendous as you make it out to be, no one in their right mind would use it.  As you point out, it will be cheaper, more convenient and more secure to use altcoins if what you're saying is true.  So why would so many independent developers now be working on this concept if it was obvious that we'd be handing BTC's #1 position in the market on a plate to some other coin?  Why would they dedicate their time, knowledge and expertise to making BTC worse?  Why would so many people, including all the ones who are clearly far more knowledgeable about this than you are (which is basically ALL OF THEM), be enthusiastic about the potential for this technology if they thought even for a split-second that you were right about any of this?  Maybe the scenario you need to run is the one where you've turned into a conspiracy theorist who has isolated himself to the point where no one takes him seriously anymore.

More to the point, why am I even dignifying your "scenarios" by calling them that?  I can make up a crazy story that isn't possible in the real world and then call it a scenario.  Doesn't mean it could actually happen, though.  Stop running hypothetical what-ifs from la-la land that clearly wouldn't play out like that in practice.  Give us proof.  Go ahead and buy 3000 coffees and somehow manage to keep your BTC.  Show us that's possible.  I would love to see how that works out for you.

[Silenox]

As far as I know nobody will be required to use the Lightning Network (just as it is not required to use Segwit), whoever thinks it will use it. The interesting thing is that there are many critiques to the development of LN, and we have hundreds of currencies at disposal, those who are not satisfied with the solutions presented can use one of these options.

In my opinion if LN can deliver what it promises will extinguish about 95% of the altcoins, it will be a true watershed.

[tazmannia]

I believe that bitcoin will not be able to do more payment processing per second as VISA/ I know OTHER cryptocurrencies that can exceed the processing of payments than Visa & Master combined. In my coins are called TRX (Tron)

[franky1]

*sigh*

I suppose I asked for this by trying to be reasonable and giving you the benefit of the doubt.  I gave you an inch and you took a mile, or several miles, even.  Won't make that mistake again.  It's zero-tolerance for franky1 bullshit from here on in.  

anyway. lets simply talk about the channel partnership (old 2016 concept.. which is where i think your stuck in).
imagine if i deposited 1btc into a channel direct. and i retained 100% control of that. when i buy a coffee... star bucks needs some security that it will get those funds.
guess what. starbucks gets control of the original 1btc...
this is the chargeback.. (oops i said a dirty word...) .. i mean revoke punishment
think about it. if i always had 100% control of the input from the blockchain of 1btc(utxo). and starbucks never had control of that 1btc blockchain UTXO
i could buy 3000 coffee's and then broadcast my UTXO as if its a a standard tx thus get my coffee and kep my 1btc.

Quoting this for posterity just so you can't go back and edit it later.  I literally... can't... even... words fail me.  Wow.  Best "scenario" yet.


I've got a scenario for you to run.  If LN really is as horrendous as you make it out to be, no one in their right mind would use it.  As you point out, it will be cheaper, more convenient and more secure to use altcoins if what you're saying is true.  So why would so many independent developers now be working on this concept if it was obvious that we'd be handing BTC's #1 position in the market on a plate to some other coin?  Why would they dedicate their time, knowledge and expertise to making BTC worse?  Why would so many people, including all the ones who are clearly far more knowledgeable about this than you are (which is basically ALL OF THEM), be enthusiastic about the potential for this technology if they thought even for a split-second that you were right about any of this?  Maybe the scenario you need to run is the one where you've turned into a conspiracy theorist who has isolated himself to the point where no one takes him seriously anymore.

More to the point, why am I even dignifying your "scenarios" by calling them that?  I can make up a crazy story that isn't possible in the real world and then call it a scenario.  Doesn't mean it could actually happen, though.  Stop running hypothetical what-ifs from la-la land that clearly wouldn't play out like that in practice.  Give us proof.  Go ahead and buy 3000 coffees and somehow manage to keep your BTC.  Show us that's possible.  I would love to see how that works out for you.

read it 3 times.. go on read it 3 times
this was me saying how based on what i feel is YOUR 2016 limited idea.. where > > YOU < < think the person retains 100% control .. then i could buy 3000 coffee's and keep the 1btc

i highlightd it..
remember it was you that said you have 100% control of the funds
for two years my pretense is that users do not have 100%.. that they actually are co managed. like having a bank account
the black bold/underlined was me explaining where i think YOU are stuck...
the green is me arguing the opposite
so if you think you kep 100% control.. its actually you that needs to prove you can buy coffe and keep control of the funds to get the 1btc

i even went into the depths of showing that even when you get to PLAY with the AMOUNTS of a tx. you are not 100% in control as it requirs 2 signatures. you cannot solo sign the tx YOU PLAY with.

i am not going to insult you im going to just do what i done before. ask you to do som research, learn LN, learn factories, update yourself on the concepts and run some scenarios.

oh.. and rusty russel has pointed out many many flaws.
what i have found out is the bitcoin community(users not devs) are very quick on reddit and this forum to scream out utopiam positives. but dont actually understand LN.
hense why i need to pull them back into reality by rvealing the flaws

there are already thousands of utopian optomists. echo chambering themselves and so there does actually need to be a few people out thir to not be ass kissers who are not afraid to mention the faults.

[cellard]

bitcoin cash is august 2017
"gigabytes by midnight" reddit propaganda has been going on since 2014-2015.. and has been show as propaganda because no implementation that wanted to run on the main net or as a altcoin competitor ever even said gigabytes.. the actual REAL debate was 2mb. and that was a compromise from 8mb. but the core supporters who wanted to REKT any core opposition so it was th core fanboys who were the ones screaming gigabytes by midnight. to drown out the real proposals

Core cannot decide when to hardfork. Even if all main Core devs agreed, you would still have many opposing forces with many bitcoins at stake to crush your hardfork attempts. If all it took to hardfork was Core (as in the main devs) meeting with some exchanges and miners Bitcoin would be centralized. They know it's not that easy so they don't want to pull a clusterfuck which would end up in 2 competing coins.

again bitcoin cash is august 2017
but any attempt to offer anything else that is deemed as a full validationa and archival node to run on the mainnet and offer an alternative got met with and treated as an attack.
yea Luke JR pretends his client is an independant second free choice of a full validation archival node.. but the hint is in the name of the creator that its still part of the core roadmap..

so tell me one full validation, full archival node solution that runs on mainnet where none of the devs are funded by the same investors as core... and where the nod has its own 'proposals'program that do not sheep cores.
show me the freedom of choice.

The TRB software by MP and co for instance, have their own funding and don't depend on Core. Other implementations here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4180898.msg38298585#msg38298585

OMG its delusional. kodak said how digital media wont scale up and how they will stick with film media because floppy disks can only handle 1.44mb of photos...... look what happened to kodak

if you want to argue that users cant handle more thn a couple mb of data very 10 minutes.. then you should do a kodak, but modernise it.. go tell twitch.tv that streaming video wont work. tell youtube users cant live stream. go tell EA sports that online gaming wont work. tell skype. even go and tell netflix that users wont get to watch HD movies.

..... oh wait. users can...... hmm

Ehh.. all of your examples are centralized databases.

gotta laugh that you think raising the blocksiz is impossible..  oh and by the way there are multiple other ways of scaling up the mainnet without losing peoples independant control of their funding, emphasis sacraficing their independant control for convenience, which is only caused by innnovation stagnation to require such sacrifice

and something we do agree on.. not al 7 billion people will use bitcoin. and not all will use it 5-10 times a day
which is another laughing point about th core fanboys screaming gigabyts by midnight because the real debate has never been about a be-all-for everyone coin by midnight...
a one world single currency is worse than fiat
people in reality dont do 5-10 transactions a day.
my mindset is about growth and SCALING. (you know progress over time) to kep bitcoin innovative and feature rich compared to other coins
not halting because something cant happen in 5 hours so it should never happen, to then push people away from using bitcoin

and the other point about the whales.. yep we can both agree those circling around the core team with deep pockets are whales and yes they do have power over the devs to not sway them off th commercial direction the devs have taken since 2013.

.. now.. here is something you dont realise
if people advertised LN in the same mindset as advertising other offchain gateways. where they HIGHLIGHT thats its not the real 100% control technology revolution of 2009-2013, but just a side service for those that need it, but willing to sacrifrce the bitcoin ideology for convenience..
if people then admit they hate it that devs have said btc is broke and cant scale. and instead think.. well maybe that dev is not the one to do it because he might have an agenda
if people actually cared more about the mainnet/ethos/revolution of bitcoin.. and not be defending a certain team of PEOPLE..
then my comments would be completely different.

The Bitcoin mempool is pretty much empty right now, but again, the problem is getting everyone on board, and there are many people with many resources that are not part of Core and are not part of wanting a blocksize increase. You need to unite everyone or you end up in a clusterfuck, this is why I say there may never be a hardfork, but just attempts which result in a mess.

[DooMAD]

where > > YOU < < think the person retains 100% control .. then i could buy 3000 coffee's and keep the 1btc

This is hilarious!  In what world do you live in where you could possibly arrive at the conclusion that having 100% control of your funds means you continue to retain control of the funds AFTER you've spent them and they're not yours anymore?  Why would anyone design a system that worked that way? 

Comedy gold!  You literally have no clue!  

But keep going, please.  This is amazing.

[franky1]

where > > YOU < < think the person retains 100% control .. then i could buy 3000 coffee's and keep the 1btc

This is hilarious!  In what world do you live in where you could possibly arrive at the conclusion that having 100% control of your funds means you continue to retain control of the funds AFTER you've spent them and they're not yours anymore?  Why would anyone design a system that worked that way?  

Comedy gold!  You literally have no clue!  

But keep going, please.  This is amazing.

you ar the one saying 100%.. and guess what.. if you read the post.. i was telling you that YOU DO NOT HAVE 100% CONTROL even BEFORE they are spent.
maybe next time i should reqest you read it 5 times. have a break to let it sink in and thn rad it 2 more times again. as it seems your not comprehending. even when i did highlight it to make it even easier for you

oh and you highlight more. even when you PLAY with your txB and chang amounts ovr to your partner.. guss what. they do not have 100% control of the funds after spending either.
its a co-managed / co-sign system.. NO ONE HAS 100% control

[darkangel11]

i even went into the depths of showing that even when you get to PLAY with the AMOUNTS of a tx. you are not 100% in control as it requirs 2 signatures. you cannot solo sign the tx YOU PLAY with.

It's still a better situation then with an escrow, wher a third party has total control and has to be trusted by both sides, yet people are trusting escrows and don't see them as a threat, but rather as a useful service.
If I don't have 50% control and the other party has the same, neither of us can steal the money. We have to come to an agreement. I'd say that's a fair system, much safer than the one we're stuck in now with our fiat money.

I don't know why this thread turned to be a pro/anti LN discussion  

[franky1]

It's still a better situation then with an escrow, wher a third party has total control and has to be trusted by both sides, yet people are trusting escrows and don't see them as a threat, but rather as a useful service.
If I don't have 50% control and the other party has the same, neither of us can steal the money. We have to come to an agreement. I'd say that's a fair system, much safer than the one we're stuck in now with our fiat money.

I don't know why this thread turned to be a pro/anti LN discussion  

but there are flaws. one side can use to steal from the other. so its not a fair 50-50
also even as far back as 2016 they were talking about due to the issue about needing to be online to ensure the other party doesnt mess around. they already envisioned third party managers.
here is andreas talking about it i skipped to the important part where he starts talking about the latst concept
https://youtu.be/wqbQJ82Hf0s?t=1m37s
1:37-3:00
this was him using a LN flaw about unfair stealing... and advertising that thirdparty managers will be needed.. as a way to try selling why segwit was needed.
you start to see them admit flaws in one concept to advertise another concept.
learn factories. as thats the latest bit about keeping funds from broadcasting when channels close and also third part managing chanels.
oh and one fun fact.. schnorrs concept is to hide WHO signs what and hide if its a 2-2 or a 2-3 multisig. meaning that when you open a channel you will know even less about the channel partner and manager and not realise that if partner and manager hve 2 keys. they can over rule you.
you wont know who signed it. and wont be able to prove you did not agree. because of how schnorr hides all that validation signature stuff into one 'witness'

[franky1]

as for the economics of offchain vs onchain..
usually convenient fast services has a premium higher price and the slower system has a lower price. allowing a fair trade off of speed vs saving.
unless your trying to kill off the slower old system, by making it as unattractive as possible

core devs have made onchain both slower(limiting onchain scaling) and more expensive. thus de-incentivising people from wanting to return to bitcoins mainnet. then along with factories with their extented locks beyond the channel locks. keeps people in LN for longer.

again think about the old 19th century banks..saying:
gold is heavy.. hand it over and PLAY with these receipts which are not 100% your because it needs the signature and verification of the bank manager.
how many people actually cashed in thir paper receipts(bank notes) for gold

[darkangel11]

but there are flaws. one side can use to steal from the other. so its not a fair 50-50
also even as far back as 2016 they were talking about due to the issue about needing to be online to ensure the other party doesnt mess around. they already envisioned third party managers.
here is andreas talking about it i skipped to the important part where he starts talking about the latst concept
https://youtu.be/wqbQJ82Hf0s?t=1m37s
1:37-3:00

And then he gives the solution. The most basic was staying online, but with segwit it was no longer needed as another person could monitor your channel and potentially earn some money if the other party decides to close it early to steal the coins. Since we have segwit now I think it's all fine and dandy. Also, if you don't trust the system you can always use the old fashioned way of sending the coins, without LN. LN is great for those payments that are small and thus have to be cheap and fast, like paying for a meal.

this was him using a LN flaw about unfair stealing... and advertising that thirdparty managers will be needed.. as a way to try selling why segwit was needed.
you start to see them admit flaws in one concept to advertise another concept.
learn factories. as thats the latest bit about keeping funds from broadcasting when channels close and also third part managing chanels.
oh and one fun fact.. schnorrs concept is to hide WHO signs what and hide if its a 2-2 or a 2-3 multisig. meaning that when you open a channel you will know even less about the channel partner and manager and not realise that if partner and manager hve 2 keys. they can over rule you.
you wont know who signed it. and wont be able to prove you did not agree. because of how schnorr hides all that validation signature stuff into one 'witness'

So you want schnorr and not LN... Did anybody even make an estimation of how much faster and cheaper would the network become with it? AFAIK it could be implemented along LN, so we might see it one day too.  

[franky1]

So you want schnorr and not LN...

schnorr is being mis-sold as a witness size reduction. .. but it only benefits those using multisig and segwit transaction formats.. not a benefit to bitcoin onchain legacy transaction users. and its size rduction is not that much.. the hidden utility is that it hides how many parties are in th multisig.. which is a security risk for those thinking one thing.. but under the hood its another.
imagine thinking its a 50-50 cosign.. then realise its a 2-3 multiparty where your signatur is not actually needed. and their was a hidden 3rd party managr (or your counter party with 2 keys), you would not know

the point is convenience at a cost of loss of independance and reduction of security is something we should not advocat for.
all this stuff like LN.. people lose funds for speed. (i have only highlighted a couple of ways out of dozens more that people can take funds)
segwit to allow third part monitoring because txID's cant change thus third party can monitor
all this stuff like schnorr for witness size reduction, by not revealing who signed what
all weaken the security and trust of bitcoin and loses whole point/ethos of blockchain security/trust.

all this 'convenience' stuff is just turning people into using fiatesq services. at the cost of making bitcoin onchain unattractive to use.
bitcoins onchain ethos was to not be fiatesq but to offer something better than fiat. things seem to b going backwards.

do you realise there are even new opcodes which do not even sign the amounts into a tx. so that usrs can edit the amounts at the last minute to adjust for tx fee's (or take the whole lot) without needing a new signature from the 2 parties to revalidate the new who deserves what.
oh and guess what. these new opcodes actually re-introduce malleability..
so it reveals segwit was not about malleability. it was about allowing other things in. and ahve managers, co parties etc all of which make sending a transaction more risky.
but all peopl care about is 'faster/cheaper).. which could have been solved years ago without security risks by not stifling onchain innovation

normal people wont know how to read a raw transaction. nor will they know what they are signing. infact users wont even know they are signing for something as it will be on 'autopiliot' (but maliciaous parties can tweak their node to their favour)

bitcoins original vision of self control 100% push to anyone you want without barriers. and all the other ethoses that made blockchain and bitcoin tech so revolutionary. has been stifled/limited/twisted for commercial gain

Did anybody even make an estimation of how much faster and cheaper would the network become with it? AFAIK it could be implemented along LN, so we might see it one day too.  

schnorr wouldnt make LN faster. but would open more malicious loop holes to allow people to steal funds.
as for bitcoins mainnet.
segwit has a 2x capacity and about 2.1mb size(IF EVERYONE used segwit and NO ONE used legacy)
segwit+schnorr has a 2x capacity and ATLEAST 1.5mb-2mb size(IF EVERYONE used segwit and NO ONE used legacy)

core devs set the 'weight' as more because other scripts wil be added later to bloat up the witness area as these scripts do need 3x data compared to the basic in/outamount part of a tx

[franky1]

but there are flaws. one side can use to steal from the other. so its not a fair 50-50
also even as far back as 2016 they were talking about due to the issue about needing to be online to ensure the other party doesnt mess around. they already envisioned third party managers.
here is andreas talking about it i skipped to the important part where he starts talking about the latst concept
https://youtu.be/wqbQJ82Hf0s?t=1m37s
1:37-3:00

And then he gives the solution. The most basic was staying online, but with segwit it was no longer needed as another person could monitor your channel and potentially earn some money if the other party decides to close it early to steal the coins. Since we have segwit now I think it's all fine and dandy. Also, if you don't trust the system you can always use the old fashioned way of sending the coins, without LN. LN is great for those payments that are small and thus have to be cheap and fast, like paying for a meal.

i mentioned the economics. a fair system would be slow but cheap or faster but expensive. that way it becomes obvious that people gt a good freedom of choice. but if onchain is slow and expensive.. who would use it.. (and thats the commercial game plan)
as for staying online.. do you sleep?.. again instead of fixing an issue to not need to worry about staying online. they decide to invent factoris and third party managers. (and thats the commercial game plan)

do you ever question how the bitcoin devs like rusty russel, gmax.lukejr, sipa. were suppose to repay back the over $100m investment they got.
ofcourse they dont want bitcoin to remain a cheap fast option thats better than fiat. they want people to move their coin into commercial services like LN so investors can get fee's. and have the funds cycle round in those factories without exiting so they can get repeat fee's long term

if you ever get the chance to listen into communications between the big players. you would be shocked at their ignorance of care towards normal community(users) and their passions for pleasing investors/corporations. it truly is an awakening

[franky1]

OMG its delusional. kodak said how digital media wont scale up and how they will stick with film media because floppy disks can only handle 1.44mb of photos...... look what happened to kodak

if you want to argue that users cant handle more thn a couple mb of data very 10 minutes.. then you should do a kodak, but modernise it.. go tell twitch.tv that streaming video wont work. tell youtube users cant live stream. go tell EA sports that online gaming wont work. tell skype. even go and tell netflix that users wont get to watch HD movies.

..... oh wait. users can...... hmm

Ehh.. all of your examples are centralized databases.

um. you might want to read it again. its from the prospective of the users.
the argument for not increasing the block size is that users computers wont be able to cope with processing and sending data out. becasue upload speeds are bad (they lost the download speed argumnt years ago, which is why they retracked and now have this 4mb weight(yet not allow it to be 4x capacity) .. (netflix argument)

read again. its not about just users VIEWING netflix. its users LIVESTREAMING. meaning their computer taking 32-64 HD webcam images a second,  and sending them out.

these days hundreds of millions of people can play a game on their computer. sending all the player position, angles facing. gun height direction and bullet timing OUT. while also talking to their friends on teamspeak or skype.(voice data OUT) while having a webcam on so they can overlay their facial reactions ontop the gameplay and have that sent OUT to livestream, twitch or youtube..

think about all the data being processed every second for all the vector positions of gaming. the overlaying of webcam footage and overlaying of groupcalls to a seamless constant stream of data to twitch. aswell as simultaniously sending out parts of that data as individual streams to skype to EA..

now go tell twitch that their service does not work because users cannot send out megabits/second for twitch to receive. oh wait, people can send out many mbyte/10min

1mbit/s = 1*60*10 /8 = 75mbyte/10min
.. i know i can feel you itching to press the reply button to rebut about developing countries being slow and also relaying out data to multiple node= multiplying the data amount. also many dveloping countries have nver been in the nod running requirment because their internet is cellular. which no matter what speed their internet is. core is not functional as a full node on a cellular (programming issue not speed issue) and also the tx fee surpassed 1c a tx. thus rulling out good utility for developing countries.

but if you take time to check the stats we are in the era of fibre and 5g cellular. not adsl copper wire and 2g cellular

global average
http://www.speedtest.net/global-index
46down 22 up
22mbit/s up = 22*60*10/8 = 1.6gbyte/10min .. or the average node with 8 connctions = 200mbyte per 10mins

[tokatuku]

Although initially I was skeptical about their effectiveness, but over time they proved me wrong and made a lot of progress. On the occasion that we did not do a wonder like this, at that time We will not be able to compete in practice with big traders, for example, visas, paypal, and so on.

[GeorgiyBilyk]

bitcoin has already proved to the whole world about its capabilities! with every day, more people are being turned to this new payment system! the cost is very cheap. Perhaps over time it will reach the cost of a visa. But bitcoin has even more advantages among traditional payment systems.