Bitcoin Forum
November 17, 2018, 12:04:40 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.0 [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: LN: Bitcoin could theoretically scale beyond VISA.  (Read 507 times)
cellard
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 1160


View Profile
July 27, 2018, 02:58:58 PM
 #61

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.

1542456280
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542456280

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1542456280
Reply with quote  #2

1542456280
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
franky1
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2226
Merit: 1237



View Profile
July 27, 2018, 03:13:01 PM
 #62

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

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
cellard
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 1160


View Profile
July 27, 2018, 03:21:48 PM
 #63



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
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2226
Merit: 1237



View Profile
July 27, 2018, 03:41:33 PM
 #64

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.

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1185


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
July 27, 2018, 06:38:13 PM
 #65

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
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2226
Merit: 1237



View Profile
July 28, 2018, 11:01:05 PM
 #66

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

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
franky1
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2226
Merit: 1237



View Profile
July 28, 2018, 11:17:10 PM
 #67


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

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1185


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
July 29, 2018, 10:32:21 AM
 #68

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.   Roll Eyes



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
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2226
Merit: 1237



View Profile
July 29, 2018, 07:10:51 PM
 #69

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

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
franky1
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2226
Merit: 1237



View Profile
July 29, 2018, 07:16:29 PM
 #70

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

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
franky1
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2226
Merit: 1237



View Profile
July 29, 2018, 07:41:55 PM
 #71

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

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1185


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
July 29, 2018, 09:55:22 PM
 #72

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
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2226
Merit: 1237



View Profile
July 31, 2018, 07:47:05 AM
 #73

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.

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
franky1
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2226
Merit: 1237



View Profile
July 31, 2018, 07:56:14 AM
 #74


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

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
franky1
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2226
Merit: 1237



View Profile
July 31, 2018, 08:06:20 AM
 #75

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.

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
franky1
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2226
Merit: 1237



View Profile
July 31, 2018, 08:19:38 AM
 #76

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.

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1185


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
July 31, 2018, 12:32:05 PM
 #77

*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
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 116



View Profile
July 31, 2018, 12:40:23 PM
 #78

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.

               ♦      GΞMΞRA      ♦     Crypto-Token Backed by Colombian Emeralds     [  WHITEPAPER  ]               
     ▬▬▬    PRE-SALE  ▶  Sep 10th - Oct 24th     JOIN NOW & get 20% BONUS!    ▬▬▬     
♦          TELEGRAM        TWITTER        FACEBOOK        YOUTUBE         MEDIUM         GITHUB         LINKEDIN          ♦
tazmannia
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 102


WPP ENERGY - BACKED ASSET GREEN ENERGY TOKEN


View Profile
July 31, 2018, 01:14:06 PM
 #79

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)

           ﹏﹏﹋﹌﹌ WPP ENERGY ﹌﹌﹋﹏﹏
☆═══━┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈━═══☆
≈ WORLD POWER PRODUCTION ≈


【 BACKED ASSET GREEN ENERGY TOKEN 】
☆═━┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈━═☆
franky1
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2226
Merit: 1237



View Profile
July 31, 2018, 06:25:46 PM
 #80

*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.

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!