Lightning Network Discussion Thread

[buwaytress]

Maybe this is relevant, maybe it isn't,

It is. That all makes a great deal of sense. I was thinking like the fat cracker that I am. All too easy to forget that what's a cool idea in decadenceville may elevate living standards for the many elsewhere.

You're not a fat cracker, you mucker. Just a bit chubby from the grease on the crackers It is easy to forget though, but sometimes it is necessary to forget otherwise reality grounds people down too much to be able to come up with all those cool ideas that even I enjoy every now and then. I really, badly, want to be a cool LN'er one of these days. Of course, reading threads like these, I must come up against the reality that I may never know enough to be truly cool.

[aliashraf]

Bitcoin is not an infrastructure, it is the system, remember? Projecting problems to the second layer, stacking up protocols on protocols leads to nowhere other than ruining bitcoin, turning it to something it was not meant to be.

For years, teaching noobs about bitcoin, I've been  used to begin with telling them the Internet story and how its decentralized nature is hided from them by centralized services on top of it. Now what do I have tell to them? Like

This is such garbage. A second layer solution doesn't "turn bitcoin into something that it wasn't meant to be" because it doesn't do anything to the original Bitcoin. The original bitcoin will still be there, unmolested, following the initial vision. Unless you consider segwit to be too much of a departure. In which case segwit isn't lightning network or a second layer solution so you will have to take that up elsewhere.

Bitcoin is open and permissionless. People can stack what ever the hell they want on top of it. Who are you to tell people how they an and can't use the blockchain when their transactions are following all of the rules of the protocol?

You don't get it. But I seriously like the confidence, reminds me of Shelby  
Of course piling garbages on top of network has nothing to do with the original bitcoin, it just ruins the community and user base.
Well, you don't get it, and it is not your fault. I understand.

"Hey, Bitcoin is decentralized, don't worry, it is the fault of second layer protocols that you are being spied and censored"?

No one can censor anyone over LN. If a particular group of node operators are censoring you than you can route your transaction through any one else on the entire planet who is willing to do it for you instead. Garbage nonsense FUD.

And if that particular group of LN nodes happened to be the most shining part that can afford fastest and cheapest service, then what do I have to do with my misery, your honor? Just have to pay more and wiat more?

[aliashraf]

WTF, We are not trying to destroy Bitcoin, we are just discussing the Pro's and Con's of the technology and how to utilize it in the best manner to get the most out of it. I am saying, that the Lightning Network developers should consider defining, what a micro payment should be to utilize the system to it's full potential.

The parameters that are used now, is just temporary?

Yeah, you're already done with destroying bitcoin, I get it.  

Bitcoin is not an infrastructure, it is the system, remember? Projecting problems to the second layer, stacking up protocols on protocols leads to nowhere other than ruining bitcoin,

Ruining it how? Bitcoin is an open system that is open for developers to build tools on top of it. The Lightning Network is one such tool.

turning it to something it was not meant to be.

Is that your argument? Hahaha.

You need to make a transaction onchain to open a Lightning channel, technically it is still functioning as it was meant to be.

And it is yours? hahaha

For years, teaching noobs about bitcoin, I've been  used to begin with telling them the Internet story and how its decentralized nature is hided from them by centralized services on top of it. Now what do I have tell to them? Like "Hey, Bitcoin is decentralized, don't worry, it is the fault of second layer protocols that you are being spied and censored"?

Post your credentials, and who are you if you stand by that claim of authority.

This has nothing to do with my credentials. I don't need any kind of authority and didn't claim it. I'm telling a simple story about how a decentralized infrastructure like tcp/ip turned to be hidden by centralized, second layer protocols and you don't understand a word of mine.

I'm not talking about LN, I'm against any second layer protocol on bitcoin, I maintain that bitcoin IS NOT an infrastructure it is a complete system, it should be, it is meant to be.

Off-chain/second layer solutions of any kind, by any name are just a statement of failure for bitcoin.

You guys are hypocrites, little, sneaky hypocrites. Instead of focusing on bitcoin as a system, an electronic P2P cash system, you are giving up with it and are rushing to LN as the solution, the shelter.

[infofront]

This has nothing to do with my credentials. I don't need any kind of authority and didn't claim it. I'm telling a simple story about how a decentralized infrastructure like tcp/ip turned to be hidden by centralized, second layer protocols and you don't understand a word of mine.

I'm not talking about LN, I'm against any second layer protocol on bitcoin, I maintain that bitcoin IS NOT an infrastructure it is a complete system, it should be, it is meant to be.

Off-chain/second layer solutions of any kind, by any name are just a statement of failure for bitcoin.

You guys are hypocrites, little, sneaky hypocrites. Instead of focusing on bitcoin as a system, an electronic P2P cash system, you are giving up with it and are rushing to LN as the solution, the shelter.

You're absolutely, 100% wrong.

One use of nLockTime is high frequency trades between a set of parties. They can keep updating a tx by unanimous agreement.  The party giving money would be the first to sign the next version.  If one party stops agreeing to changes, then the last state will be recorded at nLockTime.  If desired, a default transaction can be prepared after each version so n-1 parties can push an unresponsive party out.  Intermediate transactions do not need to be broadcast.  Only the final outcome gets recorded by the network.  Just before nLockTime, the parties and a few witness nodes broadcast the highest sequence tx they saw.

[Last of the V8s]

This has nothing to do with my credentials. I don't need any kind of authority and didn't claim it. I'm telling a simple story about how a decentralized infrastructure like tcp/ip turned to be hidden by centralized, second layer protocols and you don't understand a word of mine.

I'm not talking about LN, I'm against any second layer protocol on bitcoin, I maintain that bitcoin IS NOT an infrastructure it is a complete system, it should be, it is meant to be.

Off-chain/second layer solutions of any kind, by any name are just a statement of failure for bitcoin.

You guys are hypocrites, little, sneaky hypocrites. Instead of focusing on bitcoin as a system, an electronic P2P cash system, you are giving up with it and are rushing to LN as the solution, the shelter.

You're absolutely, 100% wrong.

One use of nLockTime is high frequency trades between a set of parties. They can keep updating a tx by unanimous agreement.  The party giving money would be the first to sign the next version.  If one party stops agreeing to changes, then the last state will be recorded at nLockTime.  If desired, a default transaction can be prepared after each version so n-1 parties can push an unresponsive party out.  Intermediate transactions do not need to be broadcast.  Only the final outcome gets recorded by the network.  Just before nLockTime, the parties and a few witness nodes broadcast the highest sequence tx they saw.

Idea #1: Suppose a company can issue its own version of the bitcoin concept as "stocks" (bitstock?).  I know this has been talked about on other threads as well.  What would be the implications of high-frequency trading on the infrastructure borrowed from bitcoin?

In a private email exchange some time ago, Satoshi had the following to say about HFT:

I haven't fully understood why sequence numbers are a property of the tx inputs rather than the tx itself.

It's for contracts.  An unrecorded open transaction can keep being replaced until nLockTime.  It may contain payments by multiple parties.  Each input owner signs their input.  For a new version to be written, each must sign a higher sequence number (see IsNewerThan).  By signing, an input owner says "I agree to put my money in, if everyone puts their money in and the outputs are this."  There are other options in SignatureHash such as SIGHASH_SINGLE which means "I agree, as long as this one output (i.e. mine) is what I want, I don't care what you do with the other outputs.".  If that's written with a high nSequenceNumber, the party can bow out of the negotiation except for that one stipulation, or sign SIGHASH_NONE and bow out completely.

The parties could create a pre-agreed default option by creating a higher nSequenceNumber tx using OP_CHECKMULTISIG that requires a subset of parties to sign to complete the signature.  The parties hold this tx in reserve and if need be, pass it around until it has enough signatures.

One use of nLockTime is high frequency trades between a set of parties.  They can keep updating a tx by unanimous agreement.  The party giving money would be the first to sign the next version.  If one party stops agreeing to changes, then the last state will be recorded at nLockTime.  If desired, a default transaction can be prepared after each version so n-1 parties can push an unresponsive party out.  Intermediate transactions do not need to be broadcast.  Only the final outcome gets recorded by the network.  Just before nLockTime, the parties and a few witness nodes broadcast the highest sequence tx they saw.

The nLockTime feature is not used in BitCoin today. However it is apparent that Satoshi considered this use case ahead of time, as he did with so many others.

I can't be bothered to read anyone's arguments about LN back here, but let's be clear about one thing, there is no use quoting what Hearn claimed 7 years ago that satoshi said as an argument for anything.

[Xian01]

Anyone mess around with Autopilot in lnd ?

Just dusting off some of my coins and trying out this Lightning Network thing.

I'm wondering if Autopilot is smart enough to know to shut down not-productive channels, and re-establish new ones after a while.

[Anon136]

It has become apparent to me that aliashraf is just a troll. Time for the ignore list.

[infofront]

I can't be bothered to read anyone's arguments about LN back here, but let's be clear about one thing, there is no use quoting what Hearn claimed 7 years ago that satoshi said as an argument for anything.

Is doesn't matter. Satoshi quote or not, nLockTime was included in bitcoin early on.

[DooMAD]

Projecting problems to the second layer, stacking up protocols on protocols leads to nowhere other than ruining bitcoin, turning it to something it was not meant to be.

I thought you were of the opinion that Bitcoin was already ruined because of numerous other reasons.  You don't like the ASICs, you don't like mining pools, you don't like Lightning.  Is there any part of Bitcoin you do like?  Just about all the changes you would implement if it were up to you simply aren't compatible with the software everyone else on the network is running.  It doesn't look like you're going to find what you desire here.  At some point you might stop to consider why you're actually following this chain if it's such a lost cause in your lofty opinion.

One use of nLockTime is high frequency trades between a set of parties. They can keep updating a tx by unanimous agreement.  The party giving money would be the first to sign the next version.  If one party stops agreeing to changes, then the last state will be recorded at nLockTime.  If desired, a default transaction can be prepared after each version so n-1 parties can push an unresponsive party out.  Intermediate transactions do not need to be broadcast.  Only the final outcome gets recorded by the network.  Just before nLockTime, the parties and a few witness nodes broadcast the highest sequence tx they saw.

Indeed.  While Dryja and Poon are often credited as the inventors of Lightning, it seems Satoshi had some remarkably similar ideas.  Maybe we were always destined to get an off-chain option in some form or another.  I wonder if the development timeframe would have been similar if Satoshi had stuck around.  Or would we have possibly got Lightning (or a close approximation of it) a little sooner?  Or perhaps it would have been an idea Satoshi stuck on the back-burner and never got around to implementing?  Pity we'll never know.

I can't be bothered to read anyone's arguments about LN back here, but let's be clear about one thing, there is no use quoting what Hearn claimed 7 years ago that satoshi said as an argument for anything.

I get that Hearn isn't the most beloved figure in the community, but I don't see what there would be to gain in fabricating that email, if that's what you're suggesting.  I do concede that just because Satoshi talked about it, that doesn't mean it was something they definitely wanted to implement, though.

[Last of the V8s]

I can't be bothered to read anyone's arguments about LN back here, but let's be clear about one thing, there is no use quoting what Hearn claimed 7 years ago that satoshi said as an argument for anything.

Is doesn't matter. Satoshi quote or not, nLockTime was included in bitcoin early on.

Plus lots of other shit that turned out to be bad ideas.

[aliashraf]

I can't be bothered to read anyone's arguments about LN back here, but let's be clear about one thing, there is no use quoting what Hearn claimed 7 years ago that satoshi said as an argument for anything.

Indeed.

Plus, I don't care whether Satoshi really was a fan of second layer protocols or not, he made a lot of mistakes (picking sha2 as PoW algo, for instance).
I'm not talking about a person.

My argument here is about bitcoin as a system.
I'm not worried about people trying to get advantage of bitcoin as an infrastructure too, I'm worried about projecting most crucial problems to second layer, by Core devs.
Lightening Network is not, should not be, the first and the last words a developper in charge of supporting the protocol has to say when he is asked about scalability.

Scalability is an on-chain problem, it has always been. Projecting it to off-chain solutions, is kinda cheating. I think payment channels are good, not everywhere for every problem.

Payment channels are good for recurring unidirectional payments, like when you incrementally pay for a service or something, adding features to this technique, making it bidirectional, multi-party, somewhat routable, ...  is nothing less than competing with bitcoin itself!

It is amazingly insane, watching people who discussing LN like an abstraction layer that is supposed to absorb all the transactions and leave bitcoin with LN's own huge flush transactions alone.

Oh, give me a break please!

[Xian01]

Does anyone know of a node that will open a channel with you for no cost?

How is it possible to open a channel with no cost ?

I thought there was a cost to checkpoint the channel-open with the BTC blockchain.

[aliashraf]

Projecting problems to the second layer, stacking up protocols on protocols leads to nowhere other than ruining bitcoin, turning it to something it was not meant to be.

I thought you were of the opinion that Bitcoin was already ruined because of numerous other reasons.  You don't like the ASICs, you don't like mining pools, you don't like Lightning.  Is there any part of Bitcoin you do like?  Just about all the changes you would implement if it were up to you simply aren't compatible with the software everyone else on the network is running.  It doesn't look like you're going to find what you desire here.  At some point you might stop to consider why you're actually following this chain if it's such a lost cause in your lofty opinion.

What's this, you are a stucker?
Remain focused on the subject if you don't mind.

My argument: Projecting scalability to second layer protocols, is cheap practice. It abstracts users from real bitcoin and contradicts with most canonical feature of bitcoin: being public. Period.

As of my opinions about  ASICs and pools as the centralization gredients in bitcoin, I have rights to maintain my concerns about this topics and you and your friends have not patented bitcoin (yet) so, I keep discussing this subjects and trying to convince people to commit and contribute in improving bitcoin, whether you guys like it or not. 

[Xian01]

My argument: Projecting scalability to second layer protocols, is cheap practice.

What the fuck are you talking about ?

"Hurr durr let's all use telnet and raw-command all the things as a reasonable practice"

Get your head out of your ass.

Nobody is forcing you to use lightning. Use the main chain all you want, if you wish to remain a purist.

[aliashraf]

My argument: Projecting scalability to second layer protocols, is cheap practice.

What the fuck are you talking about ?

"Hurr durr let's all use telnet and raw-command all the things as a reasonable practice"

Get your head out of your ass.

Nobody is forcing you to use lightning. Use the main chain all you want, if you wish to remain a purist.

Thanks for the permission 

But wait ... if you dumb asses stick with your fucking toy and instead of committing to improve things, just start 'flushing' your shits on the chain, we 'purists' would have trouble, genius.

So many 'legendary' titles dancing here with no clue ... just amazing.

Anyway, I leave you guys, with your 'high level' experience with an electronic cash transfer system, god bless LN. No further posts in this trash.

[Xian01]

But wait ... if you dumb asses stick with your fucking toy and instead of committing to improve things, just start 'flushing' your shits on the chain, we 'purists' would have trouble, genius.
So many 'legendary' titles dancing here with no clue ... just amazing.

Hey.

Suck my Segwit-using dick, eh ?

Fucking triangle.

[Carlton Banks]

It has become apparent to me that aliashraf is just a troll. Time for the ignore list.

+1

Anyway, I leave you guys, with your 'high level' experience with an electronic cash transfer system, god bless LN. No further posts in this trash.

Are you (by any chance) going to leave Bitcointalk, then come back, then say you're leaving again, then come back again ad infinitum?

[Rath_]

How is it possible to open a channel with no cost ?

I thought there was a cost to checkpoint the channel-open with the BTC blockchain.

Channel factories. Existing Lightning Network channels could be used for creating new channels without broadcasting anything to the rest of the Bitcoin network. Normally, a channel is opened to only one person. In channel factories we have multiple people forming a group. Group members maintain channels between themselves. More interested users = higher savings. If one of the participants is uncooperative, existing channels are not affected - new channels can't be created, though.

You can find more detailed description here.

[Xian01]

You can find more detailed description here.

Thanks.

I read through that. All that was missing is "How do I set up a channel-factory ?"

Is this something that is currently supported ? Anyone successfully set one up yet ?

Where do I sign up ? Is this something we can screw around with here ?

Sorry for the wall-of-questions. Getting back into this Bitcoin thing, and Lightning really does seem interesting to me.

Got my node all working and stuff, so super happy about that.

I read some post by the guy running shitcoin.com, setting up his node, and it got me super interested.

https://medium.com/andreas-tries-blockchain/bitcoin-lightning-network-1-can-i-compile-and-run-a-node-cd3138c68c15

[aliashraf]

Anyway, I leave you guys, with your 'high level' experience with an electronic cash transfer system, god bless LN. No further posts in this trash.

Are you (by any chance) going to leave Bitcointalk, then come back, then say you're leaving again, then come back again ad infinitum?

No! bitcointalk is not funded by your dad, I just got somewhat bad feeling about seeing so many dumb 'legendary' fucks in one thread trying to convince themselves how great is the shit they are eating, so I decided not to argue with such dick heads.

And who/what are you? Kinda buzzard?