Lightning Network Discussion Thread

[Wind_FURY]

im actually trying to use a flawed theory which i beleive that you are presuming to be true.... and im correcting you.

As usual, your beliefs are totally and utterly wrong.  .... because you're too busy spreading FUD  ... to absorb into your thick skull what's being said... but that's just how astoundingly broken your mind is.  

it is possible.
again learn factories

Learn that factories are basically a proposal at this point?  Learn that if there is a flaw with them that it would be promptly fixed?  Learn that their practical implementation hasn't even been finalised? Learn that you're a worthless troll and you're talking out of your arse?  Oh wait, we already knew that.



For anyone that wants to read some informed insights into future LN developments, rather than franky1's demented verbal flailings, there's a good blog here that goes into a lot (and I mean a lot) of detail.

Obviously, you are the troll here ...

Who are you? Obviously not a bitcoiner, a LN shill I suppose. Just Stop harassing people.

When it comes to improving bitcoin your only argument is "Nobody agrees", "It is impossible to reach a consensus about it" , "leave bitcoin unchanged", ...  and when people criticize your beloved LN you go all-in bullshitting and trolling. Honestly, aren't you a paid troller or something?

I checked your stupid reference, it is full of shit. No answer to liquidity, no answer to liveness, just a naive attempt for selling unproven hypothetical fantasies as "possible" workarounds for real problems that make LN a failed project eventually.

... you either can't or won't build anything that would make it better without sacrificing any of the qualities which genuine Bitcoin users actually appreciate.  The reason I approve of LN is because it's built on top in a new layer and doesn't compromise the base protocol.

Building a shit "on top of bitcoin" is not bad as long as it is not competing with bitcoin.

I understand, you as a shill, have no clue about what I'm talking about but try harder just once in your boring life:
Saying: "In our company we have built something on top of bitcoin that performs the job of bitcoin (book keeping of transactions) ways better and faster than bitcoin itself" is the most ridiculous claim ever (congrats Block Stream).

Scaling bitcoin off-chain won't happen unless by compromising its security and/or decentralization and/or anti-censorship features. The only decent option for a true cryptopunk  is improving bitcoin onchain, other proposals are void and out of the scope of cryptocurrency and bitcoin, competitors. Period.

But how did Lightning compromise the network's security, and/or decentralization, and/or anti-censorship features on-chain? Lightning is a feature built using time locks, multisig addresses and storing the transactions locally until the user decides to broadcast the latest state of his Lightning channel like a normal on-chain transaction.

BCH story is different: It is a wrong bitcoin improvement proposal. Increasing block size is not an ultimate scaling solution because of proximity premium and centralization consequences, though a mild increase in block size (or preferably decrease in block time) is ok as one of many possible improvements.

I believe improving network latency should be first priority.

There should be an active and continuous process of improving bitcoin for catching up with the adoption rate instead of freezing it half dead to promote stupid off-chain proposals like LN.

Bitcoin's "fast adoption-rate" is over-stated. Where are the "full blocks" in Bitcoin Cash's 32mb block size limit? Supporters of that coin said there was "an urgent need" to increase the block size.

In Bitcoin, Segwit is doing fine.

I'm committed to this cause and will do my job in spite of shills like you. Frank is a true bitcoiner as well, he values bitcoin as a p2p electronic cash system and I find his insights very productive and useful and I'll consider almost all of his proposals in my work.

Anybody, no matter who, that claims bitcoin infeasible for such a continuous improvement is not a bitcoiner and will be kicked out of this ecosystem sooner or later and I personally do my best to guarantee this to happen

Do not take the criticisms and the debates personally. We are here to learn, and we should continue to debate and discuss. If you are in the right side of the debate then time will prove you right.

So understand where the difference lies between us.  I'm supportive of legitimate improvements that have a decent likelihood of going live.  

Nonsense!
LN is neither legitimate nor an improvement to bitcoin. It is proprietary software developed by a for-profit company and it won't go live because there is no way for a second layer solution to compete with bitcoin, other than putting users in some sort of security/centralization/censorship/surveillance risk.  Instead of talking so much think a bit.

Propietary? You know that is a lie.

[1713255427]

1713255427

[1713255427]

1713255427

[1713255427]

1713255427

[1713255427]

1713255427

[DooMAD]

Who are you to decide about who matters or not?

That's just it, though.  I'm not the one deciding that.  You are.  That's what you don't understand.  

You are the one freely choosing to be irrelevant by thinking you can dictate the direction of this project all by yourself, when literally everyone else is completely ignoring your blocktime ideas because they don't care and think that Lightning is the right course of action.  Blame me all you want, I'm not the one making them not care about your ideas.  They just don't.  That's how it is.  If you want more on-chain throughput, there are other forks which cater to that.  Or you can make your own.  Go start a thread in altcoins if you're serious.

The beauty of open source, permissionless systems is that if you don't like the path everyone else is following, you can forge your own.  But consequently, you have to accept that you're on your own if you don't like what everyone else is doing.  And I don't know how many more times I need to say it, but if you really do think you've got the right idea (you clearly haven't, but I don't expect that to stop you), go ahead and make whatever crap it is you're talking about and prove it's the right path.  I don't know what else there is to say.  Go make it.  See who runs it.  Stop whining that no one has shown the slightest interest in making it for you.  We heard you the first dozen times, but still no one cares.  

Not only did Lightning make the more convincing technical arguments, it also sparked the imaginations of people who realised they could extend the functionality even further and build even greater things, so that's what we've opted to do.  Tinkering with the blocktime simply doesn't achieve that same inspirational and transformative effect.  By all means belligerently stand there and keep pissing into the wind if you like, but things are set in motion now and there's a certain impetus to it that you simply can't fight against.  The work is already well underway.

This is technical discussion forum, your attitude is not productive for such a community, you better consider another place for your holy war against whatever you call FUD. In this place people have rights to discuss their ideas and propose changes and prefer to engage in productive and technical discussions rather than wasting their valuable time by confronting crusaders and anti-FUD warriors and shills.

Excuse me?  Your sole purpose in this thread is to boldly declare that all of the extraordinary work that has gone into Lightning so far is a total waste of time!  If that's your idea of "productive" then I'm afraid there's nothing we can do to help you.  You're way too far gone in the head.  

There is nothing "productive" about you telling us everything that's happening right now is wrong, particularly when you haven't got anything better to offer.  Your "attitude" is that you are somehow entitled to the skill and talent of other developers in the community to bring your vision to life.  That's just not happening.  Developers aren't a free resource you get to leech from if your ideas aren't compatible.  Sorry if my pointing out the glaringly obvious is causing you so much distress.  If anything, I'm trying to save your valuable time by suggesting it might not be the best idea to keep pointlessly smashing your head against a brick wall in a desperate attempt to get attention for your proposed sad and lonely altcoin which you can't even get off the ground.  

We're not making your crap, so either do it the easy way and accept that no one cares, or go make it by yourself, then come back when you have something to show and learn the hard way that no one cares.  The rest of us are quite liking the sound of this Lightning stuff and are watching intently to see how it all unfolds.  

[aliashraf]

Scaling bitcoin off-chain won't happen unless by compromising its security and/or decentralization and/or anti-censorship features. The only decent option for a true cryptopunk  is improving bitcoin onchain, other proposals are void and out of the scope of cryptocurrency and bitcoin, competitors. Period.

But how did Lightning compromise the network's security, and/or decentralization, and/or anti-censorship features on-chain? Lightning is a feature built using time locks, multisig addresses and storing the transactions locally until the user decides to broadcast the latest state of his Lightning channel like a normal on-chain transaction.

Lightning adoption leads to a hub and spoke topology to fix liquidity, liveness and routing problems and proposed mitigations are immature and lead to a series of new and even more complicated problems.
Generally speaking it is very unlikely to have a new decentralized/permissionless monetary technology invented every 10 years. We have to unleash potentials of bitcoin for a few more decades instead of trying to push it out of transaction space by stacking up more protocols on top of it.

A devil centralized exchange is far less harmful to bitcoin than LN, imo. The latter competes with bitcoin as an alternative payment processing method and leaves no space or incentive for bitcoin to evolve.

Scaling is both a problem and a challenge for bitcoin, projecting it to off-chain is harmful for both: the problem won't be solved and bitcoin won't mature and evolve.

A true bitcoiner understands it and is naturally against off-chain proposals.

We believe in bitcoin as a revolutionary alternative payment system.

We neither GAS to a trojan like Buterin who makes stupid analogy with high school thermodynamics and talks about a magical "trilemma" that prevents us from having a secure/decentralized/efficient crypto system nor to few mid-range hackers who have missed the forest and seeing just few trees have lost the direction.

We should never ever give up with bitcoin as a p2p electronic cash system.

There should be an active and continuous process of improving bitcoin for catching up with the adoption rate instead of freezing it half dead to promote stupid off-chain proposals like LN.

Bitcoin's "fast adoption-rate" is over-stated. Where are the "full blocks" in Bitcoin Cash's 32mb block size limit? Supporters of that coin said there was "an urgent need" to increase the block size.

In Bitcoin, Segwit is doing fine.

I do agree. And it is why we don't need off-chain scaling solutions or any scaling solution at all as an emergency call.



EDIT:
@Doomad, stop trolling and saying nonsense about who is who and your clan being how powerful.  Told you, it is a discussion forum. Here people try to convince each other by reasoning.  

[Wind_FURY]

Scaling bitcoin off-chain won't happen unless by compromising its security and/or decentralization and/or anti-censorship features. The only decent option for a true cryptopunk  is improving bitcoin onchain, other proposals are void and out of the scope of cryptocurrency and bitcoin, competitors. Period.

But how did Lightning compromise the network's security, and/or decentralization, and/or anti-censorship features on-chain? Lightning is a feature built using time locks, multisig addresses and storing the transactions locally until the user decides to broadcast the latest state of his Lightning channel like a normal on-chain transaction.

Lightning adoption leads to a hub and spoke topology to fix liquidity, liveness and routing problems and proposed mitigations are immature and lead to a series of new and even more complicated problems.

But what "complicated problems"? The hub and spoke model would make Lightning more simple in my opinion. I believe the Lightning Network would be better if it used a hub and spoke model in the beginning before it takes a more decentralized model as it grows.

A devil centralized exchange is far less harmful to bitcoin than LN, imo. The latter competes with bitcoin as an alternative payment processing method and leaves no space or incentive for bitcoin to evolve.

It does not "compete". It's a feature you either want to use or not to use.

Scaling is both a problem and a challenge for bitcoin, projecting it to off-chain is harmful for both: the problem won't be solved and bitcoin won't mature and evolve.

You are saying something for the sake of saying something. Tell us why and stop gaslighting.

A true bitcoiner understands it and is naturally against off-chain proposals.

Face palm. If you understood what the Lightning "Network" is, it is a "collection" of "delayed" on-chain transactions.

We believe in bitcoin as a revolutionary alternative payment system.

I disagree. Bitcoin is more than a "payment system". Bitcoin is hard money, and the base layer should be held very carefully by the Core developers not to break it.

We neither GAS to a trojan like Buterin who makes stupid analogy with high school thermodynamics and talks about a magical "trilemma" that prevents us from having a secure/decentralized/efficient crypto system nor to few mid-range hackers who have missed the forest and seeing just few trees have lost the direction.

But the blockchain trillemma is there. You cannot change one without changing one of the other two.

We should never ever give up with bitcoin as a p2p electronic cash system.

You can use Dogecoin if you want a real p2p electronic cash system. Bitcoin is hard money that will become a world reserve currency.

There should be an active and continuous process of improving bitcoin for catching up with the adoption rate instead of freezing it half dead to promote stupid off-chain proposals like LN.

Bitcoin's "fast adoption-rate" is over-stated. Where are the "full blocks" in Bitcoin Cash's 32mb block size limit? Supporters of that coin said there was "an urgent need" to increase the block size.

In Bitcoin, Segwit is doing fine.

I do agree. And it is why we don't need off-chain scaling solutions or any scaling solution at all as an emergency call.

Ok but that does not give you the right to tell developers to stop or take away their right to develop any feature they want for Bitcoin.

[aliashraf]

Lightning adoption leads to a hub and spoke topology to fix liquidity, liveness and routing problems and proposed mitigations are immature and lead to a series of new and even more complicated problems.

But what "complicated problems"? The hub and spoke model would make Lightning more simple in my opinion. I believe the Lightning Network would be better if it used a hub and spoke model in the beginning before it takes a more decentralized model as it grows.

Really? You don't understand what is wrong with a hub and spoke model and still you are arguing about bitcoin?  
It is exactly what I'm trying to prove:
This whole LN thing is an outlier. It doesn't belong to cryptocurrency discourse and its advocates are not a member of this movement. You need to remind them about why and how good is a p2p and decentralized system.

FYI: One real world implementation of hub and spoke model is traditional banking system. This model is vulnerable to centralization, censorship, state control, fault intolerance, ...

A devil centralized exchange is far less harmful to bitcoin than LN, imo. The latter competes with bitcoin as an alternative payment processing method and leaves no space or incentive for bitcoin to evolve.

It does not "compete". It's a feature you either want to use or not to use.

Are you kidding? You are suggesting a fast and cheap alternative to bitcoin and you say it is not a competition? What the hell is it then? A "complementary"? Give us a break.

Scaling is both a problem and a challenge for bitcoin, projecting it to off-chain is harmful for both: the problem won't be solved and bitcoin won't mature and evolve.

You are saying something for the sake of saying something. Tell us why and stop gaslighting.

You are quoting something for the sake of quoting something, no comprehension.

Scaling is a problem a weakness, but at the same time it is a challenge an opportunity for bitcoin to mature and become stronger and better. When you take a detour by putting a second layer on it with obvious centralization consequences, you are jeopardizing both users and bitcoin. People won't get the service they deserve and bitcoin won't have the chance to improve and evolve.
 
Now you get it?

A true bitcoiner understands it and is naturally against off-chain proposals.

Face palm. If you understood what the Lightning "Network" is, it is a "collection" of "delayed" on-chain transactions.

*Double face palm* Lightning is a couple of on-chain open/flush operations plus a collection of off-chain transactions.  

We believe in bitcoin as a revolutionary alternative payment system.

I disagree. Bitcoin is more than a "payment system". Bitcoin is hard money, and the base layer should be held very carefully by the Core developers not to break it.

How in the hell being hard money is more than being a payment system? And Who gave this right to you and your friends to redefine bitcoin this ridiculous way? AFAIK bitcoin thing started with a white paper titled: bitcoin a p2p electronic cash system.

I understand, people like you are just worried about your money and your utilities you don't have any incentive or reason to take a part in the resistance but what makes me angry with guys like you is the hypocritic side of your story: your insistence on taking over bitcoin by pretending to be not only a believer in but also the savior of bitcoin.

What stops people like you to set a 24 hours block time and 100 KB block size to make bitcoin super-hard? ... Huh?

US Federal Reserves 'Hub' can wait like a week for their multi billion dollars 'flush' transactions with Saudi Arabia Central 'Hub' to be confirmed on your super secure blockchain and your LN 'Tire 2' hubs barely need any flush operations because their 'customers' need just a single (if any) LN channel to be established in their entire life.

Bitcoin is not just an alternative payment system, it is  an answer to 2008 financial collapse, a censor free, decentralized way of issuing, holding and transferring money with a resistance axiom inherent in its every cell.

The most useless practice always is arguing about axioms. My bitcoin is a socio-economic revolutionary movement, yours is a hard money reserved in ultra hubs that moves barely if ever. Mine is original yours is fake. Period.

We neither GAS to a trojan like Buterin who makes stupid analogy with high school thermodynamics and talks about a magical "trilemma" that prevents us from having a secure/decentralized/efficient crypto system nor to few mid-range hackers who have missed the forest and seeing just few trees have lost the direction.

But the blockchain trillemma is there. You cannot change one without changing one of the other two.

Who says that? An undereducated ex-teenager whose greatest achievement is suggesting a stupid Turing complete machine instead of bitcoin's decent automa? The same achievement that ended to DAO hack scandal? Or a hypocrite who scammed millions of dollars by initiating a Pow coin while he was falling in love with PoS?

[DooMAD]

Scaling is a problem a weakness, but at the same time it is a challenge an opportunity for bitcoin to mature and become stronger and better. When you take a detour by putting a second layer on it with obvious centralization consequences, you are jeopardizing both users and bitcoin. People won't get the service they deserve and bitcoin won't have the chance to improve and evolve.

-IF- Lightning were to become centralised (and there's no guarantee that's going to occur), then only the second layer is centralised and the base blockchain is still decentralised.  Starting to get it yet?  This course of action preserves the decentralisation of Bitcoin.  That's why people like it.

What stops people like you to set a 24 hours block time and 100 KB block size to make bitcoin super-hard? ... Huh?

Consensus.  Users, miners and developers have to support a proposed change, otherwise it doesn't change.  This really isn't as complicated as you're making it out to be.  If you can find enough support for your ideas, they will be adopted.  But that very much remains to be seen.

Say we did halve the blocktime to 5 minutes, effectively doubling throughput, but consequently providing the same multiplier to the speed at which the blockchain grows.  It's not that much of an increase in capacity, but it places more of a burden on the resources required by full nodes.  In comparison, Lightning could easily provide x20 or more capacity with zero cost to full nodes.  That's what you have to compete with.  You can't come up with anything like a x20 or more increase by fiddling with the blocktime, unless you set it to something ridiculous like 30 seconds.  I wish you the best of luck if you think for a second that's a viable direction.  You're going to need it.

[Rath_]

In comparison, Lightning could easily provide x20 or more capacity with zero cost to full nodes.  That's what you have to compete with.  You can't come up with anything like a x20 or more increase by fiddling with the blocktime, unless you set it to something ridiculous like 30 seconds.

He might argue that second layer scaling solutions need some time to grow and become popular while Bitcoin is already accepted by some merchants. As you mentioned, they don't have any negative impact on the Bitcoin network itself even if they are centralised. Once you make a huge change (e.g. change the blocktime), it won't be easy to roll it back. There is no problem with using multiple layers either. No need to argue which vision is better.

[aliashraf]

Scaling is a problem a weakness, but at the same time it is a challenge an opportunity for bitcoin to mature and become stronger and better. When you take a detour by putting a second layer on it with obvious centralization consequences, you are jeopardizing both users and bitcoin. People won't get the service they deserve and bitcoin won't have the chance to improve and evolve.

-IF- Lightning were to become centralised (and there's no guarantee that's going to occur), then only the second layer is centralised and the base blockchain is still decentralised.  Starting to get it yet?  This course of action preserves the decentralisation of Bitcoin.  That's why people like it.

There exists no _IF_  and it is not just about LN, any second layer off-chain scaling solution is doomed to centralization.

What I'm trying to say (and you should start to understand) is the fact that LN is a distraction and postpones on-chain improvements.

What stops people like you to set a 24 hours block time and 100 KB block size to make bitcoin super-hard? ... Huh?

Consensus.  Users, miners and developers have to support a proposed change, otherwise it doesn't change.  This really isn't as complicated as you're making it out to be.  If you can find support for your ideas, they will be adopted.  But that very much remains to be seen.

You are used to say this, ever and ever, not an answer tho. I'm asking @Wind_Furry why shouldn't we 'harden' bitcoin even more if we think its main utility is to be 'hard money'?

Say we did halve the blocktime to 5 minutes, effectively doubling throughput, but consequently providing the same multiplier to the speed at which the blockchain grows.  It's not that much of an increase in capacity, but it places more of a burden on the resources required by full nodes.  In comparison, Lightning could easily provide x20 or more capacity with zero cost to full nodes.  That's what you have to compete with.  You can't come up with anything like a x20 or more increase by fiddling with the blocktime, unless you set it to something ridiculous like 30 seconds.  I wish you the best of luck if you think for a second that's a viable direction.  You're going to need it.

First of all this "resources required by full nodes" thing is irrelevant, nobody cares about the cost of a multi terabyte HDD ($100) and if he does he should back-off. It has been 10 years and Moore's law has done a lot with hardware costs.

More importantly, I never said and don't think that block time decrease is an ultimate scaling solution.
I think, a proper decrease in block time, combined with some additional smart techniques (like separation of witness data from transaction body,  using schnorr signatures, improving bitcoin relay network, ... ) is very helpful and buys time for us to catch-up with bitcoin adoption rate for next 2-3 years.

I strongly believe reaching to 70-100 tps on-chain throughput without a radical change in bitcoin is possible.

Although 70-100 tps is not enough for mass adoption of bitcoin, once we have bought time we would be able to tackle the situation with pools and centralization of mining and thereafter sharding would be our ultimate scaling solution. Sharding is not practical with centralized mining but in a decentralized mining scene with tens of thousands of solo miners, having like 100 shards each with 100 tps throughput is practical.

A committed group of developers  backed by a resurrected community both devoted to basic bitcoin axioms is what we need for this strategy to be realized we need neither opportunist traders nor technocrat developers. Vision comes first.

Finally, suppose I have no proposal neither for short-term nor for long-term to tackle bitcoin scaling problem, then what? We should simply give-up with bitcoin as medium of exchange and push it out from day to day usage and make a reserve thing out of it?

[DooMAD]

There exists no _IF_  and it is not just about LN, any second layer off-chain scaling solution is doomed to centralization.

And we should just take your word on that because...?  

First of all this "resources required by full nodes" thing is irrelevant, nobody cares about the cost of a multi terabyte HDD ($100)

This could be why people aren't taking you seriously.  Network latency and bandwidth are the resources people are primarily concerned with.  Not Storage.  

A committed group of developers  backed by a resurrected community both devoted to basic bitcoin axioms is what we need for this strategy to be realized

Correction:  that's what you need for your strategy to succeed.  Lighting already has numerous committed groups of developers, backed with the support of the community, devoted to a healthy balance between both on-chain and off-chain improvements.  That's why Lightning is happening and your strategy isn't.  Telling us you don't like the current strategy won't make us suddenly like yours better.  And it definitely won't make us start building it for you.  Pay someone to make it if you're that desperate.  

suppose I have no proposal neither for short-term nor for long-term to tackle bitcoin scaling problem, then what?

Are you even hearing yourself right now?  We don't need anything from you.  You are not here to "save us".  Your "proposals" are not a required factor in the equation.  I can't even begin to imagine how self-aggrandising you must be to genuinely believe Bitcoin can't move forward without your input.  Get over yourself.

[Wind_FURY]

Lightning adoption leads to a hub and spoke topology to fix liquidity, liveness and routing problems and proposed mitigations are immature and lead to a series of new and even more complicated problems.

But what "complicated problems"? The hub and spoke model would make Lightning more simple in my opinion. I believe the Lightning Network would be better if it used a hub and spoke model in the beginning before it takes a more decentralized model as it grows.

Really? You don't understand what is wrong with a hub and spoke model and still you are arguing about bitcoin?  
It is exactly what I'm trying to prove:
This whole LN thing is an outlier. It doesn't belong to cryptocurrency discourse and its advocates are not a member of this movement. You need to remind them about why and how good is a p2p and decentralized system.

FYI: One real world implementation of hub and spoke model is traditional banking system. This model is vulnerable to centralization, censorship, state control, fault intolerance, ...

Read what I posted before you jump to conclusions. I said "in the beginning" of Lightning's development because it would be more efficient and less complicated. The opposite of what you said. But that's only my opinion.

A devil centralized exchange is far less harmful to bitcoin than LN, imo. The latter competes with bitcoin as an alternative payment processing method and leaves no space or incentive for bitcoin to evolve.

It does not "compete". It's a feature you either want to use or not to use.

Are you kidding? You are suggesting a fast and cheap alternative to bitcoin and you say it is not a competition? What the hell is it then? A "complementary"? Give us a break.

No because you need Bitcoin to use the Lightning Network.

Scaling is both a problem and a challenge for bitcoin, projecting it to off-chain is harmful for both: the problem won't be solved and bitcoin won't mature and evolve.

You are saying something for the sake of saying something. Tell us why and stop gaslighting.

You are quoting something for the sake of quoting something, no comprehension.

Read your own post. I was replying to it.

Scaling is a problem a weakness, but at the same time it is a challenge an opportunity for bitcoin to mature and become stronger and better. When you take a detour by putting a second layer on it with obvious centralization consequences, you are jeopardizing both users and bitcoin. People won't get the service they deserve and bitcoin won't have the chance to improve and evolve.
 
Now you get it?

Yet what do you propose? Bigger blocks? Shorter confirmation times? It does have its own trade-offs obviously.

If there were "centralization consequences in Lighnting, it will be "off-chain". The base layer will remain decentralized.

A true bitcoiner understands it and is naturally against off-chain proposals.

Face palm. If you understood what the Lightning "Network" is, it is a "collection" of "delayed" on-chain transactions.

*Double face palm* Lightning is a couple of on-chain open/flush operations plus a collection of off-chain transactions.  

Like a normal transaction once broadcasted on-chain?

We believe in bitcoin as a revolutionary alternative payment system.

I disagree. Bitcoin is more than a "payment system". Bitcoin is hard money, and the base layer should be held very carefully by the Core developers not to break it.

How in the hell being hard money is more than being a payment system? And Who gave this right to you and your friends to redefine bitcoin this ridiculous way? AFAIK bitcoin thing started with a white paper titled: bitcoin a p2p electronic cash system.

Where is Satoshi, and what is this talk of "right"? The same could be asked to you.

Plus is the white paper the bible of Bitcoin? Yes? Then ok, Dogecoin should be a coin perfect for you.

I understand, people like you are just worried about your money and your utilities you don't have any incentive or reason to take a part in the resistance but what makes me angry with guys like you is the hypocritic side of your story: your insistence on taking over bitcoin by pretending to be not only a believer in but also the savior of bitcoin.

How would YOU save Bitcoin? By reducing confirmation times or increasing the block size irregardless of trade-offs?

What stops people like you to set a 24 hours block time and 100 KB block size to make bitcoin super-hard? ... Huh?

What about a 1 second block time and an unlimited block size. You would love that. Huh?

US Federal Reserves 'Hub' can wait like a week for their multi billion dollars 'flush' transactions with Saudi Arabia Central 'Hub' to be confirmed on your super secure blockchain and your LN 'Tire 2' hubs barely need any flush operations because their 'customers' need just a single (if any) LN channel to be established in their entire life.

US Federal Reserve to start using LN? Hahaha. If that would happen, which I do not believe will, wouldn't that be a "win" for LN as an alternative for consumer "coffee payments"?

Bitcoin is not just an alternative payment system, it is  an answer to 2008 financial collapse, a censor free, decentralized way of issuing, holding and transferring money with a resistance axiom inherent in its every cell.

Hard money. I already said it. You are going around in circles.

The most useless practice always is arguing about axioms. My bitcoin is a socio-economic revolutionary movement, yours is a hard money reserved in ultra hubs that moves barely if ever. Mine is original yours is fake. Period.

No. Hard money, a real valuable, provably scarce asset that is expensive to attack, modify, and highly secure in the base layer.

You want to change it at the base layer because you want a fast consumer payments system.

We neither GAS to a trojan like Buterin who makes stupid analogy with high school thermodynamics and talks about a magical "trilemma" that prevents us from having a secure/decentralized/efficient crypto system nor to few mid-range hackers who have missed the forest and seeing just few trees have lost the direction.

But the blockchain trillemma is there. You cannot change one without changing one of the other two.

Who says that? An undereducated ex-teenager whose greatest achievement is suggesting a stupid Turing complete machine instead of bitcoin's decent automa? The same achievement that ended to DAO hack scandal? Or a hypocrite who scammed millions of dollars by initiating a Pow coin while he was falling in love with PoS?

Irrelevant. Do not attack the person, attack the argument.

[aliashraf]

suppose I have no proposal neither for short-term nor for long-term to tackle bitcoin scaling problem, then what?

Are you even hearing yourself right now?  We don't need anything from you.  You are not here to "save us".  Your "proposals" are not a required factor in the equation.  I can't even begin to imagine how self-aggrandising you must be to genuinely believe Bitcoin can't move forward without your input.  Get over yourself.

Here we go. You have already proved yourself as a LN shill.

Told you, this forum is not about whose pockets is deeper and can hire more shills or whose clan is bigger. I was saying that if I had no proposals we would find some, if I'm wrong somebody should be right, bitcoin scaling should be taken care of.

I'm now realizing the truth about you, you are hired, I don't know by whom but I'm absolutely sure you are hired for this job: insulting and humiliating whoever is not satisfied with your LN clan, I'm officially accusing you of being a hired troll.

I'm a respected forum member who is contributing to problems like centralization and scaling in bitcoin, Who are you? A ninja hired to assassinate whoever your master doesn't like to talk?

There exists no _IF_  and it is not just about LN, any second layer off-chain scaling solution is doomed to centralization.

And we should just take your word on that because...?  

Because even a hired ninja like you should read a thread before terrorizing people.

First of all this "resources required by full nodes" thing is irrelevant, nobody cares about the cost of a multi terabyte HDD ($100)

This could be why people aren't taking you seriously.  Network latency and bandwidth are the resources people are primarily concerned with.  Not Storage.

What's this a joke? Network latency is a resource  
I have dedicated topics about network propagation delay, proximity premium, ... and you are teaching me about these? You were the one who mentioned capacity and I answered you properly.
As of network latency (which is a problem and not a resource) I have discussed it many times and recently I have shown how super-safe is current situation with less than 0.04% stall rate while bitcoin could live secure with like 2% orphans.

Do you understand what I'm talking about or we should expect more rude and worthless comments from you?

A committed group of developers  backed by a resurrected community both devoted to basic bitcoin axioms is what we need for this strategy to be realized

Correction:  that's what you need for your strategy to succeed.  Lighting already has numerous committed groups of developers, backed with the support of the community, devoted to a healthy balance between both on-chain and off-chain improvements.  That's why Lightning is happening and your strategy isn't.  Telling us you don't like the current strategy won't make us suddenly like yours better.  And it definitely won't make us start building it for you.  Pay someone to make it if you're that desperate.  

So, you got a big clan ... good for you ... I afraid, Bill Gates got a much a bigger clan and will beat you sooner or later  

Nobody asked YOU (now I'm talking to your master) or your stupid mid-range programmers to do anything,  don't take yourself that serious.
 
I just posted here when I observed you are arrogantly trolling against @franky1. I think people should be free to communicate and discuss and nobody has a right to attack them like what you do.

Unfortunately, mods are failing to do their job in this forum, they are biased and busy. Biased in favor of a "focus on LN and keep bitcoin frozen" strategy and busy making money I suppose. It is why I have to waste my time arguing with a person like you.

[spartacusrex]

I'm now realizing the truth about you, you are hired, I don't know by whom but I'm absolutely sure you are hired for this job: insulting and humiliating whoever is not satisfied with your LN clan, I'm officially accusing you of being a hired troll.

Take a breath Aliashraf. This forum has a way of getting people excited .. something about the mindset of us programmers and mathematicians mixed with a healthy dose of money.. Just make your case. People on this forum can distinguish the good stuff, from the poison, without requiring you to get into a headbanging contest with anyone who appears to disagree.

I'm a respected forum member who is contributing to problems like centralization and scaling in bitcoin, Who are you?

DoomMAD's one of the most respected members of this forum.

Unfortunately, mods are failing to do their job in this forum, they are biased and busy. Biased in favor of a "focus on LN and keep bitcoin frozen" strategy and busy making money I suppose. It is why I have to waste my time arguing with a person like you.

I wish you wouldn't waste so much of everybody else's time arguing.. You derail pretty much every thread you join.

---------------------------------------

BACK TO LIGHTNING.

DoomMad's point about attempting to get x20 on lightning for every on chain transaction is particularly interesting..  

x20 is a lot, but not enough to sort us out to VISA levels.. but if you then throw in the Channel Factories...

Channel factories allow you to create the Lightning channels without going on chain. So we might expect 20 Lightning channels from a single  Channel factory.. and 20 transactions from each Lightning Channel, before requiring an on-chain transaction.

Now we have x20 x20 = x400.

So the current 10 txn/s on Bitcoin, with nothing more than clever scripting, could actually represent 4000 txn/s off chain.

That's more like it. And NOW if you did double the blocksize (or halve the blocktime..), to allow 20 txns/s on-chain, we'd be getting 8000 txns/s off-chain.

What's not to like !?

[aliashraf]

Take a breath Aliashraf. ...

I'm cool. Mind your business.

DoomMad's point about attempting to get x20 on lightning for every on chain transaction is particularly interesting..  

x20 is a lot, but not enough to sort us out to VISA levels.. but if you then throw in the Channel Factories...

Channel factories allow you to create the Lightning channels without going on chain. So we might expect 20 Lightning channels from a single  Channel factory.. and 20 transactions from each Lightning Channel, before requiring an on-chain transaction.

Now we have x20 x20 = x400.

So the current 10 txn/s on Bitcoin, with nothing more than clever scripting, could actually represent 4000 txn/s off chain.

That's more like it. And NOW if you did double the blocksize (or halve the blocktime..), to allow 20 txns/s on-chain, we'd be getting 8000 txns/s off-chain.

What's not to like !?

Ok enjoy LN, I'd like to stick with bitcoin.

[JayJuanGee]

Take a breath Aliashraf. ...

I'm cool. Mind your business.

DoomMad's point about attempting to get x20 on lightning for every on chain transaction is particularly interesting..  

x20 is a lot, but not enough to sort us out to VISA levels.. but if you then throw in the Channel Factories...

Channel factories allow you to create the Lightning channels without going on chain. So we might expect 20 Lightning channels from a single  Channel factory.. and 20 transactions from each Lightning Channel, before requiring an on-chain transaction.

Now we have x20 x20 = x400.

So the current 10 txn/s on Bitcoin, with nothing more than clever scripting, could actually represent 4000 txn/s off chain.

That's more like it. And NOW if you did double the blocksize (or halve the blocktime..), to allow 20 txns/s on-chain, we'd be getting 8000 txns/s off-chain.

What's not to like !?

Ok enjoy LN, I'd like to stick with bitcoin.

Lightning network is pegged to bitcoin, you dumb ass, and it is voluntary whether you want to use such second layer, as you seem to already know.

As Lightning network expands, it is likely that a lot of the LN naysayers are going to end up using LN because it is going to become more convenient in terms of fees and transaction times, and just the expansion of the space in that direction.  Of course, this could take 5-10 years before channels becomes so wide-spread that even the disinformation spreading fucktards, such as yourself, are kind of forced kicking and screaming into a their own denial participation in which they assert that they were "never really opposed to LN" blah blah blah.. reframing history... as shill trolltards frequently tend to do.  

[Wind_FURY]

Is Bitcoin Cash also developing a layer-2, off-chain solution that would "sit" on top of the base layer? I believe that would make a stronger debate for the development of the Lightning Network. It is something that the big blockers might not admit.

https://twitter.com/jihanwu/status/1041691310367760384?s=21

BCH will continue its roadmap to build electronical cash on base protocol and encouraging permissionless innovation in layer-2. I see lots of buidlers are working so hard! Fake Satoshi can never stop us.

What would be the point of bigger blocks?

[aliashraf]

Take a breath Aliashraf. ...

I'm cool. Mind your business.

DoomMad's point about attempting to get x20 on lightning for every on chain transaction is particularly interesting..  

x20 is a lot, but not enough to sort us out to VISA levels.. but if you then throw in the Channel Factories...

Channel factories allow you to create the Lightning channels without going on chain. So we might expect 20 Lightning channels from a single  Channel factory.. and 20 transactions from each Lightning Channel, before requiring an on-chain transaction.

Now we have x20 x20 = x400.

So the current 10 txn/s on Bitcoin, with nothing more than clever scripting, could actually represent 4000 txn/s off chain.

That's more like it. And NOW if you did double the blocksize (or halve the blocktime..), to allow 20 txns/s on-chain, we'd be getting 8000 txns/s off-chain.

What's not to like

Ok enjoy LN, I'd like to stick with bitcoin.

Lightning network is pegged to bitcoin, you dumb ass, and it is voluntary whether you want to use such second layer, as you seem to already know.

As Lightning network expands, it is likely that a lot of the LN naysayers are going to end up using LN because it is going to become more convenient in terms of fees and transaction times, and just the expansion of the space in that direction.  Of course, this could take 5-10 years before channels becomes so wide-spread that even the disinformation spreading fucktards, such as yourself, are kind of forced kicking and screaming into a their own denial participation in which they assert that they were "never really opposed to LN" blah blah blah.. reframing history... as shill trolltards frequently tend to do.  

For a 'legendary' in btctalk you are amazingly ignorant.  

We are now using fiat. Does it make fiat the ultimate monetary system?  
Google alone  switches almost 50% of Internet page referral traffic, is it the true Internet?

I have no idea whether retards like you would succeed to bury bitcoin under multiple layers of stupidity (LN, factories, banks, whatever) or not, but I'm aware of the fact that ignorance has always a definite chance to get mainstream at least for a while, but how in the hell it would help covering the ugly face of an illiterate person who ruins a beautiful idea?

I won't engage in this discussion anymore because people like you (in the most optimistic scenario) are not able to generalize and think abstract.  

In dirty scenarios, we are mostly dealing with paid trolls, hired by bitcoin whales who are against any discussion and reasoning practice in the community because it may hurt the reputation of bitcoin and they may lose a few bucks. It is why they have started the infamous "anti-FUD" campaign in public sphere by assassination of advocates and authors.

Either way, stay tuned, we got still some cards to play, obviously other than arguing with you.  

[Rath_]

What would be the point of bigger blocks?

What would be the point of Bitcoin Cash then? The Lightning Network could be used without SegWit but it would cause a lot of problems (mainly transactions getting malleated). We can easily increase the blocksize any time we want but decreasing it would be nearly impossible.

Introducing SegWit was much wiser move since it increased the maximum block weight to about 4 MB. Oh, don't forget that SegWit killed AsicBoost. Guess who loses money because of that.

[DooMAD]

For a 'legendary' in btctalk you are amazingly ignorant.  

That's the interesting thing about perspective.  It's often the person who believes others are being ignorant when, in fact, they are the one who is totally missing the point.

I have no idea whether retards like you would succeed to bury bitcoin under multiple layers of stupidity

Supporting Bitcoin with layers of revolutionary and inspirational technology, you mean?  Again, perspective.

an illiterate person who ruins a beautiful idea?

The beautiful idea is that anyone can join the network with a full node and maintain a full copy of the blockchain to verify the transactions for themselves, without having to rely on trusting a third party.  You can't do that if the blockchain is so big that only large, centralised datacentres can handle the bandwidth for that task and everyone else is forced to use SPV.  Again, if centralisation can't be avoided, it's better if it happens on another layer.  We are preserving the beautiful idea.  Do I need to say "perspective" again?  

You think you see it right, we think we see it right, but clearly neither side is convincing the other to change their mind.  The only difference being that your side is, to be quite blunt, dead in the water and going nowhere.  You can say we're going in the wrong direction if you like, but at least we're going somewhere.

I won't engage in this discussion anymore because people like you (in the most optimistic scenario) are not able to generalize and think abstract.

Bye!  Good luck with your vapourware altcoin!

[JayJuanGee]

Take a breath Aliashraf. ...

I'm cool. Mind your business.

DoomMad's point about attempting to get x20 on lightning for every on chain transaction is particularly interesting..  

x20 is a lot, but not enough to sort us out to VISA levels.. but if you then throw in the Channel Factories...

Channel factories allow you to create the Lightning channels without going on chain. So we might expect 20 Lightning channels from a single  Channel factory.. and 20 transactions from each Lightning Channel, before requiring an on-chain transaction.

Now we have x20 x20 = x400.

So the current 10 txn/s on Bitcoin, with nothing more than clever scripting, could actually represent 4000 txn/s off chain.

That's more like it. And NOW if you did double the blocksize (or halve the blocktime..), to allow 20 txns/s on-chain, we'd be getting 8000 txns/s off-chain.

What's not to like

Ok enjoy LN, I'd like to stick with bitcoin.

Lightning network is pegged to bitcoin, you dumb ass, and it is voluntary whether you want to use such second layer, as you seem to already know.

As Lightning network expands, it is likely that a lot of the LN naysayers are going to end up using LN because it is going to become more convenient in terms of fees and transaction times, and just the expansion of the space in that direction.  Of course, this could take 5-10 years before channels becomes so wide-spread that even the disinformation spreading fucktards, such as yourself, are kind of forced kicking and screaming into a their own denial participation in which they assert that they were "never really opposed to LN" blah blah blah.. reframing history... as shill trolltards frequently tend to do.  

For a 'legendary' in btctalk you are amazingly ignorant.  

Yes....  Such assessment coming from chicken littles like you carries a lot of weight.       

We are now using fiat. Does it make fiat the ultimate monetary system?  

Yes.  Various forums of fiat including the USD are dominant, yet we are learning and likely to recognize that they are in competition with more potentially sound systems.... such as bitcoin.  Maybe even some of the pump and dump shit coins might prove to be more sound than the dollar?  We will see how this plays out with the passage of time, but there also might be periods of rapid migration away from some of the fiat systems and into bitcoin, so long as bitcoin remains seemingly vastly superior in terms of its soundness.

Google alone  switches almost 50% of Internet page referral traffic, is it the true Internet?

Yes.  Google currently plays an important role in the internet, and it could remain dominant in the space for a considerable amount of time, even though the concept of the internet is much broader as your seemingly rhetorical self-evident question seems to suggest.

I have no idea whether retards like you would succeed to bury bitcoin under multiple layers of stupidity (LN, factories, banks, whatever) or not, but I'm aware of the fact that ignorance has always a definite chance to get mainstream at least for a while, but how in the hell it would help covering the ugly face of an illiterate person who ruins a beautiful idea?

I have very little influence in the overall direction of this thing you call bitcoin with its multiple layers, but as long as I breath I have the ability to express various opinions, including participation in forums and threads like these.

Frequently, i attempt to make comments about what is and to describe its seeming progress and direction.  It seems to be a rougher row to hoe if you are trying to change the path that bitcoin is already on.... and to suggest some better direction.  Maybe you want to submit a BIP?  Probably not, you just want to complain without attempting to fix whatever problem(s) you are supposedly complaining about in your distracting and irrelevant talking points.

I won't engage in this discussion anymore because people like you (in the most optimistic scenario) are not able to generalize and think abstract.  

That's good.  You don't seem to be providing much helpful substance anyhow in your presentation of outlandish scenarios, and also your seeming failure to recognize that lightning network is a voluntary supplement to bitcoin rather than some kind of compulsory dead end.  So it is good NOT to have to play around with your academic abstractness and presentation of low probablility pie in the sky scenarios that are neither based on real happenings nor likely happenings.

In dirty scenarios, we are mostly dealing with paid trolls, hired by bitcoin whales who are against any discussion and reasoning practice in the community because it may hurt the reputation of bitcoin and they may lose a few bucks.   It is why they have started the infamous "anti-FUD" campaign in public sphere by assassination of advocates and authors.

Either way, stay tuned, we got still some cards to play, obviously other than arguing with you.  

Yes.. you are misleadingly attempting to suggest that bitcoin has some kind of large propaganda machine and money dedicated to marketing - unlike banksters, government, alt coin pumpers and other anti-bitcoin disinformation campaigns and you seem to be part of the ladder rather than the former.

Bitcoin seems to be driven largely by fundamentals and soundness rather than campaigns, but surely it does not hurt to have some bitcoin advocates out there fighting the good (pro-bitcoin) fight, and likely they are hardly compensated individually (or as a team) like what seems to be taking place with others who campaign against bitcoin and are either decently funded by establishment money or feel it is in the interest of their pump and dump shitcoin project to portray bitcoin as broken and believe that their shit project will do better if it is portrayed as a fixer of bitcoin problems (that are largely either make believe or exaggerated).

It seems quite likely to me in the long run, value is going to gravitate into bitcoin and the misinformation is going to be sussed out by the sound money value of bitcoin, and even you are likely not so dumb to be unable to recognize that phenomenon (so hopefully, even though you seem to be a paid shill, on a personal level,  you have been smart enough to stack some bitcoin or at least to hedge some of it in contrary to your other fantastical abstract ideas).  So, even if it might take 20 to 50 years for the various misinformation campaigns to play out, the most sound of the monies is likely to gravitate the value, and at this point the most sound money seems to be bitcoin.. surely someday, if the most sound money changes, then I will personally adjust my investment in that direction, but currently, the most of the sound monies continues to be bitcoin, which includes a combination of the "on blockchain" solutions and various secondary layers that are in the works, including lightning network.

[Ken007]

I really what to ask this question please..
Is the lightening network known as segwit?