Bitcoin Forum
January 17, 2020, 12:46:42 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [21]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Lightning Network Discussion Thread  (Read 28788 times)
BitCryptex
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1154


Write @BitCryptex or quote my post to notify me


View Profile WWW
April 01, 2019, 07:56:01 PM
 #401

The bitpay invoice are still on blockchain or they have version for lightning network?

BitPay does not support Lightning Network payments and probably they won't implement them anytime soon. As far as I remember, their receiving addresses are legacy but you can send your coins from both nested and native SegWit address without any problems. If anyone here is looking for a decent payment gateway then I would recommend BTCPayServer. It supports SegWit and Lightning Network payments.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1579265202
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1579265202

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1579265202
Reply with quote  #2

1579265202
Report to moderator
Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 851


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
April 02, 2019, 08:19:52 AM
 #402

Can anyone help me find out where franky1 is going with this post? He claims that a fractional reserve on Lightning "has begun".

Is Bitrefill starting a fractional reserve in Lightning? Is that possible? Or is franky1's gaslighting getting better? Hahaha. Cool

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5124663.msg50325896#msg50325896

Quote

fractional reserve on LN. it has begun

https://www.bitrefill.com/buy/lightning-channel/

500,000 sats capacity You pay 0.000403 BTC
2,000,000 sats capacity You pay 0.001341 BTC
4,000,000 sats capacity You pay 0.002011 BTC
8,000,000 sats capacity You pay 0.003753 BTC
16,000,000 sats capacity You pay 0.004825 BTC


You're buying an "empty" channel.  Within the channel, your balance begins as 0 and Bitrefill's balance is whichever option you pay for.  Which is why the channel costs less for you to buy than the capacity.  This allows people to send you payments via Bitrefill.  Taking the largest channel as an example, if you pay 0.004825 BTC, you can then receive up to 0.16 BTC from your customers, which may have otherwise been problematic to receive if your other channels were approaching full capacity.  There is categorically no fractional reserve involved.  Franky1 is a disinformation agent whose only goal is to cause as much confusion as possible.

//EDIT:  And here's an image that shows the 500,000 sats channel being initiated:



Starting share is zero.  It's not money created from nothing as franky1 would have you believe.


I know. I just needed to know how it functions, and did some reading about it. I always gave franky1 the benefit of the doubt, but this time I know his misinformation on Lightning is deliberate.

https://medium.com/@bitrefill/2d6ffbad3906

This is in step 4.

Quote

You will be prompted to accept an incoming channel, press OK and the channel will be pending until it reaches 6 confirmations


No "IOU pegged promises to pay tokens" in Lightning.

▄▄█████████▄▄
▄█████████████████▄
▄████▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀████▄
████▀██████▀█▀██████▀████
██████████████████████████
▐█████▄███████████████▄█████▌
▐███████▄▄█████████▄▄███████▌
▐██████▀█████████████▀██████▌
▐███████████████████████████▌
▀██████████████████████▀
▀████▄████▄▀▀▄████▄████▀
▀███████▀███▀███████▀
▀▀█████████████▀▀
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
★.★.★   8 GAMES   ★   WAGERING CONTEST   ★   JACKPOTS   ★   FAUCET   ★.★.★
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ ▄▀██
 ▀▄▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀ ▀█▄
██   ██
 ▀█▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀█▀█▄

 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄██▀▄█▄
██▀▄███
 ▀▄▄▄▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ █ ██
 ▀▄▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀▄▄▄▀▄
█▀▀▀▀▄█
 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀   ▀▄
█  █▄ █
 ▀▄██▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀ ▀█▄
██   ██
 ▀█▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▀ █ ▀
▀▀▄▀▀
 ▀▄█▄
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ ▄▀██
 ▀▄▄█▀
|
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 555

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
April 05, 2019, 11:06:04 AM
 #403

The bitpay invoice are still on blockchain or they have version for lightning network?

BitPay does not support Lightning Network payments and probably they won't implement them anytime soon. As far as I remember, their receiving addresses are legacy but you can send your coins from both nested and native SegWit address without any problems. If anyone here is looking for a decent payment gateway then I would recommend BTCPayServer. It supports SegWit and Lightning Network payments.

If decent Business can afford doing proper risk assessments incl BCM (Buisness Continue Management )  as one of the most important parts to  keep ur services up and running AT ANY TIME and ANY high throughput, u just cannot deal with btc at all.

Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Memo: 1AHUYNJKPfY7PjVK1hNQFo5LrdGixuiybw  -  https://metanet.icu/
The simple way is the genius way - in Moore's Law and Satoshi's WP we trust.
Cøbra
Bitcoin.org domain administrator
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 110
Merit: 279


View Profile WWW
April 07, 2019, 12:05:57 AM
Merited by suchmoon (9), bones261 (2), vapourminer (1), ETFbitcoin (1)
 #404

Random thought, but it really annoys me how closely associated to Bitcoin's success Lightning has come to be seen, so much so that it's almost like Bitcoin can't fully stand on its own as a technological tool without Lightning "enhancing" it. When you really think about it, Bitcoin and Lightning have nothing to do with each other at a protocol level; the Bitcoin network "knows" as much about Lightning as the Litecoin/Ethereum network does, i.e. nothing. The way Bitcoin and Lightning get thought about in a way where they're paired up and so closely linked doesn't feel right. Nowadays a lot of the excitement about Bitcoin is funneled through Lightning, that seems to be where all the buzz is. Even technical improvements to the Bitcoin protocol are viewed through the lens of "how will this help Lightning?" (Neutrino, eltoo, Segwit was heavily associated with LN due to the malleability fix, SIGHASH_NOINPUT: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0118.mediawiki, etc).

I hope we know that Lightning is quite blockchain agnostic and I'm sure they can pivot to another cryptocurrency or launch their own if the Bitcoin network doesn't suit their needs due to rising fees or disagreements with Core developers (I've already seen some areas where the difference in focus and priorities has reared its ugly head). Lightning is also particularly not suited to give a good user experience with higher fees: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/b9ec4v/lightning_channel_losing_funds_for_no_reason/.

I think there will be quite some drama if it looks like eltoo and SIGHASH_NOINPUT will end up live on the Bitcoin network. Neutrino is already well on its way to becoming a feature in Bitcoin Core: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12254. It's strange to have protocol development steered in a way to help one particular application. Not to say that all protocol improvements only help Lightning, but a significant chunk of work and effort recently seems to be pointed at the direction of bending and twisting the Bitcoin protocol so that it works better with one specific implementation of an offchain system. At least that's been my observation.
gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 2940
Merit: 3047



View Profile
April 07, 2019, 01:18:53 AM
Last edit: April 08, 2019, 12:52:35 AM by gmaxwell
Merited by bones261 (2), JayJuanGee (1)
 #405

> but a significant chunk of work and effort and effort recently seems to be pointed at the direction of bending and twisting the Bitcoin protocol so that it works better with one specific implementation of an offchain system

Work on what by whom and to the exclusion of what, exactly?  Please provide hyperlinks.

It's kind of exhausting to deal with what feels like pithy narratives being used as a substitute for actual reality. We can avoid anyone feeling that way by being painstakingly concrete instead of vague.

You provided two links:

BIP 118, which is over two years old (Feb 2017), has no activity in Bitcoin Core right now that I'm aware of, and was written by a lightning implementer. Lightning implementer interested in things that are useful for lightning isn't a newsflash.

And PR12254 (Apr 2018) provided for BIP158 filters doesn't do anything for lightning as is, and was developed by someone who isn't a project regular.  Much of the interest in that is making wallet rescan fast [search this for BIP-158]., which that PR implements most of the necessary components for... and a network facing version is essentially just a replacement for BIP37 which is slightly less of a total privacy disaster (and DOS vulnerability disaster). There isn't anything lightning specific about that...

I don't think these support your case, if anything they contradict it-- or at least the fact that these were your only examples does since they don't show a high level of attention or interest.

Lightning is an application of Bitcoin smart contracts to make Bitcoin payments more efficient, the fact that it could be adapted to another system is simply a product of other systems copying Bitcoin functionality... the same could be said for any technical functionality.  Any application seeing actual use is obviously going to get some engineering attention, since a real application with articulable tradeoffs generally trumps conjecture.

Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2604
Merit: 2163



View Profile
April 07, 2019, 11:29:31 AM
Last edit: April 07, 2019, 05:57:09 PM by Carlton Banks
Merited by gmaxwell (5), ETFbitcoin (3), JayJuanGee (1)
 #406

Even technical improvements to the Bitcoin protocol are viewed through the lens of "how will this help Lightning?" (Neutrino, eltoo, Segwit was heavily associated with LN due to the malleability fix, SIGHASH_NOINPUT: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0118.mediawiki, etc).

  • Neutrino has zero to do with Lightning
  • eltoo has zero to do with Bitcoin, there is no eltoo proposal for Bitcoin
  • Segwit doesn't only fix malleability (which was desirable for all contract systems, not just Lightning)
  • SIGHASH_NOINPUT has been suggested for use cases that are not Lightning

So, who is viewing protocol improvements only through a "how will this help Lightning" lens?

Vires in numeris
Cøbra
Bitcoin.org domain administrator
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 110
Merit: 279


View Profile WWW
April 07, 2019, 04:50:16 PM
 #407

Work on what by whom and to the exclusion of what, exactly?

I didn't claim the current work was to the exclusion of other work, just that a significant chunk of effort is being expended to make Bitcoin's protocol and the node software assist Lightning as much as possible, maybe more so than warranted. There's plenty of other protocol work like Schnorr, Taproot, MAST etc. that isn't so closely associated to Lightning.

It's kind of exhausting to deal with what feels like pithy narratives being used as a substitute for actual reality. We can avoid anyone feeling that way by being painstakingly concrete instead of vague.

One post in a topic that was a random thought hardly can be called a narrative nor something "exhausting" to deal with. It's not like this is something being repeated endlessly by an army of shills.

BIP 118, which is over two years old (Feb 2017), has no activity in Bitcoin Core right now that I'm aware of, and was written by a lightning implementer. Lightning implementer interested in things that are useful for lightning isn't a newsflash.

Neutrino has plenty of activity on Bitcoin Core, the first PR was merged, and work is ongoing here to get the second PR merged: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14121. It's quite clear the motivations for Neutrino are very Lightning specific, but that's no surprise as you said due to the Lightning team being the ones behind it. But if this stuff does get merged, despite pretty big opposition (https://medium.com/@nicolasdorier/neutrino-is-dangerous-for-my-self-sovereignty-18fac5bcdc25, https://twitter.com/lukedashjr/status/1105019080791244801?s=21), it will be yet another thing merged into Core with the aim of making Lightning easier.

And it's quite obvious to anyone that Neutrino is built for and designed to be used with Lightning:

Quote
Our primary motivation
for this work was enabling a light client mode for lnd[4] in order to
support a more light-weight back end paving the way for the usage of
Lightning on mobile phones and other devices.

-- https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/014474.html

I don't think these support your case, if anything they contradict it-- or at least the fact that these were your only examples does since they don't show a high level of attention or interest.

I provided plenty of examples. We can go even further back and look at things like OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY which were something needed for sidechains and Lightning. The current eltoo proposal will require yet another soft fork of Bitcoin to function. Segwit was heavily connected to Lightning, with prominent developers like Luke-jr even suggesting to people not to use Segwit unless they were using Lightning, so as to avoid increasing the size of the blockchain unnecessarily. Neutrino and all the BIPs associated with that are very obviously only designed with Lightning in mind. I don't doubt that Lightning's developers will lobby for even more changes to Bitcoin's base protocol should they want for more.

Lightning is an application of Bitcoin smart contracts to make Bitcoin payments more efficient, the fact that it could be adapted to another system is simply a product of other systems copying Bitcoin functionality... the same could be said for any technical functionality.  Any application seeing actual use is obviously going to get some engineering attention, since a real application with articulable tradeoffs generally trumps conjecture.

Don't you find it strange how on Lightning's homepage the only mention of "Bitcoin" is followed up with "/Blockchain". And how their Twitter bio says "Lightning scales and speeds up bitcoin and other blockchains.". http://lightning.network/, https://twitter.com/lightning. Lightning being blockchain agnostic is by design. There's no need for them to support Litecoin, but they do: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/docs/INSTALL.md#using-bitcoind-or-litecoind. If Bitcoin doesn't suit their needs, they can and will pivot to something else, and all their marketing material is already preparing users subtly for this.

Considering your previous employer Blockstream is heavily involved with Lightning (I'm not aware of how much stock you own in Blockstream), your opinions on this topic are likely to be biased and skewed by your financial interests. That's OK because we all have some level of bias, but I recommend you divest yourself from technical debates where you aren't able to exercise complete neutrality.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2604
Merit: 2163



View Profile
April 07, 2019, 05:52:11 PM
Merited by gmaxwell (3)
 #408

And it's quite obvious to anyone that Neutrino is built for and designed to be used with Lightning:

Quote
Our primary motivation
for this work was enabling a light client mode for lnd[4] in order to
support a more light-weight back end paving the way for the usage of
Lightning on mobile phones and other devices.

-- https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/014474.html

Neutrino's a (more private) replacement for the current light-node tech. You have no idea what you're talking about

Vires in numeris
gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 2940
Merit: 3047



View Profile
April 07, 2019, 05:52:39 PM
Last edit: April 08, 2019, 12:59:44 AM by gmaxwell
Merited by JayJuanGee (1)
 #409

I didn't claim the current work was to the exclusion of other work,
Then what the point?  "Bitcoin development is somewhat interested interested at improving the protocol for an application of it at no cost to other applications of it" hardly sounds like a thought worth expressing.

I read, and I think many people would read, an implicit claim that the attention you assert exists is to the exclusion of other activity. In fact, "protocol development steered in a way to help one particular application" seems to be saying saying pretty darn explicitly.

Quote
just that a significant chunk of effort is being expended to make Bitcoin's protocol and the node software assist Lightning as much as possible,
Yes, you asserted this but failed to back it up with evidence. Instead, you've only shown that there is some minimal but non-zero effort there.

By all means, argue that bitcoin-twitter and bitcoin-reddit overhypes the crap out of lightning, I'll gladly agree. But saying this applies to development just seems to be pure narrative making, almost completely divorced from reality AFAICT.

Quote
It's kind of exhausting to deal with what feels like pithy narratives being used as a substitute for actual reality. We can avoid anyone feeling that way by being painstakingly concrete instead of vague.

One post in a topic that was a random thought hardly can be called a narrative nor something "exhausting" to deal with. It's not like this is something being repeated endlessly by an army of shills.
Welp, you've continued it after being seemingly debunked-- that is step two in shill narrative land.

[Edit: And step three, your spurrious "conflict of interest" deflection]

Quote
BIP 118, which is over two years old (Feb 2017), has no activity in Bitcoin Core right now that I'm aware of, and was written by a lightning implementer. Lightning implementer interested in things that are useful for lightning isn't a newsflash.

Neutrino has plenty of activity on Bitcoin Core,
Did you make a quoting mistake or are you just intentionally changing the subject?

Quote
the first PR was merged, and work is ongoing here to get the second PR merged
Which still does absolutely nothing related to the p2p network or lightning.

Quote
It's quite clear the motivations for Neutrino are very Lightning specific,
In what way? Simply saying something doesn't make it true. I am aware of no way that these filters are related to lightning other than lightning folks having written the BIP for them.

Quote
And it's quite obvious to anyone that Neutrino is built for and designed to be used with Lightning:

Quote
Our primary motivation
for this work was enabling a light client mode for lnd[4] in order to
support a more light-weight back end paving the way for the usage of
Lightning on mobile phones and other devices.
-- https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/014474.html
Notice it says "enabling a lite client".  Their effort is just a lite client (one which happens to support lightning) and they would prefer to not use BIP37  as BIP37 is deprecated for being a DOS vector (and fairly privacy busted). Here is the original proposal for this approach to replacing BIP37: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-May/012636.html   You may note it makes no mention of lightning, because the whole thing is lightning unrelated.

Quote
I don't think these support your case, if anything they contradict it-- or at least the fact that these were your only examples does since they don't show a high level of attention or interest.

I provided plenty of examples.
You provided exactly two examples. A two year old bip draft by a lightning implementer which has never been implemented in core and has no activity, which you quoted here and appeared to respond to but said nothing about,  and a replacement for BIP37 which still has no network facing proposal for Bitcoin Core and which itself doesn't have any relation to lightning other than the fact that it was written by lightning folks.

Instead, if you look you will find a lot of skepticism about the failue of exposing BIP158 filters to the network. I don't think any of the bitcoin core regular contributors particular care for network facing usage except that enabling it would allow eventually eliminating BIP37 which is an annoying DOS vector.

Quote
We can go even further back and look at things like OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY which were something needed for sidechains and Lightning.
Indeed, CSV is useful for payment channels-- and a lot of other things-- but it's a 3.5 year old proposal. I fail to see how it supports the claim you've made about anything going on right now.

Quote
Segwit was heavily connected to Lightning
Primarily by dishonest shills and the people they've bamboozled.

Quote
with prominent developers like Luke-jr even suggesting to people not to use Segwit unless they were using Lightning, so as to avoid increasing the size of the blockchain unnecessarily
Shame on you, making this misleading comment. Luke was campaigning to reduce the blocksize limit to 300kb, and campaigning people to not use segwit was simply to try to undo the block size increase: the "unless lightning" is just there because lightning software uses it and he didn't want to tell people to not use lightning (as that would be counter-productive to his goal of reducing block sizes).

Quote
Neutrino and all the BIPs associated with that are very obviously only designed with Lightning in mind.
You say very obviously but you provide absolutely no evidence for that.   The earliest drafts of the spec had some additional filter types which, while also not lightning specific, were at least not as generally interesting, and sipa and I convinced the proposers that they weren't needed...   Please tell me in what way is being able to efficiently check if a block contains a payment to a particular address (just as BIP37 does, but not so efficiently) is in any way connected to lightning?

Quote
I don't doubt that Lightning's developers will lobby for even more changes to Bitcoin's base protocol should they want for more.
No doubt, just as anyone else doing something interesting with smart contracts has done in the past and would do...

Quote
Lightning being blockchain agnostic is by design.
Can you explain how it could be anything but?

Quote
There's no need for them to support Litecoin, but they do
Lightning worked on litecoin prior to Bitcoin because their software was written expecting to use segwit but then bitmain delayed segwit activating on Bitcoin while litecoin copied the code and activated it first.

Quote
they can and will pivot to something else, and all their marketing material is already preparing users subtly for this.
Or are you just explaining to us your intentions with bitcoin.org and your subtle advocacy of bcash?

Quote
Considering your previous employer Blockstream is heavily involved with Lightning (I'm not aware of how much stock you own in Blockstream), your opinions on this topic are likely to be biased and skewed by your financial interests. That's OK because we all have some level of bias, but I recommend you divest yourself from technical debates where you aren't able to exercise complete neutrality.
I have zero financial interest in Blockstream:  any residual gains that came from it in the future are committed to charity, which is the maximum amount I could divest myself without extensive interaction with the company (which I don't care to have).

I think it is very interesting that you've made a number of demonstrably false claims here to attack Bitcoin's technical development, and when push comes to shove and your claims are debunked you just back into a position of making an absurd conspiracy theory "conflict of interest" allegations to try to shut down a straight forward factual debunking of your claims.   Your allegation wouldn't have made sense even if that assumed financial interest existed, because I'm not advocating for those things (in fact, I've argued against adding more unverifyable p2p features, and argued against at least freeform no-input). -- in fact, your post's example of protocol work unrelated to lightning Schnorr, Taproot, MAST are all things I've promoted, came up with, or worked on extensively; in contrast to the things you claim I'm somehow supposed to have some kind of financial bias in favour of.

How about you measure up to your own standards?  I've always let people know what I was working on and where my potential interests lie, while you've done exactly the opposite.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2464
Merit: 2269


Exchange Bitcoin quickly-https://blockchain.com.do


View Profile
April 07, 2019, 07:12:21 PM
 #410

-snip-
Quote
Merited by suchmoon (9), bones261 (2), vapourminer (1), ETFbitcoin (1)
Such a waste of merit. Nothing Cobra said reflects reality; I presume the users lack Bitcoin tech-related knowledge. I'm more inclined to believe that you are a state-sponsored actor, especially given that you keep repeating provably false claims.

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 4508


https://tinyurl.com/farewell-cryptohunter


View Profile
April 07, 2019, 07:31:11 PM
Merited by hv_ (2)
 #411

Such a waste of merit. Nothing Cobra said reflects reality; I presume the users lack Bitcoin tech-related knowledge. I'm more inclined to believe that you are a state-sponsored actor, especially given that you keep repeating provably false claims.

Merit doesn't mean endorsement. I'm personally not interested in Lightning politics in the slightest and not going to send merits based on that so any semblance thereof is purely coincidental.

Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2464
Merit: 2269


Exchange Bitcoin quickly-https://blockchain.com.do


View Profile
April 07, 2019, 07:32:50 PM
 #412

Such a waste of merit. Nothing Cobra said reflects reality; I presume the users lack Bitcoin tech-related knowledge. I'm more inclined to believe that you are a state-sponsored actor, especially given that you keep repeating provably false claims.
Merit doesn't mean endorsement. I'm personally not interested in Lightning politics in the slightest and not going to send merits based on that so any semblance thereof is purely coincidental.
I know that it doesn't, but to the random user it might create a false belief that the information conveyed is correct. Theymos has made a fatal mistake here; I can't do anything about Cobra as he hacked himself way too deep. Roll Eyes

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
Lender
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 21
Merit: 2


View Profile
April 07, 2019, 07:59:51 PM
 #413

Segwit was heavily connected to Lightning, with prominent developers like Luke-jr even suggesting to people not to use Segwit unless they were using Lightning, so as to avoid increasing the size of the blockchain unnecessarily.
Seriously? Are not you an alt of Luke?
John999
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1581
Merit: 1008



View Profile
April 07, 2019, 08:43:25 PM
 #414

Was wondering why my day to day BTC balance on my lightning node was fluctuating all the time. If I understand correctly, the tx fees necessary to close all your channels on the main chain are somehow "reserved" on your lightning balance?
BitCryptex
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1154


Write @BitCryptex or quote my post to notify me


View Profile WWW
April 07, 2019, 09:01:39 PM
Last edit: April 07, 2019, 09:16:18 PM by BitCryptex
 #415

Was wondering why my day to day BTC balance on my lightning node was fluctuating all the time.

Your channel might be routing payments so that's why you have less coins on your side. You can change your fee policy in a way to discourage others from choosing you or fund a private channel.

If I understand correctly, the tx fees necessary to close all your channels on the main chain are somehow "reserved" on your lightning balance?

The reserve is used to cover the cost of channel closure if the other peer has gone offline.

Cøbra
Bitcoin.org domain administrator
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 110
Merit: 279


View Profile WWW
April 07, 2019, 09:10:11 PM
Merited by sirsplashalot (1)
 #416

I didn't claim the current work was to the exclusion of other work,
Then what the point?  "Bitcoin development is somewhat interested interested at improving the protocol for an application of it at no cost to other applications of it" hardly sounds like a thought worth expressing.

I read, and I think many people would read, an implicit claim that the attention you assert exists is to the exclusion of other activity. In fact, "protocol development steered in a way to help one particular application" seems to be saying saying pretty darn explicitly.
You can read whatever you like, but my original post was mainly focused on how Bitcoin and Lightning have come to be so closely connected in people's minds. The fact that this close relationship seems to be motivating protocol work on some level was explored more as a curiosity, and not as the main focus. Your response and claim to "debunk" an idle thought in a pretty non-serious thread shows you are threatened. All thoughts are worthy of expressing, particularly on a forum. I just came here to share a random thought, not to spread some grand new narrative.
Quote
Quote
just that a significant chunk of effort is being expended to make Bitcoin's protocol and the node software assist Lightning as much as possible,
Yes, you asserted this but failed to back it up with evidence. Instead, you've only shown that there is some minimal but non-zero effort there.

How many more links do you want? I can point you to the eltoo proposol for Lightning which requires a soft fork: https://blockstream.com/2018/04/30/en-eltoo-next-lightning/. I've pointed you to the Neutrino discussion in the mailing list where the developers point out the primary motivation for such a feature is Lightning. I can point you to the OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY stuff where again the main motivations are again Lightning and other offchain stuff. Everyone in the community is aware how Segwit was seen as a must to get merged so that Lightning could work, why do you think people were so aggressive with UASF?
Quote

Quote
It's kind of exhausting to deal with what feels like pithy narratives being used as a substitute for actual reality. We can avoid anyone feeling that way by being painstakingly concrete instead of vague.

One post in a topic that was a random thought hardly can be called a narrative nor something "exhausting" to deal with. It's not like this is something being repeated endlessly by an army of shills.
Welp, you've continued it after being seemingly debunked-- that is step two in shill narrative land.

[Edit: And step three, your spurrious "conflict of interest" deflection]

For shame! He continues after he's been "debunked" by the great Gregory Maxwell, must be a shill.
Quote

Quote
BIP 118, which is over two years old (Feb 2017), has no activity in Bitcoin Core right now that I'm aware of, and was written by a lightning implementer. Lightning implementer interested in things that are useful for lightning isn't a newsflash.

Neutrino has plenty of activity on Bitcoin Core,
Did you make a quoting mistake or are you just intentionally changing the subject?
When I say "Neutrino" I'm talking about the set of features and merges required in Bitcoin Core to implement the feature. You said this work has no activity in Bitcoin Core, I linked you to two examples where the first PR has been merged and the second is undergoing active development:
BIP 157 work: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14121
BIP 158 work https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12254 (merged)

Obviously this isn't actually used yet, but as you see with the continued work on BIP 157, the goal is clearly to get Neutrino running on Bitcoin Core so that the main beneficiary (Lightning nodes) can take advantage of this. Existing lite clients have no desire to use Neutrino, the demand for this functionality is only coming from the Lightning developers and its passionate users (https://twitter.com/pierre_rochard/status/1104785795523719169?s=21)

Quote
Quote
It's quite clear the motivations for Neutrino are very Lightning specific,
In what way? Simply saying something doesn't make it true. I am aware of no way that these filters are related to lightning other than lightning folks having written the BIP for them.
So the Lightning guys wrote the BIP, the main usage of this functionality is to benefit Lightning nodes, the main demand comes from Lightning users (with many prominent Bitcoiners against such a change), and still you don't associate Neutrino with Lightning? LOL.

Quote
Quote
And it's quite obvious to anyone that Neutrino is built for and designed to be used with Lightning:

Quote
Our primary motivation
for this work was enabling a light client mode for lnd[4] in order to
support a more light-weight back end paving the way for the usage of
Lightning on mobile phones and other devices.
-- https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/014474.html
Notice it says "enabling a lite client".  Their effort is just a lite client (one which happens to support lightning) and they would prefer to not use BIP37  as BIP37 is deprecated for being a DOS vector (and fairly privacy busted). Here is the original proposal for this approach to replacing BIP37: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-May/012636.html   You may note it makes no mention of lightning, because the whole thing is lightning unrelated.

That specific proposal and approach might be Lightning unrelated, but the one I linked you too is definitely related to Lightning. Also notice it says "for lnd" right after your quote and "paving the way for the usage of Lightning on mobile phones and other devices". You literally stopped quoting right before the juicy stuff!

Quote
Quote
I don't think these support your case, if anything they contradict it-- or at least the fact that these were your only examples does since they don't show a high level of attention or interest.

I provided plenty of examples.
You provided exactly two examples. A two year old bip draft by a lightning implementer which has never been implemented in core and has no activity, which you quoted here and appeared to respond to but said nothing about,  and a replacement for BIP37 which still has no network facing proposal for Bitcoin Core and which itself doesn't have any relation to lightning other than the fact that it was written by lightning folks.
I've already debunked this nonsense. Clearly it has relation to Lightning if it's designed by them for use with Lightning.

Quote
Quote
We can go even further back and look at things like OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY which were something needed for sidechains and Lightning.
Indeed, CSV is useful for payment channels-- and a lot of other things-- but it's a 3.5 year old proposal. I fail to see how it supports the claim you've made about anything going on right now.
Glad you acknowledge this at least, well done, you're well on your way to admitting your error. I wonder if we can get an acknowledgement that I might have a point out of you?

Quote
Quote
Segwit was heavily connected to Lightning
Primarily by dishonest shills and the people they've bamboozled.
And the multitude of Core developers who acknowledged that a malleability fix was needed for Lightning and users who were trained to associate Segwit with allowing for Lightning (which it does), so connecting the two isn't that dishonest. If one allows for the other you can't say people have been bamboozled if they associate the two?

Quote
Quote
with prominent developers like Luke-jr even suggesting to people not to use Segwit unless they were using Lightning, so as to avoid increasing the size of the blockchain unnecessarily
Shame on you, making this misleading comment. Luke was campaigning to reduce the blocksize limit to 300kb, and campaigning people to not use segwit was simply to try to undo the block size increase: the "unless lightning" is just there because lightning software uses it and he didn't want to tell people to not use lightning (as that would be counter-productive to his goal of reducing block sizes).
So he said exactly what I claimed him to have said?
Quote

Quote
Neutrino and all the BIPs associated with that are very obviously only designed with Lightning in mind.
You say very obviously but you provide absolutely no evidence for that.   The earliest drafts of the spec had some additional filter types which, while also not lightning specific, were at least not as generally interesting, and sipa and I convinced the proposers that they weren't needed...   Please tell me in what way is being able to efficiently check if a block contains a payment to a particular address (just as BIP37 does, but not so efficiently) is in any way connected to lightning?

Quote
I don't doubt that Lightning's developers will lobby for even more changes to Bitcoin's base protocol should they want for more.
No doubt, just as anyone else doing something interesting with smart contracts has done in the past and would do...
And they'll get everything they want too.
Quote

Quote
Lightning being blockchain agnostic is by design.
Can you explain how it could be anything but?

Quote
There's no need for them to support Litecoin, but they do
Lightning worked on litecoin prior to Bitcoin because their software was written expecting to use segwit but then bitmain delayed segwit activating on Bitcoin while litecoin copied the code and activated it first.
There was Bitcoin testnet. There's no need for their beta software to cater to different networks right off the bat. The fact that they do is testament to them seeing BTC as merely one component of a wider Lightning network built up of many cryptocurrencies.
Quote

Quote
they can and will pivot to something else, and all their marketing material is already preparing users subtly for this.
Or are you just explaining to us your intentions with bitcoin.org and your subtle advocacy of bcash?

My advocacy of Bitcoin Cash was limited to its use as a payment tool. I never saw it as the real Bitcoin. Your suggestion that my intentions with bitcoin.org is to make it into some Bitcoin Cash website are illogical.
Quote
Quote
Considering your previous employer Blockstream is heavily involved with Lightning (I'm not aware of how much stock you own in Blockstream), your opinions on this topic are likely to be biased and skewed by your financial interests. That's OK because we all have some level of bias, but I recommend you divest yourself from technical debates where you aren't able to exercise complete neutrality.
I have zero financial interest in Blockstream:  any residual gains that came from it in the future are committed to charity, which is the maximum amount I could divest myself without extensive interaction with the company (which I don't care to have).

I think it is very interesting that you've made a number of demonstrably false claims here to attack Bitcoin's technical development, and when push comes to shove and your claims are debunked you just back into a position of making an absurd conspiracy theory "conflict of interest" allegations to try to shut down a straight forward factual debunking of your claims.   Your allegation wouldn't have made sense even if that assumed financial interest existed, because I'm not advocating for those things (in fact, I've argued against adding more unverifyable p2p features, and argued against at least freeform no-input). -- in fact, your post's example of protocol work unrelated to lightning Schnorr, Taproot, MAST are all things I've promoted, came up with, or worked on extensively; in contrast to the things you claim I'm somehow supposed to have some kind of financial bias in favour of.

How about you measure up to your own standards?  I've always let people know what I was working on and where my potential interests lie, while you've done exactly the opposite.

It's not conspiracy theory to assume that a founder and C-level executive of a company working on the technology being discussed in technical debate has some financial stake in said company which skews his opinion. If the former CEO of Pepsi opined on the merits of soft drinks, one might pause and question his motives and allegiances much the same way I questioned yours. I'm very glad you cleared up that you don't in fact currently benefit financially from Blockstream.

My interests lie in Bitcoin and I presently have almost all of my wealth invested in BTC. Any activities I do that are beyond the scope of Bitcoin are not your concern, but I definitely am not associated with characters like Roger Ver and Jihan Wu as you and your former colleagues have implied in the past.

-snip-
Quote
Merited by suchmoon (9), bones261 (2), vapourminer (1), ETFbitcoin (1)
Such a waste of merit. Nothing Cobra said reflects reality; I presume the users lack Bitcoin tech-related knowledge. I'm more inclined to believe that you are a state-sponsored actor, especially given that you keep repeating provably false claims.

Your replies here aren't contributing anything of substance to the discussion. Go and busy yourself with fucking with people's trust ratings and causing drama on here as you are inclined to do, and let me and Greg go around in circles in a pointless internet dick swinging competition until one of us gives up or admits we're wrong.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 2313


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
April 07, 2019, 09:12:53 PM
 #417

[edited out]
I recommend you divest yourself from technical debates where you aren't able to exercise complete neutrality.

That's total bullshit Cøbra and shows a considerable amount of disingenuiness in your motivations in posting on this topic and maybe where your brain is, fogginess speaking.   Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Put BTC here: 35EVP8EePt8dyvKHaB7bXaRmKLm22YgRCA

How much alt coin diversification is necessary? if you are investing in Bitcoin, then perhaps 0%?
achow101
Moderator
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016
Merit: 3005


bc1qshxkrpe4arppq89fpzm6c0tpdvx5cfkve2c8kl


View Profile WWW
April 07, 2019, 09:17:48 PM
 #418

Well that got derailed. /locked

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [21]  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!