Lightning network

[franky1]

You say that as if the users do not have full control over their Bitcoins and channels. They still do have 100% of their coins.

OMG..
lets address the last point first.
in LN YOU DO NOT have full control over your bitcoins.. LEARN MULTISIG
it requires signatures of more than one person. atleast learn that as a basic first lesson.

now. lets go back to th first point

1.lightning is not a feature of bitcoin. its a separate service that many coin can use. so MANY coins will get the same advantage thus not bring any hype to bitcoin alone

It is not "hype" for Bitcoin that Lightning developers are after, it is to scale the network while keeping the ability of the network to scale up at the same time.

LN is not a service to scale "the network"(you are talking about bitcoin).. LN is a separate service network all on its own. LN is to allow many different coins to use this separate service network so they are no longer using the blockchain of many coins.
its got nothing to do with "scaling bitcoin" its about diverting people away from using bitcoins mainnet.
EG its not a highway that needs an extra lane and LN is that extra lane.
LN is telling people to get off the highway and use a country road along side farm trucks and pedestrians(othercoins). thus the highway doesnt get its extra lane

2. if the other coins that use LN have less fee and more tx/s onchain. then people will prefer to settle to those coins. especially if those coins are listen on the same exchanges and able to be used by the same merchant shopping cart tools

That does not make sense. If Dogecoin increases block size to 32mb then people will also prefer to settle to Dogecoin instead of Bitcoin Cash?

lol laugh at ur subtle attempt to bring bitcoincash into the conversation.. but guess what. i care about bitcoin cores issues. not the drama of other coins.
but that said if dogecoin had cheaper fee's and had same listings on merchant shopping cart tools and exchanges and had a faster blocktime thn core, cash, ltc, ether or any coin..  yes people would move to dogecoin..

back to concentrating on the core network
if LN was designed to only interact with bitcoin cores network. then it would help. but. the reality by making cores mainnet innovation stall and become expensive and be screamed by devs as unscalable. people wont want to return to cores mainnt due to costs of doing so.
would you redeem your btc if it cost you $1-$26.. or would you redeem LTC costing 1c-5c. knowing your just going to deposit coin back into LN later so want to avoid costs as much as possible EG 5c settle 5c reopen new channel.. vs $1 settle $1 open new channel

lets word it this way. if you are to lock up coin into a co-managed fund (bank) and then separately you play around with receipts where the sharable units of measure are different..which are unconfirmed, unaudited and have punishments and issues that can prevent settling back to coin. are you still playing with coin
EG deposit 1000 sats.. play with tx's measured as 1,000,000millisats that require channel co-partner to authorise with you

if you are to lock up gold into a co-managed fund (bank) and then separately you play around with banknotes where the sharable units of measure are different..which are unconfirmed, unaudited and have punishments and issues that can prevent settling back to gold. are you still playing with gold
EG deposit 1oz gold.. play with banknote measured as redemable for 31grams of gold that require bank manager to authorise with you

if it costs more to redeem your gold(bitcoin) than it does to convert it to silver(litecoin) where silver is just as acceptable by exchanges, merchants and others. people end up moving to silver. thus the bank (channel co-partner) keeps the gold(bitcoin)

cant you even see that its a way to lock bitcoin up and make it hard to get your bitcoin back due to mainnet issues
have you even used LN and run real life scenarios, have you done any maths, have you even rad the issues the devs themselves are screaming about.. or have you just read the pumped up hype on reddit by those that havnt done any research/scenarios,  

think outside th core box, without a utopian hat. put on a critical hat and do some proper thinking

[1713541242]

1713541242

[1713541242]

1713541242

[1713541242]

1713541242

[Zin-Zang]

Lightning network is a 3rd party offchain payment system

Would you care to name this supposed third party?  

LOL, LN Hub operators.
 
Serious how did you not know that?

Guess it won't be apparent to you even when the LN Hub is Named Bank of America.

What can a "Bank of America" hub exactly do to Bitcoin if they become a Lightning Hub? Nothing. They can also do nothing on the Lightning Network itself because Bitcoins are locked in a multisig address when opening a channel. What it can do is build on top of Lightning and do anything they like but only from within their service.

Have the Funds to be a Centralized Hub that has the majority of channels to it directly , and refuse to open channels with hubs they or government policy disapproves of.
Therefore starving non-banking hubs of funds until they run them out of business and can have their own banking monopoly like with fiat.  

Guess it is not apparent to you either.  

FYI:
Or just slip a few bucks to a few politicians to pass a law requiring all LN Hubs to require a Banking License and follow all KYC/AML laws.
 

[DooMAD]

Lightning network is a 3rd party offchain payment system

Would you care to name this supposed third party?  

LOL, LN Hub operators.
 
Serious how did you not know that?

Guess it won't be apparent to you even when the LN Hub is Named Bank of America.

Guess it will never be apparent to you that you don't have to route through a hub if you don't want to.  Try actually learning how it works instead of repeating the crap you've absorbed from reddit.  It's as peer-to-peer as you're willing to make it. 

I mean, perhaps you might need to rely on a hub, since you don't strike me as the kind of person that people would voluntarily want to associate with, let alone transact with.   

Seems like you've spent too long looking at franky1's bus.

[blackwell77]

Yes i agree with you. If lighting system can be implemented in bitcoin i think transaction will be more easier. But as lighting system is 3rd party payment system people can't trust properly on that system.

[Zin-Zang]

Lightning Network is a place for fastest reliable BTC trans. The lightning network works smoothly and It made BTC transactions faster than before. LN may be able to make a slide or more change in BTC price as having a fast rout in transactions. But it is true that it has no ability to make BTC market boosted or changed overnight. We should always be positive.

LN is not the fastest or reliable 3rd party payment service.
It is a buggy (in some cases money losing) 3rd party payment service.

Using some exchanges offchain transactions is faster & more reliable than LN.
Some will argue an exchange is more centralized, but exchanges do not require time locking for hours or weeks at a time.
With a exchange , I only need to send the amount I spending at that moment , with LN you have to lock up larger amounts of funds for much longer periods.

Also even LN developers admit , it is not fully safe yet and some lost money which will never be recovered.
https://www.trustnodes.com/2018/03/26/lightning-network-user-loses-funds

But some people lie and act like LN is running perfect when it is not.  

Lightning network is a 3rd party offchain payment system

Would you care to name this supposed third party?  

LOL, LN Hub operators.
 
Serious how did you not know that?

Guess it won't be apparent to you even when the LN Hub is Named Bank of America.

Guess it will never be apparent to you that you don't have to route through a hub if you don't want to.  Try actually learning how it works instead of repeating the crap you've absorbed from reddit.  It's as peer-to-peer as you're willing to make it.  

I mean, perhaps you might need to rely on a hub, since you don't strike me as the kind of person that people would voluntarily want to associate with, let alone transact with.  

Seems like you've spent too long looking at franky1's bus.

Franky1's analogy that LN is Banking 2.0 is accurate, too bad that is beyond your ability to understand.
The last beta code , I played with was OS/2 . I don't waste my time on beta code anymore.
Having someone claim every problem that arises, well it is beta, gets pretty lame,
get the shit working or don't release it to the public as I am not wasting my time fixing their lousy programming for the new banking system.

First you push hubs, then you claim users should just transact between each other.
Do you seriously think individuals are going to waste all of that time and all of the hassle transacting in LN offchain crapshot, when they can just transact onchain.
We use Alts ONCHAIN to transact as they are faster and cheaper and EASIER than wasting time on LN's beta crapshoot service.

Your False Religious Beliefs blinds you to the reality of how bad LN sucks and the fact no casual users will ever run hubs or transact at that level.
John Q. Public wants easy / quick / simple transactions without needing a PHD to use it.
(LN is none of those things.)
Without being easy for the consumer, mass adoption will never occur, and bitcoin will continue to be a greater fool's game for naive geeks.

 

[DooMAD]

Franky1's analogy that LN is Banking 2.0 is accurate

Except for the part where it isn't.

The last beta code , I played with was OS/2 . I don't waste my time on beta code anymore.

You should probably GTFO of crypto, then.  Everything is in beta. 

Having someone claim every problem that arises, well it is beta, gets pretty lame,
get the shit working or don't release it to the public as I am not wasting my time fixing their lousy programming for the new banking system.

It's beyond adorable you think you have anything to offer in terms of development.

First you push hubs, then you claim users should just transact between each other.
Do you seriously think individuals are going to waste all of that time and all of the hassle transacting in LN offchain crapshot, when they can just transact onchain.

I'm all about giving people options.  You're about authority and telling people what they can and can't do. 

Also, what's your alternative proposal?  What do you think we should be doing instead of LN?  Larger blocks?  Tell me what the point is in having two BCHs.  How is that, in any way, productive?  If you want larger blocks, there is already a blockchain that caters to your needs.  You're free to choose that one if you like.  But you're not making our choices for us.  Get a clue.
 

Your False Religious Beliefs blinds you to the reality of how bad LN sucks and the fact no casual users will ever run hubs or transact at that level.
John Q. Public wants easy / quick / simple transactions without needing a PHD to use it.
(LN is none of those things.)
Without being easy for the consumer, mass adoption will never occur, and bitcoin will continue to be a greater fool's game for naive geeks.

Some of us are just more patient than others. 

[Zin-Zang]

Franky1's analogy that LN is Banking 2.0 is accurate

Except for the part where it isn't.

Not my fault , you are too stupid to see it.   

Having someone claim every problem that arises, well it is beta, gets pretty lame,
get the shit working or don't release it to the public as I am not wasting my time fixing their lousy programming for the new banking system.

It's beyond adorable you think you have anything to offer in terms of development.

You be shocked to know how much. 

First you push hubs, then you claim users should just transact between each other.
Do you seriously think individuals are going to waste all of that time and all of the hassle transacting in LN offchain crapshot, when they can just transact onchain.

I'm all about giving people options.  You're about authority and telling people what they can and can't do. 

Also, what's your alternative proposal?  What do you think we should be doing instead of LN?  Larger blocks?  Tell me what the point is in having two BCHs.  How is that, in any way, productive?  If you want larger blocks, there is already a blockchain that caters to your needs.  You're free to choose that one if you like.  But you're not making our choices for us.  Get a clue.

LOL,
you the one saying they should use LN over all altcoins & exchanges that work better and are safer.
LN is 1 service, their are multiple altcoins and exchanges that do the job better than LN tied to bitcoin.
Maybe you should pull your head out of your butt and find that clue yourself.

If people want to use a bank, I have no problem with that, but don't lie and say it is not a bank when it is.

Your False Religious Beliefs blinds you to the reality of how bad LN sucks and the fact no casual users will ever run hubs or transact at that level.
John Q. Public wants easy / quick / simple transactions without needing a PHD to use it.
(LN is none of those things.)
Without being easy for the consumer, mass adoption will never occur, and bitcoin will continue to be a greater fool's game for naive geeks.

Some of us are just more Gullible than others. 

FTFY , 

[Whibu]

it is true that such a development will be faster in the transaction and also has a cheaper cost and I really like that way, hopefully the next thing will be the better.

[Pursuer]

You say that as if the users do not have full control over their Bitcoins and channels. They still do have 100% of their coins.

OMG..
lets address the last point first.
in LN YOU DO NOT have full control over your bitcoins.. LEARN MULTISIG
it requires signatures of more than one person. atleast learn that as a basic first lesson.

just because it is using multisignature features it doesn't mean you don't have full control over your funds. you still own the signed transaction that is required to "settle the real balance on the blockchain" so to speak if the other party didn't honor his end of the deal.
maybe you need to read the paper or use LN first at least then talk about it!

[Zin-Zang]

You say that as if the users do not have full control over their Bitcoins and channels. They still do have 100% of their coins.

OMG..
lets address the last point first.
in LN YOU DO NOT have full control over your bitcoins.. LEARN MULTISIG
it requires signatures of more than one person. atleast learn that as a basic first lesson.

just because it is using multisignature features it doesn't mean you don't have full control over your funds. you still own the signed transaction that is required to "settle the real balance on the blockchain" so to speak if the other party didn't honor his end of the deal.
maybe you need to read the paper or use LN first at least then talk about it!

Maybe someone should explain to you the definition of FULL CONTROL.
Definition of FULL : COMPLETE
Definition of CONTROL: AUTHORITY OVER

Now put them together:
FULL CONTROL = COMPLETE AUTHORITY OVER

Therefore multisignature which grants a portion of control to another party,
means exactly THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE FULL CONTROL!

Franky1 is right again and LN supporters wrong again. Looks like a pattern to me.  

You could argue that there is shared control, but never full control.

I now understand why you LN guys are so clueless, your complete and utter failure to understand the English Language.
Explains a lot.  

[Al-e_x]

good development about bitcoin lightning network, today Lightning network helps many transactions every block becomes faster and cheaper.

what if bitcoin transaction without lightning network? I think bitcoin will lose value because many people leave bitcoin.

[Gurjasmeet]

I think lightning  network will be more  helpful to reduce transactions fee & increase the speed of network transaction in future.

[DooMAD]

You say that as if the users do not have full control over their Bitcoins and channels. They still do have 100% of their coins.

OMG..
lets address the last point first.
in LN YOU DO NOT have full control over your bitcoins.. LEARN MULTISIG
it requires signatures of more than one person. atleast learn that as a basic first lesson.

just because it is using multisignature features it doesn't mean you don't have full control over your funds. you still own the signed transaction that is required to "settle the real balance on the blockchain" so to speak if the other party didn't honor his end of the deal.
maybe you need to read the paper or use LN first at least then talk about it!

Maybe someone should explain to you the definition of FULL CONTROL.
Definition of FULL : COMPLETE
Definition of CONTROL: AUTHORITY OVER

Now put them together:
FULL CONTROL = COMPLETE AUTHORITY OVER

Therefore multisignature which grants a portion of control to another party,
means exactly THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE FULL CONTROL!

Franky1 is right again and LN supporters wrong again. Looks like a pattern to me.  

You could argue that there is shared control, but never full control.

I now understand why you LN guys are so clueless, your complete and utter failure to understand the English Language.
Explains a lot.  

At this stage we don't even need to refute your misinterpretation of it.  We'll just quote you, so that when you realise how totally and utterly wrong you are, you won't be able to go back and edit your posts to mask your ignorance.  Anyone who does understand how this works can immediately recognise how totally unknowledgeable you and franky1 are.  Providing you act within the rules of the network and stay online to counteract any malicious activity by the other party, you are in total control of your portion of the funds in the channel.  That's how it's designed to work.  Learn smart contracts.

If you mistakenly spend from an outdated channel state or go offline and miss the expiry of the timelock, then that's a breach of the smart contract, so yes, you can potentially lose control of your funds in those situations.  But as the technology advances, developers will clearly work on reducing those risks as much as they can. 

[Zin-Zang]

You say that as if the users do not have full control over their Bitcoins and channels. They still do have 100% of their coins.

OMG..
lets address the last point first.
in LN YOU DO NOT have full control over your bitcoins.. LEARN MULTISIG
it requires signatures of more than one person. atleast learn that as a basic first lesson.

just because it is using multisignature features it doesn't mean you don't have full control over your funds. you still own the signed transaction that is required to "settle the real balance on the blockchain" so to speak if the other party didn't honor his end of the deal.
maybe you need to read the paper or use LN first at least then talk about it!

Maybe someone should explain to you the definition of FULL CONTROL.
Definition of FULL : COMPLETE
Definition of CONTROL: AUTHORITY OVER

Now put them together:
FULL CONTROL = COMPLETE AUTHORITY OVER

Therefore multisignature which grants a portion of control to another party,
means exactly THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE FULL CONTROL!

Franky1 is right again and LN supporters wrong again. Looks like a pattern to me.  

You could argue that there is shared control, but never full control.

I now understand why you LN guys are so clueless, your complete and utter failure to understand the English Language.
Explains a lot.  

At this stage we don't even need to refute your misinterpretation of it.  We'll just quote you, so that when you realise how totally and utterly wrong you are, you won't be able to go back and edit your posts to mask your ignorance.  Anyone who does understand how this works can immediately recognise how totally unknowledgeable you and franky1 are.  Providing you act within the rules of the network and stay online to counteract any malicious activity by the other party, you are in total control of your portion of the funds in the channel.  That's how it's designed to work.  Learn smart contracts.

If you mistakenly spend from an outdated channel state or go offline and miss the expiry of the timelock, then that's a breach of the smart contract, so yes, you can potentially lose control of your funds in those situations.  But as the technology advances, developers will clearly work on reducing those risks as much as they can.  

I suggest you get a dictionary for Christmas, because you are quite literally a full/complete/total idiot.   

Largest LN Node just closed all of his channels , why : it was scaring the hell out of him that all of his funds would be stolen while he slept.
Also he did not even earn enough in fees to even cover his PC daily electricity usage.

https://1ml.com/node/036b32ac6acf6d178f47c2139b7327ab85bd3d5f5c40681a9a48109ea21f53e1e5/history

https://medium.com/andreas-tries-blockchain/bitcoin-lightning-network-4-what-happens-when-you-close-half-of-the-lightning-network-b25b330dfad2

Operating the largest node on the Bitcoin Lightning Network has been educational, frustrating, fun, and at times terrifying.

 

My Lightning Node has routed 389 payments, making a profit of $0.34. I suspect the increase is mostly from the recent increase in bitcoin’s price.

Running a large Lightning Network node has been quite stressful.
An exploit such as we saw with heartbleed could allow an attacker to drain all funds from the node while I’m sleeping.

Closing a channel using --force results in a unilateral close which makes the funds unavailable to me.
The amount of time the funds are locked up depends on the channel policy. This policy is negotiated when the channel opens.
Most channels will release the funds to me in between 1440 and 20180 minutes.

FYI:
20180 minutes is 336.33 Hours or ~2 weeks

Seems to me if the guy had complete control as some idiots think they do ,
he would not have to wait 2 weeks to find out whether or not his bitcoins are redeemed or lost forever.  

[DooMAD]

Running a large Lightning Network node has been quite stressful.
An exploit such as we saw with heartbleed could allow an attacker to drain all funds from the node while I’m sleeping.

An exploit like heartbleed could also allow an attacker to drain the funds from your standard BTC or altcoin wallet.  Maybe you should just stop using all crypto.  You clearly aren't cut out for this stuff.  

Closing a channel using --force results in a unilateral close which makes the funds unavailable to me.
The amount of time the funds are locked up depends on the channel policy. This policy is negotiated when the channel opens.
Most channels will release the funds to me in between 1440 and 20180 minutes.

FYI:
20180 minutes is 336.33 Hours or ~2 weeks

Seems to me if the guy had complete control as some idiots think they do ,
he would not have to wait 2 weeks to find out whether or not his bitcoins are redeemed or lost forever.  

Except they won't be lost forever.  Also, this delay is only in the event of an uncooperative other party or you are the one forcing the channel closed.  If you're dealing with a legitimate retailer/merchant and they become uncooperative and cause inconvenience to their customers, they're not going to attract much business.  It's in their financial interest to follow the rules.  For the average person, this isn't going to be much of an issue.  It's fair to assume normal people ren't going to attempt running the largest node on the network.  But perhaps the larger hubs may have greater concerns in this regard, since there may be slightly less incentive for those connecting to them to play by the rules.  But then that supports the notion that LN won't result in a small number of giant, centralised hubs, instead of how you keep arguing it will.  So, as usual, thank you for undermining your own argument.

[btc78]

Am glad been in this forum at this moment of the day.  Been patiently waiting for this lightening network, many tokens truly are going to go into extinction. We can't tell what will become of BCH, currently watching it in 3D. Truly BTC scalability issue is about to end, I foresee massive adoption of BTC by big institutions.

As I believe countries and company are startimg to feel valuable about bitcoin and lightning network thats why adaption is happening continuously,from company that paying employees with cryptocurrency and big name in the industries that accepting this coins as payments so with this i am believing that mainstreaming is on our way in just couple of years if this popularization continues

[kosaymoive333]

I just need a lightning network to process the transaction quickly and reduce the transaction costs, the issue you give is also worth attention, thank you

[Wind_FURY]

You say that as if the users do not have full control over their Bitcoins and channels. They still do have 100% of their coins.

OMG..
lets address the last point first.
in LN YOU DO NOT have full control over your bitcoins.. LEARN MULTISIG
it requires signatures of more than one person. atleast learn that as a basic first lesson.

Yes YOU DO STILL HAVE FULL CONTROL over your Bitcoins if using the Lightning network. If anything goes wrong with your channel, you simply broadcast the current state of your channel as if it was a normal on-chain Bitcoin transaction.

1.lightning is not a feature of bitcoin. its a separate service that many coin can use. so MANY coins will get the same advantage thus not bring any hype to bitcoin alone

It is not "hype" for Bitcoin that Lightning developers are after, it is to scale the network while keeping the ability of the network to scale up at the same time.

LN is not a service to scale "the network"(you are talking about bitcoin).. LN is a separate service network all on its own. LN is to allow many different coins to use this separate service network so they are no longer using the blockchain of many coins.
its got nothing to do with "scaling bitcoin" its about diverting people away from using bitcoins mainnet.
EG its not a highway that needs an extra lane and LN is that extra lane.
LN is telling people to get off the highway and use a country road along side farm trucks and pedestrians(othercoins). thus the highway doesnt get its extra lane

According to your opinion. But Lightning is nothing like a "separate service network". It is simply Bitcoins locked in a multisig address to "transact more efficiently now and then broadcast on-chain later".

[hatshepsut93]

When LN will get full release and some adoption, altcoins will have really hard time. They will try to criticize it, which will be rare, or they'll try to adopt it themselves and will say that it works better with their network (this is what Bcash is planning to do). ETH is planning to have its own versions of LN, and together with its competitors like EOS and Cardano they will be claiming that they are better than Bitcoin because they have smart contracts.

[Pursuer]

[snipped]

dude why do you keep feeding this troll? Zin-Zang has been doing the same thing last year with SegWit and kept spreading nonsense about it like this but with a different account while advertising his altcoin. that account is banned now by the way and he is ban-evading right now.