[OUTDATED] The Lightning Network FAQ

[franky1]

research thor turbo.  hint. opening channels of pegged token that dont even have an equivlent onchain confirmed funding

I've looked at Thor Turbo (still superficially, may have to re-read) but I think what you write is incorrect.

Even if there were "eternally unconfirmed" Lightning Turbo channels where "coins" have been moved before confirmation, this only affects the Bitcoin balance of the channel created by the unconfirmed transaction. Gains and losses for the involved parties would equalize, and all other channels would continue to be backed by confirmed transactions.

There is no possibility of fractional banking or "creating coins out of thin air" with this scheme, imo.

research further
you can 'buy' balance using coinbase user account balance (no onchain tx)

also when you look into factories... HTLC's.. ln not being a consensus/blockchain network.. and the fact that the HTLC contracts are not even community audited thus can be made out of thin air. you will see that things are not as network wide fixed/ruled as you think

[1713886380]

1713886380

[1713886380]

1713886380

[1713886380]

1713886380

[Wind_FURY]

again windfury offers no code, no dev quotes, no stats.... just social drama and insults that just narrow down to "wrong coz franky" which is laughable, weak and empty of any valid counter argument.

But what you offer is claims that you did all the "research", and post all the confusing techno-babble, but end up with "there are IOU pegged promises to pay tokens in Lightning". There are none.

Are you really that of a moron? Or do you believe everyone reading that are gullible morons?

Ok wind_fury, let's get one thing straight,
you are the biggest moron in all of btctalk.
Your inability to understand the simplest concepts , is beyond asinine.

You don't need to get things straight, I AM THE BIGGEST MORON in Bitcointalk.

Newbies, listen to franky1, and Khaos77. Welcome to your Bitcoin journey.

[franky1]

msats are not techno babble
its a word for a economic unit of measure thats 12 decimals. which the bitcoin network does not accept or recognise.
its a word for a economic unit of measure thats 12 decimals. which the LN network does accept and recognise.
nothing technical or babbly about it

windfury without you doing any research or learning, you keep repeating how you think there are no pegged tokens or iou's
but your lack of knowledge is just digging yourself a hole and not proving a point. in the end there is no point you repeating your mis-information because you have not even bothered or tried to check on reality

[d5000]

I think you should reread what you wrote,

And you should re-read the second part of the sentence you marked in red

If 100% of the LN offchain IOUs are not redeemable to an onchain coin network, then LN is a fractional reserve.

This isn't the case imo. The "coins" in the unconfirmed channel are only of relevance for the relation between the people that have opened the channel between them. For the Bitcoin blockchain network, they don't exist, and for the Lightning network as a whole they're irrelevant.

Example: If node A and B open an unconfirmed channel via Thor Turbo and node B is connected via C to other nodes with regular channels based on confirmed transactions, then every payment done by A, from the point of view of the network, simply converts into a payment done by B. A can only pay if B provides the necessary liquidity in the B<->C channel.

So even if B was a "bank", it couldn't create coins out of thin air - it has to provide all necessary coins for payments in the "real" Bitcoin network.

research further
you can 'buy' balance using coinbase user account balance (no onchain tx)

You are referring to this issue (coinbase as a "leaf node"), right?

This has nothing to do with LN - it's basically what all exchange/wallet services that offer an internal "transfer to user" option can do. It would only become an issue if Coinbase (and similar services) was/were to bundle the majority of all Bitcoin users.

also when you look into factories... HTLC's.. ln not being a consensus/blockchain network.. and the fact that the HTLC contracts are not even community audited thus can be made out of thin air. you will see that things are not as network wide fixed/ruled as you think

Is that a bad thing? And "the community" could always offer alternative Lightning solutions, if some LN wallet devs take decisions not desired by them.

[franky1]

research further
you can 'buy' balance using coinbase user account balance (no onchain tx)

You are referring to this issue (coinbase as a "leaf node"), right?

This has nothing to do with LN - it's basically what all exchange/wallet services that offer an internal "transfer to user" option can do. It would only become an issue if Coinbase (and similar services) was/were to bundle the majority of all Bitcoin users.

nope. thats about coinbase running a service
im talking about a USER sending BITREFILL mysql balance of fiat, altcoin or btc.. emphasis mysql database balance, not blockchain tx. and then bitrefill just making a HTLC, again emphasis without needing tethered btc. but where the HTLC is measured in msats and is designated as a pegged btc
when the USER wants to settle. nothing is broadcast. but instead a request to factory(bitrefill) is made and its then upto bitrefill to reimburse the user in whatever amount was agreed. again this can be coinbase balance. thus not touching a blockchain.

what this means is LN is NOT defined/fixed to a blockchain, and its not even defined fixed to a coinbase account. anyone can write a htlc and a partner can agree on it for any reason

also when you look into factories... HTLC's.. ln not being a consensus/blockchain network.. and the fact that the HTLC contracts are not even community audited thus can be made out of thin air. you will see that things are not as network wide fixed/ruled as you think

Is that a bad thing? And "the community" could always offer alternative Lightning solutions, if some LN wallet devs take decisions not desired by them.

getting free/discounted balance people are gonna turn down??
i know many people wear rose tint glasses, rainbow boxers and hug a stuffed unicorn when promoting LN.. but knowing the negatives is just or more important

[WhyFhy]

Is that a bad thing? And "the community" could always offer alternative Lightning solutions, if some LN wallet devs take decisions not desired by them.

Here's the thing , To many people are stuck thinking that LN is a Alt, Service, or Fork. And hav'nt really checked it out I think its time to get #Loud & #Reckless and push more . It will be hellish for dev's at this point in time but might attract new devs and voluntary enthusiast/advocates.

Right now to much stuff is custodial since "everyday" user's are not opening channels/nodes.
 

[d5000]

im talking about a USER sending BITREFILL mysql balance of fiat, altcoin or btc.. emphasis mysql database balance, not blockchain tx. and then bitrefill just making a HTLC, again emphasis without needing tethered btc. but where the HTLC is measured in msats and is designated as a pegged btc

As I understood Bitrefill (have never used them, but just read their FAQ), their channels are purchased separately from the "channel transaction" - you send a transaction to them and then they open a channel with you, sending Bitcoins from their balance to you.

The way you pay that is irrelevant. They simply use the Bitcoins they own (e.g. those other users used for payments, and surely some reserves) to fund the channels. They charge a pretty hefty fee for the service (maybe financing their  channels partly with that), so I doubt I would use them just to check that out ...

If one can buy a channel via Coinbase balance then that probably simply means that Bitrefill also has a Coinbase wallet, so Coinbase user can send them MYSQL balances (as you call it). They may withdraw the coins from Coinbase if they need real Bitcoins, but that's something obviously hidden from the user.

If that's false, please send me a link where that issue is discussed. I for myself cannot find nothing strange.

when the USER wants to settle. nothing is broadcast. but instead a request to factory(bitrefill) is made and its then upto bitrefill to reimburse the user in whatever amount was agreed. again this can be coinbase balance. thus not touching a blockchain.

But then it's not Lightning but a simple Mysql wallet service. AFAiK "Thor" is a real lightning service where they send a transaction to an address you own. They require a "real" Bitcoin wallet for that.

what this means is LN is NOT defined/fixed to a blockchain, and its not even defined fixed to a coinbase account. anyone can write a htlc and a partner can agree on it for any reason

You can write any HTLC you want, but in the case there are no Bitcoins covering them, then nothing protects neither of both parties. But: HTLCs are between two parties, and only affect what happens between those two. Even if it's a group of users (=channel factories) then people outside of this group aren't affected. (I doubt someone would use a channel factory where the opening transaction isn't confirmed!).

In theory the Lightning software surely could be written in a way that you could route payments via an offchain channel opened with an unconfirmed transaction. But every LN sender could see that this channel is unconfirmed - I wouldn't use it as the HTLC protection in this case is non-existant.

i know many people wear rose tint glasses, rainbow boxers and hug a stuffed unicorn when promoting LN.. but knowing the negatives is just or more important

My opinion is still that LN isn't a service for every Bitcoin use case, but for small payments it should work well, as long as a channel can be opened and closed for a reasonable transaction fee.

[Wind_FURY]

msats are not techno babble
its a word for a economic unit of measure thats 12 decimals. which the bitcoin network does not accept or recognise.
its a word for a economic unit of measure thats 12 decimals. which the LN network does accept and recognise.
nothing technical or babbly about it

windfury without you doing any research or learning, you keep repeating how you think there are no pegged tokens or iou's
but your lack of knowledge is just digging yourself a hole and not proving a point. in the end there is no point you repeating your mis-information because you have not even bothered or tried to check on reality

I'm aware of "millisats", but it doesn't change the fact that there are no issuers of "IOU pegged promises to pay tokens" in Lightning. No one deposited something somewhere, and were issued something worthless. They are actual signed transactions by both participants of the channel than can be broadcasted and included in a block in a later time. It's like a smart contract between two people.

Where is the issuer of IOUs there??

[franky1]

I'm aware of "millisats", but it doesn't change the fact that there are no issuers of "IOU pegged promises to pay tokens" in Lightning. No one deposited something somewhere, and were issued something worthless. They are actual signed transactions by both participants of the channel than can be broadcasted and included in a block in a later time. It's like a smart contract between two people.

Where is the issuer of IOUs there??

the issuer is the parties themselves. THEY create the HTLC themselves
HTLCs do NOT get treated like a bitcoin blockchain CLTV tx.
HTLC's do not broadcast to a blockchain

pegged token networks do not need a central company to make the tethered pegged tokens..
in LN anyone can make pegged tethered tokens.
in LN anyone can make tokens that are not pegged/tethered

the only reason some of the pegged tethered token networks use a central company to be the sole issuer instead of letting users do it themselves is about making a company accountable.
by not having a centralised issuer does not mean that pegged tokens dont occur. it just changes who is accountable

[amishmanish]

I know that it's not a perfect term because Lightning channels are really Bitcoins sent in a special 2-for-2 multisig address, that are sent back and forth peer to peer between its participants, and with all transaction records stored locally. But how would you call it?

bitcoins are locked on the bitcoin network in CLTV contracts. they never leave the bitcoin network
the bitcoin network always shows the UTXO on the blockchain as having X balance(sats)

Wind_Fury gave a simple, basic definition. The highlighted part is the part open to interpretation depending on which side you want to take. Franky keeps doing his "I owe you" thing. Hope i can get some understanding from this clash.

The bitcoin that get "locked up" in a multisig addresses are there to create "channel capacity". These Bitcoin are recognized and settled on the Bitcoin chain by opening/ closing transactions. So, i think unlike what franky keeps insisting, there really is bitcoin involved and not some separate coin. While this channel is open, the two parties agree to update their respective ledgers in a P2P manner without having to ride the main chain. This helps in micropayments and you avoid paying the higher fees.

Maybe, the basic point of contention here is "Channel capacity". The funding transaction to receive a payment is the first step of this "chicken and egg" problem. This isn't such a big issue when you want to spend though.

LN views this and creates pegged tokens in HTLC. these HTLC's are contracts that are in a different unit of account(msats)
the HTLC's are not broadcastable to bitcoins network. thats its pegged coin

LN payments are the HTLC's, renegotiating who owes what but are not settling up. thus its IOU

Franky you have based your argument on two things:
1. Insisting on calling HTLC an IOU document and
2. Introduction of msat/ miilisat.

The non-dramatic view on msat is that it is LN's answer to the apprehension that 1 Satoshi would be too much for micropayments if BTC price gets high enough to save Good'ol John from eating his dick on live TV. Calling it a separate coin is disingenuous and misleading. This maybe your understanding of course, and you may feel strongly about it because of the scaling debate going the LN way.

Its not an IOU because receiving/ sending LN payments does not mean you are receiving/ sending debt. At any point, the amount i can receive is limited by the "channel capacity". Please correct me if this is wrong.

also, the full dev-quote on the msat thing is:

MilliSatoshi are the native unit of the Lightning Network. A milli-satoshi
// is simply 1/1000th of a satoshi. There are 1000 milli-satoshis in a single
// satoshi. Within the network, all HTLC payments are denominated in
// milli-satoshis. As milli-satoshis aren't deliverable on the native
// blockchain, before settling to broadcasting, the values are rounded down to
// the nearest satoshi.

It doesn't mean that LN payments cannot be settled, it only means that if the channel partners desire to settle, it will be rounded to nearest Satoshi. (lower value of course)

[franky1]

th problem with widfury is he merges 3 questions/point into one sentance and when addressing the points he just changes the order of the points to try making it seem different but is him just repating himself

the 3 points are
tokens created . not using real bitcoin
the iou
who is a central issuer of such

so dealing with these 3 points separately.
1. Msats are a token NOT recognised by a blockchain thus LN is not using real bitcoin. bitcoins never leave the blockchain. Msat balance is created when a HTLC is created. Msats creation/utilisation are a token that doesnt even need to be tethered to a bitcoin transaction

2. the HTLC because its not an actual bitcoin asset but a different denomination/token. because its not even getting settled. HTLC's function is just to say who OWES who what, where by at a later date the parties then agree to settle the debt
EG i can put up a pair of $60 sneakers(shoes) up as collateral. and i and a friend can both agree to a HTLC of 1200000000msat total balance and then over time we agree on who owes who what. then at the endwhen one side shows they are owed th balance of a full pair of sneakers the person that is owed the sneakers gets them

to address amishmanish's query about 'limited by channel capacity'
the collateral does not have to be bitcoin locked transaction nor anythinglocked/community ruled/centrally accountable.
the msat balance(capacity) does not have to be locked tethered to anything
the msat balance(capcaity) can be increased/decreased at any point
a htlc of msats is just a 2 party IOU agreement, it's just a private agreement by those 2 parties. meaning as long as they agre to it whatever it is thats the iou agreement they are agreeing to.
 
which if you can trust that it will get settled, later on gets settled.. but no guarantee.
even converting a HTLC to a bitcoin CLTV tx (should the particular instance be based on btc collateral)
does not guarantee that the CLTV broadcast would get added to a block/confirm/settle up as desired.
so yes indeed the HTLC is a debt balancer of who owes what, whether there is collateral or not

3. seems winfury cant counter point 1&2 and is now trying to meander in the 3rd point pretending that pegged/tethered /collateral or uncollateralised tokens or iou's can only be created by central issuers. thus with his lack of knowledge/ ploy to be subtly saying there is no central issuer he believed that there can never be such a thing as pegged tokens/iou tokens/unpegged token creation. which is another flaw in how understanding.

[Wind_FURY]

I know that it's not a perfect term because Lightning channels are really Bitcoins sent in a special 2-for-2 multisig address, that are sent back and forth peer to peer between its participants, and with all transaction records stored locally. But how would you call it?

bitcoins are locked on the bitcoin network in CLTV contracts. they never leave the bitcoin network
the bitcoin network always shows the UTXO on the blockchain as having X balance(sats)

Wind_Fury gave a simple, basic definition. The highlighted part is the part open to interpretation depending on which side you want to take. Franky keeps doing his "I owe you" thing. Hope i can get some understanding from this clash.

The bitcoin that get "locked up" in a multisig addresses are there to create "channel capacity". These Bitcoin are recognized and settled on the Bitcoin chain by opening/ closing transactions. So, i think unlike what franky keeps insisting, there really is bitcoin involved and not some separate coin. While this channel is open, the two parties agree to update their respective ledgers in a P2P manner without having to ride the main chain. This helps in micropayments and you avoid paying the higher fees.

Maybe, the basic point of contention here is "Channel capacity". The funding transaction to receive a payment is the first step of this "chicken and egg" problem. This isn't such a big issue when you want to spend though.

LN views this and creates pegged tokens in HTLC. these HTLC's are contracts that are in a different unit of account(msats)
the HTLC's are not broadcastable to bitcoins network. thats its pegged coin

LN payments are the HTLC's, renegotiating who owes what but are not settling up. thus its IOU

Franky you have based your argument on two things:
1. Insisting on calling HTLC an IOU document and
2. Introduction of msat/ miilisat.

The non-dramatic view on msat is that it is LN's answer to the apprehension that 1 Satoshi would be too much for micropayments if BTC price gets high enough to save Good'ol John from eating his dick on live TV. Calling it a separate coin is disingenuous and misleading. This maybe your understanding of course, and you may feel strongly about it because of the scaling debate going the LN way.

Its not an IOU because receiving/ sending LN payments does not mean you are receiving/ sending debt. At any point, the amount i can receive is limited by the "channel capacity". Please correct me if this is wrong.

also, the full dev-quote on the msat thing is:

MilliSatoshi are the native unit of the Lightning Network. A milli-satoshi
// is simply 1/1000th of a satoshi. There are 1000 milli-satoshis in a single
// satoshi. Within the network, all HTLC payments are denominated in
// milli-satoshis. As milli-satoshis aren't deliverable on the native
// blockchain, before settling to broadcasting, the values are rounded down to
// the nearest satoshi.

It doesn't mean that LN payments cannot be settled, it only means that if the channel partners desire to settle, it will be rounded to nearest Satoshi. (lower value of course)

Welcome to the "Stupid Club".

3. seems winfury cant counter point 1&2 and is now trying to meander in the 3rd point pretending that pegged/tethered /collateral or uncollateralised tokens or iou's can only be created by central issuers. thus with his lack of knowledge/ ploy to be subtly saying there is no central issuer he believed that there can never be such a thing as pegged tokens/iou tokens/unpegged token creation. which is another flaw in how understanding.

I didn't "meander" anything, I simply NEVER agreed with you from the start about your claims that there are "IOU pegged promises to pay tokens" in the Lightning Network. What you cannot live with is that you're wrong, and everyone is starting to see that you're wrong. The same way I believed you and Jonald Fyookball about "big blocks are good", and discovered that Gavin, Mike Hearn, and Roger Ver had become malicious.

But I believe that I might have once agreed with you that Lightning was an "IOU system", and also learned that it's not. The hard way.

[franky1]

here you go again spewing out the "big blocks" stuff... you have been so spoonfed by your echo chamber that you dont even know whats real anymore.

i have never been in the "big block" camp. so it seems your buddies have ben whispering so much crap to you that you dont even know whats happening.

as for your research into LN/bitcoin. after months of u saying 'theres no iou' you have not even bothered to read code, use LN or anything. you cant even counter argue beyond just saying an empty claim of basically, 'wrong coz franky said it'

you have been given plenty of time to actually look into it. but you have refused. so that is a flaw on your part.
goodluck with your head in the sand mindset. but one day i hope you wake up

P.S
'wrong because gibberish'
'wrong because franky'
'wrong because techno babble'
are empty counter points that only proves you have not/cannot come up with a valid answer

if you ever want to counter someone. use stats, code, data. if you cannot. then just hold back from pressing the reply button until you can

[Wind_FURY]

here you go again spewing out the "big blocks" stuff... you have been so spoonfed by your echo chamber that you dont even know whats real anymore.

Excuse me, every technical argument about big blocks are something that should be considered, and the reason why I brought that up was to prove a point that you sided with the people who have gone malicious, and wanted to undermine Bitcoin.

i have never been in the "big block" camp. so it seems your buddies have ben whispering so much crap to you that you dont even know whats happening.

Never? Then do you believe the Core developers were right to hold the hard cap to maintain small blocks? You were not debating for Bitcoin Unlimited?

as for your research into LN/bitcoin. after months of u saying 'theres no iou' you have not even bothered to read code, use LN or anything. you cant even counter argue beyond just saying an empty claim of basically, 'wrong coz franky said it'

you have been given plenty of time to actually look into it. but you have refused. so that is a flaw on your part.
goodluck with your head in the sand mindset. but one day i hope you wake up

I did, and what I found was that you are simply wrong. There are no "IOU pegged promises to pay tokens" in Lightning.

P.S
'wrong because gibberish'
'wrong because franky'
'wrong because techno babble'
are empty counter points that only proves you have not/cannot come up with a valid answer

if you ever want to counter someone. use stats, code, data. if you cannot. then just hold back from pressing the reply button until you can

You brought that on yourself. But I hope all the newbies listen to you and learn. The hard way.

[franky1]

if you dont understand that Msats are pegged tokens
if you dont understand that HTLC's are just agreeing who owes who wht but a HTCL is not and will never 'settle'

then you have not learned anything about LN

as for your over meanders about bigblocks and altcoins.. my stand is about scaling BITCOIN. not deburdening BITCOIN and scaling alternative networks

[DooMAD]

as for your over meanders about bigblocks and altcoins.. my stand is about scaling BITCOIN. not deburdening BITCOIN and scaling alternative networks

Please name the Bitcoin users who give the slightest shit about your stand.  You keep thinking that everyone agrees with you, so surely you'd have some idea of who some of those people might be, right?

For all your talk of doing what is best for Bitcoin, you do nothing but attack the path that users on the Bitcoin network have empirically chosen to follow.  I'd tell you to find some people who agree with your stand and form a network with them if you don't like how the people on this network have decided to go about scaling, but it's pretty obvious that anyone who might agree with you has already forked off to one of the altcoins you don't want us discussing.  If people are drawing comparisons between your stand and those altcoins, the reason for that is that your stand is not compatible with the rules other users on this network have chosen to enforce.  Your stand is empty, hollow, insubstantial and ineffective.  Your stand is not recognised or acknowledged by the Bitcoin network.  If you want a network that isn't "deburdened", there are other networks catering to your desires.

[franky1]

as for your over meanders about bigblocks and altcoins.. my stand is about scaling BITCOIN. not deburdening BITCOIN and scaling alternative networks

Please name the Bitcoin users who give the slightest shit about your stand.  You keep thinking that everyone agrees with you, so surely you'd have some idea of who some of those people might be, right?

For all your talk of doing what is best for Bitcoin, you do nothing but attack the path that users on the Bitcoin network have empirically chosen to follow.  I'd tell you to find some people who agree with your stand and form a network with them if you don't like how the people on this network have decided to go about scaling, but it's pretty obvious that anyone who might agree with you has already forked off to one of the altcoins you don't want us discussing.  If people are drawing comparisons between your stand and those altcoins, the reason for that is that your stand is not compatible with the rules other users on this network have chosen to enforce.  Your stand is empty, hollow, insubstantial and ineffective.  Your stand is not recognised or acknowledged by the Bitcoin network.  If you want a network that isn't "deburdened", there are other networks catering to your desires.

typical mindset. you say 'find people that agree', which is your subtle a foolish mindset flip flop thinking that no one disagree's with cores roadmap. sorry but this very forum shows hundreds of people disliking the fee wars, transaction throughput limit and that cores roadmap is trying to deburden bitcoin while falsely advertising it as 'scaling bitcoin'.

your mindset is also foolishly thinking that if people dont want to deburden bitcoin, those people should leave the network and make another network.
it seems all you think as a solution for the bitcoin network is for people to stop using the bitcoin network.. (facepalm)
as for saying those that have opposed cores roadmap have forked off.. im sorry to inform you that core forked some opposition off the network by controversial splits. but them people do run a core node even if they dont like it.
just because cores software is the only on that satisfies all the requiremnts of bing a full validation/full archival criteria, does not mean those using it are core loyalists. it just means they dont want the drama of REKT campaigns and mor mandatory splits, so just give in

your belief that running a core node means adoration and loyalty is your flaw. and may you wake up and realise your foolishness one day.

blockchains and bitcoins are about progress through unity and agreement.(consensus).

if you think that all disagreements should result in totalitarian control and apartheid law. then please do yourself a favour and learn the invention satoshi made. learn the meaning definition of consensus, then learn about the byzantine generals theory and how that was solved. hint. a method of mutual agreement, not division and factions

[WhyFhy]

Will casual users be able to accept payments and donations without having to run their own full node 24/7?

Currently, it is not possible. It might be possible in the future to ask a third party to watch for the incoming payment.

Yes Via OpenNode.co first 10,000usd transferred freely, -(Custodial But generates the capability to set predetermined donations/payments portal) its basically bitpay for LN
Many LN site builders are utilizing Opennode LNinv generation for basic site operations. (basically they are just porting)

Bitlum.io is a "casual-user's" solution to LN for the time being.Its a browser extension wallet that also offers exchange LN to BTC or BTC to LN "Dual" wallet.   again its -(Custodial)

[DooMAD]

blockchains and bitcoins are about progress through unity and agreement.(consensus).

Says the person who seemingly doesn't agree with a single thing happening on this chain.    

How is it you expect everyone to agree when you can't yourself?

The extraordinary dichotomy of a dissenter who follows a blockchain he fundamentally disagrees with.

Astounding.

typical mindset. you say 'find people that agree', which is your subtle a foolish mindset flip flop thinking that no one disagree's with cores roadmap. sorry but this very forum shows hundreds of people disliking the fee wars, transaction throughput limit and that cores roadmap is trying to deburden bitcoin while falsely advertising it as 'scaling bitcoin'.

Then they can run different code to show that they disagree.  That's the entire idea, isn't it?  You run the code that enforces the rules you want.  But if people do run code that isn't compatible with the rules on the Bitcoin network, they might find themselves leaving the network, either by their own choice or by other users' choice.  And this is what it boils down to.  How is it you think you can enjoy the benefits of the security and the network effects provided by this network if you run code that has the potential to remove you from the network?  You can't have it both ways.  Either you agree with the transactions that are included in the next block and you're part of the network, or you disagree and suddenly you aren't part of the network anymore.  Anything beyond that, you're just running your mouth.  Prove your ideas are viable.  Then I'll take you seriously.  But you'll never prove it.  So I'll never take you seriously.  It's as simple as that.

People on these boards do have an unfortunate tendency to trash-talk certain forkcoins, but at least those users who forked away had a strong enough will to run code that enforced the rules they believed in, even if that meant giving up the advantages provided to them by using Bitcoin.  That puts them several orders of magnitude above you in terms of the respect they're due.  You just linger around like a bad smell, mouthing off about all the things you could change, but won't, because you know you'd have to do it on your own.  

You know you're never going to leave this network by choice because you don't have the support you need to build a network that could even survive, let alone implement all the totalitarian crap you'd like to see.  So you just sit there sniping at things you don't like but completely lack the spinal fortitude to take any real action to change them.  So here you are.  Business as usual.  Impotent but loud.  Unable to change a thing.

your mindset is also foolishly thinking that if people dont want to deburden bitcoin, those people should leave the network and make another network.

Your default position is that Bitcoin is being "deburdened".  It's not realistic for you to assume that everyone feels that way about off-chain transactions.  Many would be happy enough to just keep using Bitcoin as they currently do and simply not use Lightning's functionality.  But yes, if you are fundamentally ideologically opposed to something you can't possibly hope to change (and it seems that you are), what the hell are you even doing here?  It goes without saying that you'd be better off leaving if you can't even accept the existence of this technology which you appear to blame for denying you your precious on-chain scaling.  If you believe on-chain scaling is better, why not use another chain where the users opted to focus on that?  Maybe it's because it's not better.  It's only better if that chain with the on-chain focus has equal security and network effects to Bitcoin.  But none of them do.  And they probably never will.  So I'll say again, here you are.  Again, business as usual.  Again, impotent but loud.  Again, unable to change a thing.

learn the meaning definition of consensus

What you think consensus means is observably untrue.
  
You tell us consensus means voting.  Proven false by observable events.
You tell us consensus means everyone has to agree.  Proven false by observable events.
You tell us consensus means we have to wait for features to activate to decide if we want them or not.  Proven false by observable events.

Everything you have ever told us about consensus is false.  All of it.  Every last word.  I'd tell you to learn consensus, but you could spend the rest of your life trying and you'd still never get it.

[franky1]

doomad bitcoin/blockchains as used 2009-2013 were consensus based. but then came all the REKT campaigns consensus bypass crap. which is what i highlight.

also you as a flip flopper like to twist things.
YOU say consensus has to be everyone agreeing(then say no one has to agree due to 'no permision'). in actual fact consensus has to be majority agreement to such an appropriate level that the opposition does not cause controversy.

consensus is made from the word to consent. so yes indeed it is a vote of community.
however you prefer to cause controversy by suggesting getting rid of opposition before consensus can even be reached, just to fake majority.

consensus is not about faking a vote to activate a feature. consensus is about finding a feature that the community can as a majority rally around without controversy, without mandatory splits. where by the network progresses via positive code and features that the community want.

again you prefer to split the community and tell people to F**k off the network if they dont like core.
that is not consensus.
saying that core should just be totalitarian and do as they please and force thir feature in because they dont need permission and there should be no vote/consensus.. is your failing

YOU have been very pro core (not bitcoin)
YOU have been very pro deburdening the network(disconnecting non core nodes, fee wars, opposition forks, pro LN)

YOU show lack of understanding of bitcoin, lack of care for the bitcoin network. you just seem to want to play the PR game of do as core say and not as a wider bitcoin community would like.
and dont pretend that everyone is core loyalist and there is only one opposer left. because you are just making yourself look foolish

how about you stop trying to be a core ass kisser and start being a bitcoiner.