Comparison of Offchain Solutions for Crypto Coins

[Khaos77]

LN=Banks

https://hackernoon.com/is-the-lightning-network-a-return-to-central-banking-e338b1181470

The Lightning Network technology works by limiting decentralized transactional data and
going off blockchain to store transactions in one central, validating location.

Running counter to the philosophy of blockchain technologies,
this makes the Lightning Network a centralized financial system, a virtual bank that manages transactions in a central location.
As such, it also compromises security by creating a vulnerability to hacking?—?just as with any other repository of data.

The Lightning Network seems like a return to central banking and its inevitable regulatory oversights.
Will the mainstreaming of bitcoin return it to the very system it was created to subvert? Time will tell.

[1714742724]

1714742724

[1714742724]

1714742724

[1714742724]

1714742724

[Wind_FURY]

There are no IOUs in Lightning. I cannot accept something which is simply not true. Transactions in Lightning are signed transactions made by both participants of a channel, that are not yet broadcasted and included in the blockchain.

You are not sending a worthless IOU to the other end of the channel.

things you will learn when you finally gt around to actually use LN:
1. values IN A CHANNEL  are not 8 decimal.
2. thus what is signed in channel is not even true BTC
3. unconfirmed transactions are not settled. until funds are settled you still owe the person value(imagine how cheques work when a cheque bounces/doesnt clear)
4. signing TO pay. is an agreement. AKA a contract. it is not actually the settled payment itself
5. saying that unconfirmed payments not on the blockchain are as good and final as confirmed blockchain payments is the foolish mindset of not understanding the point of ledgers/ and more specifically blockchain secured ledgers.
6. you may then learn that things like schnorr means that contracts/agreements dont need all parties signatures. (think about that)
7. if you think that an agreement is not a declaration of something you owe that you agree to pay. (emphasis: OWE) then you have much to learn about basic economics let alone bitcoin

i know you have not used LN. so understand it from the same logic of old tech 'signed value payments'

its much like going to court and agreeing you owe the court a fine. this does not mean setting/signing an agreement is in itself settling the debt

i dare you to argue that writing a cheque that is never sent to a bank means you paid someone in full.
i dare you to argue that writing a cheque that is never cleared by a bank means you paid someone in full.
i dare you to argue that writing a cheque that bounces means you paid someone in full.

have a nice day

Sorry franky1, you can make disingenuous ways to confuse the newbies, distort the facts, and spread misinformation and lies, but there's only one truth. There are no "IOU promises to pay tokens" in the Lightning Network. None of what you have said has disproved that fact.

Have a nice day too.

I am the most stupid moron in the community, I accept that.

Finally , something we agree on! 

Yes finally.

All newbies, listen to Khaos77, and accept what he posts as the truth. It will be good for your Bitcoin journey.

Then are you confident that Bitcoin Cash SV, the biggest blocks of them all, will be a success, and take Bitcoin's place in 10 years?

Again you stupidly fail to comprehend,
Whichever coin that succeeds and over throws Bitcoin will have ample ONCHAIN capacity to handle it's workload.
If LN does become a big deal, then that coin would be Litecoin which has onchain capacity and a segwit infection.

The ASICS miners are the ones that will determine which of the Bitcoins survive and thrive,
so you have to ask them what their plans are for btc, bch , & bsv, because they are the ones maintaining all three.

Notice LN is an 3rd party offchain IOU network and it's success or failure is irrelevant to btc future.

However the general populace will determine which is the coin that sits atop CMK.

Any POW blockchain-based coin that takes over Bitcoin, and becomes the most used coin will have no other option but to take Bitcoin's model to maintain decentralization.

[Khaos77]

Any POW blockchain-based coin that takes over Bitcoin, and becomes the most used coin will have no other option but to take Bitcoin's model to maintain decentralization.

If a Coin overtakes Bitcoin, then it is because bitcoin model has failed, and the other coin's model was favored by the majority.

BTC have 3 mining pool operators with >51% of btc mining,
if you want to think that is decentralized, well we have already established you are a moron. 

[Wind_FURY]

Any POW blockchain-based coin that takes over Bitcoin, and becomes the most used coin will have no other option but to take Bitcoin's model to maintain decentralization.

If a Coin overtakes Bitcoin, then it is because bitcoin model has failed, and the other coin's model was favored by the majority.

If Bitcoin Cash ABC or SV reaches the same capacity of usage Bitcoin has, it will be forced to copy Bitcoin's model. Or else it will scale-in.

BTC have 3 mining pool operators with >51% of btc mining,
if you want to think that is decentralized, well we have already established you are a moron. 

Says the "smart" person who supports the idea that users shouldn't run full nodes, and that only miners' nodes matter.

Plus yes, Bitcoin is decentralized. Miners are not a threat, and do not control the network. Ask Jihan Wu.

[franky1]

Sorry franky1, you can make disingenuous ways to confuse the newbies, distort the facts, and spread misinformation and lies, but there's only one truth. There are no "IOU promises to pay tokens" in the Lightning Network. None of what you have said has disproved that fact.

you can repeat it all you like. but what you say holds no details that counters what is real.
maybe try using LN, learn LN and actually understand/research it.

try to learn about millisats. as this will be the stepping stone that will teach you about the unconfirmed private agreements(iou) that are not bitcoin.
a 12 decimal token that shows a different destination for its value than the 8 decimal bitcoin on the blockchain. cannot co exist and both be committed/settled.
one has to be a real committed settled value, the other has to be an unsettled private agreement(iou) which due to it being 12 decimal, is a peg of a 8 decimal

hint/emphasis for your first step, millisat
and dont pretend millisats dont exist

[nutildah]

Sorry franky1, you can make disingenuous ways to confuse the newbies, distort the facts, and spread misinformation and lies, but there's only one truth. There are no "IOU promises to pay tokens" in the Lightning Network. None of what you have said has disproved that fact.

you can repeat it all you like. but what you say holds no details that counters what is real.
maybe try using LN, learn LN and actually understand/research it.

try to learn about millisats. as this will be the stepping stone that will teach you about the unconfirmed private agreements(iou) that are not bitcoin.
a 12 decimal token that shows a different destination for its value than the 8 decimal bitcoin on the blockchain. cannot co exist and both be committed/settled.
one has to be a real committed settled value, the other has to be an unsettled private agreement(iou) which due to it being 12 decimal, is a peg of a 8 decimal

hint/emphasis for your first step, millisat
and dont pretend millisats dont exist

I'll admit I'm not sure how millisats are rounded up or down upon closure of a channel but I am certain Lightning doesn't inflate their network with satoshis that aren't there.

Despite all this FUD about LN, it continues to grow by leaps and bounds on a weekly basis. Obviously its users don't mind the possibility of having to deal with the potential issues you are fabricating in this thread. Really franky, I don't understand how you can be so angry at a technology.

And I know your reply is going to be telling me to "go do research." How about you provide evidence that backs your thus far completely unsubstantiated claims instead?

[DooMAD]

Really franky, I don't understand how you can be so angry at a technology.

He's angry at Core because a few devs made fun of him:

Well, if that is a critical issue i advice you to make contact with Core/LightCoin dev's about youre concern. They're testing it atm, this will be the moment for it to how to fix it. We'll be gratefull.

i did..
EG last april i spotted the anyonecanspend issue..
their response.
ridicule me for months..

He's been holding a pathetic grudge ever since. 

[Khaos77]

Any POW blockchain-based coin that takes over Bitcoin, and becomes the most used coin will have no other option but to take Bitcoin's model to maintain decentralization.

If a Coin overtakes Bitcoin, then it is because bitcoin model has failed, and the other coin's model was favored by the majority.

If Bitcoin Cash ABC or SV reaches the same capacity of usage Bitcoin has, it will be forced to copy Bitcoin's model. Or else it will scale-in.

Damn , how can you be that stupid and actually know when to inhale and exhale.  

Both BCH or BSV already have multiple times btc Onchain transactions, so they can easily handle multiple times btc volume.

And if only 3 mining pools operators with >51% mean decentralized to you, well you are a moron.  

Says the "smart" person who supports the idea that users shouldn't run full nodes, and that only miners' nodes matter.

Plus yes, Bitcoin is decentralized. Miners are not a threat, and do not control the network. Ask Jihan Wu.

Only Mining nodes matter,  
how many transactions does your non-mining node enter into the blockchain : NONE
how many new blocks does your non-mining node add to the blockchain        : NONE
What difference does a NON-MINING NODE make to the BLOCKCHAIN           : NONE
Turn off all of the NON-MINING NODES and WHO CARES                               : NO ONE!

Jihan Wu , the guy behind the miners that support btc, bch, & bsv .
He is making money multiple different ways, including selling asics for all 3 bitcoins and litecoin and others.
His Business is a monopoly and none of his major sellers are decentralized.

You windfury , wanted to receive a % of mined bitcoins as payment for running your useless NON-MINING NODE.
So much for your non-existent voting power.  

How much money does running a NON-MINING NODE make you  : NOT A DAMN PENNY
(Just another reason , you are a moron , working for free, when everyone else involved makes money and you don't!)



What I noticed is a concentrated effort by a band of morons(windfury) and shrills (doomad) and evil masterminds(Gmax)
all attempt to paint Franky1 with a pathetically oblivious propaganda smear campaign against his reputation.
Since refuting the actual facts he presents is too difficult for them.

The reason the smear campaign is failing is simple, Franky1 is telling the truth and the others are either just flat out lying or having no facts only throw false propaganda accusations.

Which if you believe windfury or doomad nonsense, please find a surgeon and reattach the half of your brain that works. 
So you can see thru their shenanigans.

[Khaos77]

but I am certain Lightning doesn't inflate their network with satoshis or litoshis or groestlis or any coin with segwit activated that aren't there.

FTFY

Yeah, well you be wrong.
https://lightning-wallet.com/instant/

https://medium.com/@akumaigorodski/instant-channels-enable-safe-lightning-payments-with-unconfirmed-funding-8d640defa183

When channel is funded in a special way an amount present in it can be spent immediately,
without waiting for a funding transaction to become confirmed.

Alice gives fiat to Bob in person and thus purchases an incoming channel

Using LN Instant channel, you can fund a channel without the bitcoins or litecoins ever being locked onchain.
So any amount used without receiving an ONCHAIN confirmation , is simply counterfeiting made possible by LN.
If some channels were funded and others were not, then a fractional reserve you have.

LN is a 3rd party Offchain IOU system,
simply ignoring the bit that requires the onchain confirmation to actually confirm
before allowing funding is all it takes for LN to be a fractional reserve as bad as the regular banks.

[franky1]

I'll admit I'm not sure how millisats are rounded up or down upon closure of a channel but I am certain Lightning doesn't inflate their network with satoshis that aren't there.

Despite all this FUD about LN, it continues to grow by leaps and bounds on a weekly basis. Obviously its users don't mind the possibility of having to deal with the potential issues you are fabricating in this thread. Really franky, I don't understand how you can be so angry at a technology.

And I know your reply is going to be telling me to "go do research." How about you provide evidence that backs your thus far completely unsubstantiated claims instead?

1. well learn how millisats work. then you might have some insight and able to contribute to a real debate rather that just ignore technical matters and think things are different than reality

2.LN is not growing due to natural growth. bitrefill and LNbig are both giving away balance
did you know that LNBig has many nodes and as much as 7000+ channels it set up as part of its giveaway. this is not normal users putting in thier own balance and connecting to peers they want to spend their pegged coins with. this is LNBig and bitrefill giving away channels to cause a fake accounting of channel/node numbers

3.i am not angry at the technology, i am angry about the methods a certain group use to implement wishy washy things that do not positively help bitcoin.

4. as for doomad thinking his selective quoting helps him, what he doesnt realise is that after months of core trying to ridicule me about the anyonecanspend issue. they themselves actually backed down, realised their fault and actually changed things to actually work around the issue that anyonecanspend would have caused if they implemented it the initial way they intended.
they wanted to just release wallets that could formulate segwit transactions before any network threshold was met. which would have caused a huge mess. (the point i was making 2016)
they then tried to do a proper consensus but only attained 35%.(which showed core were still not finding solutions a majority could agree on early 2017)
so instead of finding a community agreeable proposal. they doubled down on forcing the activation by literally cutting out nodes and pools that didnt agree with core (another separate debate i disagreed with summer 2017)

all in all. segwit would have HAPPILY got activated easier, safer sooner and without controversy and with proper natural majority, if it included features the community also wanted.

[DooMAD]

Rather than allowing franky1 to continue derailing the Veriblock thread, I'm cross-posting it to this cesspit of a topic:

consensus: consent of the majority.

I don't need your consent.  You are delusional if you think I do.  I am under no obligation whatsoever to tolerate incompatible rules on my network.  If you run incompatible rules, I can remove you from my network if I want to.  That is my prerogative.  You are powerless to stop me.  You don't matter unless I willingly acknowledge your existence.  And if I don't like your incompatible rules, I won't acknowledge your existence.  It's as simple as that.  I'm perfectly free to ignore you and whatever the effects of your code might be, activated or not. 

Your ongoing appeal to pity that other people would have to wait for your permission to do something, or that we have to let you stay on our network while you decide whether to break our rules or not is laughable.  None of your childish notions of everyone playing nice together mean anything here.  This is survival of the fittest.  Our ideas evolve and grow stronger, while your ideas are heading towards extinction.

You seem to live in some sort of dream world where your opinions are important and that people should somehow be required to consider your delicate feelings.  Maybe when you were in school they told you you were a unique and precious individual and that you matter or some such crap.  I'm sorry, but we don't hand out participation awards here.  We don't have to care about your feelings.  If you come in last place, no one is going to be there to tell you what a good effort you made.  Grow up.

And finally... you are not the majority.  You are the incredibly small and insignificant minority.  All the more reason why your opinions don't matter. 

[franky1]

Rather than allowing franky1 to continue derailing the Veriblock thread, I'm cross-posting it to this cesspit of a topic:

consensus: consent of the majority.

I don't need your consent.  You are delusional if you think I do.  I am under no obligation whatsoever to tolerate incompatible rules on my network.  If you run incompatible rules, I can remove you from my network if I want to.

you have the personal perogative to go into console menu of your own persona node and IP ban who you like when you like.

but when a dev team creates CODE that automates throwing users off a network on mass. not due to them running incompatible rules. but due to them not wanting a NEW rule to change the network. thats a different thing.

kicking people off the network to activate a new rule falsely is different than kicking off people whos rules dont match the current active rules

stop flip floping and stay with the actual reality of what actually occured.

P.S my opinion is based on reading code and reading block data. your opinion is based on reddit/twitter scripts of social drama
also my opinion is just a discussion. for you to be so emotional about a discussion reveals too much about how your own motives lay.

you keep on insinuating that my words on this forum are somehow affecting the network. you insinuate it by emotionally mentioning how im appealing and asking for peoples permission...
sorry but thats not what discussions boards do. .. learn how bitcoin works and you will learn its CODE made by DEVS that people need to care about and scrutinise.
but i do find it funny how you want people to ignore devs and not care about code, but to instead do your failed social drama crap that somehow my words on a forum are stronger than code.. (hint you got no clue how bitcoin works with such mindset)

i really do hope you wake up one day and realise you wont get financial gain from your motives, and instead you spend some time learning about bitcoin, rather than trying to promote your endless rants that you fel the only solution to changing bitcoin is to get people to stop using it so that the only ones left are a certain breed of users that you can echo chamber with

[DooMAD]

you keep on insinuating that my words on this forum are somehow affecting the network. you insinuate it by emotionally mentioning how im appealing and asking for peoples permission...

Wrong on both counts.  

Firstly, I know you aren't having any effect on the network because Bitcoin categorically does not work the way you wish it did.  I'm merely pointing out that it will never work how you think it should, because that would be worse than what we have at the moment in every conceivable way.

Secondly, you are the one playing the logical fallacy with your ongoing appeal to pity, which is an emotional appeal.  You keep saying how unfair it is that clients are thrown off before their features activate and before we get their consent to follow a roadmap they might disagree with.  How unfair you believe it to be is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  

But please, keep telling us how Bitcoin would be better if we accepted your double-standard where other clients can remove us from their network at any given moment of their choosing, but we can't give them a helping push on their way and instead have to permit these clients to stay on this network so they can stifle progress and block activation of any features on this chain that you personally don't happen to like.  It's obvious why you would want Bitcoin to work in such a way, where other clients hold all the cards and can effectively hold the network to ransom.  How do you justify the belief that we supposedly have to wait for them to activate a feature, when they don't have to wait for us to activate a feature?

[hv_]

The double standard is only sw + LN coins and clean coins on the same chain. That in a soft fork with hard consequences for the future path of adoption ?  Mix these up and the drama does not need any personified drama queen.

No decent brain in the business world will eat that

[franky1]

you keep on insinuating that my words on this forum are somehow affecting the network. you insinuate it by emotionally mentioning how im appealing and asking for peoples permission...

Wrong on both counts.  
Secondly, you are the one playing the logical fallacy with your ongoing appeal to pity, which is an emotional appeal.  

you literally debunked yourself

I don't need your consent.  You are delusional if you think I do.  

Your ongoing appeal to pity that other people would have to wait for your permission to do something,

You seem to live in some sort of dream world where your opinions are important and that people should somehow be required to consider your delicate feelings.

"required" "permission" "appealing".... thats your words..
this is a discussion forum about bitcoin. it is not the bitcoin network that uses consensus. my opinions are just a discussion. it is you that is getting emotional and insulting and trying to make out that my discussion is somehow powerful.

all i ever tell people is just to do their own research and try to avoid becoming anti-bitcoiners like you and your echo chamber that just want to do social drama emotional stuff to then promote alternative networks

plus. learn consensus
consensus is about unifying people. not having excuses to throw people off the network
you really have no clue about what the byzantine generals theory is, or how satoshi's solution to it is actually the opposite of 'throw everyone off'

i truly believe in the real world you would be seen as a person who has many prejudices and is probably racist by the tone your messages on this forum show as to how to react to people of opposing stance to you

But please, keep telling us how Bitcoin would be better if we accepted your double-standard where other clients can remove us from their network at any given moment of their choosing,

your so emotional that you are actually flip floping so much you are forgetting which path your following and what path your suppose to be debating.
its YOU that has been saying that its ok to do network affecting 'send off' (controversial forks) prior to bip activations, purely to achieve a bip activation by faking the threshold requirement.

so how about do yourself a small favour, take a few days to refresh yourself, have a break. chill out, calm down. and use the time to learn about bitcoin from actual research. and by bitcoin i mean bitcoin 2009-2013.. (not from the prospective(prospectus) of core)
learn things like byzantine generals theory, consensus, as it would help you to learn the whole purpose of blockchains and how the network should be decentralised and not just a core distribution.

then you might start grasping how blockchains have a purpose and function that LN does not. and how LN is not secure. then learn about LN practically and pragmastically rather than the delusions or promotional buzzwords.

once you gain a good scope of understanding the technology. then try to form discussions about the tech. without the emotional social drama of ignoring the tech just to argue with humans that are not coding the network.
in other words. if your trying to insult a person rather than tech or devs. your not doing things right

[hv_]

you keep on insinuating that my words on this forum are somehow affecting the network. you insinuate it by emotionally mentioning how im appealing and asking for peoples permission...

Wrong on both counts.  
Secondly, you are the one playing the logical fallacy with your ongoing appeal to pity, which is an emotional appeal.  

you literally debunked yourself

I don't need your consent.  You are delusional if you think I do.  

Your ongoing appeal to pity that other people would have to wait for your permission to do something,

You seem to live in some sort of dream world where your opinions are important and that people should somehow be required to consider your delicate feelings.

"required" "permission" "appealing".... thats your words..
this is a discussion forum about bitcoin. it is not the bitcoin network that uses consensus. my opinions are just a discussion. it is you that is getting emotional and insulting and trying to make out that my discussion is somehow powerful.

all i ever tell people is just to do their own research and try to avoid becoming anti-bitcoiners like you and your echo chamber that just want to do social drama emotional stuff to then promote alternative networks

plus. learn consensus
consensus is about unifying people. not having excuses to throw people off the network
you really have no clue about what the byzantine generals theory is, or how satoshi's solution to it is actually the opposite of 'throw everyone off'

i truly believe in the real world you would be seen as a person who has many prejudices and is probably racist by the tone your messages on this forum show as to how to react to people of opposing stance to you

But please, keep telling us how Bitcoin would be better if we accepted your double-standard where other clients can remove us from their network at any given moment of their choosing,

your so emotional that you are actually flip floping so much you are forgetting which path your following and what path your suppose to be debating.
its YOU that has been saying that its ok to do network affecting 'send off' (controversial forks) prior to bip activations, purely to achieve a bip activation by faking the threshold requirement.

so how about do yourself a small favour, take a few days to refresh yourself, have a break. chill out, calm down. and use the time to learn about bitcoin from actual research. and by bitcoin i mean bitcoin 2009-2013.. (not from the prospective(prospectus) of core)
learn things like byzantine generals theory, consensus, as it would help you to learn the whole purpose of blockchains and how the network should be decentralised and not just a core distribution.

then you might start grasping how blockchains have a purpose and function that LN does not. and how LN is not secure. then learn about LN practically and pragmastically rather than the delusions or promotional buzzwords.

once you gain a good scope of understanding the technology. then try to form discussions about the tech. without the emotional social drama of ignoring the tech just to argue with humans that are not coding the network.
in other words. if your trying to insult a person rather than tech or devs. your not doing things right

A consensus protocol that can unify the globe for a value transfer can only work if it does the minimum of what is bespoke, the smallest intersection the masses can agree upon.

Peer to peer electronic cash.

On chain

Scalable as much as possible that anyone can use it


The design for this exists for 10 years now.


Designing a protocol does not need devs. Btw.  Maybe refactoring and bug fixing, but  the consensus is dev free territory

[franky1]

Designing a protocol does not need devs. Btw.  Maybe refactoring and bug fixing, but  the consensus is dev free territory

bitcoin is digital.
it is code
CODE
not conversation

code does not write itself
devs write code
for a new rule to be proposed devs need to CODE it
if devs CODE it in a way that controversially 'sends off' a controversial amount of users then you cant pretend the devs were not involved

i really find it funny that people think bitcoin is just social drama and such are only interested in performing social drama rather than speak about actual code and actual protocols.

[DooMAD]

*stuff*

Even if you can't comprehend what I'm saying, I'm sure others can.  Alternative clients have a right to exist, but the right for alternative clients to exist does not negate the rights of other Bitcoin users to remove them from their network at any time and for any reason.  It should be clear that it's not any sort of injustice when some alternative clients have been disconnected from the Bitcoin network.  There is absolutely no requirement to wait for an alternative client's feature to activate before deciding to disconnect it if that feature is not compatible.  Particularly if the change it proposes has the potential to put the security of the network at risk.  It is unreasonable to expect users of client X to wait for client Y's feature to activate when users of client Y don't need to wait for X and can remove X users from their network at any time by activating their feature in client Y.

Consensus does not mean everyone has to agree.  If everyone had to agree, there would be no need for a consensus mechanism at all.  Consensus means those that do agree move forwards together.  It means some people can and will be left behind if they don't agree with a larger number of users.  There is no way to fake or bypass consensus.  If the network you are on is churning out blocks at regular intervals, that's all the consensus you need.  But unless you are on the chain with the most accumulated proof of work and the most economic activity, you have not earned the right to claim that your network is the real Bitcoin.  A small number of users do not have the ability to block a larger number of users from implementing changes.  This has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, even if some people try to dispute it, or worse still, try to twist and distort the meaning of consensus to sound like something more or less akin to Democracy.

It is not possible to implement anything resembling Democracy in Bitcoin and many would argue it would not be desirable to do so even if that were possible.  There is no way to prevent people writing or running code that would completely disregard whatever democratic processes such a system might have.  If a person or group attempts to pick an arbitrary date and writes the corresponding code for a feature to activate, users can choose to ignore that date by running different software and could also choose to disconnect such clients from their network.  If a person or group attempts to set an arbitrary activation threshold and writes the corresponding code for a feature to activate, users can choose to ignore that activation threshold by running different software and could also choose to disconnect such clients from their network.  But in doing so, they run the risk of finding themselves on another network if they ignore a change that a large number of users want.  You have the option to rejoin the network you left by choosing to conform to consensus rules once again.  No one person or group is in control.  It's not developers who make consensus decisions because the only thing that matters is what software people run.

[franky1]

doomad you got no clue

seems your spinning yourself in circles.
enjoy your flip flops and social drama but your the one missing the point.

time you step back take some fresh air in, have a coffee and spend time learning about bitcoin. not your social drama

kind of funny how you say democracy is impossible.. you kinda miss the point of consensus.. both the dictionary definition and the bitcoin utility definition of such

if you dont understand what made bitcoin such a revolutionary thing when the white paper first came out showing how it solved something. just admit it.
but denying the thing it solved as being 'impossible'. means you are failing.

you might want to check the code, check the blockdata, check with devs and do some research before hitting the reply button..
learn the difference between consensus and controversial forks
learn the byzantine generals theory and satoshi's solution
learn the purpose of bitcoin and what the revolutionary technology is/was
hint. learn what actually happened. not what you advocate

[Khaos77]

A small number of users do not have the ability to block a larger number of users from implementing changes.  

And yet, you and btc shrills all claim btc can't increase ONCHAIN Scaling,
because a small # of hobbyist can't afford$ to run a full non-mining node.  
(Which no one cares enough to offer them a % of block rewards or fees to do so.)
(If you make money it is a business, if you don't , then it is a hobby.)

Hypocrite Much?


 


In unrelated news,
Cøbra points out LN and BTC are not the same thing. (Cøbra is right.)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4638321.msg50491676#msg50491676

As a side perk, Gmax gets upset and claims all of his banker payoffs from blockstream now go to charity.  
Achow101 never met a topic , he does not want to lock when the truth gets told in them.