Lightning’s Bitcoin mainnet: the phenomenal growth

[Wind_FURY]

franky1, instead of making us read all that long, confusing dribble, please go straight to the point. Because as far as EVERYONE is concerned, Bitcoin Cash is a contentuous hard fork. Ask Peter Rizen, even he will admit that.

instead of even replying. how about
learn about bitcoin
learn about LN
reply using code, dev quotes, data, stats. and not just social drama about people that are not writing bitcoin protocol rules

You act like you know more, but you tell us there are issued "IOU pegged promises to pay tokens" in Lightning. There are none.

Were you also with the "only miners should run full nodes" camp?

Msats are a token that exists within LN and only LN...

Whatever you say franky1.

Moving on.

On the topic of your "Bitcoin bilateral split" comment, Greg Maxwell replied, but I was disappointed he didn't post his reply in the topic. But he said what you said is "gibberish", and to quote the man,

That is just gibbering nonsense.

Bilateral split is just referring to each side rejects the other, at one point bcash was talking about ONLY increasing the blocksize limit, which meant that bitcoin would have quickly erased its history.  They had to make additional changes to make bitcoin blocks invalid so they wouldn't follow the proof of work.  I almost certainly said something about that... but that works against his case, not for it.

"data found on the blockchain" -- I am imagining Harrison Ford being chased by a rolling boulder.

[1713525351]

1713525351

[1713525351]

1713525351

[1713525351]

1713525351

[franky1]

though ur digressing the topic to be about bitcoin cash. because you cant counter argue LN. nor counter segwit activation (gateway to ln thus related to topic)

1. segwits mandatory bip came first. gmax does not counter that... he just tries to talk about unrelated bitcoin cash stuff. not answering who triggered the actual mandatory bilateral/controversial split. thus even he cant counter who instigated pushing segwit into activation via the consensus bypass (controversial fork/bilateral split)

2. funny thing is gmaxwells meander that does not addrss the consensus bypass part. talks about how bitcoin cash had to change something which then made it then unable to do PoW... hmm... yet bitcoin cash, last time i checked still does PoW, and from what i can see the history still exists. so i guess gmax is wrong.. again the blockchain data of bitcoin cash shows they still do PoW and still have block history.

again this is where you need to do your own independant research and stop trying to get info from your echo chamber
you have not proved a controversial split didnt happen. you have not proved that cores segwit didnt trigger a controversial split first. you have no proven anything. all you have done is side step the issues, not provided a counter and just opened up another meander.

now please go back to basics of learning the topic and actually provide data, stats, code and such to back up the topic

but while we are on your unrelated meander. to just put it to bed lets address a point. increasing the blocksize by saying 'anything under 4mb is acceptable' 'anything under 8mb is acceptable' means 1mb is acceptable and does not make history disappear.
however code such as luke JR's 300kb blocks of only accept 300kb would risk killing off all historic blocks 301kb+ if not coded a correct way

anyway. unless you want to talk about LN try not to reply to this topic. but if you do, atleast show you done some research

LN does NOT require tethering to a blockchain. (research thor turbo)
the tokens in LN are not recognised by blockchain networks (research msats)
there is no community consensus so 2 private parties can make private malicious agreements(fractional reserves)
HTLC's dont settle funds they're just temporary agreements of who OWES who what, meaning iou (research CLTV vs htlc)

once you learn the flaws of LN. you start to see the stats of 'LN's growth' are not real or accurate. as shown by proving that LNBig and bitrefill done alot of sybil noding/channeling to fudge numbers

[DooMAD]

On the topic of your "Bitcoin bilateral split" comment, Greg Maxwell replied, but I was disappointed he didn't post his reply in the topic. But he said what you said is "gibberish", and to quote the man,

That is just gibbering nonsense.

Bilateral split is just referring to each side rejects the other, at one point bcash was talking about ONLY increasing the blocksize limit, which meant that bitcoin would have quickly erased its history.  They had to make additional changes to make bitcoin blocks invalid so they wouldn't follow the proof of work.  I almost certainly said something about that... but that works against his case, not for it.

"data found on the blockchain" -- I am imagining Harrison Ford being chased by a rolling boulder.

Indeed.  BCH had to make a few important changes.  First and foremost was updating their network magic, so that they would not be following the BTC chain, then they needed the EDA to compensate for the lower-than-anticipated hashrate their chain had. 

Either way, it takes two to tango.  But I'd personally still argue that BCH announced their fork prior to agreeing to change their network magic, which is why Core responded by implementing the code they did.

[franky1]

while the social dramatists continue thier meanders
core devs announced a segwit mandatory controversial split in march, the announcement set the date for august first

as for bitcoin cash. well that was announced way later..
anyway i can see the foolish tactic doomad and windfury are doing to detail the topic so far by getting people to not take about LN flaws.. but thats windfury and doomad failure

may they finally stop wasting time with their social drama meanders and instead learn about bitcoin and LN.
there is no need for them to reply about arguing why they shouldnt have to learn.
there is no need for them to reply about arguing why they shouldnt have to understand LN/bitcoin
there is no need for them to reply about arguing about me

all they should do is learn about a topic they want to reply about, use actual details stats, cod related to the topic. and if they want to meander off topic, they should just avoid the reply button altogether. if they dont like other people. they can hit the ignore button

reigning the topic back ontopic, yet again

LN does NOT require tethering to a blockchain. (research thor turbo)
the tokens in LN are not recognised by blockchain networks (research msats)
there is no community consensus so 2 private parties can make private malicious agreements(fractional reserves)
HTLC's dont settle funds they're just temporary agreements of who OWES who what, meaning iou (research CLTV vs htlc)

once you learn the flaws of LN. you start to see the stats of 'LN's growth' are not real or accurate. as shown by proving that LNBig and bitrefill done alot of sybil noding/channeling to fudge numbers

[DooMAD]

while the social dramatists continue thier meanders

You asked for words from developers and that's exactly what you got.  You then claimed the developer was wrong, but the only reason you could possibly thing Gregory Maxwell is wrong in what he said is if you lack the technical understanding to comprehend his words.  You clearly aren't in any position to comment if you cant understand why he's right.  BCH definitely changed their network magic to avoid tangling with the BTC chain, but that didn't happen right away.  Read the code.  

And if you're still banging on about UASF, that code was forked from Core's repository and may have shared some contributors with Core, but UASF is not an official Core build.  That's why it has its own repo.  As I've pointed out to you in no uncertain terms on multiple occasions.  I know that doesn't fit with your pathological need to blame Core for everything, so I'm sorry that reality can't be more accommodating for you.

[franky1]

while the social dramatists continue thier meanders

You asked for words from developers and that's exactly what you got.  You then claimed the developer was wrong, but the only reason you could possibly thing Gregory Maxwell is wrong

wind fury did not even get greg to counter the whole controversial split debate about segwit (gateway format for LN thus ontopic)which windfury said he was gonna message greg about.
greg just waffled about other stuff to do with bitcoin cash(unrelated to segwit or LN or bitcoin)
thus windfury failed

just getting greg to reply, even when his reply didnt even talk about the issue. makes gregs reply meaningless
so trying to just use the fact that greg bothered to reply is not proof in itself. its just another meaningless meander offtopic

secondly to address your flip flop about it. there was a 3 trick game at play.

you incessant attempts to first say everyone loved core, yet stats showed only 35% agrement in spring 2017
you incessant attempts to first say there was no controversy.
you incessantly say that core devs didnt write code and how it magically wrote itself and users magically just had it
you incessantly said how core are free to write whatever they like and activate what they like without permission

you incessantly attempt to say there was only one person opposition it (yea you kept acting as if im the only opposer)
you then incessantly said how its not a vote, not a consensus(more no permission waffle).
you then incessantly said how it needed users to opt-in(flopping about just the bip148 part)
you then incessantly said how its not an opt in due to compatibility.
you then incessantly said how its ok for users to ban nodes

and now you cannot deny that core fans and core devs wanted the mandatory activation first. you not even gonna counter that. but talk instead about stuff gmaxwell did not even mention (who struck first)

seriously. stop with the social meanders and flip flops. spend more time learning about bitcoin and LN

P.S need you forget your own excitement about how core devs wanted to force nodes of service bit 6 and 8 off the network BEFORE segwit even activated. or will you now flop and deny that trick tactic was used too

now can you pair of meanders go do some research.
i was talking about LN and its issues until doomad asked for proof how core devs were causing issues for bitcoin.
which doomad has been incessantly trying to make the topic about since. to avoid negative LN conversation.
windfury wanted to meander about bitcoin cash social drama.. again as an attempt to avoid talking about LN flaws
seriously you both lack the basic knowledge of LN and i see no point why you both even bother talking in LN topics.
how about instead try learning it first before replying

[greylandm]

Sorry, I am a newbie. Is that same Lighting network that has been launched on Amazon? if so - awesome, guys!

[gmaxwell]

Either way, it takes two to tango.  But I'd personally still argue that BCH announced their fork prior to agreeing to change their network magic, which is why Core responded by implementing the code they did.

uh? I can't figure out what you're talking about here. No changes were made to Bitcoin due to BCH.  BCH went from secret to done very quickly-- in something like two weeks? it wouldn't have even been possible to do much of anything in response in the available timeframe.

Maybe you're thinking of segwit2x?  We did add some code to more aggressively disconnect peers with incompatible consensus rules to reduce the risk that bitcoin nodes would end up partitioned by s2x nodes pretending to be Bitcoin nodes esp in the event that S2X never got any blocks (which was, in fact, what happened).

[Wind_FURY]

while the social dramatists continue thier meanders

You asked for words from developers and that's exactly what you got.  You then claimed the developer was wrong, but the only reason you could possibly thing Gregory Maxwell is wrong

wind fury did not even get greg to counter the whole controversial split debate about segwit (gateway format for LN thus ontopic)which windfury said he was gonna message greg about.
greg just waffled about other stuff to do with bitcoin cash(unrelated to segwit or LN or bitcoin)
thus windfury failed

just getting greg to reply, even when his reply didnt even talk about the issue. makes gregs reply meaningless
so trying to just use the fact that greg bothered to reply is not proof in itself. its just another meaningless meander offtopic

Believe what you like, but whatever misinformation, techno-babble, gaslighting dribble you repeat, there are no "IOU pegged promises to pay tokens" in Lightning. They are signed transactions by both participants of the channel that haven't been broadcasted and included in a block on-chain yet.

An IOU is something issued. There are no such issuance in Lightning. But newbies, listen to franky1, and welcome to your long hard Bitcoin journey.

[DooMAD]

Either way, it takes two to tango.  But I'd personally still argue that BCH announced their fork prior to agreeing to change their network magic, which is why Core responded by implementing the code they did.

uh? I can't figure out what you're talking about here. No changes were made to Bitcoin due to BCH.  BCH went from secret to done very quickly-- in something like two weeks? it wouldn't have even been possible to do much of anything in response in the available timeframe.

Maybe you're thinking of segwit2x?  We did add some code to more aggressively disconnect peers with incompatible consensus rules to reduce the risk that bitcoin nodes would end up partitioned by s2x nodes pretending to be Bitcoin nodes esp in the event that S2X never got any blocks (which was, in fact, what happened).

I saw reference to the Bitcoin-ABC client in pull 10982 with a post from deadalnix saying that they would be rolling out a new magic, so I naturally assumed it hadn't been done when the BCH fork was announced.  I understood that 2x was the main reason for that pull request, though.

[Wind_FURY]

1. segwits mandatory bip came first. gmax does not counter that... he just tries to talk about unrelated bitcoin cash stuff. not answering who triggered the actual mandatory bilateral/controversial split. thus even he cant counter who instigated pushing segwit into activation via the consensus bypass (controversial fork/bilateral split)

Plus franky1, when the man you quoted to claim that he has posted something and meant it one way, has said that what you made it mean like, is gibberish and that it wasn't what he was saying, then we should believe the man, not you.

That was disingenuous of you to use his words to trick us.

[franky1]

1. segwits mandatory bip came first. gmax does not counter that... he just tries to talk about unrelated bitcoin cash stuff. not answering who triggered the actual mandatory bilateral/controversial split. thus even he cant counter who instigated pushing segwit into activation via the consensus bypass (controversial fork/bilateral split)

Plus franky1, when the man you quoted to claim that he has posted something and meant it one way, has said that what you made it mean like, is gibberish and that it wasn't what he was saying, then we should believe the man, not you.

That was disingenuous of you to use his words to trick us.

you used his words. but you didnt even include a screen shot of full context conversation. he could be calling your answers the gibberish nonsense. the fact that you wrote something which is just basically saying he replied to you has no proof about the question you were trying to counter.
also if you read code, check block data and stats. you will see the clear truth. i know you love your social drama. but try to learn something about bitcoin and LN

[Wind_FURY]

1. segwits mandatory bip came first. gmax does not counter that... he just tries to talk about unrelated bitcoin cash stuff. not answering who triggered the actual mandatory bilateral/controversial split. thus even he cant counter who instigated pushing segwit into activation via the consensus bypass (controversial fork/bilateral split)

Plus franky1, when the man you quoted to claim that he has posted something and meant it one way, has said that what you made it mean like, is gibberish and that it wasn't what he was saying, then we should believe the man, not you.

That was disingenuous of you to use his words to trick us.

you used his words. but you didnt even include a screen shot of full context conversation. he could be calling your answers the gibberish nonsense. the fact that you wrote something which is just basically saying he replied to you has no proof about the question you were trying to counter.
also if you read code, check block data and stats. you will see the clear truth. i know you love your social drama. but try to learn something about bitcoin and LN

Well that doesn't change the fact that YOU were using HIS words, and that you were trying to make everyone believe that Greg Maxwell was the originator of your "bilateral split" misinformation.

To quote the man, "it's gibberish".

For context,

franky1, instead of making us read all that long, confusing dribble, please go straight to the point. Because as far as EVERYONE is concerned, Bitcoin Cash is a contentuous hard fork. Ask Peter Rizen, even he will admit that.

P.S the event of august 1st which gregmaxwell calls a bilateral split (2 sides split) was a contentious fork event. but remember the data found on the blockchain shows it was core devs code that triggered the event. as for

That is just gibbering nonsense.

Bilateral split is just referring to each side rejects the other, at one point bcash was talking about ONLY increasing the blocksize limit, which meant that bitcoin would have quickly erased its history.  They had to make additional changes to make bitcoin blocks invalid so they wouldn't follow the proof of work.  I almost certainly said something about that... but that works against his case, not for it.

"data found on the blockchain" -- I am imagining Harrison Ford being chased by a rolling boulder.