Lightning Network Observer

[BlackHatCoiner]

as for LN's lack of consensus. its funny how there are ways on LN to fix issues but you lot dont even care to admit there is issues to even want to discuss fixes..

Meanwhile: we've accepted and described the corresponded risks of doing off-chain transactions years now on every little shitty talk with franky.

have a good month. just stay on your network and stop trying to polute the bitcoin network with your subtly deceptive games to try getting people to stop supporting the bitcoin network

Had we ever put pressure on you to use lightning? No. Pretty much the opposite. We're accomplishing change, without asking you; that's the genuineness of second layer. However, I can't say the same thing about you and your ideas on a protocol level.

[1714325406]

1714325406

[1714325406]

1714325406

[1714325406]

1714325406

[1714325406]

1714325406

[n0nce]

oh angelo..
pruned node is not a full node.

When did he say that? You seem to be making stuff up sometimes..

as for LN's lack of consensus. its funny how there are ways on LN to fix issues but you lot dont even care to admit there is issues to even want to discuss fixes.. all you want is mass adoption of users to then have them lose value and you blame it on softwware

Really? That's what you're getting from these threads?
We're admitting and discussing issues all the time; as long as they're valid. There is no way for Bitcoin - on any layer - with or without network consensus - to make sure the clients are safe. So there's no point arguing about attack vectors that assume a compromised software client == access to the signing keys. That's out of scope for any wallet of any crypto, on any layer, on the face of the planet.

I'll say it again: the blockchain / network cannot make sure your client is legitimate. It has no way to magically scan your computer and make sure you don't have a backdoored or otherwise modified client.

and thats why ill continue to call them the idiot fangirls of a broken network
have a good month. just stay on your network and stop trying to polute the bitcoin network with your subtly deceptive games to try getting people to stop supporting the bitcoin network

Please, franky: 1 question. How do you envision that Bitcoin L1 ('the blockchain') protects you from downloading a 'fresh new wallet software' which works normally, but in the background fetches ~/.bitcoin/wallet.dat and uploads it to my server?

No one would ever use anything if everyone had your level of paranoia.

Well, I don't find it paranoid wanting to make sure that your wallet isn't malicious. I believe that it's everyone's duty to make sure they trust (or check) the codebase - safest thing should be Bitcoin Core - then make sure they download from an official source (not from Google, ...) and verify checksum + signature, before executing.

[franky1]

you are stuck in one delusion of trying to say a problem is the fault of something else or the problem is not what is being decribed by saying its something else..

when users make payments in any currency or any system.. a user wants security and assurance that what they get at the end of the payment is exactly what is owed to them

there are network level ways to fix a flaw where channel partners can mess around. but you are avoiding any discussion of such and instead say "its just a software issue and a fault of the user for downloading it"

in code everything is a software issue. but that does not mean there is no fix

but hey if you want to admit that funds can be abused and stolen. at the payment stage.. (and dont you dare suggest that this is the same as your wife stealing your wallet key.. you comparisons are wrong).. which is in this scenario only found out days/weeks/months later when a person finally wants to settle out and close. is a fault of the payment system

if you want to pretend that msats always convert to sats and people are guaranteed to get the msat/1000 rate of promised amount.. then ensure you have fixed the flaw which makes your guarantee false(breaks the promise)

and yes it can be fixed at network peer-2peer level. so dont just blame users software..

yes user software can trigger an abuse because there is no network security to stop it. because you fools dont wish to protect users from certain software abuses

if you cant work out the fix. then thats your problem too.. not your users

but until its fixed dont you dare pretend that LN is a network that offers a solution to bitcoin where you want to call it bitcoin 2.0 where you want to brand steal and suggest it has the same or better security level as bitcoin.. because all those claims you guys make are false

LN is not better then bitcoin

as for blackhats false narratives of trying to convince people that pruned is full
1. him trying to convince that "full node" does not require storing the block data
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5423213.msg61352831#msg61352831

2. here are 2 examples of 2 topics where they are both about wanting to be full nodes and asking about full nodes. and he comes along and promotes and advertises pruned while not really explaining why its not "full node" any longer
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5414284.msg60980561#msg60980561
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5364742.msg59800154#msg59800154

in second example he says being a full node(validate and archive) is a oxymoron where storing it is not essential or useful!! (facepalm)

3. here he is again muddying the waters by suggesting there is no real difference apart from storage space on someones pc.. totally ignoring the network effect of peer to peer security of a decentralised blockchain and also data sharing for IBD
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5374143.msg58645297#msg58645297

he promotes pruning as if its the same as full node.. forgetting that not having the blockchain is no any different. even though the whole purpose of decentralised blockchains is to have a distributed supply of nodes that have the blockchain. and also the whole network service of being a seed for more users to download from.. something pruning does not offer.. yet he does not want to acknowledge the lesser network service offering a peer offers when they are a full compared to being blackhats version of "fool" node

you guys are incredibly ignorant to the point of being malicious by not caring about others on the network(s) you say you love

responding to below

LN is not better then bitcoin

Who said that? Franky nobody wants to replace Bitcoin L1 or anything.. Don't worry!

by calling LN a bitcoin solution is suggesting LN is better.
calling LN bitcoin 2.0 is suggesting its the next gen better version of bitcoin..

both are LIES

[n0nce]

there are network level ways to fix a flaw where channel partners can mess around. but you are avoiding any discussion of such and instead say "its just a software issue and a fault of the user for downloading it"

It doesn't have to be network level, though. In Lightning, your own machine checks that nobody is messing around.
Provided of course, that your machine is safe.
If you get a malicious client, you can be exploited 'through the network' on L2, yes.
But if you install a malicious client, you can be exploited on L1, too. Not through the network, but simply by stealing private keys.

The same level of access gives the attacker the same level of power (ability to steal everything), just through a different means.
Having network checking channel states or not, makes no difference, because when you get the private keys (L1 or L2), you have full power anyway.

LN is not better then bitcoin

Who said that? Franky nobody wants to replace Bitcoin L1 or anything.. Don't worry!

[franky1]

But if you install a malicious client, you can be exploited on L1, too. Not through the network, but simply by stealing private keys.

you are not realising that the bitcoin network does many things to mitigate many "user software" attack vectors..

its funny how you only want to demonstrate bitcoin user problems that are about their local machine and their wife using the husbands computer.. and not addressing the many victors that are mitigated thanks to bitcoin network rules that stop abuse at the payment peer to peer process between users of the network

you wife or someone you know messing with data on your local machine is different to missing with the funds you thought you deserve/were getting which never actually arrived.. securely and guaranteed yours to keep as long as you have the key

..

now here a challenge for you.
put your confirmation bias aside for atleast one post reply
put your defend a buddy mantra aside while replying
put your ideolism and favour aside for one post

now imagine(stretch your mind)
ther was some side/sub network offering all the features you promote. where its unit of measure is the same promoted
    1:1000 peg rate
sat : subnetwork unit

but they said
"yea but um.. [scratches head] we cannot guarantee that when users want to convert their units back to bitcoins sats, um.. we cannot ensure that the peg is secure for users and if they find out they lost value. we want to just blame it on software..
..yea there is probably a network fix we can implement on our side to mitigate that risk. but we dont want to implement or discuss that, we will just say when it happens, that its the users fault or a malicious user."

now be honest.. would you trust that network

would you want to call that network secure enough to be a true good utility sidenetwork or stable coin for a mainnet asset or would you be questioning their ignorance of security

[BlackHatCoiner]

you wife or someone you know messing with data on your local machine is different to missing with the funds you thought you deserve/were getting which never actually arrived.. securely and guaranteed yours to keep as long as you have the key

In Bitcoin, if you lose your keys, you lose access. In Lightning, including the previous risk, if you lose the channel states you lose access. It adds risks, but it's of the same level. If you lose a specific file, you're likely to lose access. The funds arrive in an off-chain manner, I won't repeat.

1:1000 peg

Can I ask you a question, and please answer honestly, 'cause I think I'll throw up if I see this "1:1000 peg" for one more time: if lightning did NOT have millisats, and everything happened in sats (1:1), would you find a problem in that?

[franky1]

blackhat:

dont even start by talking about key control. your just evading the subject

its about the security and trust that a PAYMENT SYSTEM actualy ensures the payee gets paid what it is promised

again with bitcoin when you see value confirmed. its done. settled. complete. you can then release goods for deliver.
in LN there are just too many ways to "appear" paid but find out you have been fractioned down to a smaller amount and not know about it until its time to "close out" days, weeks, months later

and yes there is a way the network can mitigate this risk but you folks refuse to even think that the lack of security is a problem in regards to ensuring people get paid what they deserve at the time of payment

again dont turn it into a "wife stole your keys and ran off with the kids" software scenario at home pc level problem.. concentrate on the payment value promise across users within the network who do not know each other and are not accessing someones home pc with their fingers

as for your question about a side/sub network of 1:1

use of other networks where people beleive they can move bitcoin out of the network.. yes a problem, because thats not the function of the bitcoin network bitcoin never leaves the bitcoin network so stop describing LN as "bitcoin"
instead call them backed btc or wrapped or LN-BTC but just dont pretend it is bitcoin (i already applauded you recently for calling it LN-btc instead of preview months/years where you tried to lomote LN as just bitcoin)

alyways even on another networl of backed/pegged units whether its 1:1 or 1:1000 rate

EG do you trust custodians/side chains, to the same extent as:
a proper bitcoin confirmed UTXO solely available on your key with no partner/middleman control
i doubt even you can say you trust other networks and systems that much

but taking it one step further of having a unit S to unit MS where that conversion rate is not network wide protected to stay at that network preferred rate, is another level of security risk of value. its not about the rate. its about the conversion process of the rate.
so dont make it about the numbers. its about the conversion security

after all if there was a 1:1 rate. which is not as bad as LN. still has issues as a few stable coins recently learned that their rate changed without notice and lost alot of people alot of value

so its not me moaning that bitcoin sat:msat LN of should should use 1:1  
it is the enforcement of X:X stays as X:X
                               or X:YYYY stays at x:yyyy where the network ensures the rate is locked and not variable as easy as LN can be abused

where the network has ways to ensure users always swap at the network fixed rate. and the rate cannot change to x:zwbd or just x:w

summary
flaw A:
if dave and clive had a channel capacity of 0.00100000 LN-btc
where doing payments daves GUI display shows

local: 50000000
remote: 50000000

where dave doesnt get a commitment of ln-btc 0.00050000
thus cant settle/be paid to the bitcoin network 0.00050000

flaw B:
the LN network as a whole suggest network capacity of 5000 ln-btc
yet software exists that can inflate that to more then 5000 ln-btc without even needing funding lock to 'reserve' that capacity.

you lot want to cal A a user fault and B a service feature

[DooMAD]

you are not realising that the bitcoin network does many things to mitigate many "user software" attack vectors..

"Many things".    
Yeah, that's about the level of clarity we've come to expect from you.  Typical franky1 evasive fuckery.

"Many things" like what?  What specifically would prevent someone from coding a Bitcoin wallet that displayed fake transaction amounts?  Malicious software could display any value.  The rest of the network would know what the real amount was, but the malicious client can display anything the attacker tells it to.  Consensus does not and cannot fix that.  Tell me how you fix that "flaw" or STFU.

now imagine(stretch your mind)
ther was some side/sub network offering all the features you promote. where its unit of measure is the same promoted
    1:1000 peg rate
sat : subnetwork unit

but they said
"yea but um.. [scratches head] we cannot guarantee that when users want to convert their units back to bitcoins sats, um.. we cannot ensure that the peg is secure for users and if they find out they lost value. we want to just blame it on software..
..yea there is probably a network fix we can implement on our side to mitigate that risk. but we dont want to implement or discuss that, we will just say when it happens, that its the users fault or a malicious user."

now be honest.. would you trust that network

would you want to call that network secure enough to be a true good utility sidenetwork or stable coin for a mainnet asset or would you be questioning their ignorance of security

It's still arguably more secure than accepting a zero-confirmation transaction on-chain.  Can't help but notice you always leave the timeframe out of the equation.  More franky1 evasive fuckery.  Just conveniently gloss over anything that doesn't suit the narrative right?  Disingenuous scum.  

Given the choice between receiving a 0-conf on-chain and receiving an off-chain transaction, yes, I would pick off-chain.  It does involve being careful, but there's less opportunity for scammer to rip me off.  Run a "scenario" on that, shitweasel.

[franky1]

you are not realising that the bitcoin network does many things to mitigate many "user software" attack vectors..

"Many things".    
Yeah, that's about the level of clarity we've come to expect from you.  Typical franky1 evasive fuckery.

"Many things" like what?  What specifically would prevent someone from coding a Bitcoin wallet that displayed fake transaction amounts?  Malicious software could display any value.  The rest of the network would know what the real amount was, but the malicious client can display anything the attacker tells it to.  Consensus does not and cannot fix that.  Tell me how you fix that "flaw" or STFU.

the blockchain and peer to peer system .. you absolute ignorant blindman

you can check multiple sources..
open a friggen browser app and check your address from soo many sources and you will see that you got paid or not the right amount
..
in LN you cannot check you commitment/state in the phone apps if all you can see is the gui. because the commitment is not on 10,000+ peers to view elsewhere

but with bitcoin you can see you got paid by checking with multiple sources.

..
as for a fix for LN.. if you cant work it out.. thats on you guys.

i can think of a few fixes. but you lot already said you dont care to fix it. so the shit is on you

..

consensus does fix it as thats the whole friggen point of it!! its what blockchains are designed for. getting paid on a blockchain network is more secure than a "stupid-contract" network invention from pre-blockchain era.. yep contract system networks is an older idea and more broke idea than bitcoin. it was bitcoin that solved the old contract system problem. not the other way round

lightning is a "smart contract" network.. nick szabo white papered "smart contracts" before satoshi white papered bitcoin..so its OLDER and frven faultier

yep szabos idea was not "perfect money" dues to flaws even he admits to. its why nick szabos networks and ideas didnt flourish into anything by themselves in the 90's-00'


it wasnt until consensus systems solved the smart contract problem in 2009.. IF you are using a consensus system such as the decentralised blockchain network called bitcoin to make payments within the bitcoin network value is more secured...

.. but moving away from consensus systems. makes your value less secured. the less features of bitcoin security are included, the less secure value is in the silly network you adore so much

[BlackHatCoiner]

open a friggen browser app and check your address from soo many sources and you will see that you got paid or not the right amount

Correction: you trust a browser app that the address it shows has the corresponded balance.

you can check multiple sources..

You can trust multiple sources.

in LN you cannot check you commitment/state in the phone apps if all you can see is the gui. because the commitment is not on 10,000+ peers to view elsewhere

That's a feature, not a bug. What happens between two nodes stays between those two. Incidentally, it provides extra privacy.

i can think of a few fixes. but you lot already said you dont care to fix it. so the shit is on you

You can't fix something you don't understand.

[franky1]

you can check multiple sources..

You can trust multiple sources.

in LN you cannot check you commitment/state in the phone apps if all you can see is the gui. because the commitment is not on 10,000+ peers to view elsewhere

That's a feature, not a bug. What happens between two nodes stays between those two. Incidentally, it provides extra privacy.

you think you are private?

1ml.com can find your channel.. yep thats how your network finds you. with "gossip"

if you want privacy vs security. then atleast dont pretend funds are secure. admit people should be aware of the risk that to attain more privacy they lose security

[DooMAD]

you are not realising that the bitcoin network does many things to mitigate many "user software" attack vectors..

"Many things".    
Yeah, that's about the level of clarity we've come to expect from you.  Typical franky1 evasive fuckery.

"Many things" like what?  What specifically would prevent someone from coding a Bitcoin wallet that displayed fake transaction amounts?  Malicious software could display any value.  The rest of the network would know what the real amount was, but the malicious client can display anything the attacker tells it to.  Consensus does not and cannot fix that.  Tell me how you fix that "flaw" or STFU.

the blockchain and peer to peer system

According to franky1, "the blockchain and peer to peer system" does it all.  I guess we can all disable our firewalls and uninstall our antivirus, then.  

Neither the blockchain nor the peer-to-peer aspect of Bitcoin can prevent nefarious people from distributing malicious software, cretin.  I hope you get every virus on the face of the internet, lose your stash and finally come to terms with how utterly gormless you are.

you can check multiple sources..
open a friggen browser app and check your address from soo many sources and you will see that you got paid or not the right amount
..
in LN you cannot check you commitment/state in the phone apps if all you can see is the gui. because the commitment is not on 10,000+ peers to view elsewhere

but with bitcoin you can see you got paid by checking with multiple sources.

So your argument is that people can check multiple sources to look at transactions, but at the same time they're completely incapable of checking multiple sources to verify they're downloading legit software in the first place?  Yes, I'm sure that would make sense in your fractured mind.  

Any further golden nuggets of wisdom you'd care to share with us, numpty-boy?  

[BlackHatCoiner]

1ml.com can find your channel.. yep thats how your network finds you. with "gossip"

Lol. This is like "tell me you don't understand lightning without telling you don't understand lightning". 

Gossip doesn't have to do with privacy enhancement. First of all I can open a private channel with a partner, and make it invisible to gossip, but let's leave that out for a sec. The fact that the channels are visible by everyone doesn't mean the off-chain transactions are too. They are not. I can make a million transactions wherein I move sats back and fourth, and have the channels closed afterwards; you can't make some rational conclusion about to whom I sent, and how much I spent.

[franky1]

ok i get it.. you guys call payment value risk a feature.. a thing you dont want to fix..

instead you want to call out flaws of other things that are not related to payment security(payee gets whats promised) and instead shout about viruses that can mess around with peoples devices.. that are in your minds just user error

you lot have no clue about a "good money system" which should have rules to mitigate risks of people losing value WHEN MAKING PAYMENTS on the network

but you dont want to have features that ensure people get what they deserve.. so go continue living in your broken network.. just dont try calling it bitcoin as if its better then bitcoin
dont tarnish bitcoins name and better security. by pretending LN is better than bitcoin.

atleast have some morals and ethics to disclose to people how LN is different and people need to be MORE risk aware when using LN

much the same as making people risk aware of the differences between using custodians or sidechains which can mess with a users ability to get confirmed value they deserve back on the bitcoin network

if you think privacy is more important than value security.. that on you.
just inform people of the risks. and stop your utopian sales pitches.

responding to below
it is not wrong. but you want to call them flaws of monetary security system a feature of privacy.

basically you are saying you want people to get screwed over and have no proof of being screwed outside hearsay games of those doing the screwing and being screwed.. so you can just brush under the carpet.

you have no morals or ethics about running a good monetary system that can be fixed to protect users in multiple ways

[BlackHatCoiner]

Just admit for once that you were wrong...

[DooMAD]

but you dont want to have features that ensure people get what they deserve.. so go continue living in your broken network.. just dont try calling it bitcoin as if its better then bitcoin
dont tarnish bitcoins name and better security. by pretending LN is better than bitcoin.

LN is not better than Bitcoin if time is not an issue.  However, LN is better than accepting zero-confirmation transactions.  Your earlier remarks about "checking multiple sources" cannot make 0-conf more secure.  Even a total fuckwit like you has to be able to comprehend that.  Although I'm sure you'll try (and fail) to argue the point anyway.

atleast have some morals and ethics

Said the morally bereft sociopath.

[franky1]

but you dont want to have features that ensure people get what they deserve.. so go continue living in your broken network.. just dont try calling it bitcoin as if its better then bitcoin
dont tarnish bitcoins name and better security. by pretending LN is better than bitcoin.

LN is not better than Bitcoin if time is not an issue.  However, LN is better than accepting zero-confirmation transactions.  Your earlier remarks about "checking multiple sources" cannot make 0-conf more secure.  

bitcoins relay network does it all the time. if a tx is trying to spend a UTXO that does not exist they wont relay it on. meaning it wont sit in mempools and wont get confirmed. thus users can see its a duff TX quickly
(unlike the thor turbo flaw that allows msat to exist without funding)
as for the payment amount flaw in LN (conversion rate)

in bitcoin
if users are expecting to get 0.001btc and they see that an tx is
confirmed utxo 0.002-> user 0.001
                                    change 0.001
boom they got paid.. end of story. no question. its done

thats a check in of itself, which other peers also get and can check, which you can check against in many ways. and.. when its in a block confirmed. you know you got paid. your not waiting/worried/concerned for weeks/months of broken promise. its just done complete

and ofcourse there is the check of RBF is in play. which users can be risk aware if it is. aswell as the fee they can check to ensure it has a chance of being added to be confirmed soon..

..unlike LN's msat onion payment and hidden under the GUI crap of the conversion rates that cannot currently in your broken system be checked and guarantee to convert at the presumed rate.. where LN has no sanity checks on states/commitments anywhere outside the channel unless you close channel to receive loses and find out you lost.. in your current broke system

[cAPSLOCK]

I am sad to announce that one of the oldest lightning network nodes to exist is going to be shut down permanently.  (well unless I change my mind.  I still have the details needed to spin it back up. Wink )

Deej...  A node way more than 3 years old...  A child of one of the first 200 nodes on the LN.

Foolishly run on a raspberry pi.  On a single hard drive.  The hard drive failed.  I was running DEEJ (LND) and it's sister node JEED (CL) on the same setup.  Deej was difficult to recover, but Jeed was much more resilient.  This has made me realize that the Blockstream implementation is superior to the LND one.  As it turns out there are many other ways this is true.  Like Bolt 12.

Anyway... I will keep JEED running, and might toss a few more BTC at it... but the venerable DEEJ is being completely shut down...

Long live the king.

https://1ml.com/node/02a0bcc2b99673587d4a92028a2b2ce709b72c904962e2f783fd480c2c41e3dc7d

https://1ml.com/node/03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e

*EDIT* Remove rude words to our troll lol**

[fillippone]

A good thread of LN_Capital, on how to run a successful LN node:




There are a few good hints at being a successful node operato and few other tips across the various posts.

[fillippone]

Yet another good resource for the Future Professional Lightning Node Operator:

Plebnet

Hopefully this can be a guide for people wondering where to start, and what really is plebnet? First, plebnet, this crazy awesome community, was started by a group of selfless, generous plebs working together to onboard people to the bitcoin lightning network! Constantly evolving, the goal remains: bring people together to understand and support the lightning network, learn from each other the basics of running a node or using a lightning wallet, and bridge the gap that remains between the tech/cyber world and the everyday user.

A good overview of resources from LN node operators made for LN node operators.