Lightning Network Observer

[fillippone]

There I see a massive role for Lighting Netowrk. The sole contender for a trustless, fast and cheap way of exchanging micropayments over the internet.

When we will use an AI to generate an image, the micropayment from this AI to the one providing animation of the above image. Will be done autonomously via LN.. or the payment to publish it online, or to add a soundtrack: all powered by LN

there are many subnetworks.. and LN is not the one with the larget liquidity so its not the sole contender
if you ever want to dare challenge yourself to learn about LN you will learn that it is not trustless

much like people cant trust unconfirmed bitcoin transactions until settled. you shouldnt trust unsettled LN balance
so LN is not trustless
why do you think even the main LN devs are resorting to centralised hubs and watchtowers and factory nodes for channel creation..

stop selling the snake oil utopian dream and instead atleast try to learn what LN is and does, especially what it doesnt do

Regarding your points, you are right about the trustlessness part of my earlier statement.
Regarding the usage of centralised nodes and liquidity hubs, that is convenience, and nothing implied at protocol level. Of course there is space for improvement.
Instead I am interested on your first statement, regarding other subnetwork with more liquidity. Which are you referring to in particular? Liquid maybe?

[1714280400]

1714280400

[1714280400]

1714280400

[1714280400]

1714280400

[TrustedBitcoiner]

After reading a little bit about Liquid and Wrapped bitcoin, i like the idea. it seems like a totally viable Layer2 solution, ofc there are trade offs it is a layer 2 after all, but seems legit. LN gets the spotlight as THE scaling solution, but i think franky1 is right there are other promising alternative scaling solutions. with fees on L1 growing rapidly i suspect these L2 will get alot more action in the coming year. Maybe in the furutre poeple wont be so conserned about which shitcoins to buy but rather which L2 network to store BTC into.

[franky1]

isnt it interesting that when talking about the multitude of subnetworks.. many people just want to know, discuss, mention LN and liquid.. both being products of blockstream

blockstream founded by core devs and funded using HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars to create the gateway(segwit)keys into those particular subnetworks. by which the same devs sponsored to spend years creating the subnetworks and altering bitcoin to add features purely to be used as access keys to those subnetworks to benefit features of those subnetworks.. meanwhile for years ignoring the communities desires for onchain scaling and onchain mitigation of spam and junk

now ask yourself why have core devs done nothing to mitigate spam and junk on bitcoin for years... by either preventing or independently penalising those spammers/junkers.. why instead prefer the whole community get penalised or transact less on bitcoin to instead promote they should use another network
seems to me these devs are no longer bitcoin devs and instead sponsored subnetwork devs..
 
now the next question. follow the money. then you see whom is behind all the shinanigans and who is ripe to receive all the ROI via the middle men routing payment fee's.. to reimburse them for their initial blockstream investment.. well thats if they can promote and populate their subnetwork enough to make it worthy of an ROI

meanwhile other people that just got annoyed by the blockstream roadmap and ejected from proposing idea's that differ from the roadmap, decided to make other subnetworks

and now many people are wising up to the fact that LN/liquids promises are breaking. or never flourished.. are starting to use/create other subnetworks

now if anyone is stil promoting LN as utopian "the solution", you are obviously reiterating a sales pitch of empty promises made 6 years ago. its time you moved forward from those archaic words

[TrustedBitcoiner]

isnt it interesting that when talking about the multitude of subnetworks.. many people just want to know, discuss, mention LN and liquid.. both being products of blockstream

blockstream founded by core devs and funded using HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars to create the gateway(segwit)keys into those particular subnetworks. by which the same devs sponsored to spend years creating the subnetworks and altering bitcoin to add features purely to be used as access keys to those subnetworks to benefit features of those subnetworks.. meanwhile for years ignoring the communities desires for onchain scaling and onchain mitigation of spam and junk

now ask yourself why have core devs done nothing to mitigate spam and junk on bitcoin for years... by either preventing or independently penalising those spammers/junkers.. why instead prefer the whole community get penalised or transact less on bitcoin to instead promote they should use another network
seems to me these devs are no longer bitcoin devs and instead sponsored subnetwork devs..
 
now the next question. follow the money. then you see whom is behind all the shinanigans and who is ripe to receive all the ROI via the middle men routing payment fee's.. to reimburse them for their initial blockstream investment.. well thats if they can promote and populate their subnetwork enough to make it worthy of an ROI

meanwhile other people that just got annoyed by the blockstream roadmap and ejected from proposing idea's that differ from the roadmap, decided to make other subnetworks

and now many people are wising up to the fact that LN/liquids promises are breaking. or never flourished.. are starting to use/create other subnetworks

now if anyone is stil promoting LN as utopian "the solution", you are obviously reiterating a sales pitch of empty promises made 6 years ago. its time you moved forward from those archaic words

I agree not enough focus has been placed on layer1 scaling and that is probably for the benefit of Layer2. but imo establishing early on that layer1 isn't meant for micro transaction, isn’t the worst thing.
but...
what are these other subnetworks besides LN/Liquid?
are you refering to altcoins?

[franky1]

I agree not enough focus has been placed on layer1 scaling and that is probably for the benefit of Layer2. but imo establishing early on that layer1 isn't meant for micro transaction, isn’t the worst thing.

yet the same devs shouting bitcoin should not be used by unbanked, small payments are perfectly fine with scammers moving a single sat to scam idiots for $200k with added pixel junk in metadata.. strange huh

funny to hear idiots shouting bitcoin should not be used for cupcakes or pizza (0.00005-0.0005) but if someone wants to move 0.00001001 they are told they can and should not be stopped as its "censorship"

and how the junk and spam should continue on bitcoin and how the genuine goods and services should be done on subnetworks

and no im not talking about altcoins.
SUB NETWORKS vs altcoins are 2 different things

im not a fan of any current lineup of subnetworks because they all miss key security features thus should not be the "solutions". they all break promises and are mostly hype..  i was just suggesting that LN is not the solution, nor even the top capacity subnetwork
there will new other subnetworks that fill niches for certain activities(once devs learn from mistakes) but none should be the offramp where everyone should use, instead of or to avoid using bitcoin

and sorry to even inform this topic. but LN has had its day..
its far better people learn from LN mistakes and start afresh to make a better subnetwork without the flaws, and with a proper goal of what niche subgroup of people they want to populate it

trying to be a be-all do-all network but never achieve its promises. will never work
trying to kick the LN tin can down the path hoping it will fix itself will just end up putting more dings and dents into it

[TrustedBitcoiner]

im not a fan of any current lineup of subnetworks because they all miss key security features thus should not be the "solutions". they all break promises and are mostly hype..  i was just suggesting that LN is not the solution, nor even the top capacity subnetwork
there will new other subnetworks that fill niches for certain activities(once devs learn from mistakes) but none should be the offramp where everyone should use, instead of or to avoid using bitcoin

maybe you are overly critical of these subnetworks and LN, they don't need to provide the same level of security bitcoin itself provides. and what SHOULD BE doesn't really matter, regardless of how you feel about it, the masses might never understand or benefit from Bitcoin layer 1. they might all be offramped into a Layer 2 that isn't permissionless, requires middle men to work properly, etc...And "THEY" will have watchtowers watching over everyones transactions with government mandates imposing spending limits for various goods. "they" will have won!

will your head explode when that day comes?
are you going to be OK?
 

wow that got dark.

lmao good day dude love your contrabutions to the fourm.

[franky1]

i got no problems with functional subnetworks that meet promises for certain niches..
but the empty broken promises being sold as 'the utopian solution everyone should use'.. just tarnishes bitcoins reputation by association, because when people do use these snake oil sales pitched stuff, they have bad experiences and they wrongly think their experience is of "bitcoin"

el salvador in 2021 said they wanted to get into bitcoin. but were schemed into using LN as the backbone of payment processing in september 2021.. and by december 2021 el salvador experienced the lies and empty promises and all the flaws.. they dropped using LN
they now use a CEX as the payment processor and account balance custodian

and yet years later idiots still promote LN as the thing el salvador use and pretend LN is used by most people trying to move funds offchain. when in reality there are millions of people prefering CEX and stable coins and other bridge subnetworks

i have no mental implosions when i see how the LN affiliates, promoters and corporations operate.. i just feel pitty for the victims and just face palm the idiots promoting LN using old-outdated sales pitches

my only wish is that devs actually stop ass kissing each other as gods. and instead ass kick each other into actually innovating

[JayJuanGee]

isnt it interesting that when talking about the multitude of subnetworks.. many people just want to know, discuss, mention LN and liquid.. both being products of blockstream

When you start out with such ridiculous, then it can be quite difficult to go along with some of your other points, even though some of them may well be valid.

I am pretty sure that liquid was developed by blockstream, but not lightning network, even if blockstream is involved in lightning network in a variety of ways and even though blockstream did back segwit, which apparently made lightning network easier to introduce as a bitcoin second layer solution.

im not a fan of any current lineup of subnetworks because they all miss key security features thus should not be the "solutions". they all break promises and are mostly hype..  i was just suggesting that LN is not the solution, nor even the top capacity subnetwork
there will new other subnetworks that fill niches for certain activities(once devs learn from mistakes) but none should be the offramp where everyone should use, instead of or to avoid using bitcoin

maybe you are overly critical of these subnetworks and LN,

Yeah.. what else is new.  Franky1 is already known for being both a segwit and a LN party poop, and it had been kind of ambiguous about his big blocker promotional status, even though he claims to be an "independent thinker" but he gets into a lot of trouble regarding his repeatedly spreading misleading information about some of the technical aspects of bitcoin, and not seeming to want to account for points made by others - including even repeating some of the suggestions that LN is being promoted as if it were the same as bitcoin, which we know that it is a different tool in the shed that may well be used for different purposes, even though surely not any kind of perfect tool.

they don't need to provide the same level of security bitcoin itself provides. and what SHOULD BE doesn't really matter, regardless of how you feel about it, the masses might never understand or benefit from Bitcoin layer 1. they might all be offramped into a Layer 2 that isn't permissionless, requires middle men to work properly, etc...And "THEY" will have watchtowers watching over everyones transactions with government mandates imposing spending limits for various goods. "they" will have won!

Some of us are likely just getting used to using lighting network, even though it has been running for nearly 7 years (in January is the b-day of its going live)... so yeah, there are some user-friendly (or lack thereof) aspects to lightning network, and so far I have ONLY some limited exposure to it myself... . and maybe I should have had posted my question about my Breez wallet here (here's a link to the other LN thread for my Breez wallet question).

[franky1]

funny part is i was calling out the segwit flaws in 2016.. and look what happened JUNK

secondly. legacy(old) nodes wont benefit from it. also old nodes will have more issues to contend with. such as seeing 'funky' transactions. aswell as still not being able to trust unconfirmed transactions due to RBF and CPFP.
..
fifthly, the 4mb weight. is only going to be filled with 1.8mb tx +witness data. leaving 2.2mb unused. but guess what. people will use it by filling it with arbitrary data. such as writing messages, adverts, even writing a book into the blockchain. what should have been done was allow 2mb base thus needing ~3.6mb weight.. and also adding a rule that 'messages' could not be added. thus keeping the blockchain lean and utilised just for transactions and not novels/adverts/messages. afterall if a communication tool like twitter or SMS can limit how much someone writes.. then so should bitcoin.
we will definetly see people purposefully bloating up the blockchain with passages of mobydick or over nonsense. and core have done nothing to stop it but done everything to allow it.

sixthly, as i slightly hinted before. by not limiting sigops, not preventing arbitrary data being added, core have incentivised bloating by discounting it. but have then added the fee's to reduce bitcoins utility of an actual transaction ledger..
this has to be emphasized over and over.. adding bloat is discounted(free) but sending a real transaction is costly

LN has bottlenecks and flaws that then require watchtowers and custodian hubs.. and look whats happening, majority of LN nodes are centralised custodian hubs

you may not like that i dont ass kiss things.. but there are too many ass kissers already. other people actually want to learn how things actually work and not just be told the utopian sales pitch of ass kissery dreamers

i sorry if im ruining anyones opportunity to syphon money from victims of these flaws, but im more sorry for the victims getting fund syphoned from folk that care more about greed than a payment system thats secure

[TrustedBitcoiner]

they don't need to provide the same level of security bitcoin itself provides. and what SHOULD BE doesn't really matter, regardless of how you feel about it, the masses might never understand or benefit from Bitcoin layer 1. they might all be offramped into a Layer 2 that isn't permissionless, requires middle men to work properly, etc...And "THEY" will have watchtowers watching over everyones transactions with government mandates imposing spending limits for various goods. "they" will have won!

Some of us are likely just getting used to using lighting network, even though it has been running for nearly 7 years (in January is the b-day of its going live)... so yeah, there are some user-friendly (or lack thereof) aspects to lightning network, and so far I have ONLY some limited exposure to it myself... . and maybe I should have had posted my question about my Breez wallet here (here's a link to the other LN thread for my Breez wallet question).

sounds like you havn't been franked yet. go back and read frankys posts. the root of your problem with Breez walllet is that its build on a network with fundmental flaws.

[franky1]

they don't need to provide the same level of security bitcoin itself provides. and what SHOULD BE doesn't really matter, regardless of how you feel about it, the masses might never understand or benefit from Bitcoin layer 1. they might all be offramped into a Layer 2 that isn't permissionless, requires middle men to work properly, etc...And "THEY" will have watchtowers watching over everyones transactions with government mandates imposing spending limits for various goods. "they" will have won!

Some of us are likely just getting used to using lighting network, even though it has been running for nearly 7 years (in January is the b-day of its going live)... so yeah, there are some user-friendly (or lack thereof) aspects to lightning network, and so far I have ONLY some limited exposure to it myself... . and maybe I should have had posted my question about my Breez wallet here (here's a link to the other LN thread for my Breez wallet question).

sounds like you havn't been franked yet. go back and read frankys posts. the root of your problem with Breez walllet is that its build on a network with fundmental flaws.

problem is he didnt use a self custody node, but used a mobile wallet that is managed from a central server, terms of which would close inactive channels
in short to avoid having to lose value paying closing sessions you need to continually spend value through the service.. catch 22

[JayJuanGee]

funny part is i was calling out the segwit flaws in 2016.. and look what happened JUNK

secondly. legacy(old) nodes wont benefit from it. also old nodes will have more issues to contend with. such as seeing 'funky' transactions. aswell as still not being able to trust unconfirmed transactions due to RBF and CPFP.
..
fifthly, the 4mb weight. is only going to be filled with 1.8mb tx +witness data. leaving 2.2mb unused. but guess what. people will use it by filling it with arbitrary data. such as writing messages, adverts, even writing a book into the blockchain. what should have been done was allow 2mb base thus needing ~3.6mb weight.. and also adding a rule that 'messages' could not be added. thus keeping the blockchain lean and utilised just for transactions and not novels/adverts/messages. afterall if a communication tool like twitter or SMS can limit how much someone writes.. then so should bitcoin.
we will definetly see people purposefully bloating up the blockchain with passages of mobydick or over nonsense. and core have done nothing to stop it but done everything to allow it.

sixthly, as i slightly hinted before. by not limiting sigops, not preventing arbitrary data being added, core have incentivised bloating by discounting it. but have then added the fee's to reduce bitcoins utility of an actual transaction ledger..
this has to be emphasized over and over.. adding bloat is discounted(free) but sending a real transaction is costly

LN has bottlenecks and flaws that then require watchtowers and custodian hubs.. and look whats happening, majority of LN nodes are centralised custodian hubs

you may not like that i dont ass kiss things.. but there are too many ass kissers already. people actually want to learn how things actually work and not just be told the utopian sales pitch

i sorry if im ruining anyones opportunity to syphon money from victims of these flaws, but im more sorry for the victims getting fund syphoned from folk that care more about greed than a payment system thats secure

I doubt that your sticking to the same complaints makes you any kind of a genius. I am thinking that you probably have not even tried anything related to lightning network?  such as running a node or using any of the lightning network wallets?  My own experiences still are pretty limited, but I try to follow some of the lightning network happenings, to the extent that I understand matters.. sometimes it can be more difficult to follow some of the discussion if you are not using some of the systems that are being discussed..

they don't need to provide the same level of security bitcoin itself provides. and what SHOULD BE doesn't really matter, regardless of how you feel about it, the masses might never understand or benefit from Bitcoin layer 1. they might all be offramped into a Layer 2 that isn't permissionless, requires middle men to work properly, etc...And "THEY" will have watchtowers watching over everyones transactions with government mandates imposing spending limits for various goods. "they" will have won!

Some of us are likely just getting used to using lighting network, even though it has been running for nearly 7 years (in January is the b-day of its going live)... so yeah, there are some user-friendly (or lack thereof) aspects to lightning network, and so far I have ONLY some limited exposure to it myself... . and maybe I should have had posted my question about my Breez wallet here (here's a link to the other LN thread for my Breez wallet question).

sounds like you havn't been franked yet.

Thank god for that.

go back and read frankys posts.

Are you trying to torture me?

the root of your problem with Breez walllet is that its build on a network with fundmental flaws.

Could be.  At some point, I might recharge it with additional funds, yet right now I am using Phoenix for my quasi-self-custody lightning network wallet.

[franky1]

i have many opinions about many things.. i dont just suck up to one groups roadmap.. and just echo their hymns of heaven
by you using the same buzzwords as a group makes me think you are not independent at all, well occasionally you try, but then backtrack

i called you out on this ages ago. but you keep sinking back into the hole again

maybe instead of falling into traps, you start to learn about things first. then use it with nonsense small amounts to test the risk.. instead of falling flat into a trap and then suffering the consequences of trying to dig yourself out

this is why people dont want the suck-up utopian sales pitch but do want  the scrutiny included critique so that people can actually learn the limits before the limits hit them in the face

i know your accustom to only reading ass kissery friendly posts from others, who will dupe you into crazy things. and your shocked at my approach so want to plead ignorance of what i write and just claim it must be misleading if you are hearing 12x other voices swaying you into traps

as for you pretending i dont know what im talking about. .. i know a heck of alot more then you do. because i do my research

heck i was telling people that most LN close sessions are 2 payments.. but you had to learn the hard way,
maybe next time dont just jump into the newest fad without realising what its going to cost you in the long run. do some research

part of lightning observer is to look into and research and watching it.. not just jumping into the newest hyped service and then paying the entry/exit fee's and losing out

[JayJuanGee]

i have many opinions about many things.. i dont just suck up to one groups roadmap..

Stop trying to act like you are the ONLY person who thinks for himself.

and just echo their hymns of heaven
by you using the same buzzwords as a group makes me think you are not independent at all, well occasionally you try, but then backtrack

I doubt that I am claiming myself to be any kind of completely unique thinker, but I do claim that I attempt to do my best to engage in critical thinking.. and as we are growing up and learning new things or even learning areas in which we do not have expertise, then there seems to be some value in attempting to build off of the work and the ideas of others.. and yeah, there still can be some levels of independent thinking while still building off the work of others.

i called you out on this ages ago. but you keep sinking back into the hole again

You are being patronizing... and also many times, you have your own faults in your own thinking.

maybe instead of falling into traps, you start to learn about things first. then use it with nonsense small amounts to test the risk.. instead of falling flat into a trap and then suffering the consequences of trying to dig yourself out

People learn within their own experiences, and I cannot see myself asking for your advice in this direction.

this is why people dont want the suck-up utopian sales pitch but do want  the scrutiny included critique so that people can actually learn the limits before the limits hit them in the face

Yes.. According to your own rendition, you have been preaching the death of lightning network before it even launched.  Even though you are proclaiming that we are heading into dangerous territories of over-reliance upon LN, right now there does not seem to be such over-reliance, and there also seems to be abilities to scaling type solutions on other second and third layers to compete with lightning network and some of them already exist and/or are being proposed.  I don't really claim to know which things are going to survive or not.. whether we are talking bitcoin itself and/or various kinds of layers built upon bitcoin, and I don't even claim to know the extent to which shitcoins might get absorbed into bitcoin and/or pegged upon bitcoin, even though sometimes I might have some opinions about these various matters.

i know your accustom to only reading ass kissery friendly posts from others,

I am used to reading a variety of information, and sure some of it is better organized and presents better information than others.

who will dupe you into crazy things.

Yes.. Hopefully, I am not getting duped too much, but sure, it is likely that at various points I am going to come to wrong conclusions because I am not able to sort out the good information from the bad or to be able to realize some points in times that I am being mislead.. and other times, as we both seem to be suggesting (and even mentioned) if some of us might not know about the topic, then we might not realize the difference between good and bad information.

and your shocked at my approach so want to plead ignorance of what i write and just claim it must be misleading if you are hearing 12x other voices swaying you into traps

I doubt that I am shocked; however, sometimes I conclude that you are full of shit, and I doubt that anyone is telling me that.  I am concluding it on my own.. yeah I cannot be completely sure that I am not biased in my having had come to those kinds of conclusions... but yeah, you so frequently are suggesting that you have superior knowledge to others, which is frequently not true... maybe not always... maybe sometimes you are correct, but I doubt that your track record of being correct is as great as you are proclaiming it to be... Perhaps you also need to take eat some humble pie from time to time?

as for you pretending i dont know what im talking about. .. i know a heck of alot more then you do. because i do my research

Sure there are areas in which you know more than me and maybe even a heck of a lot more than me, but surely you do not know a lot more than me in all areas.. and it probably is not even a good look or a good way of presenting to be proclaiming that you are smarter than everyone else, whether referring to me or anyone else.  But hey, whatever.. you do what you like.. and this is not even really seeming to be very much on topic... Maybe i know more than you about methods to attempt to stay on topic?  Ever thought about that?

heck i was telling people that most LN close sessions are 2 payments.. but you had to learn the hard way,

I doubt that I am suffering as much as you proclaim that I am, merely because I had to spend some sats in order for the channel to close and also in order to transfer my BTC from one onchain wallet to another after it had closed.  So yeah, I lost some sats, and I lost some time dealing with those matters, including writing a post about it.  I am still going to keep using those products, probably my Phoenix wallet has similar kinds of vulnerabilities as the Breez wallet, and I had been thinking that I wanted to have a couple of different ways to transact, but if I am not using them enough then maybe the channels are more vulnerable to getting closed on me.  I am not sure, but I am still going to continue to experiment with those kinds of things because I think that it remains good to try to keep learning with various bitcoin-related tools that are available.

maybe next time dont just jump into the newest fad without realising what its going to cost you in the long run. do some research

I doubt that I just jumped into using lightning network, and even my first lighting wallet was around June or July 2021 with Bluewallet as a third-party custodial wallet, and so I was less informed about that wallet, but I jumped into using it.. which surely that was about 4.5 years after Lighting network had already been operating... I had also been considering running a lighting node, but I have not gotten around to it, and I started out by running a couple of bitcoin core nodes first.. or nodes that are using the bitcoin core software, but I  don't have too many clues about how to use it yet.. except that it is just running on a couple of my computers... but I was thinking about venturing into some other lightning network node possibilities that include something like the Embassy Start 9 products, but I also travel quite a bit so sometimes it might not be very practical for me to set some of these kinds of things in one location and then maybe having to access them remotely...

So yeah each of us have our limitations and make our choices in regards to what to jump into and not and how much research that we want to do or how much we need to do.  When it comes to bitcoin, I frequently have the opposite advice as you, which is get the fuck started as soon as possible and figure it out as you go... and so it is not always a good idea to overly research something rather than getting started and learning through being involved...so you can claim to be smarter than everyone else and to have the best approaches, but there are also different strokes for different folks, including but not limited to various ways of learning through actions rather than "research," even though each of them can have their places.

part of lightning observer is to look into and research and watching it.. not just jumping into the newest hyped service and then paying the entry/exit fee's and losing out

Part of the lightning observer is also meant to be open for all levels, and not meant to devolve into too many technicals.  So sure, there can be advantages to learning some technicals along the way, but I doubt that this particular thread was meant to be restricted towards folks having to research before they act or even watching before they act.  So you seem to be just making shit up when you are describing the supposed purpose of this thread in terms of researching and watching, even though researching and watching is part of what can be done in connection with the participation in this thread.

[franky1]

the reason i say you and others sound like a particular muppet group is that you all use certain buzzwords and not understand what you are saying

for instance without even thinking you want to pidgeon hole me into "big blocker" group..
a buzzword of 6 years ago that is meaningless and you still are trying to use the term without understanding the whole thing

scaling bitcoin is not about the stupid misdirect trolling of "gigabytes/visa by month x"
yet you are stuck into that rhetoric of "big blocker" where idiots then chim in about "visa" and "gigabyte blocks"

i never even said over reliance of LN.. i said the opposite. i said no one is really using it and they shouldnt because its flawed. however there are idiots years later still promoting it as if its the only solution people should rely on.. which is them saying people should be reliant on LN to solve the bitcoin scaling delays

you would know the difference if you researched more instead of just repeating the same dumb idea's of other trolls over the last 6 year that dont want bitcoin to scale and instead want to claim middle men fee's via other networks

learn who you are getting your words from and understand what they are saying beyond the fluffy advert style scripts you read from them

i dont proclaim/suggest to have superior knowledge. i just dont claim to want to jump ignorantly into things and sort out the mess after falling into traps
EG you after now using multiple LN wallets you still did not even read the basic terms of non-active time of using a channel

would you ever open a bank account if it told you it would cost you $45 to close the account and they auto close the account if you dont use the account for 45 days... no? well most people do look into the details of accounts they want to store funds into.
most people dont actually just throw money at a stranger and say "just do it and ill sort out the mess afterwards"

you thinking people should just throw funds at strangers and then suffer the consequences after is not a good way of operating... but im not shocked that you and others like you that adore and use LN have such mindsets of carelessness and lack of security/precaution

and lastly...
LN is not a sole feature belonging to bitcoin alone. LN is its own network that can and has and does function with many blockchains. so when you state its a bitcoin layer.. you are trying to brand tag it as if its a feature solely for bitcoin.
also to steal fame from bitcoin calling it a solution to bitcoins woes.. thus ruining bitcoins reputation just to fame up LN

LN is not bitcoin. bitcoin never leaves the bitcoin network. bicoin does not understand Msats
yet LN can doublespend/fractional reserve or just create temp channels full of msat..
notice the difference between bitcoin vs LN

it doesnt function the way bitcoin does and when LN fails its promises to uses, people end up thinking bitcoin is the cause of their bad experience(research el salvador protests septembe2021-december 2021)

..
and before hitting the reply button..
please dont sound like the muppet kingdom of "lets talk about and insult franky. he says flaws so lets ignore frankys discussions of flaws and just say he is wrong.. and lets pretend there are no flaws and pretend its just franky saying bad words so we must ignore/insult franky"
(typical childish tactics i seen hundreds of times by the same dozen muppets)

how about grow some maturity and learn about the silly stuff you get involved in which you have had bad experiences of yourself.. and actually learn that there are flaws.. and stop trying to sound like LN is a solution and that its utopian dream of perfection to solve bitcoin issues

its about LN flaws not about franky..

[JayJuanGee]

the reason i say you and others sound like a particular muppet group is that you all use certain buzzwords and not understand what you are saying

for instance without even thinking you want to pidgeon hole me into "big blocker" group..
a buzzword of 6 years ago that is meaningless and you still are trying to use the term without understanding the whole thing

Pardon me for my ignorance, but I was verbally battling the anti-segwitters and the bigblockers during a lot of that 2017, 2018 time period and some of those same ideas persist, and yeah you have many times asserted that you are against segwit, and also you seem to be also against lightning network for similar reasons, so sorry I don't know you well enough to study the specifics of your various arguments, or even remember what you or anyone else said in the last 6-7 years of these kinds of talking points, including the extent to which your own arguments may possibly have some variance from the BIG Blockers, and the ones claiming that blockstream is in charge of bitcoin blah blah blah.. which you just said a few posts back.  

scaling bitcoin is not about the stupid misdirect trolling of "gigabytes/visa by month x"
yet you are stuck into that rhetoric of "big blocker" where idiots then chim in about "visa" and "gigabyte blocks"

I don't know about that.  I was here trying to talk about various aspects of lightning network, and I don't claim to have experiences with all aspect of everything else whether it is bashing big blockers or otherwise.

i never even said over reliance of LN.. i said the opposite. i said no one is really using it and they shouldnt because its flawed. however there are idiots years later still promoting it as if its the only solution people should rely on.. which is them saying people should be reliant on LN to solve the bitcoin scaling delays

Well, I am ONLY trying to use various systems that seem to be available.  Sure, I can send payments onchain, but it does not seem feasible to send payments of less than $500 to $1k, if the minimum fees are going to be in the $20 to $50 range, but there could be fluctuations, and sometimes it is a bit less urgent to receive when sending to yourself or someone who is trusting that you are going to send the payment or even some situation in which the merchandise or service is not going to be sent until the fee is received but there might not be any kind of strict timeline in terms of when the payment is received as long as the payment is received within a reasonable time, such as within a week or two....

I remember one time in late 2017, sending 2 or 3 payments to a friend (online) who I was trying to introduce to bitcoin, and after about a month waiting for the payment to go through, I was considering other options, and then the payments went through.

I think that some of the systems are better than they were in 2017 for monitoring how much fees to use or even replace by fee and/or coin control, but it still does not cause difficulties in terms of sometimes trying to send for less fees, but if the fees go up from there, then the transaction might end up getting stuck for a long time.  Maybe we are just going through some temporary blockages of onchain transactions in terms of fees, and there surely might be some times in which lower value transactions are intended to be sent, but they might not be practical to do online, and really do you have some kind of solution?  maybe should be putting this on you, rather than my rambling through various solutions that I consider..

I actually did try to send some lightning transactions in recent times, and if a person is just setting up a lighting channel, it may well cost higher fees, but once the channel is set up, then it should be working fine as long as the channel does not get forced closed, as seems to be what happened to my Breez wallet (channel) from a few weeks ago.  I just looked at my Breez wallet, and it appears that right now they charge around 25,000 sats plus around a 1% for set up fees (maybe around $11 or so minimum), and the Phoenix wallet is close to double that based on current on chain mempool fees and back up, yet my phoenix is already working and set up, but if someone is going to set up a new phoenix wallet it would cost around $20 minimum to set up a channel  I agree that those kinds of fees can add up and yeah, other people, besides me, complain about their forced channel closures that might end up causing more fees to set up again. or maybe just to abandon if it is not being used enough to justify setting it up again..

you would know the difference if you researched more instead of just repeating the same dumb idea's of other trolls over the last 6 year that dont want bitcoin to scale and instead want to claim middle men fee's via other networks

learn who you are getting your words from and understand what they are saying beyond the fluffy advert style scripts you read from them

i dont proclaim/suggest to have superior knowledge. i just dont claim to want to jump ignorantly into things and sort out the mess after falling into traps
EG you after now using multiple LN wallets you still did not even read the basic terms of non-active time of using a channel

would you ever open a bank account if it told you it would cost you $45 to close the account and they auto close the account if you dont use the account for 45 days... no? well most people do look into the details of accounts they want to store funds into.
most people dont actually just throw money at a stranger and say "just do it and ill sort out the mess afterwards"

Well, you could be correct that I end up figuring out some of the costs (or the extra costs) along the way, yet it seems to me that interacting with systems are good ways to learn, and with the bitcoin and lightning system it cost money to transact with it, especially these days, and if we are thinking that bitcoin and lightning are broken, then are you proposing any solutions? Get rid of segwit and go back to on-chain transactions, including increasing the block size?  or something else?

you thinking people should just throw funds at strangers and then suffer the consequences after is not a good way of operating... but im not shocked that you and others like you that adore and use LN have such mindsets of carelessness and lack of security/precaution

I doubt that I adore the lightning network, since I am barely learning about various means to interact with it.

and lastly...
LN is not a sole feature belonging to bitcoin alone. LN is its own network that can and has and does function with many blockchains. so when you state its a bitcoin layer.. you are trying to brand tag it as if its a feature solely for bitcoin.
also to steal fame from bitcoin calling it a solution to bitcoins woes.. thus ruining bitcoins reputation just to fame up LN

I am not into talking about shitcoins, so even if some shitcoins can use lightning network, that does not get me excited.

LN is not bitcoin. bitcoin never leaves the bitcoin network. bicoin does not understand Msats
yet LN can doublespend/fractional reserve or just create temp channels full of msat..
notice the difference between bitcoin vs LN

Yes, I know that lightning network has the ability to recognize an additional 3 digits to the right past the decimal place, so having 11 digits rather than 8, but msats still have to be resolved in terms of sats in order to be recognized on bitcoin's blockchain.

I cannot really suggest how no extra bitcoins are created on lightning network so if there is a channel created and the channel gets resolved, then at that point there may well be movements of bitcoins from one side of the channel to the other, so the resolution from the time of opening the channel to closing the channel may well end up with bitcoin balances that differ on each side of the because some BTC was moved in one direction or the other.

it doesnt function the way bitcoin does and when LN fails its promises to uses, people end up thinking bitcoin is the cause of their bad experience(research el salvador protests septembe2021-december 2021)

Could be that some people confuse lightning network and bitcoin, and surely I am not proclaiming to know all of the differences, and surely I was expecting that there are some folks in El Salvador who have quite a bit of practice using lightning network wallets, but yeah a lot of them ended up using various kinds of custodial wallets (whether the Chivo wallet, Strike, Blink (formerly known as bitcoin beach wallet) or some of the other lightning network wallets that were being used there) so they may well were not even using anything very close to bitcoin or even lightning network, even though lighting network might have been the backbone for some of the custodial wallets that were being used.

I am not much of a fan for custodial wallets either, yet sometimes i am not really in a position to figure out what is the solution, but your criticism and concern about using custodial wallets seems largely in the ballpark of valid, and I might even completely agree with you if I understood some of your tangents in which I doubt that protests are dealing with those levels of technicalities.. but there were people who were losing their funds and even the $30 credit that was being given to all El Salvador citizen's for their downloading and signing up within the Chivo wallet... so yeah, there was some corruption or mistakes made in regards to those arrangements.

..
and before hitting the reply button..
please dont sound like the muppet kingdom of "lets talk about and insult franky. he says flaws so lets ignore frankys discussions of flaws and just say he is wrong.. and lets pretend there are no flaws and pretend its just franky saying bad words so we must ignore/insult franky"
(typical childish tactics i seen hundreds of times by the same dozen muppets)

You some times bring some of that onto yourself... so I don't tend to go there, but sometimes you seem to deserve such attacks.

how about grow some maturity and learn about the silly stuff you get involved in which you have had bad experiences of yourself.. and actually learn that there are flaws.. and stop trying to sound like LN is a solution and that its utopian dream of perfection to solve bitcoin issues

You are surely giving a lot of advice here regarding what you believe that I need to do in order to be able to interact with more humility in regards to my various ignorances, and I am not even claiming to know a lot of things, but yeah, I have opinions and experiences about some topics, including some topics related to bitcoin and some topics related to lightning network.  I doubt that I am as much over my skiis as you are claiming me to be.

its about LN flaws not about franky..

I would imagine that this thread is about various lighting experiences, whether you want to talk about flaws of lighting (or how we got to lightning) or if you want to talk about various other matters related to using lightning network... and yeah, you seem to be trying to make this discussion a lot more personal than it needs to be or even more personal than I had been trying to make it into.  You also seem to be wanting to get into philosophical debates about lightning rather than more basic topics of broader applicability.. Yes, you are claiming that you want to warn people about the dangers of lightning network, but still is it your goal to stifle communication and participation.. that's what trolls tend to do.. even if you might have good intentions, if you are beating people up for having different ideas, experiences and opinions than you, then it is difficult to see how productive that is going to be.  

[franky1]

you are having bad experiences of LN but you still defend it and want anyone scrutinising and critiquing it to stop..

pardon me for my ignorance, but I was verbally battling the anti-segwitters and the bigblockers during a lot of that 2017, 2018 time period and some of those same ideas persist, and yeah you have many times asserted that you are against segwit

and you wonder why i see you as a non independent thinker..
we are seeing this year the exact problem of segwit.. the meme/json junk.. and yes it was a known thing even before segwit was force activated..
but your lack of knowledge then and 7 years later still not seeing the problem. shows you just want to repeat a side of a debate you dont understand so just fill your debate with buzzwords other people made trend, jsut so you can promote the continued participation of LN even when deep down you know users will experience bad things

as for your buzzwords
no rational proposal has ever been made to leap to gigabyte blocks.
no one wanting bitcoin scaling ever made that suggestion
the scripts of leaping to visa/gigabyte levels in x months has been the empty debate strawman created from the side you defend and idolise
done so to quash any proposal for scaling because the corporation sponsored roadmap was to offramp all users to subnetworks
and 6 years later your still playing their scripts

rational people are not begging for bitcoin to replace fiat, to then need "visa level tx/s"
so when you use "visa tx/s" scripts it shows you are just repeating scripts instead of understanding the logic, rational thought of understanding the nuances

I am not much of a fan for custodial wallets either, yet sometimes i am not really in a position to figure out what is the solution, but your criticism and concern about using custodial wallets seems largely in the ballpark of valid, and I might even completely agree with you if I understood some of your tangents in which I doubt that protests are dealing with those levels of technicalities.. but there were people who were losing their funds and even the $30 credit that was being given to all El Salvador citizen's for their downloading and signing up within the Chivo wallet... so yeah, there was some corruption or mistakes made in regards to those arrangements.

so instead of looking into WHY payments didnt go through in el salv(LN liquidity bottlenecks) you want to poke an opinion that you think it was due to political corruption of the chivo side of the wallet..
hmm yea i noticed your bait and switch to avoid talking about a LN flaw of the el salv situation and pretend its due to something else..
its the blind pro-LN stance, the 'avoid negative' mindset that shows how much you sound like the muppets

LN has had 6 years of chances to flourish and prosper..
hundreds of devs have moved on and started their own subnetwork bridges to bitcoin
millions of people have moved on from or avoided LN to then use other methods to move value offchain

but fine, stay in the past using old buzzwords
keep the religious faith that you think LN will be your saviour, if enough time is given..

oh by the way.. the first implementation experiment of a lightning was done by rusty russel of blockstream ..
to which the financial sponsors like liz stark then headed up her own team of lightning labs
yep as soon as she made the thank you sponsorship payment to blockstream for their bitcoin alterations to get LN started, she went solo

it really does help to know who's funding the scripts you then end up saying to promote the roadmap plan of corporate takeover thats ruining bitcoins progress

..
when you defend script mindsets that bitcoin can cope with junk and junk shouldnt be stopped.. but then they bait and switch to say bitcoin cannot cope with genuine bitcoin payments and those genuine utility should be pushed off network.. it just shows the idiot bus certain people are riding on, getting a free ride to LN town

[JayJuanGee]

you are having bad experiences of LN but you still defend it and want anyone scrutinising and critiquing it to stop..

pardon me for my ignorance, but I was verbally battling the anti-segwitters and the bigblockers during a lot of that 2017, 2018 time period and some of those same ideas persist, and yeah you have many times asserted that you are against segwit

and you wonder why i see you as a non independent thinker..
we are seeing this year the exact problem of segwit.. the meme/json junk.. and yes it was a known thing even before segwit was force activated..
but your lack of knowledge then and 7 years later still not seeing the problem. shows you just want to repeat a side of a debate you dont understand so just fill your debate with buzzwords other people made trend, jsut so you can promote the continued participation of LN even when deep down you know users will experience bad things

I suppose that maybe I am wanting people to use lightning network, but still either they do or they don't.. how am I really much of an influencer, beyond just talking about some limited experiences that I have had so far in terms of one of many people who might be having some experiences, whether negative, positive or otherwise.  And if we get down to the practical (and the nitty gritty), you are suggesting that we stop using LN and try to transact on what?  the main chain?  We get rid of segwit too?  I know that I asked some of these questions earlier, too.

as for your buzzwords
no rational proposal has ever been made to leap to gigabyte blocks.
no one wanting bitcoin scaling ever made that suggestion

Oh, just a modest increase in the block size, and not as much as BSV.  O.k?  that's your position.

How likely is that?  Perhaps not very much.  So that is why you are going to continue to complain and whine that you are not able to buy coffees on the main chain as "had been intended" from your perspective.  Is that it?

the scripts of leaping to visa/gigabyte levels in x months has been the empty debate strawman created from the side you defend and idolise
done so to quash any proposal for scaling because the corporation sponsored roadmap was to offramp all users to subnetworks
and 6 years later your still playing their scripts

I'm just going with what is available rather than whining about what could have been, and I suppose your proposal is that everything is just reversed and we slowly go back to some kind of franky vision of what bitcoin should have been?  whatever that is? or however we might end up getting back there.

rational people are not begging for bitcoin to replace fiat, to then need "visa level tx/s"
so when you use "visa tx/s" scripts it shows you are just repeating scripts instead of understanding the logic, rational thought of understanding the nuances

I doubt that I said any of that.

I am not much of a fan for custodial wallets either, yet sometimes i am not really in a position to figure out what is the solution, but your criticism and concern about using custodial wallets seems largely in the ballpark of valid, and I might even completely agree with you if I understood some of your tangents in which I doubt that protests are dealing with those levels of technicalities.. but there were people who were losing their funds and even the $30 credit that was being given to all El Salvador citizen's for their downloading and signing up within the Chivo wallet... so yeah, there was some corruption or mistakes made in regards to those arrangements.

so instead of looking into WHY payments didnt go through in el salv(LN liquidity bottlenecks) you want to poke an opinion that you think it was due to political corruption of the chivo side of the wallet..

I did not say that either.

hmm yea i noticed your bait and switch to avoid talking about a LN flaw of the el salv situation and pretend its due to something else..
its the blind pro-LN stance, the 'avoid negative' mindset that shows how much you sound like the muppets

Yep.. I am a muppet.  I am just following various aspects of what is happening, and I don't claim to have any kind of broad fix since I am mostly just a user of some of the products, and not even the ones that were being used in El Salvador, even though I would not mind to visit there in order to see if there is very much use of bitcoin on the ground. 

LN has had 6 years of chances to flourish and prosper..
hundreds of devs have moved on and started their own subnetwork bridges to bitcoin
millions of people have moved on from or avoided LN to then use other methods to move value offchain

but fine, stay in the past using old buzzwords
keep the religious faith that you think LN will be your saviour, if enough time is given..

I have not heard that lightning is dead yet by any reliable sources, and it still seems to be working, so yeah call me a muppet if you want, or a muppet wanna-be... because I can see that systems are likely to continue to be used while they are in place and while potentially other systems are building around them and potentially competing, so I have no problem to merge over to other systems if there ends up being some use cases for other systems.  Do you have any suggestions?

oh by the way.. the first implementation experiment of a lightning was done by rusty russel of blockstream ..
to which the financial sponsors like liz stark then headed up her own team of lightning labs
yep as soon as she made the thank you sponsorship payment to blockstream for their bitcoin alterations to get LN started, she went solo

it really does help to know who's funding the scripts you then end up saying to promote the roadmap plan of corporate takeover thats ruining bitcoins progress

I guess it helps.  Was it one of those fucktwats that closed my breez channel? and cost me around 42,245 sats (which was then around $18.55)

when you defend script mindsets that bitcoin can cope with junk and junk shouldnt be stopped.. but then they bait and switch to say bitcoin cannot cope with genuine bitcoin payments and those genuine utility should be pushed off network.. it just shows the idiot bus certain people are riding on, getting a free ride to LN town

Even if lighting ends up being a failure and/or replaced by something else, I doubt that your ongoing campaign against LN is actually a very productive way of contributing to bitcoin and how bitcoin has evolved to date... but hey whatever, you are surely free to do as you like and to keep up your campaign.. and we surely seem to be devolving into repeating ourselves in various ways.

[franky1]

yet again you have avoided talking about the LN issues and spun it back to "franky"
if you use your eyes to observe this forum you will notice the amount of users discussing bitcoin scaling and being annoyed by the spam and junk on bitcoin and lack of tx count increases on bitcoin,, is a higher forum user count.. compared to the smaller subclass of muppets evading LN negative discussion and trying to promote LN

and then when you look at the liquidity of other subnetwork bridges to bitcoin you will see LN is not the top. and more users and services use other subnetworks.

so while you want o pretend LN issues is just "franky whining" there are whole countries that tried and dropped LN
wake up to reality

I guess it helps.  Was it one of those fucktwats that closed my breez channel? and cost me around 42,245 sats (which was then around $18.55)

here is a fun fact that will get your braincells tingling.. the way breez works is THEY set up channels to credit you with an allotment of balance. which THEY control(its called inbound balance)... it was never your channel

[JayJuanGee]

yet again you have avoided talking about the LN issues and spun it back to "franky"
if you use your eyes to observe this forum you will notice the amount of users discussing bitcoin scaling and being annoyed by the spam and junk on bitcoin and lack of tx count increases on bitcoin,, is a higher forum user count.. compared to the smaller subclass of muppets evading LN negative discussion and trying to promote LN

and then when you look at the liquidity of other subnetwork bridges to bitcoin you will see LN is not the top. and more users and services use other subnetworks.

so while you want o pretend LN issues is just "franky whining" there are whole countries that tried and dropped LN
wake up to reality

I guess it helps.  Was it one of those fucktwats that closed my breez channel? and cost me around 42,245 sats (which was then around $18.55)

here is a fun fact that will get your braincells tingling.. the way breez works is THEY set up channels to credit you with an allotment of balance. which THEY control(its called inbound balance)... it was never your channel

You are being a bit amorphous in regards to your attempt to provide evidence in regards to the supposed death of lightning network based on the many supposed discontent folks in the forum who are vocalizing such discontent or otherwise. 

Also your reference to various subnetworks is quite ambiguous regarding the meaning of such.. You seem to be referring to the use of shitcoins in order to make transactions for lower fees than can be accomplished on chain bitcoin or through lightning network.  Perhaps if you either provide some links to reference what you are talking about or maybe if you speak a bit more clearly regarding what you mean, then I might understand what you are saying a wee bit more better....   

I will agree that various shitcoins could well serve as temporary solutions, and sure maybe there would end up being various ways that they might just serve in that kinds of way during these kinds of times in which onchain fees are so high.. and when it is also difficult to open LN channels in regards to costs (and some LN channels are being forced closed).  If LN channels already exist, then it seems that those kinds of systems would work pretty well during times like these, yet I am not claiming to know all of the nuances of various comparisons and contrasts since I am not claiming to specialize in the study of these kinds of matters.