[self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain

[BlackHatCoiner]

Can't believe you two still quarrel about NYA, S2X and UASF. Guys, it's been half decade. These things are past for good.

The fact that franky's best interlocutor (who's been fighting his shit for over 5 years) isn't yet sure about whether franky does have a standard protocol interpretation or not should tell you a lot about franky.

[1714518803]

1714518803

[1714518803]

1714518803

[1714518803]

1714518803

[1714518803]

1714518803

[1714518803]

1714518803

[franky1]

oh..
lets see blackhats cries

so.. 33 hours ago doomad bumped this topic back to life
he wanted to mention something about a debate he triggered in another topic

so lets deal with certain subjects..
who mentioned the words segwit. and uasf first in this recent debate revival.... hmmm.. oooo it was doomad.

who bumped this topic that was dead for 10 months.. oooo it was doomad

who cant back up their narrative with any blockdata, code or bips.. oooo doomad
the reason i bite and respond to his and your pokes. is because unless people learn from the past and actually learn what actually happened in the past to ensure things dont easily happen like it again.. they end up happening again.. even more easily.
which is not good risk awareness to play dumb and ignorant and blind

and definitely not a good plan to be a ass kisser that lets devs make backdoors into feature inclusion without a good true consensus vote to fairly decided if it should activate or not.. is another risk

but hey. you lot dont care about bitcoin at all .. that much is obvious


you girls are the cry babies

heres another reason why you lot should cry

you think LN is the best, the solution, the popular network, the (pfft) feature that you brand as bitcoin

well babies.
did you realise that taproot has managed to hoard more coins into their feature in less than a year by the scale of 4x, compared to what you babies have managed in 5 years

yep using taproot has manage to grab 20k coins in a year.
yet your prefered feature(different network, but you pretend is just a feature) of LN only manage an average of 5k coin (~1k a year on LN)

did you also know that there are 180,000 WBTC and it is only 3 years 11 months old
compared to the 5k you lot celebrate in 5 and a half years

oh and remember how you guys were celebrating that bitfinex had over 1k of LN liquidity(20%)

well bitfinex has over 2k of wbtc

i only mention btc as an example of a other network unit pretending to be bitcoin

and yet after 5 years of promoting LN you have not realised its broke, flawed and buggy. you are still using the outdated sales pitches of 5 years ago

seems other people would rather lock funds into taproot rather than LN
would rather sell bitcoin and buy ethereum and then convert that to wbtc, rather than use LN
oh and i am not the one unsure about things. i am clear and my narrative has not changed
my narrative is backed up by blockdata, code and bips straight from sources wrote by developers

unlike your narratives which yet again you fail to respond with any evidence to back up your narrative. all you can do it cry and moan and insult that you dont understand english and blame it on the englishman. rather than realise that you are greek, where english is YOUR weakness

but i do laugh how you lot, do all the insulting but then cry when i insult back. you lot are not victims. so grow up. learn something . do some research and stop being manipulative

[franky1]

anyway lets summarise the two narratives of disagreement of me and doomads thoughts around consensus and fullnodes

ill call my narrative fullnode and consensus. and
ill call doomads narrative coresenseless and foolnodes
just to make it easier for people to distinguish the differences
because some people have reading issues, so we have to make it easier on the kids to read

doomads narrative
CORE decide the rules of bitcoin. where coresenseless is that everyone sheep follows core rules and dont get to vote if core should activate or not because no one should tell a dev what to do.
where any other node that wants to propose bitcoin changes outside of core roadmap should be treated as enemy of bitcoin and told for f**k off to an altcoin and not get involved with cores bitcoin(#REKT) or blind obedient sheep follow core to remain on the bitcoin network

a foolnode "can" validate everything, but not essential due to backward compatibility meaning they dont have to
a foolnode "can" archive everything, but not essential due to pruning which means they dont have to
but in doomads rhetoric as long as a node sheep follows the full or stripped data/validated or not of core rules. its a foolnode of coresenseless


my narrative
2009-2016 consensus was:
no one owned the right to enforce rules in as they pleased. it required consent of the masses to THEN activate.*
where for security of the network the masses need to upgrade nodes and be ready to suport a new ruleset before it activates, and not activate before full nodes are amassed to be ready

*without mandate or threat of rejection,  nor pre activation rejection events to fake a vote

however core had managed to bypass consensus in 2017 via a few tricks invented by lukle jr and shoulinfry(no not UASF). but this trojan backdoor bug should not be allowed to be used as a normal function for network rule change options to activate

a full node is where it validates everything and understands all the rules and archives full data, where as if you switch off certain features like archiving IDB seeding, where you dont stay upto date with the full ruleset you are not a full node. you are downrated to non-full status.
pruning/backward compatible/unupgraded nodes are not full node status

[LoyceV]

you think LN is the best

I can only speak for myself, but I think it's the best for small Bitcoin transactions so far. If something better comes up, I'll embrace it.

you babies

Somehow I get the feeling LN is such a touchy subject for you, that it actually influences your real life mood. It's so easy, if you don't like it, don't use it. It's not bothering on-chain Bitcoin.

did you also know that there are 180,000 WBTC and it is only 3 years 11 months old

You're comparing an underfunded project to a centralized scam that someone earns a lot of money from, and goes to great lengths to trick people into accepting it instead of Bitcoin.

[franky1]

the problem is

LN is not a bitcoin feature that manages to do something or solve something for bitcoin and purely for bitcoin
even poon in his whitepaper admits LN is a multi-currency system

yet due to idiots selling it as a bitcoin thing, a bitcoin solution. devs are giving up on scaling BITCOIN
(take the congestion onchain last month FROM JUST ONE EXCHANGE. bitcoin needs more onchain capacity to cover utility of multiple businesses and more especially individuals)

so yes it is negatively affecting bitcoin even if i dont use LN even if 99.99% of people dont use it.
 it still affects bitcoin via its existence as the solution. thus bitcoin issues do not get sorted

LN's usage is super low but its existence has stifled bitcoins usage growth and innovation onchain
you know the song.. ("bitcoin shouldnt scale to more txps because LN solves transaction scaling")
bitcoins last few "innovations" at bitcoin protocol level have not been to evolve bitcoin utility. it has been to offer gateway transaction formats for subnetworks..

there is the security flaws, the bugs, the liquidity issues.. all being branded as bitcoin features, yet they are not
they are flaws, and those flaws are bringing a bad reputation and a negative view onto bitcoin due to the brand stealing crap of LN
(el salvador experiment failure (september 2021-december. was nothing to do with the bitcoin network, it failed due to an LN project pretending it was bitcoin))
i facepalmed in september with the "LN is making bitcoin successful" "LN LN LN LN LN"
then when it failed same idiots "bitcoin failed el salvador"
so in december i was laughing that they tried to limit their exposure and pretend LN had nothing to do with the el salvador crap the el salvadorians were exposed to, and then i facepalmed again when they tried to say bitcoin was the problem (cheeky f**kers!)


as for you thinking its under funded.. ooh please!!!
the main devs of LN are paid.
you think rusty, a.bosworth, and such work for free?(i name just a couple for examples, but loads of them are corporate funded to work on lightning)

did you know LN is actually an invention pre 2017 and its inspired by the hyperledger stuff, which the dcg and its subsidiaries blocksteamis funding
the dev groups are funded

..
in short if bitcoin was to have an off-chain solution to various features that have been stiffled and refused to be included into bitcoin protocol... LN is not the answer/solution..
 a new network needs to be made for such off-chain promises without the LN flaws to give actual solution.. or more simply. re-boot bitcoin innovation and scale BITCOIN not other sub-par networks brain and brand and reputation stealing

LN community has had 5 years to figure their crap out. and yet more people are locking funds to wbtc and taproot based networks rather than what LN pretends its usage accomplishments are

[DooMAD]

doomads narrative
CORE decide the rules of bitcoin. where coresenseless is that everyone sheep follows core rules and dont get to vote if core should activate or not because no one should tell a dev what to do.
where any other node that wants to propose bitcoin changes outside of core roadmap should be treated as enemy of bitcoin and told for f**k off to an altcoin and not get involved with cores bitcoin(#REKT) or blind obedient sheep follow core to remain on the bitcoin network

Categorically false.  I must have stated several dozen times by now that the code people choose to run decides the rules of Bitcoin.  That is my stance and always will be.  I can see why he gets confused, though.  As franky1 believes everyone who doesn't share his delusions is a sheep.  Also, one or more Core developers mocked franky1 at some point and he's held a vendetta against them ever since.  I'd be curious to see the specifics of the message he sent to the devs to initiate that particular conversation.  It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if franky1 came across in his typical obnoxious, condescending, saviour-complex demeanour.  I'm sure under the circumstances, ridicule was likely deserved.  People should take this into consideration when reading anything franky1 writes about Core devs.  There is clearly a sizable grudge being held on his part.

It's not worth wasting my time replying to any of the other abject lies he spouts in that post, as every single one was addressed fully in this topic back in 2019 and I'm not rehashing it again.  

Reserved. I may make summaries later.

We're swiftly coming up on the 1 year anniversary of this topic.  Can we look forward to Switzerland's impartial judgement soon?   

[franky1]

your view is follow CORES rules or be treated as opposition
you personally cannot tell where core begins and bitcoin ends where your view is core is bitcoin and every other node that wants something in bitcoin that does not meet cores roadmap is not bitcoin and should fork off. you view is not how decentralisation and consusus works
heck you pretend users get a vote then you spin around in circles saying no one get s to oppose core or tell them to not do things.
doomads idea of freedom is core is "the man" and should have freedoms to do what they want without needing consent. where by the mans view of consent is that the community are willing to be in his bed or f**k off if they do not like the abuse put on them without consent

.. well thats rape

at best, it could be seen as core is just a BDSM 'dom' with everyone else in the orgy, 'subs' and anyone fully declining to be in the orgy being rejected and ejected out of the room

true consent is consent before and during the act.
where if majority do not consent, there is no orgy.. end of story
if there was majority consent, it then allows time for all parties to get prepared and ready for safe sex before sex happens and, consent is also agreement during sex

domads view "dont worry you dont need to wear a condom, dont protect yourself or deny me sex, i promise im clean... pinky promise with extra oozy drips" and then treat anyone that denies the man sex, as someone to hate and tell them to fuck off

and where he things "well the man got his genitals inside, so she must have consented"

so whos "freedom" is doomad protecting.. the co-ed community of university students.. or the rapists right to rape/ be BDSM dom, with no choice of equality where no-one else can propose sexual activities/positions to try apart from the core man

moving onto your other social drama queen tears of bottom scratching
funny think about that anyonecanspend issue

do you realise that the plan back then was to just start putting segwit tx's into bitcoins tx relay system and blocks without a true consensus activation event where by nodes should upgrade to have code that can verify first, before activation.. .

where by it would have caused lots of nodes problems in their first stupid plan for segwit

well guess what.
they ended up doing a mandatory hardfork(to remove opposition and also THEY(you) pretending its soft to avoid admitting they were wrong)

and they didnt release the wallet function to allow people to create segwit transactions untill the following year because they also realised letting people make segwit transactions before nodes were ready to verify them, would be a problem

yep they bypassed consensus to not need nodes to upgrade and support segwit.. then delayed segwit wallet function until 2018 waiting for nodes to upgrade
again that was a bad way of doing things.. but they were under sponsored contract to get segwit activation by november 2017 at the latest. so they had to do it anyway they could even if it was the wrong way. unsupported way


so they mocked me. but proved my point later on.. by not allowing anyonecanspends tx trick to be widely used before 2018. even though the way they did it, was still not the best way as it abused consensus to get what they wanted

how they proved my point was the stupid next poke of the bear(by the way they activated segwit) that was unfair on the community and the protocol security,

[LoyceV]

Reserved. I may make summaries later.

We're swiftly coming up on the 1 year anniversary of this topic.  Can we look forward to Switzerland's impartial judgement soon?  

Emphasis on "may". Sorry, I don't have time for this. And I must admit I don't really feel like reading everything in this topic again.

[franky1]

reading the topic again from the start (due to getting too embroiled in the drama of the doomad/blackhat ping pong game)

the first reponse to loyce

When Binance came to Brazil, it dominated the crypto market nearly completely. It is by far the best, most trusted and cheaper exchange. Nearly everyone who works with cryptocurrency in Brazil has a binance account.

I was going to sell some bitcoin in the next few days, and I gave my client my binance address. He immediately asked if I could be paid in BEP2 chain (Binance chain, using a BTC pegged token). I accepted, as it is a free and instant transaction and I was not going to hold that bitcoin for long.

Now, is a BTC pegged token bitcoin? It is not, but i guess it is useful for bitcoin adoption and awareness.

So, to summarize: Off-chain solutions are already happening. They are useful. LN is the best off-chain solution, but people do use it all the time yet. LN would be good for my transaction? Well, I think not as good as the BEP2 solution, but it would work.

I believe that we should support LN and use it, otherwise we will soon be forced to use a worse off-chain solution from time to time.

this shows exactly the problem

bitcoin only exists on the bitcoin network. so all the binance custody balance, BEP20, BNB, sidechain and LN stuff are not bitcoins.. they are tokens, units or display balances pretending to be bitcoin. but not actual bitcoin

it goes to show people cant tell the difference even though there are risks of using custodians or so called pegged promises all being falsely branded as bitcoin

if you do not have sole-custody of a UTXO to move yourself without other parties sign-off and clear to spend as you deem fit. you dont have bitcoin yourself.

this means locking coin up into multisig of another party or federation, to then play with other balance units on another system. does not mean you have bitcoin. you have an unsecured unsettled iou of potential bitcoin should a withdrawal/broadcast happen at a later date

it gets worse when those other systems/networks fail or are under suspicion of future failures that it tarnishes the actual bitcoin networks reputation.

then we have the ping pong games of the madhatters (doomad and blackhatcoiner) who go around saying:
"bitcoin isnt fit for purpose as a currency for the unbanked"
"bitcoin doesnt have a consensus to decide on rule activations"
"devs can impose any rule change they like without veto or objection from other network users"
"people should prune the data because distributed blockchain is not a thing that needs to be secured"
and
"if people want to transact.. they should use a pegged network and not the bitcoin network"

basically they want to kill off bitcoin to fame up LN

while then pretending they are "bitcoiners"

very shameful tactics by them

as for bitmovers idea to use LN out of fear of there being worse..
.. well LN is flawed, buggy, has liquidity issues, bottlenecks, lacks network security of payments, has a weak pegging mechanism many can abuse, can fractional reserve value,

it needed things like watchtowers and revokes because its design was so shoddy and the work arounds of watchtowers/revokes dont even work as 100% fixes to flaws they suppose to solve..
...maybe just maybe a new "system"(for those small niche use cases) is required, that actually works!

a new system could be designed that is actually closer to the bitcoin principles, but without the LN flaws.. a system that works with bitcoin and only for bitcoin... because LN is not the solution it promises to be

anyway
merry christmas to all those not in the madhatter camp.
ill leave you in peace for a few days, goodluck to all who do actually care about BITCOIN and want to learn and research i hope you dont fall down the madhatters rabbit hole

and i suspect ill see the madhatter clan moan and cry and make up more malicious crap about how their beloved altnet is better and a solution and how im just trolling them.

or maybe they can spend the time too enjoying christmas and also maybe take the new year as an opportunity to sort out their motives once and for all

[DooMAD]

And I must admit I don't really feel like reading everything in this topic again.

Understandable.  Even I'm struggling to read the latest posts.  It seems franky1 is reaching new depths of depravity.  I don't think I've ever seen something as abhorrent on this board as him equating the code he doesn't like to the act of rape, but that's how franky1's sick mind works.  Disgusting and obscene.  It shows you just what kind of inhuman monster he truly is.

[franky1]

says doomad that has said that he does not believe in consent and pretends that no consent is needed to perform a act(tivation) on a community
and that the group cannot refuse or "just say no", where he thinks the only option of refusal is to not be part of a community.

i feel doomad is the depraved one if he idolises such methods of performing an act on others and wants it to continue where it should not be stopped by anyone because he believes in the freedom of the abuser reigns supreme, even at the cost of the security and harm it can cause on multiple others who end up having their choice and freedom dictated or removed.

lets hope it only takes 2023 for doomad to learn and understand consent by census (consensus)
and not be another 5 years of him thinking it means obediently 'subs' follow the bdsm 'doms' bedroom rules of a orgy fest who make the decisions without contest for everyone else involved. where the only "just say no" option is to get out of the room and let the 'doms' continue their acts

[DooMAD]

If we follow franky1's absurd "orgy" analogy to its natural conclusion, on-chain is the orgy and SegWit/LN allows people to have the option to temporarily leave the orgy and go into a private room for some intimate one-on-one time.  The "consent" franky1 demands here is that no one can leave the orgy without his permission, like some perverted little deviant who wants to watch every sordid act.  I think people should be free to go somewhere private.  I also think people having the freedom to do this does not take anything away from franky1's personal freedoms. 

Stepping away from the ludicrous analogy, the only thing franky1 claims to have lost is that he doesn't have a complete copy of the blockchain including witness data, but this is HIS CHOICE.  He simply can't accept the consequences of his choice, where the users of this network have moved on without him.  We've got something he doesn't have (yet easily could have if he stopped acting like a petulant child) and he's going to be bitter until the end of time about it.

I maintain the stance that 6% of the network should not have a permanent veto to block what 94% of the network would like to do.  My stance it that this would stagnate the network to an extent which is far greater than the extent to which franky1 claims devs are supposedly stagnating the network (and devs are categorically not stagnating the network, this is yet another fantasy that only exists in franky1's head). 

It's clear by this point that franky1 will only accept this "95% of users have to agree" notion as the "true" definition of consensus (even though it clearly doesn't work that way).  He says that anything else which doesn't give him a permanent veto is equivalent to "rape", all because he can't force people to do what he wants.  He has no conscience and only cares about his ideals of control and tyranny.

Abhorrent.  Truly and undeniably abhorrent.

[franky1]

doomad you are so insane you have things backwards in so many ways

LEARN CONSENT.. if not for bitcoin, for any relationship you ever have in life.,. stop expectng people to kiss your ass on demand

you really do not understand consent and so you are trying too hard to be an idiot to pretend your mis-understanding is justified

onchain is the common room of university students
where in normal legal consent. if someone suggest an orgy, people can just say no. and no orgy happens. (doomad probably acts surprised by this concept of consent)

where people just stay in the common room doing normal things without threat or harm or insult or malice or attack or coercion into accepting sex.
(again doomad is probably shocked at this notion)

where it requires an actual majority of the attending students to agree on an orgy for an orgy act(vivation) to occur

however doomad thinks an orgy has to happen where he thinks its the rapists right to make sure it happens where in doomads scenario the only opt-out is "the freedom" to leave the common room. thus faking a vote that the remainers are voting for an orgy whether they say so or not.

 where by staying in the common room means for doomad they are forced into sex or atleast left in the room to watch it happen without any say so or way to stop it.. where you cant even 'just say no' and just stay in the room doing normal things, where no sex happens.. even if majority would have said no.. doomad still wants sex to occur
in short rapes happen and those staying in the room have no choice but to watch it happen

as for doomad crying about a 6% veto
from the november 2016- june 2017(days prior to the mandated threats). segwit didnt even get 50% so why was he crying about 6% veto when segwit had natural 50%+ veto

by which point with such a low vote 46% vote in favour, it should have been an opportunity to the devs to go back to the design board and figure out what the community actually would want. something that could have got a true actual natural vote of a 80% threshold without needing mandated pre-rejection threat and abuse. and fake voting

doomads version of consent is
"im having sex with everyone in the room, if you dont like it, go to a different university"

(im trying to justify doomad to being at college level. so using that age level analogy of consent..  otherwise ill have to go back to talking as if doomad is 5yo again)