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

[franky1]

a LNmillisat payment HTLC has units of measure in msat and also uses Erics payment hash for all users (ABCD)

That's correct.

we are agreed. one step forward for you.. finally

a commitment HTLC(different) uses only the pubkeys of the channel partners and is measured in sats

A commitment transaction with HTLC outputs uses the public keys of the channel partners, their HTLC public keys and the hash of the payment secret. See the second half of this post again.

we are half agreed. two steps forward for you.. (being generous)
but kind of weird how you say the exact same thing as what i said.. but then
you say the commitment then has erics payment_hash(facepalm.. ill explain later issues with this)
and then ask me to check something..
and when i go check. you are referring back to commitments of the channel management and nothing to do with the LN payments..
deduct half a step
rath_you are 1.5 steps forward. but looks like you are beginning to step back again

a commitment is an inchannel management thing that occurs after the out of channel payment of routing packets

The specs literally say that one should not forward an HTLC unless one can enforce the contract on-chain.

oh and here you go again. talking about step 4(your ascii art) of the commitment and ignoring the steps 123(your ascii art) of the payment..
deduct 1 whole step

your only one step forward.

bolts2 (the thing your addicted to) uses examples of old old protocol where its describing examples of 'hub' payments (where channel partner is the destination)

It's exactly the opposite. Direct payments could work just fine without HTLCs. The main purpose of HTLCs is to enable payment routing.

again you seems to only want to limit the scope to direct payments (inchannel funding commitment where bob is the destination)

HTLC is actually about the revocation part initially(punishment) in regard to routed or in channel direct payments(partner is destination). though in direct payments becasue your trying to pay bob anyway as the destination there is less need for HTLC
but a HTLC main objective is you 'hope' to prevent partner sending an old commitment. by having a time locked contract with revoke conditions

i wont deduct a step yet, as this is a new argument from you. ill just treat is as naive jump to conclusion before checking.
just try to look into it abit and not just repeat it because you said it before

otherwise if alice is trying to pay Eric.  if it was alice commiting to bob first. bob could then broadcast his win he never asked for.. and because its the latest commitment(in your scenario fantasy). bob cant be revoked. and so bob gets the win. eric doesnt get paid and alice is out of money.

franky1, come on. You seem to completely ignore the fact that TWO commitment transactions are signed for each Lightning payment. The first transaction is supposed to prevent the situation you described from happening. The transaction contains additional (HTLC) outputs with locking scripts which I described in the other half of this post.

Bob has no real reason to broadcast his commitment transaction with HTLC outputs unless Carol claims his HTLC and Alice stops cooperating, and refuses to sign another commitment transaction without the HTLC output.

The second commitment transaction is signed once Bob sends "update_fulfill_htlc", which includes the payment preimage, to Alice. It's the transaction you have been talking about all the time.

i know you want to concentrate and saturate this topic with endless post just talking about the commitment and ignoring the millsat payments.. yea your game is obvious. and getting boring..

your post you refer to is ignoring the LN payments that involve the payment_hash provided by eric and used throughout the route.
instead you want to only discuss the commitments of channel management
..
here is the thing..
when alice gets payment_hash from eric.
alice has not even told bob how much needs to be routed. because alice might use zoe, yvonne xena.. instead
so how does bob know, well alice chooses to try a route via bob, carol, diana,eric by sending an LNpayment (onion packet msat with erics payment_hash(htlc)) though that path.

alice does not use this (payment)htlc to put into a commitment with bob, because the output is erics key and eric knows the secret, if it were put in, and it was broadcast, eric would see the confirmed utxo to his key and he can then spend that utxo with his secret

the commitment is a separate HTLC using the alice bob pubkeys (not the eric payment_hash HTLC)

i know you want to use bolt 2 because its example is pretending bob is the destination.(direct payment)
where micropayments/routing is not needed needed in bolt 2 scenario.

but things have moved on.. try reading bolt4 and learn about the other things . like micropayments using the onion packets

it seems you are too eager to pretend that the 'payment' is put into commitment and act as if there is no msat format htlc..
and that story of yours is getting boring

[1714516455]

1714516455

[1714516455]

1714516455

[franky1]

anyway. its been pages of flip floppy.(contradictions) and avoidance of understanding PAYMENTS. just to meander into only discussing commitments(facepalm)

so lets gauge peoples understanding. these questions (by request) have been write short to avoid clauses, and also in pairs of opposition wording to avoid bias. lets see what you know

1.a: lightning network is not the bitcoin network.
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

1.b: lightning network is the bitcoin network.
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

2.a: lightning network is a separate network that does different things than bitcoin
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

2.b: lightning network is always linked to the bitcoin network that does what bitcoin does
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

3.a: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in picocoin-1 (11decimal) also known as msat/millisat
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

3.b: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in btc
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

4.a: LN "payments" (inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

4.b: LN "payments" (inside LN) are same format, to a bitcoin transaction
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

5.a: bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

5.b: bitcoin network does understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

6.a: LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

6.b: LN is tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

7.a: LN wont work without bitcoin
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

7.b: LN will work without bitcoin
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

[Rath_]

you say the commitment then has erics payment_hash(facepalm.. ill explain later issues with this)  [...]
alice does not use this (payment)htlc to put into a commitment with bob, because the output is erics key and eric knows the secret, if it were put in, and it was broadcast, eric would see the confirmed utxo to his key and he can then spend that utxo with his secret

That's why I asked you to check one of my previous posts. There is no point in explaining it again, so I am going to quote myself instead.

by the way, A,>B do not create a 'commitment' at 2 using H(erics public key) in a commitment. because A<>B know eric has the privatekey(R) and if A or B broadcast a commitment with H, eric can jump in and send funds to where he likes using R.

No, Eric can't do that. HTLC outputs in commitment transactions require not only the payment secret to be spent but also a valid HTLC signature.

When you open a channel, you share your htlc_basepoint, which is a compressed public key used only for HTLC payments in this particular channel. The other node shares their htlc_basepoint as well.

You can use htlc_basepoint and per_commitment_point to calculate local_htlcpubkey and remote_htlcpubkey.

Now, let's take a closer at locking scripts of HTLC outputs. Commitment transactions are asymmetrical which means that there are two possible scenarios:

1) (Offered) HTLC output in Alice's commitment transaction:

Code:

# To remote node with revocation key
OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <RIPEMD160(SHA256(revocationpubkey))> OP_EQUAL
OP_IF
    OP_CHECKSIG
OP_ELSE
    <remote_htlcpubkey> OP_SWAP OP_SIZE 32 OP_EQUAL
    OP_NOTIF
        # To local node via HTLC-timeout transaction (timelocked).
        OP_DROP 2 OP_SWAP <local_htlcpubkey> 2 OP_CHECKMULTISIG
    OP_ELSE
        # To remote node with preimage.
        OP_HASH160 <RIPEMD160(payment_hash)> OP_EQUALVERIFY
        OP_CHECKSIG
    OP_ENDIF
OP_ENDIF

If remote_htlcpubkey (Bob's HTLC pubkey) is on the stack then the provided secret (the payment preimage) is hashed and checked against the payment hash. Otherwise, this output can be spent via a HTLC-timeout transaction which is timelocked and signed by both parties beforehand.

Eric or any other intermediary node cannot spend this output as they cannot produce a valid signature for that public key.

2) (Received) HTLC output in Bob's commitment transaction:

Code:

# To remote node with revocation key
OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <RIPEMD160(SHA256(revocationpubkey))> OP_EQUAL
OP_IF
    OP_CHECKSIG
OP_ELSE
    <remote_htlcpubkey> OP_SWAP OP_SIZE 32 OP_EQUAL
    OP_IF
        # To local node via HTLC-success transaction.
        OP_HASH160 <RIPEMD160(payment_hash)> OP_EQUALVERIFY
        2 OP_SWAP <local_htlcpubkey> 2 OP_CHECKMULTISIG
    OP_ELSE
        # To remote node after timeout.
        OP_DROP <cltv_expiry> OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY OP_DROP
        OP_CHECKSIG
    OP_ENDIF
OP_ENDIF

If remote_htlcpubkey (Alice's HTLC pubkey) is on the stack then the provided secret (the payment preimage) is hashed and checked against the payment hash and the output can be spent via a HTLC-success transaction.

Again, Eric or any other intermediary node cannot spend this output as they cannot produce valid signatures for these keys.

HTLC-timeout and HTLC-success transactions, which require both Alice's and Bob's HTLC signatures, consume HTLC outputs and create another locked output which is delayed so that the other party has enough time to broadcast a penalty transaction if necessary.

For some reason, you refuse to accept the existence of those scripts.

so how does bob know, well alice chooses to try a route via bob, carol, diana,eric by sending an LNpayment (onion packet msat with erics payment_hash(htlc)) though that path.

There is no other way to pass the "onion_routing_packet" other than via "update_add_htlc". Any other way wouldn't be specification compliant.

HTLC is actually about the revocation part initially(punishment) in regard to routed or in channel direct payments(partner is destination). though in direct payments becasue your trying to pay bob anyway as the destination there is less need for HTLC
but a HTLC main objective is you 'hope' to prevent partner sending an old commitment. by having a time locked contract with revoke conditions

HTLCs have nothing to do with revocation. Revocations and punishments are handled through simple timelocks in locking scripts. For example:

Code: (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/03-transactions.md)

OP_IF
    # Penalty transaction
    <revocationpubkey>
OP_ELSE
    `to_self_delay`
    OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY
    OP_DROP
    <local_delayedpubkey>
OP_ENDIF
OP_CHECKSIG

If Alice broadcasts her commitment transaction, she needs to wait for 'to_self_delay' blocks (144 blocks by default) since her transaction has been mined before she can spend this output. Bob can broadcast a penalty transaction at any time.

[franky1]

again.. i am talking about the LN payments
EMPHASIS LN PAYMENTS

which allow eric to get paid from alice.

you just tried to convert a conversation about LN payments and their HTLC(eric payment hash + msat denominated format)
to then quote yourself saying

When you open a channel, you share your htlc_basepoint, which is a compressed public key used only for HTLC payments in this particular channel. The other node shares their htlc_basepoint as well.

opening a channel has NOTHING to do with ln payments. LN routed payments (the msat ones) are not the same as in channel direct commitments.

they are separate agreements/promises/contracts that happen separetly and depending on circumstance, LN payment agreement/promise might get signed. but commitment might not (payment fail example)

also dragging another bit of facepalm from another post

Did you read the other half of my post? Eric also needs two valid HTLC signatures that can be produced only by Alice and Bob.

first let me clarify buzzwords
(LN payment = invoice, aka onion_route_packet aka msat micropayment channel, aka millisat denominated HTLC)
you choose the buzzword. your LN has many buzzwords for the same thing.
just dont confuse LN payment(or its buzzword variations for the same thing) vs comitments(blockchain accepted format)
HTLC is buzzworded as "smart contract(emphasic on the C of HTLC) yes LN payment is one form of smart contract(HTLC) and commitment is another form of smart contract(HTLC) but they are not the same thing.
so please stop referencing commitments as your response to LN payments


ERIC DOES NOT get paid using two valid HTLC signatures produced by only alice and bob.
ERIC DOES NOT get paid using two signatures produces by signing the commitment as the 'message'
ERIC gets paid by Diana and only diana

eric never sees alice bob pubkeys..
alice and bob never put erics payment hash into a commitment

because eric has the secret

..
i know your locked on and zoned in and narrow scoped concentrating on just 'direct payment' scenarios of a hub model payment were its just alice paying bob. where bob is the destination. whereby in that 2016-7 scenario of explanation of bolt 2 is only describing the in channel management of such direct payment of just alice and bob.

but can you just take a few hours away from typing your messages on repeat referring only to yourself as evidence of your thoughts. and instead read the other bolts and do this..
this one thing

distinguish the difference between direct paying bob. vs route payment to eric
by this try to expand your scope beyond the repetitive bolt2 reference of a direct payment scenario of a 'hub model'. and instead grasp the concept of micropayments of a 'hop model'

i know you are endlessly trying to desperately only want to talk about commitments. but grasp that LN msat payments are a thing, stop skipping to point 4 of your ascii image to avoid the 123

grasp things like:
if bob charges 1sat fee, carol charges 1sat fee, diana charges 1 sat fee
thats 3sat to make a payment to eric, alice needs to know this to then set how much to send to bob.

alice cant commit to bob with an amount unless a route has first been tried using the msat denominated payments, where by alice learns what the combined fees of that route will be.

alice also might be looking at other routes. and not yet decided which route to use as a path

i know you want to skip past the payment talk to meander back to commitment.
but untill you can understand the process of the payment talk. and what happens before a commitment is even made.

then it just shows you dont know about the payments.
and its not because they dont exist. its that your stuck (narrow scope view) only on the channel direct payment to partner

also you say HTLC have nothing to do with revocation because revocation uses time lock..... you might want to check on what TL stands for in HTLC (spoiler: Time Lock)
the snippet of IF ELSE statements you referenced in bolt3 are the conditions of .. drum roll.. the HTLC contract

before hitting reply.
1. if you have not read the other bolts. dont bother replying, you have already spammed this topic just referencing yourself in previous posts of your opinion. there is no need to post again referencing yourself.

2. if you have sat back and took some time to wish to discuss LN routed payments (without meandering into examples of inchannel direct commitments) then have the first part of your post quoting my previous post questions. putting a * into the [ ] that applies to your opinion.

then we can establish a baseline of opinion. of where your opinion differs or (dare i say it) agree with mine
i want to get a short quick summary of your actual uncontradicted opinion of your thoughts of LN. so that i can see what things your not getting right

[Rath_]

I am going to wait for others to share their thoughts. They probably need some time to catch up with us. This is my last reply for now.

also you say HTLC have nothing to do with revocation because revocation uses time lock..... you might want to check on what TL stands for in HTLC (spoiler: Time Lock)
the snippet of IF ELSE statements you referenced in bolt3 are the conditions of .. drum roll.. the HTLC contract

You might want to check what H stands for in HTLC. I can't see any hash in that locking script. HTLCs in commitment transactions are those two scripts that you ignore to comment for some reason.

alice and bob never put erics payment hash into a commitment

because eric has the secret

Again, you completely ignore two locking scripts which are used for HTLC outputs in commitment transactions. Eric can't spend those outputs with just a secret because he also needs valid HTLC signatures, but you don't want to acknowledge them, even though you keep talking about HTLC-success and HTLC-timeout transactions.

(LN payment = invoice, aka onion_route_packet aka msat micropayment channel, aka millisat denominated HTLC)

If you don't see any difference between an invoice, onion_route_packet and HTLC then we really don't have anything to talk about.
I see that further discussion is pointless as you keep saying that I should read the specifications more carefully without quoting it to prove your statements.

Good night, franky1.

[franky1]

before hitting reply.
1. if you have not read the other bolts. dont bother replying, you have already spammed this topic just referencing yourself in previous posts of your opinion. there is no need to post again referencing yourself.

2. if you have sat back and took some time to wish to discuss LN routed payments (without meandering into examples of inchannel direct commitments) then have the first part of your post quoting my previous post questions. putting a * into the [ ] that applies to your opinion.

then we can establish a baseline of opinion. of where your opinion differs or (dare i say it) agree with mine
i want to get a short quick summary of your actual uncontradicted opinion of your thoughts of LN. so that i can see what things your not getting right

2.

Again, you completely ignore two locking scripts which are used for HTLC outputs in commitment transactions.

(facepalm)

I am going to wait for others to share their thoughts. They probably need some time to catch up with us. This is my last reply for now.

(facepalm)

typical. oh well. but dont worry your not the only one that cant answer basic questions, your not the only one trying desperately hard to avoid talking about the msat payments.

oh an in another topic. Doomad reminded me about how crappy LN is about funding locks. not requiring them to actually peg to 6 confirms locked value onchain.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380036.msg58991641#msg58991641

anyways. seems the only thing LN PR guys understand is direct payments in hub model.
just a shame LN are even trying to break that by having direct payments not require a locked funding peg

If you don't see any difference between an invoice, onion_route_packet and HTLC then we really don't have anything to talk about.

in LN payments (measured in Msat denomination, not to be confused with commitment in sat denomination)
the htlc is not a commitment htlc.
the onion routed packet is not a commitment packet
the invoice is not a commitment invoice

those 3 things are messages outside of the channel commitment(sat denominated) protocol of messages, but are indeed part of 'micropayments' protocol(the LN payment(msat))
because in all 3 message types, they all have 'amount' denominated in msat.

i know you find it tough to discuss ln payments and now wish to avoid it. but. like i said first if you cant prevent yourself from meandering back to 'channel management commitments', then yes there is no more to discuss with you.

as for not answering 14 unbiased quick summary questions.. silence is revealing
i have respect for LoyceV atleast he made an effort to answer summary questions

[BlackHatCoiner]

@Rath, I'm reading the discussion and I respect what you're doing, but it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong nor if franky is right or wrong. Franky won't stop derailing your statements until he either proves to be correct or you give up.

You keep shutting him with transaction formats, he keeps telling you that msats aren't sats. You give him the actual scripts, he tells you you're flip flopping. You talk him calmly, he's yelling at you and facepalms himself. You talk with sense, he doesn't.

I've said this before;

I do, but it's a lost game after all. He doesn't care about his writings, I do. He can't comprehend where he's wrong, I'm forced to highlight it. He doesn't syllogize his counter-proposals, I must provide valid arguments to make a point. Now add to these that he's mocking you on every single post and repeats the same things.

[LoyceV]

Bitcoin LN

you and certain people want to pretend everything in LN it bitcoin format, where you want to brand tag an altnet as being bitcoin.

I don't think we're going to (nor have to) agree on this I'd say "Bitcoin LN" makes it very clear we're talking about Bitcoin locked in channels that can be send through LN and later settled on-chain. You say it's not Bitcoin.

if you actually learn the differences of why LN is not bitcoin.

You mean accept a mere philosophical definition.

then you can learn to actually PR campaign based on the differences, and give people some reason to want to use LN for the niche use cases where bitcoin doesnt fit their need.

That's exactly what I always say: Bitcoin LN is great for small low-fee transactions.

trying to call it bitcoin lightning network as if the LN network is the bitcoin network. is just misleading

Agree to disagree: I think it's very clear to most people what it means.

you shouldnt say "dollar visa payment network" or "pound visa payment network". instead its just the visa network that can handle different currencies where visa is not "dollarL2", nor "dollar network"

if you continue to say "visa is dollar" people will laugh at you

Nobody says "Visa is dollar", but everyone says they use Visa to pay dollars! And that's exactly what I'm doing with LN: I use LN to pay Bitcoin.

I noticed you ignored the actual point of my post:

Would you be more okay with Bitcoin LN if the minimum amount would be 1 sat?

But instead, you started talking about terminology again.

For the record, I prefer to just call it "LN", but if I do, you say LN can also be used by Litecoin, so I specify "Bitcoin LN", even though almost anyone already understands what I mean when I post about LN on Bitcointalk.

[darkv0rt3x]

Hi.

I feel I just read a 700 page book of some mix of technical book and I don't even know what to call it.
My eyes are almost crying due to the amount of things said, the amount of the same things repeated, the amount of times the answers are not objectively replied, the amount of times the posts writing, simply deviates in some way the person who's typing wants.

The worse is that there is someone trying to inflict his point of view to everybody else, no matter if he's 100% accurate in his claims or not (which apparently he's not). And in the process he tries to diminish other people's knowledge, confidence and self-esteem by insulting, by not being concise and objective, by deviating the point of the post with an attempt to be grammatically correct, by all sorts of means of demagogy.
I would even say this is as close and cyber bullying as it gets. Amazingly, most of the people here can take all this crap over and over again. I wouldn't, for Christ sake. Blinder than a blind man is the one who don't want to see.

I'm almost compelled to say this guy is autistic. I have dealt with one in the past and this type of behaviour is common among autistic people. They have tons of drive and focus but then they lack basic skills of communication, lack of social skills, they find quite hard to socialize and accept other visions and thoughts other than the ones of their own.They can't verbalize correctly and they often get angry/frustrated when they can't achieve their goals.
This person has all these traces.

I'm not going to be making quotes over and over, and deviate the discussion, but this is pointless. This thread is pointless. Not because there is not good information and tons of will of some of the people to share knowledge but because this become just an attempt of a guy to inflict, by brute force, his point of view on his own terms as if his the owner of the absolute truth, which we can see clearly he's wrong in quite a few aspects.

Anyway, I already read more in this thread a couple of more mentioned along it, than I read in the last week.
I wouldn't even bother to continue this discussion with this person as he's trying to use so many tactics to brute-force his view that only someone completely blind can't see it!

Good luck trying to deal with this type of person!

[LoyceV]

This thread is pointless.

You're missing the bigger picture, which is this:

Please keep the discussion only here, and not in other topics.

I must say the discussion so far is much better than I expected in Bitcoin Discussion. I don't think anyone will change their mind, but that was to be expected. At least it's more or less on-topic and I don't have to delete a lot of spam.

[BlackHatCoiner]

You're missing the bigger picture, which is this:

Please keep the discussion only here, and not in other topics.

We don't just keep the discussion here. We create discussion(s) here. In other topics, those discussions would have got deleted justifiably.

[franky1]

And in the process he tries to diminish other people's knowledge, confidence and self-esteem by insulting,

Blinder than a blind man is the one who don't want to see.

I'm almost compelled to say this guy is autistic.
lack of social skills, they find quite hard to socialize and accept other visions and thoughts other than the ones of their own.They can't verbalize correctly and they often get angry/frustrated when they can't achieve their goals.
This person has all these traces.

hmmm. now should i bother to review all the posts of this topic and look at who has mentioned the most insults..
but anyway funny part is that darkv0rt3x post had no content related to how LN works, or scaling bitcoin, yet was just a personal attack message. (boring, but nice try to poke the bear)

oh well i now agree this topic is dead. seems people just want to talk about commitments of direct payments(not LN's niche) and not the LN payments(ln's niche of being able to pay different people)
some people just want to get angry and insult(funny part is darkv0rt3x could be talking about them)
some just want to merit cycle each other and show their loyalty to friends.

seems LoyceV is not 'Switzerland' when he merits a post thats not ontopic and just an insult slam (hypocritical)

Bitcoin LN

you and certain people want to pretend everything in LN it bitcoin format, where you want to brand tag an altnet as being bitcoin.

I don't think we're going to (nor have to) agree on this I'd say "Bitcoin LN" makes it very clear we're talking about Bitcoin locked in channels that can be send through LN and later settled on-chain. You say it's not Bitcoin.

you might want to look at the current proposals wanting to be 'bolted' into protocol of LN and a few services already using the proposals in their own software. these are where peers create LN balance(msats) without a block confirmed pegged btc as collateral. where the msat balance is based on 'trust'
 
by this i dont mean they are pegged to a different blockchain transaction for msat payment smart contracts. this means its making 'fake' channel, by sending 'funding_locked' messages on trust even when a transaction has not confirmed. where it does not even reference a utxo(txid and blocknumber) because it has no blocknumber to reference. instead it uses random number for channel ID

as i said a couple years ago.. the pegs are not guaranteed and the promises are based on trust. even the devs involved with the LN proposal and its current usage in their software use the words "fake" and "trust" when describing the channel setup
reference to post on other topic baited by doomad.. (so dont get angry and upset that i responded with proof)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380036.msg58991641#msg58991641

i was trying to keep this topic inline by trying to get people to stick to a non flipflop(contradiction) conversation by setting questions to finally summarise their opinion. (tie them to a single stance they stand by)
i was also trying to get people to learn about the differences of LN payment s vs commitments. to then when they realise LN payments are not commitments but their own promises.. then move onto describing commitments to show how LN devs dont even want commitments to be solidly pegged to blockchains..

but it looks like they just want to stay in their utopian fantasy PR campaign version of function, rather than care enough, desire enough to learn how things work and want to know about potential flaws.

you cant teach the blind to see, or be independent especially when all they can feel is their friends holding their hands guiding them.

[BlackHatCoiner]

but anyway funny part is that darkv0rt3x post had no content related to how LN works, or scaling bitcoin, yet was just a personal attack message.

The funny part is that he does talk about the LN and that responding him likewise make him look right about your behavior towards us.

oh well i now agree this topic is dead. seems people just want to talk about commitments of direct payments(not LN's niche) and not the LN payments(ln's niche of being able to pay different people)

Commitments of directs payments is LN's niche. You just want to discuss whatever it's in your interest. Please allow us to try make a point out of this mess, thank you.

by this i dont mean they are pegged to a different blockchain transaction for msat payment smart contracts. this means its making 'fake' channel, by sending 'funding_locked' messages on trust even when a transaction has not confirmed

And whose fault is this? Lightning's?

[franky1]

but anyway funny part is that darkv0rt3x post had no content related to how LN works, or scaling bitcoin, yet was just a personal attack message.

The funny part is that he does talk about the LN and that responding him likewise make him look right about your behavior towards us.

he didnt talk about it here.. but nice try linking an outside reference.. meaningless, but nice try

his 3 insults vs my 1 'hypocritical' hmm....
but i do laugh that you want to pretend your the victim (AFTER YOU POKE THE BEAR)
if you dont want to get bit, dont poke

oh well i now agree this topic is dead. seems people just want to talk about commitments of direct payments(not LN's niche) and not the LN payments(ln's niche of being able to pay different people)

Commitments of directs payments is LN's niche. You just want to discuss whatever it's in your interest. Please allow us to try make a point out of this mess, thank you.

discuss whatever is in my interest?
well. this topic is about me. this topic is about my interests..(read title) so me talking about my interests is ontopic
doomad, you, rath and others couldnt even stand by your own opinion in a short quick summarised questions.
i had respect for LoyceV for giving it a good try to answer to the best of his opinon.

by this i dont mean they are pegged to a different blockchain transaction for msat payment smart contracts. this means its making 'fake' channel, by sending 'funding_locked' messages on trust even when a transaction has not confirmed

And whose fault is this? Lightning's?

LN devs wrote the code, LN devs use the code for their features they want to offer..
LN was not magically created by some vapour entity that fathered jesus.. its not even some self coding AI
so yea LN flaws are LN dev's fault
and the utupian fantasy narrative of LN's advertising misinforming people of what LN is, is the fault of the LN fangirls

This thread is pointless.

You're missing the bigger picture, which is this:

Please keep the discussion only here, and not in other topics.

gotta laugh at LoyceV for this, i noticed it and laughed at it 9 days ago when he made the 'guidance'.. thinking he can make a prison for certain topics(not very 'switzerland' of him, seems more nazi tactic)

[BlackHatCoiner]

he didnt talk about it here..

Yeah, you see he was a little dizzy from this supposed discussion. Forgive him.

well. this topic is about me.

The topic is about you, but that doesn't mean we'll talk about your favorite video games. We've chosen the technical background of LN and that means we can include the commitment of direct payments.

doomad, you, rath and others couldnt even stand by your own opinion in a short quick summarised questions.

Because they were pointless and misleading questions.

LN devs wrote the code, LN devs use the code for their features they want to offer..

Look on your github issue. The proposal has 2 likes and 1 dislike. This turbo feature wouldn't be mandatory and therefore the users would be responsible for its usage. And it's a dumb idea, to be honest. Do you see it getting recognized?

[franky1]

LN devs wrote the code, LN devs use the code for their features they want to offer..

Look on your github issue. The proposal has 2 likes and 1 dislike. This turbo feature wouldn't be mandatory and therefore the users would be responsible for its usage. And it's a dumb idea, to be honest. Do you see it getting recognized?

they are trying to put a voluntary feature of one software piece, into becoming part of the official BOLTS protocol, that all software would have to try being compatible with.

turbo(one use case of breaking the funding lock peg) has been promoting it and doomad(and many others) has been loving the idea, he has even gone as far as doomad jumping off the cliff in defence of it by saying i deserve some court claim harassment for speaking out about its flaws.(facepalm+laugh)

as you can see by the github, its been trying to implement it into the BOLTS for 2 years(many iterations).
heck even with many comments also against it, even with many mentioning the 'fake' and 'trust' of it, you however pivot to highlight the opposite by narrowing down on the '2 likes 1 dislike" narrative as if you want to make it seem acceptable
(then later contradict by saying you think its a dumb idea.. but atleast your honest at that last part)

..
people may not like my views on finding the flaws and bugs and faults.. but in coding, finding bugs and flaws is more helpful rather than being a PR utopian dreamer of hope and broken promise.

people do actually want to know whats at risk, what works and doesnt work. they dont just want to be kissed and hugged. if you are here just to make friends and agree with people out of loyalty.. so be it. just dont try hugging people into risks and telling them its all safe., better friends would actually find the flaws and warn each other.
anyway i am not looking for friends, thats not antisocial. thats just treating this forum as a bitcoin discussion, not some social media site

..
if there is a topic that says everything correct. there is no need for me to post. as there is nothing more to say. yes 85% of my posts are replies having a different side to a previous post. because if the post was correct. again there would be nothing more to add to the topic.
just because i dont reply with a 98% kiss ass rate of loyalty. does not mean im a troll

dont confuse my replies sounding different, to mean i only post just to be antagonistic/troll. my reason for posting is to correct details that need correcting.. i only become antagonistic in the 'mood' of my context after i get poked by the standard social drama insult campaign by certain people.

your groups attempts to play victim by calling me a troll because i became antagonistic, is a memory lapse on your groups side of forgetting who started the bear poking.

here is a reminder of the flow
1.utopian dream of idea's of promise
2.i highlight how the promises can be broke and the utopia never reached
3.utopian dreamer loyalists defend the dream
4.i backup my opinion with references to code, bips, quotes
5.utopian dreamer loyalists start social drama poking the bear by antagonising
6.i antagonise back
7.utopian dreamer loyalists use last resort of avoiding 2 and just grab 6 as their reason why 1 must be correct
8. (repeat 5,6,7)

yep its a know strategy used by a certain group

well. this topic is about me.

The topic is about you, but that doesn't mean we'll talk about your favorite video games. We've chosen the technical background of LN and that means we can include the commitment of direct payments.

i never mentioned my favourite video game. but nice try with your lame poke

oh and by the way. in a topic stipulating my name. about my issues with LN and the utopian altnet offramp described as scaling vs actual scaling of the actual bitcoin network

it is my decision to talk about one these things (in a topic about my opinion on things) and i have actually tried to stick to a specific thing at a time. (LN payments, before getting to the commitments)
by others trying to move the conversation to talk commitments.. ignoring the LN payment stuff, but isnt that against your own guideline

I accept to take part in this discussion and not be biased towards franky, but I want to add this as a condition: We'll speak of one topic at a time.
..
This way we can clarify which are our interlocutor's disagreements and constructively (& friendly) correct them.

seems your bias and desire to take things off topic, is another hypocrisy on your part

[darkv0rt3x]

This thread is pointless.

You're missing the bigger picture, which is this:

Please keep the discussion only here, and not in other topics.

I must say the discussion so far is much better than I expected in Bitcoin Discussion. I don't think anyone will change their mind, but that was to be expected. At least it's more or less on-topic and I don't have to delete a lot of spam.

I'm not missing the point. What I meant is that you're not gonna be able to convince him of anything. That's in that sense I said that the thread is pointless. I mean, pointless in the sense that he's not gonna give up of his utopia!

And in the process he tries to diminish other people's knowledge, confidence and self-esteem by insulting,

Blinder than a blind man is the one who don't want to see.

I'm almost compelled to say this guy is autistic.
lack of social skills, they find quite hard to socialize and accept other visions and thoughts other than the ones of their own.They can't verbalize correctly and they often get angry/frustrated when they can't achieve their goals.
This person has all these traces.

hmmm. now should i bother to review all the posts of this topic and look at who has mentioned the most insults..
but anyway funny part is that darkv0rt3x post had no content related to how LN works, or scaling bitcoin, yet was just a personal attack message. (boring, but nice try to poke the bear)

...

Your funny speech of the bear being poked makes me laugh. Where is the bear? I can't see one... Ohhh, that's you? You're just a small cub, helpless and alone.
You only see what you want to see. That's a man than doesn't want to see. And those, are blinder than a blind man! I said right at the beginning that I wouldn't be discussing LN or scaling details. I just came to threw a few conclusions on the way you take conversations, on the way you relate (or not) with others and etc... More of a psychologic evaluation of your behaviour which seems clear to me.

And if you consider yourself a bear, than, I consider myself a bull... All the way. Bull, bullish!
Your type of speech is well known to me. Your behaviour also. lol. Keep it coming!

[franky1]

my utopia?.. funny. you should be a comedian
im not the one advertising other networks as being bitcoins utility replacement system by dreaming that the replacement works 100% even when facts show it has flaws, limits and bugs.
if you want to ignore the flaws or try converting me to being a altnet loyalist.. well that is your utopian dream. and your right you wont convince me. your dream wont come true, much like other utopian dreams altnet loyalists promote

if all the loyalists want is to convert me, well they failed. ill stick to being risk averse and stick to helping myself and others know of the risks and possible problems, its safer that way, no dreaming.

if you dont like that im not an ass kisser like your friends. well maybe realise ass-kissing has some bad consequences too. you dont see the crap touching your lips, you just keep doing it with your eyes closed

EDIT: in response to below
seems someone is harmed by my facepalm, even though it never touches THEIR face. but nice try playing victim(boring though)

anyway now this group has turned this into social drama of personality conflict.. where is 'Switzerland' when you need it

[darkv0rt3x]

my utopia?.. funny. you should be a comedian
im not the one advertising other networks as being bitcoins utility replacement system by dreaming that the replacement works 100% even when facts show it has flaws, limits and bugs.
if you want to ignore the flaws or try converting me to being a altnet loyalist.. well that is your utopian dream. and your right you wont convince me. your dream wont come true, much like other utopian dreams altnet loyalists promote

if all the loyalists want is to convert me, well they failed. ill stick to being risk averse and stick to helping myself and others know of the risks and possible problems, its safer that way, no dreaming

What is advertising? Do these people you say that advertise, are getting paid by the advertisement? You're the one saying they are advertising. Do you know what advertising is? You're just making non-sense claims out of the blue and you're blind enough to not want to see!.

You also have a flaw, and worse than that, you're not even working. LN is working even with flaws.

You're the only one trying to brute-force  your view into other's heads by demagogy. And worse, you're insulting them.

his 3 insults vs my 1 'hypocritical' hmm....
but i do laugh that you want to pretend your the victim (AFTER YOU POKE THE BEAR)
if you dont want to get bit, dont poke

Where the hell is the bear??? All I see is a cub. If I poke a cub, the cub is dead!

You're saying all over the place facepalm, ignorant facepalm, ignorant facepalm, ignorant facepalm, ignorant facepalm, ignorant facepalm, ignorant
Aren't these insults? You want to discuss semantics? Synonyms? I'm not native English speaker but I can engage with no problem.

[BlackHatCoiner]

they are trying to put a voluntary feature of one software piece, into becoming part of the official BOLTS protocol, that all software would have to try being compatible with.

I want facts, not words. Where have they seemed agreed with this feature?

(then later contradict by saying you think its a dumb idea.. but atleast your honest at that last part)

I never believed it was a good idea to contradict it. You keep making things up for the millionth time. Stop it, 'cause readers can't acknowledge when you're a liar and when not as they don't read the whole page of your walls of meaningless text.

people may not like my views on finding the flaws and bugs and faults.. but in coding, finding bugs and flaws is more helpful rather than being a PR utopian dreamer of hope and broken promise.

You've tired me with the PR thing. What makes you think what you are doing isn't public relations? You're propagandistically trying to persuade people to not use Lightning.

Excuse me for not responding to the rest of your garbage-post. I'll stick with this:

You also have a flaw, and worse than that, you're not even working. LN is working even with flaws.

At this point I think we've violated the following:

Please keep this topic civil.