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

[franky1]

Since i didn't find word "size", "block size" and "hard fork", i'll ask these question to @franky1
1. Do you think increasing block size limit is the only option for scaling (since you're not fan of SegWit, Taproot and LN)?
2. How should Bitcoin community determine block size limit?  Arbitrary number (4MB, 32MB, etc.)? Based on hardware/internet growth? Based on cost of running full node (e.g. maximum $500 for initial setup and $25/month for operational cost)?

1. there are many ways to increase transaction counts.
a. reducing the tx_signops_limit. dis-incentivises big corps from filling blocks with just a few hundred transactions

Wouldn't it prevent custodial service from creating batch transaction (where batch transaction use less block size compared with creating a transaction for each user request)?

no, it wont prevent batching. it will prevent spam over batching by performing the legacy linear sigops attack.
currently there are ways to 'fill a block' using just 5 transactions with 16,000 tx sigops each
static const int64_t MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS_COST = 80000;
static const unsigned int MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIGOPS_COST = MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS_COST/5;

this could be brought down.. not to just 1-2 like you are thinking, but to say 50 or a few hundred, thus still allowing batching but preventing a max sigops attack of blocks with only 5 transactions using up the block limits

c. also changing the fee formulae to make 'spam transactions (those that spend multiple times a day/every block, just to bloat blocks) more expensive will cut down the amount of needless transactions, giving more room to genuine spenders

Since coin-age priority was never part of Bitcoin protocol,
1. Do you think it's possible to enforce it on Bitcoin protocol? Currently miner/pool can mine empty block and choose any transaction.
2. Most miner/pool will be hesitant to support this change.

also coin-age is part of code. its a simple: current blockheight - utxo blockheight = coin age
and also miners in the first few years did obide by a different fee formulae than the current weight cludge

enforcing it is the same as how pools obide by the weight (vbyte vs byte) formulae

1. miners do already have a 'fee' formula.. i already explained that they obide by the x 4 legacy rule..
you can tell because legacy transactions are more expensive and so if pools only followed greed of 'more sats the better' they would only accept legacy transactions. and ignore "cheap" segwit.
the very reason they deem a segwit "cheap" the same 'value' as a legacy 'premium' is becasue they do follow the x4 calculation of value per byte/vbyte

2. again they already do support fee formulae. but.. guess what. code is great. you can actually make rules to force support too. thats what code does, it makes rules

as for what the community wanted in 2017 was a 2mb base atleast. i would now say thats about 4mb base block as a acceptable way to go. and that can be achieved by just removing the 'weight' miscalculating cludgy code and just having the maxblocksize as 4mb straight and open for full transaction utility. along with a new fee formulae and sigoplimit reduction to avoid bloaty spam.

I see, but we know it's more than removing the "weight". Since it require hard fork, it'll force many people to upgrade their software and another activation signal which will take some time (IMO at least 6 months is required) and attract another controversy (such as cutting backward compatibility).

backward compatibility.. ? how many people are actually running nodes from pre 2017.. i bet its not 5% of network
also the march2017-august 2017 proved that mandated activation can happen. (bip148 and bip91)

oh and because the consensus.h rule is maxblocksize 4mb. the hard block rule is 4mb. its just the cludgy soft code after that limits some transactions to not utilise it. so all the majority nodes of 2017+ dont need an upgrade. blocks wont be rejected for being 4mb

[1713570113]

1713570113

[1713570113]

1713570113

[1713570113]

1713570113

[franky1]

Wouldn't it prevent custodial service from creating batch transaction (where batch transaction use less block size compared with creating a transaction for each user request)?

no, it wont prevent batching. it will prevent spam over batching by performing the legacy linier sigops attack.
currently there are ways to 'fill a block' using just 5 transactions with 16,000 tx sigops each
static const int64_t MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS_COST = 80000;
static const unsigned int MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIGOPS_COST = MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS_COST/5;

Could you show any example? I don't care whether it's on mainnet, testnet or signet.

ask nicely and you shall receive
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/364422
its just 1 transactions and filled the block and took the nodes a heck of a long time to validate due to the bloat of soo many signatures. that prompted a change to sigops /5.. but even thats too high with the increased blocksize, so needs reducing again

Since coin-age priority was never part of Bitcoin protocol,
1. Do you think it's possible to enforce it on Bitcoin protocol? Currently miner/pool can mine empty block and choose any transaction.
2. Most miner/pool will be hesitant to support this change.

also coin-age is part of code. its a simple: current blockheight - utxo blockheight = coin age
and also miners in the first few years did obide by a different fee formulae than the current weight cludge

enforcing it is the same as how pools obide by the weight (vbyte vs byte) formulae

While coin-age was part of code, it was never part of Bitcoin protocol. See https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/54583.

taproot was not part of the protocol before X date.
the thing is though. it is not rocket science to do current height - utxo height.
it does not require a PHD in cryptography to master it.

I see, but we know it's more than removing the "weight". Since it require hard fork, it'll force many people to upgrade their software and another activation signal which will take some time (IMO at least 6 months is required) and attract another controversy (such as cutting backward compatibility).

backward compatibility.. ? how many people are actually running nodes from pre 2017.. i bet its not 5% of network
also the march2017-august 2017 proved that mandated activation can happen. (bip148 and bip91)

I'm aware about low percentage of node which use client that doesn't support SegWit. My point it'll be one of reasons against hard-fork.

if there are less than 5% using old nodes that dont like 4mb. then there is no hard fork controversy

[BlackHatCoiner]

i clearly said that due to lack of consensus means LND's altruist watchtower is not the default policy regarding watchtowers

No, so what's bad about that?

oh, but it can.. as we have just agreed, the lack of need of a consensus, means that peers can happily communicate with many networks and with no other blockchain due to the lack of network wide audited policy.

By that reasoning, SPV servers' network doesn't require blockchain 'cause there's lack of network wide audited policy.

are you going to now flip flop about the lack of consensus.. ?

Depends on how you understand consensus. The current rigmarole that has started with you and my ban request is caused because we both have different understandings of the word “consensus”.

In the Lightning Network everyone does whatever they wish, they don't have to come into an agreement for their implementations. There are different sets of rules (different protocols), but each participant follows the same rules with their co-participants.

the ip/tor address connection.. and the subsequent public key, handshake does not lock peer partners to a specific blockchain. that public key and formation of joint multisig can be used on multiple blockchains, or no blockchain at all and just some private token they invent together. the lack of consensus allows this

Of course and they can. However, in LN it's not just an invented token. Each participant holds signatures which can be used to unlock outputs from the blockchain where there is consensus. Hence, the consensus of Bitcoin is connected with the Lightning Network.

if you cannot tell the difference. please look into it. dont confuse the two

I don't confuse them, I'm just telling you that whether you make a Bitcoin transaction or a Lightning one, in both cases, you carry a signature that can be used to move funds from the blockchain.

just because YOU dont use it for altcoins. doesnt mean the network cant

Didn't say the network can't.

just because you might only want to use a condom as a replacement of party balloons, does not mean thats its only function. other people have other uses of condoms.

Didn't restrict their use, stop making things up.

[franky1]

Depends on how you understand consensus. The current rigmarole that has started with you and my ban request is caused because we both have different understandings of the word “consensus”.

your interpretation is flip floppy.
you first (and mainly) pretend that consensus is devs can do as they like and if users dont like it they can fork off.
then you flip flop that users cant propose anything because they are not worthy
then you flip flop that upgrades cant happen without the community where devs cant mandate
then you flip flop that no one can implement an upgrade because no one will every agree unanimously
then you flip flop that bitcoin is open and anyone can propose

my interpretation is simple
pre 2015 consensus required any user to propose and if enough devs 'ack' and it gets put into code. and enough users then download that software release implementation, it activates
pre 2017 consensus required mining pools and nodes to have consensus of devs chosen rule before an upgrade would activate
post 2017 devs can upgrade the network and force users/pools to upgrade or be thrown off the network

In the Lightning Network everyone does whatever they wish, they don't have to come into an agreement for their implementations. There are different sets of rules (different protocols), but each participant follows the same rules with their co-participants.

i am not in disagreement with you at all in this. i was not the one saying that LN has to work network wide with bitcoin.
i wasnt the one suggesting LN is reliant on bitcoin

the ip/tor address connection.. and the subsequent public key, handshake does not lock peer partners to a specific blockchain. that public key and formation of joint multisig can be used on multiple blockchains, or no blockchain at all and just some private token they invent together. the lack of consensus allows this

Of course and they can. However, in LN it's not just an invented token. Each participant holds signatures which can be used to unlock outputs from the blockchain where there is consensus. Hence, the consensus of Bitcoin is connected with the Lightning Network.

oh boy.. my comment is on the peer connection.. not the locked output of funds vs token promises..
its the public keys used purely at the peer connection stage.. that those keys.. SEPARETLY at a later stage can be used to bind together to create a multisig. and separete stage again later then that multisig can be used to fund locks. on different chains.
the public keys are just random generated priv->pub nothing about the keys force it to a certain blockchain at the peer connection stage

its not like a channel is funded. and then keys are produced to then use to node_connect to a peer.. (time doesnt travel backwards)
 
so lets deal with your obvious confusing in 2 stages, or what appears as being a mish-mash of different parts of the network protocol done to confuse the issue
1. peer connection
the gossip: node_announce section of handshaking with a peer.. is a completely different process to that of discovering the channels and which bridged coin a node has.
you cant work out how many chain_hash channels a partner has BEFORE joining the partner(time moves backwards)
you can join the partner to THEN find out what chain_hash his multiple channels might have
(time and action moves forward)

meaning. a litecoin bridged node and a bitcoin bridged node are not separated on different LN's. they can peer connect on the same LN. and then agree on some atomic swap of their different chain_hashed bridged channels

lets just use the flimsy 'bolts' as an example (working backwards, seems the direction you prefer)
4. nodes 'shouldnt' send a channel_update notifying the network of a chain_hash locked channel until funding_locked
3. nodes 'shouldnt' send do funding_locked unless they have funded the multisig
2. nodes 'shouldnt' send funds unless they have shared public keys, made multisig, agreed which chain_hash
1. nodes 'shouldnt' agree on a public key until they are peer_connected

what you learn is this paradox you pretend exists where there are different 'lightning networkz'... does not exist
YOUR VIEW: you cant connect to a node1 without a channel4 designating which blockchain its on.
my response: but then you cant connect to a node1 to then create a channel2 in your paradox.

the reality is though. there is no paradox. you can connect to a node without a pre-existing channel and then inspect what channels they have.

being able to connect to nodes without a channel.. is not a paradox which you hint at, where nodes need to have assumed some chain_hash  locked channel with funding already provided before even connecting..

please please please understand the difference betwen peer connection.. being different to channel locks
(i think you separately know it. and just said some weird mixing of different aspects just to be silly and cause irritation)

2. locked funds of funding_tx vs LN promise.. and their signatures
seems as part of you rmish-mash of aspects of the network. you want to impose your opinion that the signatures of a peer connection are that of the same signature as a established channel with locked funds

signatures of a series of bytes(message) which includes value of msats. wont match a series of bytes(message) of a contract  measured in sats. not a series of bytes(mesage) that contains an IP, port and public key

i think you might want to learn the association between what signatures sign. EG you cant take a litecoin transaction signature over to a bitcoin transaction message and make it fit purely because the use the same public key.
the message(contract wording/node data) have to match too

what you find is that a there is no single signature that lasts for the duration of all things LN
many signing processes happen. signing different things ..
a couple signing processes happen in the payment part. one for the LN payment(mast) promise and another for the commitment(sat). at GUI level you dont see it happen. but at code level it does. and a malicious attacker can mess with is via delays in signing.

just because you dont see the signing stages happen for their respective things. doesnt mean they dont happen, so try not to confuse it.
and definitely dont try pretending a signature for one message can be used on multiple messages
that sounds a bit faketoshi to me. taking an old signature and pretending it refers to a new message

if you cannot tell the difference. please look into it. dont confuse the two

I don't confuse them, I'm just telling you that whether you make a Bitcoin transaction or a Lightning one, in both cases, you carry a signature that can be used to move funds from the blockchain.

i just corrected your paradox. you cant use a litecoin signature on a bitcoin network. the message/signature wont carry...

but you seem to be meandering away from the actual initial debate now.
you dont need to have an active channel with funds locked just to peer connect to a node..
thus you dont need to be locked to bitcoin with funds locked to talk to other peers.

just because YOU dont use it for altcoins. doesnt mean the network cant

Didn't say the network can't.

just because you might only want to use a condom as a replacement of party balloons, does not mean thats its only function. other people have other uses of condoms.

Didn't restrict their use, stop making things up.

as for your final two points.. you debate that the nodes of different bridged blockchains cant communicate together. and then at the end flip flop to say you never said they cant and you never restricted their use (facepalm)




so because some altnetters want to contradict themselves, flip flop. and confuse even themselves with what they are saying
lets try this one more time. the questions are made simple to avoid any extended waffly clauses, its simply to get flip floppers to finally pledge their opinions to agree or disagree with certain aspects

ill number them and you can quote them and put a * mark in which box you agree or disagree with

1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]
2. LN promises (payments inside LN) are denominated in picocoin(11decimal) also known as msat/millisat
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]
3. LN promises (payments inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]
4. bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued promises
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]
5. LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]
6.LN wont work without bitcoin
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

its not complicated.
just simple quote the 6 questions and put a * into the box that fits your opinion. an opinion you will not flip flop out of or contradict yourself later.

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[LoyceV]

off-chain solutions in general. ~ Binance chain

I wouldn't call a custodial made-up token an off-chain solution. Binance tries to trick people into using their own centralized chain, pretending it's Bitcoin.

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

I think it's terrible for Bitcoin adoption, as it goes against everything Bitcoin stands for. Note that Binance could just as well have implemented LN on their exchange, so that their withdrawals are compatible with the rest of the world, but that wouldn't have inflated the value of their own made-up centralized chain to 75 billion dollars.
I'm not against centralized solutions for adoption, but Binance has different interests than Bitcoin (users).

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.

True. It serves as a good warning of what the alternative can be.

I want to add this as a condition: We'll speak of one topic at a time. Scalability? Scalability. Lightning's protocol? Lightning's protocol. Consensus? Consensus. This way we can clarify which are our interlocutor's disagreements and constructively (& friendly) correct them.

Added to the OP. This is what I meant by "Try to limit the scope", but you explained it better.

ok i must start with the first fatal flaw.
LN CAN infact work without bitcoin. LN's function allows it to peg to different blockchains.

Agreed. I assumed we were talking about LN on the Bitcoin network, but indeed, it can be applied broader.

LN has no network wide audit/consensus that checks that all nodes/channels are all connected to the bitcoin network.
some LN users right now only have channels/nodes pegged to litecoin

True. But as far as I know, those LTC-LN-nodes won't interact with a BTC-LN-node, so even though they all use some form of LN, they won't mix up transactions.

many devs and LN users have lost funds. even with "punishment" clauses attached.

LN is still experimental, right? People have lost on-chain Bitcoin too, and I have no doubt people have lost their coins through LN. However, for future growth, I'm more interested if this can be improved up to the point where the chance of losing coins becomes small enough to be acceptable. Let's face it: people lose their physical wallet with cash too.

watchtowers.. ok now you are creating bank managers.
so now people have to trust their channel partner to not cheat. and then trust a bank manager to watch that the partner has not cheated.

I must say I like this system: if you don't trust the existing watchtowers, you can run your own. It's like creating your own bank managers! And if enough people do that, there will be enough watchtowers to rule out being offline when you need one.

soo much to do just to hope cheating does not happen.

I agree with you here! I (still) don't understand all the technical details of LN, but from what I've seen, it is indeed complicated. Much more complicated than signing a simple on-chain Bitcoin transaction. But, and that's why I like LN: when implemented and used correctly, it has the potential to make secure transactions abundant.

so much trust is needed to risk not having to watch 24/7

This, however, I don't agree with. For example: rebooting your LN node and being offline for a while isn't enough for your channel partner to broadcast an old channel state and steal your funds.

meanwhile, on bitcoin. when someone sends me value. its confirmed. finito. its mine, no takesy backsy's, no third party watchtower, no co-signer needed. no punishment. its just mine. done

Agreed. But: say you sell coffee, and say you accept many small amounts of Bitcoin per day. Consolidating your funds will be expensive because all those small inputs increase your transaction size. LN doesn't have that problem, and I haven't even started yet about limited blockspace.
For me, it's quite simple: if you buy a car with Bitcoin, pay on-chain. If you buy a coffee, use LN. Both have their pros and cons depending on the situation.
For receiving: If I receive a payment worth $1000, I prefer Bitcoin on-chain. But if I receive 1000 payments of $1 each, I prefer Bitcoin LN.

when setting up a channel you have to put keys in even if you are just watching balance. those keys are needed actively all the time. even if you are not buying anything for yourself and instead just routing..

Agreed. Do you mean the risk of having your node compromised and your keys stolen? That is indeed a risk because you can't use cold storage in LN. My workaround is to lower the risk: I don't use LN for large amounts.

1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things

agree[ *]   disagree[ *]
Assuming we're talking about LN on the Bitcoin network, I ticked both boxes. I agree, because LN and Bitcoin indeed use different networks, and are meant for different circumstances. But I also disagree, because the transactions are linked and LN-payments can eventually be settled on-chain.

2. LN promises (payments inside LN) are denominated in picocoin(11decimal) also known as msat/millisat

agree [ *]   disagree[ ]
I agree on the msat. I ignore the pico, that would be 10^-12, not 10^-11. But even though I'll never get the fractions of a satoshi back on-chain, I don't worry (nor care) about it. Exchanges or stock brokers also use dollars or euros up to 3 or more decimals for their internal accounting, and everyone accepts that.

3. LN promises (payments inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction

agree[ *]   disagree[ ]
Obviously, this is different.

4. bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued promises

agree[ *]   disagree[ ]
Also true.

5. LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network

agree[ *]   disagree[ *]
I ticked both again: it depends on the implementation. If I install a simple Bitcoin LN wallet, it won't work on any other chains. But it can be implemented, just like Bitcoin Core can be adjusted for many different altcoins.

6.LN wont work without bitcoin

agree[ *]   disagree[ ]
Assuming we're talking about LN on the Bitcoin network, I agree. There is no LN Bitcoin without on-chain channel opening and closing. And that's a huge threat to LN if on-chain fees rise.

lightning network can work without bitcoin even when partnering with users that have bitcoin channels
maybe by admitting to this you might be able to explain the positives of such, like highlighting atomic swaps

LN is its own network. there is no litecoin LN network and LN bitcoin network. thats just a user interface error in thinking. not a separation at code level that prevents such communication between peers.

This is new to me. But (I think) my earlier point stands: my Bitcoin LN wallet can't transact with for example a Litecoin LN wallet, because the transactions needed for on-chain settlement aren't compatible, hence the transaction on the LN-side can't be accepted.

i know you maybe ready to itch a scratch and say that within the LN island, there are separate towns like bitcoinLN and litecoinLN ..

That sounds reasonable

Does it make sense to limit this topic to the discussion about LN in relation to Bitcoin, and forget about the possibility of using LN on altcoin networks (at least for now)?

a condom is not a penis.

See:

I will call you out if you go off-topic

there is no consensus or network wide audit at the point of rounding up/down a valuation of a LN payment and creating a subsequent blockchain formatted contract.

I think this is correct. But: I think the node's rules on fee for onchain settlement are a much larger concern. Why would I bother about a fraction of a satoshi if the node sends thousands of satoshis as on-chain fee? It's just a rounding difference.
I assume all these details will be explained in the fine print of large nodes in the future, or you can set your own preferred fees on your own node.

scammy partners can mess with this and not sign a settlement contract to update the promise value into something more tangeable the victim can use to settle his promised value

Are we still talking about a fraction of a satoshi, or about something bigger? If it's bigger, it might be nice to put it to the test: open a channel with someone's node, and see if you can actually scam them. My guess is it won't work, but if it does work, that's huge!

as you can see the average transactions in last 3 years

downward trajectory..
but the bloat is in an upward trajectory.

meaning the transaction per XXXbytes is becoming less efficient due to all these new "smart contract" bloat.

I don't think the average transaction size went up because of smart contracts, but it's because more users (and especially large users such as online casinos and exchanges) have finally realized batching transactions is more efficient in terms of blockspace and thus transaction fees than sending separate transactions for each individual withdrawal.

so because some altnetters want to contradict themselves, flip flop. and confuse even themselves with what they are saying
lets try this one more time. the questions are made simple to avoid any extended waffly clauses, its simply to get flip floppers to finally pledge their opinions to agree or disagree with certain aspects

I'm not a native English speaker, and it's kinda hard to understand what you mean if you talk about "altnetters", "flip flop", "waffy clauses" and "flip floppers".

Please keep this topic civil.

[DooMAD]

Consensus (and open-source) related post:

devs can upgrade the network and force users/pools to upgrade or be thrown off the network

I notice a small but crucial step missed out.  Devs can create and release code.  There's no 'automatic update' in any Bitcoin client I've ever used.  Ergo, upgrades can only occur if people freely choose to run that code.

So no, devs can't upgrade the network.  Only those securing the chain can do that.

Also, regardless of how you choose to interpret consensus, the only counter proposal you've ever expressed is that devs shouldn't be allowed to code things you don't approve of.  That's not something anyone can enforce, even if anyone did happen to agree with you that it was the correct course of action.  Which leads me on to the next point:

devs can do as they like

As we've already established, they can't upgrade the network unilaterally.  But beyond that, yes.  I will state it clearly and with emphasis because it's empirically true:  

Any developer can create any code they want.  No one can stop that in an open-source source environment.  

You might take issue with that statement, but can you provide any evidence to the contrary?

Further, I feel it's one of the most vitally important features of crypto and I'm baffled as to why anyone would want the opposite.


//EDIT:

Does it make sense to limit this topic to the discussion about LN in relation to Bitcoin?

Oh, sorry, heh.  Did you want to start another topic for consensus-related matters, then?  

[franky1]

Consensus (and open-source) related post:

devs can upgrade the network and force users/pools to upgrade or be thrown off the network

I notice a small but crucial step missed out.  Devs can create and release code.  There's no 'automatic update' in any Bitcoin client I've ever used.

yet another flip flop..

did you forget previous talking points where by you have said that bitcoin doesnt require USERS to upgrade clients 'because backward compatibility'.. remember where you script hymn sheet 'bitcoin doesnt need you it can move on without you'

As we've already established, they can't upgrade the network unilaterally.  But beyond that, yes.  I will state it clearly and with emphasis because it's empirically true:  

Any developer can create any code they want.  No one can stop that in an open-source source environment.  

You might take issue with that statement, but can you provide any evidence to the contrary?

Further, I feel it's one of the most vitally important features of crypto and I'm baffled as to why anyone would want the opposite.

i guess you forgot the other implementations that got treated as opposition and told to fork off.. oh wait it was you telling them to fork off. because you wanted core to be the sole brand of reference client.

and no dont try refering to very old mindset before your switcheroo..
i used to respect you in the days of 2015 and before.. but you have switched over to sound more like a centraliser and altnet fan in recent years

[BlackHatCoiner]

[...]

Sorry, but I can't answer this nonsense, with all the respect. It's just impossible to understand a sentence and I'm really tired to try hard at the moment.

I'm not a native English speaker, and it's kinda hard to understand what you mean if you talk about "altnetters", "flip flop", "waffy clauses" and "flip floppers".

True, franky, don't use phrases such as flip floppy, I've firstly no idea what they mean (and as it seems it happens to others too) and secondly, keep the atmosphere of the discussion calm.

I agree with you here! I (still) don't understand all the technical details of LN, but from what I've seen, it is indeed complicated.

I recommend you to read the lnbook.

ill number them and you can quote them and put a * mark in which box you agree or disagree with

What you fail understanding is that some of those questions can't be answered with a simple True or False. For instance:

1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things

Yes, they're separate networks obviously, but they do the same thing. They allow you to transact bitcoins. The transaction structure and the contracts are different, but the purpose remains same.

[LoyceV]

Does it make sense to limit this topic to the discussion about LN in relation to Bitcoin?

Oh, sorry, heh.  Did you want to start another topic for consensus-related matters, then?

No, I meant to end the discussion about LN in relation to Litecoin (and other altcoins).

[DooMAD]

I notice a small but crucial step missed out.  Devs can create and release code.  There's no 'automatic update' in any Bitcoin client I've ever used.

did you forget previous talking points where by you have said that bitcoin doesnt require USERS to upgrade clients 'because backward compatibility'.. remember where you script hymn sheet 'bitcoin doesnt need you it can move on without you'

It can move on without you.  No one single person can block or filibuster a proposal if the majority agree.  We don't need your individual approval.  It's about collective approval.  But the fact that you're still using Bitcoin means you do approve (if reluctantly).  And yes, it is sometimes possible to introduce changes in way that is backwards compatible, so that users who don't want to take advantage of new features can still take part in the network on their own terms.  But why would you oppose that?  It gives you more freedom, not less.  And again, your only counter proposal would be to tell devs what they can't code.  We've established that notion is unworkable.
 

As we've already established, they can't upgrade the network unilaterally.  But beyond that, yes.  I will state it clearly and with emphasis because it's empirically true:  

Any developer can create any code they want.  No one can stop that in an open-source source environment.  

You might take issue with that statement, but can you provide any evidence to the contrary?

Further, I feel it's one of the most vitally important features of crypto and I'm baffled as to why anyone would want the opposite.

i guess you forgot the other implementations that got treated as opposition and told to fork off.. oh wait it was you telling them to fork off. because you wanted core to be the sole brand of reference client.

and no dont try refering to very old mindset before your switcheroo..
i used to respect you in the days of 2015 and before.. but you have switched over to sound more like a centraliser and altnet fan in recent years

Apologies, but I didn't ask about my mindset or what I've said.  I asked you to provide evidence to the contrary.  Do you have any?  I'd love to see it.  If not, kindly concede the point.  You cannot prevent devs coding what they want.  There isn't a way to do that unless you are suggesting we make Bitcoin closed-source and put you in charge of the code repository.  Is that what you are proposing?

[franky1]

ok i must start with the first fatal flaw.
LN CAN infact work without bitcoin. LN's function allows it to peg to different blockchains.

Agreed. I assumed we were talking about LN on the Bitcoin network, but indeed, it can be applied broader.

when one group want to say LN is bitcoin2.0 and muddy the water confusing what LN can and cant do. limiting the scope to what LN can do only when talking about bitcoin, makes them ignore what LN actually is, just to make LN fit their narrative.

oh and its not "about LN on the bitcoin network" its the LN network bridging to a network.
LND does not function on the bitcoin network.
EG LND requires a blockchain full node that bridges to LN or a LN lite cellphone app just works on the LN network without touching a blockchain network

LN has no network wide audit/consensus that checks that all nodes/channels are all connected to the bitcoin network.
some LN users right now only have channels/nodes pegged to litecoin

True. But as far as I know, those LTC-LN-nodes won't interact with a BTC-LN-node, so even though they all use some form of LN, they won't mix up transactions.

the peer connection aspect of nodes.. is separate to channel forming.
LN peers(nodes) can connect together and have different blockchain bridged channels. .. its why atomic swaps is a feature

many devs and LN users have lost funds. even with "punishment" clauses attached.

LN is still experimental, right? People have lost on-chain Bitcoin too, and I have no doubt people have lost their coins through LN. However, for future growth, I'm more interested if this can be improved up to the point where the chance of losing coins becomes small enough to be acceptable. Let's face it: people lose their physical wallet with cash too.

yes losing private keys, data loss/computer crashes. hackers, are all standard risks of all blockchains and all crypto. including LN.. but LN has flaws ontop of standard risk. where even the devs making LN have lost value, not due to standard risk reasons
EG when i get a confirmed payment on bitcoin.. the sender is not going to punish me somehow and double spend my coin. nor can he. yet these smart contracts add in new clauses that allow delays in confirmation to invoke punishments (much like fiat chargeback scamming is a bane of merchants lives, so will these punishment clauses become)

watchtowers.. ok now you are creating bank managers.
so now people have to trust their channel partner to not cheat. and then trust a bank manager to watch that the partner has not cheated.

I must say I like this system: if you don't trust the existing watchtowers, you can run your own. It's like creating your own bank managers! And if enough people do that, there will be enough watchtowers to rule out being offline when you need one.

meanwhile on bitcoin even offline someone can pay me. no need for me to sign for it. no need to watch or hire a bank to watch to make sure the sender doesnt refund himself. its mine. done. clear. end of story

LN is different and riskier and the LN PR people need to make people aware of the risks instead of just saying its bitcoin 2.0 and has same security as bitcoin

soo much to do just to hope cheating does not happen.

I agree with you here! I (still) don't understand all the technical details of LN, but from what I've seen, it is indeed complicated. Much more complicated than signing a simple on-chain Bitcoin transaction. But, and that's why I like LN: when implemented and used correctly, it has the potential to make secure transactions abundant.

this is what i mean by needing to explain the risks. you loosely wrote:
when implemented and used correctly, it has the potential to make secure transactions abundant
but even that is sweeping the risks under the carpet. like its not a big deal and pretends to be "secure".
there are more flaws then you might think. or more flaws than others had bothered to make you aware of

so much trust is needed to risk not having to watch 24/7

This, however, I don't agree with. For example: rebooting your LN node and being offline for a while isn't enough for your channel partner to broadcast an old channel state and steal your funds.

with honest partners. no big deal. but we all know from all the bitcoin scams mentioned on this forum. you cant trust someone not to want to take their funds out if they see an opportunity to garner more then they deserve.
again going offline thinking partner wont do it, requires trust

meanwhile, on bitcoin. when someone sends me value. its confirmed. finito. its mine, no takesy backsy's, no third party watchtower, no co-signer needed. no punishment. its just mine. done

Agreed. But: say you sell coffee, and say you accept many small amounts of Bitcoin per day. Consolidating your funds will be expensive because all those small inputs increase your transaction size. LN doesn't have that problem, and I haven't even started yet about limited blockspace.
For me, it's quite simple: if you buy a car with Bitcoin, pay on-chain. If you buy a coffee, use LN. Both have their pros and cons depending on the situation.
For receiving: If I receive a payment worth $1000, I prefer Bitcoin on-chain. But if I receive 1000 payments of $1 each, I prefer Bitcoin LN.

i dont have a problem with LN being advertised as a nice service for micro payments.. the issue is when its described as bitcoins solution to everyones every day payment needs. when its described as bitcoin2.0. when its described as the replacement to not need to scale bitcoin or widen its 'limited blockspace'
seeing as you brought it up. ill just quickly say
the limited blockspace is not limited due to any technical reason. its limited by commercial politics reason, of creating a demand for a altnet that can fill a niche

when setting up a channel you have to put keys in even if you are just watching balance. those keys are needed actively all the time. even if you are not buying anything for yourself and instead just routing..

Agreed. Do you mean the risk of having your node compromised and your keys stolen? That is indeed a risk because you can't use cold storage in LN. My workaround is to lower the risk: I don't LN for large amounts.

1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things

agree[ *]   disagree[ *]
Assuming we're talking about LN on the Bitcoin network, I ticked both boxes. I agree, because LN and Bitcoin indeed use different networks, and are meant for different circumstances. But I also disagree, because the transactions are linked and LN-payments can eventually be settled on-chain.

first its not LN on the bitcoin network. its just LN. whereby you want to restrict it to become LN bridged to the bitcoin network, to fit a limited scope narrative.
again once you understand that atomic swaps and connecting nodes is separate comms than creating channels, it may become clearer for you

2. LN promises (payments inside LN) are denominated in picocoin(11decimal) also known as msat/millisat

agree [ *]   disagree[ ]
I agree on the msat. I ignore the pico, that would be 10^-12, not 10^-11.

actually in the LN code it does mention pico. they just use pico-1 as the measure of mast, but the pico is very much wrote in the code

5. LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network

agree[ *]   disagree[ *]
I ticked both again: it depends on the implementation. If I install a simple Bitcoin LN wallet, it won't work on any other chains. But it can be implemented, just like Bitcoin Core can be adjusted for many different altcoins.

LN when peers connect. .. is a separate thing and a precursor to funding a channel

you cant obviously already have a channel where you already have funds locked in a partnered multisig, just to be able to establish you are a bitcoin only bridge, to then connect to a peer to then create a channel to then fund into the partnered multisig .. thats a paradox

6.LN wont work without bitcoin

agree[ *]   disagree[ ]
Assuming we're talking about LN on the Bitcoin network, I agree. There is no LN Bitcoin without on-chain channel opening and closing. And that's a huge threat to LN if on-chain fees rise.

i will respect you may not know about the peer connect process is separate to the channel establishing process. so ill just mention paradox again. and also mention atomic swap and also LTC bridge

lightning network can work without bitcoin even when partnering with users that have bitcoin channels
maybe by admitting to this you might be able to explain the positives of such, like highlighting atomic swaps

LN is its own network. there is no litecoin LN network and LN bitcoin network. thats just a user interface error in thinking. not a separation at code level that prevents such communication between peers.

This is new to me. But (I think) my earlier point stands: my Bitcoin LN wallet can't transact with for example a Litecoin LN wallet, because the transactions needed for on-chain settlement aren't compatible, hence the transaction on the LN-side can't be accepted.

thats more about the limitation of your wallet. not the limitation of LN. its much like saying you have a SPV wallet and so now you believe that the bitcoin network doesnt do blockchain archiving, because your wallet doesnt do it.
much like many that are already thinking that 'pruned nodes' are still full nodes and archiving data to provide new peers with IBD is not part of the decentralisation feature of bitcoin

i understand your wallet doesnt do atomic swaps, nor any decent node interrogation of channels.. nor able to handle other blockchains.. but thats not to say the lightning network cant/doesnt

Does it make sense to limit this topic to the discussion about LN in relation to Bitcoin, and forget about the possibility of using LN on altcoin networks (at least for now)

nah, lets not play into the game of making LN sound like its bitcoin 2.0 by only talking about a limited scope.
again LN peer connection does not require channel establishment first to 'fix' users to a specific bridged blockchain (the paradox)

1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things

Yes, they're separate networks obviously, but they do the same thing. They allow you to transact bitcoins. The transaction structure and the contracts are different, but the purpose remains same.

LN allows the payment promise of millisats. the bitcoin network allows the confirmed immutable settlement of sats
i know at GUI level you cant tell the difference. but at code level there is a difference.

much like you wish to argue that binance sidechain is not real bitcoins.

I notice a small but crucial step missed out.  Devs can create and release code.  There's no 'automatic update' in any Bitcoin client I've ever used.

did you forget previous talking points where by you have said that bitcoin doesnt require USERS to upgrade clients 'because backward compatibility'.. remember where you script hymn sheet 'bitcoin doesnt need you it can move on without you'

It can move on without you.  No one single person can block or filibuster a proposal if the majority agree.  We don't need your individual approval.  It's about collective approval. 

its not about collective approval anymore..
"backward compatibility" made it so, by not requiring users to upgrade..

But why would you oppose that?  It gives you more freedom, not less.  And again, your only counter proposal would be to tell devs what they can't code.  We've established that notion is unworkable.

its not about saying what people cant code.

its about what they do in their PR campaigns promising one thing but giving another. overhyping something as being something else.

As we've already established, they can't upgrade the network unilaterally.  But beyond that, yes.  I will state it clearly and with emphasis because it's empirically true: 

Any developer can create any code they want.  No one can stop that in an open-source source environment. 

You might take issue with that statement, but can you provide any evidence to the contrary?

Further, I feel it's one of the most vitally important features of crypto and I'm baffled as to why anyone would want the opposite.

i guess you forgot the other implementations that got treated as opposition and told to fork off.. oh wait it was you telling them to fork off. because you wanted core to be the sole brand of reference client.

and no dont try referring to very old mindset before your switcheroo..
i used to respect you in the days of 2015 and before.. but you have switched over to sound more like a centraliser and altnet fan in recent years

Apologies, but I didn't ask about my mindset or what I've said.  I asked you to provide evidence to the contrary.  Do you have any?  I'd love to see it.  If not, kindly concede the point.  You cannot prevent devs coding what they want.  There isn't a way to do that unless you are suggesting we make Bitcoin closed-source and put you in charge of the code repository.  Is that what you are proposing?

i guess your still forgetting the other implementations..
maybe "REKT bitcoinXT" campaign.. remember now?
how about bitcoinclassic
how about bitcoinunlimited

how about all the topics where everyone says bitcoin-core is THE reference client.
how about the rhetoric where all bip submissions and stuff has to go through their approval process

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[tertius993]

I'm not a native English speaker, and it's kinda hard to understand what you mean if you talk about "altnetters", "flip flop", "waffy clauses" and "flip floppers".

Please keep this topic civil.

I can assure you that even native English speakers find it difficult to understand franky - his language and spelling is frankly atrocious.

[DooMAD]

I asked you to provide evidence to the contrary.  Do you have any?  I'd love to see it.  If not, kindly concede the point.  You cannot prevent devs coding what they want.  There isn't a way to do that unless you are suggesting we make Bitcoin closed-source and put you in charge of the code repository.  Is that what you are proposing?

bitcoinXT
bitcoinclassic
bitcoinunlimited

It appears you're providing me with examples which support my assertion that devs can code what they want. 

Despite the part where some people found those clients to be divisive or objectionable, developers were still free to create them.  People had the opportunity to run those clients.  A few people are still running some of those clients even today.  If Bitcoin were a closed-source project with one person having exclusive control over the code repository, then perhaps those clients wouldn't exist.  But Bitcoin is open-source, so anyone is free to use that code and create something new.  Any time someone on the forum has claimed that other developers had no right to use "Core's code" as a base for other clients, I have challenged that.  I stand by the stance that anyone is free to use that code to create other clients. 

As far as I'm concerned, everything works as intended here.  I'm happy with that.  You say you're not happy, but again you don't seem to be able to propose a viable alternative.

PR campaigns
REKT

Now this is where things get interesting.  We're into the subject of social engineering.  This one is an absolute hornet's nest.  Mostly due to the part where it's a human flaw.  And I'm going to be completely honest with you.  I don't have an answer for you. 

Sometimes people lash out and make petty attacks against things they don't approve of in the hope that they can convince other people to feel the same way.  And this has happened quite often when devs create new features they would like to see implemented.  There's no way I'd deny that.  It absolutely happens.  But the thing is, it's all completely subjective.  What are we supposed to do about it?  One person's ideal might be another person's heresy.  So it's inevitable that people will attack new ideas if they don't like them.  I don't have the slightest clue as to how to change that sort of petty behaviour and I suspect you don't either. 

But I do have an important question for you:

Can you highlight any distinction between the behaviour of those people who made "REKT" campaigns against those implementations like XT/Classic/Unlimited and your behaviour with your ongoing "REKT" campaign towards LN? 

Because I'll be the first to admit that I can't see any difference (aside from the part where your campaign has been remarkably less successful).  You claim you are vehemently opposed to that sort of conduct, but one could argue you're doing exactly the same thing.  Lashing out and attacking a concept you don't approve of.  How are you acting any better than they were?  Is it a revenge thing?  They did it first, so you're justified to do it now?  Help us to understand it.  There's clearly something getting lost in translation here, because none of us can figure out what it is you're actually trying to achieve.

[franky1]

the difference is:
im not the one doing a hinder bitcoin to promote altnets
im not the one trying to get people to exodus bitcoin 'because altnet is the solution'
im not the one trying to say bitcoin cant/shouldnt scale because altnet is the direction people should move to
im not the one advertising an altnet thats already separate to become defined as being bitcoin2.0

im not oppose to freedom and choice and opinion.
im oppose to people saying bitcoin is limited, broke, unscalable, useless, not a currency. to promote their other network as al of those things, while also trying to take over brand bitcoin

oh and im not the one trying to ban people because of their opinion

[DooMAD]

the difference is:
im not the one doing a hinder bitcoin to promote altnets
im not the one trying to get people to exodus bitcoin 'because altnet is the solution'
im not the one trying to say bitcoin cant/shouldnt scale because altnet is the direction people should move to
im not the one advertising an altnet thats already separate to become defined as being bitcoin2.0

im not oppose to freedom and choice and opinion.
im oppose to people saying bitcoin is limited, broke, unscalable, useless, not a currency. to promote their other network as al of those things, while also trying to take over brand bitcoin

oh and im not the one trying to ban people because of their opinion

Okay.  So you believe you possess some sort of moral high-ground.  Great.  Now what?  Are we supposed to "see the light" that apparently only you can see and convert to your way of thinking?  Because I can guarantee to you that's not going to happen.  I don't think any of us believe that we are "hindering" Bitcoin.  That's just your opinion.  We appear to be at an impasse.  We've got what we want.  You don't have what you want.  You have nothing to offer us.  Meaning there is no incentive for us to change.  

This sounds like a "you" problem.  

[franky1]

note to moderator:loyceV
as you can see Doomad poked the bear, without using any data, code, references to bips, to just talk about me as a personality.
he poked the bear.
so dont blame me

Okay.  So you believe you possess some sort of moral high-ground.  Great.  Now what?  Are we supposed to "see the light" that apparently only you can see and convert to your way of thinking?  Because I can guarantee to you that's not going to happen.  I don't think any of us believe that we are "hindering" Bitcoin.  That's just your opinion.  We appear to be at an impasse.  We've got what we want.  You don't have what you want.  You have nothing to offer us.  Meaning there is no incentive for us to change.  

This sounds like a "you" problem.  

its not a moral high ground.
i dont care about merit circles or people being my friends, or ass kissing..
my opinions are about bitcoin. and how its being abused to serve other networks agenda's

i dont want to form a little club of friendship partners to exchange tokens of many forms
im a bitcoiner, and proud of it.

heck i even tried to get people to answer just 6 simple non invasive, short non-waffling(no wall of text) questions to button them down to key opinions they want to categorically state as their stance.. to avoid any contradictions(flip flops/change of opinion/meandering)
.. and yet they avoid it and try meandering and confusing the answers.

if you cant stand by your opinion by just answering agree or disagree without adding in some silly rhetoric of maybe. then your opinion obviously is less refined or strong, thus you dont want to stand by a opinion without fears of contradicting it later.

my opinion does not waver, does not contradict itself, does not change. because its backed up by code, bips, blockdata and quotes from devs themselves.

can you say the same about your opinions.. nope.
i backup my statements. but all i see from your side is "franky is wrong because [insert insult]."

you can insult me all you like. but dont then play victim after poking a bear, if the bear then bites you.

and by the way, your "us" vs "you" is very transparent that you believe there is a 'pretty boys club' you belong to.
but that club, circles around the altnet support group. not the bitcoin group.

and if you think i am the only one that wants BITCOIN scaling. how come there are thousands of BITCOIN scaling topics with loads of people asking about scaling BITCOIN. which your club invades to endlessly advertise an altnet people should exodus to instead 'as a solution to scaling bitcoin' (facepalm)

oh, and i actually did give some advice that if you changed your PR strategy to instead of pretending LN is bitcoin, but instead explain the differences, you might actually have a better campaign by being able to explain those differences as the niche use-case feature people might want.

but it seems im the bad guy for ruining the "LN is bitcoin2.0" PR campaign

[DooMAD]

heck i even tried to get people to answer just 6 simple non invasive, short non-waffling(no wall of text) questions to button them down to key opinions they want to categorically state as their stance.. and yet they avoid it and try meandering and confusing the answers.

if you cant stand by your opinion by just answering agree or disagree without adding in some silly rhetoric of maybe. then your opinion obviously is less refined or strong, thus you dont want to stand by a opinion without fears of contradictions

But you haven't addressed any of the concerns that we've raised with your questions.  You just repeat the questions because you want us to admit to something that isn't true.  Let's take a look:


1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

Neither.  They are connected networks, not separate.  Misleading question.

2. LN promises (payments inside LN) are denominated in picocoin(11decimal) also known as msat/millisat
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

Again, misleading.  I would dispute the use of the word "promises".  You are adding your "silly rhetoric" here because you are biased.  I won't mindlessly agree to misleading words.

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

Again, "promises".  You can't help yourself.

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

You really like the word "promises", don't you?

5. LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
agree[ * ]   disagree[ ]

Oh good.  Something that I can actually answer without accepting any misleading rhetoric.  LN does function on top of other blockchains.  And that's a positive quality, not a negative one.  If other networks are deploying LN to allow people to transact off-chain, then it must have some useful purpose.  My view is forever locked in.  I can now never deny that other altcoins can use LN.  Although I can't think of a time where I ever tried to deny that.  So, congratulations, I guess?  What did you hope to achieve by this?

6.LN wont work without bitcoin
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

Misleading.  Either can be correct depending on the circumstances.
If I have an amount of bitcoin and I want to use LN to transfer that value to someone else, who wants to receive bitcoin, then yes, it won't work without Bitcoin.
If I have an amount of altcoin and I want to use LN to transfer that value to someone else, who wants to receive the same altcoin, then no, it doesn't need Bitcoin to work.



These are not "simple non invasive" questions.  You are being deliberately calculating in your choice of wording in an attempt to trick people into agreeing with your rhetoric.  And even if we had fallen into your not-so-subtly prepared trap, it still doesn't detract from the utility offered by this technology.

and yet they avoid it and try meandering and confusing the answers.

if you cant stand by your opinion by just answering agree or disagree without adding in some silly rhetoric of maybe. then your opinion obviously is less refined or strong, thus you dont want to stand by a opinion without fears of contradictions

my opinion does not waver, does not contradict itself, does not change.

Then you'll happily confirm without equivocation that:

• Any developer is free to code what they want,
• everyone will be free to run any code they choose,
• if enough people run code with different consensus rules, change can happen even if a minority disagree,
• if you run code which is incompatible with the code a majority of users are running, you can be disconnected from the network,
• features implemented by soft fork can be considered "opt-in" and you can continue to remain part of the network even if you don't want to use those features,
• there may be social engineering attempts to derail new ideas, but no one has the power to stop that, so we just have to try to overcome their arguments with sound reasoning

Or can you highlight any reason why you believe any of these statements to be misleading?  I believe these statements to be true and feel that I have justified them in the posts I have made in this topic.  In fact, I would invite anyone, not just franky1, to challenge any of these statements.  I want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly and that I'm not just preaching arcane beliefs like a religious follower despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  Please correct me if I am mistaken or nonfactual in any regard.

[BlackHatCoiner]

the difference is:
im not the one doing a hinder bitcoin to promote altnets

Clarify me this: Why is this a bad thing? Why is promoting of networks that don't follow the Bitcoin's consensus rules bad? If something happens outside the network, but it does satisfy a decent percentage of Bitcoin users, why does this annoy you? The networks are indirectly connected. No one forced anybody to use any of those and the Lightning Network hasn't damaged Bitcoin in any way. Contrariwise, it has made the chain weight less. You're paying less in fees due to the existence of it, whose usage is optional!

Also, what's an altnet, exactly? Wanna give me a description? Are forks (such as BCH) altnets? Or is the definition just interest-based? 'Cause if they are, then your proposal will lead to another altnet.

[franky1]

heck i even tried to get people to answer just 6 simple non invasive, short non-waffling(no wall of text) questions to button them down to key opinions they want to categorically state as their stance.. and yet they avoid it and try meandering and confusing the answers.

if you cant stand by your opinion by just answering agree or disagree without adding in some silly rhetoric of maybe. then your opinion obviously is less refined or strong, thus you dont want to stand by a opinion without fears of contradictions

But you haven't addressed any of the concerns that we've raised with your questions.  You just repeat the questions because you want us to admit to something that isn't true.  Let's take a look:


1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

Neither.  They are connected networks, not separate.  Misleading question.

2. LN promises (payments inside LN) are denominated in picocoin(11decimal) also known as msat/millisat
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

Again, misleading.  I would dispute the use of the word "promises".  You are adding your "silly rhetoric" here because you are biased.  I won't mindlessly agree to misleading words.

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

Again, "promises".  You can't help yourself.

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

You really like the word "promises", don't you?

5. LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
agree[ * ]   disagree[ ]

Oh good.  Something that I can actually answer without accepting any misleading rhetoric.  LN does function on top of other blockchains.  And that's a positive quality, not a negative one.  If other networks are deploying LN to allow people to transact off-chain, then it must have some useful purpose.  My view is forever locked in.  I can now never deny that other altcoins can use LN.  Although I can't think of a time where I ever tried to deny that.  So, congratulations, I guess?  What did you hope to achieve by this?

6.LN wont work without bitcoin
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

Misleading.  Either can be correct depending on the circumstances.
If I have an amount of bitcoin and I want to use LN to transfer that value to someone else, who wants to receive bitcoin, then yes, it won't work without Bitcoin.
If I have an amount of altcoin and I want to use LN to transfer that value to someone else, who wants to receive the same altcoin, then no, it doesn't need Bitcoin to work.

i did respond when loycev answered the 6 questions.
but lets respond to your contradicting misunderstandings

1. connecting to peers on the LN network involve just a public key and IP/tor ..
the public keys ip/tor requirements of connecting, are not coin/chain_hash specific.
people can use the public keys to then make litecoin multisig or bitcoin multisig or other token stuff

you dont have a channel with funding lock to then connect to a peer.. instead you connect to a peer and [separation] choose which chain_hash to agree on for the creation a multisig to then fund and then commit to the channel.

LN can be used to choose to create a channel for litecoin(without bitcoin) or other altcons or even agree on creating a channel using their own private token. node connection is not fixed to stay on one chain_hash, as nodes can atomic swap using different chain_hash channels

2. LN promises. are not the same as commitments. you may not like that i do not buzzword to your favoured language and instead use a more descriptive word that explains the function. but id rather use words that explain function than use words that have meaningless connection to function. EG channels buzzworded to 'edge' by altnetters. but i prefer to describe them as 'joint-accounts'
either way if you only disagree due to grammar. you have just made yourself look foolish. because you used a silly grammar argument to avoid the question about '(payments inside LN) are denominated in picocoin(11decimal) also known as msat/millisat'

as you can see i actually had a bracketed explainer of my term 'promises'. to avoid the confusion, which you actually then seemed confused by.. without realising that i pre-empting your grammar confusion by including the bracketed explainer.

3.4 again avoid answering because of buzzword/grammar nazi excuse (boring)

5. 6. funny part is. that you said in point 1 you wanted to define LN as not separate to bitcoin. and thus you deem it as bitcoin. yet at point 5.6 you avail yourself of first opinion and contradict yourself of that opinion. but admitting it can be used without bitcoin. thus again..you full circle back to my point that LN is not bitcoin


lets try again. this time ill make the questions even clearer to appease your grammar nazism of ignorance
also appease the 'bias' excuse by asking the question in the opposite form

(avoid social drama tactic that are used to evade answering/sticking to a certain opinion)


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[ ]

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[DooMAD]

Moving this discussion here, as it does not belong in Meta:

i actually do want consensus. the true consensus of 2009-2016, as invented by bitcoins inventor. not the bastardised mandatory upgrade 'backward compatibility' non-consensus thing that was used in 2017 where users did not need to upgrade their node before activation is allowed.(backward compatibility" = no vote at node level) nor is true consensus where the miners were threatened to change a flag else get your block rejected before activation(to fake 100% vote)
before miners were even given software that would accept the feature if it would activate.(they just needed to change a flag, not their software)

Anyone is free to have the opinion that 2009-2016 consensus was the "true consensus" at the time.  And anyone is free to run a client from that era which does not contain backwards compatible code.  However, it is factual to state that the current consensus does allow for backwards compatible code.  Enough users are running code to make that possible.  Anyone who wants to take advantage of the security and network effects of Bitcoin, which are only made possible by everyone working in agreement, is accepting the current consensus rules. 

It's possible to create a client which rejects blocks containing transactions using SegWit format addresses.  If such a client existed, would you run it?  Then you could have the "true consensus" you claim you want.