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

[BlackHatCoiner]

If such a client existed, would you run it?  Then you could have the "true consensus" you claim you want.

Besides that, according to franky, there can never be a change even in a “true consensus” based system, 'cause there'll always be people who may disagree with it.

[franky1]

If such a client existed, would you run it?  Then you could have the "true consensus" you claim you want.

Besides that, according to franky, there can never be a change even in a “true consensus” based system, 'cause there'll always be people who may disagree with it.

thats why consensus is not 100% but instead majority..
i never said true consensus needs 100% agreement. i said majority.
seems doomad and now blackhatcoiner have been propagandising the misinformation of how consensus 2009-16 worked, as well as pretending mandatory activation was still the same consensus. but then contradicting to say the new consensus is different

i just said majority of true desire, is the consensus of how things get activated..
.. not threats of rejection if not flagging (new mandatory version of activation)

funny part is segwit 2016 (bip9+141) didnt reach that 'majority' all the way through to july 2017

its why they needed to brutalise consensus by changing things from consensus to 'mandatory activation'
oh and before we run back down the ignorance of blackhatcoiner and doomad's propaganda scripts, which is to say bip9+141 was not replaced by bip91+148.. i can show you quotes from theymos and pieter wuille  that say they were replaced and used. and the flags are shown in the immutable blocks.

and the bips themselves say they are mandatory activations by using block rejection to get their thresholds met

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0091.mediawiki

While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required will be rejected.
..
By orphaning non-signalling blocks during the BIP9 bit 1 "segwit" deployment, this BIP can cause the existing "segwit" deployment to activate without needing to release a new deployment.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki

Title: Mandatory activation of segwit deployment
..
It is hoped that miners will respond to this BIP by activating segwit early, before this BIP takes effect. Otherwise this BIP will cause the mandatory activation of the existing segwit deployment before the end of midnight November 15th 2017.

and if they want to continue arguing it wasnt. they can take that argument to them

[LoyceV]

I'm taking this post from BlackHatCoiner's topic in Meta here:

anyone advertising LN as bitcoin. as bitcoinL2 as bitcoin2.0. as bitcoin scaling. as anything pretending to be the bitcoin network. should think deeply about their advertising stance of confusing people. and then realise the N of LN means its not the same network as bitcoin, and just avoid advertising it as being part of the bitcoin network.

I'm still amazed how much you dislike LN, and I still don't really understand why. From the above, it sounds like it's mainly about the terms used. I prefer to say "Bitcoin LN" when I mean a LN-transaction tied to the Bitcoin network. In other words: a LN transaction that can ultimately be settled on the Bitcoin blockchain. And I always thought "Bitcoin LN" was clear for everyone to understand what I mean.

bitcoin-core. the reference client (which altnet groupies also love describing as the sole place feature upgrades should be allowed via) does not have code that support LN millisats nor LNs peer connection gossip protocols. nor the invoice format

You seem to suggest that's a bad thing, or something that makes LN a bad thing. I think it's the opposite: it's great! That means the Bitcoin network can't be touched, can't be damaged, can't be hurt and can't be stopped by Bitcoin LN. And it's why people say LN runs on top of Bitcoin. If it's about nomenclature, I think we should be able to figure out something that works for everyone.

and so because its not part of the reference client of the bitcoin network protocol, its not part of the bitcoin network

If it's about terminology again, it doesn't matter much to me. All I know is that my (non-custodial) Bitcoin LN transactions can and will eventually be settled on-chain, after paying a more or less uncertain transaction fee. There's certainly room for improvement, but I think the potential is too good to completely dismiss.

EG its the same as saying a exchange is not "bitcoin" but a niche service
if people cannot comprehend the simple task of separating the wording of the function of an exchange from the wording of the function of the bitcoin network. then they need to resist trying to say an exchange is bitcoin

I think we can all agree that exchanges are not Bitcoin. Even though they'll probably let you withdraw your funds, you're completely at their mercy if they decide otherwise. That's not the case when your funds are locked in a LN wallet: you know you can get your funds settled on-chain.

[franky1]

when LN is being advertised as a solution to bitcoin, yet LN is not fit for purpose as a solution to bitcoin because LN cant cope if everyone was to use it. (yes liquidity bottlenecks/route fails happen ALOT on LN. even with small payment value requests) imagine the headache if larger payments bigger then micro-transactions became a daily thing. LN would bottleneck more often

when LN is being used as the reason not to scale bitcoin because they say LN is the thing people should use instead of bitcoin

when LN is used to scapegoat why bitcoin shouldnt scale by suggesting bitcoin cant cope with LN transaction numbers. even thou LN average user count and transactions per day are not that much (ignoring the payments done as route, rebalancing which are just needless transactions not needed to be done on the bitcoin network). yep if you actually count the payments where LN users are actually paying for a good or service. that volume of payment count is not going to saturate bitcoin.

bitcoin does not need 100mb blocks or 2gb blocks like the altnetters suggest as their melodrama excuse to not want to scale bitcoin

their desire to hinder bitcoin scaling just to advertise an altnet, its not actually helping evolve bitcoin. its purely ends up being an advert for an altnet

i dont mind people advertising niche services for niche use cases if they explain the risks and what makes it different to actual bitcoin network stuff.. my main gripe is the promises of bitcoin scaling but then saturate posts with adverts about features, other network stuff, that ends up not scaling and just some other thing to side step people out of using bitcoin daily and into something that doesnt work 100% guaranteed without risk/permission from another party.

if you want a simple list of my issues with LN and its supporters:
1. PR campaign advertising LN as bitcoin (pretending security/feature similarities)
1.a: brand tagging bitcoin into a different network to fake trust/loyalty/fanbase
1.b: brand tagging the trust of bitcoin to hide the risks of the other network
1.c: avoid clarifying the differences of LN payments vs funding/settlement commitments
1.d: avoid explaining the permission required payments/commitments vs the permissionless broadcast of just commitment
1.e: avoid temporality of LN payments vs the immutability of confirmed bitcoin transactions

i already said many times if they're honest. they could actually use the differences as positive spin for their niche use case

2. using LN as an excuse not to scale bitcoin
2.a: saying bitcoin doesn't need to scale now LN exists, as if LN could cope with routes for large value/all value(facepalm)
2.b: LN flaws means LN nodes need to perform more 'events'(payments) even when they are not personally buying things
2.c: pretending their high 'event' count is a sign of high utility of LN of people buying things
2.d: pretending the high events is a sign bitcoin couldn't cope with amount of events if those events were blockchain tx's
2.e: pretending LN solves bitcoin scaling, and is there for all users, all value, and 100% payment success
2.f: pretending bitcoin needs to scale to Visa by this month, but cant so LN can and LN will handle Visa amounts
2.g: pretending LN is dependant on bitcoin and thus bitcoin is dependant on LN

3. saying bitcoin is broke or trying to break bitcoin just so they can say 'LN is perfect'
3.a: saying miners(asics) cant handle 'big blocks' (although asics dont even touch tx data)
3.b: saying people use 1999 tech and cant store or relay bitcoin (sorry average internet is 59mbs not 0.5mbs)
3.c: saying people shouldnt initial block download, 'its to big and meaningless', use LN phone app with an exchange channel
3.d: saying pruning is safe, everyone should do it. blockchains aren't needed. blockchains aren't part of decentralisation
3.e: saying litewallets and pruned are full network feature nodes. lite/prune still support the network 100%(facepalm)

4. not wanting to evolve bitcoin as digital cash
4.a: wanting bitcoin fees to be high with lame excuses like pools need high fees
4.b: not wanting more tx's for less fee's (where 5k tx of $0.50 is better than 2k of $1) because lower fees = less LN niche
4.c: telling people what not to buy using bitcoin "dont buy coffee with bitcoin"
4.d: telling people bitcoin is not a digital cash for the unbanked (goes against the whitepaper)
4.e: telling people bitcoin is a 'rail' / reserve network for the elite whales that can afford to use it for batching custodial tx's

i am a whale, but i also see that bitcoin should be useful for the little guys

5. even the usability of LN is not childs play
5.a: needing to lock funds but have to predict how much you plan to spend days/weeks/months ahead
5.b: needing to plan chances of route success and split funds over different 'accounts'(channels) in preparation
5.c: needing to find a channel partner you know will be online when you are to sign permission for your payment
5.d: needing to know he has enough routes/channel possibilities to help ensure payment success
5.e: needing to ensure he is not being used by others too much so that liquidity remains for you to route via him

i could go on but thats just the thoughts at the top of my head

[suchmoon]

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.

Wasn't there a big selling point of LN during the whole block debate shitshow that among other things it will enable atomic swaps? TBH I'd be far more excited about that than merely pushing sats around - even though it doesn't fit the "BTC über alles" spirit of this forum but let's face it, shitcoining exists, and shitcoin<->BTC conversion is big business currently almost entirely monopolized by KYC and DeFi nonsense.

[franky1]

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.

Wasn't there a big selling point of LN during the whole block debate shitshow that among other things it will enable atomic swaps? TBH I'd be far more excited about that than merely pushing sats around

https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/02-peer-protocol.md

The chain_hash value denotes the exact blockchain that the opened channel will reside within. This is usually the genesis hash of the respective blockchain. The existence of the chain_hash allows nodes to open channels across many distinct blockchains as well as have channels within multiple blockchains opened to the same peer (if it supports the target chains).

worth noting that using chain_hash happens AFTER peers connect,
it can be used to then interrogate what channels a peer already has.
it can be used to ask if that node wants to/can can create channels of those blockchains
it can be used to create channels if they both want to use that blockchain for pegged value

the separate peer connect part that comes WAY before channel interrogation or channel creation. is not blockchain specific. the nodeID uses public key for its ID along with an IP/tor domain.

the nodeID is a public key(bech32) but is not prefixed to a blockchain.
EG not bc1q for bitcoin, ltc1q for litecoin.
instead its just ln1q for LN node id

when using channel creation they can then decide which blockchain they want to both be bound in for that specific channel in which they then change the prefix to the supporting prefix of their desired/agreed blockchain

nodes can have a LN node id, and then many channels within, where some of those channels can for bitcoin, bitcoin testnet segnet regtest, litecoin and its testnets segnets regtests and other blockchain networks. and even private mutually agreed tokens

[LoyceV]

I'm taking this here from the other topic (click the quote for full context):

There is a lot of complexity as to why we should or should not have LN I think in the long run it will hurt BTC but then again maybe not.

@ franky1 on every ln thread you should simply say you think the ln network will kill off btc in the long run.

If LN would be able to kill Bitcoin, Bitcoin deserves it! I believe it's the exact opposite: Bitcoin doesn't care:

I'm taking this post from BlackHatCoiner's topic in Meta here:

bitcoin-core. the reference client (which altnet groupies also love describing as the sole place feature upgrades should be allowed via) does not have code that support LN millisats nor LNs peer connection gossip protocols. nor the invoice format

You seem to suggest that's a bad thing, or something that makes LN a bad thing. I think it's the opposite: it's great! That means the Bitcoin network can't be touched, can't be damaged, can't be hurt and can't be stopped by Bitcoin LN. And it's why people say LN runs on top of Bitcoin.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I'm also replying to @philipma1957:

There is a lot of complexity as to why we should or should not have LN I think in the long run it will hurt BTC but then again maybe not.

The intelligent technology of Lightning doesn't care what the majority wants. It's something that runs on top of Bitcoin, without anyone's permission and approval. Even if lots of users didn't want it, they could do nothing to prevent it. There'll always be some who find it satisfactory.

As for if it's damaging in the long term: I strongly disagree. It's what I call the solution to scaling. I'm not going back to paying 10-100 cents and wait for so long just to get my transaction confirmed. I want things to work instantly. I state the exact opposite: If we don't have Lightning, some shitcoins with larger blocks will find their opportunities to distinguish.

The Lightning Network protects the significance of the monetary policy of Bitcoin.

[franky1]

I'm also replying to @philipma1957:

There is a lot of complexity as to why we should or should not have LN I think in the long run it will hurt BTC but then again maybe not.

The intelligent technology of Lightning doesn't care what the majority wants. It's something that runs on top of Bitcoin, without anyone's permission and approval. Even if lots of users didn't want it, they could do nothing to prevent it. There'll always be some who find it satisfactory.

As for if it's damaging in the long term: I strongly disagree. It's what I call the solution to scaling. I'm not going back to paying 10-100 cents and wait for so long just to get my transaction confirmed. I want things to work instantly. I state the exact opposite: If we don't have Lightning, some shitcoins with larger blocks will find their opportunities to distinguish.

The Lightning Network protects the significance of the monetary policy of Bitcoin.

as you can see. blackhatcoiner is showing the advert campaign.
1. saying LN is intelligent technology.. when its simply 'joint-bank account' economics of private agreements between partners.
 - cypherpunks had this 'tech' before 2008 and it didnt work for them. they found blockchains as the solution to 'channels'
2. it doesnt run ontop of bitcoin. much like a printer does not run on the internet. even if 2 middle PC software link locally
 - as bitcoin code has no LN peer connection stuff. and LN can still peer connect without bitcoin.
3. without permission? its 2-of-2 co-signing agreements needing the other person to give permission and be online to allow payments.
 - dont confuse LN 'instant payments' requiring partner amicable permission. vs bitcoin settlements exiting LN
4.seems you now want to show how you hate bitcoin. and dont want to return to using bitcoins 10min confirms and fee's, because you only want to use pico-measured unit fees and 'instant'(when online and amicable and liquid)

5. did bank notes protect the significance of gold as a medium of exchange? or did it replace it as a medium of exchange once bank note lovers decided not to take back their gold because of the slowness and expense of gold transfers.

gotta laugh though.
blackhatcoiner doesnt want bitcoin to scale itself to make less transaction bottlenecks and also make transactions cheaper on bitcoin. but then says LN is the bitcoin scaling solution.. then cries how he doesnt want to go back to bitcoin because of its implied restrictions

blackhatcoiner is stuck in a loop.. doesnt want bitcoin to change, wants another network to avoid bitcoin problems because bitcoin hasnt changed.

last funny part, admitting he doesnt want to return to the bitcoin network to exit LN, means.. yep he will exit LN by atomic swapping to a shitcoin with cheap fee's and less confirmation bottlenecks.

and on a serious note.
if he thinks that getting people off a train, to use a bus, is how he sees it as a solution to scaling trains. he is missing logic by a few million miles. if no one uses a train daily, people stop maintaining trains, and stop buying train tickets

[BlackHatCoiner]

as you can see. blackhatcoiner is showing the advert campaign.

Question, why what you are doing is not advertising?

1. saying LN is intelligent technology.. when its simply 'joint-bank account' economics of private agreements between partners.

Yeah, and Bitcoin is just a currency. Lightning allows these agreements to happen in a trustless way and that's how it distinguishes itself from every other debt-based payment system. At this point I have a feeling that I need to quote the following;

If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.

3. without permission? its 2-of-2 co-signing agreements needing the other person to give permission and be online to allow payments

It's a 2-of-2 co-signing agreement, but you both have a pre-signed Bitcoin transaction if you don't cooperate. Same goes for connectivity.

4.seems you now want to show how you hate bitcoin

You're the only person in this room who thinks I hate Bitcoin.

[franky1]

1. saying LN is intelligent technology.. when its simply 'joint-bank account' economics of private agreements between partners.

Yeah, and Bitcoin is just a currency. Lightning allows these agreements to happen in a trustless way and that's how it distinguishes itself from every other debt-based payment system. At this point I have a feeling that I need to quote the following;

If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.

3. without permission? its 2-of-2 co-signing agreements needing the other person to give permission and be online to allow payments

It's a 2-of-2 co-signing agreement, but you both have a pre-signed Bitcoin transaction if you don't cooperate. Same goes for connectivity.

4.seems you now want to show how you hate bitcoin

You're the only person in this room who thinks I hate Bitcoin.

1. "LN allows private agreements".. has the word agreements in it. .. its not trustless. it requires both parties to be amicable. even the punishment cant be auto-trusted to work in un-amicable scenarios, it has flaws.
seems you have not even looked at the issues cypherpunks had with their p2p money before blockchians existed.

3. you are yet again confusing the locked bitcoin vs the LN payments. please try to learn the difference, it will help you with your day to day use of LN. im not stating you personally shouldnt use LN im saying you should learn what LN actually does and how it actually works to make your life better. heck it might even give you some insight on a better PR campaign

4. you just stated you dont want to go back to using bitcoin because of the fees and confirmation time
ill quote you AGAIN

I'm not going back to paying 10-100 cents and wait for so long just to get my transaction confirmed. I want things to work instantly.

yes bank notes are faster and cheaper to move around compared to gold.. still doesnt make a bank note goldL2

[franky1]

Bitcoin LN will destroy the BTC network, what will happen next?

same as what happened to golds old 19th century medium of exchange status, replaced by bank notes.. and now bank notes being swapped for brass, nickel and copper coins.
.. no one uses gold as a medium of exchange anymore

those wanting LN dont want bitcoin to be a medium of exchange (daily activity currency between the common people) they want it as a 'reserve' currency for the settlement by custodians, payment services, 'hub managers'(AKA banks)

what needs to happen is BITCOIN needs to scale to keep people using the bitcoin network and maintain it regularly/daily. not be shunned away to another network being told to prune their wallet software and not maintain the blockchain, and not use bitcoin network regularly.

[Warless]

Bitcoin LN will destroy the BTC network, what will happen next?

same as what happened to golds old 1900 medium of exchange, replaced by bank notes.. and now bank notes being swapped for brass, nickel and copper coins.

what needs to happen is BITCOIN needs to scale to keep people using the bitcoin network and maintain it regularly/daily. not be shunned away to another network being told to prune their wallet software and not maintain the blockchain, and not use bitcoin network regularly.

and they will want to resort to a previous BTC backup (to the closest blockchain of the last fork). It's not like that?

[LoyceV]

~needing the other person to give permission and be online to allow payments.

Why is this even an argument against LN? Most of the internet requires both parties to be online, and billions of devices are online about 99.9% of the time. My debit card also requires both the shop as well as my bank to be online when I make a transaction. That's not a deal breaker.
And even though Bitcoin can work when the receiver is offline, it still requires both parties to be online and verify the transaction to complete the sale (or whatever deal we made).

blackhatcoiner doesnt want bitcoin to scale itself to make less transaction bottlenecks

I can only speak for myself, but I've said it for years: I don't really care how, as long as Bitcoin does scale! I wouldn't mind bigger blocks (I think it was 32 MB per block when Bitcoin started), but that caused a lot of drama. High fees aren't good for adoption, and although I agree with the argument that Bitcoin can't reach mass adoption by storing billions of daily transactions on-chain, I also think it would be a good temporary solution to allow more transactions until a more permanent scaling solution is created.

@Warless: This isn't the place for oneliners without arguments.

[franky1]

funny part is bitcoin. the actual and only network called bitcoin(not to be confused with altnets)... bitcoin does not require the recipient to be online. nor does it need to pay middlemen to route and have liquidity and be online.

i can send coin to any address whether they are online or not and they will have it confirmed to them even if they dont look or check or ask for it.

i can wire transfer money to others bank account without them needing to be at their bank to accept it.
i can mail bank notes, gold, or other rare metals to people without them having to ask for it.

LN requires a co-signed agreement. and even after the agreement they need to be online to make sure the other party doesnt cheat.

[LoyceV]

bitcoin does not require the recipient to be online. nor does it need to pay middlemen to route and have liquidity and be online.

Although technically correct, it's not a strong argument considering the mining fee is much higher than what the LN middleman charges.

i can send coin to any address whether they are online or not and they will have it confirmed to them even if they dont look or check or ask for it.

True. But how often do you really do that? I don't mind keeping a device online when someone pays me.

i can wire transfer money to others bank account without them needing to be at their bank to accept it.

But a computer somewhere at the bank must be online.

i can mail bank notes, gold, or other rare metals to people without them having to ask for it.

This seems off-topic.

LN requires a co-signed agreement. and even after the agreement they need to be online to make sure the other party doesnt cheat.

All true. And I'm fine with that

[suchmoon]

And even though Bitcoin can work when the receiver is offline, it still requires both parties to be online and verify the transaction to complete the sale (or whatever deal we made).

I don't know if this is the argument that franky is making, but paying with Bitcoin doesn't technically require funds of either party to be online (in a hot wallet). Sender can sign the TX offline, receiver can give a cold wallet address to sender. Sender needs to broadcast it, receiver needs to verify it, but both don't need to be online at the same time or otherwise coordinated.

Back in the day I was rolling my own payment processing and it was extremely simple, efficient, and safe - pre-generate a bunch of cold addresses and hand them out to buyers. None of this is feasible with LN and it seems to be pushing merchant adoption towards custodial options.

[LoyceV]

I don't know if this is the argument that franky is making, but paying with Bitcoin doesn't technically require funds of either party to be online (in a hot wallet).

That's a valid point, LN doesn't facility cold wallets. My counter argument would be that it's supposed to be used for smaller amounts, but it is indeed less secure.

[BlackHatCoiner]

1. "LN allows private agreements".. has the word agreements in it. .. its not trustless. it requires both parties to be amicable. even the punishment cant be auto-trusted to work in un-amicable scenarios, it has flaws.

This has become tiring... I've repeatedly mentioned that it's a game theory. You read and write only what's in your interest. Yeah, Lightning payments are just IOUs and LN is designed to destroy Bitcoin. Keep thinking that way, I give up.

You transfer signed transactions that are normally accepted by the bitcoin network and, alongside, partake in a game theory where you're discouraged to broadcast any other than the latest transaction that is made.

If you ever wondered how often someone is penalized for fraudulent behaviour, forkmonitor keeps track of all penalty transactions ever broadcast. Apparently, there have been 419 unsuccessful cheat attempts with a total of ~5.13 BTC at stake since the end of 2017.

It's a game theory. Another game theory is that we'll constantly have honest miners which will work on extending the chain, punishing those who attack it with their computational cost and rewarding themselves. Does that mean it can always work? Of course not. We've seen lots of 51% in other chains. However, it remains a game theory which works most of the times.

I have been ripped off more times in real life than stolen from my partner in the lightning network. And I've only been ripped off once.

Now if you disagree there's no trust during the Lightning transactions, then everything you've said it's true. Including the analogy with the bank notes. However, I do agree it's trustless.

Back in the day I was rolling my own payment processing and it was extremely simple, efficient, and safe - pre-generate a bunch of cold addresses and hand them out to buyers.

Why did you do that? Why can't you just have a BTCPay Server installed and let it undertake your invoices automatically?

None of this is feasible with LN

Let me correct you; it's a far more efficient way to transact than to update a ledger written in hundreds of thousands of hard drives.

[suchmoon]

Back in the day I was rolling my own payment processing and it was extremely simple, efficient, and safe - pre-generate a bunch of cold addresses and hand them out to buyers.

Why did you do that? Why can't you just have a BTCPay Server installed and let it undertake your invoices automatically?

This was years before BTCPay existed. Still works fine.

None of this is feasible with LN

Let me correct you; it's a far more efficient way to transact than to update a ledger written in hundreds of thousands of hard drives.

Not from a merchant's POV. There is more hassle involved in receiving LN payments for no tangible benefit.