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

[franky1]

i yawn and facepalm.. others insult
i use words like fangirls and hypocrites... others use more antagonising insults. (yawn)

but as this is a topic concerning me and my thoughts about LN, scaling bitcoin and exodus schemes(PR buzzworded as scaling)
i should be posting my thoughts and my references to code, bips, and proposals and other references..

if others just want to social drama.. your in the wrong topic

but it is fun watching you defend a ln fangirl. even when what they say has nothing to do with the topics..
seems you care more about defending chums than you do in actually staying civil and discussing the topic.
(not your first example of going social drama in this topic)


anyway. if any other reader just wants to reply with social drama.. dont hit reply. take your social drama to your private communications with your friends.

lets try to get this discussion back to the topic..
starting again with the non biased questions of shortness to avoid added clauses of manipulation..
and wrote in a&b variants to ensure no bias.
so that we can get to a base point of peoples view of how they see what LN does and doesnt do.

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

answer by quoting the questions under the line below.
if you cannot reply without some silly social drama, insult flame. dont bother replying.
this topic is not about you opinions on social drama used as reasons for you to cause more social drama.

instead take your victim crocodile tears(fake tears) somewhere else, i have no sympathy for you when you get bit.

if you cannot stand by your opinion to even have confidence to answer the questions, then your opinion becomes less worthy.
if your reluctance is spouted out as "the questions are bias". then if you think A is bias. answer the B variant.

insert a * into the answer that applies most towards your opinion of how you think things are.

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[ ]

[darkv0rt3x]

Here we go again. You look like a clock in a rush. A clock repeats it self every 12 hours, you repeat yourself every couple of minutes.

You chose to insult others with your buzzwords like ignorant and facepalm. That's it. This is not even more about LN or any other thing related. This is only about you and your holly point of view and the demagogy you're trying to spread around.

You've been asked a few questions and failed totally to respond. Not by me though, but by others, namely @_Rath!

But your strategy is simply brute-force all the way in. And you're not getting it done, so you keep going and going until saturation point and people just give up. Then, you think you made your point and take a night of sleep to come back in the next day and realise that after all, your point was not taken, therefore, repetition comes again and the cycle repeats! That's all.

PS: flip-flops... The foot wear you use at the beach? Or the sequential logic circuit that can keep memory of it's previous state?
Your buzzwords!

[DooMAD]

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

In that case, here's my effort:


Lightning:

1. When the sender and recipient are both using bitcoin, LN is supported by the Bitcoin blockchain and can be freely discussed in the Bitcoin Discussion board.
agree[ * ]   disagree[ ]

2. When the sender and recipient are both using altcoins, LN is supported by that altcoin's blockchain and should instead be discussed in the Altcoin Discussion board.
agree[ * ]   disagree[ ]

3. LN payments are denominated in 11 decimal places.
agree[ * ]   disagree[ ]

4. LN payments are different contracts/transactions/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction.
agree[ * ]   disagree[ ]

5. The Bitcoin network does not recognise 11 decimal places
agree[ * ]   disagree[ ]

6. LN can function on other compatible blockchains, but if a discussion is taking place in the Bitcoin Discussion board, that means the discussion is about LN as a layer on top of Bitcoin.  
agree[ * ]   disagree[ ]

7.  When people are discussing LN transactions supported by Bitcoin's blockchain, it is against the forum rules for anyone to be derailing that conversation to talk about LN transactions supported by other blockchains, unless it is an atomic swap that involves bitcoin.
agree[ * ]   disagree[ ]


Consensus:

8. Any developer is free to code what they want.
agree[ * ]   disagree[ ]

9. Everyone will be free to run any code they choose.
agree[ * ]   disagree[ ]

10. If enough people run code with different consensus rules, change can happen even if a minority disagree.
agree[ * ]   disagree[ ]

11. If you run code which is incompatible with the code a majority of users are running, you can be disconnected from the network.
agree[ * ]   disagree[ ]

12. 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.
agree[ * ]   disagree[ ]

13. If you are unhappy with the current consensus rules, there is no onus on any Bitcoin user to surrender to your demands.
agree[ * ]   disagree[ ]

14. If anyone wants features which are wholly incompatible with current consensus rules, it is reasonable to suggest they consider looking at other projects geared towards that purpose.
agree[ * ]   disagree[ ]


In an attempt to get the topic back on track, everyone feel free to provide your own responses as above.  The more posts representing the views of the community, the better.  Make it clear who supports what.

[franky1]

3. LN payments are denominated in 11 decimal places.
agree[ * ]   disagree[ ]

4. LN payments are different contracts/transactions/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction.
agree[ * ]   disagree[ ]

5. The Bitcoin network does not recognise 11 decimal places
agree[ * ]   disagree[ ]

atleast i got some answer from you that are not about social discussion, but instead respectfully your opinion/stance of actual features of a software and network.

one step forward
my respect for you was at minus 100, now its minus 97(you stood up and gave your opinion on my 3 questions) it could have been minus 86 if you answered all 14 questions i asked(instead of troll editing to suite your "social discussion" bias).

now to take one step forward. now you are standing by the statements that LN payments are denominated in mediums of exchange not understood by bitcoin.

lets get more clarity on your opinion of the function and the feature of Lightning network (one topic at a time)
i ask for this clarity to summarise a multi-year debate doomad has with myself about his opinion of LN similarity to bitcoin vs my opinion of LN differences to bitcoin

so quote below the line and fill in the suitable answer with a *
after pegging a channel to a bitcoin blockchain confirmed transaction. using actual confirmed and locked funding (not turbo)
4a. is LN when doing the LN payments(msat denominated) making bitcoin payments.
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

4b. is LN when doing the LN payments(msat denominated) making millisat(msat) payments.
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

5a. are LN millisats pegged to bitcoins Sats at 1000:1 (msat:sat)
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

5b. are LN millisats unpegged
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

5c. are LN millsats the same as sats and the 1000:1 difference is non existent and not real thing in LN
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

using an analogy of other economics(help your understand)
after pegging a bank account to a notarised gold deposit. using actual notarised and vaulted gold
6a. are 19th century banknotes when doing the cash payments($$ denominated) making gold payments.
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

6b. are banks when doing 19th century bank payments($$ denominated) making $$ payments.
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

6a. are 19th century banknotes when doing the cash payments($$ denominated) making gold payments.
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

7a. are banks when doing 21th century bank payments($$ denominated) still pegged to gold.
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

7b. are banks when doing 21th century bank payments($$ denominated) no longer pegged to gold.
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

now back to LN features
8a. are LN channels using turbo pegged to locked 6confirm deep bitcoin UTXO when they first 'push' msats to a user.
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

8b. are LN channels using turbo pegged not locked 6confirm deep bitcoin UTXO when they first 'push' msats to a user.
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

8c. are LN channels using turbo able to 'push' msats to a user even with a unconfirmed bitcoin transaction.
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

(and now the ultimate, but long winded question which guide where we have difference of opinions the most on)

knowing of turbos 'features' and the github discussions of making it a bolt. in a scenario of LN when using a chainhash of bitcoin network genesis as the bases of seeking funding:

9a. can you stand by your opinion that LN is always 100% safe and all funding is 100% secure and guaranteed(trustless) in the channel.
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

9b. does LN involve a level of trust and amicable agreement in certain situations
[ ] agree    [ ] disagree

[FlyingDream]

Okay, I'll take a bite at the apple:

4a. define "payment"

4b. define "payment"

5a. define "peg"

5b. define "peg"

5c. no

6a. define "payment"

6b. define "payment"

6a. define "payment"

7a. no

7b. redundant

7a. (yes, you screwed up your numbering) define "peg", and immaterial *

7b. redundant, and immaterial *

7c. yes, and immaterial

8a. question is directed at a third party

8b. vague ("involve"/"certain situations"), but to the extend the question is cognizable the answer is no (because amicability is not required)

8c. no (again, amicability is not required), and immaterial (everything "involves a level of trust in certain situations", including bitcoin)


You are using the word "peg" in a different way than it's typically used in the cryptocurrency and legacy finance world, so your comments in this vein are largely incoherent.

As for the word "payment", I'm sure I triggered you by questioning your usage of this word, but before you respond please do yourself the favor of going to your local library, taking out a dictionary (Merriam Webster is my go-to), and looking up the definition of the English word "payment". You might be surprised to learn that literally none of the many definitions of the word "payment" make any reference to the notion of currency.

As for immateriality, this debate is not about turbo features, it's about LN. Yes, turbo is an optional feature of LN. Optional. It is not required to participate in the network.

* When you say "LN channels" in these questions what you actually mean is "LN nodes". Based on the rest of this thread, you appear to have some confusion surrounding this distinction between nodes and channels.

[franky1]

funnily enough it seems another groupy who wants to play more social drama queen games and wants to cry and wants a different buzzword. (boring social drama game)
well how about you queens go have your little group chat elsewhere and come back when you can decide on something. and actually able to have constructive discussion, instead of your social drama crap being played here.

a node is a software working on a network a channel is not a node.
but thanks for being a prime example of the social drama of trying to turn a LN discussion into a grammar nazi social drama game of boring replies

a channel is a agreement with 2 peers of certain terms in which they agree to swap value, with specific agreed terms
a node can have multiple channels (dont confuse the terms)

payment is not about the msat itself. its about the message/service/vessel used for the transport of (in this instance)msat.
hense why when i say payment i also try to specify what the payment is transporting
EG (LN payment denominated in msat)

funny part is. i personally prefer the word LN promises/IOU. but the social drama queens cried and so i compromised and started using one of their buzzwords.

also peg is very descriptive. because bitcoin outputs do not leave the bitcoin blockchain. in an LN payment(you queens can use any buzzword you like). they are converted into a msat denomination which the bitcoin network does not understand. and are pegged at a 1:1000 rate of sat:msat.
(bar examples like turbo, which is avoiding locked pegs and offering instant msats without a confirmed bitcoin output)

anyway
replying pretending to answer questions but not actually bothering to actually answer, but still posting just to say some alternative thing.. you might aswell of completely not bothered at all and just not replied.
you have not said anything constructive or done anything to move the discussion forward.
oh and those latest questions. were directed at Doomad because he took a small step forward answering 3 and so i wanted to get more answers from him.


i can predict you want to reply to this message with more social drama queen stuff, but just dont bother. its boring

..
if anyone else wants to reply. answer the questions properly. or if you cant stand by your opinions of how you think things work to answer and move the discussion forward. then just keep hiding your opinions. by not replying.

if you have the courage to actually answer the questions i stated. and you want to actually come forward and stand by your opinions. then great one step forward

here are the main questions again
insert a * into the answer that applies most towards your opinion of how you think things are.

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[ ]

just dont reply with social drama games. you dont only bore me. but you also end up making your own pages of walls of text which your groupies also dislike.

[FlyingDream]

1.a: lightning network is not the bitcoin network.
Earlier in this thread you expressed the opinion that the LN as it pertains to BTC transactions should be considered identical to the LN as it pertains to LTC transactions, on the basis that a) nodes communicate between each other using the same basic protocol, regardless of which cryptocurrency a given channel is funded with, b) one single node can participate in transactions involving both BTC and LTC, and c) the LN protocol is capable of interacting with multiple blockchains. By this definition, the LN is definitely not the bitcoin network. This is because LN nodes and BTC nodes do not use the same protocol.

1.b: lightning network is the bitcoin network.
Well, I could certainly come with my own argument as to why LN is part of a larger network which encompasses all of the layers involved, including bitcoin. For example, I could refer to economic actors as the nodes in the network, rather than the more technical protocol-subservient nodes you are discussing.

2.a: lightning network is a separate network that does different things than bitcoin
Does LN do different things than bitcoin? Yes.

2.b: lightning network is always linked to the bitcoin network that does what bitcoin does
No, because it is plausible that at some point in the future the LN will cease to exist (or, less plausibly, the bitcoin network). In this event the two networks would not be permanently linked. If you want to get into more details, I'm afraid we will need to do a semantic detour and figure out what we mean by "always linked". On a practical real-world level, I believe that widespread adoption of LN would be very unlikely if LN did not interoperate with the bitcoin blockchain. But I don't think that's the kind of "link" you're talking about.

3.a: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in picocoin-1 (11decimal) also known as msat/millisat
3.b: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in btc
4.a: LN "payments" (inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction
4.b: LN "payments" (inside LN) are same format, to a bitcoin transaction
Seeing as I was the one who asked for a definition in the first place, I'm happy to accept whatever combination of 3.a-4.b you feel is correct (unless such combination results in logical inconsistencies).

5.a: bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format
Correct. Incidentally, why are you so hung up on this issue of decimal rounding? The basic point that the protocol LN nodes use to communicate with other LN nodes may not be directly implemented within the bitcoin network is enough. You don't need to invoke decimals to make this point.

5.b: bitcoin network does understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format
See above.

6.a: LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "tethered to only function", but I do agree with the basic point that we can conceive of a LN which does not include any channels funded by BTC.

6.b: LN is tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
See above.

7.a: LN wont work without bitcoin
Is this question any different than 6.b?

7.b: LN will work without bitcoin
Is this question any different than 6.a?

dont reply with social drama games

[darkv0rt3x]

funnily enough it seems another groupy who wants to play more social drama queen games and wants to cry and wants a different buzzword. (boring social drama game)
well how about you queens go have your little group chat elsewhere and come back when you can decide on something. and actually able to have constructive discussion, instead of your social drama crap being played here.

Clock is repeating itself... Same all shit chat of groupies and PRs and social drama and buzzwords. You're the one using buzzwords over and over again. Non-stop. You keep using the same game over and over again. Jeezzzz...
More question walls, more intentionally directed questions to try to serve your purpose! lol. This is starting to be more of a troll than anything else. Or better, I think this is a troll since the very  beginning! Lucky you, you still have people feeding your bear cub here, because that's what you're seeking. Attention, the social drama you so much talk about, etc...

[DooMAD]

you stood up and gave your opinion on my 3 questions

Given that you accept I have answered three of your Lightning questions to a point where you are satisfied, perhaps you can reciprocate and answer three of my Consensus questions?  After all, we are attempting to find out what everyone has truly learned.  And some might consider it unreasonable to hold others to a higher standard than you are willing to hold yourself.

[franky1]

7.b: LN will work without bitcoin
Is this question any different than 6.a?

thankyou for a respectful attempt at answering the questions
some questions seem similar due to the social drama of a certain group that have cried about reasons to not answer the questions, so i asked similar questions in different forms just to try and get an answer out of them

you might notice my questions about 'always linked' and 'LN is the bitcoin network' is to appease the groupies who DO think it is. and have said so in many topics over the last 4 years. its not my opinion it was just an unbiased question to vet and summarise peoples opinion on their beliefs

you stood up and gave your opinion on my 3 questions

Given that you accept I have answered three of your Lightning questions to a point where you are satisfied, perhaps you can reciprocate and answer three of my Consensus questions?  After all, we are attempting to find out what everyone has truly learned.  And some might consider it unreasonable to hold others to a higher standard than you are willing to hold yourself.

so lets stay at a same level of standards
because your consensus questions have flimsy "can be, can happen", rather then "do, are" your not asking anything finite and certain(your same standard argued this when you said my questions were not wrote correct)

i bothered to appease groupies cries with short questions of finite/certain points to answer.. also then to appease your cries of believed bias i re-reformatted my questions to be unbiased and be finite in both for/against formats of a&b variants, so perhaps you can reciprocate, by writing questions without the flimsiness of "can be, can happen" which has no certainty being asked

[DooMAD]

so lets stay at a same level of standards
because your consensus questions have flimsy "can be, can happen", rather then "do, are" your not asking anything finite and certain(your same standard argued this when you said my questions were not wrote correct)

i bothered to appease groupies cries with short questions of finite/certain points to answer.. also then to appease your cries of believed bias i re-reformatted my questions to be unbiased and be finite in both for/against formats of a&b variants, so perhaps you can reciprocate, by writing questions without the flimsiness of "can be, can happen" which has no certainty being asked

Statements can be conditional or situational.  Take, for example, "The sky is blue - agree/disagree".  Sounds simple enough, right?  But what about sunrise/sunset?  What about the night?  It's not always blue and, as such, is a flawed statement.  So I would phrase it "The sky can be blue" - agree/disagree" because this is more accurate and takes real life circumstances into account.  There is certainty that there will be times when the sky is blue.  That is not "flimsy".  It is factual.  If someone were to disagree with the statement that the sky can be blue, it would suggest there is something amiss with their perception.  

At the very least, please give it a try.  Change the wording to be more specific if you like.  If you elect to re-word any "can be" or "can happen" and choose to leave yourself open to any conditional issues in an attempt to provide a more finite answer, that is your prerogative.  I changed the wording of your questions to more accurately reflect my stance, so it's only fair I extend the same courtesy to you.

[franky1]

so lets stay at a same level of standards
because your consensus questions have flimsy "can be, can happen", rather then "do, are" your not asking anything finite and certain(your same standard argued this when you said my questions were not wrote correct)

i bothered to appease groupies cries with short questions of finite/certain points to answer.. also then to appease your cries of believed bias i re-reformatted my questions to be unbiased and be finite in both for/against formats of a&b variants, so perhaps you can reciprocate, by writing questions without the flimsiness of "can be, can happen" which has no certainty being asked

Statements can be conditional or situational.  Take, for example, "The sky is blue - agree/disagree".  Sounds simple enough, right?  But what about sunrise/sunset?  What about the night?  It's not always blue and, as such, is a flawed statement.  So I would phrase it "The sky can be blue" - agree/disagree"

but then your not stating what it cant be(silver). thus leaving it as an open question with an open answer means its making no decided point of certainty.  

EG
you want to set the narrative that users can be thrown of the network, yet as i know your tactic you want to turn any answer into an argument about bitcoins 2017 event, fitting whatever narrative you please. taking the flimsy answer however you please.

so here is my answer:
consensus 2009-2016 required majority acceptance voluntarily before activation occurred.
consensus 2017-20xx didnt require majority before forking. instead it mandated just a 'bit' flag change without need of compatible software upgrade.. the mandate forced a vote. which caused a fork BEFORE activation. where any pool not changing the bit would have their block rejected in august 2017.
the pre activation fork:
did not happen due to blocks containing segwit formats being rejected by old peers causing their own separation.
did happen by the mandate rejecting legacy(2009-2016) block flags. even before segwit activated

this was not a majority accept then activate it was a mandate which may cause a fork after.
it was fork first.. to cause faked 100% acceptance due to lack of opposition listed. to then get activation after
 even the bip91 and 148 state this. and you know this. even though you dont want to admit it

[BlackHatCoiner]

Judging by the questions I acknowledge that franky only understands white and black, true and false, yes and no, one and zero. Please allow me to state that the truth is grey.

[franky1]

Judging by the questions I acknowledge that franky only understands white and black, true and false, yes and no, one and zero. Please allow me to state that the truth is grey.

i do understand many nuances, and many details outside your groups narrow focused box of scripts you have recited.
and so gathered by the group mindset, and their many arguments, cries and recited scripts where they believe that LN is bitcoin. they can only think in one option. and consider any other option as something to reject and oppose and try to get rid of
because it doesnt fit their narrative

the only reason i done the questions in strict certainty of question wording, and answers in agree or disagree format, is because of the group cries that didnt want grey flimsiness.. i done it for the groups benefit

it is done to get to the crux of their stance of their opinion in a short, quick, hard certain form.
you cant cry that the questions are now more precise after the group cried that the first questions seemed grey.

reference to cry

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.

funny part is you answered that question.. you then cried by adding in another opinion you wanted to set. which is why in the revision of the questions i added in extra questions to resolve your other opinion.

so dont cry to me that i didnt try.

[BlackHatCoiner]

i do understand many nuances. gathering by the group mindset who believe that LN is bitcoin.

I honestly can't categorize this question to neither black or white. It's a misleading question that is interpreted differently by each individual. You're asking if LN is Bitcoin. In which terms? Network-wise? Of course they are not the same. Consensus-wise? Of course they are not the same. However, if I use Lightning I do use Bitcoin. The currency is the same. The way that transactions are accomplished is changed.

Also stop using these idiotic terms. Don't picture that you're shutting our mouths while we're crying, please.

funny part is you answered that question.. you then cried by adding in another opinion you wanted to set.

Funny Ridiculous part is that it wasn't an opinion, but a fact.

[franky1]

I honestly can't categorize this question to neither black or white. It's a misleading question that is interpreted differently by each individual. You're asking if LN is Bitcoin. In which terms? Network-wise? Of course they are not the same. Consensus-wise? Of course they are not the same. However, if I use Lightning I do use Bitcoin. The currency is the same. The way that transactions are accomplished is changed.

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.

so are you saying that in YOUR 'fact' (opinion) the currency inside LN payments is the same?
.. and now we full circle back to Msat discussion. and the 1:1000 peg.

are you certain that Msats are not used in the payment messages sent around the hop/route, where by in YOUR 'fact' (opinion) only bitcoin is used?

or are you saying that Msats are only bitcoin related and Msats are not used in other blockchain pegged channels and payments?

also in relation to things like 'turbo'(plus other LN use-cases).. are you really certain that Msats are locked/pegged to a 6 confirm ('locked') bitcoin blockchain utxo?

are you sure LN transacts "bitcoin"? even though "bitcoin" never leaves the bitcoin blockchain and the pegged/locked "bitcoin" you speak of is locked. and does not transact until its confirmed to have transacted on the bitcoin network.

now before replying. do not confuse the locked funding or the not on blockchain "commitment" vs the "LN payment" of messages denominated in msat.
do not try to say lightning only handles sat measured bitcoin 'payments' by discussing commitments that are never sent around hop/routes of the LN network, just to ignore the msat LN payment stuff that is sent around the LN network.

i played that game with rath_ already and it didnt work

[BlackHatCoiner]

so are you saying that in YOUR 'fact' (opinion) the currency inside LN payments is the same?

Yeah, out loud.

and now we full circle back to Msat discussion. and the 1:1000 peg.

You're the reason we're back to the circle. What worries you more? The fact that Lightning has subunit of a satoshi or that it doesn't move in the Bitcoin blockchain? Would you be happy if we stopped exchanging msats, but had sats instead?

are you sure LN transacts "bitcoin". even though "bitcoin" never leaves the blockchain and the pegged "bitcoin" you speak of is locked. and does not transact until its confirmed to have transacted on the bitcoin network.

Yes, because in both cases my money exist and transactions happen, because of a game theory. In Lightning it's the discouragement to cheat in a channel as you may lose all of your funds. In Bitcoin it's the discouragement to work for a 51% attack as it's less profitable.

[Rath_]

so are you saying that in YOUR 'fact' (opinion) the currency inside LN payments is the same?
.. and now we full circle back to Msat discussion. and the 1:1000 peg.
are you certain that Msats are not used in the payment messages sent around the hop/route

are you sure LN transacts "bitcoin". even though "bitcoin" never leaves the blockchain and the pegged "bitcoin" you speak of does not transact until its confirmed to have transacted on the bitcoin network.

now before replying. do not confuse the locked funding or the not on blockchain "commitment" with the "LN payment" of messages denominated in msat.
do not try to say lightning only handles sat measured bitcoin 'payments' by discussing commitments that are never sent around hop/routes of the LN network, just to ignore the msat payment stuff that is sent around the LN network.

i played that game with rath_ already and it didnt work

Commitment transactions and HTLC are inseparable if you want to discuss whether or not we are dealing with empty promises.

Let me quote (my beloved) bolt2 again:

Code: (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/02-peer-protocol.md#requirements-7)

Forwarding HTLCs
Requirements

A node:

    until an incoming HTLC has been irrevocably committed:
        MUST NOT offer the corresponding outgoing HTLC (update_add_htlc) in response to that incoming HTLC.

irrevocably commited = both parties sign a new commitment transaction, which includes an additional HTLC output. HTLCs can be a part of commitment transactions. For some reason, you ignore the sophisticated locking scripts and pretend that HTLCs can't be enforced on-chain. Before you brag that HTLCs use msats and not satoshis, read my reply to the end.

also at the update_add_htlc, they dont update the commitment. they create a LN micropayment promise

this update_add_htlc is a private message between channel partners that update their own micropayment promise.

I took you a while to admit that nodes use "update_add_htlc" to forward payments rather than send "hop_data" or "onion_routing_packet" out of blue. They do update the commitment transaction. Again:

Code: (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/02-peer-protocol.md#requirements-7)

Forwarding HTLCs
    until an incoming HTLC has been irrevocably committed:
        MUST NOT offer the corresponding outgoing HTLC (update_add_htlc) in response to that incoming HTLC.

I am aware that commitments are denominated in satoshis while "update_add_htlc" uses msatoshis. Thus, I can agree that beside the commitment transaction, both parties create a promise that X amount of msats, which is less than 1000, belong to either of them. The rest of the coins are not a promise since they can be claimed on the blockchain through the commitment transaction. It would be a promise if the transaction was not signed by both parties.

[DooMAD]

Statements can be conditional or situational.  Take, for example, "The sky is blue - agree/disagree".  Sounds simple enough, right?  But what about sunrise/sunset?  What about the night?  It's not always blue and, as such, is a flawed statement.  So I would phrase it "The sky can be blue" - agree/disagree"

but then your not stating what it cant be(silver)

That's not the question I'm asking.    

And again, I've given you free reign to remove any ambiguity if you feel you can give a more precise statement.  I'll highlight some of the reasons why I haven't used absolutes in some areas and request clarification from you about each specific question in regards to the issue you have:  


Consensus:

8. Any developer is free to code what they want.  <- This is an absolute statement.  Please highlight in what way it is "open" or "uncertain".
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

9. Everyone will be free to run any code they choose.  <- This is an absolute statement.  Please highlight in what way it is "open" or "uncertain".
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

10. If enough people run code with different consensus rules, change can happen even if a minority disagree.  <- If I had said "change WILL happen", this statement could be flawed.  As an example, the required activation threshold may not be met for one particular proposed ruleset if multiple different proposed rulesets are being run concurrently.
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

11. If you run code which is incompatible with the code a majority of users are running, you can be disconnected from the network.  <- You are free to state "you WILL be disconnected" if you like.  However, you would need to be confident there are no exceptions to that statement.  I'm happy to leave margin for error, but you aren't compelled to.
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

12. 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.  <- To say "you WILL continue to remain part of the network is incorrect, as someone may choose not to remain part of the network.  Anyone is free to leave the network at any time.
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

13. If you are unhappy with the current consensus rules, there is no onus on any Bitcoin user to surrender to your demands.  <- Please highlight your issue with this statement
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

14. If anyone wants features which are wholly incompatible with current consensus rules, it is reasonable to suggest they consider looking at other projects geared towards that purpose.  <- Please highlight your issue with this statement
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]


//EDIT:

You accept that I answered 3 of your questions, but you won't make an attempt to answer any of mine.  Instead, you avoid my questions completely and go on to ask different questions.  This is not conducive to establishing your level of understanding.

or if you cant stand by your opinions of how you think things work to answer and move the discussion forward. then just keep hiding your opinions. by not replying.

This applies equally to you.

[franky1]

gotta laugh..

Commitment transactions and HTLC are inseparable if you want to discuss whether or not we are dealing with empty promises.

Let me quote (my beloved) bolt2 again:

a HTLC is not specific to bitcoin. or to blockchain formatted stuff. and its not only used within LN for blockchain denominated contracts that can be broadcast to blockchains.

again (hop/route model scenario described before) if erics payment_hash was used in a commitment HTLC, and then if that commitment was broadcast and confirmed on the separate bitcoin network.
eric has the secret to then sign out that UTXO to himself

LN payments(that route/hop through nodes) use a HTLC thats not the same data as the one inside a specific channels commitment.

just because you read HTLC it does not mean it only refers to a commitment.
just becasue you only want to reference a scenario describing a direct payment inchannel that doesnt involve routing/hopping. doesnt mean that routing hopping HTLC dont exist

you can have different ones in different things.
you can have them in channels using different blockchain chainhash. and in LN micropayments.

seems rath_ has not gained any new insight over the last day and just wants to stick to the bolt2 (again)(facepalm)(yawn)

that part he quotes. is about updating commitments..
a totally separate part thats not to do with LN payment messages

LN payment messages also can have their own HTLC.

for instance the commitment HTLC has terms of payment of the two partners
a LN payment HTLC has the terms of the final destination of a routes key being used by all nodes along the route.

the terms of the HTLC in a commitment are measured in sat
the terms of the HTLC in a Ln payment are measured in msat

... more flimsy questions

ok. lets get to the crux of the consensus debate, by summarising your questions with questions of my own. to avoid your silly games.

1a. true consensus 'cause->effect' trail is: vote->threshold met-> activation -> issues with minority who are incompatible
[ * ] agree  [  ]disagree

1b. true consensus 'cause->effect' trail is: vote->issues with minority who are incompatible-> threshold met-> activation
[  ] agree  [ * ]disagree

2a. the bitcoin network mandated rejecting legacy/normal(2009-2016 standard format blocks) before segwit activated

• agree  [  ]disagree

2b. the bitcoin network activated segwit without mandating rejecting blocks that were not voting for segwit
[  ] agree  [ * ]disagree

2c. the bitcoin network never had a bit number change flagging for a mandatory rejection of normal blocks in july
[  ] agree [ * ]disagree


[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]