Topic: A Lightning Tx *IS* a bitcoin Tx, and here's why: (Read 1556 times)

According to that logic, if I've applied for a credit card then I must already have it.

According to that logic, the whole blocksize debate is pointless, because none of the queued transactions are Bitcoins yet anyway lol



Alice, are you even capable of making genuine technical arguments, or will you just continue to use semantic tricks?

They aren't bitcoin transaction until they are in the blockchain.

Yes, but a Bitcoin transaction is secured by the miners whereas an LN transaction is not. Miners serve a purpose, and not only in relation to the security of an individual transaction.

It is said that Bitcoin is deliberately hard to change (as we are finding out).

If in the future the majority of transactions are LN transactions then we are all primarily LN users, not Bitcoin users, and we are at the whim of the LN developers who have complete control to change the protocol that everyone is using to suit themselves.

What's more, as explained here: http://news.8btc.com/be-firmly-and-openly-against-segewit-and-lightning there is a possibility that LN protocol may also work with other blockchains. At this point LN is not a second layer on top of Bitcoin, LN is the primary protocol and Bitcoin is one of a number of possible second layers on top of LN; This destroys scarcity, since any number of blockchains and coins can be used within the primary network that people are using, and therefore also destroys Bitcoin as a store of value.

Again, you're deriding all microtransactions systems by saying that.


Of course it's like an IOU, duuhhhhhhhh. They just so happen to be cryptographically enforced IOUs


So how would you define +80,000 unconfirmed Bitcoin transaction backed up in larger mempools? "Not Bitcoins" presumably.

Did you just solve the blocksize problem with semantic trickery alone?






Alice, can you make any arguments that don't involve absurd exaggerations? i.e. not valid arguments at all

It's more than just miscreated - miscreated is a play on words, alluding to miscreant.

And no, being able to find a TX in a mempool does not make it a bitcoin transaction.

If it is not in the blockchain, it's not a bitcoin transaction.

They are an IOU to be settled later at best.

Regular Bitcoin client use always involves having both public keys and the private keys online. You're stating the usual extreme exaggerations about Lightning; it's not designed for you to put your life savings into, it's for regular, everyday transactions. If you want to store your main cache of Bitcoins in a micropayments system, guess what? You're an idiot



So, therefore all microtransactions systems are altcoins or "not BTC". Riiiiiiiight


This sounds like some Jeff-white-socks-Garzik hand waving. In capitalism, I can do what I want with my money, that's what owning capital is all about. You don't own it if you can't choose how you use it, quit trying to boss other people around


They're Bitcoin transactions in every single way, except they don't hit the main chain unless the channel closes. That's the whole point, that's how LN saves blockchain space. If LN "is like an altcoin", then you should look forward to when this Millions of tx/s coin hits the markets (which it won't, because Lightning units are all Bitcoins anyway)


You can find them in the mempools of the nodes in their channel



Alice, can you make any arguments that don't involve absurd exaggerations? I sincerely hope no-one is using your Miscreated software, if you apply that reasoning ability to your coding

Bitcoin without lightning network, I don't have to have my private keys on a networked computer to get paid and know I have been paid. All I need is an address and a block explorer.

However to get paid via LN, I have to have a private key so I (or my software) can sign the smart contract or I can't get paid. That seems kind of dangerous to me.

Oh - and if a transaction is not in the blockchain, it's not a bitcoin transaction. With LN, a bitcoin TX will be in the blockchain (two actually if I understand it right) - the first to guarantee and lock the funds, and the second when all the micro-spending is done and the channel closed. But everything between them are LN transactions, not BTC transactions.

LN is like an alt-coin pegged to bitcoin but without the blockchain TX transparency bitcoin has. That may have privacy advantages, LN may thus be useful for laundering ill-gotten gains, but they aren't bitcoin transactions.

You can't find them in the blockchain via a transaction number.

The expectation management is fully rekt now thanks to the brain washing by blockstream : WE NEED FEES

To revert this shit is the hardest issue, not the tech.


No, fees are still not needed now. There is still enough capacity for many months and gives time for new ideas to fix scaling dynamically.

The fees should be under 10% of the Block Reward. They are way to high right now. Until the fees become crucial for miners it will take a couple of years. As a miner you can't just quit without losing money in the process. Also miners a re willing to make a loss for some time in order to get rid of the competition, so they can make more profits in the future. If miners go and the hashrate drop it will attract new miners that want to take a shot a mining.

The block reward runs out around the year 2140, and on-chain tx will have plenty of demand despite 2nd layers


Please don't expect to come to the Technical discussion table if you have relatively low comprehension of the Bitcoin system

The drop in difficulty won't matter if you see what I'm saying, if the traffic is redirected then miners lose the incentive of fees (the thing that's designed to keep btc alive after block rewards are out) only larger farms and pools can absorb the loss

You have zero clue, and consequently have no business speaking in the Technical discussion sub

Not with the current difficulty numbers. It's all economy of scale, the larger pools will stay and smaller ones gone

Do you think the corresponding drop in difficulty will attract new participants to mining (hint: it will)

Oh boi it's Carlton Banks. Not a miner, but a lot of them believe by directing traffic away from the traditional chain, miners might give up on mining to the point it won't support the current network, hence killing the coin. It's all speculations but the possibility is there

FTFY

You sound like a miner that's about to get his lunch eaten All LN will do is remove even more power from the miners to behave in bad faith, they're developing a bit of a superiority complex it seems

It's not the difference that's an issue, it's the impact it will have on the current mining ecosystem. For all we know it might just kill the coin

I think most people get the fact that LN tx is a physical transaction like any other, but is this a true "Bitcoin" transaction? A off-chain transaction on Xapo is also a transaction, but it only becomes a "Bitcoin" transaction once it is withdrawn from Xapo and transferred out of their centralized system. 

To me, it comes down to centralization and transparency issues that are not associated with the Blockchain.

^^^
And I fully miss any disclaimer of LN sales people otherwise we will charge them all the losses, just in case...

On chain settlement is your friend. All second layer trash banks could do way better and more secure.