Topic: Article from Coindesk. Are Bitcoin Developers Losing Faith in Lightning? (Read 933 times)
May 14, 2024, 06:30:38 AM
Seems like the Lightning Network is sparking more skepticism than lightning-fast transactions these days.
April 11, 2024, 06:59:56 PM
LN's function does not 100% require a bitcoin node.. so lets make that clear
Of course you can adapt LN to altcoins and people can run swap nodes.I'm talking about "Bitcoin LN" (i.e. those nodes storing/exchanging Bitcoin transactions) here, and I think this is also clear for you.
without you sinking your head into the small box thinking of a narrow use case of 'best-case-scenario'.. think critically of LN as a whole and its lack of auditing and restraints, lack of security over all..
people can create channels without bitcoin network communication to someones device. and still swap msats about that are not pegged to altcoins but supposedly deemed as msats pegged to bitcoin value/msats representations of bitcoin value.
LN has no network wide audit that checks each channel against bitcoin. LN has no strict requirement to enforce msats supposedly representing bitcoin value actually being 100% strictly contracted to bitcoin value... LN users have a multitude of ways to create channels that APPEAR or are DEEMED as being pegged value of bitcoin without the need of communicating/checked/secured with the bitcoin network
you are not forced to be a full bitcoin node to use LN when dealing with value or represented credit of a bitcoin locked collateral
i know you want to narrow conversations of the small narrow best-use-case dream scenario of one approach.. but LN is broader than the small promoted use-case and has much more flaws that prove the best-use-case is marginal
bitcoin isnt deposited into LN, its collateralised and locked on bitcoin.. so lets make that clear
Again: first statement untrue, second is true: it is both deposited "into LN" (from a "systemic" view) as it is "collateralized and locked on Bitcoin". It's both. 
Clever, not? 
how can you agree bitcoin doesnt leave the bitcoin network.. then go silly by saying bitcoin does enter an entirely other network
a reference of a txid is not the same as the bitcoin on the bitcoin network. much like unmoved utxo from say 2012(pre forks) have the same reference in 2024 for bitcoin but when on a different network(fork/crapcoin) that reference then becomes something different and not considered bitcoin because its not being used on the bitcoin network to move value on the bitcoin network.. the value moved on another network is no longer deemed as bitcoin
and again LN also does not require 100% of the time a txid to open channels and supply users with msat.
a bitcoin utxo can be used as a reference for many networks, not just LN.. so lets make that clear
LN does not have a network wide audit to ensure a utxo is solely used just for a specific LN channel/network.. so lets make that clear
Please explain how that could work. You create a multisig transaction with one channel partner (more imo still aren't implemented) when you open your channel, and that's all you have to audit, that these funds are "real". How can you create this multisig transaction and then use the reference ... where exactly? For a RGB token maybe (where the rules are set off-chain)?LN does not have a network wide audit to ensure a utxo is solely used just for a specific LN channel/network.. so lets make that clear
now rationally think.. there are thousands of networks right now that have utxo references of early adopters of bitcoin before all the forks
same reference number used over multiple networks.. this does not mean they are all bitcoin
actual bitcoin does not leave the bitcoin blockchain.. thats what makes the coin in the blockchain what it is
the stuff created when using other networks become other units/tokens/iou's of other networks. emphasis: when used on other networks
and LN has no network wide audit that parties even need to form a multisig when creating a channel. nor does it mean that the references (if used) are solely locked to only work in one channel
also people need to leave their house, go see friends/relatives, take vacations, sleep, so cant monitor constantly.. so lets make that clear
I wrote already there are tradeoffs. Please read this post again. Let's make that clear LN's proposition is not a tool where you just make a couple payments in half an hour then get on with your day.. its actually where you are presumed to need to stay in LN long term and do many transactions to make it financially beneficial compared to just using bitcoin
if you think LN design is to waste a bitcoin fee to open LN.. then make 7 payments in LN in 5 minutes and then waste another bitcoin fee to settle up the IOU, in a small timeframe, to then close LN and get on with day.. not caring about consequences.. well you are incorrect.
because you could just make 1 bitcoin transaction, using bitcoin with 7 outputs to different destinations.. in that one tx and save making multiple tx
and save on the headaches of trying to set up channels and choose partners and route paths etc
the idea of LN is to stay in LN long term. meaning the requirement of never sleeping to monitor malicious counterparty. or hire a watchtower middleman so you can sleep. applies (other work around conditions apply to to mitigate risks of the flaws of LN)
anyway i read your link
your link is more about you foolishly thinking LN is a prepaid card.. when its actually (in its best case way you even speak of its) where you lock up collateral on bitcoin network and then as a reference of credit/collateral. to do buy now pay later on LN.. where the recipient is not pre-paid.. but given a IOU suggesting they will get paid later if/when they settle later
LN doesnt offer settlement confirmation(paid in full).. the bitcoin network does
LN can operate without users forming a multisig to lock both parties into controling the credit before, during and at settlement.. lets make that clear
there are LN institutions with utxo that are 2-3 years old 'renting' balance to users that just arrive this year, this alone should emphasise enough how users are not in full control or part of a multisig of 50% control of funds to enforce compliance to any punishments. the true utxo owner can just self RBF his own tx and take what he wants completely separate to what the other person thinks they will get even with what they think includes a punishment
Here again you are mentioning the "LN services provider model", which is not part of core LN. It's a centralized service on top of LN, just like FTX was a centralized service on top of Bitcoin.there are LN institutions with utxo that are 2-3 years old 'renting' balance to users that just arrive this year, this alone should emphasise enough how users are not in full control or part of a multisig of 50% control of funds to enforce compliance to any punishments. the true utxo owner can just self RBF his own tx and take what he wants completely separate to what the other person thinks they will get even with what they think includes a punishment
That it's sold to you like it's "your LN node"? Ok, here I'm with you: this is ... not good. Just as FTX wasn't good for Bitcoin.
LN itself does not enforce a 50%:50% multisig channel policy of well audited collateral.. its actually YOU that is narrow thinking of "core LN" which is a narrow view service option of LN
you are stuck in the narrow view of a limited case usage of utopian ideal.. not critical thinking of LN as a whole.
you seem to want to white wash over the issues and just promote the utopian dream..
doomad does it and then blames all issues on "user error" when its infact LN flaw of not securing peoples value no matter the service/software used
And (bypassing your ad hominem bullshit) yes you already wrote that you don't want extremely large blocks. But just out of curiosity: would 8 MB blocks be enough for you? Because up to 8 MB I myself would not have a problem (I would have more problem with the fact a hard fork would be needed for that, but maybe a Segwit-style softfork is also possible). But 8 MB is where the problematic issues with bandwidth/CPU/memory begin which would lead to centralization. Maybe 16 MB if we take already into account top-end consumer hardware, but that is already too much for me.
you are really blind in regards to bitcoin scaling. completely obvious you are now talking the doomadism cult mantra to earn merit and ass kisses from him..
bitcoin scaling is not "big block" in the terms you have been indoctrinated into speaking about
there are many things involved..
by you just falling into the trap of "scaling=bigblock" narrative of doomadism cult. you have completely lost any intellect of understanding of bitcoin scaling
its not about politics of just choosing a bigger number of blocksize.
i am not "big block" of doomadism cult story/pigeon holing..
i am of the notion of bitcoin scaling
quick lesson
big block = dev/community politics choose a large fixed number and argue about the number
bitcoin scaling is about many approaches to allow more TRANSACTIONS per block
see the difference?
bitcoin scaling has many aspects
make transactions leaner than current average bytelength
re-integrate the 1mb:3mb segregation into a unified blockspace where the main tx data gets to utilise the 3mb space
fee formulaes to not punish everyone in some fee war. but instead to punish the bloaters and spammers the most while incentivising the lean, efficient, less frequent users that dont bloat spam
and code that analyses block fill rates over a period of time and allows more blockspace if there is prolonged congestion
(much like how "difficulty" does not need dev politics decision of changing difficulty, but self manages by using blockdata to work itself out)
also it appears you have not done the math on data storage or bandwidth of the blockchain nor how bitcoin functions.
firstly most transactions are not validated at block confirmation... they are validated at pre-confirm relay. and put into mempool
we already know by the size of mempool. nodes can handle more then 16mb.. because mempools store, relay transactions in much more numbers than 4mb, 8mb, 16mb per 10minutes
many have already done analysis of how many milliseconds it takes to validate and mempool and collate thousands of transactions.. you would be surprised how little time it takes
do some research on the 'mempool fill time rate' if you want a accurate figure of transaction propagation and validation and bandwidth of majority of data that goes around the network
as for when a block confirms and the block is propagated. due to things like compact block. its normally only the header and txid merkletree that is broadcast. which is much less data than you think moving around when a solved block propogates
enjoy doing that research, it will enlighten you
oh and heres the funny
if someones computer can validate and broadcast to a peer "millions of transactions a second" on LN.. it gives you a hint to how fast it takes to relay and validate transactions pre-confirm on bitcoin..
seeing as you are LN centric.. here is an idea
swap "LN hops per millisecond", for "bitcoin relay per millisecond" and you will get the idea of peer speed of data bandwidth, relay, validation times
oh by the way
due to how LN in your best case scenario needs PSBT and a couple verifications and communication cycles before finalising a 'state' agreement of a valid payment in LN.. before performing another payment
bitcoin relay can actually receive, validate, and store in mempool, and then work on next relay tx faster then LN's numbers
enjoy researching that
April 11, 2024, 05:56:23 PM
LN's function does not 100% require a bitcoin node.. so lets make that clear
Of course you can adapt LN to altcoins and people can run swap nodes.I'm talking about "Bitcoin LN" (i.e. those nodes storing/exchanging Bitcoin transactions) here, and I think this is also clear for you.
bitcoin isnt deposited into LN, its collateralised and locked on bitcoin.. so lets make that clear
Again: first statement untrue, second is true: it is both deposited "into LN" (from a "systemic" view) as it is "collateralized and locked on Bitcoin". It's both. Clever, not? a bitcoin utxo can be used as a reference for many networks, not just LN.. so lets make that clear
LN does not have a network wide audit to ensure a utxo is solely used just for a specific LN channel/network.. so lets make that clear
Please explain how that could work. You create a multisig transaction with one channel partner (more imo still aren't implemented) when you open your channel, and that's all you have to audit, that these funds are "real". How can you create this multisig transaction and then use the reference ... where exactly? For a RGB token maybe (where the rules are set off-chain)?LN does not have a network wide audit to ensure a utxo is solely used just for a specific LN channel/network.. so lets make that clear
also people need to leave their house, go see friends/relatives, take vacations, sleep, so cant monitor constantly.. so lets make that clear
I wrote already there are tradeoffs. Please read this post again. Let's make that clear LN can operate without users forming a multisig to lock both parties into controling the credit before, during and at settlement.. lets make that clear
there are LN institutions with utxo that are 2-3 years old 'renting' balance to users that just arrive this year, this alone should emphasise enough how users are not in full control or part of a multisig of 50% control of funds to enforce compliance to any punishments. the true utxo owner can just self RBF his own tx and take what he wants completely separate to what the other person thinks they will get even with what they think includes a punishment
Here again you are mentioning the "LN services provider model", which is not part of core LN. It's a centralized service on top of LN, just like FTX was a centralized service on top of Bitcoin.there are LN institutions with utxo that are 2-3 years old 'renting' balance to users that just arrive this year, this alone should emphasise enough how users are not in full control or part of a multisig of 50% control of funds to enforce compliance to any punishments. the true utxo owner can just self RBF his own tx and take what he wants completely separate to what the other person thinks they will get even with what they think includes a punishment
That it's sold to you like it's "your LN node"? Ok, here I'm with you: this is ... not good. Just as FTX wasn't good for Bitcoin.
And (bypassing your ad hominem bullshit) yes you already wrote that you don't want extremely large blocks. But just out of curiosity: would 8 MB blocks be enough for you? Because up to 8 MB I myself would not have a problem (I would have more problem with the fact a hard fork would be needed for that, but maybe a Segwit-style softfork is also possible). But 8 MB is where the problematic issues with bandwidth/CPU/memory begin which would lead to centralization. Maybe 16 MB if we take already into account top-end consumer hardware, but that is already too much for me.
April 11, 2024, 01:24:28 PM
And, not that it's relevant to the topic in any way, franky1 is also a massive transphobe. Just an all-round piece of shit in general, really.
he wants to insult and antagonise using things he does not understand..
ill make a "offtopic post" to reference his ignorance
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63932557
as for LN services doing 'channel renting' using UTXO that were locked/unspent months/years before the user even requested a channel
as for LN services doing 'channel renting' using unconfirmed UTXO's which are not locked when user requests a channel
many LN services also do create channels of msat balance that dont even reference a new UTXO specific for a new channel. nor do some services require ant UTXO reference due to using "temp ID" for a channel
April 11, 2024, 01:01:54 PM
LN is not bitcoin, people can use LN using different mainnets.. so lets make that clear
So franky1 is still falsely claiming that no one uses LN on Bitcoin whilst at the same time pointing out that it could be used on other networks where vastly fewer people use it?
Yes, people can uses LN via other coins, but hardly anyone does. LN usage on the BTC network is orders of magnitude greater than it is on any other chain. If franky1 wasn't one of the most dishonest people to ever disgrace this forum, he might admit that.
I thought there might be a future for things like atomic swaps via LN, but unless things change soon, there simply wouldn't be enough demand for it on the altcoin side for that to be viable. But franky1 went as far as to claim that people would use LN to lead a "mass exodus" and abandon BTC to settle on other chains:
___
- people will deposit bitcoins into LN. play around on LN but not want to get BTC back(slow confirms, only ~2k tx per block, higher fee's than many countries min wage). people will instead want to exit LN via an altcoin thats cheaper and faster.people will deposit fiat into an exchange and realise fee's are lower, withdrawals are faster using the other coins compatible with LN. such as litecoin, vertcoin and others. after all users will only want to hold onto value as an actual blockchain coin for just long enough to get it out of an exchange and into an LN channel.
they wont care about which coin it is.in short not sorting out bitcoins network issues and swaying people off network. wont really help people to want to use bitcoin or return to the network.. instead they will just prefer to swap to altcoins within LN and then use other coins network...
That dire prophecy was a wet fart from the offset. It will literally never happen, but he won't admit that because he's a sociopath.
also LN channels can be set up without needing a bitcoin UTXO.. so lets make that clear
Is he still making false and potentially libellous statements about BitRefill? Doesn't matter if he doesn't understand a single word of what he's saying, he'll continue to repeat it forever anyway. What a total dumbfuck.
And, not that it's relevant to the topic in any way, franky1 is also a massive transphobe. Just an all-round piece of shit in general, really.
April 11, 2024, 09:03:39 AM
Lets keep in mind that franky1 is banned from Development & Technical Discussion so if he wants to post his garbage he has to post here.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/note-franky1-is-banned-from-the-this-subforum-5192937
I added him back to ignore so unless someone quotes his posts I won't see them.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/note-franky1-is-banned-from-the-this-subforum-5192937
I added him back to ignore so unless someone quotes his posts I won't see them.
do you know why Gmax felt harassed.. because i kept informing him from 2016 about segwit enabling JUNK* to be added to the blockchain in upto 4mb lumps where funky tx can add crap like books, images and other stuff
guess what that junk is called now and proven my point... ORDINALS
i was telling people how core was opening an exploit that allowed the junk like ordinals to happen even before ordinals came about to prove my point even before core opened up the exploit that eventually lead to ordinals coming about.. and over years i have been informing people and core devs of the exploit and other issues core have caused.
gmax wanted to pretend its not an exploit, gmax wanted to pretend they are gods who shouldnt be critiqued, reviewed, scrutinised, gmax wanted to pretend segwit was not something that would cause problems(pretending its perfect code).. but years later it proved itself to be a problem
he just was sponsored to force and mandate segwit with its exploit to be enabled and didnt like critique and scrutiny of the bug they were causing from it
go do your research
*
secondly. legacy(old) nodes wont benefit from it. also old nodes will have more issues to contend with. such as seeing 'funky' transactions. aswell as still not being able to trust unconfirmed transactions due to RBF and CPFP.
thirdly new nodes wont benefit from malleability. because malleabilities main headache was double spending.. and guess what.. RBF CPFP still make double spends a risk.
fifthly, the 4mb weight. is only going to be filled with 1.8mb tx +witness data. leaving 2.2mb unused. but guess what. people will use it by filling it with arbitrary data. such as writing messages, adverts, even writing a book into the blockchain. what should have been done was allow 2mb base thus needing ~3.6mb weight.. and also adding a rule that 'messages' could not be added. thus keeping the blockchain lean and utilised just for transactions and not novels/adverts/messages. afterall if a communication tool like twitter or SMS can limit how much someone writes.. then so should bitcoin.
we will definetly see people purposefully bloating up the blockchain with passages of mobydick or other nonsense. and core have done nothing to stop it but done everything to allow it.
thirdly new nodes wont benefit from malleability. because malleabilities main headache was double spending.. and guess what.. RBF CPFP still make double spends a risk.
fifthly, the 4mb weight. is only going to be filled with 1.8mb tx +witness data. leaving 2.2mb unused. but guess what. people will use it by filling it with arbitrary data. such as writing messages, adverts, even writing a book into the blockchain. what should have been done was allow 2mb base thus needing ~3.6mb weight.. and also adding a rule that 'messages' could not be added. thus keeping the blockchain lean and utilised just for transactions and not novels/adverts/messages. afterall if a communication tool like twitter or SMS can limit how much someone writes.. then so should bitcoin.
we will definetly see people purposefully bloating up the blockchain with passages of mobydick or other nonsense. and core have done nothing to stop it but done everything to allow it.
i wont post all the times i kept highlighting the exploit between 2016-2019 to which gmax calls harassment (so he can avoid finding a fix/admitting the fault/exploit)
but my post history is there for anyone to read
yep they didnt want the exploit fixed even when knowing it existed in 2016 before the exploit even activated.. and in the 7 years since it has been active
even now they pretend they had no pre-knowledge and need now endless time to look into ways to fix it (aka stall/delay/avoid fixing it via their lies)
we should always be scrutinising core devs, they should not be banning people who scrutinise them.
I equate the "LN is dead" articles / posts with the BTC is dead articles / posts. It's all clickbait.
Those of us that use it and see how much it's used. We know it's not dead.
Those of us that use it and see how much it's used. We know it's not dead.
even a dead body has utility.. science, research, organ donation.. but here is the thing.. LN is not even on the same scale as bitcoin.. bitcoin has a pulse.. LN does not.. daves failure is he has become a ignorant sheep to a narrative of things he has not researched. he just obides by a narrow usecase of hopes and promotions, of things that have not met its promises but he will just dream the dream in his coma
as for topic: losing faith: yep LN fans sound like a cult
when people realise how limited LN is how it does have liquidity limits and failure rates of payments (even rusty russel admits to this). has bottlenecks and other bugs, including how the punishments do not work(even rusty russel admits to this). even other LN devs admit to the issues. even the remaining LN devs that are lagging around trying to find work arounds admit LN has not fulfilled its promises and instead turned into a different system than first promised/conceived
LN dev and many many thousands of users have found failures and stopped using LN and moved to other projects.. even poon who 'conceived' LN moved away from LN. he grieved the losses and moved on
April 11, 2024, 08:15:20 AM
Lets keep in mind that franky1 is banned from Development & Technical Discussion so if he wants to post his garbage he has to post here.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/note-franky1-is-banned-from-the-this-subforum-5192937
I added him back to ignore so unless someone quotes his posts I won't see them.
Back to this....
I equate the "LN is dead" articles / posts with the BTC is dead articles / posts. It's all clickbait.
Those of us that use it and see how much it's used. We know it's not dead.
I have posted before that MOST businesses don't care about BTC they just want to get paid. Same way they don't care about Visa or Master Card or a particular bank. They just want to sell their goods / services and get paid. They don't run their own nodes, they use a payment gateway. Same as taking Visa or Master Card or whatever.
More and more commercial crypto gateways are accepting LN because they want to take as many payments as possible for their customers.
Setting up a crypto node for real payment processing is a bit more complicated then clicking on the bitcoind executable and running it. Adding LN to it for use for customers is not that much more complicated. You already have multiple servers running RAID and all the security in front of them and everything else. And much like bitcoin growing because more merchants take it LN is growing the same way,
-Dave
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/note-franky1-is-banned-from-the-this-subforum-5192937
I added him back to ignore so unless someone quotes his posts I won't see them.
Back to this....
I equate the "LN is dead" articles / posts with the BTC is dead articles / posts. It's all clickbait.
Those of us that use it and see how much it's used. We know it's not dead.
I have posted before that MOST businesses don't care about BTC they just want to get paid. Same way they don't care about Visa or Master Card or a particular bank. They just want to sell their goods / services and get paid. They don't run their own nodes, they use a payment gateway. Same as taking Visa or Master Card or whatever.
More and more commercial crypto gateways are accepting LN because they want to take as many payments as possible for their customers.
Setting up a crypto node for real payment processing is a bit more complicated then clicking on the bitcoind executable and running it. Adding LN to it for use for customers is not that much more complicated. You already have multiple servers running RAID and all the security in front of them and everything else. And much like bitcoin growing because more merchants take it LN is growing the same way,
-Dave
April 11, 2024, 01:15:41 AM
LN's function does not 100% require a bitcoin node.. so lets make that clear
LN is not bitcoin, people can use LN using different mainnets.. so lets make that clear
also LN channels can be set up without needing a bitcoin UTXO.. so lets make that clear
bitcoin isnt deposited into LN, its collateralised and locked on bitcoin.. so lets make that clear
a bitcoin utxo can be used as a reference for many networks, not just LN.. so lets make that clear
LN does not have a network wide audit to ensure a utxo is solely used just for a specific LN channel/network.. so lets make that clear
much like old UTXO of bitcoin is not deposited into a fork/altcoin, even if used as reference in other networks payments..so lets make that clear
This is the kind of gibberish that trolls use to confuse the public, especially newbies, and gaslight users into questioning their understanding of Bitcoin/Lightning/Scaling Debate. Bolded in the quote was designed to confuse you. The moment you start debating him without knowing where he starts gaslighting you, you will fall for his traps.
If you trust him, and don't believe me, then ask the Core Developers who gave him two negative trust-ratings if the bolded part in the post is true.
for those still thinking LN is fully working mature utopian dream,
No one said that, it's just you putting words in everyone's mouths and making other people believe that they said that.
Quote
if you think LN is not thought of as a credit system/loan, and instead think of it as real money settled transfers, something always going to be cheap
watch what rusty russell (big time LN dev) has to say
watch it in full but im breaking it up into parts as people dont like lengthy transcripts(walls of texts)
The "is not a utopian dream" debate followed by the bolded quote. Another gaslighting trap.
April 10, 2024, 09:25:12 PM
for those still thinking LN is fully working mature utopian dream, if you think LN is not thought of as a credit system/loan, and instead think of it as real money settled transfers, something always going to be cheap
watch what rusty russell (big time LN dev) has to say
watch it in full but im breaking it up into parts as people dont like lengthy transcripts(walls of texts)
https://youtu.be/h6-WezlpXx0?t=1762
https://youtu.be/h6-WezlpXx0?t=1820
https://youtu.be/h6-WezlpXx0?t=1840
https://youtu.be/h6-WezlpXx0?t=1860
https://youtu.be/h6-WezlpXx0?t=1890
https://youtu.be/h6-WezlpXx0?t=1920
note how they are talking in terms of credit/debt buzzwords of interest, apr, capital, yield
further on they talk about th future ideals, plans and thoughts of LN and think of it as a main macrochannels (main channels of custodians, hubs and factory channels) being bond services of a credit reserve in LN (we all know what bonds are) and then micro channels beneath that of trading, owing and servicing bonds to then settle the bonds on the main channel of hubs and factorys(custodians).. oh and then detaching LN to not need or want people proper settling out of LN back to bitcoin (thunder-dome: two may enter one may leave)
watch what rusty russell (big time LN dev) has to say
watch it in full but im breaking it up into parts as people dont like lengthy transcripts(walls of texts)
https://youtu.be/h6-WezlpXx0?t=1762
Quote
the current lightning network, is in a immature market. theres a huge number of hobbyists, theres people like me just running nodes for experimental reasons, i charge a fee so i can test the fee code, not because im making any bank out of it, as we see a maturation of the market we will see fee's become real, we cant extrapolate too much from whats there today because its much more of a hobbyist market
https://youtu.be/h6-WezlpXx0?t=1820
Quote
as we see the professionalisation of infrastructure which will inevitably happen at scale we will see the number reflecting the utility and risk profile
https://youtu.be/h6-WezlpXx0?t=1840
Quote
when you got a lightning node and infrastructure thats looking after hot funds, hopefully your security requirements are higher and those expenses need to be passed on at some point
https://youtu.be/h6-WezlpXx0?t=1860
Quote
NB: do you find fee accrual and calculating an interest rate based off of that and the capital and time, do you find that interesting?
RR: i find that fascinating, i think that will be a new uh uh.. i think we are not there yet, we are just not in the professionalisation phase, but once we get to that maturity that number is something people will watch carefully because it is a real signal that is potentially very useful,
RR: i find that fascinating, i think that will be a new uh uh.. i think we are not there yet, we are just not in the professionalisation phase, but once we get to that maturity that number is something people will watch carefully because it is a real signal that is potentially very useful,
https://youtu.be/h6-WezlpXx0?t=1890
Quote
RR: there was a early phase of where people were like oh ill set up a lightning node basically get yield on my bitcoin, and im like oh no thats a very risky way, you know that your dealing with some early software in those days and im not entirely convinced the userbase is there to support it, um if you want to compete to provide the best service im not going to discourage you too wildly in that gold rush
https://youtu.be/h6-WezlpXx0?t=1920
Quote
NB: yea basically when i first wrote about that concept people would ask me how much can i earn, and i said im just writing up a theoretical construct here .. but it is wonderful to see companies like river talk publish their interest rate, convert it to an APR, talk about the fees
note how they are talking in terms of credit/debt buzzwords of interest, apr, capital, yield
further on they talk about th future ideals, plans and thoughts of LN and think of it as a main macrochannels (main channels of custodians, hubs and factory channels) being bond services of a credit reserve in LN (we all know what bonds are) and then micro channels beneath that of trading, owing and servicing bonds to then settle the bonds on the main channel of hubs and factorys(custodians).. oh and then detaching LN to not need or want people proper settling out of LN back to bitcoin (thunder-dome: two may enter one may leave)
April 10, 2024, 08:15:43 PM
They just made this article to confuse people and make them lose hope of its progress while that is not the case. They just wanted it to have fast development and have more people use it right now. They don't give any credit to those people who have been updating it
funny part is the article did reference "those people who have been updating it" and shown those people have admitted tothe flaws and moved to other projects
April 10, 2024, 07:41:28 PM
bitcoin is not deposited into LN.. bitcoin never leaves the bitcoin network
Your first statement is wrong, the second one is true. This is no contradiction, because LN and Bitcoin aren't "separate". LN nodes are also Bitcoin nodes.There is of course LN-specific data exchanged between LN nodes that does not touch the rest of the Bitcoin nodes, but that's the whole point: LN exists to make it possible to limit the data exchange about a group of Bitcoin (!) transactions to a subnetwork. It is there to prevent all Bitcoin nodes having to know about these transactions.
(I put these three words into italics because they can be misunderstood: Every Bitcoin node who wants it can of course be a LN node too. But if he doesn't want to, he shouldn't have to bother about LN transactions.)
as for the LN balance that goes back and forth and renegotiated.. they certainly can double spend the UTXO reference across multiple channels. there is no network wide audit in LN(as for who eventually gets to win that actual amount at settling.. only one will and it may not be your rented channel/temp channel)
That's FUD. An attacker can try that, yes. That's LN's drawback, that you have to actively monitor the channels you have open, but if you are entitled to own a certain balance according to LN rules and the network operates correctly (again: no discussion about bugs if we talk about the concept) then you can always challenge this attack attempt. If you try to use double spending the HTLCs and RSMCs have timelocks long enough that every attempt can be challenged.You can call the UTXO reference "credit limit" if you want, and the LN transactions "debt", if you like to insist on these technicalities. The fact that they don't share almost nothing with conventional debt in the fiat system remains.
LN didnt function via just punishments but now needs things like "watch towers" and other third parties
That was quite clear from the start on. And if you monitor your channels actively you don't need watchtowers.i want bitcoin(btc) to scale, with multiple dev teams, multiple node brands with equal power but no absolute central power, all offering proposals where the best proposals moves forward by devs listening to the community needs to provide the best solutions that everyone can then agree on using real consensus(consent of the masses) and applying those features to all brands to move forward(no single solo controlling brand)
Either that is already the case (everybody can create a bitcoin client with its own rules, the question is if miners and economic nodes use it ...) or you want take the "several brands" approach to the extreme nobody knows what the Bitcoin protocol actually is.Let's get honest: you want big blocks to be enabled (and are still angry that in 2017 the decision didn't play out like you wanted) that's all
LN's function does not 100% require a bitcoin node.. so lets make that clear
LN is not bitcoin, people can use LN using different mainnets.. so lets make that clear
also LN channels can be set up without needing a bitcoin UTXO.. so lets make that clear
bitcoin isnt deposited into LN, its collateralised and locked on bitcoin.. so lets make that clear
a bitcoin utxo can be used as a reference for many networks, not just LN.. so lets make that clear
LN does not have a network wide audit to ensure a utxo is solely used just for a specific LN channel/network.. so lets make that clear
much like old UTXO of bitcoin is not deposited into a fork/altcoin, even if used as reference in other networks payments..so lets make that clear
also people need to leave their house, go see friends/relatives, take vacations, sleep, so cant monitor constantly.. so lets make that clear
LN can operate without users forming a multisig to lock both parties into controling the credit before, during and at settlement.. lets make that clear
there are LN institutions with utxo that are 2-3 years old 'renting' balance to users that just arrive this year, this alone should emphasise enough how users are not in full control or part of a multisig of 50% control of funds to enforce compliance to any punishments. the true utxo owner can just self RBF his own tx and take what he wants completely separate to what the other person thinks they will get even with what they think includes a punishment
stop trying to describe LN using its "best-case" scenario.. as thats just a limited utopian fluffy cloud view of how LN actually operates. instead flush away the false promise utopian dream promotion ideals. and instead be properly and openly critical about all financial systems to ensure people know the risks they are getting into when using such systems. dont sound like a snake oil salesman as that makes you look bad in the end by avoiding the more accurate view of the issues people do and have experienced aswell as the issues even LN devs admit are possible
and no your definition of "big blocks" vs my opinions of what scales bitcoin differ. so lets make that clear. there are many ways to scale bitcoin that do not form your extremist view of how you perceive "big blocks" and lets not then use the stupidity narrative of pidgeon holing anyone that doesnt like the core roadmap as "big blockers" as that stupidity makes you look stupid
the only thing i can say about your post is atleast you sucked up and complied to the doomad rhetoric and earned your merit from him.. thats obvious.. but he wont refund you when things go wrong. so think more about risk assessment, transparency and risk mitigation rather than doomad rhetoric recruitment campaigns of ignoring the risks
April 10, 2024, 05:30:42 PM
The Lightning Network didn't get mainstream among Bitcoin users, let alone make Bitcoin generally mainstream by solving the scalability issue. It also gained both fans and haters. So I guess it did fall short of some expectations, but it's also worth noting that this has been the case for years, and 2024 doesn't bring anything new to it. That being said, it seems that the Lightning Network adoption is still increasing, and went significantly up in 2023. So the article isn't doing it justice, and the LN still has a decent chance of becoming more significant.
They just made this article to confuse people and make them lose hope of its progress while that is not the case. They just wanted it to have fast development and have more people use it right now. They don't give any credit to those people who have been updating it and making some huge developments for it all these years and since it has not become a norm to use for transactions and only a few people use them, they quickly jump to the conclusion that it failed and it didn't reach the people expectations. But LN is something not to be rushed and just because we have lots of ways to trade bitcoins quickly right now, it doesn't mean we won't be needing them in the future, just wait and see, I'm sure Bitcoin LN will to be a trend in the future when all of this rules and regulations will choke both the owners and users of exchanges.
April 10, 2024, 03:36:51 PM
bitcoin is not deposited into LN.. bitcoin never leaves the bitcoin network
Your first statement is wrong, the second one is true. This is no contradiction, because LN and Bitcoin aren't "separate". LN nodes are also Bitcoin nodes.There is of course LN-specific data exchanged between LN nodes that does not touch the rest of the Bitcoin nodes, but that's the whole point: LN exists to make it possible to limit the data exchange about a group of Bitcoin (!) transactions to a subnetwork. It is there to prevent all Bitcoin nodes having to know about these transactions.
(I put these three words into italics because they can be misunderstood: Every Bitcoin node who wants it can of course be a LN node too. But if he doesn't want to, he shouldn't have to bother about LN transactions.)
as for the LN balance that goes back and forth and renegotiated.. they certainly can double spend the UTXO reference across multiple channels. there is no network wide audit in LN(as for who eventually gets to win that actual amount at settling.. only one will and it may not be your rented channel/temp channel)
That's FUD. An attacker can try that, yes. That's LN's drawback, that you have to actively monitor the channels you have open, but if you are entitled to own a certain balance according to LN rules and the network operates correctly (again: no discussion about bugs if we talk about the concept) then you can always challenge this attack attempt. If you try to use double spending the HTLCs and RSMCs have timelocks long enough that every attempt can be challenged.You can call the UTXO reference "credit limit" if you want, and the LN transactions "debt", if you like to insist on these technicalities. The fact that they don't share almost nothing with conventional debt in the fiat system remains.
LN didnt function via just punishments but now needs things like "watch towers" and other third parties
That was quite clear from the start on. And if you monitor your channels actively you don't need watchtowers.i want bitcoin(btc) to scale, with multiple dev teams, multiple node brands with equal power but no absolute central power, all offering proposals where the best proposals moves forward by devs listening to the community needs to provide the best solutions that everyone can then agree on using real consensus(consent of the masses) and applying those features to all brands to move forward(no single solo controlling brand)
Either that is already the case (everybody can create a bitcoin client with its own rules, the question is if miners and economic nodes use it ...) or you want take the "several brands" approach to the extreme nobody knows what the Bitcoin protocol actually is.Let's get honest: you want big blocks to be enabled (and are still angry that in 2017 the decision didn't play out like you wanted) that's all
April 10, 2024, 03:04:23 PM
I see more and more people using LN every day. Or at least my clients are getting more LN payments now then ever.
The number of merchants that accept LN are growing.
The number of merchants that accept LN are growing.
really?
but yea stay ignorant
oh and by the way.. you could have paid 7 merchants with ONE bitcoin transaction using 7 outputs and saved more money.. rather than 2 transactions to lock and unlock bitcoin (open and close LN and do crap on other networks)
but hey you want to stay ignorant.. guess you beleive more in faith, and mystique rather than data and facts.
April 10, 2024, 03:01:15 PM
running total transactions of all nodes: 456,464 over 2 YEARS
bitcoin transactions ONE DAY: 453,811
1/730 (0.137%)
Uh NO. Those are just the transactions that were ROUTED THROUGH LQwD them not ALL of LN.
As in A-> LQWD node -> someplace else.
Not the transactions they sent.
Not the transactions they received.
Just the ones that passed through.
And it's 300000 give or take over the last year.
You hate lightning, fine we get it. Don't use it.
I opened a channel this morning to a well connected node with a low fee since I did not care how long it took to open. Got lucky and it opened quick. (yea)
Made 7 LN txs to pay bills (boo)
And just set a close TX at a low fee since I don't care how long it takes.
But for now, welcome to my ignore list. You don't want to care you just want to shout at the world.
I see more and more people using LN every day. Or at least my clients are getting more LN payments now then ever.
The number of merchants that accept LN are growing.
-Dave
April 10, 2024, 02:05:14 PM
Even smaller LN providers are ROUTING 1000tx a day now: https://lqwdtech.com/node-stats/
running total transactions of all nodes: 456,464 over 2 YEARS
bitcoin transactions ONE DAY: 453,811
1/730 (0.137%)
and again lets remind people of history
did you also know although LN only achieved just over 5k liquidity last year and at 4.5k ish now..
taking YEARS to achieve that and months to start lose it
schemers have utopian promised LN's (faked) capabilities to countries.. (el salv, nigeria, swiss) and all three have tried , found the flaws and started to drop using LN, some sooner and faster then others
even most recently Lugano swiss only managed to scheme 370 merchants into crypto and already within months 90 dropped from accepting LN
many people seen the flaws and moved over to other subnetworks and other things that gained more liquidity in less time..
basically..
with the hopes and dreams of empty promises of core devs suggesting they wont scale bitcoin network, until the Lightning Network scales to 1ml nodes.. well then yes LN is a failure and we will be waiting forever
we should not be playing these silly utopian games of trying to push all bitcoiners over to LN to reach this mystical number. and then hope core devs follow through to finally work on bitcoin scaling.. their game is if they can get people off the bitcoin network they wont need to scale bitcoin
so lets skip the stupid games and just prompt core devs to just get on with scaling bitcoin and stop this bait and switch games of the last 7 years of stall tactics and fake utopian feature offerings that never benefit bitcoiners
as for those that dont understand how bitcoin does not enter or exit the bitcoin network via other networks
in short IT DOES NOT. bitcoins remain on the bitcoin network
heres another thing..
i have UTXO's from 2012+
i COULD use those UTXO's as spending references for other networks (crapcoins/forks/subnetworks) this does not then make the other networks using the UTXO reference as being bitcoin payments.. they are using other formats on the other networks when making the actual payments(that are not settled on bitcoin) on other networks and even if the separate 'state' of rounded pegged value was converted into a format thats understood in bitcoin to settle some debt of the other network does not make those other network communications "bitcoin"
dont hit reply to blind faith allegiance defend LN like a cult.. instead use technical critical thinking and scrutiny of actual independent thought about what you are trying to presume when you say how you feel/believe/blind trust that things are as they were promoted to you in utopian dream format of pretending another network is bitcoin.. then you fail to have a convincing reason why you want to pretend another network is bitcoin.. accept that its not
April 10, 2024, 08:14:41 AM
Considering how many larger crypto players are using LN it's amazing how many people still keep up with the it's dead and not being used story.
I can mine at https://braiins.com/pool get paid with LN.
BitPay who for years was still one of the biggest promoters of BCH now supports LN.
Even smaller LN providers are ROUTING 1000tx a day now: https://lqwdtech.com/node-stats/
And so on.
If you want to run your own node there are 1 click installs that work well.
If you want to have it run by someone else there are many custodial services that work well to that are very inexpensive.
If you want to run it your self by hand then it does take some knowledge, but that is a personal choice to do it that way.
People are still loosing access to their BTC every day, saying that people loose BTC by using LN is just silly. Don't have a proper backup of your wallet.dat file and your drive dies. Kiss your BTC goodby. Don't have a proper backup of your LN node data and your drive dies you can kiss your BTC goodby. See same.
I have several nodes running, some I disclose here, others I don't. Why, because I find it a fun, interesting project.
When I had some issues with one of my 'nodes in a box' https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/nodes-in-a-box-5364113 there were NO issues with bringing up another node and recovering it because I had proper backups. I see people loosing funds on the LN NOW as not following how to do it properly. Years ago when things were more in alpha then beta you could more easily shoot yourself in the foot now it's harder if you do things the right way. Same with BTC a dozen+ years ago.
-Dave
I can mine at https://braiins.com/pool get paid with LN.
BitPay who for years was still one of the biggest promoters of BCH now supports LN.
Even smaller LN providers are ROUTING 1000tx a day now: https://lqwdtech.com/node-stats/
And so on.
If you want to run your own node there are 1 click installs that work well.
If you want to have it run by someone else there are many custodial services that work well to that are very inexpensive.
If you want to run it your self by hand then it does take some knowledge, but that is a personal choice to do it that way.
People are still loosing access to their BTC every day, saying that people loose BTC by using LN is just silly. Don't have a proper backup of your wallet.dat file and your drive dies. Kiss your BTC goodby. Don't have a proper backup of your LN node data and your drive dies you can kiss your BTC goodby. See same.
I have several nodes running, some I disclose here, others I don't. Why, because I find it a fun, interesting project.
When I had some issues with one of my 'nodes in a box' https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/nodes-in-a-box-5364113 there were NO issues with bringing up another node and recovering it because I had proper backups. I see people loosing funds on the LN NOW as not following how to do it properly. Years ago when things were more in alpha then beta you could more easily shoot yourself in the foot now it's harder if you do things the right way. Same with BTC a dozen+ years ago.
-Dave
April 10, 2024, 06:40:27 AM
For me, the process of "locking up" the funds when you create a channel is already part of the "payment" process. Because the way LN is set up, with the money you lock, the channel partner is directly entitled to force you to pay your debt whenever they want, not when you want to settle.
Don't let the 4D-Chess-playing-troll gaslight you into questioning your understanding of the Lightning Network. The transactions in Lightning are actual Bitcoin transactions that were confirmed and locked in those channels, and are merely waiting to be settled on-chain if the user wants to withdraw them those transactions from those channels. The troll is merely having his 4D-Chess playing session again. Read his trust-rating, and who would you trust? Greg Maxwell and A. Chow? Or the troll?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
April 09, 2024, 10:22:18 PM
i dont attack bitcoin i attack cores centralised roadmap.. theres a diference
doomads angry that people are not joining him in his other network(LN) which he wants to think of as bitcoin
he wants recruits believing him an copying what he says
he didnt like me comparing his games to CSW so now wants to take my comment about him forming an altnetwork cult .. and so without any brains he then threw the insult back.. yep he cant even come up with an original insult
doomad is the one that wants people to move to another network(LN) he thinks is bitcoin
he also thinks adam back is satoshi.... sounds soo familiar
he adores core control and governance(which is authoritarian)..
he cant even come up with an original insult but just use the ones that hurt him and thinks by throwing them back it hurts the other person..
such comedy
as far as my opinion
i want bitcoin(btc) to scale, with multiple dev teams, multiple node brands with equal power but no absolute central power, all offering proposals where the best proposals moves forward by devs listening to the community needs to provide the best solutions that everyone can then agree on using real consensus(consent of the masses) and applying those features to all brands to move forward(no single solo controlling brand)
he has no clue what authoritarian/tyranny is else he would realise he wants authoritarianism/tyranny(core solo reference client control)
he cant even take 10 seconds to realise the insults i say first to him, apply to him and not the other way round. he just says them back anyway because is isnt that smart to form original idea's, doesnt do research or think about what he says.
doomads angry that people are not joining him in his other network(LN) which he wants to think of as bitcoin
he wants recruits believing him an copying what he says
he didnt like me comparing his games to CSW so now wants to take my comment about him forming an altnetwork cult .. and so without any brains he then threw the insult back.. yep he cant even come up with an original insult
doomad is the one that wants people to move to another network(LN) he thinks is bitcoin
he also thinks adam back is satoshi.... sounds soo familiar
he adores core control and governance(which is authoritarian)..
he cant even come up with an original insult but just use the ones that hurt him and thinks by throwing them back it hurts the other person..
such comedy
as far as my opinion
i want bitcoin(btc) to scale, with multiple dev teams, multiple node brands with equal power but no absolute central power, all offering proposals where the best proposals moves forward by devs listening to the community needs to provide the best solutions that everyone can then agree on using real consensus(consent of the masses) and applying those features to all brands to move forward(no single solo controlling brand)
he has no clue what authoritarian/tyranny is else he would realise he wants authoritarianism/tyranny(core solo reference client control)
he cant even take 10 seconds to realise the insults i say first to him, apply to him and not the other way round. he just says them back anyway because is isnt that smart to form original idea's, doesnt do research or think about what he says.
April 09, 2024, 08:26:47 PM
franky1 is Craig Wright's 'Mini-Me'.
They both attack Bitcoin and its layer 2 technologies with the same flawed arguments and lies, claiming their vision for how Bitcoin "should be" is somehow better. Problem is, neither of them actually understand Bitcoin or Lightning. Their grasp of the concept is fundamentally wrong, so all the conclusions they draw are equally wrong.
Both are disgusting authoritarians. Both are ego-maniacal sociopaths. Both are borderline insane.
They both attack Bitcoin and its layer 2 technologies with the same flawed arguments and lies, claiming their vision for how Bitcoin "should be" is somehow better. Problem is, neither of them actually understand Bitcoin or Lightning. Their grasp of the concept is fundamentally wrong, so all the conclusions they draw are equally wrong.
Both are disgusting authoritarians. Both are ego-maniacal sociopaths. Both are borderline insane.
Jump to: