Topic: Comparison of Offchain Solutions for Crypto Coins - page 2. (Read 1225 times)

The thing is with some brainwashed ticker fans that once they have lost logic discussion they try to stick u into some fiktive troll groups than they feel some protection   Too mad

 

Dumb&Mad, it is starting to look like your IQ <70 along with Windfury.

Non-Mining nodes are like you, devoid of purpose and irrelevant.  

See Analogy:

FYI:
Where are any fees or rewards for running those useless non-mining nodes, answer that dumb&mad.

Oh, I see, you're one of those people.  You believe all that guff anonymint used to post before they got banned for being a disruptive troll.  Yeah, hate to break it to you, but he was nuts.  Like, fully unhinged.  If that's what you choose to believe, then you're clearly not going to listen to sane people.  Best of luck to you, I guess.  

---

Speaking of the fully unhinged, what fresh lunacy is this?  Even franky1 wouldn't say anything that stupid.

Foolish people have been making the claim that non-mining nodes don't matter for years and no one in their right mind has believed it so far.  Why do you think you're going to succeed in spreading falsehoods when others before you have failed so spectacularly?  

The thought that non-mining nodes hold any power on the network is pure and utter nonsense.
They do nothing except give the manager of said non-mining node a warm fuzzy feeling that has no value in the real world.

Point , Non-mining node dumbasses such as windfury have been wanting a piece of transaction fee or btc rewards paid to them for years now,
and they get laughed at behind the scenes by the mining node operators.
All Non-Mining nodes could be turned off at noon, and no one would care.

Because Mining Nodes do all of the work and anyone could use an explorer or batch of explorers to compare against their internal ledgers.
Or they could just watch the github for changes.  

The confusion is non-mining nodes give dummies like windfury some economic clout over the true miners,
nothing is further from the truth, exchanges or business that hold large sums of btc are the one with economic clout and they are the ones with voting power at the miners, by refusing to continue usage of your btc. And wheter they run a non-mining node or not is irrelevent to their economic power. It is their ownership of large quantities of btc that give them power against the miners, not the type of node they run.

Example:
Mining Node = Writer
Exchange/Business = Reader
Non-mining Node = Copiers

The Writer writes a new book, The Reader Buys the Book, The Copier makes copies of the book.

The Reader tells the Writer . if he kills his favorite character , that he won't buy his new book.

The Writer concern the Reader won't buy the book , keeps the reader's favorite character alive. (This is Economic Clout)

The Copiers, just make EXTRA UNNECESSARY COPIES of whatever books are written by the writer ,
and have no leverage of any kind against the writer or reader.

Since the Writer also puts out his own copies of the book for the readers , the copier has no power/purpose at all!

I know how Segwit evolved and that is not Bitcoin, same LN is sth different.

Bitcoin is clearly defined and has only one legal relevant spec. And its not just a ticker

U will wake up when ur very private btc will not be globally treated as Bitcoin, but as a Segwit altcoin fork, what it is.

You're welcome to express views that your own personal interpretation of the whitepaper doesn't quite match Bitcoin's current direction.  But what you need to remember is that, back when the whitepaper was written, satoshi could not have envisioned the rather obscene pace at which mining effectively became an arms race.  Each time the whitepaper refers to a "node", it actually refers to a miner.  Satoshi's plan was that users would fall into two categories.  Miners and SPV users (just as the whitepaper describes).  Satoshi naturally assumed there would be a far greater number of individuals on the network actively mining, but sadly this was not to be the case.  

The concept of what we currently call a "full node" or a "non-mining node" simply didn't exist when Bitcoin was first created.  Mining became centralised much more quickly than anticipated, so the solution was to offset the power of miners with the balance of non-mining nodes.  This gives ordinary users a voice without requiring them to spend a small fortune on ASICs and, most importantly, preserves decentralisation by making it so that a small number of miners wouldn't be able to act unilaterally and impose changes that users don't want.  

If you're going to make statements about how consensus works when using the whitepaper as your primary source, this is the kind of thing you ideally need to keep in mind.  Things have evolved considerably since 2009 and there's far more nuance to factor in now.  It's not nearly as clear-cut as you might think on first impression.  

Yep. Most 'devs' just think too much about code and permissionless, forgetting that Bitcoin is a financial instrument and not experimental any more.  But not knowing that never help in front of judges.

FTFY,

You know I provide links, so anyone reading my posts should also read the links.
This will help them form their own opinion, which for those with an IQ>70 will come to the same conclusion I did.
(Also they can use google to confirm, it is called research, if they so choose.)
Those like windfury with an IQ<70 , won't understand anything, don't research anything, and will continue to rail against logical thought.
Sad , but as the old saying goes , you can't fix stupid.

Whereas you argue that no one can write what they want and we have to have a vote where everyone agrees and whatever other total drivel you've come out with over the last two years.  Bitcoin has never worked like that and never will work like that.  If you ever recognise the situation for what it is, let me know.  Until then, I'll continue to think of you as a lost cause.

Funnily enough, I can write what I want and activate a feature as and when I want to, but crucially, if I do that without other users joining me, it's going to be a very small and insignificant network.  What you fail to comprehend is that all the changes you claim are bad have adequate support.  The protocol has no interest in your belief that the support wasn't legitimate.  The only thing the protocol knows are the rules currently being enforced.  The protocol has no concept of its "purpose", so if you have some personal preference on what that purpose should be, run the client you want to run and see who agrees with you.  Just know that if users don't agree with you, there is absolutely nothing to prevent them removing you if you flag support for incompatible rules.  It's not a democracy and you don't have any right to demand that other users consider your proposals.  Run what you want, take your chances.  



If you ever get tired of pursuing your current career as a full-time internet troll, you could always consider comedy.  If I don't understand how Bitcoin works, how is it I'm always to one who has to tell you how and why your "improvements" aren't viable or realistic?  Some examples:

Franky1:  Why can't we make LN devs work on Bitcoin instead?
Me:  Because that's not possible.

Franky1:  Why can't we make it so that Core are purely a reference client and can't introduce changes until the community have voted on them?
Me:  Because you can't enforce it.

Franky1:  Why can't we disallow code that includes activation dates?
Me:  Because you can't disallow anything.

So because I'm the one who keeps pointing out the massive flaws in your abysmal ideas, you question my understanding of Bitcoin because you can't get what you want?  Get a clue, please.

The only thing you understand about Bitcoin is that you hate just about everything about it.  Keep shooting the messenger if you like, I'm only telling you how it is.  Sorry if I keep pointing out how reality differs to how you might want it to be.  Doesn't make me wrong, though.  That's your specialty.

Wrong because franky1.

firstly you using terms like 'layers' is just fake buzzwords of trying to pretend things are united/part of a larger whole... sorry that false advertising has been debunked

to populate and false promote LN (the alternative network that is not bitcoin) developers have actually messed with the consensus , by now making the BITCOIN network core centric where core can slide in their changed unhindered

also LN as a separate network that it is, did not develop to be bitcoin compatible. but instead bitcoin had to change to be LN compatible.

changing bitcoins ideology, ethos and fundamentals to fit a separate network that does not even comply to the same security/principles of what bitcoin is all about is not good for bitcoin.

then further stifling bitcoin by limiting its transaction throughput onchain, and also not implementing a fair fee mechanism, is all efforts to deburden bitcoin of utility/desire, purely to promote, persuade people to use alternative networks/services. which again is against the purpose of bitcoin

further more actually delving into the statistics of a 'working' LN scenario for a moderate population. would require more impractical changes that manipulate bitcoin away from its ideology/ethos/fundemental purpose

..
but maybe, before you just promote LN. maybe its best you learn things about bitcoin and LN so you can atleast offer an experienced, researched viewpoint. and not just a dev ass kissing narrative

You claim to know everything, yet all the information you're telling everyone is wrong. But I encourage all newbies to listen to you, because it's another correct path to real learning. The hard way.

Plus I never thought of Lightning as "utopia". But how can I be against it? It's not doing anything to alter the consensus layer like a hard fork, isn't it? This is Bitcoin, open and permissionless. Let developers build on top of it.


Newbies, I encourage you to listen to Khaos77.

Learn. The hard way.

doomad is over using the term permissionless without understanding

first of all people can also say that bitcoin is permissionless. (doomads mindset) meaning doomad does has a right to write whatever he likes and have it activated as he wants.

yet

doomad also argues that bitcoin works by users deciding what they should follow. but this can be seen as countering doomads "permissionless" stance because he says it needs people to decide/follow

doomads flip flopping has got so bad that his narrative swings more than a bisexual sex addict, so much so that his points no longer follow a straight line

i think doomad should first learn what bitcoin is/does. also learn the tech behind bitcoin that solved a fundamental problem that cypherpunks were trying to deal with for so long, and how 'offchain' services do not solve this same issue and never will.

until he can grasp what the differences are. he will be stuck

once learning about bitcoin. may doomad than try to refine his narrative to a clear straight line path that does not meander in circles of social drama. and instead sticks to the point that can reference blockdata, stats, code and dev decisions.

for instance
bitcoins transaction/payment signing does not need 2nd/3rd party permission to sign a tx thats destined for someone. but when it comes to what was the 2009-2013 ideology of consensus. permission is needed to activate new features/protocols

doomad mixes up user interface utility vs code/protocol to serve his circular social drama
he then mixes up the user interface utility of bitcoin with that of alternative network/services to confuse the differences purely to promote the alternatives as (falsely) being the same.

core bypassed consensus to get an activation which under the 2009-2013 ideology of bitcoin would not have been activated.
core bypassed writing code that would satisfy the majority desires
core instead cut away a significant population to fake a majority of lesser population

if doomad actually understood the purpose of bitcoin. and the byzantine generals theory of finding unity in diversity. rather than (excuse the pun) segregation. he would understand how core broke the main principals of bitcoins revolutionary technology purely to make core dominant/incontrol/powerhouse of bitcoin. which in itself is again something else that is against the fundementals of bitcoins ideology(decentralisation)

 i really think doomad should take time to learn about bitcoin. or spend more time atleast just being more straight lined and just admit his adoration for alternative networks. maybe even spend more time on forums of those alternative networks

I just point out that there is such a spec for the global consensus -  the White Paper

Code did follow after, and need to be on spec & honest - thats how Bitcoin & its consenus works.

What you are suggesting is unenforceable, though.  If I were a developer, tell me how anyone can prevent me from writing whatever code I wanted.  More to the point, why should anyone should have the right to prevent me from coding what I wanted?  Bitcoin is permissionless.  That's a quality no one can break.  Every other aspect of the design is exactly as the users will it to be by enforcing the rules in the code they freely choose to run.  You are not in a position to tell anyone they should only code things in a way that you want.

I don't understand the point of lightning.

Why not just switch to a coin that can handle more transactions on the chain?

Are we that attached to the name bitcoin?

smtp, tcp/ip whatever are specked designs at first place. Coming from ideas - nothing to do with code at initial state

Sure, if u start impl that ideas very local and concrete - into a Client (Server) that want to communicate with others u need to make ur APPLICATION impl
into that consens


I agree with bitcoin to get the basics done - there is many impl needed - but if u start changing the consens protocol by changing code first, and break the initial design by that , ur doing wrong since u brake the consensus with base protocol code dev.  Better to move these things into APPLICATION layers and keep the consensus as thin & simple as possible.

Devs write APPLICATIONS  that follow initial protocol DESIGN / SPEC

Edit: And BTW if ppl try to limit scaling by  protocol design for a global protocol ( and dev it into ) they ve some screws lose.
 

FTFY, 

windfury.
just use LN, please its becoming too obvious your saying things without experience of what you speak.
your just as bad as doomad. you dont care about bitcoin you dont understand how things actually work, you just want to say some strange things just to try making people think LN is great and the future method people use for making payments.
all at the downfall of you both letting blockchains/bitcoin become stifled/deburdened of utility

i prefer to highlight how bitcoin is being stifled in the hopes new dev teams put core back in its place as not the controller but as just a participant of bitcoin. thus re-innovating bitcoin


as for you admirations of LN and over promoting/exaggerating/defining ln as utopia.. if you feel that millisats are not real, htlc / private commitments are not real. and if you feel that the too-and-throw of channel balance between channel partners is as settled and secure as blockchain confirmed funds then please try to actually make a case that blockchains are useless invention and how digital money could work without needing blockchains due to your belief that the private signed commitments between two parties is the same immutable/final/settld/guaranteed/paid off/ system as blockchains offer.
i dare you to try convincing yourself that the private signed commitments between channel parties is just as final as blockchain confirmed transaction

No, you, can repeat it all you like, and it would never change how the Lightning Network technically works, and the reality that there are no "IOU pegged promises to pay tokens" in the Lightning Network.

But I encourage the newbies to believe you. I hope they do, to know the actual truth for themselves the hard way. It's the best way to learn.

Thanks, and I hope you never stop spreading misinformation.

And yet, you and btc shrills all claim btc can't increase ONCHAIN Scaling,
because a small # of hobbyist can't afford$ to run a full non-mining node.  
(Which no one cares enough to offer them a % of block rewards or fees to do so.)
(If you make money it is a business, if you don't , then it is a hobby.)

Hypocrite Much?


 

---

In unrelated news,
Cøbra points out LN and BTC are not the same thing. (Cøbra is right.)
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50491676

As a side perk, Gmax gets upset and claims all of his banker payoffs from blockstream now go to charity.  
Achow101 never met a topic , he does not want to lock when the truth gets told in them.