Topic: Concerns regarding SegWit + Lightning Network? (Read 1180 times)

Well yes and I agree with him and I offer this link as proof https://blockchain.info/pools that shows eight big pools control 90% of the
network and if this so called competition between miners was true then fees would have not reached $55 per transaction because
a few miners would have had the brains not to try to hold a knife to users throats whilst asking for donations to cover the transaction costs
and as a result this crashed the price from $19k to about $10k and now we are trading sideways.

This situation is only going to get worse since the miners are going to be also running the lightning network banking hubs
I feel so yes I am letting everyone know and I even contacted the LN project manager but he was unavailable for comment and
won't even reply to emails.

ETH had a similar problem that was a result of Crypto-Kitties but the miners had a meeting and decided to remain responsible
and didn't pump fees up so no it's not a democracy and given that bankers pump and dump who's says what pockets they own.

A little clarification about Meriting you and other famous members:
You have more merit than you need but its so hard to not give it away when you post stuff like this. I like to think that I'll keep it for some of the lower ranked members who are making good posts.
Then I come across one of such posts and its like, Should I merit it? Would he feel bad if i didn't..LOL..Theymos replied to one of my posts and I couldn't bring myself to merit it thinking it'll look like adulation more than anything else.. I am still trying to figure out what to think of it. You can help by letting me know what you think of it.

---

I vehemently agree that we need the hardware part of the ecosystem to change for decentralization. I even have a small hope that the electricity shortages for large farms would be a step in this direction as i mentioned in a post here.  The big manufacturer right now has all the incentive to sell their ASICs in huge batches rather than to individuals.

A policy in this regard would probably accomplish this in one stroke but then we'd be asking the government/ regulator to do it for us.

Elon Musk made the rockets. How hard could it be to make ASICs? Maybe we should start some sort of open hardware project for this? This is the perfect use case for our eagerly awaited Bitcoin champions.

Also, I request that you take these and similar thought threads to the Ivory tower page. You should also collect some of your better posts so anyone can take a look at them in Serious Discussion/ Ivory tower. If you allow, I'd like to do that myself. We can include other great past discussions.

And while reading I already thought, that someone mentioned this...

yup.

I just did some math here: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/64920/how-does-bitcoins-power-consumption-compare-to-other-financial-institutions-exch
We are currently at ~23mio Terahashes. The "dream" 800 GH/s fancy adapter would compete with the power of ~1.7mio Antminer S9. An Antminer does 13TH/sec. So need a times 10 better device, possibly USB, for sure fancy design, and not too expensive (250 US Dollar range?). But wouldn't the nonce calculation just explode, and even more power would be required? I currently can't see, where this ends... 

gosh, what am I saying here?  I know "wrong blocks" don't make it into the network. Must have been the red wine... I don't go any further on this speculation. 

@pebwindkraft, sorry, you were responding to a plagiarist who copied one of my old posts (and also a post by bob123), as reported by BitCryptex.

---

Replying to you, with corrected attribution:


First, I wish to highlight my critical next sentence, which you cut—here in boldface:


Sidechains/drivechains/etc. which you mention are irrelevant to concepts such as the MR POWA proposal—or total POW change.  These are aptly described as “nuclear options” for the main chain, in case certain ill-intended large centralized miners become an existential threat to Bitcoin.  But nuclear war is not a desirable prospect; it always has collateral damage, and it could be MAD.  Consider that in recent months, certain evil miners have tried to seriously compromise Bitcoin—and they failed, because other miners kept their own ASICs mining Bitcoin, and the network is much more resilient than some people expected.


Imagine you could get ten million devices each doing a modest 800 GH/s out on store shelves at a moderate price—made plug-and-play, and advertised as the hot new thing.  Just make sure the thing runs quietly, and has sleek industrial design.  Congratulations, you just added 8 EH/s—somewhere around (waves hands) doubling the global hashrate, with half of the global hashrate now spread amongst computer enthusiasts, gadget fetishists, people who want a show-off conversation piece, finance people, maybe even gamers (many of whom have a gadget fetish, and want to show off to their friends).

I know that there have been previous attempts to create something along these lines.  What is needed is for a well-established, competently managed Bitcoin company with in-house brains and leadership who cares about Bitcoin to take a serious interest in making hardware happen for miner decentralization.  I know that the whole process from ASIC development to fabbing, to device design, to manufacturing, to (sometimes most difficult for engineers) distribution would be a challenging task.  It is not a project which some genius lone-gun could pull off by himself.

(In my dreams:  Where’s a Blockstream conspiracy when you need one?  If they could do a satellite feed, they’re adept at the sorts of contracts they would need to arrange.  They are already hated by Jihan & Co.  Go for it.)

As for this:


Behold the power of nodes:  Invalid blocks do not exist, insofar as the blockchain is concerned.  Malicious miners can try to make all the invalid blocks they want, whether via “hidden functions” or otherwise; they’d only be wasting their electricity.  Malicious hardware manufacturers who added such “hidden functions” would be criminally defrauding their customers, but could not thus damage the Bitcoin network.  This is a non-issue.

We have sidechains/drivechains/Alpha Elements, where new concepts can be tested. I wouldn't expect something being "the right thing" from the very beginning, but the more development we have, the better it secures bitcoin future. And everything which looks at things that are more than low-level increase of blocksize or amount of coins should benefit future work.
There are many people worried about miner centralization(three countries: Canada, Island and China...), unhappy situation with ASIC miners and BCH support, and possibly growing size of blockchain... And then we learned, hard forkes are probably a "no-go". Further development is necessary.
So if UASF inspired hardforks are a no-go for MR POWA (wow, what a combination of buzz words!) is not visible, we should encourage ongoing research from many areas, and not only Altcoins, also sidechains can be used.

Yes, in principle I agree. Economies of scale in the manufacturing environments have shown centralization. So even if we find new ASICs with independency from the evil ASIC provider of today, I would guess, that after finding a new cheap SHA256 ASIC cheaper as GPUs, we'd do the race again and find centralization of manufacturer of these new devices, and maybe they implement then a hidden function to flood the blockchain with invalid blocks, bringing new attack vectors to light... Decentralization (to keep independency) is a very, very hard topic. Economically and especially at sociological level...

You do realize that 'finding blocks' isn't like flipping stones to find something below it?
You describe it as you were searching for those blocks in the woods and sometimes find a broken one.

If a miner publishes an invalid block, it won't get accepted. The next valid block will be added to the chain (and is going to be used for the work of the next block).

I suggest you lookup what a block [1] and a transaction [2] is. You might also read the bitcoin whitepaper [3].


[1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block
[2] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transactions
[3] https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

100% with you on keeping the corporations out but "full nodes" won't scale as Bitcoin has been implemented and they need to
move towards DNA to spread the load across the nodes instead of having to patch it up with 'off-block' lightning and I am not
phased by introducing specialist cluster type nodes to Bitcoin.

 

Im ok with people questioning segwit and lightning, hell even Peter Todd recently pointed out at how LN is weak at the moment. Any ideas in how to kill bitcoin are welcome since that is how it gets stronger.

What I at this point consider straight trolling and even terrorism against bitcoin is the anti-full node agenda. Namely, these that think only corporations should run full nodes. After having debated this for years I just don't see any rational argument for defending this nonsense.

No I don't think you did and as you can see I am back to my old self now and will see you in your next thread where you
keep deleting posts that don't agree with you in an effort to make yourself seem smart.

Not being one of "the boys" here I don't have many merits to give away but I too will send pebwindkraft a merit


Shut up drama queen, send the link and I will join in too   and stop begging for donations in your footer because I am sure that
is also against the terms and conditions here too.

Ban evasion is a permanban offense.  I am now gathering evidence for a new thread I will start have started in Meta.  For the sake of sanity, I ask everybody to stop replying to “RNC”.  I also ask the moderator to not delete anything until I get all the evidence.  Thank you.


Nailed it, pebwindkraft.  Big merit will be coming your way.  I noticed the same thing, long ago.  I don’t always immediately speak out on what I see; I await the right moment; and it seems you hit exactly the right moment!  Thank you.


Archived:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180302172447/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2617240.msg31377296#msg31377296

The argument that using LN is cheaper than on-block transactions that you present is fictional even if it does
save me money and the point I was making is that I am free to use another alternative means of payment to make
much bigger saving.

I won't pay main street banks $20 per month to keep an account open when I am in credit and I am not about to
start now by paying LN hub bankers a penny for a second rate service that is "off-Block"

No dispute about it, (coherent argument) that the development team are in bed with the miners or else tx fees
would never had got as high as they did so forget the theory about market forces and competition keeping a lid
on fees being charged by banking hubs because the president has already been set.

The LN hubs are a patch up for a badly designed system but if it was a free service then I would say it was quite
a good short term solution for something that should had been fixed eight years ago but as it is we are being feed
problem-reaction-solution and you don't have a clue how high these LN fees will be in a years time so why are you
trying to defend the indefensible.

If you're so good at presenting a factual and coherent argument, you wouldn't have deliberately evaded that question about Options 1, 2 and 3 when I asked.  So here's the challenge:

Whatever the standard fee happens to be at the time, if you are capable of explaining why paying for 4 standard Bitcoin transactions, SegWit or otherwise, to the same person (Option 1) is cheaper than opening a Lightning channel and only paying two of those standard fees (Option 2), I will stop calling you names, whatever alias you happen to be using to avoid your latest ban.

I'll even make it easy for you and let you forget all about "Option 3" (even though it's clearly devastating to your dismal attempt at an argument).  However, if you can't answer that question without lying or twisting the facts (and you'll struggle, because paying 4 fees is clearly going to cost more than paying just 2 fees), you have to concede that you're just trolling and that Lightning is perfectly capable of saving users money.  I eagerly await your response.



I literally can't wait to see what you're working on if you honestly believe you can do better than the three separate teams of developers working on Lightning.  Please enlighten us with your infinite wisdom and knowledge how you're going to create something better.  How are you going to help with the scaling issue?  

You make a good point and hopefully the development team coded around this issue but all open source code can be
changed and I am guilty of using a very short, quick and fast bit of encryption code that would be hard to crack was
it not for the code being open-source.

Segwit seem like a good fix to buy some time for me if only they didn't break existing wallet code or if they did then
converting to a 03 address should had been free from miner fees.

As the record shows you cannot debate me or others about the Lightning Network because we have our
facts right and you are left with talking FUD and name calling

"Where the mods see mindless drivel and FUD, they remove it"

Yes I know, truth has become treason around here in many cases and members defending the faith (Lots of fake merits)
are allowed to be rude around here because we get banned even if we don't dish it back to them but as a developer I have
every right to be here so maybe you need to check you own criteria when you hit post.

>>Segwit destruction will snowball.  One miner will figure out it is more profitable to skip verifying signatures.  Then two and three figure it out.

you forgot the risk, that a mined block is invalid. because nodes will check signatures and might not accept the mined block as a proper block.
even if a miner finds a block, but accidentally a non verified sig is inside, this block will not be the main chain.

the already low chance of finding a block will be accompanied by the risk of having found an invalid block.


Remember:
The sender shows the pubkey when spending from whatever address the bitcoins are in. As part of the verification, the receiver (actually, every node in the network), can verify that the pubkey hashes to the address given and then and only then verifies the signature
 

It's beyond precious that you think anyone cares who you are.  More humorous still is that you think you're helping make the forum a better place with your inane flawed reasoning and paranoia.  Where the mods see mindless drivel and FUD, they remove it.  If you don't want your posts (and accounts) to be removed, try not to meet that criteria every time you hit "post".  

You are right, 100% right and indeed I am anti-cen which is short for anti censorship but here i met a nazi in the form of a moderator
who dare not allow open debate which I have reported and advise him to return back to 1930's Germany so that he can burn a few more books.

Yes please laugh by exposing a banned account but really the joke is on you if you need the service of a bias PR officer to protect you from a
few home truths around here.

The "newbies" here would be the ones your trying to convert into harden gambling addicts with the loaded propaganda that is being pumped out
here and this is why you fear me and ban number two is coming up so credit for spotting the obvious but i did not try to hide it anyway but your not that
smart because no one writes like me and you now need to apologize to dinofelis because your witch hunt lead you to an innocent man.

Would you like me to PM you a list of the bottom sniffers I have compiled here, paid thugs they send in since we are exchanging names not that your on the list and
I don't even hold it against you for exposing my real name that I would like back anyway.

Holly shit batman, RNC is Anti-Cen in disguise so I wonder why he's is having to do that Batman



 

Let's not assume and lets consider that we have other options and don't need to be held to ransom by the miners come bankers
and make a purely logical financial decision based on facts.   

Go on, you can go first ?

Yes, but tomorrow all people on the planet will open a network channel at the same time, the fees will go through the roof, up to 10000 US dollars, making only the banksters rich, and the centralized servers cannot manage the volume, because the banking hubs have a connection problem with the blockchain, and this can change the values of the FIAT world, and, and, and... people like to throw shells to predict the future, with any type of assumptions in their limited understanding.

@DooMAD: This whole gibberish is exactly the tone and voice of Anti-Cen and dinofelis. Even the low level newbies here in the forum can make a text comparison on the posts, and understand that there is the same incentive, just under different names.

Don‘t loose your time :-)

I think it's really important for bitcoin to scale in a secure way. This is very important. However the ultimate survival of the coin would be my primary concern and with the fees we saw over Christmas bitcoin needs some improvement otherwise the incoming masses will look at bitcoin like some old artifact. The lightning network does have some centralisation issues but compared to everything else out there it's stillbhead and shoulders above