users are not always in a position to defend themselves from misinformation and their nodes are treated as 'compatible' thus they have no way of stopping certain groups roadmaps. any nodes redesigned to oppose such are thrown off the network
It appears as though there are some unscrupulous people out there who would take advantage of this. It's therefore vital that we give all users the real knowledge to be able to differentiate between lies and genuine assistance when they are presented with information about technical subjects. As such, this topic wil rebut the the propaganda that other networks are a better way to transact and will stand as a handy guide on how to counter any fraudulent or deceptive arguments being presented by malicious users.
Moderation note: Any malicious users who are quoted as sources of lies are permitted to post in this topic. but will be corrected. and at worse, yawned at and laughed at. if they dont like it they can hit the ignore button.. its free
ISSUE #1:
"The Lightning Network will encourage users to leave Bitcoin by locking it up in smart contract vaults that are co-signed by elite users called "factories" who will charge for the service of being the entry and exit of broadcast tx and they will handle the non blockchained payments inside LN (other network thats not bitcoin). all due to certain devs stagnating bitcoins network scaling and implying bitcoin cannot transact well.. yet its the stagnation and stuff the devs have done that is the hold up. not blockchains themselves.
blockchains are not self coding AI. devs code it, so any problems it has come down to devs.
the result would be that average joe will end up seeing different blockchain coins as favourable when they want to exit the non-blockchain network. due to other blockchain networks having lower fee's and allow more transaction throughput
again bitcoin is not an AI that self coded in limitations and fee increases and self stagnated. developers purposely limited bitcoins scaling opportunities these last 3 years.
here is a person claiming it wont be the case, but he himself in his own reasoning shows that it will be the case that people will atomically swap within the non-blockchain network
REASONING:
It's called an Atomic Swap. The clue is in the name. It stands to reason that you can't swap coins on your blockchain with coins on another blockchain unless someone with coins on that blockchain wants some coins on your blockchain. People will want to hold bitcoins due to the comparatively higher levels of security and adoption in relation to other coins.
If you relinquish ownership of some bitcoins and take ownership of a proportionate amount of altcoins, the owner of those altcoins will then take ownership of the bitcoins you just swapped.
It's called an Atomic Swap. The clue is in the name. It stands to reason that you can't swap coins on your blockchain with coins on another blockchain unless someone with coins on that blockchain wants some coins on your blockchain. People will want to hold bitcoins due to the comparatively higher levels of security and adoption in relation to other coins.
If you relinquish ownership of some bitcoins and take ownership of a proportionate amount of altcoins, the owner of those altcoins will then take ownership of the bitcoins you just swapped.
this is exactly what banks done with the gold market in the 18th-20th century by offering something thats not as secure as gold but "convenient".. and eventually people didnt want to play with gold no more. eventually realising silver and copper coins were easier to handle. and then the banks got to keep the gold while swapping ownership of the gold from the users to the banks and letting users then have silver and copper coins
ISSUE #2:
thinking a swap is an equal 2people enter 2 people exit(one with btc, one with altcoin). and here is a persons foolish attempt to sway the sheep to sleep by saying it will all be ok
It's not a one-way street. A swap is only completed if someone takes ownership of the bitcoins. As such, it's only natural that there will be as many users coming in as there are leaving. This will not result in a reduction in the number of people using Bitcoin.
an elitist factory(bank) takes in peoples bitcoins under their smart contract cosigned address.. its not one person with bitcoin one person with an altcoin.
its one bank with altcoins and multiple people with bitcoin.
thats what an LN factory is. a bank vault where many people lock funds up with one entity and then the factory hands out non blockchained, unaudited unconfirmed 'payments' to users so that users can play around within LN
once those people end up wanting to leave LN by needing a factories signature to do so, users will naturally want the cheapest fastest easiest way to get their value out of LN
thus naturally leaving with altcoin and the bank as one entity keep the bitcoin..
reasons.. as explained in issue #1
ISSUE #3:
many have been fooled initially that LN is a bitcoin only network layer that will make bitcoin scale and more popular. but that is a myth
LN is a separate network, it is not as secure as bitcoin, it does not solve the byzantine generals problem, it does not have a blockchain to even community audit the payments. users need other users for it to function. the other users need to sign off an payments. and many other issues.
yes i understand the promoted "convenience" POSSIBILITY. but in no way is it a bitcoin scaling tool. its a separate network to get people away from using bitcoins network. and locking people bitcoins up in co-signed contracts. and making it harder to exit LN via things like factories gatekeepers/watchtowers that are made to persuade users into keeping bitcoin locked up, by reissuing new offchain transactions as oppose to broadcasting bitcoin transactions out.
and lastly by making bitcoins network innovation of scaling be stiffled for 3 years just to keep up the persuasion that bitcoins network is not the best utility for value(facepalm)
so if anyone wants to refute this and instead continue the lie that LN is made just for bitcoin. try checking the code.
https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/chainregistry.go#L579
Code:
litecoinMainnetGenesis = chainhash.Hash([chainhash.HashSize]byte{
0xe2, 0xbf, 0x04, 0x7e, 0x7e, 0x5a, 0x19, 0x1a,
0xa4, 0xef, 0x34, 0xd3, 0x14, 0x97, 0x9d, 0xc9,
0x98, 0x6e, 0x0f, 0x19, 0x25, 0x1e, 0xda, 0xba,
0x59, 0x40, 0xfd, 0x1f, 0xe3, 0x65, 0xa7, 0x12,
})
// chainMap is a simple index that maps a chain's genesis hash to the
// chainCode enum for that chain.
chainMap = map[chainhash.Hash]chainCode{
bitcoinTestnetGenesis: bitcoinChain,
litecoinTestnetGenesis: litecoinChain,
bitcoinMainnetGenesis: bitcoinChain,
litecoinMainnetGenesis: litecoinChain,
}
0xe2, 0xbf, 0x04, 0x7e, 0x7e, 0x5a, 0x19, 0x1a,
0xa4, 0xef, 0x34, 0xd3, 0x14, 0x97, 0x9d, 0xc9,
0x98, 0x6e, 0x0f, 0x19, 0x25, 0x1e, 0xda, 0xba,
0x59, 0x40, 0xfd, 0x1f, 0xe3, 0x65, 0xa7, 0x12,
})
// chainMap is a simple index that maps a chain's genesis hash to the
// chainCode enum for that chain.
chainMap = map[chainhash.Hash]chainCode{
bitcoinTestnetGenesis: bitcoinChain,
litecoinTestnetGenesis: litecoinChain,
bitcoinMainnetGenesis: bitcoinChain,
litecoinMainnetGenesis: litecoinChain,
}
and as pointed out thus far even by the guys over promoting LN who are now FINALLY admitting its purpose to get people in, and then atomic swap them for altcoins(issue 1)
ISSUE #4:
people still insist that bitcoins network has scaled in the last 3 years due to segwit.
yet. segwit byte for byte is heavier on a hard drive than legacy bitcoin transactions. bitcoins original creator calculated under lean, non bloated contracted silly feature conditions. where users just do lean transactions of one spend, one recipient, one change address.. would allow 7tx/s (604k tx a day) this was an estimate given 8 years ago.
segwit of same lean 1 in 2 out wont get 600k a day for the same 1mb hard drive space
and....
the wishwashy code allows
partial data to be miscounted(witness scale factor)
separated(segrgate witness).
and the pretense of there now being a 4mb "weight" limit.
even the devs that created segwit admit that it wont achieve a 2.4m tx a day threshold(4*1mb estimates)
they cant even guarantee a 1.2m tx day (2*of 1mb estimates)
even now. there has not been a day that has pushed passed the 600k tx estimated threshold that has existed since 2009
segwits aim was not to be a scaling solution. as the byte for byte bloat proves (though many devs try hiding it with wishy washy scale witness and vbytes code)
segwits utility is to be the gateway tx format to persuade users over to other networks, such as LN.
while also adding in a trojan back door to allow devs to now change the network without using bitcoin consensus.
(their buzzwords 'inflight upgrades'/compatible softforks)
which if certain things are added that have malicious intent. users wont have consensus to prevent it as that has been by passed with the "compatibility" backdoor and threats of being taken off the network if they attempt to oppose segwit or deactivate it.
This post will be updated with more issues that will and are negatively affecting bitcoin.
just remember they dont want bitcoin to scale. they want people to lock up thir bitcoin, play with other networks and not return so that elitists can stockpile the bitcoin. because they want bitcoin as a "reserve currency" not a open peer to peer cash network