K I’ll do this discussion once, just to make sure you really didn’t get it or if you just let ur bias rule you, then im out, because i was really always fair to you and now you try to put words in my mouth.
your last paragraph makes my point. most of you LN fans are screaming sales pitches that LN is "the" solution
I never said there is „the” solution. It is one of many solutions to transact
outside of Bitcoin and in my personal opinion an elegant solution for doing just this. It is not a necessity for anyone to do this and shouldn’t ever be a necessity, it should be an optional, voluntary and informed choice for whoever wants to do this. For the purpose of doing some transactions, not a replacement for anything else.
Everything has pros/ cons, and we will need different solutions for different problems.
and nothing else should be done because LN does it all. trying to make Ln the only direction people should go for daily use. and avoid scaling bitcoin avoid expanding bitcoin avoid helping bitcoin, because lightning is the go-to thing.
Again i never said this or suggested this or tried to suggest this. Lightning and Bitcoin are two different things. Developed independently. That’s the point of layers, Bitcoin is still being developed independently and needs to be functional without lightning in mind. It should make decisions independently from lightning, like it didn’t exist. Everything should be done to develop their own project as best as possible. I don’t think you understand the engineering principles behind this. Bitcoin shouldn’t avoid anything and be developed as well as possible, and the same goes for lightning. You can use the base layer aka Bitcoin either way, no one will lock you outside of it, or halt it’s development. If one upper layer can specialise to serve different use cases better in practice, then some people might want to use it. Just because i use the word layer doesn’t mean Bitcoin and lightning are one thing, it’s the opposite.
there is not a necessity for "lightning". specifically.. it is not "the" solution
other networks can make stronger protocols that are more secure in a "off chain" method. but lightning has more flaws then other models.
im not a fan of the sidechains, but even with their flaws and i emphasis their flaws. lightning has more flaws in comparison
There is no the solution, but personal choice. Sidechains have advantages, but also disadvantages. I saw some interesting proposals there, but for now once they gain traction they will face the same issues as the main chain in terms of decentralization, security and scalability, this could be fixed in the future tho and then they’re maybe better than lightning overall. I personally like lightning for the use case of fast and many small payments, for the rest the main chain is better in my opinion. That’s why i won’t use sidechains anytime soon, because i have the mainchain for this.
by presuming that LIGHTNING is the necessity everyone has to offramp to. is the human flaw of just parroting the utopian hype advertising scripts.. of getting people to adopt msat pegs instead of real utility btc, or pother options bitcoin could take.
I made it clear enough now that i don’t want this and that im not parroting this.
lightning is not a thing everyone should shift to and no one should be trying to shout that bitcoin should not scale because lighting can take the scale away by diverting people away.
Ik.
there are many ways to solve large transaction amounts.. without lightning. even if you fear and want to cry if anyone mentions scaling bitcoin and you just want an off-chain solution.. it doesnt have to be lightning that is "the" offchain solution. because the lightning model is more flawed then other models.
for instance if a better more secure "off-chain" network was to be made. people can diversify over several regional variants of that network protocol and then co-communicate across them "offchain" . but heck i know the response is to ignore any other option coz you think lightning is the only direction. (standard mindset of lightning fans)
I won’t ignore other options and will gladly listen to different proposal that are made, i want more of them, not less.
dont think of these altnets as the "solutions" or think they are bitcoin 2.0. think of them as niche services for temporary, small amount services. not something to lock up and stay on long term.
Exactly, but no one is suggesting something else here.
Every solution has tradeoffs, but this is one of the more elegant solutions.
so you say you dont see LN as the SOLUTION .. but then you go and say its a solution.. in the same post..
i can even quote you calling it subtly and overtly as bitcoin2.0 when i see you many times talk about the "bitcoin L2" "bitcoin layer" and "ontop bitcoin", and "bitcoin lightning network"
It’s not Bitcoin 2.0 and won’t ever be, and there is no Bitcoin 2.0. And i don’t want a Bitcoin 2.0. It’s still appropriate to describe lightning in layered architecture kind of way despite this, in my opinion.
heck the way you say bitcoin cant cope bitcoin cant scale.. your soo deep in the salepitch BS of Ln you are literally saying "bitcoin bad LN elegant"
Im not, why would i even think Bitcoin is bad. LN is elegant if we want a lot of fast payments being done outside of Bitcoin. It’s also pointless to deny that it’s hard to scale the main chain at this particular moment in time 29th june 2022, i want this to change in the future. But scaling can’t come at the cost of decentralization, if we have a provable way to scale the main chain today, without becoming centralized, then this would be the best way. But we don’t yet and letting a few more payments in now, won’t change the basic problem.
for someone that pretends they are promoting bitcoin adoption. you are certainly trying to call it crap. and advertise another network instead..
I talked about Bitcoin 99% of the time, for you it’s too much if i mention lightning just once or a few times positively.
.. LN is not elegant. it has bugs and flaws. and after 5 years+ LN still cant guarantee payment success 100%
even now people are needing to add more channels or wait for other days when their route parter a few hops away comes back online.. where they need to close channels or rebalance because OTHERS have used up YOUR funds.
setting up and using LN is not elegant. its worse then setting up a bitcoin wallet.
To me the basic idea and design principles are elegant. To me it’s just normal that software takes time to harden, because i work in this field. It is not a elegant solution for the things you mentioned, these were added because they had to be. Just use it optionally for one purpose: fast payments and then it depends on how often you make these kinds of payments to decide if it’s worth opening a channel or not.
Ln has less security then bitcoin. it has many things against it that make it nothing like bitcoin. but you continue to try to make it sound better then bitcoin.
I said that lightning is not a good way of storing funds and just an option for payments, which exactly implies what you said.
LN can still function WITHOUT bitcoin. it is not essential to bitcoin. LN is its own network that can function without bitcoin. accept that fact. you tagging on the word bitcoin does not mean LN is purely a bitcoin thing.
And Bitcoin can function without lightning, that’s the point of layers. Reducing complexity and being better at one specific thing, for example transaction speed, this has tradeoffs, otherwise we wouldn’t need a another layer in the first place. And then there’s use cases where this trade off is tolerable. I said Bitcoin lightning, because im aware it can be used for other coins too. Bitcoin lightning = using Lightning in a Bitcoin context. That was the meaning.
when you talk about LN. you are mainly saying about how LNs FEATURE/BENEFIT is to get people away from using bitcoin..
Nah and if that is your fear, i think you shouldn’t be concerned about it, because more people will use Bitcoin in the future, lightning is an enabler/entry point for many people and not a threat.
a solution to scaling bitcoin and increasing BITCOIN utility. is not to take people away from bitcoin and stifle bitcoin scaling to stop more people adopting it, simply because another network can adopt the people instead.
Bitcoin utility is increasing too, regardless of lightning.
emphasis
for someone that pretends they are promoting bitcoin adoption. you are certainly trying to call it crap. and advertise another network instead..
I said several times now that Bitcoin is the best money ever created, doesn’t sound like crap to me. Lightning needs Bitcoin not the other way around(Bitcoin is the popular thing). But it’s also foolish to imply that lightning had no single positive impact on Bitcoin overall.
put it simple..
if i was to call LN.. bitcoin "SV".. and that is all i have scenario'd.. a name change.. from your bitcoin "LN" simply changed the lettering to "SV. .. suddenly you might see the light of day of the game being played by LN supporters.. trying to get people to stop making bitcoin transactions to instead make transactions on another network.. you might start seeing the debate from the other side
give it a try.. give yourself a month of calling LN "bitcoin sv".. knowing people are trying to take people away fro bitcoin to your "sv" network. it might enlighten you. you might even start getting risk aware and looking for the flaws other people see inn your "sv" rather then hyping it up and ignoring the flaws
Im not an idiot, i know that they’re not the same and that lightning has flaws. But i can have the opinion that fast payments with small and many amounts are necessary for some use cases, even if it means it’s done in a less secure way, because this can’t easily be done on the main chain now without tradeoffs.
The fact is the mainchain cant process an unlimited amounts of payments in a reasonable time frame, so there needs to be some ways to get around this limit, for the time we need/ want to.