Topic: Jack Dorsey-Backed Lightning Labs Raises $10 Million (Read 619 times)

*Translation:  franky1 now realises they were talking out of their arse and had it wrong the whole time, but clearly feels the need to gloss over that quickly so they can go back to spewing more meaningless techno-babble that has no basis in reality.*

We're not letting you off that easy.  Tell me what exactly they "changed", you pathetic liar.  They were never using unbacked channels, you were just being an illiterate halfwit and falsely claiming they were.  You're the one who needs to change tact.  

i have actually played around with LN not to find the best usecase.
not to use it by the limits of how its intended to be used. but by actually trying to find the flaws and holes.

you know the worse use cases. but for me done it in scenarios where the other parties involved in my tests knew what i was attempting so that they did not actually lose anything and i made them whole in cases where any loses were made to them.
(few tests done in regtest mode too)

but imagine someone without morals that just wants greed. who can abuse it and make people lose out and just not care
about the others

try to think about the holes and exploits of LN
there are there many other exploits too

for one because users do not blokchain review other users balance multiple hops away.
as the whole point is that people can keep things a secret within their channel(supposedly on best use practices, but that can be exploited)

you can also claim a channel balance using funds in one channel.. and in a totally different channel with a totally different partner. claim the funds are in those too.
you know lock 1 amount of 0.1btc.. but than have 3 separate channels on 3 nodes that say that those funds are in those channels too.
you can even open a channel with funds that were locked or even having no onchain lock. and confirmed a year ago. as if it was fresh channel
you can check if its even possible by seeing channels that are only open for 30-60 days. but using blockchain data from a year ago

you would be quite surprised what is possible

heck you can even use it in 'best case' scenario. and HYIP scam people
once you start to dip your toe into the water of seeing what can be exploited. you will start to not want to associate or pretend that LN is as good or as secure as bitcoin

atleast try to think about user security and protection and not just think about corporate brand image protection

heck you might even want to do some research on things like 'payment of death' while our at it

I don't believe this is possible. If it is, put your money where your mouth is, create a channel with an unbacked balance, try to spend it and see what happens.

you might want to actually both go look at what is actually possible on LN. and not be trying to brand protect corporations.
seems your minds are too orientated towards corp PR spin and not users risk using LN

bitrefill may have changed their tact
but LN as a system (if you stop corporate suck up) does alot more things that can STILL put users at risk
try.. just once .. yep im repeating it because seems many have not dont it.. just try to act like you are a user and you are concerned about the risks.. drop all the ego of protecting brands. and think from the prospective of user risk user experience and hacker exploitability..

maybe then your eyes might be widened enough to see whats really going on.

if all you want to do is just say 'wrong coz wrong' and carry on promoting a brand.. dont even bother replying.. try using the time you would spend replying to actually think about the risks and exploitability.

you are in denial at the moment and seem to only believe what has been spoonfed to you by corporations.. so try to actually be open to try to learn something by trying it.. not from the corporate best practice usage method. but by trying the 'poke it till it breaks' method to actually find the limitations the risks and the exploits.

people like doomad are the type that would happily positive PR spin a custodial bitcoin service who has cleartext access to private keys of a user and say that its secure and no one but the user can touch it. i seen many people like domad over the years care more abut wanting to be a spokesman/affiliate of businesses.
so i see no difference when they advertise other networks pretending other networks are as secure and trusted as the bitcoin blockchain.

again dont even bother with the crappy PR spin that everything is perfect and safe and LN is the same as bitcoin because it aint. instead realise that there are issues and problems and there are some devs behind LN that actually admit there are issues and there are actual risks and exploits.
and yes. devs themselves have actually lost funds using LN
and yes some scammers are actually playing around ding HYIPs on LN
and yes some scammers have channels with unbacked balance
all this is possible. and i do truly hope from atleast a moral prospective that some companies hve changed to not use the exploits. but this does not mean that LN is not at risk of being exploited

try to learn about factories and how channels can be opened and closed without needing blockchain utility inbetween. think critically as if your a bug finder at how these things can be used negatively.

again.. because it must take several times for things to actually get through.
drop the corporate PR and try to think/care/desire to want to know what users should be aware of about risks/exploits and issues. dont just try positive spinning

This is not what is happening. I will explain it for you.

Bitrefill has many channels open on LN, with a confirmed balance on their side on the various channels.

A customer who wants to open a 'thor" channel will send bitrefill some coin, and in exchange, bitrefill will open an LN channel and will give the customer a LN balance equal to the amount bitrefill receive on-chain minus their fee.

Bitrefill will sometimes credit the LN channel before the on-chain payment is confirmed, but this does not affect the confirmed balance of the LN channels. As with any other instance of a company accepting a zero-conf payment, if the on-chain payment is double spent or otherwise does not confirm, bitrefill will have a loss equal to the amount of the coin they sent via LN.

I don't know what your fixation is with slandering BitRefill by claiming they are using unbacked channels.  If they were unbacked channels (and they're not), they would be irredeemable on the blockchain.  If users were paying for a balance they were not able to redeem, that would be a scam, which is demonstrably not the case.  When Thor Turbo channels are closed and settled, the balance is redeemable on the Bitcoin blockchain.  There is no "fractional reserve" as you previously claimed.  I sincerely hope BitRefill take all necessary litigation against you for the damage you could potentially be causing to their perfectly legitimate business. 

From the horse's mouth:

From the website:

And the same applies to the Turbo channels.

Thor.  Turbo.  Channels.  Are.  Not.  Unbacked.  You.  Moron.

The service has been operating for over a year now.  I think someone would have noticed by this point if the funds weren't redeemable on the blockchain.  If you are still confident that the channels are unbacked, please get in contact with BitRefill's legal representatives and pass along your personal contact information.  I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.

we are talking about LN.. stop trying to compare LN to bitcoin by using bitcoin as an example..
LN is not bitcoin
LN is just that.. its own network (the secret is in the N (network))

the whole purpose of LN is to have its own set of rules that differ to bitcoins rules

its the whole point...
even thor turbo admits to this by saying their unbacked channels are customary and usually those accepting unbacked balance are using their software varient..

i still cant beleive you actually try to dismiss LN issues by bringing a bitcoin example into the scenario.
LN is not bitcoin. so what cant be done by bitcoin CAN be done by LN. so just stop trying to fool people thinking LN does the same as bitcoin

read their dang quote in that topic which you foolishly thought was in your favour.
its you that does not understand it..

you foolishly wrote it as if to say if people have custom rules they have to be in full knowledge and understanding of the terms and conditions of that custom ruleset... WHICH IS WRONG. most people dont know what thy are getting into and there is not big list of terms and conditions listing everything.

then you now go on some obsurb notion that if there were these custom rules that no one else would be on the network..
loads use it..

you are such a fool
you do realise that LN has no community wide transaction validity review system. no blockchain. reqiring full network coopertion

heck i could set up a route of
a<->b<->c<->d
and say if i was C.. i could be in a thor turbo channel with D and also another wallet ruleset with b

do you know why..
because the funds of B do not go to D
even if a or b wanted to pay D.. the funds do not exit their channels.
instead my node see's that i am 'presumed promised' funds in the b-c channel.. i then separately then 'presume promise' funds to d in the c-d channel.
again B does not need to communicate to D
B goes through C and C decides to use C-D funds or not

please just wake up and realise that people can tinker around and make custom rules and it does not need a full network effect. it just is channel partner related.

.. i hope you grasp the small scale co-partner side of it one day.. then maybe you can grasp the effect it can have on a wider scale.
 especially hope you one day grasp that average joe doesnt actually go to coding school or legal school to learn all the terms and conditions and code rules .. they just simply open a wallet and think they are funded..
you know much like how millions of citizens thought for decades that bank notes were still backed by gold.

i truly doubt you ever use it by the lack of true understanding beyond promotional material spoon feeds.
i doubt you even know of all the risks of loses, scams and other threats possible in LN. because all you seem to know is the positive spin PR stuff

i used to think that your were not that technical and more of a marketing guy.. but now i think your even failing the basics of marketing.. you know the part about know your product.

do i really need to ask you to do your research.. or will you just for once try it without having to be told

heck the whole point of these litemobile wallets to make walking into retailers to make fast transactions is to not need to have a desktop handy to check/view/use the blockchain. so high percentage of people wont check even if they knew how to. they just blindly 'trust' ln because they been promised every channel is backed and everything is secure ..
atleast wise up that its not the case

you do realise that with most average joe that dont read raw transaction data. even things like schnorr can become an abusive tool for LN

just imagine it. someone makes a multisig of 2-3 but keeps 2 and the other person has the 1. the other person thinks its just a 2-2 because nothing in schnorr reveals who or how many parties are involved.

not the person with the 2 can singularly sign funds without the other party. and the other party cant do anything about it.

*Facepalm*

That's like saying you are admitting Bitcoin's total supply can be modified because anyone can change the supply consensus rules in their client.  But in doing so, you effectively create your own network with no one else on it. 

Read more carefully and actually TRY to comprehend.  Don't just deliberately take things out of context to support your pre-existing misconceptions.

you think average joe actually checks the raw tx .. no. they just see a channel balance and think that they have balance. you are fooling yourself if you think people check things.. especially knowing you yourself dont check things critically.
many people are fooled by 'trust' .. the real bitcoin network is so strong it doesnt need people to trust.. yet LN is a different story. but by playing the bitcoin buzzword too many people end up trusting LN because of the buzzword games..
and yes that has and can lead to many people just accepting balance without checking.
you are an idiot to think that the user should be blamed for opening such a channel. its bitrefill that should make it absolutely clear that people are accepting unbacked balance.
again shame on you for making it out the user is in the wrong for opening the channel

most users/consumers using these custom rule lite wallets. think its the same rules. think all LN millisats are backed. they are not coders or know how to check things. they just like many consumers blindly trust the PR thats been spouted out. again they are not coders. so yes they are unware of what they are agreeing to. but agree anyway because they are given millisats at a discount. they dont see they are given unbacked millisats

these wallets do not have a button of terms and conditions that in bold tell people that the balance is not pegged. it doesnt tell them the critical stuff.. its just a open channel to get milliats. and the person says yes they want them millisats.. without any consideration if those millisats are backed pegged to a real bitcoin confirmed tx lock of funds.

you are an absolute fool.
but its nice to know you admit now that you feel its ok to have unbacked balance in LN.. but shame your blaming the user for having unbacked balance by saying they agreed to it. you really dont care about users security or having a payment sstem thats as strong as what bitcoin is. total shame on you.

whats next blame users for being suckered into the HYIP schemes that are starting up in LN. do you have any moral/ethics to actually care about users experience and user risk. or are you just mr exagerated positive PR guy wanting to fame up LN under the FALSE pretense that its thought to be linked to bitcoin because people throw the buzzword around alot.

and yea funny how you pretend it is bitcoin but admit by the quotes reference that it doesnt actually need bitcoin to work. that it a separate system . and this separate system doesnt even have to stick to any rule related to bitcoin.
such a shame it must be to live your life of sucking up to certain devs and certain companies whos only interest is personal gain.

as for your final point..
LN cant create new btc.. because LN is not BTC...
its like you are trying to say that i feel that banks are creating more gold when they make bank notes.. no a bank note is not gold. fractional reserve is where there are mrore bank notes that people BELIEVE to be pegged to gold. but there aint that much gold involved.
again. its not about creating more gold or more bitcoin. its about making more bank notes / millisats than there is gold/btc to back them... that is fractional reserve.

i wont tell you to do your research because after a few years its obvious you dont.. so ill just say grow some morals and ethics

Emphasis mine:


So you freely admit that:

You can't open a channel without having funds locked on the blockchain unless both participants have freely chosen to allow that.  Meaning no one can find themselves in a position where the other party was doing something they were unaware of.  You would also be unable to interact with any other Lightning users with the standard settings if you did that.  

Or to put it another way:

Your actions in opening a "channel" without funds like that would be the equivalent of writing "twenty pounds" on a piece of paper and playing make believe with an equally gormless friend that you were exchanging money with each other, while the rest of the world didn't even notice you existed and went about with their normal everyday lives.  To insinuate that anyone could confuse your play-time with a legitimate financial transaction is absurd.

Thank you for finally clarifying your mindless FUD.  It should be apparent to all that your earlier "scenarios" (in the loosest possible sense of the word) were yet another attempt to cause panic over nothing.

Further, BitRefill then went on to clarify how Thor Turbo channels work, but you are still somehow misinterpreting it.  As usual, the only confusion is whether you are deliberately misrepresenting what was said in an attempt to weave a false narrative, or whether you are simply too unintelligent to comprehend the meaning of what is being explained to you.  All the facts have been presented to you, but you somehow still reach a flawed conclusion.  Again, emphasis mine:

if you go check that topic thread and read the post from above mine in that topic .. you now the one made by bitrefill.. you know the one you merited... you would read

'Channel rules are established between the two parties that enter them, it is voluntary. That means you can agree to any rules you want. If you use rules that are different than other LN wallets or the rest of the network, you will be limited to a subnetwork of people using the same rules. Turbo channel opening requires a custom channel, '

they are playing by their own rules to have the ability to open channels with millisat balance thats not pegged to a confirmed and locked bitcoin blockchain tx'

like i said do your research.. and if you really want to know the wallet i was talking about.. a hint.. its in the quote i just pasted
have a nice day though.
shame your more interested in trying to be exagerated positive PR guy rather than actually thinking critically about things.
but i dont think you will ever change

pretty funny you merited something without understanding it.

I've come to learn that caveats need to be included when dealing with pernicious cunts like you.  Maybe if you weren't such a pathetic troll, I could deal in absolutes.  I have to make it clear that Wumbo needs to be enabled by both parties in order to facilitate a 10 BTC transaction, or you would try to claim that I didn't know that needed to be the case.  It's just how you operate.  Try being less of a shit-sack if you don't want me to cover my back and protect my reputation by preempting your repeated attempts to deflect from your own misunderstandings of Lightning.



If I were simply using you to route a payment to someone you had a connection to, you wouldn't get to keep the coins.  Of course, if you were unreliable or uncooperative, the more likely outcome is that someone would close the channel with you.  Sorry if that contains one too many "ifs" for you, but even a simpleton like you must understand there is more than one potential outcome.



I am tired of this ridiculous song and dance of yours.  Please name the unmodified client that allows this so that your claims can be investigated.  If you reply "do your own research" or any variation thereof, I will leave you negative feedback for unsubstantiated claims.  Based on past conversations, I am convinced that you are still misunderstanding the Thor service from BitRefill (a representative from BitRefill has confirmed as much to you in the Development and Technical board before you got banned from it, linked here  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50947683) and I'm not wasting any further time on you until you can prove otherwise.

oh doomad. it must be fun living in your head so much. kind of a shame there is limited space

you might want to actually research just that bit harder next time and stop exaggerating the limited scope of how LN should be used.
your explanation had tooo many if's and maybes and assumptions in it.

the real bitcoin protocol has no assumptions.. if its on the blockchain. its on the blockchain. ownership transwered.. no if's or maybes no assumptions.

but lets play your game of assumptions.. just for fun
so assuming all went as you assume in the world where we both agreed and assuming that you then kept the channel open to use the funds later.. as you said... well by using the funds later means you pushing funds back to my side of the channel..
.. oops theres one assumption you did not think much of.. yep me getting coins back

lets try another assumption
oh and assuming that i didnt give you a 'unconfirmed' txid for channel opening .. you know one thats not in a block AKA not broadcast.. .. yep if the initial funds are not on the blockchain then you cant then have control of 10btc...
oh did you forget that channels can be opened without actual blockchain confirmed funds..
dang.. you really did assume without research...
so in this case.. if you broadcast a close session.. there would be no locked coins to close against. thus you et nothing..
shame again for you not really thinking about all assumptions

such a shame you dont know how things actually work and you only know what the promotional material suggests that it should do when only used in a certain way. not realising it can be used in a multitude of ways .

i could mention alot more flaws but.. seems your so ignorant of wanting to learn and all you want is people to kiss ass.. that theres no point in mentioning the flaws.

you might wanna try taking your positive PR hat off and start actually using your head properly and use LN in ways it shouldnt be used to see how well it stands up to brute-use.... go on.. really test it ..
yep i said TEST it not TRUST it..

 try to be critical about something your promoting, which is meant for people to use for their funds.. go on... try to be helpful to people by making them aware of the faults/flaws/limits. and stop snake oil selling them on only the limited positives. while then pretending its as good or better than the real bitcoin protocol.. i really feel ashamed that you even dare try to class it as comparable to bitcoin. shame on you

Indeed.  Every time we have to explain how it actually works while FUD-busting, someone can potentially learn a little more about it.  The more discourse, the better.  

I'm one of the most Lightning-illiterate people (and have yet to dare use it but am getting very close to) but this was one of the burning questions I've always had and only until recently reading up did I understand this to be the case: what if one side of the party deliberately chooses to go AWOL and never ever broadcasts again?

If I may say it in the layman's terms that I understand and hopefully others do:
- yes, malicious actions can't be prevented (like the one party franky proposes never broadcasts) but LN will punish it and the whole idea is that, if both parties can agree to preset conditions, then any malicious action will result in the perpetrator losing those funds.

Also yes, LN is still buggy and likely to throw up more issues in the future but is already maturing faster than a lot of people would have thought. I'm seeing much more positive shares than negative since last year (not like 2018).

Aren't these discussions great?

A generous move from a social media CEO and as well as a Bitcoin enthusiast. He sure proves with his action that he is a fan of decentralized systems. He even had inititiated a research aiming if decentralization is applicable in Twitter.

Lightning Network also is something to wait, as its development would make Bitcoin scale more for merchant's use.

Well I should have read this before posting


It's written in Go, and that's important because LN daemon is also written in Go so will be easier for LND developers to contribute to both of them.

This repo seems to be very busy, a new issue or PR is being opened every few days.

Assuming both parties have accepted 'Wumbo' to be able to handle a transaction that large, yes.  Once both parties have accepted the latest channel state and the 10 BTC is on my side of the channel, there's literally no one else on Earth who can authorise those BTC to be spent without incurring a revocation penalty.  That makes them mine, because I'll possess the secret key to prove it.  It's almost like you don't know how it works at all.  If you don't broadcast it, but the latest channel state shows the 10 BTC being mine, I could(*) then unilaterally close the channel and claim the 10 BTC, subject to the delay that we would have both agreed on when opening the channel and would know what to expect in advance.  No one can challenge the legitimacy of that channel closure if I am committing the latest state to the blockchain.  

* That's assuming I want to close the channel, of course.  I may want to leave those 10 BTC off-chain to use for something else.

Thank you for proving beyond all doubt that you are clueless when it comes to Lightning.  And, based on past behaviour, next you'll be telling me that I'm talking about the "old" version of lighting and we all need to watch out for the channel factory boogeyman, but that will be a bunch of ignorant fear-mongering as well.  You're pathetic and predictable.  Now do everyone a favour and kindly stop breathing.  You are a literal waste of oxygen.  

 

LIGHTNING is a system that uses 12 decimal tokens..
go on.. i truly dare you to pretend millisats are a myth and dont exist in LN
millisats are not bitcoin compatible. thus LN millisats are not bitcoin.
but go on try proving no millisats exist in LN.. really go on try. try hard to be convincing

LIGHTNING has no blockchain
LIGHTNING has no block hash, blockreward
LIGHTNING is compatible for different currencies.
LIGHTNING is not bitcoin if it is for different things not bitcoin related.

bank notes were associated with gold. and in the future could be again.. but that does not make banknotes gold. just a possible 'representation' a peg of it

im starting to think you have not actually used LN to actually use it properly.
the whole 'just open channel once and your good for years' is a blatant exaggeration of average user experience.
dang the PR hype train is at full speed

by the way.
if i make a transaction to you for 10btc. but i never broadcast it.. do you really then own my 10btc..
nope.
if it aint on the blockchain you got no proof of owning btc.
so goodluck thinking LN is a bitcoin ownership finality system. its not. its a private IOU promise system. with flaws to allow the promise to be broken before being broadcast.

again if its not on the blockchain it aint your bitcoin.

try to be honest about bitcoin and less LN hype fanboyish... or atleast try to use LN properly and learn its limitations and actual user experience to maybe atleast be accurate about what LN is/isnt.

Where are you getting your info from, Bitcoin.com? Lightning IS Bitcoin, it uses unbroadcasted real on-chain transaction - it's not some IOU or a token like trolls say. And it doesn't have any big problems with centralization, it's again just FUD aimed at technically uneducated people. It's nearly as user-friendly as Bitcoin itself, there are many wallets with nice interface. And why do you say that it's costly to maintain a channel? You just open it once with an on-chain transaction (which are dirt cheap as of now), and it can stay open for years without any additional costs, transaction fees are tiny in Lightning, and you can refill your balance with Lightning transactions when you run out of money.

I know some people are against the Lightning Network, but I think that it's not that bad. Sure, there are some centralization issues, and yes, it's not really Bitcoin (it's off-chain transactions). Apart from that, it's not user-friendly, and I heard that maintaining a channel might even be costly. But the way I see it, this is Bitcoin's best chance of processing micro-transactions and thus staying relevant for everyday life usage. So considering this, I believe it's good that this money has been raised, and they'll be able to work on improving the whole thing.

btc doesnt move
its on the blockchain..

whats moving on LN is millsats.. you know tokens of 12 decimal.
the interplay of funds in channel are millisat based

again you pretend that LN is not separate. you pretend that LN is btc associated by trying to off-play LN's specific feature

you add words like "supposed"to make it seem like its not used for other things and only a myth that its used for other things.
you are trying a little too hard to try making it sound like people are using LN to a high utility. sorry but if you take out all the factories LN is not used that much.
atleast try to understand whats best for bitcoin and not whats best for commercial interests of greedy profiteers

and yo keep trying to not even mention the flaws LN has..
all you seem to wnt to do is hype it up as something that deserves to be associated with bitcoin

its not ready for consumer use and will never and even you have to admit this will never have the same level of security as bitcoin.

so can you just turn your overpromoting PR campaign down a few levels and try being realisitic..

stop trying to make it look like bitcoin is useless and LN is what everyone needs and uses.. its not
its becoming too obvious that yo are somehow financially gaining from promoting certain commercialised groups rather than being completely honest and thoughtful about bitcoin
and yes i mean BITCOIN

Because people are primarily using LN to move BTC.  What you or I want to associate anything with is irrelevant.  People are USING it FOR their BITCOIN.

LTC Lightning has somehow dropped to a paltry ~220 nodes.

And 1ml.com seemingly can't even be bothered to track Vertcoin's usage anymore because it's apparently so insignificant.

Groestlcoin has 7 LN nodes.  And at least 3 of those look like the dev team.  Good luck finding someone you might need to pay on there.

So keep talking about all the "other coins" you can supposedly use Lightning with, but (as always) here in the real world (i.e. not your fantasy world of make-believe where you can't accept reality) it's not going to be very easy to make a payment using those other coins.  Learn network effects.

point people are trying to describe LN AS BITCOIN
is like saying EXCHANGES ARE BITCOIN
is like saying RIPPLE IS BITCOIN
is like saying VISA IS DOLLAR

sorry it aint.
LN is 12 decimal. LN has no blockchain. LN has no miners. LN is NOT bitcoin
funny thing is many altcoins have more things very similar to bitcoin yet you are the one very quick to call them out as not bitcoin.
yet something without  blockchain without mining without decentralised peer review of all transactions.. ou want to associate as bitcoin.

LN is broke. sorry but its not a consumer ready tool. so stop selling it as if its the same thing and should be treated as good as or treated better than bitcoin.
atleast take your fanboy desires for greedy riches out of your opinions and think of what people should know about what is truly bitcoin and what is a separate tool.

LN is not a sole unique feature for utility for only bitcoin. so drop treating it as a bitcoin buzzword. its actually harming bitcoins rep every time people lose funds on LN
(yep people do lose funds and yep even LN devs have.. which shows how broke it is)
LN does not deserve bitcoins fame and bitcoin should not give LN fame

Well, you can't have a free market and no corporation/financial institutions at the same time. Like, shortly after Bitcoin itself was created, centralized exchanges started emerging and now they hold a significant portion of supply and serve as gateway for many users. And we can't do anything about it on a protocol level, our best bet is to preach to newcomers and casuals how bad centralized companies are and that they should use decentralized alternatives.

Given that you been banned from posting in the Development and Technical section of the boards because you are renowned for spouting misleading nonsense, it might worth considering that your opinions on what is or isn't Bitcoin carry very little weight here. 

Keep repeating it as often as you like, every time you post. 
We'll keep pointing out that you're a malicious troll, every time you post.



You can live with people describing Lightning in a totally misleading and incorrect fashion?  Hmm.... no surprises there! 
It's almost as though you are encouraging people to spread misinformation to suit your lame propaganda war.   Pity you're losing.   



Exchanges are a tool for many currencies, do we have your approval to talk about those here on the forum? 
WebWallets are a tool for many currencies, do we have your approval to talk about those here on the forum? 
Payment Processors are a tool for many currencies, do we have your approval to talk about those here on the forum?

There are advantages and disadvantages to using those tools.  LN is no different.  But the simple fact is that you can use Lightning to make a transaction that results in you transferring the ownership of your BTC to an intended recipient.  There is absolutely no reason why we can't discuss doing so here.  Whine about it all you like, but there is nothing you can do to stop it.

firstly LN is not bitcoin.. yep worth emphasising every time i post on the topic
secondly.

LN is not a robust consumer ready payment network
LN is just a tool for many currencies. not just the bitcoin network and again it just is not bitcoin

i can live with people describing it as a visa for cryptocurrency just like visa is for fiat. but trying to say visa is fiat and LN is bitcoin.. is just nonsense

LN is much more vulnerable than even visa. heck its more vulnerable than having a joint bank account with your spouse
it also requires alot more crap involved to make it resemble reliable function like factories and watch towers.

i found so many flaws in LN when i tested it. that i gave up even trying to hint at some of the issues that needed addressing.
by the way. even the LN devs know some flaws so dont even try to say im just bias against it

im all for having something to make consumers life easier. but not at the price of tarnishing bitcoins status.
trying to call out that bitcoin is broken/flawed and people should use LN instead is the opposite of reality.

but my main gripe is pretending an inferior network is part of bitcoin.. just makes me feel those promoting it just want some buzzword recognition for greed. and dont actually care much to actually do anything positive for bitcoin(the real bitcoin network)

(Italics emphasis mine)

Uh, no, commercializing the Lightning Network would be a terrible idea. We must keep LN decentralized so stop large greedy corporations from controlling the fees.


I don't think we want a Visa network for bitcoin itself. This feels like they are taking LN and trying to shoehorn it on top of the bitcoin network. As franky1 said, LN has nothing to do with bitcoin.

And we all know what happened when people tried to increase the block size in an attempt to make bitcoin faster.

LN's supposed to be a way to validate your payment quickly hence the Lightning part of the name, but the group of nodes they are building will selectively choose which of everyone else's nodes to make a channel with cause there is corporate oversight dictating what they should be doing. Remember there are only 11,000 nodes and who knows how many nodes they will set up.

And if they become large enough they can attempt to force some of the other nodes with a legal document not to make LN channels with other nodes. So I think that corporations have no business touching Lightning Network. Please make money off of something else and leave development to the community.


LN isn't even ready yet and if they think "anybody can build on top of it ", why aren't they contributing to LN codebase to make it production ready?

right

Lightning is just Bitcoin transactions that use the built-in scripting language to make a contract enforced by Bitcoin's blockchain (and then many of these contracts are daisy-chained together such that they work together as a payments network between all of the individual parties to the contracts).

so there's no reason why the same scripting language (or some new feature added to the language) cannot be used to define a different type of contract that can be used to form a different payment network that is better than Lightning. You could say that this has already happened, as there are evolved versions of the Lightning style of contract that are currently in proposal form, whether we call them Lightning 2.0 (or whatever name) is a bit meaningless really

by your own wording it shows the hyping up
yousay that LN is not as strong as the main chain. but just look how you wrote it and think of it. you think that they are linked and part of each other.. especially with your extra words calling it a second layer.

LN IS NOT IN ANYWAY BITCOIN!!!!!!!
its a separate network
it has tokens of 12 decimals
it has no blockchain
it does not rely on community oversight/storage/checking

LN is not a sole feature of bitcoin. its not even a unique feature only for bitcoin
LN is not bitcoin

LN is a commercial service for many coins and is just using the fame of bitcoin

by shouting out the word layer makes you stupidly try to associate LN with bitcoin.. thus making noobs think because bitcoin is safe LN is safe.

sorry LN should not be assiociated with bitcoin and definetly should not be promoted as a bitcoin solution/feature

it has taken a few years for people to wise up that custodial services like exchanges are not bitcoin. and should not be treated as part of bitcoin. but treated as a custodial service.
but even now still stupid people think custodial services are bitcoiin
(take peter schiff's recent dumbness blaming bitcoin for his lack of understanding of how a custodial service works)


LN needs to back off the bitcoin waggon and stop stealing the 'trust' and security of bitcoin by pretending LN is in anyway like bitcoin

i dont min promoters saying LN is a cryptocurrency gateway network for fast payments. but trying to say its not a gateway but infact the same property/ land of bitcoin is stretching the truth a lil wide

LN is not bitcoin nor is it a layer or a feature of bitcoin
i got no problem with anyone wanting to have convenient ways to make money but to try making bitcoin itself harder and more expensive to use. and to make it appear as if bitcoin is broken purely to fame up another network like LN is shameful on many levels.

LN is not bitcoin
bitcoins features stop at locking a transaction into a block with a time limit
other networks can then create their own tokens pegged to the lock but that does not make them that currency it just makes them a pretend currency

i do find it funny how people still think  LN is bitcoin an can make bitcoin great.. yet not letting bitcoin expand while trying to divert people onto those other networks that are not bitcoin but pretend to be

You make it seem like the whole space is hyping up Lightning, which definitely isn't the case. In fact, I have seen more people on social media platforms speak out against Lightning.

I am excited about Lightning, but also acknowledge the fact that it by far can't provide the same level of security as the main chain, but that's not even the point. Lightning's main purpose is to facilitate micro payments where security isn't that much of a concern. The benefits of instant and near free payments greatly outweighs the risks people using Lightning are exposed to.

Also, Lightning is just one second layer. I'm confident that it will be one of the many in 5-10 years where people can choose what layer they use.

He may have personal, financial goals from his actions but Jack Dorsey really is pro BTC. I can’t fault his efforts to force BTC down the throats of average joe. Mainstream adoption is a lot more likely with people like him pushing.

in short Lightning labs wants to be the custodial FACTORY/WATCHTOWER business model. letting its users have offchain balance that lightning labs has power over.

bitcoin (yea bitcoin) doesnt have or need intermeiaries.
LN is not a layer of bitcoin.
LN is a separate network that MANY altcoins can use. its not a feature/added benefit unique to bitcoin.

if people actually stopped hyping up LN by bzzwording it beside bitcoin. yet it holds no of the unique features or benefits of bitcoin. then people would see how LN is just some commercial crap to grab peoples money for corporate profit.

Perhaps there will be a division between BTC core blockchain and all the second layer solutions (LN and other offchain solutions).LN and side-chains will be used mainly for retail purchases/online shopping,where lightning fast confirmation time is preferred,while the traditional BTC blockchain will be used for "investment" transactions only,which means that only the Bitcoin traders and investors will use it to send and receive BTC.
Maybe this is how Jack Dorsey sees the future of Bitcoin...

  Umm...  That can't be the actual name, right?
[/quote]
Sorry, I was talking to a friend when I wrote this topic so the words 😂😂 overlapped.
The entire article aims to make a comparison between the visa and the Bitcoin visa layer (LN.)

Here is the official Github repo for those who want to see it: https://github.com/lightninglabs/loop

And here is the official blog post: https://blog.lightning.engineering/announcement/2020/02/05/loop-beta.html. So that we won't get "lost in translation". 

For those who want to try their beta:

But using Lightning Lube is good for marketing purposes. They can draw attention and people will be curious about it.  It is time to shine for the LN and reach out more users. I am with this project! Hope they can really deliver their mission as they already have the funds in place.

My initial bet went on "lube" > "tube", but yeah loop sounds ...better?  Does it?

I know this is good for the crypto environment, I know that moving transactions to the LN is good, but whenever I hear companies throwing millions, and sometimes hundreds of mils in those project I can't shake a bad feeling about it.
It's like bitmain, they manufacture miners, more miners means less chance of an attack but at the same time...bitmain..d'oh!

Seems like they know what some people like me are wondering:


Anyhow, what I wish for is a utopia, sooner or later we will have a corporation and "new types" of financial institutions in every aspect of bitcoin.

That's great news. I knew Jack's interest in Bitcoin would yield some really nice results. Just few weeks ago, he was in Africa holding a bitcoin meetup, today, He's backing LN and supporting Bitcoin to go global. I have a good feeling that Mass adoption would be coming sooner than initially anticipated. Although a lot of people don't agree that Lightening Network is the solution to Bitcoin's bottleneck tx woes but I feel this might work. That said, let's say how Lightening Network moves on from here now that there's additional funding.

Yet another Bitcoin win 🕺

It is actually lightning loop.
When I started to do a search for lightning l..., it shows some pretty gross stuff. Then continued typing jack dorsey then I got to the right link.

"In addition to the capital raise, Palo Alto-based Lightning Labs today launched its first financial services product, Lightning Loop, to monetize the so-called “layer-two” technology that sits on top of the bitcoin blockchain by making it easier for startups to accept the cryptocurrency. With traditional bitcoin payments firms like Bitpay and Coinbase making significant headwinds in cryptocurrency payments using more traditional technology, the one-two punch of fundraising and a product launch using the more efficient Lightning is a positive sign for the network’s adoption."
From op's link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldelcastillo/2020/02/05/jack-dorsey-backed-lightning-labs-raises-10-million-to-build-visa-network-for-bitcoin
 

   Umm...  That can't be the actual name, right?

Lightning Labs has received about $ 10 million to expand its payment network that allows companies and individuals to spend bitcoins in everyday life that require low fees and very low confirmation times.
In addition to the capital increase, they launched a service called Lightning Loop  sorry for that.

In general, the article attempts to link Bitcoin, LN, with the concept of visa and traditional financial system.