Topic: Kim Dotcom: Bitcache Will Be ‘Off Chain Due to Limitations’ (Read 1264 times)

good luck writing legible sentences, lol

oh, and good luck with the Franky Lightning implementation (the white paper is at the top of the thread, lol). Oh, what's that? Can't put your "I SPEAK BINARY" coding skills into action, no?

Keep talking, it's all you're good for

you have proved no points and won no arguments. the only conclusion anyone has gained from you is your lack of understanding.

there is not one single argument you have won.
but pretending you have won does not make it so.

goodluck with never learning and then blaming others for your lack of not understanding
goodluck with never learning and then blaming others for your lack of not wanting to learn

have a nice day

Lol, I'm not going to check the details, just so i can speak to you, it's a waste of time after all


And you should be embarrassed, considering how much time you clearly devote to researching your propaganda material. I can beat you in every argument going, and I spend very little time reading up. I only have to read it once, you see, lol, my job isn't propagandising Bitcoin all day long

1. admission you have no desire to look at LN
2. accusing your desire to not want to learn is due to me.

im laughing

lol if you dont understand LN and dont want to learn LN, then dont get involved in a conversation involving LN
learning LN has nothing to do with me. thats your choice/failure to not want to learn.

if you want to get involved in any topic, atleast research it. and dont blame the commenters for why you dont wish to learn.

im laughing right now that you blame me for your own desire not to learn.
true comedy moment

It's too much like hard work trying to read your posts Franky, your confabulated diction is too much, and I not going to look up the online references for LN just to talk to you. 

and there it is....... the scenario to work out why carlton concluded what you concluded
its kind of a shame i predicted what carlton was gonna say even before carlton even said it.
which brings the conversation right back to the initial point

i know carlton would reply about the emphasis of his word "atomic".(automic) but again he has not thought about the technicals of "atomic" (automic) before even suggesting it.

if there is no self control due to a middle(automic) process ensuring no ransom can happen. then BOTH users have to trust the hubs middle(automic) process.
because whats stopping person B saying 'person A owes me everything' to the middle process and get it automatically accepted. because A has no self control any longer

the only way it can work is if both users have some collateral to lose if they dont co-operate
even an automic process still cannot solve it.
why do you think the fiat system is failing!!

anyway goodluck to carlton and his "blockstream is utopia campaign" he deserves all the monero Gmaxwell will give him

Well Kim Dotcoim has manage very well the previous megaupload, soo i really believe he will bring something usefull to the online world, and his projects should and will influence bitcoin value, the funding of such project just makes me believe he has potencial to bring bitcoin a huge boost.

Maybe the LN protocol designers might come up with an atomic signing mechanism especially for Franky.


But why should we believe that someone who is so consistently trolling Bitcoin has uncovered the major achilles heel that no-one's mentioned so far? Don't you think it's much more likely that you're just talking total nonsense, to be disruptive, like you always do?

"trustless" lol
not really
the customer has to trust kimdotcom signs
the kimdotcom has to trust customer signs

as you say "its controlled by the user"
so the users need to trust each other.
LN is not a "push" payment concept. LN is not a "pull" payment concept. its a "dual agreement" requiring both sides to trust each other

wake up

It depends on how the Mega devs implement it. Funds in Lightning channels are trustless, controlled by the user. There's nothing stopping Megaupload doing the same (and there are already multiple projects for implementing a Lightning style system, Bitcache would be just one more of those).

Also, as long as Kim open sourced the code for Bitcache, and configured Megaupload correctly, anyone could run a Bitcache channel Hub. So, not only would Bitcache addresses be trustless, there'd also be in a free market for the service.

Could make or break Megaupload reboot IMO. It would be better off if it were compatible with other micropayment channels, or Kim might find a competitor can undercut his rates.

you said that ransom cannot happen, but you fail to prove why (due to you not knowing how the system works)
so people end up having to use scenario's to work out why you would conclude what you conclude. rather then just ignoring your pathetic conclusions. and then answer why those scenarios wont work and dont result in your conclusions..

this is only due to you having a lack of explaining yourself. and then meander further to the "i didnt say that" game of still avoiding explaining yourself

so how about explain why ransom cannot happen..
go on for once give a proper deep understanding of the topic.

try to stay on topic and prove yourself why ransom cannot happen
if you only reply with "your wrong". but not explaining why by using real reasons related to the tech. then you have proved nothing.
and you are wasting your time.

have a nice day

The reality now is, Bitcoin is not ready to handle millions of micro transactions. {It might be able to with SegWit & LN} ... If this grows as big as he is

saying it will be, then they will have to work with off-chain solutions. The problem with that is, centralization. Any centralized service with that

amount of wallets, will require massive security. Xapo might have been a option, but they are bogged down with KYC/AML regulations. So the

solution, if they want to launch this globally {without LN/Segwit} would be to keep it centralized and in-house. 

Is this what it's really come to Franky? You've got nothing, except trying to pretend I say things I didn't?

so your proclaiming the 2 participants do not have control of the privkeys to sign. (so dont have control of the funds.... lol) so cannot decide when to sign or not sign.. to not be able to ransom?

think about it... real hard. sit down have a cup of coffee and think about it
hint: if keys are only available to the user at the node level then the user can tinker with his node to manually decide when to sign
hint: if keys are only available to hubs then the users are at risk of the 'we been hacked' thefts by the hub
stop promoting everything as utopia simply because its a blockstream invention, without proving its utopia

smart people prefer to look for holes, bugs and weaknesses. not the utopia's and especially not utopia's before its even finally coded

if only you spent more time looking into the context of the topic and less time looking at who is replying you would maybe.. maybe... maybe finally have something valid to add to the topic

Quote. There is no quote of me claiming or implying a bug-free LN codebase, you're a liar.


And you're nuts, you're still trying to pretend this payment channel ransom attack can work? Don't know what to say. Sucks to be you, I guess

ok ill highlight it for you
LN has dual signing... thus allowing as you say for the user to broadcast a settlement. if the second party ransoms them. to get out of the 'system' rather than paying up to the demand
BUT
LN should ensure the second party has some collateral too.. which will ensure both sides sign each new payment ethically. thus the user doesnt require broadcasting as soon as a second party tries to ransom them. because both parties continue to work together ethically due to both having something to lose if each side doesnt agree to sign a new payment.

EG - no ethics no collateral from ransomer
franky1 deposits 1btc to multisig 2AbC5...
carlton deposits 0btc to multisig 2AbC5...
2AbC5... contains 1btc (ethically meant for franky1)

franky1 require carlton to sign if franky1 wants his 1btc back.
carlton refuses to sign unless franky1 hands over 0.5btc.
they are deadlocked
carlton walks off never signing because he lost nothing and wants to screw franky1 over leaving funds locked hoping franky1 gives in later

now imagine - no ethics but with collateral from ransomer
franky1 deposits 1btc to multisig 2AbC5...
carlton deposits 1btc to multisig 2AbC5...
2AbC5... contains 2btc (ethically 1btc meant for franky1, 1btc meant for carlton)

franky1 require carlton to sign if franky1 wants his 1btc back.
carlton require franky1 to sign if carlton wants his 1btc back.
carlton refuses to sign unless franky1 hands over 1.5btc.
franky1 refuses to sign unless carlton hands over 1btc allowing carlton to have his 1btc.
they are deadlocked
eventually they sign 1btc each and stop communicating because carlton doesnt want to lose his 1btc. they stop trading/communicating

now imagine - ETHICAL and collateral from both
franky1 deposits 1btc to multisig 2AbC5...
carlton deposits 1btc to multisig 2AbC5...
2AbC5... contains 2btc (ethically 1btc meant for franky1, 1btc meant for carlton)

franky1 require carlton to sign if franky1 wants his 1btc back.
carlton require franky1 to sign if carlton wants his 1btc back.
they agree fair payment for fair services/products
they continue communicating and trading for days, weeks months

thus dual signing allows trade, and collateral allows eventual agreement so both dont lose. ethics allows continual trading/communication

lastly you are trying to promote LN as a bug free, perfection right now. even though it has not been completed..
its like your promoting cars that can fly will never crash before one is even built.

Bitcoin . com is a pathetic propaganda site that will use whatever news to attack Core and Blockstream. Of course they had to use the Bitcache news to attack them too, claiming how those limitations are Core's fault because they don't raise the block size to over 9000TB (which is what would be needed if you wanted the billions of transactions that Bitcache will potential deal with once it goes mainstream). When will those idiots understand that the only way to go is off chain with services like that? Morons. Roger Ver is the biggest idiot/troll in the scene right now.

No different to the way any exchange works.  Internal ledger.

The actual storage service itself is interesting.

The user can close Lightning payment channels themselves, sending the BTC to their ultimate destination. They might forgo cheaper fees if they'd used the channel further, but it's not like the picture you paint, where the funds can be effectively confiscated by the Hub. You might want to do a little more of that researching you claim to be so on top of, or maybe just come up with a lie that's not so simply refuted. What Bitcache will be designed like, I don't know, but using it as a propaganda platform to disparage Lightning isn't going to fly. Lightning does what it does, no amount of weirdo explanations can change it.

remove all the bells and whistles and buzzwords and you come to the simple scenario of:

deposit funds into a bitcoin address that has some form of signature authorisation by kimdotcom(and hopefully the customer equally), and then all payments for content are then done without a blockchain, without validation by thousands of nodes, without secure data locks of millions of asics. on a system owned by kimdotcom.
with the end hope that there have been no arguments or blackmail, ransom, abuse on that system. to have an honourable onchain transaction, when withdrawing.. that has fairly and ethically audited who deserves what, by signing the initial deposited funds out to whoever deserves it.

lets hope when offering 'offchain' solutions the difference between those solutions and other existing payment services. is that LN (and hopefully megaupload) have the sender and receiver required to BOTH sign funds to agree to a payment for content. rather than just the sender pushing or the receiver pulling.

if there is no dual signing involved in each payment then its no different than:
depositing funds on an exchange to then play around on the mysql database where the exchange controls what 'balance' the customer deserves or claim "hack and run".(pulling)
depositing funds into a bank to then play around with their database where the banks decides if the customer deserves the funds or freeze account
(pulling and pushing)

in short the risks of offchain are:
after depositing funds, one party in control of the funds can hold the funds to ransom by refusing signing unless terms are met.

this is a flaw all offchain concepts have yet to resolve. the only way to ensure ethical payments off chain. is if its always dual signed and both sides have value(collateral) to lose. that way it resolves the one sidedness aspect that can be abused