Topic: Lightning Network Discussion Thread (Read 29714 times)

You provided exactly two examples. A two year old bip draft by a lightning implementer which has never been implemented in core and has no activity, which you quoted here and appeared to respond to but said nothing about,  and a replacement for BIP37 which still has no network facing proposal for Bitcoin Core and which itself doesn't have any relation to lightning other than the fact that it was written by lightning folks.

Instead, if you look you will find a lot of skepticism about the failue of exposing BIP158 filters to the network. I don't think any of the bitcoin core regular contributors particular care for network facing usage except that enabling it would allow eventually eliminating BIP37 which is an annoying DOS vector.

Indeed, CSV is useful for payment channels-- and a lot of other things-- but it's a 3.5 year old proposal. I fail to see how it supports the claim you've made about anything going on right now.

Primarily by dishonest shills and the people they've bamboozled.

Shame on you, making this misleading comment. Luke was campaigning to reduce the blocksize limit to 300kb, and campaigning people to not use segwit was simply to try to undo the block size increase: the "unless lightning" is just there because lightning software uses it and he didn't want to tell people to not use lightning (as that would be counter-productive to his goal of reducing block sizes).

You say very obviously but you provide absolutely no evidence for that.   The earliest drafts of the spec had some additional filter types which, while also not lightning specific, were at least not as generally interesting, and sipa and I convinced the proposers that they weren't needed...   Please tell me in what way is being able to efficiently check if a block contains a payment to a particular address (just as BIP37 does, but not so efficiently) is in any way connected to lightning?

No doubt, just as anyone else doing something interesting with smart contracts has done in the past and would do...

Can you explain how it could be anything but?

Lightning worked on litecoin prior to Bitcoin because their software was written expecting to use segwit but then bitmain delayed segwit activating on Bitcoin while litecoin copied the code and activated it first.

Or are you just explaining to us your intentions with bitcoin.org and your subtle advocacy of bcash?

I have zero financial interest in Blockstream:  any residual gains that came from it in the future are committed to charity, which is the maximum amount I could divest myself without extensive interaction with the company (which I don't care to have).

I think it is very interesting that you've made a number of demonstrably false claims here to attack Bitcoin's technical development, and when push comes to shove and your claims are debunked you just back into a position of making an absurd conspiracy theory "conflict of interest" allegations to try to shut down a straight forward factual debunking of your claims.   Your allegation wouldn't have made sense even if that assumed financial interest existed, because I'm not advocating for those things (in fact, I've argued against adding more unverifyable p2p features, and argued against at least freeform no-input). -- in fact, your post's example of protocol work unrelated to lightning Schnorr, Taproot, MAST are all things I've promoted, came up with, or worked on extensively; in contrast to the things you claim I'm somehow supposed to have some kind of financial bias in favour of.

How about you measure up to your own standards?  I've always let people know what I was working on and where my potential interests lie, while you've done exactly the opposite.