Topic: Lightning Network Discussion Thread - page 9. (Read 29772 times)

*facepalm*


There's a difference between "complementary to" and "competing with".  LN is the former, not the latter.  It's not competing with Bitcoin, it strengthens Bitcoin.  It gives users greater choice and new possibilities for how to transact.  But if you don't want to use it, don't.  It's up to you.



There is an active process.  In case you hadn't noticed, Lightning has its own developers, while other developers are still working on sensible and risk-free improvements for the base protocol.  Schnorr sigs are one such improvement in the pipeline.  There are others too.  Look them up.  Again, just because no one gives a crap about your crude blocktime fiddling (which, by the way, had already been ruled out by the community several years before you showed up, which is why no one but you wants to work on it), doesn't mean development is being "frozen".  



Proprietary?  As there are at least three different Lightning implementations, kindly enlighten us as to which of those companies is the owner of the trademark.  Oh, that's right, it's not proprietary at all.  It's free software, which is the complete and total opposite of proprietary software.  See the licence text from:
 
Blockstream's c-lightning
Lightning Labs' neutrino
ACINQ's eclair

Not proprietary.  Get a clue.



You first.

Building a shit "on top of bitcoin" is not bad as long as it is not competing with bitcoin.

I understand, you as a shill, have no clue about what I'm talking about but try harder just once in your boring life:
Saying: "In our company we have built something on top of bitcoin that performs the job of bitcoin (book keeping of transactions) ways better and faster than bitcoin itself" is the most ridiculous claim ever (congrats Block Stream).

Scaling bitcoin off-chain won't happen unless by compromising its security and/or decentralization and/or anti-censorship features. The only decent option for a true cryptopunk  is improving bitcoin onchain, other proposals are void and out of the scope of cryptocurrency and bitcoin, competitors. Period.

BCH story is different: It is a wrong bitcoin improvement proposal. Increasing block size is not an ultimate scaling solution because of proximity premium and centralization consequences, though a mild increase in block size (or preferably decrease in block time) is ok as one of many possible improvements.


There should be an active and continuous process of improving bitcoin for catching up with the adoption rate instead of freezing it half dead to promote stupid off-chain proposals like LN.

I'm committed to this cause and will do my job in spite of shills like you. Frank is a true bitcoiner as well, he values bitcoin as a p2p electronic cash system and I find his insights very productive and useful and I'll consider almost all of his proposals in my work.

Anybody, no matter who, that claims bitcoin infeasible for such a continuous improvement is not a bitcoiner and will be kicked out of this ecosystem sooner or later and I personally do my best to guarantee this to happen

Nonsense!
LN is neither legitimate nor an improvement to bitcoin. It is proprietary software developed by a for-profit company and it won't go live because there is no way for a second layer solution to compete with bitcoin, other than putting users in some sort of security/centralization/censorship/surveillance risk.  Instead of talking so much think a bit.

That's what I like the most about bitcoin. It is always a "money talks bullshit walks" situation. Retards like franky1 will spewing bullshit but the honey badger doesn't care. Bitcoin keeps dominating the industry no matter how hard they FUD.

Lightning just gets better with every passing day.


"#BTC #Bitcoin + #LightningNetwork + Autopilot + Splicing will cause more earth shattering changes than have happened in the last 500 years.
The invention of the internet and industrial revolution combined are NOTHING compared to whats to come."
https://twitter.com/LN_Master_Hub/status/1040783956075933699

Sorry, but no.  You and franky1 are the ones who are full of shit.  I find you two, along with anonymint, to be by far the top three most insufferable parasites on this entire forum.  

You both keep mouthing off about all the parts of development you believe are totally wrong, yet you either can't or won't build anything that would make it better without sacrificing any of the qualities which genuine Bitcoin users actually appreciate.  The reason I approve of LN is because it's built on top in a new layer and doesn't compromise the base protocol.  Conversely, just about every "bright idea" you and franky1 have ever come up with would almost certainly endanger the protocol in some form or another.  If franky1 wants to ruin decentralisation by having nothing but on-chain transactions, he has BCH for that.  There's no point in having two BCH coins, so why replicate what they're doing here?  And if you would happily throw the network's security out the window over your ridiculous obsession with annihilating ASICs and pools, you need to go make something that doesn't have those things.  No one in their right mind would launch your totally untested and unverified brainfarts onto this blockchain.  That's not how it works.  If you want to propose radical changes to the base protocol, you need to prove it works first by building it, putting it on a testnet and proving beyond all reasonable doubt that your concept is sound, not just blowing a load of hot air like you know exactly how to "fix" everything without consequence.  Or, alternatively, build it as a new layer on top of Bitcoin where no one can stop you.

My argument with your "improvements" (in the loosest possible sense of the word) isn't that "it is impossible to reach a consensus", it's that "your wholly theoretical and largely insane ideas will never find consensus".  All the things written about in that Lightning blog will undergo extensive and rigorous testing, even though they can't harm the base protocol in any way.  Then they'll be implemented because stuff built of top of Bitcoin doesn't need consensus.  These concepts, unlike your ideas, can and probably will happen.  They are also infinitely more likely to help move Bitcoin forward than anything you have ever come up with.  If you don't want to see those things come to fruition, too bad for you.  Those are the things people are freely choosing to work on.  Go cry a river because no one wants to dedicate their time or effort to develop your dumb ideas.  We don't care.  

So understand where the difference lies between us.  I'm supportive of legitimate improvements that have a decent likelihood of going live.  You and franky1 are proponents of things that won't happen in Bitcoin and would arguably make Bitcoin worse.  It doesn't matter if you think I'm a shill or not, this is the direction things are undeniably moving in.  Lightning is happening, no matter how many times either of you spout your inane drivel about it being a "failed project".  I suggest you get used to it.

Obviously, you are the troll here ...

Who are you? Obviously not a bitcoiner, a LN shill I suppose. Just Stop harassing people.

When it comes to improving bitcoin your only argument is "Nobody agrees", "It is impossible to reach a consensus about it" , "leave bitcoin unchanged", ...  and when people criticize your beloved LN you go all-in bullshitting and trolling. Honestly, aren't you a paid troller or something?

I checked your stupid reference, it is full of shit. No answer to liquidity, no answer to liveness, just a naive attempt for selling unproven hypothetical fantasies as "possible" workarounds for real problems that make LN a failed project eventually.

If anyone want to test lightning I have made a simple gambling game for anyone interested, https://www.lightningslotmachine.com/

I have already processed over 500 transactions. All instant using lightning. You can both pay and cash out at any time. In my experience lnd works great.

As usual, your beliefs are totally and utterly wrong.  You'd first have to understand what I'm saying before you could even begin to attempt correcting me.  And it really shouldn't be that hard because anyone with half a brain can understand this.  You've yet to demonstrate you've understood a single thing anyone has ever told you about Lightning, because you're too busy spreading FUD and trying to draw false analogies with traditional finance to absorb into your thick skull what's being said.

When you and another party both deposit funds into a Lightning multisig, the other party doesn't have the same control over your portion of the coins in that channel as you do.  If you don't spend from an outdated channel state (and eltoo apparently improves on this anyway), you maintain 100% control over your portion of the funds in that channel until the point you freely choose to sign them over to the other party.  They can't broadcast a revocation to take your portion of the funds unless you break the rules.  Granted, it's still possible to break the rules by mistake and lose your funds, but that's why it's still under active development and people shouldn't be using it to deal with larger sums of money yet.

I can't even begin to imagine how you could willfully distort that understanding to mean that anyone could believe you could buy 3000 coffees and still keep your coins, but that's just how astoundingly broken your mind is.  How about you run the scenario where people might actually take you seriously if you made sure you were correct in what you were saying before you said it (and generally weren't such a total bellend).



Learn that factories are basically a proposal at this point?  Learn that if there is a flaw with them that it would be promptly fixed?  Learn that their practical implementation hasn't even been finalised?  Learn that you're a worthless troll and you're talking out of your arse?  Oh wait, we already knew that.

---

For anyone that wants to read some informed insights into future LN developments, rather than franky1's demented verbal flailings, there's a good blog here that goes into a lot (and I mean a lot) of detail.

_Bollox_ : Plain and Simple   

Lightning Basics :

1) At ALL times, I have a valid transaction that I can post and get my money. AT ALL TIMES. I don't need to trust ANYONE not to have made a double spend transaction accessing the same funds (because they are already locked up in an HTLC).. SAME GOES FOR CHANNEL FACTORIES (You think anyone is going to send funds to a factory without the requisite cash out transaction !? ).

..

The *only* proper attack on LN  - is to censor my cash out transaction until the HTLC time locks expire. Good luck with that.

You are gaslighting again, franky.

No. The Lightning developers never said it was "broke". They said it would be reckless to use it for larger amounts because it is beta software.

Plus Arthur Brekken used the Lightning Network by being the largest node in the network and no Bitcoins were lost.


Prove it. Where did you see this? Where can we see the "stories" of your accusations?


This is true. Plus it is not saying it would be. But would Bitcoin Cash's "0-conf" be more secure? I doubt it.


Be more direct to the point and stop gaslighting.

it is possible.
again learn factories
firstly the only TX thats onchain is the deposit INTO to the factory address.
the tx from the factory to a hub is OFFCHAIN
the tx from the hub to the personal channel is OFFCHAIN

anyway. while now knowing the payment out of the factory and down the ladder to the hub and then down the ladder to the personal channel is offchain
the personal channel can see (within LN) the up ladder 'payment' of the hub
but they have to trust that the factory or the hub have not secretly made their own tx where the destinations differ.
which can be done easily. (learn schnorr for that part)

and remember alice is not the factory or the hub. the factory and the hub are middlemen.

the whole point of factories and watch towers are to give trust to middle men to watch funds for others..
watchtowers and middle men are not alice. but other people above and away from alice who can do things for alice..
do things good.. and yes, dare i say it, bad

ill quote the ln PDF talking about factories in basic concept
so above is a quote from the LN pdf. and i even colour coded it

no where does it say that the payments OUT of the factory to the 'hub' and then to the regular channels are onchain..  because thy are not onchain
but if you want to think they are onchain. then there would be no reason for factories

now please learn factories, run scenarios. and then understand the process. dont be stuck with old concepts. and dont be stuck with weird concepts of 100% self control of funds.. learn multisig

.. at first i thought it was jsut people not wanting to learn from me. so thats why i ask people to learn it themselves by actually learning it themselves and run scenarios..
but then even when asking them to learn about it. it seams people dont.. so i still try to ask them to learn about it..

then i get the drama of them trying to insult and twist words purely as an excuse not to learn about it themselves.
oh well all i can say is
learn LN . if you dont want to thats fine, but if you dont know LN dont get involved in the development discussion.
try to learn about it first, try not to just call it the utopian dream even when you have no knowledge of its function. it helps no one

doomad. your quoting yourself quoting me and trying to make it look like i said its how LN works...
where as if you bother to take it in its full context of the post... im actually trying to use a flawed theory which i beleive that you are presuming to be true.... and im correcting you.

i was showing how YOUR understanding of what is presumed your wrongful percention of a 2016 concept .. is wrong
it was YOUR presumption that a user has 100% signing authority.. YOU said the other party has no part of the funds

if its just you signging. then its not a multisig..   i really think you need to really learn what multisigs are. and what factories and channels do

in the part you quotd me..  was not me 'imagining' how LN actually works. its me showing how YOU have not understood it and i was trying to step into your shoes and 'imagine' things from your shoes if 100% control...  and then explain that your wrong. as the other party does have to be involved.

what you quoted.
....
that was me going along with your mindset. i even put it in brackets of it being a theory YOUR stuck thinking


what you didnt quote

that is me giving you a big hint.. contracts are multiparty.

..
anyway it seems your more interested in social distractions and drama. and yet to actually use or research or learn LN.
so again try to actually put an effort into it.
and stop trying to cause drama
by causing drama doesnt make you right it just means you have made an excuse not to bother learning.

I think we should all run franky1's scenario where he thinks being in full control of your balance means you still control it after you've spent it.  He's clearly an authority on the inner workings of the Lightning Network.   

Every time he says "run some scenarios", what he actually means is "make some shit up that doesn't accurately describe how LN works" and then tell other people they have a utopian mindset when they explain how it actually works.   

The funds that you spend in Eltoo (..and L1! for that matter) are locked up in an on-chain transaction that ONLY you and your counter-party can spend (or re-spend in this case) for a given amount of time. It is not possible to have 2 provably valid transactions that you show to 2 separate parties that have access to the block chain.

1. keep in mind. LN is broke right now. the devs admit its broke and warn people to only use small funds and to be very careful what they do and who they channel to.

2. its not just mobile apps. but we all know in the future the majority of users will be mobile users. so the risk is on the majority. but with that said even desktop apps are not fixed. people can modify their desktop software to do many things that the counterpart is unaware of. which is why its best that all apps even mobile retain the ability to review raw transactions and not just be 'autopilot' with limited info on the GUI
the reason being. because there is no community rule. and no community vetting, reviewing of transactions within LN. one party of a channel can be attacked by the other party. and the community is not there to protect them.
its why bitcoin works. a transaction is not a transaction until its community reviewed and locked into a blockchain that proves it met all the rules.

3. LN will never be as secure as a blockchain.

4. the idea of a factory is that a factory is level X, a hub is level Y and a user is level Z
the user level when they are channeled alice to bob they have a transaction that shows as

onchain 1aliceaddress(0.1) to factory(0.1)
offchain
(factory gets funds from 10 people paying 0.1)
so the funds are then routed to get to alices channel
factory(1.0) -> hubA(0.5)
                  -> hubB(0.5)
offchain again
hubA(0.5) -> alice(0.1)
                -> bob(0.1)
                -> chuck(0.1)
                -> dave(0.1)
                -> eric(0.1)

so in the user channel
in: alice 0.1 -> bob
                 -> HubA (funds return up the ladder OFFCHAIN. and NOT broadcast onchain to alices legacy address onchain)

that way without broadcasting. the hubA can be told to put the funds into a different channel to a new alice channel.or be up laddered again so the factory if the HubA is settled as Hub A settles to the factory. not a onchain address the factory can then be told what to do with the funds.. again all offchain.

now alice and bob they can see that a transaction exists that shows
factory->hubA->alice and bob

but.. factory can also have secret transaction of Factory(1.0) -> 1factoryonchain(1.0)

as i said by putting steps/gaps/levels moving the user away from the onchain funds. where the user channel is withdrawal/change/closing address is not their own onchain address but the hub/factory up the ladder. those up the ladder 'transactions' are NOT broadcast. are not immutible and not set in stone thus alice has to trust the hub and factory

this is the same process as what banks call 'promisory notes' the end user has lost touch of the gold. and can not see a audited immutible confirmed report end to end of the gold to the promissory note. so they have to trust the input they get to play with(output from one ladder step above them) is ethical and honourable.

again try running scenarios of the concept of factories whereby alice and bob dont settle onchain. they close channel back to a hub/factory before then trying to settle onchain.

again try to think with a critic mindset of a broken system and not a utopian mindset of it works perfectly and there is only one way it can work. remember the communications of one node is not challenged by the network in a community wide consensus. it is therefore free for him to tweak. EG use a schnorr process to hide who actually gets to sign and whereby each participant within their channels and up the ladder holds their own copies of transactions that can be tweaked. especially if you cant see what is being signed and just autopilot agree.

ill give you an example.
imagine a hub sets up an address that alice thinks she has a 5 of 5 (20%) control of. and she has to be part of signing the hubs settlement. but in reality its actually a 1 of 5 multisig using schnorr that makes the hub in full control.

as i said if a mobile app cant check the onchain tx or the raw offchain tx data or even if they could the details of the raw tx data do not reveal its a 1 of 5...   alice is left to "trust" the counterparts involved.

but hey. i just spend time writing this and predict you wont run scenarios of a critic. you will just sheep heard pretend its all utopia and not learn the downsides of the concepts.

Is that limited to Lightning mobile apps? What about Lightning Network nodes like LND?


Do you really believe Lightning developers would be so stupid to allow something like that to happen? Haha.


A "Fort Knox" that a user can close a channel and broadcast the latest state of that channel like a normal on-chain transaction is not a "Fort Knox". Hahaha.

i might aswell interject here
when people use mobile apps for LN. they are not checking the blockchain. they are not even going to get to view the raw TX, all they get to see is a balance.. so many many things can be played about with behind the scenes.
and because the LN locked funds. and the separate unconfirmed transactions are not validated by anyone. they can be manipulated.
i know people believe in utopian peace of perfection. but in the real world greedy people will abuse a system of no outside validation.

and with factories. the factory gets funded onchain. the factory then channels to a hub and the hub channels to a user. so again the user only see's funds it presumes the other party actually has. based on what the hub provides as proof.

after all. i could lock funds into an address and then from my factory show one transaction paying starbucks hub to then open a channel.. while also showing a tx paying a walmart hub who who could channel to me.

the more jumps(layers) between the real funds shown onchain vs the end use. and the less the end use has access to checking it, which allows for more chance of manipulation.


also wind_FURY
banks are counter party. you cant just throw funds at anyone. you need your bank to be open and the destinations bank to be open to send a payment and you need them to agree to send it. why do you think banks say 3-5 days payment. because funds have to jump between many hoops.
LN is not a system of paying a destination any time of day using just one lump of funds thats guaranteed to reach the destination day or night. in milliseconds without anyone elses signature.
P.S what i actually was addressing was the fortknox. of locking funds in. not the fractional reserve
you know ... thunderdome.. 2 may enter. but none may leave, if you survive. you exit one thunderdome and realise you entered another thunderdome.. just like how gold got locked into fortknox by making it harder to just get back what you put in
it was you and only you that mentioned the fractional reserve thing.. not me. i was debating fortknox fed reserve.. FEDERAL reserve. not FRACTIONAL
but if you want to talk about fractional reserve. then please take some time to learn about factories first as its better to explain something once you know about what im talking about. so learn factories run some scenarios. but dont run utopian scenarios. run critic/greed/theft style scenarios. then we can talk

and to Doomad
utopian praising and kissing ass something with flaws. (even the devs say things are broke) helps no one
actually being critical and pointing out failures does 2 things: 1 warns people 2. kicks devs ass to fix them

no point with utopian adverts when people use it, see it has issues, gets disappointed and thinks they have been lied to creates more negative adverts and conversations. than to just admit there are issues and limits.
its about not over promising and under delivering.
but hey you call it tinfoil hat. but id love to see you actually rebut how a statement is wrong using lines of code and actual content. and not insults. insults dont disprove or fix the issue.

have a nice day

The Lightning Network still needs some testing, especially after making changes to how payments are being routed. The maximum channel capacity is about 0.16 BTC. It was introduced on purpose in BOLT implementations to avoid loss of large amounts of coins. In my opinion, once this restriction is removed we can say that the Lightning Network is out of beta.