Topic: Lightning Network Observer - page 15. (Read 13674 times)

It's not just an unconfirmed transaction. It's an unconfirmed, signed transaction that if channel state changes, it becomes revoked, and ready to be invalidated the moment that becomes published. So it's basically confirmed unofficially.

I'm pretty fine with the narrative of being civil, in favor of freedom to code, choose, and backwards compatibility. Thanks.

its a unconfirmed transaction. which can change/replaced/overwritted/rejected/revoked.. have you observed all of features that make people not want to trust zero confirm payments
you having a "state" signed.. is not a guarantee you will get paid. thus its only a promise until its confirmed into a block
learn about confirmations and immutable blocks.

lightning zero confirm states are not settled. thus they are just IOU's
learn what an iou/promissory note is
its a promise to settle later

oh and there are MANY ways to scam funds out of peoples channel balance..
maybe if you stopped only observing the utopian best cases you will notice the risk exposure

your forum wife doomad has been telling you crap. he wants to tell you those that do not like the flaws of lightning and the delays core devs have done to not scale transactions onchain  must (in doomads narrative) want massive blocks instantly

stop listening to that scammy creep of greed. break away from being his echo chamber forum-wife. its not helping you. when you sound like him is when i call you the idiot the most. learn why

there are many things that can be done that are not just what doomad tells you
there is ways to make transactions leaner. there are fee mechanisms that punish those trying to spend every block to reduce spammers/bloaters without punishing everyone (yep without making everyone "have to pay more"
and tx count scaling is not the same as doomads narrative of leaping/fee wars

his narrative of thinking that those that want onchain scaling. is his debunked narrative where he thinks it means jumping to 100mb blocks within a year

and you presuming that i idolise "bigger blocks more than.. " shows you are not thinking. you are just echoing idiotic narratives from him

I apologize if I've ever said that. I may have had. I don't believe it's the ultimate solution to scaling. I just think it does help a lot for those in capable of using it properly.

For the thousandth time, it is not a promise. Lightning transactions don't require faith to work. If the partner cheats, I'm not screwed by his dishonesty. I'm not relying on his honesty in the first place. I'm relying on his signature, which I've verified it's valid. Stop calling it a promissory note as if it's like in real life.

I'm not in favor of that, you've understood wrong. I'm in favor of bigger blocks as well, but not as much as I'm in favor of backwards compatibility. Do your research, as you love that, and figure out how every single field in IT is successful due to it being backwards compatible. OSes, gaming, web development, mobile devices, Internet (e.g., TCP/IP, email) etc., the list is endless. I'm also not as much in favor of big blocks as you are, because they don't solve scaling either.

but you lot promote it as a utopian solution

oh and by the way
if you have full control of your value on utxo then the 'recipient' (channel partner) owns none of the value promised until broadcast
so we circle back to the promissory note/iou thing again

its not that im the arbitor of truth its that you lot over promise stuff but fail to commit.. in all sense of the words
you want people to remain stuck in the net work for months/years. while only having 100% success for coffee purchases..

yet to any one not yet using lightning. you will tell them anything to get them to lock value up. by saying how bitcoin is broke and lightning is the only solution..

shameful tactics

as for privacy..  dang you have not even been truthful about the "gossip"
and no transactions are not instant. there are many causes for payment to be delayed, fail or take time to reroute, liquidity bottleneck, have partner asleep, no route at all, or all the other flaws..
oh wait you yet again didnt mention the flaws you instead went right back to pretending its a instant cheap solution with the empty promises of the echos of a snake oil salesman pitch yet again

It's funny how you think we don't recognize any flaws, and you're the gatekeeper of truth who screws us every time we talk about it. Lightning network has flaws. Granted. Lots of them actually. Routing failures, backups, uptime related, security, little development (in comparison with Bitcoin), but over all it's a decent solution. You still have custody, you have better levels of privacy, transactions happen immediately, and transfers don't take up to a dollar when shit like Ordinals come up.

you forget. that if everyone had an average of $900 node
and 9 channels of $100

there is then the "pass the parcel" game of liquidity

EG if someone was to spend $500 via using 5 routes. it then unbalances all the people on the routes of them 5 routes

like i said try and run some scenarios either drawn out or using excel.. try to design the most utopian network you can think of then run it through some scenarios that are less than best case utopian dream..*

you will find when those 5 first hops try to rebalance back their one route it then unbalances someone else. and so on. and they try to rebalance back theirs which brings back the first hop out of balance

in the end most people are not making actual payments. they are just rebalancing balances when each other is rebalancing theirs. like a tug of war

*most people using LN only wish to do best case scenarios because they fear losing value if they tested anything else but utopia. so take a step back. and run scenarios that are less then utopia on your utopian drawn network. because doing it on paper/drawing/excel has no real world risk/cost. but gives you freedom to think outside of the best case dream

Yeah, it's true that you do need to fund channels worth quite a lot more than the amounts you'll eventually typically spend / receive, if you want a very high chance of payments reaching their destination. And it's also true that you do need a handful of channels, unless you connect to centralized 'hubs'.
I won't deny these facts. But I don't think they are too bad. I mean, the money is still under your control, you still hold they keys, if you need it on-chain you can just close the channels and pay regular on-chain transaction fees once. You can even batch close channels in one single (albeit larger) transaction.

And never forget that if you split $500 in 9 channels, it doesn't mean your maximum payment size will be $55. Payments are split into different sized pieces and travel through different routes, depending on the liquidity available on each route.

its funny how on such a small network you are already claiming that users need more then one channel.. but yea thanks for revealing one flaw

so yea the more users on the network the more channels users need
which means users are then having to split their $500 over 3-4 channels.
(upto 9 average)

meaning a user, just to make payments, need to then on average deposit upto $4.5 into their node wallet and split it into averages of $500 per channel
because if they all just split just $500 into upto 9 channels means $55 each. which would cause more bottlenecks of people trying to find routes of $500

run more scenarios
EG if A linked to L then L would need more
EG lets say in your A to L
if B wanted to pay O
via B-G-A-L-O
A would need more then $500 for its own payments and also many multiples for payments G is sending A to get to L bypassing IJK
other wise there would be payment failures

atleast run some scenarios of a network thats not "hubbed"(custodial) of high capacity. and instead lots of smaller self-custody nodes

you can easily do this by drawing it out in an imagine and running math on excel. at no cost.
so go try it

---

new users in the real world dont like to spend hours reviewing network visuals to find out which is the best existing-user to link to that is only 5 hops away from all of new users favourite services/merchants

they dont want to have to plan out 6 months of spending habits to then total up how much they need to set per channel

they prefer to just lock up their coin and get on with spending it.

so please just run some real life scenarios of real life expectations. not the utopian dreams that ignore real world experience

---

ok here is a little game theory experiment for you
there are 12 people each with ~$850 coin ownership. whereby in the next 3 months of locking up that coin. they expect to be able to(without pre planning) want to spend upto $500 with a yet decided recipient of one of the 11 others

now try to design the perfect utopian dream network layout of just 12 users wanting that ambition.
ill let you work out the channel count vs hop count. you decide if the network should be multiple channels or multiple hops to allow access. where by you then decide if the routers inbetween or hubs inbetween have X more balance just to facilitate payments for the 12 users.

but each user needs to be able to show a route where they can send upto $500 of a $850 total node balance to any other of the 11 recipients without issue

You go from a constructed example of a very badly connected network to 'the whole concept does not work'.
In reality, there are links e.g. from A to L, from Q to I, from H to L and whatnot. There are some visual representations of the actual Lightning Network, such as:
https://1ml.com/visual/network

Nice to see! People hopefully switching away from custodial LN providers, over to self-hosted Lightning installs..

LN suffers from a liquidy bottleneck

imagine "users" are 5 "routers" hops from other "users"
where the routers are not holding value for their own spending. but just facilitating payments for users

A \                          / N
B --  G                L -- O
C /      \            /     \ P
            I - J - K
D \      /           \      / Q
E --  H               M --  R
F /                          \ S

imagine each of ABCDEF had $500 they wanted to spend with any of NOPQRS
guess how much I J K needs to have set, not for its own use but to facilitate the routes of ABCDEF

imagine everyone one OF ABCDEFNOP wanted to pay S
how much would M need in the M-S channel to facilitate payments to S

run some scenarios. and realise that its not a simple system of
if A wants to spend $500 to S, where S can receive $500-$5.5k guaranteed

also when saying that ABCDEF had say 1m coins each
how many other coins are need to be locked up. not for personal spending. but to make payments viable for destinations 5 hops away

in the example above
G need 3m coins to pay I and G needs
I needs 6m coins to pay J
J needs 6m coins to pay K
K needs 3m+3m just to pay L and M

thats 21m coins needing to be locked up just to allow 6 users of 1m coins
and thats just 1 direction payment. now do the math of amounts GKJKLM needs to pay in the direction of NOPQRS->ABCDEF

see the problem at max scale where being a network of main use to replace using bitcoin wont work

LN will never be the main payment network of bitcoin where bitcoin is the "reserve lock" network of dead data

I hardly see how can be a problem for LN! On the opposite, this is a success story for this L2 solution! One of the main reasons for LN being successful is base layer space being filled up with high transaction fees!

Of course, I am not the expert who's input you are seeking, but it seems to me that the logic is that if the onchain blockchain fees and space gets filled up, then more and more transactions will be pushed towards the lightning network. 

I will believe it when I see it, and I am not going to complain if more and more transactions are taking place on bitcoin, even if they are dumb ones and even if the filling up of the regular blockchain space causes more and more of the lightning routing networks to get filled up too.

Someone of you, could please point me in the right direction to decrypt the following sentence:
"If Ordinals Protocol were used by the vast majority of users (wallets) it would break the LN routing".

What is the connection between the twos?
 

it wasnt a political thing it was a middle man service

just like CEX that offer virtual visa cards do not need endorsement of visa CEO
they just use a virtual visa PSP(payment service provider)

the reason it stopped is the usual flaw. liquidity bottlenecks between LN hubs
.. its also the reason why el salvador chivo wallet dropped lightning too and instead went for a CEX backbone for chivo to manage payments

that's odd

Sweden is a curious case, one of the few EU countries to have:

• their own currency
• their own defence (i.e. weapons) industry
• home grown manufacturers (although slowly dying off still, Germany still dominates EU industry)

and Sweden also have a unique position in the EU: the only country living under "quantitative easing" and general Japan-style financial/fiscal insanity for multiple decades (not sure if Sweden started before even Japan did...)

so on a political level, the Swedish toying with any kind of cryptocurrency matter at the public level is going to make more waves than one might suppose

a somewhat curious story was made public yesterday by the swede Oliver Koblizek via twitter. he was suddenly shown the option to complete the payment process with the bluewallet installed on his mobile phone when using the state app for public transport in sweden 'jlt nya'. being a Bitcoiner, he was of course directly curious, so he selected the option and a valid bus ticket was issued to him, as expected. A short time later, the option was no longer available.
here you can read the whole story on twitter👉https://twitter.com/Stromens/status/1625457745628475392

a. lightning network.. like avalanche network allows you to lock up bitcoin or litecoin.
so is avalanche "BITCOIN"?
nope.. avalanche is a different network. emphasise the word network beside the word avalanche proves its another network called avalanche
so is lightning "BITCOIN"?
nope.. lightning a different network. emphasise the word network beside the word lightning proves its another network called lightning

bitcoin never leaves the BITCOIN NETWORK

dont even try to suggest bitcoin leaves the bitcoin network, you are just fooling yourself and suggesting bitcoins security model is broke

(need me to list all networks that allow bitcoin to be locked on the bitcoin. and then using the UTXO as reference point on a different network???)
just because bitcoin has a lock... does not mean whatever subnetwork then uses the utxo as a value/funding reference is also a "bitcoin network" (see point (b) below)
(im surprised by now you snake oil salesmen phishing for brand recognition and faked trust and faked security co co-branding with mainnets. have not already tried to imply that because bitcoin (in your fantasy) can be moved to other networks.. but msats are not recognised or movable back to any mainnets that you then (in your fantasy) pretend that msat units are more secure than blockchain units) because they cant/dont leave lightning

b. lightning has no blockchain. has no decentralised consensus to keep nodes aligned to a specific ruleset and nor enforces a strict peg value, etc etc etc..

c. thor turbo has proved you can offer someone msats WITHOUT "locking bitcoin"
"leasing inbound balance" has proven you can have msats without you locking "locking bitcoin"(plus have no key control of those msat payments)

d. the LIGNTNING NETWORK emphasis network. can operate with multiple coins and is not reliant on bitcoin

e. avalanche has more bitcoin pocked to it than lightning does.. .. does this make avalanche "bitcoin" or is it just another subnetwork bridge (layer 2 crossborder platform)

f. those that say its a layer "ontop"
lets take some rational views.
first like domane names. the 'top level domain name' is not the brand but the directing master seed that routes to brands and sends the mas data to where it should
i know fangirls want LN to be this master thing.. much like the IMF is the master reserve for big banks and doesnt want to be considered as the underling network for giftcarsd below the 'be your own bank' EG the lower grade network like virtual visa that can process small pocket money amounts of multiple currencies

but lightning is an underclass network. it cant handle top end reserve amounts
it cant cope with anything more then ~$700 on average
it is not the IMF network. its the virtual visa network

now is visa called "dollar" or is visa just visa allowing processing movement of visa dollars. yep visa dollars are different to bank deposit savings dollars

g. as for the "rounding down"
rounding is for instance stripping prunning cutting the right side significant figures by 3 numbers

however most lightning wallets are not just doing that.
they are without any network wide protocol enforcing it. having other methods.. and most are using
/ 1000
guys what guys.

lets say if you were to round using the strip prune right side by 2 sig figs instead of 3
lets give it a try

8434747948  (right cut by 3)
8434747 notice the rest of the numbers stay the same

now notice trying it using a division method of less than 1000
lets say 500
i guarantee you that you are not going to get
8434747948  ("round by 500")
8434747474 (you hope that it just plays with the end 3 but by half the amount
instead you get
16869495.896

do you now see how math logic is that trimright(X,3)
is different than X/1000

and for emphasis
the /1000 is not even an enforced rule
and it can be changed by any amount

so whether a lightning app does math logic code a "round down" properly by cutting away the right side by 3 or with the lazy bug causing /1000

these can be changed to not be cut right by 3 or /1000, but changed to anything..
meaning different nodes are not set in stone/hardrule protocol where an msat will always be 3significant figures to a sat
which is a bad conversion peg security for any financial system
there is no network strengthened rule set to abide by a set conversion rate
refer to(b)

h.
oh and the last funny.. by introducing RBF, your little crown have been snake oiling the flame by saying dont trist zero confirms relayed on the bitcoin network they re not settled they are not confirmed, blah
but you lot also want to say lightning zero-confirm commitments are to be trusted and are to be treated as being paid (facepalm for multiple reasons)

(1) What is the issue with that? Blockchain is not Bitcoin specific either. These are concepts that are not linked to a coin's name.
(2) Cross-chain atomic swaps work with or without Lightning. https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.12332
(3) As long as you don't exchange your 'Lightning Bitcoin' funds for 'Lightning Litecoin' funds or something else, they are always 'redeemable' for on-chain Bitcoin funds by submitting a channel close transaction. They are always 'linked' to the channel funded with that type of coin on that type of chain. It's not that hard. It's just a different type of contract. You may be aware that the Bitcoin script language allows different types of transactions. LN channel open / close transactions are just transactions. It's no sacrilegious black magic from hell.

That's nice to hear. I find myself using Lightning when it is offered, as well, since it is so convenient to spend anonymously. Since channel balances are not tracked on-chain, anything between channel open and channel close, is orders of magnitude harder to track than on-chain Bitcoin payments. So you're not going to need to mix change after every single little transaction.

In Lightning, you 'open a channel', which means you do 'lock' some balance, but you (even alone, without anyone else), with your own key, can immediately close it in the next block and 'unlock' that balance. No 'praying to someone'. That's where youre analogy is flawed.
Using keys to 'unlock' a script is actually what you do in every single Bitcoin transactions. Locking script and unlocking script. All the time. When you 'spend BTC' in a typical on-chain transaction, you actually lock Bitcoin behind a script that only the owner of the private key generating a given address, owns.
https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/p2sh

Just to reiterate: msat being rounded down can lose you at most 999msat, or 0.999sat which is worth nothing right now. Transaction fees will always be higher than 1sat.

---

For the record:
I'm not answering for franky because it is pointless (explained it 100 times, he must be very old or something), but for anyone reading this with some intelligence and logic, who got confused by him. If you as a reader are interested in more details about the msats, search in this thread with the right keywords, I explained it all in detail: https://ninjastic.space/search?author=n0nce&content=msat&topic_id=5348270

https://www.microstrategy.com/en/world-2023?CID=7014W00000151ATQAY