Topic: Lightning Network Observer - page 19. (Read 14150 times)

funny thing is LN fans think that bitcoin shouldnt scale this decade..
..so,  thanks for the confirmation of this ("projecting 50 to 100 years into the future")
.. i guess you missed my subtle yawn of waiting for their plan to actually flourish..
.. waiting for promises to be met
.. waiting for the supposed secure solution without flaws..

here is the funny
LN has been around 5 years.. liquidity=5k btc
taproot has been around 1 year.. liquidity 22k btc
taproot reached its forst 5k coins in 4 months..
taproot most recent escalation by 5k coins in 2 months!! .. says alot about LN's growth factor of 5 years in comparison


havnt ln-ers not realised yet, .. they havnt launched.. their moon plans have not flourished in 5 years
they are just holding up bitcoins evolution with endless promises.. not wanting bitcoin to scale because bitcoiners are suppose to wait for LN to launch.. (in a now projected time of 50 to 100 years)

I am glad that we have guys like you franky, who can project 50 to 100 years into the future in order that perhaps we may well be able to avoid those pitfalls when they start playing out, just like you said that they would happen.

not until LN-ers have world domination and turned bitcoin into just a reserve for LN-hub settlement layer, where bitcoin fee's become above $10+ as standard,,  where the only bloat is LN settlements, to then make LN-ers need to scale bitcoin apparently

the master LN plan..
offboard everyone on bitcoin, to LN..... to reduce tx utility on bitcoin.. then after more time(yawn) of then getting LN settlements to fill the blocks then and only then do they want bitcoin scaling

so now that franky1 has single-handedly exposed LN for the vaporware we all knew it was, can we scale the blocksize now?

Sure Saylor speaks a lot, but it seems that he generally has put his money where his mouth is, and he has been pretty consistent in a lot of ways in terms of seeming to follow a pretty radical investment thesis involving accumulating a pretty damned high quantity of bitcoins, engaging in a lot of bitcoin education (in person) and a lot of materials that he provides publicly and for free.  Relative to his treasury size, he seems to be punching above his weight and surely he seems a lot more bullish and even willing to take a variety of risks that seem quite innovative in a variety of ways... both his personal bitcoins and also his company's ongoing accumulation of bitcoin and also his company seems to have quite a few technical competences too that may well make it quite plausible and possible that he is following up towards developing more and more in the lightning network space. Hiring actual developers seems promising, similar to what Jack Dorsey did in 2016/2017 when Jack was first getting into bitcoin, he was expanding his areas of bitcoin competence by starting to fund developers.

Why such a Saylor naysayer?  What did Saylor (or Microstrategies) ever do to uie pooie?  Can you point on the doll where he made you go "owie, owie," exactly?

  ..

Also, you have been gone from the forum for half a year.. have you been pondering these kinds of profound ideas in recent times?  Do you even remember what is the bitcoins?

those that say nothing, but say it to the most people... usually shout the loudest
micheal sayloud
micheal sayless
micheal saylack

dont get me wrong. bitcoin(mainnet, not subnetworks phishing the brand) is strong unique and has utility. and yes there is a good lock and peg mechanism to create subnetworks with future niches..(as long as the peg on the subnetwork is just as secure) but 5 years in the waiting.. LN aint it.
LN tried and stumbled many times.. it does not have a secure monetary policy so always will fail that test, nor has a secure peg(but shh they want to blame user fault)
now its time to forget patience and hope. and instead innovate something new that can actually do a job. innovate both onchain.. and also create a new subnetwork without the LN flaws/bottlenecks

...except that's quite similar to saying nothing?



so can we take it you two are being paid to splash big screenshots of this nobody announcing nothing on the front page of the forum?

seriously this Saylor guy is turning into the biggest spam master, and he's got nothing, every single time


...but I think I just hit on an apt nickname: Michael Spamlord

This may be an absolute non-issue, but was mentioned recently in a "Lightning-critical" video in German:

Does anybody know what happened in mid-December that the Lightning node/channel count dropped by more than half according to BitcoinVisuals and LookIntoBitcoin? I don't think it's due to cAPSLOCK's outage, or is it?

I have unfortunately not found any news about this event. It's strange also that 1ml has completely different numbers (16K nodes, while LookIntoBitcoin and LightningVisuals show less than 8K. Unfortunately 1ml doesn't show a chart of the evolution of these numbers in time, or I am missing it, lol).

So it may be the case that it's only a problem of these two websites (perhaps a bug in their Lightning implementation?), but even in this case it may be worthy to notify them to avoid FUD being spread (I don't accuse the video guy above to be a FUDster, he operates Lightning nodes himself and only criticizes some aspects, but big blockers surely will love that "node drop").

Edit: I've seen now this has been already discussed in the Lightning Network FAQ. However, there seemed not to have been a definitive answer for the problem. Maybe still some can bring some insights, but I think it would be better discussing it there and not here. The issue at LookIntoBitcoin / BitcoinVisuals still persists as of January 9.

Jack Mallers wrote a Medium Update as a wrap-up update of all the announcements made back in Miami last year:

Strike Commerce Update



It's an interesting post, but some bit of information literally blew my mind, even if they were already in Strike's philosophy:


Really looking forward one of the most ubiquitous implementation of the LN so far

To be honest, I don't understand why nobody has ever simply applied Lightning for rate limiting / anti-botting. That's something they could do.
Replace (mostly pretty stupid) AI, captchas and human workers with a simple payment page for each post, registration and other action prone to spam.

An exciting announcement from Micheal Saylor.
Microstrategy is still a software company, after all.

A breif recap of the news is on various sources.

MICROSTRATEGY TO LAUNCH BITCOIN LIGHTNING SOLUTIONS IN 2023: SAYLOR

Brief excerpt:

Yet another good resource for the Future Professional Lightning Node Operator:

Plebnet


A good overview of resources from LN node operators made for LN node operators.

A good thread of LN_Capital, on how to run a successful LN node:




There are a few good hints at being a successful node operato and few other tips across the various posts.

I am sad to announce that one of the oldest lightning network nodes to exist is going to be shut down permanently.  (well unless I change my mind.  I still have the details needed to spin it back up. Wink )

Deej...  A node way more than 3 years old...  A child of one of the first 200 nodes on the LN.

Foolishly run on a raspberry pi.  On a single hard drive.  The hard drive failed.  I was running DEEJ (LND) and it's sister node JEED (CL) on the same setup.  Deej was difficult to recover, but Jeed was much more resilient.  This has made me realize that the Blockstream implementation is superior to the LND one.  As it turns out there are many other ways this is true.  Like Bolt 12.

Anyway... I will keep JEED running, and might toss a few more BTC at it... but the venerable DEEJ is being completely shut down...

Long live the king.

https://1ml.com/node/02a0bcc2b99673587d4a92028a2b2ce709b72c904962e2f783fd480c2c41e3dc7d

https://1ml.com/node/03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e

*EDIT* Remove rude words to our troll lol**

bitcoins relay network does it all the time. if a tx is trying to spend a UTXO that does not exist they wont relay it on. meaning it wont sit in mempools and wont get confirmed. thus users can see its a duff TX quickly
(unlike the thor turbo flaw that allows msat to exist without funding)

---

as for the payment amount flaw in LN (conversion rate)

in bitcoin
if users are expecting to get 0.001btc and they see that an tx is
confirmed utxo 0.002-> user 0.001
                                    change 0.001
boom they got paid.. end of story. no question. its done

thats a check in of itself, which other peers also get and can check, which you can check against in many ways. and.. when its in a block confirmed. you know you got paid. your not waiting/worried/concerned for weeks/months of broken promise. its just done complete

and ofcourse there is the check of RBF is in play. which users can be risk aware if it is. aswell as the fee they can check to ensure it has a chance of being added to be confirmed soon..

..unlike LN's msat onion payment and hidden under the GUI crap of the conversion rates that cannot currently in your broken system be checked and guarantee to convert at the presumed rate.. where LN has no sanity checks on states/commitments anywhere outside the channel unless you close channel to receive loses and find out you lost.. in your current broke system

LN is not better than Bitcoin if time is not an issue.  However, LN is better than accepting zero-confirmation transactions.  Your earlier remarks about "checking multiple sources" cannot make 0-conf more secure.  Even a total fuckwit like you has to be able to comprehend that.  Although I'm sure you'll try (and fail) to argue the point anyway.



Said the morally bereft sociopath.

Just admit for once that you were wrong...

ok i get it.. you guys call payment value risk a feature.. a thing you dont want to fix..

instead you want to call out flaws of other things that are not related to payment security(payee gets whats promised) and instead shout about viruses that can mess around with peoples devices.. that are in your minds just user error

you lot have no clue about a "good money system" which should have rules to mitigate risks of people losing value WHEN MAKING PAYMENTS on the network

but you dont want to have features that ensure people get what they deserve.. so go continue living in your broken network.. just dont try calling it bitcoin as if its better then bitcoin
dont tarnish bitcoins name and better security. by pretending LN is better than bitcoin.

atleast have some morals and ethics to disclose to people how LN is different and people need to be MORE risk aware when using LN

much the same as making people risk aware of the differences between using custodians or sidechains which can mess with a users ability to get confirmed value they deserve back on the bitcoin network

if you think privacy is more important than value security.. that on you.
just inform people of the risks. and stop your utopian sales pitches.

responding to below
it is not wrong. but you want to call them flaws of monetary security system a feature of privacy.

basically you are saying you want people to get screwed over and have no proof of being screwed outside hearsay games of those doing the screwing and being screwed.. so you can just brush under the carpet.

you have no morals or ethics about running a good monetary system that can be fixed to protect users in multiple ways

Lol. This is like "tell me you don't understand lightning without telling you don't understand lightning". 

Gossip doesn't have to do with privacy enhancement. First of all I can open a private channel with a partner, and make it invisible to gossip, but let's leave that out for a sec. The fact that the channels are visible by everyone doesn't mean the off-chain transactions are too. They are not. I can make a million transactions wherein I move sats back and fourth, and have the channels closed afterwards; you can't make some rational conclusion about to whom I sent, and how much I spent.

According to franky1, "the blockchain and peer to peer system" does it all.  I guess we can all disable our firewalls and uninstall our antivirus, then.  

Neither the blockchain nor the peer-to-peer aspect of Bitcoin can prevent nefarious people from distributing malicious software, cretin.  I hope you get every virus on the face of the internet, lose your stash and finally come to terms with how utterly gormless you are.



So your argument is that people can check multiple sources to look at transactions, but at the same time they're completely incapable of checking multiple sources to verify they're downloading legit software in the first place?  Yes, I'm sure that would make sense in your fractured mind.  

Any further golden nuggets of wisdom you'd care to share with us, numpty-boy?