Topic: Lightning Network Observer - page 22. (Read 13674 times)

rounding is not a /1000
also there is no hard rule that is consensus defined and locked to ensure converting is done at a 1000 rate

i am laughing that you call a change by a factor of 1000x "rounding"

ok you give me $1999.. and ill "round that down for you to $1.90
and give you back $1.90 and tell you its the same things just rounded

do you observe how going from near 10,000 down to 10 is not "rounding" its division.. and when that rate is not fixed by any hard rule that is unbreakable. its called pegging. and if you ever done any clothes drying in the back yard you would know pegs break. as many sidechains and some stable coins have learned.. and its a shame you have not learned this

scaling bitcoin is not "stop using bitcoin often and use another network"
as thats the same as saying drop bitcoin and use litecoin
if you are telling people to not use bitcoin your not helping bitcoin

smart contracts of 2party signing a payment is OLD tech

also LN can stop operate.. as proven by setting pup channels with no utxo backing..

and how other cryptos have LN


i wont repeat myself. just look at my last paragraph of this post.

i do laugh that you still think LN is a sole feature of bitcoin and only compatible with bitcoin and relies on bitcoin to function..

i also laugh that you think telling users to not use bitcoin and then shout some FUD about why bitcoin is not fit for use, just to advertise LN as the solution to bitcoins unfitness.. very very shameful tactics


WBTC
LBTC
ln-mast

are not bitcoin

That's not what is happening, though. 99,999msat are rounded down to 99sat if the channel state has to be settled on the blockchain (read: channel is closed). Just under 1sat gets lost. No 1000x rates or anything.

Nobody is arguing against Bitcoin. Lightning is an addition to Bitcoin trying to solve the scaling problem. I know that you don't think it exists, because technically, as of now, the blockchain is fast enough. Think of it as future-proofing and / or trying out techniques well before they may be actually needed to ensure Bitcoin's blockchain (that we all know and love) isn't clogged up and rendered unusable due to higher usage / higher number of active users.

Only Bitcoin and its blockchain enables a concept such as Lightning to work. In 2000-2007 that didn't exist, which is why any project aiming to do what LN does, would have failed.

I know you love the blockchain, and we do, too; without it, Lightning is unthinkable.

converting a onion payment amount of 99,999msat
to 10sat is not a rounding error

its a full conversion at a 1000x rate
that 1000x rate is the part im on about not the idio roundong silly petty brush under carpet arguments you think that only happens in LN


yea. its called bitcoin

i dont need to be online all day to "watch" it for theft. heck it even comes in the form of paper wallet

when anyone wants to make a internet payment then yes go online. but the rest of the day-month-year, you dont need to stay online just to ensure a partner/middle man isnt trying to steal against you

its crap like LN that is the only system in cryptocurrency that so you need to be online to reduce the risk of someone stealing your funds.

. in bitcoin i can disapear for a decade and come back and know my finds are safe.. LN channel cant say the same

i dont think you LN folk realise that LN "tech" is actually the failed projects of cypherpunks 2000-2007.. it was then bitcoin and blockchains that solved a problem for smart contracts..
its not where smart contracts are solving a problem of bitcoin.

...
lets word it another way

if you locked 10cents on a stable coin
and it converted to 10,000millicents

would you say its 1:1
would you want to ensure that no walet breaks the 1:1000 rate


if you locked $10 on a stable coin
and it converted to 1,000,000millicents

would you say its 1:1
would you want to ensure that no wallet breaks the 1:1000 rate

i know you will just say "not our problem" if users use a wallet they were told to use by a service that gave them 10,000,000millicents inbound but had no lock to back the value. and when the use spends $10 of real money its his fault if after settled he only vets 1 penny back. its his loss

but when a service can have hundreds of users the lame mindset of blame the user not the service networks lack of security.. you end up revealing the network has lack of security to defend against malicious implementations and serives

bitcoin is simple if there is no utxo there is no tx payment. bitcoin doesnt work on promises that need to settle later to ensure you got paid

bitcoins doesnt need to to be online 24/8 to ensure your channel partner doesnt steal from you

I'm not, we're speaking about the same thing.

I acknowledged that you can indeed lose 1sat. So yes, you're wrong with the bolded sentence; they may get up to 1 satoshi less than the msat amount in their wallet.
Although, this is nothing new and nothing to worry about; 1sat is worth $0.00016USD or 0.016 cents.

Yeah; users can get msats (or sats, whatever) Lightning balance before the opening transaction is confirmed. So if it's double-spent / revoked, that Lightning balance can't be settled / disappears. Easy solution: wait for one confirmation. This is not really a Lightning problem, but just like a merchant accepting 0conf. It's their choice, their risk.

Do you have an idea about an off-chain system which doesn't need to be 'watched' / online? That would be amazing.

You do acknowledge that Turbo is decided after the consent between two nodes, right? Just because Alice opens a channel with Bob, and they choose to settle it unconfirmed (which is what makes a channel turbo), it doesn't affect Charlie somehow. If Alice wants to send money to Charlie, it's Bob who'll give him the money, who doesn't have a turbo channel with Charlie. If Alice screws with Bob, and double-spends her channel opening transaction, Charlie will have normally received the money she sent him; it's Bob who's left unpaid.

Time to take your medication, Franky.

you say about onchain fee's.   (not part of the conversation)

you talk about how an implementation used by nothing is.. and the you use sweep under the carpet blank statements..

thor turbo you say "speeds up" yea.. by ignoring a bolt rule to only start a channel once a tx is confirmed. by ignoring that they can give msats to users with no confirm utxo..

funny how you want to play it down as a feature and not something people should be risk aware of..

as for you saying users dont need to settle up every payment.. well thats the issue its not about broadcasting payment.. its about that while they dont need to broadcast with every ln onion payment to settle.. they are left longer not knowing what the state/commitment behind the GUI is actually promising. all they see is a msat balance in GUI which can mean nothing. much like thor turbo

with all the crap about stable coins de-pegging their reserves or lack of reserves (no funding locked coin) people should be aware of other networks that have week structure to ensure security. but you wanna sweep it under the rug..

shameful

havnt you listened to the news lately..
services and networks that cant prove reserves,
stable coins de-pegging to new low rates of conversion to base asset value
methods to steal/hack funds from counterparties/sister companies

but hey you will keep promoting the utopian dream that bitcoin is unfit for the masses and LN is bitcoin 2.0 right??

shame on you.

maybe one day you will become risk aware and then want other to be risk aware to protect their value rather then a trust system where they have to use emotional choices to either hope their channel partner wont screw them, or lose sleep watching them.
if you have to watch or trust middlemen or other people because your funds are at risk of being lost or spent while you are not watching them. that system is not a good system

When a channel is opened, the initiator of the channel open has to pay the onchain fee. Same with closing. So he pays a minimum of 1sat/vb two times, which is a minimum fee of about 400 Satoshis plus at max of 2 Satoshis lost due to rounding down. Noone cares about this, Franky. Channels don`t have to be closed after every payment, but they can (and often they do) stay open for years.
Thor Turbo is just a Bitrefill implementation, that speeds up channel opening. Nothing to see here. All exchanges are implementing their own software. Most of the trading on exchanges is happening under the hood and is not shown on the blockchain. They can do whatever they want with your money.

you are missing the complete point

much like many thought that LN was soo utopia that there was no way to fractional reserve because all channels had locked and confirmed value.....
.....
until thor turbo proved it was possible and people were getting inbound Msats not backed by a confirmed bitcoin 'funding lock' utxo

when you realise that there is also no network consensus and that msats are not 1:1 rated with sats.. where instead that 1:1000 ratio is not guaranteed either and can be messed with too

where when compiled, and a service tells people to use their app..
EG a service of 1m users al using that services LN app on their phone

people wont know of the rate change while using LN.. they see the msats and dilly dally happily moving msats in onion payments
.until.. they broadcast the commitment and see onchain that they are getting not as much as promised..

then you will see

Why are you so worried about msats? You're aware that msats are rounded down to sats when closing a channel, so you can 'lose' at most 999msats or just less than 1 satoshi?

https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/lnwire/msat.go#L19-L25
https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/blob/master/channeld/commit_tx.c#L62

when you look at your LN gui and when you are sending msats in onions to the leapfrog game of middlemen who need to agree.. . you are thinking that you are going to get a 1:1000 rate of sats:msats when its time to broadcast.. right?
how sure are you of this ..

here is the thing. services and counterparties can talk people into downloading specific wallets where it offers certain services

things like inbound balance without a confirmed lock of funds to back it.
where the msat balance in GUI does not peg to a signed transaction of 1:1000

so while you happily play with inbound msat balance by a counterparty.. what you end up in the broadcast may not be what you think

..
have a hard think about that

oh.. and many LN devs themselves have lost funds.. and still have not come up with solutions. just so you know

Oh Franky. You had so much time to learn about Lightning, but you obviously still have no idea how it actually works. You pretty much sound like CSW, when he explains Bitcoin.

please observe

i was discussing the pegging.. and you went full avoidance by talking about other features..

when you start to realise that when people are told to download some free phone app for lightning and see 0 balance and they use an exchange to deposit bitcoin and the exchange then routes them inbound msat.. they think they are getting 1:1000 rated msat..
little do they know how easy it is in just 1 line of code to have the onion payment conversion to commitment actually be a 1:200 rate. and they only learn the hard way when they try to settle the channel..

do you get it yet. lightning does not have a network wide consensus to actually audit payments and value to make sure what someone holds is actually what is owed to them

oh and lightning is federated. but lacks the blockchain bit too
you are federated with a channel partner. and separately someone else is federated to your partner. and they are federated with someone else

you can only make a payment if all federations along the route are online and will agree to authorise payment through them.

LN is permissioned because it needs someone elses permission(co partners signature. route onions approval to forward onion payment and send back acceptance with key
as for trust

well you either hand keys to a watch tower so you can sleep. or stay awake watching your partner doesnt broadcast a old state.. oh wait if you want to sleep without a watch tower.. you need to trust your partner

take the utopia away and try for one month to do some critical thinking. imaging you have value in lightning and you really want to scrutinise it for bugs and flaws. instead of be hopeful and dreamy about it.
start finding the flaws. the ways that a counter party can dupe you out of your value.

then you might learn something

An interesting opinion from Bitcoin Magazine about what has the Lightning network done to solve the base layer scalability problem.


DATA SHOWS THAT BITCOIN’S LIGHTNING NETWORK HAS SOLVED THE SCALABILITY PROBLEM


The article underline the success if the lightning network has to do essentially to the fact that it allowed moving huge amount of traffic off-chain.

Flawed analogy. Lightning isn't a federated sidechain. While operating decentrally, Liquid isn't permissionless in the same way Lightning is. Summarily, Liquid acts as a financial instrument between large Bitcoin companies, which are integral to its operation. It is trust requiring, but it minimizes it, because it divides governance to several trustworthy entities.

Lightning, on the other hand, requires no faith. You need to trust nobody but yourself to transact. Not your partners, not your partners' partners, no one.

and on that note doomad

liquid and binance chain also have locks and pegs to bitcoin..
so i guess you consider those networks "bitcoin" when you want to just talk about "liquid" and "binance chain" in this forum category

dont be silly, understand they are different networks that use locks and pegs to then play with different units of measure on a separate network away from the bitcoin network

LN, liquid, binance chain... are not "bitcoin"

"Session close events" is kinda "within LN".

After commitment_signed and revoke_and_ack messages, both parties have their final commitment transaction that is understandable by the Bitcoin protocol.

We all know you're obsessed with msats. They do, indeed, introduce trust. Exchanging 1 msat doesn't make sense from the Bitcoin network perspective. Whatever lightning payment you make, your balance is rounded down to satoshi once you withdraw them on-chain. For example, 1,000,999 msats is equivalent to 1,000 sats, just as 1,000,000 do. It really doesn't favor anybody to steal someone else's msats, given that they can steal less than 1,000 msats, and the opening and closing transactions cost much more than that.

Emphasis mine:

No one has forgotten.  Most of us just don't have a psychological compulsion to mention it every five minutes like you do.  Also, you still have a lot of learning to do if you can't figure out how something as simple as a forum works.  People can discuss altcoins in the appropriate subforum.  If people are talking in the Bitcoin section of the boards (hint: this topic is in Bitcoin Discussion), then unless specified, it's safe to assume they're talking about Bitcoin. 

Go troll the altcoins board, headcase.

this is where you are wrong.

IN LN and im not talking about session close events. im talking about within LN

you do realise when there is a "update" AFTER PAYMENT!!!!!!!!
even the update is not saved to your ram/hard drive in a bitcoin TX format

tha database and also the code format does have a script(signature) that complies to a bitcoin TX format. but its not saved on hard drives in a bitcoin tx format either
yes some LN nodes call the database 'buckets' where it saves values not in bitcoin format but msat format and uses alot of translators to build into a bitcoin transaction when you want to broadcast. but when you are not initialising a broadcast. its not seen or stored in a bitcoin tx format.

try to read some code once in a while

heres a little hint for you..
in the update state. it also includes PENDING payments
yep the update state is different to an agreed 'close session'

the things to be aware of because LN uses msats and bitcoin uses sats
(2 totally different units of measure) users have to rely on software that has no audit or consensus of network security to do the conversions/pegging. so the 1sat:1000msat can be depegged if enough dumb users use a corrupt wallet with code that can change the 1:1000rate
also there are other bugs that can happen between converting an onion amount to a close session bitcoin tx format amount

LN is not bitcoin and people need to be risk aware of possible bugs and malicious code where they thing they received say 20,000msat. but their software confers it to not 20sat but 2sat(or less which rounds to 0)
and users wont know about it until they are closing session and broadcast their loses because the whole time their gui when using LN is showing msat balances


"lightning funds"
well you can open a lightning channel using litecoin and other currencies..

if you are still thinking "lightning" is and only is bitcoin then you have major learning to do

https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/02-peer-protocol.md#the-open_channel-message

..
if you think when doing a LN payment(the onion routing stage) that at the "success" part, your 'value' is as good as guaranteed and trusted where you cant lose it.. you are fooling yourself.. its not a bitcoin settled amount that has "succeeded" ..

dont ever think that LN is as imutible and confirmed and settled and guaranteed as bitcoin

much like people should not trust that LBTC(liquid) or WBTC(sidechain) is as good as real bitcoin

if no one ever learns from the breaks of the stable coins and sidechains that broke their pegs.. then idiots will still lose funds and blame bitcoin because other idiots told them it is bitcoin

its ok to call LN a niche service that allows conversion and then faster payments of value of [insert coin] but dont try pretending that it is bitcoin

bitcoin security model and immutability function and its whole assistance is a different system compared to "smart contract" platforms

..
please atleast observe the reality of the network and code.. and not just admire the glossy advert someone suggested to you about LN
LN is not the same as bitcoin
much like a gold bar is not the same as gold backed paper bank promissory notes

There's no Twitter account with this username.

What's insecure about that?

Also, what does the author mean with "Offers can send you money in the form of a credit invoice"? There's no credit. Money sent with offers is money sent for good.