Topic: Lightning Network Observer - page 6. (Read 13021 times)

He claims he made his own client and has never published it.  However, I have a strong suspicion that he's full of shit and doesn't want to admit that he's using Core.  Or he's just an SPV user and will simply follow whatever consensus rules are set, despite how much he whines about them.  He can barely read, so I very much doubt he can code well enough to build a stable client.  

---

Says the only person in the world with his own made-up phrases for established concepts, where he deliberately calls things by other names in a weak attempt to degrade their image.  

Your script is to convert "layer 2" to "subnetwork".  
Your script is to convert "offchain" to "other networks".  
Your script is to convert an inclusive and eloquent soft fork into "bloat".  

Have you ever stopped to notice that no one is adopting your make-believe language?  



THAT is an "other network", yet -you- -repeatedly- -argue- that BCH should be called "Bitcoin" and LN should be called "other network".  You're the most disgusting person in the entire crypto-space.  Far worse than Wright or Ver combined.  Utterly contemptible.

You know you have to stop calling someone "trained" and lacking critical thinking, simply because they don't agree with you. Just point out where he's wrong.

Have you ever attempted to actually answer us the ideal way of running Bitcoin? Without rising the block size limit every once in a while obviously, that isn't reasonable. The only thing I've been reading from you since my registration is "devs don't look that", "devs don't fix that", "devs shouldn't write that" etc.

Telling us what the fuck version of Bitcoin you've been running would be a nice start. We know it isn't Bitcoin Core as the Core developers are like, the Darth Vader of Bitcoin in your little head, and it isn't Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV either. So what the fuck are you running, kindly asking.

Telling us who they are, would be the next step. Who are they? Don't just tell us they exist. Point them out.

im not a bitcoin cash fan. i never used it i never even claimed their forked coins of the same key i used on bitcoin ever

you are the ultimate troll that are again spouting silly rhetoric trained on you by an idiot mentor of yours that makes you think those that dont treat core as god must be a fork coin lover

 your mindset of thinking the only solution is to idolise core or use another network, is a failure of your understanding.
core devs and their corporate sponsors should not be the sole cult of responsibility of bitcoin network and its subnetwork progress

 and its really time you look beyond your own scripts of gospel recitation and start to think for yourself for once. its making you look foolish, stupid and empty of any incite

you are just angry that someone is telling you the promises your mentor made to you years ago are broke and unfixable.. yet the 6 years of waiting for LN flaws must atleast be poking at some part of your brain that must atleast wonder what went wrong

have you ever tried to question your gods in a critique way, instead of pandering to their gospel

LN does not need some mass consensus event organise an upgrade/fix for functions... so waiting 6 years for fixes is a lame thing to wait for. if they have not fixed their flaws by now. realise they cant and wont fix it
thus the promise that LN is the "solution" is a dead broken promise. no one should settle for "just be patient" any longer

stop waiting years for the hopes your gods will eventually get to make your favoured subnetwork better.. realise they had their chance to fix LN. they havnt. so its time they and or others try something different to fit the small niche services you want to use offchain

by the way there have been other devs not corporate sponsored and not part of any numbskull pigeon hole group you want to put people into who have made other subnetwork bridges with far more capacity and liquidity than LN, becasue they heard the rumbles of lightning and avoided the strikes(lack of work/delays/excuses/refusals to work) and covered themselves from the shocks your still ignorant of

What's that? Haha. I know there are some smart developers who are right to criticize some aspects of the Lightning Network, but from a troll like you saying that it should be "scrapped"?

The developers working on Lightning are doing a better job in REAL scaling if you look and compare it with a coin like BCash. You laugh at the people in this forum because they support Lightning? Look at your community in BCash, believing that the solution to real scaling is by making blocks bigger and bigger forever, without any consideration for the limitations of bandwidth and hardware.

when the group using the "validation node" debate to not scale onchain are the same group that want pruning by default thus centralise only a small group of nodes to have the blockchain... its that idiot group causing more centralisation by making political demands that even more people not only NOT store the blockchain.. but also NOT even use the mainnet daily to want to sync the blockchain, thus defeating their own stance about their pretend desire of importance of the blockchain when its obvious they prefer a network that does not even have a blockchain
in short the blockchain is important but they dont care, so much so they dont even realise their path is causing more centralisation under the guise of silly agendas they pretend to play, pretending their agenda helps the blockchain decentralisation. when actual fact is that it does not


when even core devs have for 6 years said 4mb is network safe compared to their previous stance of 1mb safe. that means they COULD HAVE continued a regime of LEAN legacy tx to allow 4x tx count growth.
however they didnt go that path.

instead the byte miscounting and premiumising of actual lean transactions to then make bloaty witness tx seem affordable. has been their path. all to offer a feature gatway path to offrmamping to other insecure networks that dont even have a blockchain. nor even need confirmed blockchain balance to open channels or offer inbound balance to their partners.

also if you even look at their groups favoured subnetwork(this topics main characters) who have released stats on their events. of under 300 events per month (PASSING THROUGH THEM, not triggered by them) this is far far far less then the 2000tx per 10minutes the main net offers

even funnier is these guys premiss to put sole influence, promise and hope into this single subnetwork knowing its flaws that have yet for 6 years to be fixed, are ignoring that other subnetworks have populated more, meaning even users are voting with their funds to abandon LN and use something else due to the politics and delays in any/all scaling opportunities.

but going back to first point for emphasis. just using the 4mb acceptable space that wont harm the network (as core agree) would actually have allowed 4x more lean legacy tx, without the miscounting of bytes, whereby pruning was not a feature thus all those downloading core would actually be FULL validation archival nodes(keeping the blockchain decentralised)

offramping users to other networks that dont need full nodes and suggesting those that want to be full nodes should prune by default. are the ones that will centralise the blockchain the most. especially when they want only one dev group managing the rules on what software collects the blockchain data.

subnetworks have a NICHE but are not the solution. especially not this flawed subnetwork called LN that needs a complete rebuild or be scrapped and a fresh attempt made using different economic model.. rather then waiting another half decade for empty promises and pretend successes, even when the stats do not convey what they pretend

Like now StopAndDecrypt's write up says that the term "on-chain scaling" gets used many times without context, I believe it's the same with us in the forum.

For context, the post in this quote is REAL on-chain scaling,


We can't have a proper debate and we can't learn from each other if we don't have the real, common definition of on-chain scaling. Plus there's another concern, that's if the other party of the debate is a troll who is merely misinforming and gaslighting the public.

The evidence is clear.  On-chain "scaling" (which isn't actually scaling) might gain a few extra transactions per second.  But off-chain allows for a far greater number of transactions per second.  Even with all your whining about routing issues, it's still giving us, right now, a larger number of transactions than your caveman notions of how Bitcoin ought to work would give us.  No one cares about your backwards, ignorant notions about how this should work.  You have zero credibility, you can barely even read and most people find you to be an undesirable nuisance at best.  Give it a rest, you deluded basket-case.

core think 4mb of data bloat is fine. so its not about your buzzwords of "big block"

its how the block data gets to be used and who gets to use it. EG their "discount" is not actually discount.. if you read the code (technical things you keep not doing) you will realise that its legacy *4 .... not segwit /4

its YOU that does not reference code or use technicals for your explanations you are the one using social recited buzzwords of idiots.

and if you dont think they want their subnetworks to be used more then bitcoin network.. observe this topic from the start. notice this topics point is to promote their subnetwork
lightning is not a open community build network. its all made majority by the same core devs that were part of the same masterplan that came from sponsorship from the same corporations. and them corporations will want their ROI back

it seems you ignore evidence and just want to repeat whatever your mentor tells you to say even if what he says is nonsense and is not backed by easily researchable evidence

give yourself a chance and break from your mentors words and for once observe the code, do some research and for once make up your mind for yourself. dont sound like a parrot of an idiot becasue it just makes people call you an idiot

No frankandbeans, it's you. You're the one obsessed about making the Core developers look "evil" by accusing them that they're keeping the blocks small so they could promote their, what is it? Their "alt-subnetwork"? Without taking into account about the technical debate that they've presented. But once presented with a technical debate, the big blockers start to use big walls of texts made up of ad hominem, straw man fallacies, and disinformation to confuse and gaslight everyone.

 

Look, in all that horseshit you've been writing and repeating years now, I think I'll have to admit that part of your message is true. I'm going to speak for myself, maybe I'm the problem, but I'm not following anything beyond Core's work. I don't find the time, nor do I want, to check what other cryptocurrency groups / bitcoin forks' developers are suggesting. Maybe it's due to the fact that I'm a little biased that their goal isn't long-term, or that they're consisted of less experienced people. (For instance, I haven't read a BCash proposal besides their block size increase, for like... ever)

Or maybe it's just the intentions that discourage me. For example, I can't buy the whole BSV thing, even if they do say some things that aren't that flawed and debunked, simply because their development team is owned by a pathetic liar (and thus cannot be trusted). One thing that I also like about the Bitcoin Core team, is that for every change that happens, there is an either pull request with controversial discussion, or some StackExchange post that gives the reasoning behind it.

Bringing this quote from 2021 back.  It's been a full two years and franky1 is still wrong.  There's no mass-exodus from BTC to altcoins.  The only thing to be seen here is franky1's head full of delusions that he calls "scenarios" in a lame attempt to make his fantasies sound more credible.  If people were going to dump BTC for altcoins, they would have done it by now.  It doesn't matter if BTC is more expensive than altcoins.  He can't seem to comprehend that people are willing to pay more to use something with utility.  Cheaper is not always better.  Cheaper is often a trade-off.  A compromise.  You have to give up something in exchange for cheaper. 

He would make those compromises at the base protocol level.  Cheapen everything for everyone whether they like it or not, weaken their security whether they like it or not.  But sensible devs have built cheaper on layer 2, so users get the choice as to whether they want to give up some security in exchange for getting things cheaper.  He calls those trade-offs and compromises "flaws", but they're simply conscious decisions people are free to make if they choose to. 

It's beyond clear that franky1 would love to stamp out all forms of choice.  He cannot stand it.  How very dare people do what they want without his input and approval.    

Sociopath.

you seem obsessed that the debate is core or bcash... you mentor is the one gaslighting you with the obvious chants you then recite verbatim from him

all your mentor wants is for anyone not ass kissing core to shut up and f**k off. he thinks core is god.. and thinks there is only a choice of core of GTFO to bcash. not realising that other devs could help with bitcoin or other options .. you have been gaslit by him by your own chants admission when you recite his mindset so precisely

think for yourself for once. there are other devs and dev groups, yet you only want core.. think how centralist you are reciting by only wanting core to do everything and then kissing their ass whilst waiting years for them to achieve their unmet promises for what the community wants and needs

as for redoubling their efforts.. well they are doing that. they are making more flaws to be abused. but your mentor calls them 'features' when the devs make their prefered subnetwork require watchtower custodians and also not require locked funding to open channels to give users unbacked inbound balance. (as their work around(facepalm))

but you wont open your eyes and observe the flaws. you will instead be eyes closed and closed minded about the actual (lack of) activity (lack of) utility. and instead just want to promote devs that cant even do things they promise

the fastest way to kill a projects development is to let the devs of any project not fulfil the projects needs that aid the community.. and instead just make crap that aids some corporation to make the project into the same crap as the thing the project was suppose to hedge against and be different to

and one last observation for you to think about for a while..
when you finally realise the similarity between the functionality of liquid+LN compared to many CBDC where you have been saying how CBDC is bad. you will then have the moment of realisation to why blockstream,brink,chaincodelab(main core devs) done all their efforts in conjunction with hyperledger project to produce the crap you admire.
look forward to that eye opening event once you stop robot reciting your mentors pitches

Lightning Network capacity at highest levels ever.
source.

Why would any dev read franky1's posts? They're laughable and full of disinformation. I know there are criticisms directed to the Lightning Network, but there probably isn't another team of developers that's doing as great of a job. Compare Lightning developers to the developers of something like BCash. It's not close in my opinion and franky1 comes in the forum and gaslights us that we are wrong? Haha.

Honestly, if I were a dev and having doubts or second thoughts about the work I was doing on LN, but then I read one of franky1's posts, I'd redouble my efforts and work that much harder just to spite him.  That's the effect he has on people.  He thinks he's being demotivational, but he's doing the complete opposite.  If he had any real faith in what he's claiming, he'd just shut up and let it happen.  But he sees LN development continuing and more in the pipeline to come, so he feels compelled to keep sniping from the sidelines.  Palpable butthurt is palpable.  No one likes his worthless ideas, so he has to lash out at the ideas people do like.  Petty and tragic in equal measure.

And what was that I'm not learning much? What "buzzwords" am I reading and keep repeating but I don't actually understand? Are you telling me that the Core developers are giving out false information and they're scammers? That they shouldn't be the rightful stewards of the network? We've heard it all before, frankyandbeans. But it's time to move on. You probably should go to a BCash forum and talk about your issues there. After two Bitcoin Core developers gave you two negative trust ratings, why should people, especially newbies, listen to you? You're a troll.


 

If the Lightning Network is as bad as you say, then OK. But that doesn't signify that the developers should stop working on it or users should stop using it just because of your trolling-opinion. Plus what's very great about it is it never needed anyone's permission to be built on Bitcoin.

you think someone's sperm count has something to do with the content of their posts..
seems you need to research biology and technology to learn how they are different

well i have a family. im guessing your own lack of sperm count must be your lame excuse for preferring to have non consensual mindset. which you admit to having in previous posts

as for path of progress,,, your mindset is 'wait patiently', 'dont ask the devs do do things' so your path is not progress

im guessing windfury asked his forum daddy to come defend him, as always your mentorship of windfury only hurts him more

and as for the subnetworks i speak of no im not talking about liquid. there are more. if you can only think of blockstream managed devs. thats your fault

oh and if you look at LN stats the "average LNer" is not a random user. they are average and majority services/corporations.. yet when one disappears LN liquidity drops dramatically. showing that most of LN is not even used by average joe, its instead just sibyl nodes of some services cold stash that have little to no active activity.. they are just sat there hoarding reserves in locks, not using funds, just to push up the stats to fake utility

other subnetwork bridges are majority decentralised individuals..
and this is why so many services are starting to drop out of LN and why crybabies are screaming to try to get other services to join to offset the loss. forgetting about the initial purpose of decentralised individual utility. and caring instead for just trying to fake stats by garnering businesses to lock up their cold stashes

but you wont see this until you start observing things

Observe the impotent man standing in the path of progress, pretending he can stop it.  



Observe the pseudo-dev who claims they write code and then refuses to share it with anyone and acts like he's in a position to critique the code of others.  *cough*HYPOCRITE*cough*



Because the organisations who use other layer-2 systems like Liquid are largely custodians for the funds of others.  They have lots of BTC and sometimes need to move large sums of BTC.  Hence, their network has lots of liquidity.  The average LN user, individually, doesn't have that kind of coin to throw around.  Hence less liquidity.

Funnily enough, all the traditional banks out there. who are also custodians, also have more liquidity in the networks they use versus anything the average household might use.  What's your point?  

And more to the point, will you ever make a valid one?  Shitweasel.  


//EDIT:


No, that would be their brain cell count.  Yours is clearly very low.

I was reading notes from the 2023 LN Summit at https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2023-July/004014.html

They talk about version 3 transactions. Can anyone tell me the timeline for this to happen? This is only for Lightning transactions or are all transactions going to be version 3?

you really are not learning much are you. you are reading buzzwords and snippets and repeating them like a robot. but you are not actually learning or understanding..

with the latest ordinals junkweight bloat. and lengthy 'smart contracts' its proof core dont care about lean transactions to make efficient use of the blockspace. as is their method to miscount byte worth to fake the fee market again shows they promote making transaction 4x old costs instead of their promised discount(time you read some code and not troll blogs)

firstly take this premiss
imagine bitcoin as bank wire transfers. and imagine LN as paypal
if bank wire transfers cost $10 per payment but paypal offers(sometimes a false promise) payments at $0.02 but has some bugs.. yea sure you might get 1% of offboarding to paypal. but it still requires people to pay $10 just to get in and out of paypal. so those trapped in paypal dont want to leave it and so they get stuck promoting it hoping things will change.. but not admitting what need to change.. but you will then get 95% using other payment services(venmo, credit unions, virtual visa).. meaning even paypal doesnt win or get the attention it wants. and then you get the left overs trying to get banks wire transfers to do something about their charges and payment delays instead of using the charges and payment delays as the feature to promote their commercial other services

right now other subnetwork bridges and CEX systems have more liquidity than LN. and as someone else told you but i think you have yet to let it truly settle in your mind. LN's altruism is temporary.. so even the cheap fee on LN wont last
so LN with its bug, flaws, liquidity issues and bottlenecks all show a sign that when other subnetworks have garnered more liquidity. LN has lost the race.  
no point waiting another 6 years to fix their bugs. they had their chance.. probably best to start again from scratch with a better or more useful subnetwork or get the core devs to once again concentrate on bitcoin and evolve bitcoin instead of trying to get people thrown off the network via various methods

oh and as for binance..
they have not opened up upto 60m channels so that each of their customers can withdraw and close channel to get their funds. binance has just opened large hub channels with other services so they can arbitrage locked reserves between services..

binance has not caused any significant progress to any LN stats, infact LN liquidity stats have decreased in the last fortnight
other subnetwork bridges has grown more in the last 2 years* than LN has ever grown in any measurement of any allotment of any 2 year period of its 6 years of life
*(many subnetworks are under 2 years old and more successful than LN)

even nigeria and el salvador tried LN. both decided to drop LN as a payment rail for their wallets and went for CEX services to control reserves instead.

observe the flaws, observe the avoidances, observe the lack of interest. then ... ask for something better
if you just want to go with the flow and hope things will go better if you just wait another 6 years. then you are not helping at all. core devs wanted the job of making bitcoin better so push them to do so. dont just kiss their ass and call them god and tell them they are doing a great job of making users use other systems
if after 6 years they cant fix LN then get them to put their time back into making bitcoin better or start afresh on a new project that can actually do the promises they proposed many years ago

one last observation you need to make
core devs were paid hundreds of millions of dollar to develop features for corporations. this was not altruist donations. this was corporate contracts of investments of future returns. and those corporations want return on investment. which yes includes getting middlemen fees(routing) back from subnetwork payments. so expect fee's to go up on subnetworks when its time businesses want their ROI