Topic: Lightning Network Observer - page 7. (Read 14075 times)

stumbled across this very interesting article today, which connects ai with lightning and illustrates what can happen when both sides integrate together

https://bitnewsbot.com/opinion-bitcoins-lightning-network-can-power-up-ai-driven-shopping/

there is a new announcement on the lightning network developer list and that is historical routing data is being searched for analysis. anyone who would like to provide this data can read more about the project here:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2023-August/004034.html

no actually that site has always had a lag. ... its not even a end of month thing because the data stopped mid june (12th june time of posting) so where is 13th june to 12th july results, if we were to believe windfurys checkers game theory of monthly update that catches up

but again point was out of all stat sites he chose one with the lag that hid the drop off.. i wonder why again he still defends that chart as a source that doesnt show current events

funny how though he didnt want to admit that capacity has dropped in recent time. and ignored that previous years have seen a drop too, such as 2019-2020 .. which debunks his year-on-year theory of pretending LN has had constant growth

its wavering and he cant understand or observe why. even when i have said in recent years people have given up waiting for LN's empty promises.. and instead they have moved onto start fresh subnetwork bridges that offer something that LN doesnt

but lets wait another 20k years for LN to 'grow' to capacity of all bitcoiners having a "solution", coz that their promise


highlight:
LN is not a solution to allow all bitcoiners to "use bitcoin" independent of middlemen via LN
for these reasons:
1. route capacity bottlenecks limit payment success of certain amounts(more then a pizza)
2. route liquidity. many route get clogged with used liquidity if 'locked value'(capacity) was sufficient at some point of channels existence
3. route middlemen involvement multiplies fee's per hop needed.
4. points 1,2,3 combine as another flaw, that being more popular network gets the more bottlenecks occur
5. need of co-signers
6. the emphasis now on not having independent coin control. but putting value into a hub,factory coinjoiner. who custodianises it and gives out 'accounts' to customers with balance 'inbound'
7.many services that open channels and give inbound balance even without a confirmed/locked bitcoin balance to peg to
8-20: all other bugs flaws and issues relating to ways to cheat counterparts of a channel (not mentioning all methods.. the scammers already have an easy enough job steal value from LN)
21:the 'rebalance' effect unbalances others on a route used to perform the rebalance by unbalancing them.. causing increased fake activity events of just shuffling 're-balance' back and fourth with everyone trying to counter balance the instigators rebalance.. and repeat repeat repeat (tug of war with no end)

i still laugh windfury wants to pretend its a secure network when even LN devs have admitted to losing value on it and put up disclaimers


LN is not superior to blockchain security in any way. infact its old tech. there was a reason bitcoin was invented instead of just a hub-spoke peer system of value sharing that LN bases itself on

 

Newbies and my fellow plebs, do you see how frankandbeans plays 4D Chess? It would sort of look like he's right, but the reason why the current month hasn't been recorded in the chart yet is because the month wasn't over the day I posted the link. July's data will be included when the month ends. PLUS it might be true, Lightning Capacity might have gone down by some percentage, but how can that disprove the growth of Lightning year on year since 2018?

frankandbeans, I'll give you a hint = It doesn't.

coin pooling AKA custodians
nothing new.. but there disapears the "independent control" promise. oh wait that promise never arrived

the idea of "factories", oops i mean "coin-pooling" is not a new idea. just a new buzzword for the same thing

gota love the empty promise of "instantly transact" and "withdraw at any time"
hmm yea.. WHEN all partners of channel are online to agree to co-sign multisig

next up
the whole liquidity game.. (for ROUTING)
'sorry folks we cant unlock any multisig value to you. because the value inputted by you, that you think belongs to you is currently outbound to another channel partner as their inbound balance. due to being used for routing.. sorryz'

as for blackhat.. meandering offtopic drama

funny part is you know the quotes. your mentor keeps telling you them.. he was the one along with your fellow clan friends that went crying to gmax telling him they were being harassed.

im surprised you even forgot your mentor notes, its usually the only thing you do tend to remember from this forum

but atleast you can admit you dont like searching for answers and just want people to tell you it.. thus you might need some more time to learn the skills of DYOR

Use links. Use quotes. Use something. I won't attempt to search for anything above, as I consider it trash talk. Your posts lack coherence in paragraphs and barely meet the definition of text. If you want to have an adult conversation, you'll have to minimize your girly crying, and provide substantial context.

It is pretty exciting, although we haven't seen it in practice yet and it sounds. There's also Ark which was proposed more recently, and it's even more exciting.

Good news franknbeans

There's a proposal out for increasing liquidity in LN through pooling funds from multiple users:

CoinPool: efficient off-chain payment pools for Bitcoin


Sounds pretty exciting, no? Perhaps Lightning doesn't need to be scrapped altogether after all. So we don't have to keep making arguments similar to how useless solar power is or how dumb electric cars are, like we are forever stuck in 2009.

You can still start learning. I advise starting with the basics. Layer models are the only way to scale networks like Internet or Bitcoin.

https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/ddos/glossary/open-systems-interconnection-model-osi/

funny observation that you link a chart that IGNORED this last current month.. because.. capacity dropped in the last month by alot (so that just debunks YOUR "year on year" growth, becasue if you include all months of the year, you will see a drop)

if you observe this very topic many long time recruits gave up.. and said so in this very topic too

but hey if you want to promote that LN is THE defacto solution for 19m btc to be used on.. but think 0.0046m btc over 6 years is good.. then i guess your happy to wait another 24782 years to get everyones bitcoins locked up and using LN

you do realise when bitcoin creates 4.6k new bitcoin in just a week and you want to think a weeks bitcoin creation is 'good' capacity for 6 years of a groups empty promises of being THE solution for all bitcoin users.. you know your the one pulling at straws..

and im not surprised that the idiot of the '2.625 religion' is joining the idiots of LN.. you both deserve to scam each other

shhhhhhhhhhhh is oke
just take your medicine
shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


https://twitter.com/lipa_btc/status/1659482757146324994

I'm sorry to disappoint you, frankandbeans. Growth and adoption might be slow, but it definitely hasn't "failed the test of time". Lightning Network Capacity has actually been growing year on year since 2018.

https://bitcoinvisuals.com/ln-capacity

It's still early days, and I personally prefer slow but organic growth than the fast growth we see in many shitcoin networks that crash and burn in one year.

Can't even answer a question. Idiot.

YOUR cult cried to gmaxwell.. look at the events of the months leading up to gmaxwells decisions. it was your mentor and his chums ignorant cries that triggered it

he didnt want YOUR cult crying drama. but sided with the group that kissed his ass and paid him homage even when they are idiots that dont care about bitcoin.. as long as they sing along with the choir songs of the corporate sponsor he will keep them close. he admits he does not like independent review, scrutiny or criticism he wants peaceful calm ass kissing

he admits to not wanting other dev groups operating on bitcoin because he declared he does not have the willingness to review others work. thus wanted only core to rule the protocol. (centralist mindset). he even took his colleague core devs away from this forum due to the scrutiny he did not like them receiving, he called this forum a bad place to discuss cores roadmap

maybe if YOU do some research and learn about bitcoin, blockchains, security and how things work(the politicasl and investments that lead to dev decisions) you wont cry as much nor have to pretend you are being gas lit and burned when someone else is the one inflating you with their gas first

lighting the gas is better then filling you up with gas. try to be enlightened

you can cry all you like about trolls and having your inflated ego burned.. but atleast put some effort into learning the flaws of lightning and who caused it and who is unable to fix the things they have promised for 6 year to fix. but havnt
infact there are more flaws added to lightning in the last two years. so learn when you see new subnetworks in last 2 years grow in more capacity and liquidity than lightning pop up, learn how they came about and why people are choosing those..
short answer.. people have had enough with cores wishful deluded empty promises of future plans and just be patient

just get a drip of yourself and understand that lightning has failed the test of time, its time to move on, ask for something better. ask your gods to do something. (no 'ask' isnt an acronym for ass kiss)
not just kiss their ass, flatter them with compliments while they do other things sponsored by banking institutions, rather than the decentralised bitcoin community they should be taking care of

edit to respond to blackhat(windfury forum-stepdad always coming to windfurys defense when windfury gets burned)
my first 3 paragraphs were answering his question about gmaxwell.. read them it mentions gmaxwells triggers

No? But you merely claimed that Bitcoin "bilaterally split into Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash", right? Therefore making Bitcoin Cash as rightful as having to be considered also Bitcoin? You further said that it's like the "Dollar". There's the U.S. Dollar, the Australian Dollar and the other "Dollars". What was that? Your attempt to make what is considered Bitcoin worth less?


He's gaslighting. It's actually to confuse the newbies reading our debates.

It's so moronic that the forum vote for him as the "anti-hero", giving him recognition. It probably means that a majority of people in BitcoinTalk don't truly have a grasp of basic concepts about Bitcoin or what's happening around it.

Yeah, that's like top tier franky shitpost. So, throughout the years of non-stop whining about what the developers should do, he writes up one morning "I have written my own client". Lol. Nope, I'm not buying that.

I'm feeling deja vu. I do had asked him to give me the code of his client before, because I wanted to read it. Apparently, I can't read it, because it doesn't exist.

I get the annoyance, but that sounds extreme. Dumb people are nonthreatening. Wright and the other pedophile have actually attacked Bitcoin. Astronomical amounts of shitposting don't reach that, because effecting change requires taking action. Merely complaining without purpose won't take you anywhere beyond your couch.

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