Topic: Lightning’s Bitcoin mainnet: the phenomenal growth (Read 1036 times)

you used his words. but you didnt even include a screen shot of full context conversation. he could be calling your answers the gibberish nonsense. the fact that you wrote something which is just basically saying he replied to you has no proof about the question you were trying to counter.
also if you read code, check block data and stats. you will see the clear truth. i know you love your social drama. but try to learn something about bitcoin and LN

Plus franky1, when the man you quoted to claim that he has posted something and meant it one way, has said that what you made it mean like, is gibberish and that it wasn't what he was saying, then we should believe the man, not you.

That was disingenuous of you to use his words to trick us.

I saw reference to the Bitcoin-ABC client in pull 10982 with a post from deadalnix saying that they would be rolling out a new magic, so I naturally assumed it hadn't been done when the BCH fork was announced.  I understood that 2x was the main reason for that pull request, though.

Believe what you like, but whatever misinformation, techno-babble, gaslighting dribble you repeat, there are no "IOU pegged promises to pay tokens" in Lightning. They are signed transactions by both participants of the channel that haven't been broadcasted and included in a block on-chain yet.

An IOU is something issued. There are no such issuance in Lightning. But newbies, listen to franky1, and welcome to your long hard Bitcoin journey.

uh? I can't figure out what you're talking about here. No changes were made to Bitcoin due to BCH.  BCH went from secret to done very quickly-- in something like two weeks? it wouldn't have even been possible to do much of anything in response in the available timeframe.

Maybe you're thinking of segwit2x?  We did add some code to more aggressively disconnect peers with incompatible consensus rules to reduce the risk that bitcoin nodes would end up partitioned by s2x nodes pretending to be Bitcoin nodes esp in the event that S2X never got any blocks (which was, in fact, what happened).

Sorry, I am a newbie. Is that same Lighting network that has been launched on Amazon? if so - awesome, guys!

wind fury did not even get greg to counter the whole controversial split debate about segwit (gateway format for LN thus ontopic)which windfury said he was gonna message greg about.
greg just waffled about other stuff to do with bitcoin cash(unrelated to segwit or LN or bitcoin)
thus windfury failed

just getting greg to reply, even when his reply didnt even talk about the issue. makes gregs reply meaningless
so trying to just use the fact that greg bothered to reply is not proof in itself. its just another meaningless meander offtopic

secondly to address your flip flop about it. there was a 3 trick game at play.

you incessant attempts to first say everyone loved core, yet stats showed only 35% agrement in spring 2017
you incessant attempts to first say there was no controversy.
you incessantly say that core devs didnt write code and how it magically wrote itself and users magically just had it
you incessantly said how core are free to write whatever they like and activate what they like without permission

you incessantly attempt to say there was only one person opposition it (yea you kept acting as if im the only opposer)
you then incessantly said how its not a vote, not a consensus(more no permission waffle).
you then incessantly said how it needed users to opt-in(flopping about just the bip148 part)
you then incessantly said how its not an opt in due to compatibility.
you then incessantly said how its ok for users to ban nodes

and now you cannot deny that core fans and core devs wanted the mandatory activation first. you not even gonna counter that. but talk instead about stuff gmaxwell did not even mention (who struck first)

seriously. stop with the social meanders and flip flops. spend more time learning about bitcoin and LN

P.S need you forget your own excitement about how core devs wanted to force nodes of service bit 6 and 8 off the network BEFORE segwit even activated. or will you now flop and deny that trick tactic was used too

now can you pair of meanders go do some research.
i was talking about LN and its issues until doomad asked for proof how core devs were causing issues for bitcoin.
which doomad has been incessantly trying to make the topic about since. to avoid negative LN conversation.
windfury wanted to meander about bitcoin cash social drama.. again as an attempt to avoid talking about LN flaws
seriously you both lack the basic knowledge of LN and i see no point why you both even bother talking in LN topics.
how about instead try learning it first before replying

You asked for words from developers and that's exactly what you got.  You then claimed the developer was wrong, but the only reason you could possibly thing Gregory Maxwell is wrong in what he said is if you lack the technical understanding to comprehend his words.  You clearly aren't in any position to comment if you cant understand why he's right.  BCH definitely changed their network magic to avoid tangling with the BTC chain, but that didn't happen right away.  Read the code.  

And if you're still banging on about UASF, that code was forked from Core's repository and may have shared some contributors with Core, but UASF is not an official Core build.  That's why it has its own repo.  As I've pointed out to you in no uncertain terms on multiple occasions.  I know that doesn't fit with your pathological need to blame Core for everything, so I'm sorry that reality can't be more accommodating for you.

while the social dramatists continue thier meanders
core devs announced a segwit mandatory controversial split in march, the announcement set the date for august first

as for bitcoin cash. well that was announced way later..
anyway i can see the foolish tactic doomad and windfury are doing to detail the topic so far by getting people to not take about LN flaws.. but thats windfury and doomad failure

may they finally stop wasting time with their social drama meanders and instead learn about bitcoin and LN.
there is no need for them to reply about arguing why they shouldnt have to learn.
there is no need for them to reply about arguing why they shouldnt have to understand LN/bitcoin
there is no need for them to reply about arguing about me

all they should do is learn about a topic they want to reply about, use actual details stats, cod related to the topic. and if they want to meander off topic, they should just avoid the reply button altogether. if they dont like other people. they can hit the ignore button

---

reigning the topic back ontopic, yet again

LN does NOT require tethering to a blockchain. (research thor turbo)
the tokens in LN are not recognised by blockchain networks (research msats)
there is no community consensus so 2 private parties can make private malicious agreements(fractional reserves)
HTLC's dont settle funds they're just temporary agreements of who OWES who what, meaning iou (research CLTV vs htlc)

once you learn the flaws of LN. you start to see the stats of 'LN's growth' are not real or accurate. as shown by proving that LNBig and bitrefill done alot of sybil noding/channeling to fudge numbers

Indeed.  BCH had to make a few important changes.  First and foremost was updating their network magic, so that they would not be following the BTC chain, then they needed the EDA to compensate for the lower-than-anticipated hashrate their chain had. 

Either way, it takes two to tango.  But I'd personally still argue that BCH announced their fork prior to agreeing to change their network magic, which is why Core responded by implementing the code they did.

though ur digressing the topic to be about bitcoin cash. because you cant counter argue LN. nor counter segwit activation (gateway to ln thus related to topic)

1. segwits mandatory bip came first. gmax does not counter that... he just tries to talk about unrelated bitcoin cash stuff. not answering who triggered the actual mandatory bilateral/controversial split. thus even he cant counter who instigated pushing segwit into activation via the consensus bypass (controversial fork/bilateral split)

2. funny thing is gmaxwells meander that does not addrss the consensus bypass part. talks about how bitcoin cash had to change something which then made it then unable to do PoW... hmm... yet bitcoin cash, last time i checked still does PoW, and from what i can see the history still exists. so i guess gmax is wrong.. again the blockchain data of bitcoin cash shows they still do PoW and still have block history.

again this is where you need to do your own independant research and stop trying to get info from your echo chamber
you have not proved a controversial split didnt happen. you have not proved that cores segwit didnt trigger a controversial split first. you have no proven anything. all you have done is side step the issues, not provided a counter and just opened up another meander.

now please go back to basics of learning the topic and actually provide data, stats, code and such to back up the topic

but while we are on your unrelated meander. to just put it to bed lets address a point. increasing the blocksize by saying 'anything under 4mb is acceptable' 'anything under 8mb is acceptable' means 1mb is acceptable and does not make history disappear.
however code such as luke JR's 300kb blocks of only accept 300kb would risk killing off all historic blocks 301kb+ if not coded a correct way

---

anyway. unless you want to talk about LN try not to reply to this topic. but if you do, atleast show you done some research

LN does NOT require tethering to a blockchain. (research thor turbo)
the tokens in LN are not recognised by blockchain networks (research msats)
there is no community consensus so 2 private parties can make private malicious agreements(fractional reserves)
HTLC's dont settle funds they're just temporary agreements of who OWES who what, meaning iou (research CLTV vs htlc)

once you learn the flaws of LN. you start to see the stats of 'LN's growth' are not real or accurate. as shown by proving that LNBig and bitrefill done alot of sybil noding/channeling to fudge numbers

Whatever you say franky1.

Moving on.

On the topic of your "Bitcoin bilateral split" comment, Greg Maxwell replied, but I was disappointed he didn't post his reply in the topic. But he said what you said is "gibberish", and to quote the man,

Msats are a token that exists within LN and only LN... bitcoins network does not recognise masts.
if you even tried to broadcast a LN htlc to the bitcoin network, it would not relay, it would not enter mempool and it would not get added to a block to confirm.
LN htlc's are not balances of actual bitcoins. bitcoins never leave the bitcoin network
if you cant understand that then you will never understand the pegging that occurs. and you will just circle around in your own absance of information like someone sticking head in the sand. which is why i keep saying to learn about this stuff so you dont just keep this whole circular empty thought you keep having.
for your own benefit, learn this stuff


as for the IOU. again because its not real btc because its not even guaranteed that a HTLC will convert to a blockchain CLTV and because theres no guarantee that the bitcoin CLTV will unlock to settle out in the amounts alloted in comparison to the HTLC.. the HTLC is not a final guaranteed settled fund. its just a agreement of who owes who what. thus iou agreement

lastly i was not the one that was "only miners should run full nodes".
my words were
the importance for average joe that only needs to check 1tx a day/month compared to a retailer/business or pool. means that
catering full nodes should be more aimed at those that actually need to be full nodes the most. such as businsses, rgular spenders and pools.

the fact that most average joe users are not technical and not interested in whats good or bad code, they would run 'compatible nodes' just because of lame reasons
if they have internet issues and are not in actual need to validate transactions regularly, they would benefit themselves from running lite wallets
the fact that with most average joe who does have limited internet they are not actually helping the network by throttling up 100+ connections. they can easily benefit their own phone bill and also the data transfer rate to other peers by only connecting to 1-3 nodes if they stayed running a full node.

trying to have bitcoins network on the whole stifled and deburdened of utility purely with the lame mindset that bitcoin should remain at low capacity for the odd small user that doesnt NEED to be a full node. it displaces, annoys and hurts the many businesses, users and pools that could take advantage of a better utility/capacity network thats not stifled.

its much the same argument as saying EA games should not release HD online shoot-em-ups because some users are on dial up. but then promote another company to handle HD games and then try to sway the majority of the community to deburden themselves of using EA games

This is great as the transaction cost is reduced and will encourage people to accept it more.

You act like you know more, but you tell us there are issued "IOU pegged promises to pay tokens" in Lightning. There are none.

Were you also with the "only miners should run full nodes" camp?


Before we debate, let's first ask Greg Maxwell to clear that up. I will PM him. Plus I brought up Bitcoin Cash as an example of a contentious split from Bitcoin, and it will always be brought up again.

LN's over promises were that it meant to be more private than what blockchain coins are. so if there are stats available for LN, it shows LN is not as private as thought. i kinda laugh that 1ML shows the country and IP addresses of nodes. it is funny

also, because HTLC's are not actually tethered to blockchain coins via any fixd network punishable rule. people can open HTLC and have an agreement with a counterpart without the tether. infact as thor turbo proves and even some other scenarios prove, that the numbers of balance can be faked

infact recently i done a private scenario with a friend. i set the funding as a pair of shoes(sneakers) where by he agreed a value $60(denoted as millisats of btc(1100000000msat)) so we made a HTLC of $30(550000000msat) each and we set it so that balance would be left open to be used for others to route(we would not spend for personal use) and whichever directions routes went, when all balance leaned to one side, that party gets to own the shoes.

yep no tethered bitcoin blockchain tx, yep routes actually went through us and yep who owes what changed. yet the agreed 'settlement' was a pair of shoes not btc even though the 'value' in the HTLC supposedly represented btc

Totally agree with this point

It is like someone claiming that a famous sports car manufacturer (think Lambo here) started to sell its cars for crypto, while in reality it is only some obscure car dealer offering a cryptopayment option to their buyers (in order to get some free publicity and advertising). Looks like pretty much the same as with this "Amazon"

And while we are at it, does anyone know a resource which gives stats about real use of payment channels, i.e. not their number or the number of active nodes like what 1ML does but how many bitcoins that they have actually pushed through? I've seen a site where they offered such stats for a fee, but I'm not sure how legit they are (and whether it is possible to track this number at all)

instead of even replying. how about
learn about bitcoin
learn about LN
reply using code, dev quotes, data, stats. and not just social drama about people that are not writing bitcoin protocol rules

P.S the event of august 1st which gregmaxwell calls a bilateral split (2 sides split) was a contentious fork event. but remember the data found on the blockchain shows it was core devs code that triggered the event. as for mentioning bitcoin cash. thats just you trying to meander the topic away from talking about bitcoin and LN. because you still dont have the knowledge of bitcoin and LN to talk about it.

your more then welcome to reply about bitcoin and LN but atleast keep it in context by actually including code, data, stats that can actually back your assumptions. without your replies just sounding like "x because y said it"

but to again jump back to your meander. cores segwit was also contentious. both sides split below a majority threshold

lightning network is still in the testing phase, more development is lacking for its implementation in commerce, but it is quite positive that the network is growing