Topic: Lightning’s Bitcoin mainnet: the phenomenal growth - page 2. (Read 1037 times)

To clarify, "Amazon" are not accepting payments via Lightning.  Someone has made a third-party plugin for people to use on Amazon's website that will enable Lightning payments to be made.  Amazon are not directly involved at this stage.  It's a small but crucial distinction.

franky1, instead of making us read all that long, confusing dribble, please go straight to the point. Because as far as EVERYONE is concerned, Bitcoin Cash is a contentuous hard fork. Ask Peter Rizen, even he will admit that.

With lightning bitcoin manner we can expect more mass adoption of crypto in the market we can see online and offline merchants accept bitcoin positive news for crypto currency

and then you add in the fact that amazon will now be accepting payments which is pretty huge! I am excited to see what happens over the next couple months

goodnight doomad.
your dream of consensus meaning if users dont like it find another network. shows how little you know about consensus and the thing satoshi solved in 2008
by the way heres another hint. its users finding agreement is called commUNITY not comSLITTY

see you one day when you wake up

I said tell us HOW, not "make a fantasy list of improbable things you'd ideally like to see in Bitcoin".  How would you get the rest of us to run code supporting any of that?  Even if you could convince someone to write code to enforce all four points (and I'm highly doubtful that you ever will), we could all just keep running the code we currently run to completely ignore all your bullshit changes and keep doing all the things we're currently doing to piss you off so much (and it's fun to watch, so I'm personally in no hurry to see it change).  The only way you can have your sad little wishlist is if other users want it.  You need to find people who share your beliefs.  This is what you are incapable of comprehending.  None of your tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy crackpot lunacy changes any of it.  If people on this network wanted the things on your basket-case wishlist, they would run code to enact it.  So you need to find a network where people want what you want.  Clearly that isn't this one.  Now go be a pathetic crybaby loser somewhere else, please.

We're doing Lightning.  Decision made.  You can't stop us.  No one cares if you think it's fair or not.

doomad.. sober up
you keep on thinking that i am writing code and trying to change bitcoin under some big campaign
1. show me code i wrote
2. show me the campaign of numbers you think i dont have enough of

what you try to do is try to suggest i am campaigning an opposition and change of state. when the reality is i am just correcting the misinformation that a certain group spouts out about how they pretend to be a fair open system
now if the brand/team was not core that done the exact same things core did. you would be the first in line to support correcting the mis information. you would be happy that people are pointing out the trojan and consensus bypass methods used to gain control. you would actually be salivating and taking every opportunity to announce how a brand achieved control unethically. but because core done it, you just want people to shut up and not talk about it
you cant counter the stats/code/devs admissions. so all you can do along with windfury, is just keep circling the social drama games of "wrong coz franky said it"

now go try to learn some stats/code/data and stop wasting time on your social games. if you actually started to care about the bitcoin network and not care about a certain brand. your motives and messages would differ compared to your current rhetoric

as for A mthod of a fair consensus. hint not my idea, not me making any campaign, but just informing of what consensus is
1. no mandatory aparthied/segregation pre consensus vote activation ( meaning no faking the vote)
2. require nodes to actually opt-in rather than sheepishly being 'compatible' (meaning no faking the vote)
3. understanding consensus is consent of the majority. meaning there is a majority and a need for majority consent
4. not faking a majority by removing parties pre count

the whole point of bitcoins important solution that was so revolutionary in 2009 was that it invovles uniting parties to an agreed consensus. NOT throwing out parties until all thats left is a smaller group of agreement
thus if a brand wants to change the network rules they need to provide a proposal of new rules that the REAL community can find unity around. without needing to just make up random rules and just push out opposition to force the rule into affect

anyway. here is another hint that will save you circling.
devs ADMIT their actions. they dont need you or windfury to pretend things didnt happen. so you again are wasting your time being a core defense script reader when core dont need you defending them.
so just try to spend more time caring about bitcoin and not a team of devs. and you will start to have a something worthy of spending your time discussing

D'awww, does poor widdle fwanky think someone didn't play nice?  Diddums.

Tell us how you're going to make us meet your definition of "fair" going forwards.  Oh that's right, you can't.  

Bitcoin doesn't acknowledge or recognise whether you think it's fair or not.  Bitcoin is only what the users instruct it to be.  Those users continue to decide with every single block that this is what Bitcoin is.  You've been crying about it for a couple of years now and you can keep crying for a couple more, because you don't have the numbers behind you to make the slightest hint of difference.

1. the community did not decide using a fair commmunity inclusive consensus. actually read some code, speak to devs and look at blockchain data.
before the activation even occured(consensus) core devs had code to disband parts of the community, which they did. they didnt need the community. all they needed was nodes controlled by matt corrola's fibre network to control what blocks the relay network gets. the core devs to change the dns seed node listings to only include certain nodes. and also barry silberts NYA agreement to sway the laggers that were 'compatible' that sticking with cores roadmap would allow them to spend coin. in short it didnt need 10,000-60,000 nodes/community users. the adoption of segwit and the following of core was done with far far far far less involvement of the community and far far more involvement of the group of devs and those siding with the devs.

2. cores mandatory code came first not bitcoin cash. also cores implementation triggered before bitcoin cash. bitcoin cash didnt even make an independent block for themselves for hours AFTER cores mandatory splits kicked in. so it was core striking first not the other way round

3. but seeing as you refuse to look at code/stats/data and only interested in social drama here is some. did you know that bitmain was on the NYA. did you know blockchain.info and bitpay(Rver gets money from) is barry silbert funded and peter rizen works for coindesk(a barry silbert company). thus bitcoin cash was just a false option and fake choice and inevitably a worthless altcoin used just to benefit core for social drama

4. as for you echo chamber response of if not a fan of core people must be team bitcoin cash with your suggestion that im trying to sneak in some bitcoin cash narrative. i have nor ever will be team bitcoin cash. so dont even try playing that game

5 i think its time you stop circling the foolish things being scriptd to you from your buddies. as you not gaining any traction nor supplying or able to supply any counter argument bar "wrong because X persona said it"
just try for once to actually do some research about what actually happened. and try to avoid the social drama rhetoric your buddies inform you of, because its not helping you.

Look at it this way, Roger Ver, with the help of Jihan Wu, and Peter Rizen and some developers did a hard fork, and split from the main chain. What's the consensus on what the main chain and minority chain is?

Some people believe "the real Bitcoin is Bitcoin Cash", because "Satoshi's vision".

Yes.  And it's also a defence of all developers being equal.  Each client survives on its merits.  We currently have a level playing field, but because some people are of the mistaken opinion that one dev team have an advantage, they propose hamstringing that dev team and handing a natural advantage to others.  If effect, creating an imbalance of power.  I'm beginning to suspect that's their goal.  Fortunately, I don't think anyone here is foolish enough to buy into that idea being preferable to what we currently have, though.

It's not a defense on Core. It's the community who came in consensus on what we consider Bitcoin. Unless you are trying to sneak the "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin" narrative again. Because there is no debate there.

not a work of art. even the devs are shouting out the risks. seems maybe you should use it before promoting it.

here is a hint. a company called fold done a pizza campaign recently. 1500 users tried it but only 150 succeeded.
this 150 was not due to issues with fol not following through with pizza or not having balance to pay pizza company. but because LN and its routing system had issues so transactions could not even complete

might be worth you doing some research
lastly LN is not a bitcoin unique feature. many coins can use LN and so its not something that will 'promote bitcoin adoption'
as others have already highlighted . pushing bitcoin fee's up to promote LN, does not help bitcoin. it infact helps promote altcoins to be the onramp in and out of LN

Lightning network really is a work of art and people aren't being appreciative enough of all the hard work that went into it, this is a complete game changer for the bitcoin ecosystem.

There's an age-old adage in the Russian language

Which essentially says that an expert is like a gumboil as his expertise is one-sided only. More specifically, you don't take into account the overall effects and consequences of the expansive LN application in a case like this. It would be like an avalanche or Ebola virus spreading exponentially and bringing fees down to their knees (again). We just need them to rise initially to start off this "resonance cascade" (a tipping point of sorts)

people paying $50 wont
firstly those with fiat wont buy bitcoin to then open a channel to spend bitcoin. because its gonna cost them $50-$250 to set up LN(50 for one channel but upto $250 for multiple channels to have a somewhat modicum chance of payment route success)

people end up just ignoring bitcoin entirely and noticing they can use the same LN system but with litecoin or other coins for much cheaper.

infact people will start to think crypto in general should be avoided if it starts costing foolish amounts just to use it

I know what we need in order to push through

We just need the repetition of the dire situation which happened by the end of 2017 with people having to pay insane fees like 50 dollars per transaction. As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention, and if we live up to that (again), people will quickly find LN quite useful and convenient which they refuse to do now simply because most are lazy and don't mind paying a little more at the moment (but 50 dollars would be over the edge, of course)

Somewhat agree. It's not worth as much as it appears, that's something I can agree on. But it's not worth nothing. Bitcoin started from one node, and even when it grew ten times, it was probably 10 nodes that all at least knew each other, if not belonging to the same entity.

I know also that if I wanted to go online and look for LN-enabled services, I would be hardly spoilt for choice. So other than people carrying the torch and doing their best to push the numbers, actual stuff I could reliably use LN for still isn't here yet... but the point is, for someone like me, I didn't even think we'd get this far at this point of time.

Well, we can't say that for sure

As there are no stats revealing if all or most of these payment channels are actually used for transacting and to what degree. Not to sound like a wet blanket or whatever, but at least some of these channels may be people just testing the waters. So unless we get solid data on real use of Lightning Network for value transfer (i.e. how much money actually gets sent via LN), the sheer number of active nodes and open payment channels doesn't tell us much on its own (this has been a matter of debate before)


That proves the point

worth noting yet again
one group LGBIG have 42 nodes that have ~500 channels and 30btc capacity each
meaning if all LGBIG nodes wre online.. alone they would account for

~2100 channels
~1260 capacity
(yes i know they are not all online at the same time, but it just puts it into prospective how one group is sybilling the numbers)