Topic: LN: Bitcoin could theoretically scale beyond VISA. (Read 755 times)

bitcoin has already proved to the whole world about its capabilities! with every day, more people are being turned to this new payment system! the cost is very cheap. Perhaps over time it will reach the cost of a visa. But bitcoin has even more advantages among traditional payment systems.

Although initially I was skeptical about their effectiveness, but over time they proved me wrong and made a lot of progress. On the occasion that we did not do a wonder like this, at that time We will not be able to compete in practice with big traders, for example, visas, paypal, and so on.

um. you might want to read it again. its from the prospective of the users.
the argument for not increasing the block size is that users computers wont be able to cope with processing and sending data out. becasue upload speeds are bad (they lost the download speed argumnt years ago, which is why they retracked and now have this 4mb weight(yet not allow it to be 4x capacity) .. (netflix argument)

read again. its not about just users VIEWING netflix. its users LIVESTREAMING. meaning their computer taking 32-64 HD webcam images a second,  and sending them out.

these days hundreds of millions of people can play a game on their computer. sending all the player position, angles facing. gun height direction and bullet timing OUT. while also talking to their friends on teamspeak or skype.(voice data OUT) while having a webcam on so they can overlay their facial reactions ontop the gameplay and have that sent OUT to livestream, twitch or youtube..

think about all the data being processed every second for all the vector positions of gaming. the overlaying of webcam footage and overlaying of groupcalls to a seamless constant stream of data to twitch. aswell as simultaniously sending out parts of that data as individual streams to skype to EA..

now go tell twitch that their service does not work because users cannot send out megabits/second for twitch to receive. oh wait, people can send out many mbyte/10min

1mbit/s = 1*60*10 /8 = 75mbyte/10min
.. i know i can feel you itching to press the reply button to rebut about developing countries being slow and also relaying out data to multiple node= multiplying the data amount. also many dveloping countries have nver been in the nod running requirment because their internet is cellular. which no matter what speed their internet is. core is not functional as a full node on a cellular (programming issue not speed issue) and also the tx fee surpassed 1c a tx. thus rulling out good utility for developing countries.

but if you take time to check the stats we are in the era of fibre and 5g cellular. not adsl copper wire and 2g cellular

global average
http://www.speedtest.net/global-index
46down 22 up
22mbit/s up = 22*60*10/8 = 1.6gbyte/10min .. or the average node with 8 connctions = 200mbyte per 10mins

i mentioned the economics. a fair system would be slow but cheap or faster but expensive. that way it becomes obvious that people gt a good freedom of choice. but if onchain is slow and expensive.. who would use it.. (and thats the commercial game plan)
as for staying online.. do you sleep?.. again instead of fixing an issue to not need to worry about staying online. they decide to invent factoris and third party managers. (and thats the commercial game plan)

do you ever question how the bitcoin devs like rusty russel, gmax.lukejr, sipa. were suppose to repay back the over $100m investment they got.
ofcourse they dont want bitcoin to remain a cheap fast option thats better than fiat. they want people to move their coin into commercial services like LN so investors can get fee's. and have the funds cycle round in those factories without exiting so they can get repeat fee's long term

if you ever get the chance to listen into communications between the big players. you would be shocked at their ignorance of care towards normal community(users) and their passions for pleasing investors/corporations. it truly is an awakening

schnorr is being mis-sold as a witness size reduction. .. but it only benefits those using multisig and segwit transaction formats.. not a benefit to bitcoin onchain legacy transaction users. and its size rduction is not that much.. the hidden utility is that it hides how many parties are in th multisig.. which is a security risk for those thinking one thing.. but under the hood its another.
imagine thinking its a 50-50 cosign.. then realise its a 2-3 multiparty where your signatur is not actually needed. and their was a hidden 3rd party managr (or your counter party with 2 keys), you would not know

the point is convenience at a cost of loss of independance and reduction of security is something we should not advocat for.
all this stuff like LN.. people lose funds for speed. (i have only highlighted a couple of ways out of dozens more that people can take funds)
segwit to allow third part monitoring because txID's cant change thus third party can monitor
all this stuff like schnorr for witness size reduction, by not revealing who signed what
all weaken the security and trust of bitcoin and loses whole point/ethos of blockchain security/trust.

all this 'convenience' stuff is just turning people into using fiatesq services. at the cost of making bitcoin onchain unattractive to use.
bitcoins onchain ethos was to not be fiatesq but to offer something better than fiat. things seem to b going backwards.

do you realise there are even new opcodes which do not even sign the amounts into a tx. so that usrs can edit the amounts at the last minute to adjust for tx fee's (or take the whole lot) without needing a new signature from the 2 parties to revalidate the new who deserves what.
oh and guess what. these new opcodes actually re-introduce malleability..
so it reveals segwit was not about malleability. it was about allowing other things in. and ahve managers, co parties etc all of which make sending a transaction more risky.
but all peopl care about is 'faster/cheaper).. which could have been solved years ago without security risks by not stifling onchain innovation

normal people wont know how to read a raw transaction. nor will they know what they are signing. infact users wont even know they are signing for something as it will be on 'autopiliot' (but maliciaous parties can tweak their node to their favour)

bitcoins original vision of self control 100% push to anyone you want without barriers. and all the other ethoses that made blockchain and bitcoin tech so revolutionary. has been stifled/limited/twisted for commercial gain

schnorr wouldnt make LN faster. but would open more malicious loop holes to allow people to steal funds.
as for bitcoins mainnet.
segwit has a 2x capacity and about 2.1mb size(IF EVERYONE used segwit and NO ONE used legacy)
segwit+schnorr has a 2x capacity and ATLEAST 1.5mb-2mb size(IF EVERYONE used segwit and NO ONE used legacy)

core devs set the 'weight' as more because other scripts wil be added later to bloat up the witness area as these scripts do need 3x data compared to the basic in/outamount part of a tx

And then he gives the solution. The most basic was staying online, but with segwit it was no longer needed as another person could monitor your channel and potentially earn some money if the other party decides to close it early to steal the coins. Since we have segwit now I think it's all fine and dandy. Also, if you don't trust the system you can always use the old fashioned way of sending the coins, without LN. LN is great for those payments that are small and thus have to be cheap and fast, like paying for a meal.



So you want schnorr and not LN... Did anybody even make an estimation of how much faster and cheaper would the network become with it? AFAIK it could be implemented along LN, so we might see it one day too.  

as for the economics of offchain vs onchain..
usually convenient fast services has a premium higher price and the slower system has a lower price. allowing a fair trade off of speed vs saving.
unless your trying to kill off the slower old system, by making it as unattractive as possible

core devs have made onchain both slower(limiting onchain scaling) and more expensive. thus de-incentivising people from wanting to return to bitcoins mainnet. then along with factories with their extented locks beyond the channel locks. keeps people in LN for longer.

again think about the old 19th century banks..saying:
gold is heavy.. hand it over and PLAY with these receipts which are not 100% your because it needs the signature and verification of the bank manager.
how many people actually cashed in thir paper receipts(bank notes) for gold

but there are flaws. one side can use to steal from the other. so its not a fair 50-50
also even as far back as 2016 they were talking about due to the issue about needing to be online to ensure the other party doesnt mess around. they already envisioned third party managers.
here is andreas talking about it i skipped to the important part where he starts talking about the latst concept
https://youtu.be/wqbQJ82Hf0s?t=1m37s
1:37-3:00
this was him using a LN flaw about unfair stealing... and advertising that thirdparty managers will be needed.. as a way to try selling why segwit was needed.
you start to see them admit flaws in one concept to advertise another concept.
learn factories. as thats the latest bit about keeping funds from broadcasting when channels close and also third part managing chanels.
oh and one fun fact.. schnorrs concept is to hide WHO signs what and hide if its a 2-2 or a 2-3 multisig. meaning that when you open a channel you will know even less about the channel partner and manager and not realise that if partner and manager hve 2 keys. they can over rule you.
you wont know who signed it. and wont be able to prove you did not agree. because of how schnorr hides all that validation signature stuff into one 'witness'

It's still a better situation then with an escrow, wher a third party has total control and has to be trusted by both sides, yet people are trusting escrows and don't see them as a threat, but rather as a useful service.
If I don't have 50% control and the other party has the same, neither of us can steal the money. We have to come to an agreement. I'd say that's a fair system, much safer than the one we're stuck in now with our fiat money.

I don't know why this thread turned to be a pro/anti LN discussion  

you ar the one saying 100%.. and guess what.. if you read the post.. i was telling you that YOU DO NOT HAVE 100% CONTROL even BEFORE they are spent.
maybe next time i should reqest you read it 5 times. have a break to let it sink in and thn rad it 2 more times again. as it seems your not comprehending. even when i did highlight it to make it even easier for you

oh and you highlight more. even when you PLAY with your txB and chang amounts ovr to your partner.. guss what. they do not have 100% control of the funds after spending either.
its a co-managed / co-sign system.. NO ONE HAS 100% control

This is hilarious!  In what world do you live in where you could possibly arrive at the conclusion that having 100% control of your funds means you continue to retain control of the funds AFTER you've spent them and they're not yours anymore?  Why would anyone design a system that worked that way? 

Comedy gold!  You literally have no clue!  

But keep going, please.  This is amazing.

Core cannot decide when to hardfork. Even if all main Core devs agreed, you would still have many opposing forces with many bitcoins at stake to crush your hardfork attempts. If all it took to hardfork was Core (as in the main devs) meeting with some exchanges and miners Bitcoin would be centralized. They know it's not that easy so they don't want to pull a clusterfuck which would end up in 2 competing coins.


The TRB software by MP and co for instance, have their own funding and don't depend on Core. Other implementations here:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.38298585


Ehh.. all of your examples are centralized databases.


The Bitcoin mempool is pretty much empty right now, but again, the problem is getting everyone on board, and there are many people with many resources that are not part of Core and are not part of wanting a blocksize increase. You need to unite everyone or you end up in a clusterfuck, this is why I say there may never be a hardfork, but just attempts which result in a mess.

read it 3 times.. go on read it 3 times
this was me saying how based on what i feel is YOUR 2016 limited idea.. where > > YOU < < think the person retains 100% control .. then i could buy 3000 coffee's and keep the 1btc

i highlightd it..
remember it was you that said you have 100% control of the funds
for two years my pretense is that users do not have 100%.. that they actually are co managed. like having a bank account
the black bold/underlined was me explaining where i think YOU are stuck...
the green is me arguing the opposite
so if you think you kep 100% control.. its actually you that needs to prove you can buy coffe and keep control of the funds to get the 1btc

i even went into the depths of showing that even when you get to PLAY with the AMOUNTS of a tx. you are not 100% in control as it requirs 2 signatures. you cannot solo sign the tx YOU PLAY with.

i am not going to insult you im going to just do what i done before. ask you to do som research, learn LN, learn factories, update yourself on the concepts and run some scenarios.

oh.. and rusty russel has pointed out many many flaws.
what i have found out is the bitcoin community(users not devs) are very quick on reddit and this forum to scream out utopiam positives. but dont actually understand LN.
hense why i need to pull them back into reality by rvealing the flaws

there are already thousands of utopian optomists. echo chambering themselves and so there does actually need to be a few people out thir to not be ass kissers who are not afraid to mention the faults.

I believe that bitcoin will not be able to do more payment processing per second as VISA/ I know OTHER cryptocurrencies that can exceed the processing of payments than Visa & Master combined. In my coins are called TRX (Tron)

As far as I know nobody will be required to use the Lightning Network (just as it is not required to use Segwit), whoever thinks it will use it. The interesting thing is that there are many critiques to the development of LN, and we have hundreds of currencies at disposal, those who are not satisfied with the solutions presented can use one of these options.

In my opinion if LN can deliver what it promises will extinguish about 95% of the altcoins, it will be a true watershed.

*sigh*

I suppose I asked for this by trying to be reasonable and giving you the benefit of the doubt.  I gave you an inch and you took a mile, or several miles, even.  Won't make that mistake again.  It's zero-tolerance for franky1 bullshit from here on in.  

---

Quoting this for posterity just so you can't go back and edit it later.  I literally... can't... even... words fail me.  Wow.  Best "scenario" yet.

---

I've got a scenario for you to run.  If LN really is as horrendous as you make it out to be, no one in their right mind would use it.  As you point out, it will be cheaper, more convenient and more secure to use altcoins if what you're saying is true.  So why would so many independent developers now be working on this concept if it was obvious that we'd be handing BTC's #1 position in the market on a plate to some other coin?  Why would they dedicate their time, knowledge and expertise to making BTC worse?  Why would so many people, including all the ones who are clearly far more knowledgeable about this than you are (which is basically ALL OF THEM), be enthusiastic about the potential for this technology if they thought even for a split-second that you were right about any of this?  Maybe the scenario you need to run is the one where you've turned into a conspiracy theorist who has isolated himself to the point where no one takes him seriously anymore.

More to the point, why am I even dignifying your "scenarios" by calling them that?  I can make up a crazy story that isn't possible in the real world and then call it a scenario.  Doesn't mean it could actually happen, though.  Stop running hypothetical what-ifs from la-la land that clearly wouldn't play out like that in practice.  Give us proof.  Go ahead and buy 3000 coffees and somehow manage to keep your BTC.  Show us that's possible.  I would love to see how that works out for you.

another thing.. moving forward to 2018 concepts. when you learn factories. these are also multisig. so your funds are even less your control.
yes yo can play with amounts. but you need other people to sign them.

..

now all thats said.
im going to presume that you will say that locks wont be a month long for just the channels.
well knowing the 100 node image scenario i providd you the other day. 4 channels per node is still iffy even for just a village of 100 population.
the average is suggested 4-8 nodes for 100 node network and 14 channels for a 1000 node network. and ven mor channels for more population to be reliable.. (under an old hop decentralised network without factories/bank hubs)

now real life thinking. are you going to make lets say 4 channels and make 4 onchain tx's to fund them channels knowing it will be 4 settlemnt onchan tx at the end (8 onchain transactions) for just a couple days of spendiing.
think about it

real stats
visa card users only do 42tx a month (~1.5tx a day) each
so will you open these 4 channels for a reliableish routes around your small village with only a 4 day lock knowing you will only on average spend your funds 6 times.

nope.
you end up thinking with the time wasted setting it up and ultimatly having 8 onchain tx's just for 6 coffee's not benficial.. so you end up planning out a month lock in.. (devs say 3-6 months.. but the reality is no one can preplan beyond a few weeks to 1 month.. so lets go with a month)
which if advantagious that LN has saved you funds. you woul put funds back in..
(this uis undr the 2016 concept)

..
now move on to the 2018 concept of factories. to not have the hassle of redistributing factory funds(which would have been settle onchain but now just curculatd through factories) you will keep your channels at a month. and then to secure the factory the factory tx would need to be longer then a multiple of months... other thing to note. is that instead of a month of just coffe you put in all your salary.. or atleast alot mor thn just coffee

now look at real life
the early 19th century with the gold scenario.
putting gold into (banks)'factories' and then they give you bonds. and you use those bonds with local bank branches and then play around with local bank branch notes.. yep many banks had their own design of bank notes.

how often do you think people ended up getting their gold out of the vaults...

last point
i would not have had to make such long posts. if you ran some scenarios to have seen the issues for yourself.

now to add onto that. now you know although you play with a separate tx. BOTH need to sign it.

ill add another point where YOU lose even more control

you also have to provide me with a temporary address and i provide you with a temporary address
so now your PLAY tx is like this
payment 1
bc1qLNchannelfranky1DoomadB 1btc
out
1blockchainfranky1address 0btc
BC1qDooMadaddresstemp1 1btc confirm maturity 432blocks


the maturity lock means after a month lock. if you broadcast payment 1. it will confirm, but YOU cannot spend the temp1 funds for a further 432 confirms (like mining pools cant spend fresh minned coins for 100 confirms.. but this example maturity is 432confirms(3 days))
anyway lets step back intime back to the month lock where paymnt 1 has not been broadcast.

if there is a payment 2. you give me the private key of temp1 address when we make payment 2 offchain thus making it not an advantage to send payment 1
now.. next flaw

imagine we are making payment 2. and as this is all offchain. i have tweaked my node to request you sign my payment 2 first.
you sign my payment two. (i have yet to send you my paymnt 1 temp1 privkey

and i refuse to sign your payment 2 unless you give the private key of payment 1. as there is no way i wil trust that payment 1 is dis-advantaged to then be confident to sign payment 2.
you send temp1 private key.. but i have NOT send you MY temp1 privkey.. and not sent you the sig for your payment 2.

i then.. because its all offchain theres no way to stop me.. i continue to refuse to sign your half of payment 2
the only valid payment you can spend is your payment 1. so if you send payment 1. the only paymnt you have thats valid...

guess what. i can spend your temp1 funds within those 3 days
as this is the revoke punishment.

anyway. lets simply talk about the channel partnership (old 2016 concept.. which is where i think your stuck in).
imagine if i deposited 1btc into a channel direct. and i retained 100% control of that. when i buy a coffee... star bucks needs some security that it will get those funds.
guess what. starbucks gets control of the original 1btc...
this is the chargeback.. (oops i said a dirty word...) .. i mean revoke punishment
think about it. if i always had 100% control of the input from the blockchain of 1btc(utxo). and starbucks never had control of that 1btc blockchain UTXO
i could buy 3000 coffee's and then broadcast my UTXO as if its a a standard tx thus get my coffee and kep my 1btc.

now here is a big hint. smart contract.. emphasis .. contract.
contracts are multiparty

things have moved on from the glosy promsise adverts you may have read. i think its time you go and use it or atleast run some scenarios

i think your maybe still reading old whitepapers from ~2016 which was before revokes were even coded. yea they may have ben mentioned by from reading what you perceive as what concept version you understand. it seems your about 2 years behind
..
p.s
i have said for a small niche LN has uses. but its not
a sole solution for bitcoin.
a feature just for bitcoin to make bitcoin great again
a scaling solution. (even rusty russel admits LN cant scale)
again because its not a feature jsut for bitcoin. its not a scaling solution for bitcoin
not a decentralised system to avoid servers(banks2.0)

its a separate network. for many coins. where funds are locked up. and yes servers will be king (re read first paragraph about the mobile wale/lightwallet requirements)

i may have facepalmed your comments a few times. but i have also asked you to do something positive. which is to learn LN by running scenarios..
if i passed our comments onto a language analyst you will see that i have been more civilised.
i have shown examples. i have highlighted issues.
it has been you that has evaded running scenarios or actually explain chennels, factories, how funds move, how revokes work.
you have just replied with insults.

anyway. let me step back 2 years. back to the concept you understand
lets imagine users had 100% control
in: 1blockchainfranky1address 1btc -> out bc1qLNnodefranky1 1btc lock:4032blocks(1month)
in: 1blockchainDooMadaddress 1btc -> out bc1qLNnodelDooMad 1btc lock:4032blocks(1month)

you have no control of my funds.. but.. for 1 month i dont have control of my funds..
now heres where the 2015 concept fell apart.
lets stop at this point. thers no point describing the concept of smart contracts. as we have hit the first flaw before we even gt to that part
firstly
whats stopping me using my node funds on separate channels
EG pretending i offchain am putting my
in:
bc1qLNnodefranky1 1btc
out
1blockchainfranky1address 0.5btc
1blockchainDooMadaddress 0.5btc

but secretly i done this with someone else
in:
bc1qLNnodefranky1 1btc
out
1blockchainfranky1address 0.5btc
1blockchainJANECafeaddress 0.5btc

solution. ONCHAIN you need to fund a co-signed address.
so lets move back to bfore setting up .. but moved to nwer concept from the 2015 concept heres how it looks early 2016
bc1qLNnodefranky1 + bc1qLNnodeDooMad = bc1qLNchannelfranky1DoomadA
bc1qLNnodeDooMad + bc1qLNnodefranky1 = bc1qLNchannelfranky1DoomadB

ONCHAIN
i send 1blockchainfranky1address 1btc -> out bc1qLNchannelfranky1DoomadA 1btc lock:4032blocks(1month)
you send 1blockchainDooMadaddress 1btc -> out bc1qLNchannelfranky1DoomadB 1btc lock:4032blocks(1month)
the lock prevents it even getting into a block for a month

now i cannot use funds with jane offchain. because the funds are locked between me and you. and we need to co-sign
i know what your thinking. that we have separate transactions. your right.
i PLAY with A
in
bc1qLNchannelfranky1DoomadA 1btc
out
1blockchainfranky1address 1.0btc
1blockchainDooMadaddress 0btc


you PLAY with B
in
bc1qLNchannelfranky1DoomadB 1btc
out
1blockchainfranky1address 0btc
1blockchainDooMadaddress 1btc


now heres the flaw in your thinking.. PLAY does not mean full control
although you get to PLAY with the AMOUNTS of B.. guess what we both need to SIGN B
again for emphasis

although i PLAY with A and you PLAY with B..  we both need to sign A and both need to sign B

learn factories. hint.
a factory (multisig) receives blockchain confirmed funds.
a multisig locks those funds. and the group agree which nodes get which amount.
channels are open using a OFF CHAIN tx from the factory
when you close the channel its not broadcast to the blockchain. its 'out' is back to the factory whereby the factory updates the lock and thn re sends the funds out to agred channels

this concept is so that users dont need to run full bitcoin core nodes to check the blockchain when setting up a channel/closing a channel. they can just check (and trust) the factory. thus allow users to use phone apps to pay for coffee instead of having to
take their laptops into starbucks to pay for coffee and check the blockchain using their full node..

so. channels will not be a "you have 100% control of your funds"..
LN wont be a no locks thing..
your funds are locked. not just by a channel. but also by an outer ring (factory)

yes the latest concept is to not need to broadcast back to the blockchain. but to cycle funds back to a factory. and the only way to do that is to extend the locks of a factory beyond the locks of a channel so that people cant easily exit the factory.