Topic: LN: Bitcoin could theoretically scale beyond VISA. - page 4. (Read 755 times)

And that was my Point, as the title of this topic subliminally implied it was,
by failing to mention the Offchain alternatives which are already working without LN's limitations.

Your level of ignorance is beyond my time to try and educate, so I will leave you to it for it to extract it's own penalty upon you.

Another apt demonstration you haven't got the slightest clue how it works.  You both have keys, that's the entire point.  You are equals in this scenario, the other person in the channel doesn't have more power over you than you have over them.

---

Congratulations, that description encapsulates every single cryptocurrency and all on-chain transactions too.  If it applies to LN, it also applies to literally everything else in the cryptoverse, particularly centralised exchanges which are already subjected to such regulations.  Remind me again what your point was?



Tell that to all the people who had their accounts frozen and had to wait weeks or sometimes months to get their money back.  Better yet, tell that to the people who never got their money back.  

Centralised exchanges are a throwback to the outdated "traditional" finance system.  Bitcoin was specifically designed as a transaction between a sender and a recipient.  It was not designed so you could hand over your money to total strangers on the internet and ask them not to lose it.  Engaging in such archaic behaviour is not "superior", it's downright backwards.  

Still, not everyone can be enlightened enough to understand progress.  You should head back to the comforting familiarity of your cave, neanderthal man.



It's clearly not the only way.  Show me a link to where anyone has ever uttered the words "Lightning is the only way to scale Bitcoin".  If you can find one, I'll happily go on record to say they're as braindead as you clearly are.



Said the Anti-LN (or should that be Anti-Cen?) troll.  You sound roughly on par with that level of utter gormlessness.

Again, your assumptions are incorrect
1.  LN hubs / unlicensed banks will be required to follow AML/KYC regulations.

2. You actually think you can hide on the Public internet.
LOL, that is funny, IP address can be followed to physical locations. Ethernet card address are stored in a database connected to your PC's serial #.
Did you buy that PC with a credit card, now they have your name and address.
Over Half the tor nodes are compromised by the FBI, so good luck with that.  

3.  I could care less what happens to BCash, I don't own any of it.

4. My main point was this:

Any coin can have unlimited scaling using offchain transactions provided by a 3rd party such as exchanges or someone else.

Trying to pretend like LN is the only way to scale offchain is where I call bullshit.
 

FYI:  https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-issues-guidance-virtual-currencies-and-regulatory-responsibilities

Contact FinCEN when you are ready to have your LN hub/unlicensed Banks won't be required to comply Bubble Burst.  

Exchange are up and running right now.  The only really stupid advice I see is yours.  
You say wait for LN, you think LN will bypass all AML/KYC regulations.  
You are confused and think that multisig means no one can take your coins, fact LN has a fee system which means they will take a % of your coins,
fact LN has a thing in place to Confiscate your entire amount if they believe you tried and broadcast an old LN transaction.

If you want to be secure, you don't give any one access to your coins, however if you are going to spend the coins anyway , you only have to send the amount that you are spending to the exchange , not all of your coins. Again you seem the stupid one.


The fact is Banks process Bank Notes (A Note is a promised to Redeem/Pay)
The fact is LN Hub process LN Notes  (a promised to redeem/pay in bitcoin),
your lack of financial knowledge is a sign of your ignorance on the subject.

Exchange allow direct exchange between individuals, they do not process their own note system, ie: Exchanges can not be classified as a bank without a Note system.
Anon coins will be banned from many exchanges as the Governments begin their crack down. But non-anon coins are unaffected.  
https://cointelegraph.com/news/hacked-crypto-exchange-coincheck-confirms-removal-of-four-anonymity-focused-altcoins
Exchange offchain systems works right now, is simple verses complicated , you send to a user name instead of an address.

You are just a LN zealot that refuses to deny it is a poorly designed system and the exchanges are cheaper , faster , and under less reporting requirements.
LN requires all funds to be used be Time Locked.  Exchanges do not require time locking , so it is superior to LN.

Another example is Banks have CDs where they time lock your money for specific lengths of time.
LN hub/unlicensed bank time locks your bitcoin.

LN Hubs=Unlicensed Banks and that is apparent to anyone with any financial knowledge.  

Feel free to make your weak arguments to your government officials when they make the AML/KYC regulations official on LN hubs.
I can already tell you , you're going to lose, they are just waiting for LN to actually work and they will act.

lol
you make me laugh
so if your dad has custody of you. your mom cant have custody of you. and you cant do your own thing because only one person has custody??
and as a offspring of parents you have no responsibility to maintain and keep yourslf safe too?

so if you were evr arrested and in police custody. there is only one police officer in the world with the handcuff keys? and you no longer have rights to your own self preservation?

a apartment custodian has a key to the apartments to secure and maintain an apartment. so you cant have a key to your apartment anad your not responsible for also maintaining and securing your apartment

a custodian is not a sole controller. so dont even think that something like coinbase can avoid being a custodian by simply implementing multisig vaults. sorry to burst your bubble but coinbase would still be a custodian.

maybe you need to revisit the definition of custodian


actually it doesnt. though i am not sure why you are endlessly bringing BCH up. seems you are stuck in the reddit mindset of there only being 2 camps
which seems a narrowminded point of view to have in a decentralised ecosystem

anyway, using a legacy native tx i can make more payments faster than LN can.
ill give you a few days to think about that. have a nice time thinking about that


you said earlier a person has full control of their funds. and could not control the other persons funds, there would be no need for revocations.
again have a long think about that.
use your own scenario and alpha test your own scenario against yourself. dont run utopian scenarios of perfect condition 'does it work' tests. but be a debugger/bruteforcer/blackhat and run 'does it break' tests. make yourself go into the mindset of how you could steal from your wife if you had a joint bank account with her. run scenarios of if you were both sides of a mutlisig how you could gain the edge and blackmail, extort, steal from yourself.  you will be surprised.
ill give you a hint. due to a varience of onchain fee's at different times. a hub would like to adjust the fee when it broadcasts and would prefer to be the broadcaster because your payment affets other people the hub is linked to. so the hub would like the upper hand.
ill mention one such upperhand.. sighash_none.. but be warned there are many more things a hub will have, to have the upper hand.
but enjoy playing a blackhat of 'will it break' instead of asskissing 'utopia works'.. you will surprise yourself


dont assume utopia
dont assume because someone renames a chargeback as being called "revocation" that its not a chargeback
dont assume because someone names a bank branch a hub that its not a bank branch
dont assume because someone names a bank HQ a 'factory' that its not a HQ for hubs(bank branches)
dont assume because maths theory says a tx can be validated in 0.002 seconds, that 0.002 seconds is what real people using the system in real life will experience.

once you get out of your wood cabin named the core retreat. and started to test the walls instead of hugging the people in it. you will see the termites fall out the holes in the wall, when you hit it.
but although i dont live in a glass house. id prefer to live in a glass house than a wood cabin. due to being able to see beyond the wood. and yes i would not fear throwing stones.. no one should fear throwing stones. its the best way to find out whats easy to break and whats bulletproof

but id be the person that throws stones when the glass is being made. not wait until the house is built. but anyway go watch let them build your wood cabin and invite your core friends. live in cabin fever. and only notice th holes once the termites have already invaded

Your criticism is based on your blind faith about LN hubs being forced into AML/KYC by government regulation - despite the complete absence of such regulation currently. It would make more sense to assume that the centralized exchanges you mention would be targeted far earlier and far more effectively. Because if an exchange is targeted it must comply or it will be shut down and personnel hauled off to prison, and exchanges make big fat juicy targets.

It's funny that a bcasher (as a I assume you are) places such blind faith in centralized exchanges despite their miserable track record. Kinda fits with Ver's endorsement of Mt. Gox, come to think of it. But makes a laughingstock of their claims to favor decentralization because they choose centralization and authoritarian control at every opportunity.

If I'm a random LN node operator and some government passes a law demanding I comply along with a million other nodes/people, that government is going to have a miserable time finding out I'm even in their jurisdiction, and then tracking me down to force compliance. All for a node that might have all of $20 in funds in it. If they try this we'll bleed the government dry with guerrilla warfare tactics. It will be one huge game of whack-a-mole that the government will keep miserably losing at.

So give the bcash FUD a rest, it's just an expression of their delusional raving, as usual.

No it isn't.  Exchanges are custodial because they, and only they, hold the keys.  Multisig (and the clue is in the name, so this shouldn't be so difficult for you) means multiple people can hold the keys.  But even with multiple people involved, Lightning still allows each user to control their portion of the funds in that channel.  Even when you open a channel with another person/business/hub/whatever, they don't have control of your portion of the funds until you send a transaction within that channel to them, effectively signing control of those funds over to them.  Which is how a payment should work.

It seems like definitions really aren't your strong suit.  You always seem to assume words mean whatever happens to fit your warped conclusions best.  



LN already supports more transactions per second than BCH does.  Maybe throw stones about scaling after you get out of your glass house.



Revocations are only there to disincentivise cheating.  In practice, they shouldn't often be used.  The only think being revoked is permission to spend from anything but the most recent balance, because if you could freely spend from an older balance without consequence, it would be easy to steal money and no one would use it.  

Revocations are also very much proof that you're wrong about LN hubs being equivalent to banks.  If hubs could control your money like a fiat bank or exchange does, there would be no need for revocations.  So thanks for undermining your own (ridiculous) argument with that one.  



Any more shots you'd like to aim directly into your own foot?  

There are already cryptocurrencies that are infinitely scaling that don't require offchain transactions. The sharding approach used by Zilliqa (and soon Ethereum I hear) can also be applied to Bitcoin. Sure it will take a hard fork, but it's definitely much easier to achieve than requiring thousands of lightning channels around the world.

This would be a great thing for everyone because the stronger and better bitcoins the weaker the monopoly of financial transfers. In competition are born really good things.

lets interject my thoughts on that debate you two are having.
did you just say that? i am so facepalming that

onchain sole privkey control is a step towards the death of custodial bankers.
LN uses multisig. its literally the definition of custodial so multiig is a step towards custodial bankers
LN cannot scale as a hop and spoke model. and will requre hubs (bank branches) so LN hubs are another step towards custodial banking
LN has fund locks, revocations. so CLTV/CSV/revokes are a step towards custodial banking

LN features are multiple steps towards custodial banking.

one thing you need to learn about banking is this. dont think of american banks as one computer holding 300million accounts.
think of it as 95,000 bank branches DISTRIBUTED in different towns. with an average 3,200 accounts per branch

now
swap "hub" for "bank branch"
swap "channel" for "account"
swap multisig countrpart for authoriser
swap hub authoriser for bank manager
swap "route" for "wire transer"
swap "LN" for "swift network"

any system that has a punishment for moving funds without someone elses consent is a banking system.. and is not what bitcoin was originally built for

Theoretically, the legalization of cryptocurrencies can lead to an increase in the rate of bitcoin. Instant transactions can be converted into fiat money

Even Visa's partnership with WaveCrest was suspended due to the continuing non-compliance with the rules of working with us. As a result, all WaveCrest programs associated with Visa cards will be closed.

*Decries LN "banks" which aren't actually banks at all, then tells people to use exchanges like actual banks*  

You realise that's pretty stupid advice right?  With exchanges, you're trusting that third party to be the custodian of those funds.  You are giving them your money, making them the owner of that money, and asking them to look after it for you.  With a multisig setup, you still have control over your funds.  I don't care how complex or confusing you think it is, it's still more secure to control your own private keys.

If you want to hand your money over to total strangers on the internet, go right ahead.  Don't come crying to us when you lose it.



Centralised exchanges are far more likely to be subject to KYC/AML than LN is, again demonstrating the absurdity of your argument.  But again, go right ahead and take the "too dim to understand the benefits" option and hand your money over to strangers.  It's not like you'll have any other option if you're using BCH anyway.  At least BTC is giving users a choice over how they want to handle their privacy and security.  I would much rather open a payment channel over depositing funds to an exchange.  

Plus, for altcoin trading, we won't even need exchanges anymore when atomic cross chain transfers mean we can hop from one blockchain to another without any middlemen holding funds in between.  Although, again, BCH users won't have the option to attend that party due to their limited vision.  LN is a step towards the death of custodial banking, the exact opposite of what you attempt to portray it as.

Bitcoin is the first currency in the crypto currency market. It has the decentralized network that allows the user to make transaction by them. But now people are saying that it has some problem in the network. But it’s not a big deal. Bitcoin is still doing transaction successfully with fast speed. If it sees that there is a problem, it will be solved within a short time.

OK,

Sorry to Burst your Bubble, but Any Coins , even the ones that don't use segwit or LN can all achieve Unlimited OffChain Scaling.

All they have to do is be on Multiple exchanges that offer Offchain Transactions such as Cryptopia or Trade Satoshi  or any other 3rd party that wants to offer offchain transactions. Also since their transactions are offchain, no tracking is possible, unless the exchange complies with a warrant.
(But if no one know what exchange you are using , they would not know where to send a warrant. )  

The Exchanges work right now without the complexities / confusion  of LN.

Here is the kicker , any coin on the exchange can do it.

Exchanges don't have the time locks or limitations of LN and will probably be cheaper than LN fees.
Time will tell.

FYI:
LN hubs , use their own LN Notes (promises to redeem/pay bitcoin), all LN hubs will be required to conform to AML/KYC regulations.
So LN transactions will not stay private and will be reported.
No Governments are going to allow LN Hubs=Unlicensed Banks to bypass all of their AML/KYC regulations.
They will eventually require a banking license for all LN Hubs and full reporting compliance.

It is really great to know that scaling, layer 2 and cryptographic innovations are discussed in consensus 2018. All these topics were the most confusing issue in this industry. I hope from the discussion that we are going to get a reliable solution very soon.

well it is new. and i guess it may be possible that they don't want to make it user friendly now because the developers have been saying how it is not ready and you shouldn't risk big amounts in it. with time it will be come more user friendly and will have more clients.
there are even works done on light weight clients for regular users such as Electrum (the most famous SPV wallet) to be used on LN.

for a reliable use without needing multiple channels all prefunded and without neding mutiple hops of many middlemen agreements. people will use the banker hubs (custodials) which will end up being AMLKYC

If the Lightning Network is going to provide another layer of anonymity for it's users then i believe it's really going to help the Bitcoin community grow by bringing people who very much want to protect their privacy whenever they are making an transaction.

you do know segwit+LN was never about malleability... but was about BC1q addresses and multisig features. so that bankers can be our co-signer(owner of funds) and so that.. (yes yes i know many will orgasm at this rvelation) so that U.S banks can have USD1q addresses and UK banks can have GBP1q addresses so that banks can then do currency swaps on their hubs(bank branches) within LN

yes LN is not the solution to bitcoin decentralisation. its the pathway to non immutible banker co-signed offchain fund management.

but hey i bet most are just salivating at the prospect of people having their funds locked into bankers "factory" UTXO's and having to endlessly user bankers hubs, just for the ability of jumping in and out of fiat.