But if i see more misinformation from you being spread, i definitely will correct it. Not to teach you, but to keep the information in relevant threads here correct.
So, this is it, I got a stalker
Topic: My conclusions about the Lightning Network and a request for critique by smarter (Read 463 times)
April 29, 2019, 02:08:59 AM
But if i see more misinformation from you being spread, i definitely will correct it. Not to teach you, but to keep the information in relevant threads here correct.
So, this is it, I got a stalker
April 29, 2019, 01:40:45 AM
So, you did it, you grinned some merits by talking anti-bcash and remaining aligned with mainstream, hating bcash is good business, isn't it?
Why are you so keen on getting those merits ?
It's not like its hard to get them... at least not if you know what you are talking about and are not a complete retard
Your shallow understanding of on-chain scaling is really disappointing: I'm talking about much more sophisticated schemes like sharding and side chains
You really seem to lack the ability to read properly.
Like i said:
No.. honestly.. on-chain scaling is good (except for just doubling the block size, thats absurd), but not enough.
Also.. side chains counts towards on-chain scaling now?
Last words:
I noticed you have done this in few other topics I've posted in them in last few days, like a stalker, saying meaningless things
I noticed you have done this in few other topics I've posted in them in last few days, like a stalker, saying meaningless things
These 'meaningless' things were just me correcting all of your mistakes you have done.
Someone has to correct the nonsense misinformation you are spreading. You are harming this community.
I don't know whether it is because you simply can not read, or because you just don't want to read.. Maybe it is even because you don't understand what you are reading..
But what you are posting is wrong in 80% of the cases.
So, come on, whine more about me getting merit while you desperately need them so much.
I won't argue with you. There is no reason to argue with people who do not understand what is being written / asked in most of these threads.
But if i see more misinformation from you being spread, i definitely will correct it. Not to teach you, but to keep the information in relevant threads here correct.
April 27, 2019, 05:04:47 PM
No! Absolutely disagree with this assertion, the only true scaling solution to bitcoin has to be on-chain, no exception.
You mean onchain 'scaling' like btrash ?
No.. honestly.. on-chain scaling is good (except for just doubling the block size, thats absurd), but not enough.
There is no good (non-btrash-propaganda-) argument against off-chain scaling.. But a lot against on-chain scaling..
So, you did it, you grinned some merits by talking anti-bcash and remaining aligned with mainstream, hating bcash is good business, isn't it?
First of all, I don't hold/mine/trade bcash and have no interest in a stupid fork based on a wrong idea about on-chain scaling: increasing the block size. I'm not rehashing a proposal that obviously leads to a disasterous situation with an already centralized mining scene in which verification time increases dramatically and escalates propagation delay and causes proximity problems that ends to no where other than a radically centralized mining scenario.
Your shallow understanding of on-chain scaling is really disappointing: I'm talking about much more sophisticated schemes like sharding and side chains, I know LN enthusiasts and its developers have a lot to say about obstacles and hurdles but they are what we have to overcome instead of using them as an excuse to announce bitcoin doomed to poor performance and projecting scale-ability to off-chain.
Last words:
I noticed you have done this in few other topics I've posted in them in last few days, like a stalker, saying meaningless things, apparently because you needed the credit a newbie had given to an irrelevant answer of you. You need credit? Work harder and read more rather than acting like this.
April 26, 2019, 01:55:35 AM
No! Absolutely disagree with this assertion, the only true scaling solution to bitcoin has to be on-chain, no exception.
You mean onchain 'scaling' like btrash ?
No.. honestly.. on-chain scaling is good (except for just doubling the block size, thats absurd), but not enough.
There is no good (non-btrash-propaganda-) argument against off-chain scaling.. But a lot against on-chain scaling..
April 24, 2019, 08:05:39 PM
"There are issues and uncertainties, therefore Lightning Network can never amount to anything."
Quote
Ultimately, the LN as a layer 2 solution relies on layer 1: i.e. the BTC core protocol. I think that there is a place for the LN, but it doesn’t remove the necessity of scaling BTC’s layer 1 and ensuring that fees stay reasonable. The LN has solid use cases, but not nearly as many as people think. And ultimately, it is certainly not a solution to a crippled BTC network — but only, in the best case scenario, a complimentary service for niche use cases.
I don't see the LN ever being the global payment network that some people envision.
@odolvlobo, I think your summary of the OP's first post is too negative (see the statements in bold). He doesn't say that LN does "not work". I think his point is exactly what BitUsher said in several of his posts, that LN isn't the only technique that should be relied on to scale Bitcoin.I don't see the LN ever being the global payment network that some people envision.
I am significantly more optimistic about LN than the OP (and aliashraf), as (according to everything I've read about LN, including the links BitUsher posted) I still think that LN can and will be used without problems for all typical "everyday payments" up to $100, 200 or so. But for example the "probabilistic payments" idea isn't what I would consider secure for a 50$ payment if 50$ eventually becomes the minimum to be economically spendable, so on-chain scaling will be a necessity if the "economical minimum on-chain output size" (to not call it "dust limit") becomes too high.
There's still much work to be done. I think the Bitcoin Community should continue to support LN as an extremely interesting technology, but not overhype it as the "one solution for everything".
April 24, 2019, 12:59:18 AM
To be convincing, you must show how these issues can never be overcome, and show how the uncertainties are not only not uncertain, but also have a resolution that prevents LN from succeeding. FUD isn't very convincing.
One thing that is very discouraging about LN is the bad attitude of guys like you who appear as a supporter. It is technical forum, accusing people of FUD in this subforum is irrelevant by default and in the context of this special topic is absurd.It is just too much, asking people to prove that a system won't overcome its limitations ever and accusing them of spreading FUD if they don't buy your proposal.
LN is based on a wrong strategic choice, projecting scaling off the chain it is more than enough to be convinced that it will never go mainstream in cryptocurrency without sacrificing some basic principles and requirements, it is up to the defender to convince people otherwise.
He didn't provide any arguments to reach his conclusions. He basically wrote that LN can't work because there are unanswered questions and issues. That is FUD, by definition.
I wasn't asking him to prove anything. I was asking for some reasoning -- something like LN won't work because it depends on X and X is not possible because Y, or LN won't gain adoption because the economics don't work because Z.
Finally, I think your statement that "LN is based on a wrong strategic choice, projecting scaling off the chain it is more than enough to be convinced that it will never go mainstream in cryptocurrency without sacrificing some basic principles and requirements" is far more informative and well-thought than what the OP wrote.
April 24, 2019, 12:44:16 AM
To be convincing, you must show how these issues can never be overcome, and show how the uncertainties are not only not uncertain, but also have a resolution that prevents LN from succeeding. FUD isn't very convincing.
One thing that is very discouraging about LN is the bad attitude of guys like you who appear as a supporter. It is technical forum, accusing people of FUD in this subforum is irrelevant by default and in the context of this special topic is absurd.It is just too much, asking people to prove that a system won't overcome its limitations ever and accusing them of spreading FUD if they don't buy your proposal.
LN is based on a wrong strategic choice, projecting scaling off the chain, it is more than enough to be convinced that it will never go mainstream in cryptocurrency without sacrificing some basic principles and requirements, it is up to the supporter to convince people otherwise.
That being said, I'm not against using LN, actually it is good to have LN around for like a couple of years, it helps bitcoin imo, but considering it as a scaling solution is simply wrong assumption, without consensus and blockchain (and PoW, imo) no system deserves this title.
April 23, 2019, 10:53:39 PM
To summarize your article:
"There are issues and uncertainties, therefore Lightning Network can never amount to anything."
I feel that your argument is not convincing.
To be convincing, you must show how these issues can never be overcome, and show how the uncertainties are not only not uncertain, but also have a resolution that prevents LN from succeeding. FUD isn't very convincing.
"There are issues and uncertainties, therefore Lightning Network can never amount to anything."
I feel that your argument is not convincing.
To be convincing, you must show how these issues can never be overcome, and show how the uncertainties are not only not uncertain, but also have a resolution that prevents LN from succeeding. FUD isn't very convincing.
April 23, 2019, 01:40:52 PM
if an LN channel has a $160 limit, then here is some assumptions that can be made
1, to get a viable and good chance of using LN, users open up atleast 5 channels. thats like $800 value locked
2. this upto $800 means that people are only going to lock funds for a month or less because the value/utility of such is not an amount that would cover months/years of utility
3. continuing point 2 $160 /28 days of just 1 payment a day is under $6 a day spend per channel
4. with each channel open and close costing a onchain fee of at the moment ~20cents(40cents total) to recoup that 40cents
a channel would need to charge 40*1cent payment..(max $4 spending per payment) or if charging 0.1cent fee means 400 payments of 40cent max spending. meaning the chances of finding a route to buy a $20 pizza is super low unless the LN fee is 5cents, just to break even
other things to note about LN, due to it not being community audited per payment. no consensus and purely just an agreement between 2 parties that can edit their node how they like
1. LN does NOT rely on onchain locked funds. thor turbo is proving it by opening channels with balance even without having a confirmed locked transaction on the blockchain
2. LN HTLC's are not the same as bitcoin CLTV's the denomination of a HTLC is a millisat. something bitcoin does not recognise
3. LN HTLC's are private agreements unsttled between 2 parties and used just to show who owes what.
LN HTLC's are a pegged token using IOU's that do not even need to be tethered to a blockchain tx (thor turbo proves this)
1, to get a viable and good chance of using LN, users open up atleast 5 channels. thats like $800 value locked
2. this upto $800 means that people are only going to lock funds for a month or less because the value/utility of such is not an amount that would cover months/years of utility
3. continuing point 2 $160 /28 days of just 1 payment a day is under $6 a day spend per channel
4. with each channel open and close costing a onchain fee of at the moment ~20cents(40cents total) to recoup that 40cents
a channel would need to charge 40*1cent payment..(max $4 spending per payment) or if charging 0.1cent fee means 400 payments of 40cent max spending. meaning the chances of finding a route to buy a $20 pizza is super low unless the LN fee is 5cents, just to break even
other things to note about LN, due to it not being community audited per payment. no consensus and purely just an agreement between 2 parties that can edit their node how they like
1. LN does NOT rely on onchain locked funds. thor turbo is proving it by opening channels with balance even without having a confirmed locked transaction on the blockchain
2. LN HTLC's are not the same as bitcoin CLTV's the denomination of a HTLC is a millisat. something bitcoin does not recognise
3. LN HTLC's are private agreements unsttled between 2 parties and used just to show who owes what.
LN HTLC's are a pegged token using IOU's that do not even need to be tethered to a blockchain tx (thor turbo proves this)
April 23, 2019, 10:44:53 AM
Just focus on your own project as Bitcoin has always scaled with multiple layers from the beginning and Satoshi first proposed payment channels. No reason to waste your time concern trolling and misleading others as a means to promote some altcoin roadmap. If your coin is secure and works than the market will decide in time.
Altcoiners are so threatened by bitcoin scaling in multiple ways that they need to constantly spread FUD.
So, LN enthusiasts have patented bitcoin, Altcoiners are so threatened by bitcoin scaling in multiple ways that they need to constantly spread FUD.
According to you anybody who is concerned about bitcoin crucial challenges like scaling and decentralization is an alien, you are welcome to think so, no offense taken, I really prefer to be an alien rather than a misguided fan of a 2nd layer service who is still confident enough to claim copyright of bitcoin.
April 23, 2019, 10:26:16 AM
Just focus on your own project as Bitcoin has always scaled with multiple layers from the beginning and Satoshi first proposed payment channels. No reason to waste your time concern trolling and misleading others as a means to promote some altcoin roadmap. If your coin is secure and works than the market will decide in time.
Altcoiners are so threatened by bitcoin scaling in multiple ways that they need to constantly spread FUD.
Onchain only for global adoption is absurd. Even the devs of the alt you are into believe their coin must scale in layers for global adoption. You not realizing this means you simply don't understand the math.
Altcoiners are so threatened by bitcoin scaling in multiple ways that they need to constantly spread FUD.
Onchain only for global adoption is absurd. Even the devs of the alt you are into believe their coin must scale in layers for global adoption. You not realizing this means you simply don't understand the math.
April 23, 2019, 10:16:54 AM
Scaling bitcoin needs much more aggressive mind set and I'm not talking about stupid block size increase by the way.
Again you completely ignore the detailed roadmap I link to and quote beyond these onchain improvements further reinforcing you are not looking for answers but just concern trolling.
The way to scale bitcoin aggressively is by scaling in many ways all at the same time, which is exactly what is happening, but for some odd reason you seem to be opposed to all the solutions at our disposal. Scaling only onchain is not scaling aggressively.
Quote
Read this --
Are you concerned that 4 million users being onboarded every 10 minutes(up to 576,000,000 users a day) is not enough? If so , you have wildly delusional hopes that Bitcoin will instantly become mainstream and don't quite grasp how much work we need to do. We don't need to onboard 8 billion people in ~16 to 30 days , you are being absurd
Using bitcoin as escrow for LN is not bitcoin, this idea is based on an immature pragmatic perception of cryptocurrency, pure technical with no theory and concept behind it, it will fail.Quote
"A channel is 1 onchain UTXO but it represents the funds of 2 people. The 2 outputs are off-chain. If a block has 2k tx then each block can on-board 4k people. Multi-party channels could have more off-chain outputs: thousands. That would mean a block could on-board 4 million users" - alex bosworth
Are you concerned that 4 million users being onboarded every 10 minutes(up to 576,000,000 users a day) is not enough? If so , you have wildly delusional hopes that Bitcoin will instantly become mainstream and don't quite grasp how much work we need to do. We don't need to onboard 8 billion people in ~16 to 30 days , you are being absurd
First of all multi-party channels are not true/available technology they are based on channel factories IDEA in LN which has a LOT of problems to address, secondly it has been suggested to reduce the load of channel setup operations on bitcoin and is not relevant to scaling bitcoin. Nobody brought up the channel setup bottleneck for LN, not me at least. I don't think it ever happens to be fixed by an imaginary, complicated and fragile solution like multi-party channels.
April 23, 2019, 09:40:44 AM
Scaling bitcoin needs much more aggressive mind set and I'm not talking about stupid block size increase by the way.
Again you completely ignore the detailed roadmap I link to and quote beyond these onchain improvements further reinforcing you are not looking for answers but just concern trolling.
The way to scale bitcoin aggressively is by scaling in many ways all at the same time, which is exactly what is happening, but for some odd reason you seem to be opposed to all the solutions at our disposal. Scaling only onchain is not scaling aggressively.
Read this --
Quote
"A channel is 1 onchain UTXO but it represents the funds of 2 people. The 2 outputs are off-chain. If a block has 2k tx then each block can on-board 4k people. Multi-party channels could have more off-chain outputs: thousands. That would mean a block could on-board 4 million users" - alex bosworth
Are you concerned that 4 million users being onboarded every 10 minutes(up to 576,000,000 users a day) is not enough? If so , you have wildly delusional hopes that Bitcoin will instantly become mainstream and don't quite grasp how much work we need to do. We don't need to onboard 8 billion people in ~16 to 30 days , you are being absurd
April 23, 2019, 09:34:45 AM
No, they are far from scaling
1. schnorr and MAST literally do change how efficiently space is used
2. you know that already
why are you telling us that space efficiency is not scaling, when that's what the defintion of changing the scale _is_
1-Schnorr signatures help with batch transactions which are not the most common use-case in a market that has truly adopted bitcoin.
2- MAST helps with storage requirements which is not a big deal because we have pruning already and more importantly it is usable for complex scripting and smart contract use-cases, again not much effective.
I can't give a 1.5x improvement score to a combined Schnorr and MAST fork of bitcoin while we need up to 10,000x better performance to have bitcoin as true p2p electronic cash.
Scaling bitcoin needs much more aggressive mind set and I'm not talking about stupid block size increase by the way.
April 23, 2019, 09:08:20 AM
No, they are far from scaling
1. schnorr and MAST literally do change how efficiently space is used
2. you know that already
why are you telling us that space efficiency is not scaling, when that's what the defintion of changing the scale _is_
April 23, 2019, 09:07:47 AM
No, they are far from scaling and if they are what's the point of LN? It is just paradoxical, if scaling on-chain is in the horizon why so many resources and efforts are focused on LN? Why should we wrap bitcoin in a second layer solution, making it even more mystical?
You just claimed that there is no onchain scaling proposals or roadmap , and now that I proved this to be untrue, you are shifting the goal posts to mean that you find that this roadmap is not to your liking? Very dishonest.
if scaling on-chain is in the horizon why so many resources and efforts are focused on LN? Why should we wrap bitcoin in a second layer solution, making it even more mystical?
Bitcoin has always had 2nd layers from the near beginning. lightning is only one of many solutions to scaling. 2nd layers help bitcoin scale securely and isolate failure and risks just like how the internet is developed in many layers
April 23, 2019, 08:59:59 AM
In your previous post you claim scaling is another issue under development with its own roadmap which is absolutely false and kinda hypocrisy.
So Schnorr sig aggregation and MAST do not increase tx throughput onchain? Really?
Also
https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html
Quote
Further out, there are several proposals related to flex caps or
incentive-aligned dynamic block size controls based on allowing miners
to produce larger blocks at some cost. These proposals help preserve
the alignment of incentives between miners and general node operators,
and prevent defection between the miners from undermining the fee
market behavior that will eventually fund security.
incentive-aligned dynamic block size controls based on allowing miners
to produce larger blocks at some cost. These proposals help preserve
the alignment of incentives between miners and general node operators,
and prevent defection between the miners from undermining the fee
market behavior that will eventually fund security.
April 23, 2019, 08:40:37 AM
In your previous post you claim scaling is another issue under development with its own roadmap which is absolutely false and kinda hypocrisy.
So Schnorr sig aggregation and MAST do not increase tx throughput onchain? Really?
Also
https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html
Quote
Further out, there are several proposals related to flex caps or
incentive-aligned dynamic block size controls based on allowing miners
to produce larger blocks at some cost. These proposals help preserve
the alignment of incentives between miners and general node operators,
and prevent defection between the miners from undermining the fee
market behavior that will eventually fund security.
incentive-aligned dynamic block size controls based on allowing miners
to produce larger blocks at some cost. These proposals help preserve
the alignment of incentives between miners and general node operators,
and prevent defection between the miners from undermining the fee
market behavior that will eventually fund security.
April 23, 2019, 08:31:08 AM
4. Perhaps you're not familiar with some of the information in my argument that led me to this conclusion. I would recommend you look into this: https://medium.com/@peter_r/visualizing-htlcs-and-the-lightning-networks-dirty-little-secret-cb9b5773a0
Feel free to comment with your thoughts afterwards and we can continue our discussion!
Sigh ... This has already been discussed to death, just rehashing old conversations and spreading more concern trolling.
For others that care to research -
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/85650/htlcs-dont-work-for-micropayments/85694#85694
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1G4xchDGcO37DJ2lPC_XYyZIUkJc2khnLrCaZXgvDN0U/edit?pref=2&pli=1#slide=id.g85f425098_0_195
https://stephanlivera.com/episode/68
https://medium.com/@unofficialbitcoinshow/how-lightning-network-maintains-bitcoins-value-proposition-d127da10077d
http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/boltathon/2019-04-06-alex-bosworth-major-limitations/
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctx-oAIhhSY&list=PLC_AgDAr0m6QhwqPDrqMfjX64oHGmwDMk&index=4
Quote
"A channel is 1 onchain UTXO but it represents the funds of 2 people. The 2 outputs are off-chain. If a block has 2k tx then each block can on-board 4k people. Multi-party channels could have more off-chain outputs: thousands. That would mean a block could on-board 4 million users" - alex bosworth
Channel Management (video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlPIB6jt6ww
Channel Management (transcript) http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/chaincode-labs/2018-10-22-alex-bosworth-channel-management/
Lightning protocol, application design perspective (video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R5DNUcCYRg
Lightning protocol, application design perspective (transcript) http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/chaincode-labs/2018-10-22-alex-bosworth-lightning-protocol/
Building Lightning applications (video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhRIWc9zPjA
BTW, we know there are tradeoffs with lightning , as with any solution, the above links go into detail what these tradeoffs are. That is why we are scaling in multiple ways including onchain right now.
April 23, 2019, 08:27:42 AM
Your a brand new account that is concern trolling. Surprise, surprise. These rehashed conversations are essentially a DDOS on us scaling Bitcoin. If you want to be helpful than participate on github with testing, reviewing, and contributing.
Please stop biting people just because they have fresh accounts and Op has explicitly disclosed his identity as a bolger in Medium. In your previous post you claim scaling is another issue under development with its own roadmap which is absolutely false and kinda hypocrisy.
People have rights to ask whether LN is a scaling solution for bitcoin or not and to diverge in opinions and ideas. It is just too much to tell people "go deeper and deeper and check any stupid feature they have implemented or want to implement to believe LN" what kind of dialogue it is?
Any average cryptographer with average knowledge can easily verify that liquidity and routing problems raised by LN has no solution other than centralization, it is no magic! You can't solve it by channel factory or any other technique, you need nodes with more channels and they need to have more funds to establish lots of channels, it is kinda mass/energy conservation rule or second rule of thermodynamics you can't claim you've invented an ideal machine and expect people to spend more time on your stupid machine instead of simply rejecting it as not being legit.
From the very first day, reading the first paragraph about LN I reacted with this emoji
and decided not to take it serious simply because I don't believe in any disruptive solution in this field after bitcoin in like one or two next centuries. For p2p electronic cash transfer other than blockchain and consensus you need either deposit or credit and both lead to centralization and censorship vulnerability eventually. LN uses blockchain to eliminate escrow it is good and smart, but not important you still need money which is a rare resource and is not meant to be used as deposit. Jump to: