Topic: SegWit and LN are really interesting altcoins... but that is not Bitcoin. - page 3. (Read 3571 times)

IIRC there is a timeout period after one party initiates the closing of a payment channel. Please take this with a grain of salt, as I'm unsure and this would be a *stupid flaw* to enable the possibility of indefinite state of irresoluteness. I'll do some research on this once I find more time.

by the second party not signing. first party cant have them back, they remain locked. because it requires dual signing to release
by this i agree the second party cannot simply "take it from you" without your signature, because they remain locked, but you cant take it without theirs either

here is the point..
they can blackmail you to sign X over to them just to get an agreement. thus
taking it from you via extortion (they win)
or
locking you out of ever getting them back (no one wins, but second party feels good about screwing first party)

Correct. This, however, does not change the fact that no one can take these coins away from you regardless of whether the secondary party chooses to properly interact with you or not.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
not a single line of code deals with LN transactions
job done
not a single line of code deals communicating with LN nodes
job done
not a single line of code deals with storing inchannel payments on bitcoins mempool
job done
not a single line of code deals with LN's millisats
job done

prove any of that.


You're the one with a long, long history of inventing nonsense claims about Bitcoin, the onus is on you

the coins locked within the multisig require dual signatures. thus its not all your property. you require the second party to sign too..

This is a false analogy. While you do not own the Bitcoins on a exchange, which is a service, you very much own the coins locked within a payment channel (with or without LN). *Nobody* can take these away from you, which is not the case with exchanges.

ok ill edit
prove it..
you cant because you dont even know what an TN transaction is
but you you suggest you do know what a LN transaction is
PROVE IT

That's not what I said. When you offer a reply to a question that the other party didn't ask, that's called a strawman argument.



I said: Every Lightning transaction is validated by the mempool of the nodes on the Bitcoin network.

and you pretend nothing will happen because your dreams tell you to think of fairy utopia's that corporate dictatorship is the solution to bitcoin, without understanding bitcoin
the funny thing is that carlton wants to screw with bitcoin to make LN compatible rather than making LN compatible with bitcoin.. (facepalm)

now thats settled your off topic question

back on topic,
prove with code, documentation and knowledge that LN signed payment can be broadcast to bitcoin and be accepted

remember
A)the deposit (prechannel) is not LN
B)the LN payment (in channel) on the LN node is LN
C)the withdrawal (post channel) is not LN

demonstrate (B)
stay on topic and talk about (B)


comparison
A)the deposit (pre-exchange trading) is not exchange trading
B)the LN payment (exchange trading) on the exchange is the exchange trading
C)the withdrawal (post exchange trading) is exchange trading

demonstrate a exchange trade-order can be broadcast to bitcoin
stay on topic and talk about exchanges and trade-orders

Exactly, you're trying to affect people's perception of what a change like that would mean, using overcomplicated, vague and inaccurate descriptions deliberately contrived to lead people to think "well, I don't totally get it, but maybe something funny is going on". The only funny going's on is your warped description, though.

you fail to show knowledge of the concept of blockstream LN. you cannot even be bothered to look into it, and instead you bait an offtopic question involving the front end market of speculation.

which no one can predict speculation accurately. all that can be learned is that changing the units of measure WILL change how people perceive it.
and it WILL affect things.
just like trying to rebrand a btc as 1000units does the same change to peoples perception of rebranding a btc to 100,000,000,000units

afterall you cant go back and rehash all the 7 years blocks to give users 100,000,000,000units instead of 100,000,000 to keep them on par with still having 1btc. (so your dream is flawed) due to older users losing out.

extending the reward creation cap from the year 2141 to 2181+ does has ramifications too
the best answer there is to your question
its inflation hidden by a rebranding of the metric to pretend there is no inflation.. but smart people will see through the ruse

but we all know you want to screw with bitcoin. because you dont care about bitcoin. you only care about is the dream of corporate dictatorship and control for financial profit.(you have no libertarian ideals nor ideals for protecting peoples assets against corporations)

how about instead of meandering off topic.
how about instead of crying that answering people is a waste of time
how about instead of crying that researching facts to answer people is a waste of time

you instead just do the research for your own understanding and your own benefit. then you wont be wasting your time failing each time

how many Millisats will the Lightning "node" money supply be inflated by?

(note that this question doesn't even make any sense, I'm just using Franky's non-logic against him, lol)



You cannot provide a straight answer to this (or any) question, huh?

because LNs millisats are not part of bitcoins sat
they are different nodes.

again lets do the theortic dream of yours of bitcoin changing its units of measure to include millisats
bitcoin miners right now produce 1250000000 units of measure per block. FACT (check the code)
USERS call this measure at the GUI, conversation end 12.5btc. but not at protocol/code/consensus level

in your dream scenario
bitcoin miners would produce 12500000000000 units of measure per block. DREAM
making miners stop producing units of measure as a blockreward in atleast 2181 instead of 2141 (screwing the production/rarity mechanism)
USERS call this measure at the GUI, conversation end 12.5btc. but not at protocol/code/consensus level

anyone can rebrand how many units a BTC is measured as.
last year people were proposing without even adding more units of measure. to call a btc just 1000 sats.
the community decided to leave a btc at 100,000,000 units and instead just use a different term 'bits' which is 100 units of measure

what people call a btc has no relevance to mining, no relevance to code.

WAKE UP!!!

Don't need to, it's how everyone understood Lightning from the start (like, 2 years ago)

And Lightning specifics are not merged yet, so you're asking me to do something you know is impossible anyway, lol





Every Lightning transaction is validated in the mempool of every Bitcoin node. That's how it works.

LN payments in bitcoins mempool??

prove it. show me bitcoin-core code.
show me code in bitcoin core where millisat payments are logged in bitcoin-cores mempool

show it.
if you wont or cant. you have nothing more then empty arguments to get laughed at

i guess you forgot the LN node was not a bitcoin node
i guess you forgot the LN node had to connect to IRC to locate other peers, rather then using the bitcoin network IP discovery process
i guess you forgot LN uses millisats that are not sats
i guess you are stuck in a lucid dream.

wake up, deal with reality, not the dream you were sold

Wrong, individual Lightning payments are validated by Bitcoin nodes, as Bitcoin transactions. Each and every one.


No, all Lightning payments are validated by Bitcoin nodes. They're validated in the mempool. Not on the Blockchain. Until the channel closes, when the net result of the transaction is stored on the Blockchain. Not as an altcoin, as you falsely claim. Stored as Bitcoin, and trnsacted as Bitcoin.

But that means that every Lightning transaction is validated in the mempool of every Bitcoin node.



To conclude:


Every Lightning transaction is validated in the mempool of every Bitcoin node. That's how it works.

your semantics are about the deposit and withdrawal. not LN itself.
it seems you fail to understand. so it requires wording it differently to hope you understand. but you instead just put your fingers in your ears and plead ignorance to everything

so how about go watch the demo video. read the details. that way you learn directly from your leader and probably wont have your fingers in your ears.
the guy made a payment ON BITCOIN(deposit). and the separately used the LN node for payments.
the payments within the LN node are NOT accepted by bitcoin. go watch the video
only the settlement (withdrawal) is accepted because a process is done to create a bitcoin transaction when the channel closes.

seriously carlton. watch the video, read the documentation and understand LN.


i know you admitted you have no understanding and blame your lack of desire to research LN on other people rather than yourself. but you are only failing yourself

Yes, that's your only weapon in this argument: playing with semantics, lol



All Lightning transactions are validated by all Bitcoin nodes, before they can be accepted at all as an open channel by the Bitcoin network. Opening a Lightning channel involves making a Bitcoin transaction, and all the units are BTC.

The fact that the units are being carved up a thousand times smaller is completely irrelevant, Franky is essentially trying to say that $ 1,000,000 dollars is one currency, but  $0.000001 cents is different currency completely, purely because the accounts system that deals with millions can't do 6 decimal places of accuracy.

Part of the point of Lightning is to make smaller denominations of Bitcoin usable; a transaction with less than 5430 satoshis of outputs is either invalid or non-standard right now, Lightning would enable 1 satoshi (or less) to be used. This will be needed if Bitcoin becomes worth $10,000-1,000,000, as it would only be possible to use Bitcoin to send a minimum of $1000 without.

This is such a simple, easily refuted lie, and it can only be a lie, not some kind of mistake or oversight. Trolling, in other words.

lightning is OFFchain tech.. 'payments'/'trades' are not done onchain.. and thats the point of LN


LOL
lets word it a different way,
exchanges accept bitcoin but while an exchange holds the bitcoin, they separately allow users to play with their 'balances'(mysql database) to make orders.
exchanges are not bitcoin, they are a SERVICE/BUSINESS layer at the edges of bitcoin, but it is not bitcoin.
the trades do no appear on the blockchain. the trades are incompatible with bitcoin consensus
only the deposits and withdrawals are part of bitcoin. not the service offering itself.
LN is just a service layer.

even blockstream admit LN is a second layer.
even blockstream admit LN is OFFCHAIN.

seems carlton needs to go back and get retrained by his leaders

lets word it a different way.
exchanges are part of the community. but not the protocol of bitcoin
LN is part of the community. but not the protocol of bitcoin

atleast be honest and call a spade a spade. then be realistic about what a spade can do and cannot do