doomad you are so insane you have things backwards in so many ways
LEARN CONSENT.. if not for bitcoin, for any relationship you ever have in life.,. stop expectng people to kiss your ass on demand
you really do not understand consent and so you are trying too hard to be an idiot to pretend your mis-understanding is justified
onchain is the common room of university students
where in normal legal consent. if someone suggest an orgy, people can just say no. and no orgy happens. (doomad probably acts surprised by this concept of consent)
where people just stay in the common room doing normal things without threat or harm or insult or malice or attack or coercion into accepting sex.
(again doomad is probably shocked at this notion)
where it requires an actual majority of the attending students to agree on an orgy for an orgy act(vivation) to occur
however doomad thinks an orgy has to happen where he thinks its the rapists right to make sure it happens where in doomads scenario the only opt-out is "the freedom" to leave the common room. thus faking a vote that the remainers are voting for an orgy whether they say so or not.
where by staying in the common room means for doomad they are forced into sex or atleast left in the room to watch it happen without any say so or way to stop it.. where you cant even 'just say no' and just stay in the room doing normal things, where no sex happens.. even if majority would have said no.. doomad still wants sex to occur
in short rapes happen and those staying in the room have no choice but to watch it happen
as for doomad crying about a 6% veto
from the november 2016- june 2017(days prior to the mandated threats). segwit didnt even get 50% so why was he crying about 6% veto when segwit had natural 50%+ veto
by which point with such a low vote 46% vote in favour, it should have been an opportunity to the devs to go back to the design board and figure out what the community actually would want. something that could have got a true actual natural vote of a 80% threshold without needing mandated pre-rejection threat and abuse. and fake voting
doomads version of consent is
"im having sex with everyone in the room, if you dont like it, go to a different university"
(im trying to justify doomad to being at college level. so using that age level analogy of consent.. otherwise ill have to go back to talking as if doomad is 5yo again)
Topic: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain (Read 3193 times)
December 26, 2022, 10:30:14 PM
December 26, 2022, 09:31:23 PM
If we follow franky1's absurd "orgy" analogy to its natural conclusion, on-chain is the orgy and SegWit/LN allows people to have the option to temporarily leave the orgy and go into a private room for some intimate one-on-one time. The "consent" franky1 demands here is that no one can leave the orgy without his permission, like some perverted little deviant who wants to watch every sordid act. I think people should be free to go somewhere private. I also think people having the freedom to do this does not take anything away from franky1's personal freedoms.
Stepping away from the ludicrous analogy, the only thing franky1 claims to have lost is that he doesn't have a complete copy of the blockchain including witness data, but this is HIS CHOICE. He simply can't accept the consequences of his choice, where the users of this network have moved on without him. We've got something he doesn't have (yet easily could have if he stopped acting like a petulant child) and he's going to be bitter until the end of time about it.
I maintain the stance that 6% of the network should not have a permanent veto to block what 94% of the network would like to do. My stance it that this would stagnate the network to an extent which is far greater than the extent to which franky1 claims devs are supposedly stagnating the network (and devs are categorically not stagnating the network, this is yet another fantasy that only exists in franky1's head).
It's clear by this point that franky1 will only accept this "95% of users have to agree" notion as the "true" definition of consensus (even though it clearly doesn't work that way). He says that anything else which doesn't give him a permanent veto is equivalent to "rape", all because he can't force people to do what he wants. He has no conscience and only cares about his ideals of control and tyranny.
Abhorrent. Truly and undeniably abhorrent.
Stepping away from the ludicrous analogy, the only thing franky1 claims to have lost is that he doesn't have a complete copy of the blockchain including witness data, but this is HIS CHOICE. He simply can't accept the consequences of his choice, where the users of this network have moved on without him. We've got something he doesn't have (yet easily could have if he stopped acting like a petulant child) and he's going to be bitter until the end of time about it.
I maintain the stance that 6% of the network should not have a permanent veto to block what 94% of the network would like to do. My stance it that this would stagnate the network to an extent which is far greater than the extent to which franky1 claims devs are supposedly stagnating the network (and devs are categorically not stagnating the network, this is yet another fantasy that only exists in franky1's head).
It's clear by this point that franky1 will only accept this "95% of users have to agree" notion as the "true" definition of consensus (even though it clearly doesn't work that way). He says that anything else which doesn't give him a permanent veto is equivalent to "rape", all because he can't force people to do what he wants. He has no conscience and only cares about his ideals of control and tyranny.
Abhorrent. Truly and undeniably abhorrent.
December 26, 2022, 05:43:39 PM
says doomad that has said that he does not believe in consent and pretends that no consent is needed to perform a act(tivation) on a community
and that the group cannot refuse or "just say no", where he thinks the only option of refusal is to not be part of a community.
i feel doomad is the depraved one if he idolises such methods of performing an act on others and wants it to continue where it should not be stopped by anyone because he believes in the freedom of the abuser reigns supreme, even at the cost of the security and harm it can cause on multiple others who end up having their choice and freedom dictated or removed.
lets hope it only takes 2023 for doomad to learn and understand consent by census (consensus)
and not be another 5 years of him thinking it means obediently 'subs' follow the bdsm 'doms' bedroom rules of a orgy fest who make the decisions without contest for everyone else involved. where the only "just say no" option is to get out of the room and let the 'doms' continue their acts
and that the group cannot refuse or "just say no", where he thinks the only option of refusal is to not be part of a community.
i feel doomad is the depraved one if he idolises such methods of performing an act on others and wants it to continue where it should not be stopped by anyone because he believes in the freedom of the abuser reigns supreme, even at the cost of the security and harm it can cause on multiple others who end up having their choice and freedom dictated or removed.
lets hope it only takes 2023 for doomad to learn and understand consent by census (consensus)
and not be another 5 years of him thinking it means obediently 'subs' follow the bdsm 'doms' bedroom rules of a orgy fest who make the decisions without contest for everyone else involved. where the only "just say no" option is to get out of the room and let the 'doms' continue their acts
December 24, 2022, 11:30:32 AM
And I must admit I don't really feel like reading everything in this topic again.
Understandable. Even I'm struggling to read the latest posts. It seems franky1 is reaching new depths of depravity. I don't think I've ever seen something as abhorrent on this board as him equating the code he doesn't like to the act of rape, but that's how franky1's sick mind works. Disgusting and obscene. It shows you just what kind of inhuman monster he truly is.
December 24, 2022, 04:24:55 AM
reading the topic again from the start (due to getting too embroiled in the drama of the doomad/blackhat ping pong game)
the first reponse to loyce
this shows exactly the problem
bitcoin only exists on the bitcoin network. so all the binance custody balance, BEP20, BNB, sidechain and LN stuff are not bitcoins.. they are tokens, units or display balances pretending to be bitcoin. but not actual bitcoin
it goes to show people cant tell the difference even though there are risks of using custodians or so called pegged promises all being falsely branded as bitcoin
if you do not have sole-custody of a UTXO to move yourself without other parties sign-off and clear to spend as you deem fit. you dont have bitcoin yourself.
this means locking coin up into multisig of another party or federation, to then play with other balance units on another system. does not mean you have bitcoin. you have an unsecured unsettled iou of potential bitcoin should a withdrawal/broadcast happen at a later date
it gets worse when those other systems/networks fail or are under suspicion of future failures that it tarnishes the actual bitcoin networks reputation.
then we have the ping pong games of the madhatters (doomad and blackhatcoiner) who go around saying:
"bitcoin isnt fit for purpose as a currency for the unbanked"
"bitcoin doesnt have a consensus to decide on rule activations"
"devs can impose any rule change they like without veto or objection from other network users"
"people should prune the data because distributed blockchain is not a thing that needs to be secured"
and
"if people want to transact.. they should use a pegged network and not the bitcoin network"
basically they want to kill off bitcoin to fame up LN
while then pretending they are "bitcoiners"
very shameful tactics by them
as for bitmovers idea to use LN out of fear of there being worse..
.. well LN is flawed, buggy, has liquidity issues, bottlenecks, lacks network security of payments, has a weak pegging mechanism many can abuse, can fractional reserve value,
it needed things like watchtowers and revokes because its design was so shoddy and the work arounds of watchtowers/revokes dont even work as 100% fixes to flaws they suppose to solve..
...maybe just maybe a new "system"(for those small niche use cases) is required, that actually works!
a new system could be designed that is actually closer to the bitcoin principles, but without the LN flaws.. a system that works with bitcoin and only for bitcoin... because LN is not the solution it promises to be
anyway
merry christmas to all those not in the madhatter camp.
ill leave you in peace for a few days, goodluck to all who do actually care about BITCOIN and want to learn and research i hope you dont fall down the madhatters rabbit hole
and i suspect ill see the madhatter clan moan and cry and make up more malicious crap about how their beloved altnet is better and a solution and how im just trolling them.
or maybe they can spend the time too enjoying christmas and also maybe take the new year as an opportunity to sort out their motives once and for all
the first reponse to loyce
When Binance came to Brazil, it dominated the crypto market nearly completely. It is by far the best, most trusted and cheaper exchange. Nearly everyone who works with cryptocurrency in Brazil has a binance account.
I was going to sell some bitcoin in the next few days, and I gave my client my binance address. He immediately asked if I could be paid in BEP2 chain (Binance chain, using a BTC pegged token). I accepted, as it is a free and instant transaction and I was not going to hold that bitcoin for long.
Now, is a BTC pegged token bitcoin? It is not, but i guess it is useful for bitcoin adoption and awareness.
So, to summarize: Off-chain solutions are already happening. They are useful. LN is the best off-chain solution, but people do use it all the time yet. LN would be good for my transaction? Well, I think not as good as the BEP2 solution, but it would work.
I believe that we should support LN and use it, otherwise we will soon be forced to use a worse off-chain solution from time to time.
I was going to sell some bitcoin in the next few days, and I gave my client my binance address. He immediately asked if I could be paid in BEP2 chain (Binance chain, using a BTC pegged token). I accepted, as it is a free and instant transaction and I was not going to hold that bitcoin for long.
Now, is a BTC pegged token bitcoin? It is not, but i guess it is useful for bitcoin adoption and awareness.
So, to summarize: Off-chain solutions are already happening. They are useful. LN is the best off-chain solution, but people do use it all the time yet. LN would be good for my transaction? Well, I think not as good as the BEP2 solution, but it would work.
I believe that we should support LN and use it, otherwise we will soon be forced to use a worse off-chain solution from time to time.
this shows exactly the problem
bitcoin only exists on the bitcoin network. so all the binance custody balance, BEP20, BNB, sidechain and LN stuff are not bitcoins.. they are tokens, units or display balances pretending to be bitcoin. but not actual bitcoin
it goes to show people cant tell the difference even though there are risks of using custodians or so called pegged promises all being falsely branded as bitcoin
if you do not have sole-custody of a UTXO to move yourself without other parties sign-off and clear to spend as you deem fit. you dont have bitcoin yourself.
this means locking coin up into multisig of another party or federation, to then play with other balance units on another system. does not mean you have bitcoin. you have an unsecured unsettled iou of potential bitcoin should a withdrawal/broadcast happen at a later date
it gets worse when those other systems/networks fail or are under suspicion of future failures that it tarnishes the actual bitcoin networks reputation.
then we have the ping pong games of the madhatters (doomad and blackhatcoiner) who go around saying:
"bitcoin isnt fit for purpose as a currency for the unbanked"
"bitcoin doesnt have a consensus to decide on rule activations"
"devs can impose any rule change they like without veto or objection from other network users"
"people should prune the data because distributed blockchain is not a thing that needs to be secured"
and
"if people want to transact.. they should use a pegged network and not the bitcoin network"
basically they want to kill off bitcoin to fame up LN
while then pretending they are "bitcoiners"
very shameful tactics by them
as for bitmovers idea to use LN out of fear of there being worse..
.. well LN is flawed, buggy, has liquidity issues, bottlenecks, lacks network security of payments, has a weak pegging mechanism many can abuse, can fractional reserve value,
it needed things like watchtowers and revokes because its design was so shoddy and the work arounds of watchtowers/revokes dont even work as 100% fixes to flaws they suppose to solve..
...maybe just maybe a new "system"(for those small niche use cases) is required, that actually works!
a new system could be designed that is actually closer to the bitcoin principles, but without the LN flaws.. a system that works with bitcoin and only for bitcoin... because LN is not the solution it promises to be
anyway
merry christmas to all those not in the madhatter camp.
ill leave you in peace for a few days, goodluck to all who do actually care about BITCOIN and want to learn and research i hope you dont fall down the madhatters rabbit hole
and i suspect ill see the madhatter clan moan and cry and make up more malicious crap about how their beloved altnet is better and a solution and how im just trolling them.
or maybe they can spend the time too enjoying christmas and also maybe take the new year as an opportunity to sort out their motives once and for all
December 24, 2022, 04:07:25 AM
Reserved. I may make summaries later.
We're swiftly coming up on the 1 year anniversary of this topic. Can we look forward to Switzerland's impartial judgement soon? 
December 23, 2022, 08:12:27 PM
your view is follow CORES rules or be treated as opposition
you personally cannot tell where core begins and bitcoin ends where your view is core is bitcoin and every other node that wants something in bitcoin that does not meet cores roadmap is not bitcoin and should fork off. you view is not how decentralisation and consusus works
heck you pretend users get a vote then you spin around in circles saying no one get s to oppose core or tell them to not do things.
doomads idea of freedom is core is "the man" and should have freedoms to do what they want without needing consent. where by the mans view of consent is that the community are willing to be in his bed or f**k off if they do not like the abuse put on them without consent
.. well thats rape
at best, it could be seen as core is just a BDSM 'dom' with everyone else in the orgy, 'subs' and anyone fully declining to be in the orgy being rejected and ejected out of the room
true consent is consent before and during the act.
where if majority do not consent, there is no orgy.. end of story
if there was majority consent, it then allows time for all parties to get prepared and ready for safe sex before sex happens and, consent is also agreement during sex
domads view "dont worry you dont need to wear a condom, dont protect yourself or deny me sex, i promise im clean... pinky promise with extra oozy drips" and then treat anyone that denies the man sex, as someone to hate and tell them to fuck off
and where he things "well the man got his genitals inside, so she must have consented"
so whos "freedom" is doomad protecting.. the co-ed community of university students.. or the rapists right to rape/ be BDSM dom, with no choice of equality where no-one else can propose sexual activities/positions to try apart from the core man
moving onto your other social drama queen tears of bottom scratching
funny think about that anyonecanspend issue
do you realise that the plan back then was to just start putting segwit tx's into bitcoins tx relay system and blocks without a true consensus activation event where by nodes should upgrade to have code that can verify first, before activation.. .
where by it would have caused lots of nodes problems in their first stupid plan for segwit
well guess what.
they ended up doing a mandatory hardfork(to remove opposition and also THEY(you) pretending its soft to avoid admitting they were wrong)
and they didnt release the wallet function to allow people to create segwit transactions untill the following year because they also realised letting people make segwit transactions before nodes were ready to verify them, would be a problem
yep they bypassed consensus to not need nodes to upgrade and support segwit.. then delayed segwit wallet function until 2018 waiting for nodes to upgrade
again that was a bad way of doing things.. but they were under sponsored contract to get segwit activation by november 2017 at the latest. so they had to do it anyway they could even if it was the wrong way. unsupported way
so they mocked me. but proved my point later on.. by not allowing anyonecanspends tx trick to be widely used before 2018. even though the way they did it, was still not the best way as it abused consensus to get what they wanted
how they proved my point was the stupid next poke of the bear(by the way they activated segwit) that was unfair on the community and the protocol security,
you personally cannot tell where core begins and bitcoin ends where your view is core is bitcoin and every other node that wants something in bitcoin that does not meet cores roadmap is not bitcoin and should fork off. you view is not how decentralisation and consusus works
heck you pretend users get a vote then you spin around in circles saying no one get s to oppose core or tell them to not do things.
doomads idea of freedom is core is "the man" and should have freedoms to do what they want without needing consent. where by the mans view of consent is that the community are willing to be in his bed or f**k off if they do not like the abuse put on them without consent
.. well thats rape
at best, it could be seen as core is just a BDSM 'dom' with everyone else in the orgy, 'subs' and anyone fully declining to be in the orgy being rejected and ejected out of the room
true consent is consent before and during the act.
where if majority do not consent, there is no orgy.. end of story
if there was majority consent, it then allows time for all parties to get prepared and ready for safe sex before sex happens and, consent is also agreement during sex
domads view "dont worry you dont need to wear a condom, dont protect yourself or deny me sex, i promise im clean... pinky promise with extra oozy drips" and then treat anyone that denies the man sex, as someone to hate and tell them to fuck off
and where he things "well the man got his genitals inside, so she must have consented"
so whos "freedom" is doomad protecting.. the co-ed community of university students.. or the rapists right to rape/ be BDSM dom, with no choice of equality where no-one else can propose sexual activities/positions to try apart from the core man
moving onto your other social drama queen tears of bottom scratching
funny think about that anyonecanspend issue
do you realise that the plan back then was to just start putting segwit tx's into bitcoins tx relay system and blocks without a true consensus activation event where by nodes should upgrade to have code that can verify first, before activation.. .
where by it would have caused lots of nodes problems in their first stupid plan for segwit
well guess what.
they ended up doing a mandatory hardfork(to remove opposition and also THEY(you) pretending its soft to avoid admitting they were wrong)
and they didnt release the wallet function to allow people to create segwit transactions untill the following year because they also realised letting people make segwit transactions before nodes were ready to verify them, would be a problem
yep they bypassed consensus to not need nodes to upgrade and support segwit.. then delayed segwit wallet function until 2018 waiting for nodes to upgrade
again that was a bad way of doing things.. but they were under sponsored contract to get segwit activation by november 2017 at the latest. so they had to do it anyway they could even if it was the wrong way. unsupported way
so they mocked me. but proved my point later on.. by not allowing anyonecanspends tx trick to be widely used before 2018. even though the way they did it, was still not the best way as it abused consensus to get what they wanted
how they proved my point was the stupid next poke of the bear(by the way they activated segwit) that was unfair on the community and the protocol security,
December 23, 2022, 01:40:13 PM
doomads narrative
CORE decide the rules of bitcoin. where coresenseless is that everyone sheep follows core rules and dont get to vote if core should activate or not because no one should tell a dev what to do.
where any other node that wants to propose bitcoin changes outside of core roadmap should be treated as enemy of bitcoin and told for f**k off to an altcoin and not get involved with cores bitcoin(#REKT) or blind obedient sheep follow core to remain on the bitcoin network
CORE decide the rules of bitcoin. where coresenseless is that everyone sheep follows core rules and dont get to vote if core should activate or not because no one should tell a dev what to do.
where any other node that wants to propose bitcoin changes outside of core roadmap should be treated as enemy of bitcoin and told for f**k off to an altcoin and not get involved with cores bitcoin(#REKT) or blind obedient sheep follow core to remain on the bitcoin network
Categorically false. I must have stated several dozen times by now that the code people choose to run decides the rules of Bitcoin. That is my stance and always will be. I can see why he gets confused, though. As franky1 believes everyone who doesn't share his delusions is a sheep. Also, one or more Core developers mocked franky1 at some point and he's held a vendetta against them ever since. I'd be curious to see the specifics of the message he sent to the devs to initiate that particular conversation. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if franky1 came across in his typical obnoxious, condescending, saviour-complex demeanour. I'm sure under the circumstances, ridicule was likely deserved. People should take this into consideration when reading anything franky1 writes about Core devs. There is clearly a sizable grudge being held on his part.
It's not worth wasting my time replying to any of the other abject lies he spouts in that post, as every single one was addressed fully in this topic back in 2019 and I'm not rehashing it again.
Reserved. I may make summaries later.
We're swiftly coming up on the 1 year anniversary of this topic. Can we look forward to Switzerland's impartial judgement soon?
December 23, 2022, 05:15:05 AM
the problem is
LN is not a bitcoin feature that manages to do something or solve something for bitcoin and purely for bitcoin
even poon in his whitepaper admits LN is a multi-currency system
yet due to idiots selling it as a bitcoin thing, a bitcoin solution. devs are giving up on scaling BITCOIN
(take the congestion onchain last month FROM JUST ONE EXCHANGE. bitcoin needs more onchain capacity to cover utility of multiple businesses and more especially individuals)
so yes it is negatively affecting bitcoin even if i dont use LN even if 99.99% of people dont use it.
it still affects bitcoin via its existence as the solution. thus bitcoin issues do not get sorted
LN's usage is super low but its existence has stifled bitcoins usage growth and innovation onchain
you know the song.. ("bitcoin shouldnt scale to more txps because LN solves transaction scaling")
bitcoins last few "innovations" at bitcoin protocol level have not been to evolve bitcoin utility. it has been to offer gateway transaction formats for subnetworks..
there is the security flaws, the bugs, the liquidity issues.. all being branded as bitcoin features, yet they are not
they are flaws, and those flaws are bringing a bad reputation and a negative view onto bitcoin due to the brand stealing crap of LN
(el salvador experiment failure (september 2021-december. was nothing to do with the bitcoin network, it failed due to an LN project pretending it was bitcoin))
i facepalmed in september with the "LN is making bitcoin successful" "LN LN LN LN LN"
then when it failed same idiots "bitcoin failed el salvador"
so in december i was laughing that they tried to limit their exposure and pretend LN had nothing to do with the el salvador crap the el salvadorians were exposed to, and then i facepalmed again when they tried to say bitcoin was the problem (cheeky f**kers!)
as for you thinking its under funded.. ooh please!!!
the main devs of LN are paid.
you think rusty, a.bosworth, and such work for free?(i name just a couple for examples, but loads of them are corporate funded to work on lightning)
did you know LN is actually an invention pre 2017 and its inspired by the hyperledger stuff, which the dcg and its subsidiaries blocksteamis funding
the dev groups are funded
..
in short if bitcoin was to have an off-chain solution to various features that have been stiffled and refused to be included into bitcoin protocol... LN is not the answer/solution..
a new network needs to be made for such off-chain promises without the LN flaws to give actual solution.. or more simply. re-boot bitcoin innovation and scale BITCOIN not other sub-par networks brain and brand and reputation stealing
LN community has had 5 years to figure their crap out. and yet more people are locking funds to wbtc and taproot based networks rather than what LN pretends its usage accomplishments are
LN is not a bitcoin feature that manages to do something or solve something for bitcoin and purely for bitcoin
even poon in his whitepaper admits LN is a multi-currency system
yet due to idiots selling it as a bitcoin thing, a bitcoin solution. devs are giving up on scaling BITCOIN
(take the congestion onchain last month FROM JUST ONE EXCHANGE. bitcoin needs more onchain capacity to cover utility of multiple businesses and more especially individuals)
so yes it is negatively affecting bitcoin even if i dont use LN even if 99.99% of people dont use it.
it still affects bitcoin via its existence as the solution. thus bitcoin issues do not get sorted
LN's usage is super low but its existence has stifled bitcoins usage growth and innovation onchain
you know the song.. ("bitcoin shouldnt scale to more txps because LN solves transaction scaling")
bitcoins last few "innovations" at bitcoin protocol level have not been to evolve bitcoin utility. it has been to offer gateway transaction formats for subnetworks..
there is the security flaws, the bugs, the liquidity issues.. all being branded as bitcoin features, yet they are not
they are flaws, and those flaws are bringing a bad reputation and a negative view onto bitcoin due to the brand stealing crap of LN
(el salvador experiment failure (september 2021-december. was nothing to do with the bitcoin network, it failed due to an LN project pretending it was bitcoin))
i facepalmed in september with the "LN is making bitcoin successful" "LN LN LN LN LN"
then when it failed same idiots "bitcoin failed el salvador"
so in december i was laughing that they tried to limit their exposure and pretend LN had nothing to do with the el salvador crap the el salvadorians were exposed to, and then i facepalmed again when they tried to say bitcoin was the problem (cheeky f**kers!)
as for you thinking its under funded.. ooh please!!!
the main devs of LN are paid.
you think rusty, a.bosworth, and such work for free?(i name just a couple for examples, but loads of them are corporate funded to work on lightning)
did you know LN is actually an invention pre 2017 and its inspired by the hyperledger stuff, which the dcg and its subsidiaries blocksteamis funding
the dev groups are funded
..
in short if bitcoin was to have an off-chain solution to various features that have been stiffled and refused to be included into bitcoin protocol... LN is not the answer/solution..
a new network needs to be made for such off-chain promises without the LN flaws to give actual solution.. or more simply. re-boot bitcoin innovation and scale BITCOIN not other sub-par networks brain and brand and reputation stealing
LN community has had 5 years to figure their crap out. and yet more people are locking funds to wbtc and taproot based networks rather than what LN pretends its usage accomplishments are
December 23, 2022, 03:45:10 AM
you think LN is the best
I can only speak for myself, but I think it's the best for small Bitcoin transactions so far. If something better comes up, I'll embrace it.did you also know that there are 180,000 WBTC and it is only 3 years 11 months old
You're comparing an underfunded project to a centralized scam that someone earns a lot of money from, and goes to great lengths to trick people into accepting it instead of Bitcoin. December 22, 2022, 04:29:06 PM
anyway lets summarise the two narratives of disagreement of me and doomads thoughts around consensus and fullnodes
ill call my narrative fullnode and consensus. and
ill call doomads narrative coresenseless and foolnodes
just to make it easier for people to distinguish the differences
because some people have reading issues, so we have to make it easier on the kids to read
doomads narrative
CORE decide the rules of bitcoin. where coresenseless is that everyone sheep follows core rules and dont get to vote if core should activate or not because no one should tell a dev what to do.
where any other node that wants to propose bitcoin changes outside of core roadmap should be treated as enemy of bitcoin and told for f**k off to an altcoin and not get involved with cores bitcoin(#REKT) or blind obedient sheep follow core to remain on the bitcoin network
a foolnode "can" validate everything, but not essential due to backward compatibility meaning they dont have to
a foolnode "can" archive everything, but not essential due to pruning which means they dont have to
but in doomads rhetoric as long as a node sheep follows the full or stripped data/validated or not of core rules. its a foolnode of coresenseless
my narrative
2009-2016 consensus was:
no one owned the right to enforce rules in as they pleased. it required consent of the masses to THEN activate.*
where for security of the network the masses need to upgrade nodes and be ready to suport a new ruleset before it activates, and not activate before full nodes are amassed to be ready
*without mandate or threat of rejection, nor pre activation rejection events to fake a vote
however core had managed to bypass consensus in 2017 via a few tricks invented by lukle jr and shoulinfry(no not UASF). but this trojan backdoor bug should not be allowed to be used as a normal function for network rule change options to activate
a full node is where it validates everything and understands all the rules and archives full data, where as if you switch off certain features like archiving IDB seeding, where you dont stay upto date with the full ruleset you are not a full node. you are downrated to non-full status.
pruning/backward compatible/unupgraded nodes are not full node status
ill call my narrative fullnode and consensus. and
ill call doomads narrative coresenseless and foolnodes
just to make it easier for people to distinguish the differences
because some people have reading issues, so we have to make it easier on the kids to read
doomads narrative
CORE decide the rules of bitcoin. where coresenseless is that everyone sheep follows core rules and dont get to vote if core should activate or not because no one should tell a dev what to do.
where any other node that wants to propose bitcoin changes outside of core roadmap should be treated as enemy of bitcoin and told for f**k off to an altcoin and not get involved with cores bitcoin(#REKT) or blind obedient sheep follow core to remain on the bitcoin network
a foolnode "can" validate everything, but not essential due to backward compatibility meaning they dont have to
a foolnode "can" archive everything, but not essential due to pruning which means they dont have to
but in doomads rhetoric as long as a node sheep follows the full or stripped data/validated or not of core rules. its a foolnode of coresenseless
my narrative
2009-2016 consensus was:
no one owned the right to enforce rules in as they pleased. it required consent of the masses to THEN activate.*
where for security of the network the masses need to upgrade nodes and be ready to suport a new ruleset before it activates, and not activate before full nodes are amassed to be ready
*without mandate or threat of rejection, nor pre activation rejection events to fake a vote
however core had managed to bypass consensus in 2017 via a few tricks invented by lukle jr and shoulinfry(no not UASF). but this trojan backdoor bug should not be allowed to be used as a normal function for network rule change options to activate
a full node is where it validates everything and understands all the rules and archives full data, where as if you switch off certain features like archiving IDB seeding, where you dont stay upto date with the full ruleset you are not a full node. you are downrated to non-full status.
pruning/backward compatible/unupgraded nodes are not full node status
December 21, 2022, 05:14:16 PM
oh..
lets see blackhats cries
so.. 33 hours ago doomad bumped this topic back to life
he wanted to mention something about a debate he triggered in another topic
so lets deal with certain subjects..
who mentioned the words segwit. and uasf first in this recent debate revival.... hmmm.. oooo it was doomad.
who bumped this topic that was dead for 10 months.. oooo it was doomad
who cant back up their narrative with any blockdata, code or bips.. oooo doomad
the reason i bite and respond to his and your pokes. is because unless people learn from the past and actually learn what actually happened in the past to ensure things dont easily happen like it again.. they end up happening again.. even more easily.
which is not good risk awareness to play dumb and ignorant and blind
and definitely not a good plan to be a ass kisser that lets devs make backdoors into feature inclusion without a good true consensus vote to fairly decided if it should activate or not.. is another risk
but hey. you lot dont care about bitcoin at all .. that much is obvious
you girls are the cry babies
heres another reason why you lot should cry
you think LN is the best, the solution, the popular network, the (pfft) feature that you brand as bitcoin
well babies.
did you realise that taproot has managed to hoard more coins into their feature in less than a year by the scale of 4x, compared to what you babies have managed in 5 years
yep using taproot has manage to grab 20k coins in a year.
yet your prefered feature(different network, but you pretend is just a feature) of LN only manage an average of 5k coin (~1k a year on LN)
did you also know that there are 180,000 WBTC and it is only 3 years 11 months old
compared to the 5k you lot celebrate in 5 and a half years
oh and remember how you guys were celebrating that bitfinex had over 1k of LN liquidity(20%)
well bitfinex has over 2k of wbtc
i only mention btc as an example of a other network unit pretending to be bitcoin
and yet after 5 years of promoting LN you have not realised its broke, flawed and buggy. you are still using the outdated sales pitches of 5 years ago
seems other people would rather lock funds into taproot rather than LN
would rather sell bitcoin and buy ethereum and then convert that to wbtc, rather than use LN
oh and i am not the one unsure about things. i am clear and my narrative has not changed
my narrative is backed up by blockdata, code and bips straight from sources wrote by developers
unlike your narratives which yet again you fail to respond with any evidence to back up your narrative. all you can do it cry and moan and insult that you dont understand english and blame it on the englishman. rather than realise that you are greek, where english is YOUR weakness
but i do laugh how you lot, do all the insulting but then cry when i insult back. you lot are not victims. so grow up. learn something . do some research and stop being manipulative
lets see blackhats cries
so.. 33 hours ago doomad bumped this topic back to life
he wanted to mention something about a debate he triggered in another topic
so lets deal with certain subjects..
who mentioned the words segwit. and uasf first in this recent debate revival.... hmmm.. oooo it was doomad.
who bumped this topic that was dead for 10 months.. oooo it was doomad
who cant back up their narrative with any blockdata, code or bips.. oooo doomad
the reason i bite and respond to his and your pokes. is because unless people learn from the past and actually learn what actually happened in the past to ensure things dont easily happen like it again.. they end up happening again.. even more easily.
which is not good risk awareness to play dumb and ignorant and blind
and definitely not a good plan to be a ass kisser that lets devs make backdoors into feature inclusion without a good true consensus vote to fairly decided if it should activate or not.. is another risk
but hey. you lot dont care about bitcoin at all .. that much is obvious
you girls are the cry babies
heres another reason why you lot should cry
you think LN is the best, the solution, the popular network, the (pfft) feature that you brand as bitcoin
well babies.
did you realise that taproot has managed to hoard more coins into their feature in less than a year by the scale of 4x, compared to what you babies have managed in 5 years
yep using taproot has manage to grab 20k coins in a year.
yet your prefered feature(different network, but you pretend is just a feature) of LN only manage an average of 5k coin (~1k a year on LN)
did you also know that there are 180,000 WBTC and it is only 3 years 11 months old
compared to the 5k you lot celebrate in 5 and a half years
oh and remember how you guys were celebrating that bitfinex had over 1k of LN liquidity(20%)
well bitfinex has over 2k of wbtc
i only mention btc as an example of a other network unit pretending to be bitcoin
and yet after 5 years of promoting LN you have not realised its broke, flawed and buggy. you are still using the outdated sales pitches of 5 years ago
seems other people would rather lock funds into taproot rather than LN
would rather sell bitcoin and buy ethereum and then convert that to wbtc, rather than use LN
oh and i am not the one unsure about things. i am clear and my narrative has not changed
my narrative is backed up by blockdata, code and bips straight from sources wrote by developers
unlike your narratives which yet again you fail to respond with any evidence to back up your narrative. all you can do it cry and moan and insult that you dont understand english and blame it on the englishman. rather than realise that you are greek, where english is YOUR weakness
but i do laugh how you lot, do all the insulting but then cry when i insult back. you lot are not victims. so grow up. learn something . do some research and stop being manipulative
December 21, 2022, 04:44:13 PM
Can't believe you two still quarrel about NYA, S2X and UASF. Guys, it's been half decade. These things are past for good.
The fact that franky's best interlocutor (who's been fighting his shit for over 5 years) isn't yet sure about whether franky does have a standard protocol interpretation or not should tell you a lot about franky.
The fact that franky's best interlocutor (who's been fighting his shit for over 5 years) isn't yet sure about whether franky does have a standard protocol interpretation or not should tell you a lot about franky.
December 21, 2022, 03:18:06 PM
For someone so utterly incapable of accepting the consequences of their choices, I'd have thought you'd make a smarter one. So be it.
December 21, 2022, 02:46:07 PM
it looks like we need to show doomad a pretty picture
AGAIN
the blue line of NYA (blackmail and threat of block rejections). caused the sudden diagonal red line of segwit which caused the activation
the diagonal red line event was the reject of non signalling blocks where every new block from that trigger point late july was then signalling segwit which diluted the count of previous non signals ... hence the line went STRAIGHT(no wiggle) diagonally to 100% where 100% is not natural
by the way. those tactics that were used were not described by me as SOFT. becasue they actually were HARD but FALSLY described as soft by other people.
which even you want to call it soft because of your ignorance of what actually happened
also the UASF was a different proposal promoted by samson mow not the same as the lukejr and shoulinfry stuff which the core devs and blockstream NYA group utilised
so dont try confusing people
what you are missing in your ignorance is that the 2x part of NYA was never a coded thing or a bip. it was the empty promise of "sometime later"
and its the 2x that failed. not the blackmail of block rejections first part of the NYA which was actually pushed
if you cannot tell the difference between the code and bips.. vs whats is promoted and said in a blog. then you again are not realising the actual stuff that actually happened
it seems apparent now your source of information has fooled you.
but if you want to continue pretending you know better..
BACK IT UP WITH ACTUAL DATA
show me some actual lines of code, some bips, some block data. .. something
.. im still waiting
all you can produce is your mindset of stuff you read on some blog post or tweet or some chat room somewhere
AGAIN
i even sent you the pretty picture many times
this image is not some made up gameplay. its graph is actual references to actual flags in block data. and the flags are reference numbers used by actual bips. which actually activated feature in actual code
this image is not some made up gameplay. its graph is actual references to actual flags in block data. and the flags are reference numbers used by actual bips. which actually activated feature in actual code
the diagonal red line event was the reject of non signalling blocks where every new block from that trigger point late july was then signalling segwit which diluted the count of previous non signals ... hence the line went STRAIGHT(no wiggle) diagonally to 100% where 100% is not natural
by the way. those tactics that were used were not described by me as SOFT. becasue they actually were HARD but FALSLY described as soft by other people.
which even you want to call it soft because of your ignorance of what actually happened
also the UASF was a different proposal promoted by samson mow not the same as the lukejr and shoulinfry stuff which the core devs and blockstream NYA group utilised
so dont try confusing people
what you are missing in your ignorance is that the 2x part of NYA was never a coded thing or a bip. it was the empty promise of "sometime later"
and its the 2x that failed. not the blackmail of block rejections first part of the NYA which was actually pushed
if you cannot tell the difference between the code and bips.. vs whats is promoted and said in a blog. then you again are not realising the actual stuff that actually happened
it seems apparent now your source of information has fooled you.
but if you want to continue pretending you know better..
BACK IT UP WITH ACTUAL DATA
show me some actual lines of code, some bips, some block data. .. something
.. im still waiting
all you can produce is your mindset of stuff you read on some blog post or tweet or some chat room somewhere
December 21, 2022, 02:36:09 PM
oh and dont start on the USAF.. you idiot we both know it was the NYA agreement and mandatory hardfork.
dont stupidly pretend it was the other one
dont stupidly pretend it was the other one
Dafuq now? *squints in confusion*
To the wider audience, is there a polite way to question if someone is illiterate without it being an insult? I'm genuinely curious. Did anyone else interpret my previous post as suggesting that UASF had activated? He called out shaolinfry by name (or at least tried to), so I assumed he was referring to UASF. So I stated that if it had activated then he might have a point. I never claimed it did activate. I can't fathom how one person can invoke so many misunderstandings in a single exchange of ideas.
My point was, UASF is the closest Bitcoin has ever come to a breakdown of the consensus mechanism, but it never gained significant traction to do any damage. Aside from that near-miss and one or two technical errors which were before my time here, Bitcoin has always maintained consensus.
And to address franky1 directly, we've been through this before. NYA was as much of a failure as UASF. NYA didn't activate shit, so you are incorrect in your assertion that "we both know". Unlike you, I can't "know" things that never happened. That's your talent.
And I know you're eager to move on from the part where you stated it's "shameful" for someone to say Bitcoin doesn't have a consensus mechanism right after you had just finished saying that consensus in Bitcoin is "broken"/"fake"/"bypassed"/etc and that non-SegWit and non-Taproot nodes supposedly aren't following consensus, but I think I'll dwell on it a little longer. Even by your standards, that's a pretty spectacular own-goal. Not to mention technobabble of the highest magnitude.
Now, instead of responding in your typical belligerent fashion, I would strongly recommend you take this opportunity to be reasonable because you're reaching a point of no return. You seriously need to take a moment to consider issuing a retraction for your comments and attempting to state your position in something more akin to a logically sound manner. We fully accept that you personally disapprove of opt-in, backwards-compatible features. You don't need to convince us any further of that. We get it. However, what you do need to convince us of is that you are not so blinded by your biases that you can no longer tell fact from fiction. It is clearly not correct or accurate to say that there are nodes active on the Bitcoin network right now which are not following consensus. Such a thing is impossible. You can't just go around spouting nonsense like that and expect us to let it slide. I'm giving you one last chance to start making sense. But if you continue down this route of saying some nodes aren't following consensus and yet they magically remain on the network, I guarantee you those words will haunt you. I will bring them up at every available opportunity to discredit any argument you make on any technical subject because it proves you have zero understanding of even the most basic aspects of Bitcoin. Everything is archived so you can't just go back and edit it. Consider your next words carefully.
December 21, 2022, 02:27:59 PM
*where all microeuros convert to euros no matter what situation occures
Nope, the microeuros will never show up on my bank account, and I can't withdraw them. Anything less than a cent can't be cash, and even cents have been "rounded" to 5 cents minimum for years in my country.Quote
then YOU may presume the microeuro to be a euro.. (emphasis on YOU)
It's more like I don't care about the microeuros, just like I don't care about the microsatoshis. For internal calculations it's okay, for practical purposes it's dust.then we both agree msats are not bitcoin
however here is the thing
imagine your broker trade desk screen showed you had 500,000microcents
internally you think your broker owes you 500cents (5 euros)
now what if i told you that the rules of your broker software(he asked you to download) meant that he can manipulate your user agreement of the 1:1000 conversion rate.
where by he can get the software to sign a 1:10,000,000
meaning your 500,000microcents trade desk screen balance.. is actually being signed into withdraw request order. of not 5 euros.. but not even 1 cent.. but instead 0.05
yep be aware that LN has no network consensus, no network audit of payments or channel law.
no mechanism to prevent changes to pegs. thus you can think your IOU is 5 euros as displayed on trading desk GUI. but at withdrawal of the settlement broadcast. you only get euro0.0005
yep the pegging mechanism between the onion payment unit vs commitment unit. is not a guaranteed secure rate
December 21, 2022, 12:56:57 PM
*where all microeuros convert to euros no matter what situation occures
Nope, the microeuros will never show up on my bank account, and I can't withdraw them. Anything less than a cent can't be cash, and even cents have been "rounded" to 5 cents minimum for years in my country.Quote
then YOU may presume the microeuro to be a euro.. (emphasis on YOU)
It's more like I don't care about the microeuros, just like I don't care about the microsatoshis. For internal calculations it's okay, for practical purposes it's dust. December 21, 2022, 11:40:34 AM
LN msats have many many ways to break the peg.
Can you name a few of these "many many ways"? I only know one: your partner closes the channel, and you lose (outgoing capacity mod 1000) msats. as for blackhat running out of rebuttles so just goes grammar nazi
Just in case you skipped it:bitcoin is now living in a trumpland 2020 where trump stayed in power AND changed the policy.. by evading democracy..
That's the problem. You think Bitcoin is democratic. It fundamentally isn't. Consensus isn't democracy. If Bitcoin was democratic, there wouldn't be a Bitcoin Cash, because it was rejected by majority. But there is, because there were a few users who had formed consensus on running that. In 2017, some users had had intentions to switch to SegWit. Some others didn't. The former group decided that the latter could still be part of the network with their consent if they want.english is a beautiful language
If only I could say the same about your writing. December 21, 2022, 11:34:40 AM
as for blackhat running out of rebuttles so just goes grammar nazi
english is a beautiful language
there is no single way to speak
tom8o tom@o
phone, dog and bone
scone: s-con sc-own, biscuit(american english)
if you go to glasgow, then liverpool, then manchester, then essex, then cornwall. you might notice the beauty of the language
this forum is not a oxford university for getting a degree in english
its a discussion forum where people have their own dialects.
and yes there are many versions of english outside of oxford
by the way americans call football. that game of holding a ball.. and call what brits call football soccer
yes we hate the football, tom8o diversity of the english language. but if you cannot accept diversity or atleast the diversity of language. thats on your narrow mindedness.
im not here to earn an oxford university degree.
this forum is not here to offer oxford degree's
this forum is open to diversity and open discussion
my english is understandable by those that are not narrow minded.
i was born british. as were my parents and their parents and theirs, for as far back as i have measured the 1700's
however angelo.. you are greek. so its you with the english deficit.
im here to discuss bitcoin. and i end up having to put up with narrow minded people like yourself that cannot understand the broad range and beauty of the english language
and i am 100% sure if i spoke cockney to you or mancunian you would collapse in tears thinking your translator is broke
you call yourself a bitcoiner?
A. you want people to stop doing transactions on bitcoin daily by advertising another network
B. you advertise fullnodes should not be full nodes by saying people should prun
C. more precisely you dont want a distributed ledger
D. you dont like the blockchain. specifically the taint proof of coin origins
you do not like much about bitcoin at all
first of all thank you for admitting one thing..
you admit the "few users" "some users" also known as the blockstream DCG group of the NYA economic nodes
however
you think when it comes to the hundreds of thousands of the wider community. you think they never had a vote(even before 2016).
again you also think democracy is about ability to fork
its not
democracy is about unity of the community. by majority vote
consensus/democracy is about coming to a majority elected policy which unites the masses, where if there is no clear majority the new policy does not activate.
that process was brutalised in 2016-17 by the ADMITTED changes proposed by luke Jr and shoulinfry
the devs admit it happened.. and its you guys that think you are defending and kissing devs ass by pretending it didnt happen
democracy is not where Jeremy Corbyn managed northern england and Boris Johnson managed southern england
democracy is not where kier starmer manages northern england and rishi manages southern england
there is no split up of england in true democracy
there is simply re-elections if no clear majority is found
and one last shut-down of another misconception you have
"bitcoin LN" brand stealing
lightning network is not reliant on bitcoin nor sole function for bitcoin and bitcoin alone
even J.Poone (DCG related)
who wrote the white paper on lightning said this
https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
also when running a compiled LN wallet/node. you do not have to go back to base code and change parameters. to make it operate with other networks. its simply an input you enter into the compiled and running node/wallet. thus LN is not something thats hard coded for bitcoin/reliant on bitcoin
english is a beautiful language
there is no single way to speak
tom8o tom@o
phone, dog and bone
scone: s-con sc-own, biscuit(american english)
if you go to glasgow, then liverpool, then manchester, then essex, then cornwall. you might notice the beauty of the language
this forum is not a oxford university for getting a degree in english
its a discussion forum where people have their own dialects.
and yes there are many versions of english outside of oxford
by the way americans call football. that game of holding a ball.. and call what brits call football soccer
yes we hate the football, tom8o diversity of the english language. but if you cannot accept diversity or atleast the diversity of language. thats on your narrow mindedness.
im not here to earn an oxford university degree.
this forum is not here to offer oxford degree's
this forum is open to diversity and open discussion
my english is understandable by those that are not narrow minded.
i was born british. as were my parents and their parents and theirs, for as far back as i have measured the 1700's
however angelo.. you are greek. so its you with the english deficit.
im here to discuss bitcoin. and i end up having to put up with narrow minded people like yourself that cannot understand the broad range and beauty of the english language
and i am 100% sure if i spoke cockney to you or mancunian you would collapse in tears thinking your translator is broke
you call yourself a bitcoiner?
A. you want people to stop doing transactions on bitcoin daily by advertising another network
B. you advertise fullnodes should not be full nodes by saying people should prun
C. more precisely you dont want a distributed ledger
D. you dont like the blockchain. specifically the taint proof of coin origins
you do not like much about bitcoin at all
first of all thank you for admitting one thing..
you admit the "few users" "some users" also known as the blockstream DCG group of the NYA economic nodes
however
you think when it comes to the hundreds of thousands of the wider community. you think they never had a vote(even before 2016).
again you also think democracy is about ability to fork
its not
democracy is about unity of the community. by majority vote
consensus/democracy is about coming to a majority elected policy which unites the masses, where if there is no clear majority the new policy does not activate.
that process was brutalised in 2016-17 by the ADMITTED changes proposed by luke Jr and shoulinfry
the devs admit it happened.. and its you guys that think you are defending and kissing devs ass by pretending it didnt happen
democracy is not where Jeremy Corbyn managed northern england and Boris Johnson managed southern england
democracy is not where kier starmer manages northern england and rishi manages southern england
there is no split up of england in true democracy
there is simply re-elections if no clear majority is found
and one last shut-down of another misconception you have
"bitcoin LN" brand stealing
lightning network is not reliant on bitcoin nor sole function for bitcoin and bitcoin alone
even J.Poone (DCG related)
who wrote the white paper on lightning said this
https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
Quote
Cross-Chain Payments. So long as there are similar hash-functions
across chains, it’s possible for transactions to be routed over multi-
ple chains with different consensus rules. The sender does not have
to trust or even know about the other chains – even the destination
chain. Simiarly, the receiver does not have to know anything about
the sender’s chain or any other chain.
across chains, it’s possible for transactions to be routed over multi-
ple chains with different consensus rules. The sender does not have
to trust or even know about the other chains – even the destination
chain. Simiarly, the receiver does not have to know anything about
the sender’s chain or any other chain.
also when running a compiled LN wallet/node. you do not have to go back to base code and change parameters. to make it operate with other networks. its simply an input you enter into the compiled and running node/wallet. thus LN is not something thats hard coded for bitcoin/reliant on bitcoin
Jump to: