Topic: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain - page 12. (Read 3193 times)

and they will want to resort to a previous BTC backup (to the closest blockchain of the last fork). It's not like that?

same as what happened to golds old 19th century medium of exchange status, replaced by bank notes.. and now bank notes being swapped for brass, nickel and copper coins.
.. no one uses gold as a medium of exchange anymore

those wanting LN dont want bitcoin to be a medium of exchange (daily activity currency between the common people) they want it as a 'reserve' currency for the settlement by custodians, payment services, 'hub managers'(AKA banks)

what needs to happen is BITCOIN needs to scale to keep people using the bitcoin network and maintain it regularly/daily. not be shunned away to another network being told to prune their wallet software and not maintain the blockchain, and not use bitcoin network regularly.

1. "LN allows private agreements".. has the word agreements in it. .. its not trustless. it requires both parties to be amicable. even the punishment cant be auto-trusted to work in un-amicable scenarios, it has flaws.
seems you have not even looked at the issues cypherpunks had with their p2p money before blockchians existed.

3. you are yet again confusing the locked bitcoin vs the LN payments. please try to learn the difference, it will help you with your day to day use of LN. im not stating you personally shouldnt use LN im saying you should learn what LN actually does and how it actually works to make your life better. heck it might even give you some insight on a better PR campaign

4. you just stated you dont want to go back to using bitcoin because of the fees and confirmation time
ill quote you AGAIN
yes bank notes are faster and cheaper to move around compared to gold.. still doesnt make a bank note goldL2

Question, why what you are doing is not advertising?

Yeah, and Bitcoin is just a currency. Lightning allows these agreements to happen in a trustless way and that's how it distinguishes itself from every other debt-based payment system. At this point I have a feeling that I need to quote the following;


It's a 2-of-2 co-signing agreement, but you both have a pre-signed Bitcoin transaction if you don't cooperate. Same goes for connectivity.

You're the only person in this room who thinks I hate Bitcoin.

as you can see. blackhatcoiner is showing the advert campaign.
1. saying LN is intelligent technology.. when its simply 'joint-bank account' economics of private agreements between partners.
 - cypherpunks had this 'tech' before 2008 and it didnt work for them. they found blockchains as the solution to 'channels'
2. it doesnt run ontop of bitcoin. much like a printer does not run on the internet. even if 2 middle PC software link locally
 - as bitcoin code has no LN peer connection stuff. and LN can still peer connect without bitcoin.
3. without permission? its 2-of-2 co-signing agreements needing the other person to give permission and be online to allow payments.
 - dont confuse LN 'instant payments' requiring partner amicable permission. vs bitcoin settlements exiting LN
4.seems you now want to show how you hate bitcoin. and dont want to return to using bitcoins 10min confirms and fee's, because you only want to use pico-measured unit fees and 'instant'(when online and amicable and liquid)

5. did bank notes protect the significance of gold as a medium of exchange? or did it replace it as a medium of exchange once bank note lovers decided not to take back their gold because of the slowness and expense of gold transfers.

gotta laugh though.
blackhatcoiner doesnt want bitcoin to scale itself to make less transaction bottlenecks and also make transactions cheaper on bitcoin. but then says LN is the bitcoin scaling solution.. then cries how he doesnt want to go back to bitcoin because of its implied restrictions

blackhatcoiner is stuck in a loop.. doesnt want bitcoin to change, wants another network to avoid bitcoin problems because bitcoin hasnt changed.

last funny part, admitting he doesnt want to return to the bitcoin network to exit LN, means.. yep he will exit LN by atomic swapping to a shitcoin with cheap fee's and less confirmation bottlenecks.

and on a serious note.
if he thinks that getting people off a train, to use a bus, is how he sees it as a solution to scaling trains. he is missing logic by a few million miles. if no one uses a train daily, people stop maintaining trains, and stop buying train tickets

I'm also replying to @philipma1957:
The intelligent technology of Lightning doesn't care what the majority wants. It's something that runs on top of Bitcoin, without anyone's permission and approval. Even if lots of users didn't want it, they could do nothing to prevent it. There'll always be some who find it satisfactory.

As for if it's damaging in the long term: I strongly disagree. It's what I call the solution to scaling. I'm not going back to paying 10-100 cents and wait for so long just to get my transaction confirmed. I want things to work instantly. I state the exact opposite: If we don't have Lightning, some shitcoins with larger blocks will find their opportunities to distinguish.

The Lightning Network protects the significance of the monetary policy of Bitcoin.

I'm taking this here from the other topic (click the quote for full context):
If LN would be able to kill Bitcoin, Bitcoin deserves it! I believe it's the exact opposite: Bitcoin doesn't care:

https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/02-peer-protocol.md

worth noting that using chain_hash happens AFTER peers connect,
it can be used to then interrogate what channels a peer already has.
it can be used to ask if that node wants to/can can create channels of those blockchains
it can be used to create channels if they both want to use that blockchain for pegged value

the separate peer connect part that comes WAY before channel interrogation or channel creation. is not blockchain specific. the nodeID uses public key for its ID along with an IP/tor domain.

the nodeID is a public key(bech32) but is not prefixed to a blockchain.
EG not bc1q for bitcoin, ltc1q for litecoin.
instead its just ln1q for LN node id

when using channel creation they can then decide which blockchain they want to both be bound in for that specific channel in which they then change the prefix to the supporting prefix of their desired/agreed blockchain

nodes can have a LN node id, and then many channels within, where some of those channels can for bitcoin, bitcoin testnet segnet regtest, litecoin and its testnets segnets regtests and other blockchain networks. and even private mutually agreed tokens

Wasn't there a big selling point of LN during the whole block debate shitshow that among other things it will enable atomic swaps? TBH I'd be far more excited about that than merely pushing sats around - even though it doesn't fit the "BTC über alles" spirit of this forum but let's face it, shitcoining exists, and shitcoin<->BTC conversion is big business currently almost entirely monopolized by KYC and DeFi nonsense.

when LN is being advertised as a solution to bitcoin, yet LN is not fit for purpose as a solution to bitcoin because LN cant cope if everyone was to use it. (yes liquidity bottlenecks/route fails happen ALOT on LN. even with small payment value requests) imagine the headache if larger payments bigger then micro-transactions became a daily thing. LN would bottleneck more often

when LN is being used as the reason not to scale bitcoin because they say LN is the thing people should use instead of bitcoin

when LN is used to scapegoat why bitcoin shouldnt scale by suggesting bitcoin cant cope with LN transaction numbers. even thou LN average user count and transactions per day are not that much (ignoring the payments done as route, rebalancing which are just needless transactions not needed to be done on the bitcoin network). yep if you actually count the payments where LN users are actually paying for a good or service. that volume of payment count is not going to saturate bitcoin.

bitcoin does not need 100mb blocks or 2gb blocks like the altnetters suggest as their melodrama excuse to not want to scale bitcoin

their desire to hinder bitcoin scaling just to advertise an altnet, its not actually helping evolve bitcoin. its purely ends up being an advert for an altnet

i dont mind people advertising niche services for niche use cases if they explain the risks and what makes it different to actual bitcoin network stuff.. my main gripe is the promises of bitcoin scaling but then saturate posts with adverts about features, other network stuff, that ends up not scaling and just some other thing to side step people out of using bitcoin daily and into something that doesnt work 100% guaranteed without risk/permission from another party.

if you want a simple list of my issues with LN and its supporters:
1. PR campaign advertising LN as bitcoin (pretending security/feature similarities)
1.a: brand tagging bitcoin into a different network to fake trust/loyalty/fanbase
1.b: brand tagging the trust of bitcoin to hide the risks of the other network
1.c: avoid clarifying the differences of LN payments vs funding/settlement commitments
1.d: avoid explaining the permission required payments/commitments vs the permissionless broadcast of just commitment
1.e: avoid temporality of LN payments vs the immutability of confirmed bitcoin transactions

i already said many times if they're honest. they could actually use the differences as positive spin for their niche use case

2. using LN as an excuse not to scale bitcoin
2.a: saying bitcoin doesn't need to scale now LN exists, as if LN could cope with routes for large value/all value(facepalm)
2.b: LN flaws means LN nodes need to perform more 'events'(payments) even when they are not personally buying things
2.c: pretending their high 'event' count is a sign of high utility of LN of people buying things
2.d: pretending the high events is a sign bitcoin couldn't cope with amount of events if those events were blockchain tx's
2.e: pretending LN solves bitcoin scaling, and is there for all users, all value, and 100% payment success
2.f: pretending bitcoin needs to scale to Visa by this month, but cant so LN can and LN will handle Visa amounts
2.g: pretending LN is dependant on bitcoin and thus bitcoin is dependant on LN

3. saying bitcoin is broke or trying to break bitcoin just so they can say 'LN is perfect'
3.a: saying miners(asics) cant handle 'big blocks' (although asics dont even touch tx data)
3.b: saying people use 1999 tech and cant store or relay bitcoin (sorry average internet is 59mbs not 0.5mbs)
3.c: saying people shouldnt initial block download, 'its to big and meaningless', use LN phone app with an exchange channel
3.d: saying pruning is safe, everyone should do it. blockchains aren't needed. blockchains aren't part of decentralisation
3.e: saying litewallets and pruned are full network feature nodes. lite/prune still support the network 100%(facepalm)

4. not wanting to evolve bitcoin as digital cash
4.a: wanting bitcoin fees to be high with lame excuses like pools need high fees
4.b: not wanting more tx's for less fee's (where 5k tx of $0.50 is better than 2k of $1) because lower fees = less LN niche
4.c: telling people what not to buy using bitcoin "dont buy coffee with bitcoin"
4.d: telling people bitcoin is not a digital cash for the unbanked (goes against the whitepaper)
4.e: telling people bitcoin is a 'rail' / reserve network for the elite whales that can afford to use it for batching custodial tx's

i am a whale, but i also see that bitcoin should be useful for the little guys

5. even the usability of LN is not childs play
5.a: needing to lock funds but have to predict how much you plan to spend days/weeks/months ahead
5.b: needing to plan chances of route success and split funds over different 'accounts'(channels) in preparation
5.c: needing to find a channel partner you know will be online when you are to sign permission for your payment
5.d: needing to know he has enough routes/channel possibilities to help ensure payment success
5.e: needing to ensure he is not being used by others too much so that liquidity remains for you to route via him

i could go on but thats just the thoughts at the top of my head

I'm taking this post from BlackHatCoiner's topic in Meta here:
I'm still amazed how much you dislike LN, and I still don't really understand why. From the above, it sounds like it's mainly about the terms used. I prefer to say "Bitcoin LN" when I mean a LN-transaction tied to the Bitcoin network. In other words: a LN transaction that can ultimately be settled on the Bitcoin blockchain. And I always thought "Bitcoin LN" was clear for everyone to understand what I mean.

You seem to suggest that's a bad thing, or something that makes LN a bad thing. I think it's the opposite: it's great! That means the Bitcoin network can't be touched, can't be damaged, can't be hurt and can't be stopped by Bitcoin LN. And it's why people say LN runs on top of Bitcoin. If it's about nomenclature, I think we should be able to figure out something that works for everyone.

If it's about terminology again, it doesn't matter much to me. All I know is that my (non-custodial) Bitcoin LN transactions can and will eventually be settled on-chain, after paying a more or less uncertain transaction fee. There's certainly room for improvement, but I think the potential is too good to completely dismiss.

I think we can all agree that exchanges are not Bitcoin. Even though they'll probably let you withdraw your funds, you're completely at their mercy if they decide otherwise. That's not the case when your funds are locked in a LN wallet: you know you can get your funds settled on-chain.

thats why consensus is not 100% but instead majority..
i never said true consensus needs 100% agreement. i said majority.
seems doomad and now blackhatcoiner have been propagandising the misinformation of how consensus 2009-16 worked, as well as pretending mandatory activation was still the same consensus. but then contradicting to say the new consensus is different

i just said majority of true desire, is the consensus of how things get activated..
.. not threats of rejection if not flagging (new mandatory version of activation)

funny part is segwit 2016 (bip9+141) didnt reach that 'majority' all the way through to july 2017

its why they needed to brutalise consensus by changing things from consensus to 'mandatory activation'
oh and before we run back down the ignorance of blackhatcoiner and doomad's propaganda scripts, which is to say bip9+141 was not replaced by bip91+148.. i can show you quotes from theymos and pieter wuille  that say they were replaced and used. and the flags are shown in the immutable blocks.

and the bips themselves say they are mandatory activations by using block rejection to get their thresholds met

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0091.mediawiki

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki

and if they want to continue arguing it wasnt. they can take that argument to them

Besides that, according to franky, there can never be a change even in a “true consensus” based system, 'cause there'll always be people who may disagree with it.

Moving this discussion here, as it does not belong in Meta:


Anyone is free to have the opinion that 2009-2016 consensus was the "true consensus" at the time.  And anyone is free to run a client from that era which does not contain backwards compatible code.  However, it is factual to state that the current consensus does allow for backwards compatible code.  Enough users are running code to make that possible.  Anyone who wants to take advantage of the security and network effects of Bitcoin, which are only made possible by everyone working in agreement, is accepting the current consensus rules. 

It's possible to create a client which rejects blocks containing transactions using SegWit format addresses.  If such a client existed, would you run it?  Then you could have the "true consensus" you claim you want. 

i did respond when loycev answered the 6 questions.
but lets respond to your contradicting misunderstandings

1. connecting to peers on the LN network involve just a public key and IP/tor ..
the public keys ip/tor requirements of connecting, are not coin/chain_hash specific.
people can use the public keys to then make litecoin multisig or bitcoin multisig or other token stuff

you dont have a channel with funding lock to then connect to a peer.. instead you connect to a peer and [separation] choose which chain_hash to agree on for the creation a multisig to then fund and then commit to the channel.

LN can be used to choose to create a channel for litecoin(without bitcoin) or other altcons or even agree on creating a channel using their own private token. node connection is not fixed to stay on one chain_hash, as nodes can atomic swap using different chain_hash channels

2. LN promises. are not the same as commitments. you may not like that i do not buzzword to your favoured language and instead use a more descriptive word that explains the function. but id rather use words that explain function than use words that have meaningless connection to function. EG channels buzzworded to 'edge' by altnetters. but i prefer to describe them as 'joint-accounts'
either way if you only disagree due to grammar. you have just made yourself look foolish. because you used a silly grammar argument to avoid the question about '(payments inside LN) are denominated in picocoin(11decimal) also known as msat/millisat'

as you can see i actually had a bracketed explainer of my term 'promises'. to avoid the confusion, which you actually then seemed confused by.. without realising that i pre-empting your grammar confusion by including the bracketed explainer.

3.4 again avoid answering because of buzzword/grammar nazi excuse (boring)

5. 6. funny part is. that you said in point 1 you wanted to define LN as not separate to bitcoin. and thus you deem it as bitcoin. yet at point 5.6 you avail yourself of first opinion and contradict yourself of that opinion. but admitting it can be used without bitcoin. thus again..you full circle back to my point that LN is not bitcoin

---

lets try again. this time ill make the questions even clearer to appease your grammar nazism of ignorance
also appease the 'bias' excuse by asking the question in the opposite form

(avoid social drama tactic that are used to evade answering/sticking to a certain opinion)


1.a: lightning network is not the bitcoin network.
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

1.b: lightning network is the bitcoin network.
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

2.a: lightning network is a separate network that does different things than bitcoin
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

2.b: lightning network is always linked to the bitcoin network that does what bitcoin does
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

3.a: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in picocoin-1 (11decimal) also known as msat/millisat
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

3.b: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in btc
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

4.a: LN "payments" (inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

4.b: LN "payments" (inside LN) are same format, to a bitcoin transaction
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

5.a: bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

5.b: bitcoin network does understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

6.a: LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

6.b: LN is tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

7.a: LN wont work without bitcoin
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

7.b: LN will work without bitcoin
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

Clarify me this: Why is this a bad thing? Why is promoting of networks that don't follow the Bitcoin's consensus rules bad? If something happens outside the network, but it does satisfy a decent percentage of Bitcoin users, why does this annoy you? The networks are indirectly connected. No one forced anybody to use any of those and the Lightning Network hasn't damaged Bitcoin in any way. Contrariwise, it has made the chain weight less. You're paying less in fees due to the existence of it, whose usage is optional!

Also, what's an altnet, exactly? Wanna give me a description? Are forks (such as BCH) altnets? Or is the definition just interest-based? 'Cause if they are, then your proposal will lead to another altnet.

But you haven't addressed any of the concerns that we've raised with your questions.  You just repeat the questions because you want us to admit to something that isn't true.  Let's take a look:


1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

Neither.  They are connected networks, not separate.  Misleading question.

---

2. LN promises (payments inside LN) are denominated in picocoin(11decimal) also known as msat/millisat
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

Again, misleading.  I would dispute the use of the word "promises".  You are adding your "silly rhetoric" here because you are biased.  I won't mindlessly agree to misleading words.

---

3. LN promises (payments inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

Again, "promises".  You can't help yourself.

---

4. bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued promises
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

You really like the word "promises", don't you?

---

5. LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
agree[ * ]   disagree[ ]

Oh good.  Something that I can actually answer without accepting any misleading rhetoric.  LN does function on top of other blockchains.  And that's a positive quality, not a negative one.  If other networks are deploying LN to allow people to transact off-chain, then it must have some useful purpose.  My view is forever locked in.  I can now never deny that other altcoins can use LN.  Although I can't think of a time where I ever tried to deny that.  So, congratulations, I guess?  What did you hope to achieve by this?

---

6.LN wont work without bitcoin
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

Misleading.  Either can be correct depending on the circumstances.
If I have an amount of bitcoin and I want to use LN to transfer that value to someone else, who wants to receive bitcoin, then yes, it won't work without Bitcoin.
If I have an amount of altcoin and I want to use LN to transfer that value to someone else, who wants to receive the same altcoin, then no, it doesn't need Bitcoin to work.

---

These are not "simple non invasive" questions.  You are being deliberately calculating in your choice of wording in an attempt to trick people into agreeing with your rhetoric.  And even if we had fallen into your not-so-subtly prepared trap, it still doesn't detract from the utility offered by this technology.



Then you'll happily confirm without equivocation that:

• Any developer is free to code what they want,
• everyone will be free to run any code they choose,
• if enough people run code with different consensus rules, change can happen even if a minority disagree,
• if you run code which is incompatible with the code a majority of users are running, you can be disconnected from the network,
• features implemented by soft fork can be considered "opt-in" and you can continue to remain part of the network even if you don't want to use those features,
• there may be social engineering attempts to derail new ideas, but no one has the power to stop that, so we just have to try to overcome their arguments with sound reasoning

Or can you highlight any reason why you believe any of these statements to be misleading?  I believe these statements to be true and feel that I have justified them in the posts I have made in this topic.  In fact, I would invite anyone, not just franky1, to challenge any of these statements.  I want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly and that I'm not just preaching arcane beliefs like a religious follower despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  Please correct me if I am mistaken or nonfactual in any regard.

I'll check it later.


Doing "current height - utxo height" is very easy, but it's not easy to determine whether a block is valid when each node have slightly different mempool and miner attempt to evade "coin age" rule (such as move their own UTXO).

note to moderator:loyceV
as you can see Doomad poked the bear, without using any data, code, references to bips, to just talk about me as a personality.
he poked the bear.
so dont blame me

---

its not a moral high ground.
i dont care about merit circles or people being my friends, or ass kissing..
my opinions are about bitcoin. and how its being abused to serve other networks agenda's

i dont want to form a little club of friendship partners to exchange tokens of many forms
im a bitcoiner, and proud of it.

heck i even tried to get people to answer just 6 simple non invasive, short non-waffling(no wall of text) questions to button them down to key opinions they want to categorically state as their stance.. to avoid any contradictions(flip flops/change of opinion/meandering)
.. and yet they avoid it and try meandering and confusing the answers.

if you cant stand by your opinion by just answering agree or disagree without adding in some silly rhetoric of maybe. then your opinion obviously is less refined or strong, thus you dont want to stand by a opinion without fears of contradicting it later.

my opinion does not waver, does not contradict itself, does not change. because its backed up by code, bips, blockdata and quotes from devs themselves.

can you say the same about your opinions.. nope.
i backup my statements. but all i see from your side is "franky is wrong because [insert insult]."

you can insult me all you like. but dont then play victim after poking a bear, if the bear then bites you.

and by the way, your "us" vs "you" is very transparent that you believe there is a 'pretty boys club' you belong to.
but that club, circles around the altnet support group. not the bitcoin group.

and if you think i am the only one that wants BITCOIN scaling. how come there are thousands of BITCOIN scaling topics with loads of people asking about scaling BITCOIN. which your club invades to endlessly advertise an altnet people should exodus to instead 'as a solution to scaling bitcoin' (facepalm)

oh, and i actually did give some advice that if you changed your PR strategy to instead of pretending LN is bitcoin, but instead explain the differences, you might actually have a better campaign by being able to explain those differences as the niche use-case feature people might want.

but it seems im the bad guy for ruining the "LN is bitcoin2.0" PR campaign

Okay.  So you believe you possess some sort of moral high-ground.  Great.  Now what?  Are we supposed to "see the light" that apparently only you can see and convert to your way of thinking?  Because I can guarantee to you that's not going to happen.  I don't think any of us believe that we are "hindering" Bitcoin.  That's just your opinion.  We appear to be at an impasse.  We've got what we want.  You don't have what you want.  You have nothing to offer us.  Meaning there is no incentive for us to change.  

This sounds like a "you" problem.