Topic: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain - page 2. (Read 3193 times)

when you broadcast to settle..
i hope you atleast are not watching TXID of a broadcast with your node having RBF turned off.. where you only see a unconfirmed tx of "first seen"

your counter party may have RBF on and later sends a previous commitment with higher fee.
which pools accept as replacement of the one in your mempool.. thus your waiting weeks thinking your 'first-seen' is waiting/pending a confirm to settle
where as your counterparties other broadcast gets confirmed..

so i hope you lot atleast have RBF turned on to watch for double spends at unconfirmed relay and you lot are watching via UTXO of funding commit.. rather than TXID

the function of your micro eurocent has a different purpose to a metal eurocents you find in your jacket pocket

if that database of microeurocents has:
*some guarantee that your broker cant just do an FTX on your balance..
*recognised by your countries regulators that your deposits are insured
*no way for broker to get away with stealing your microeuro
*where all microeuros convert to euros no matter what situation occures

then YOU may presume the microeuro to be a euro.. (emphasis on YOU)

however much like:
#not-your-key-not-your-coin(counterparty refuse to sign multisig)
much like fractional reserving(thor turboing)
much like sidechain/subnetwork de-begging(change 1:1000 peg)

there are more flaws to your brokers system than an actual euro

LN msats have many many ways to break the peg. and also many ways your channel counter-part can attack your value and abuse the "trust" of the contract you have agreed on via funding tx signing it into their co-control
if you are not away or wish to be blind to the differences.. thats on YOU

Reminder:
Take a breath

I like this (not so subtle) explanation

One could argue Bitcoin LN doesn't leave the Bitcoin network, it just doesn't move on-chain when it's moved in LN.

I have a broker account that uses fractions of cents internally. Does that mean it's not in euro? Or maybe it's not euros because it's not printed on paper banknotes, but only numbers on a centralized computer. I think most people consider it to be euros, because for all practical purposes it acts the same, even though it isn't printed on "original" banknotes.

For me, the fact that it's guaranteed to be possible to get it on-chain is enough to trust LN and consider it to be Bitcoin. I get that we disagree, and I'm okay with that.

Correct, if by "my budding group" you mean the legitimate Bitcoin users.

Sorry that I have to spoil that to you, but whenever I've avoided a debate with you, it's because it's unbelievably tiring to talk with someone who barely knows his mother tongue.

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.

That's how things were done, in reality. Not in this stupid, fantastic, utopian world where you live in-- which I'm sure it isn't the UK. Even school dropouts know English better.

no one IN YOUR BUDDY GROUP agrees with me. its just a shame you only see your buddy group. and you only notice people that have no fear of being frank trying to talk to your buddy group about how stupid you look. where you ignore the thousands of other people that object to your buddy group, they just avoid getting into debate with you cry babies

but your buddy group is only a dozen plus subnetwork adoring people  of a network that has no consensus or blockchain

its funny how there are thousands of posts and topics about bitcoin scaling and wanting onchain changes of extra tx per block and cheaper fee's(many people not liking the broken/empty promise of the segwit pledge /LN deportation plan of "scaling")

yet i see the same dozen idiots trying to promote the "LN solution to scaling problem"


(facepalm)
the METHOD of activating segwit into the ruleset.. was not done via consensus

consensus: consent via a mass census
it was activated by only counting trump voters

EG part of elections in america is offering new POLICY/pledge of new rule change in the future.
where if there was no true winner via a fair election trump stays in power but the policies stayed in pre election state. where no new policy is accepted.
meaning another election would need to occur if new policy were to happen
 
yes this means trump(core) still in power but not with any 2020 policy change allowed. where trump(core) continued on in old policy(ruleset(no segwit)).

but that was bypassed where trump(core) stayed in power and got to change policy, by his fake election campaign. which idiots want to call "trump won 2020"

using the analogies
bitcoin is now living in a trumpland 2020 where trump stayed in power AND changed the policy.. by evading democracy..

instead of how elections actually happened where if there was no clear winner. trump would have temporarily stayed in power but without new policy. where a new election would soon occur to offer new policy

yes NYA corporate votes were counted
yes they changed election rules that normal citizens dont vote(backward compatibility to just keep trump in power without a vote)


funny part is.. the blockchain data and actually using your eyes.. there was a hard fork.. its called BCH(yes it happened)
there were block rejections to falsify a 100% (un-natural to get full 100% by the way)

they instead changed the voters rights(backward compatible) and just didnt count or involve all citizens in the vote where abstaining was treated as voting for trump2020 policy


no
in real consensus there just be no policy change. thus no fork due to an election

please go learn the difference between consensus vs forking
learn the solution to the byzantine generals problem.. it will clear up your many misunderstandings

it will help you realise why bitcoin was such a novel solution to many things in 2009-2016

..
you you and your daddy doomad stop reptending segwit was soft. it was hard as proven by there being a hard fork
and stop pretending that i am saying that segwit activated via soft (uasf) becasue again i am and never have said that segwit was soft

there was a fork, controversy and rejections and then election bypass to activate new policy

stop trying to think segwit was peaceful kumbaya unanimous agreement

How do you feel that nobody agrees with you? I mean, let's say you're correct for a wild moment, and that's how things should be. How do you feel that the people who're responsible for this network's well-tempered operation disagree with soft forks being "fuck off" mechanisms? What can you, individually, do about that? And you know... have an essence. Not just whining, and beating the air. 'Cause as far as I know, if people don't give a fuck for what you have to say, you either shut up, or get your fuck together elsewhere, preferably on a different network in this case. Dictating others how it is fair for a pro-freedom network to work doesn't make much sense to me.

So why isn't Segwit part of consensus? Some nodes came into this agreement, and in fact, they took into consideration that it won't fork the rest nodes off the network. They could have chosen to solve the transaction malleability problem without soft forking, backwards-compatibility and the like; just a brutal hard fork, and it would work more efficiently as well. But they thought: we can't just enforce this to everybody, nor is it appropriate to split the network in half.

So how should be done, according to you? What's the "true consensus" voting system like?

by you wasting your whole post about forks. and only asking questions about forks, shows you are evading discussion about consensus or simply dont know what consensus is

consensus is a byzantine generals solution. research it. its not a split up the generals into rival armies so they can all do their own thing.
consensus is about getting the generals to agree on one marching order of unity, if there is a majority agreement of the generals(keeping the army together),. else there is no new marching order if no majority.
and they then have to come up with a new mission/policy to vote on later if they want to progress

please genuinely research the term "byzantine generals"

there is a difference between consensus and forks

forks are "fuck off" mechanisms
consensus is "stay together" mechanisms

yes people can fork and make their own altcoin. but thats making their own altcoin

consensus is about agreement of a change is accepted by a majority vote
where there is no pre activation forks. where there is no threat of rejecting blocks blackmail. its simply asking people to flag intention and if intension gets majority without threat or malice. then it activates because people are then ready to service that new rule by having upgraded to have code ready to support the new rule. thus no fork

note the words of agreement and acceptance (consent)
also note the census part, of information from the masses of a given population
yes consensus is about consent of the masses

here is the thing
i know you guys seem like the types that believe trump won 2020 due to what you read on twitter and believe because your buddies believe it

but if the US done a proper census and looked at the actual election results.. they would see the consensus proves trump lost

forks/altcoin creating. is not about being part of a countries election. its about being deported before an election or threatened that deporting will happen unless you vote a certain way. where by being deported means you are not part of an election and instead a citizen of another country

do you understand the difference between a fork vs consensus

yes segwit activated. yes taproot activated, but not via a true consensus, it activated by false election via a deportation policy before election triggered by a popularity contest of the corporations, and the lack of need to count the citizen votes

meaning lots of nodes are not supporting things like taproot right now thus lots of nodes are blindly hoarding blocks where they have not fully validated every transaction of every block

..
your view of what you think consensus is, is about splitting america up into trumpland and bidenland

where as consensus is, if there is a failure to find true majority of a fair election. there is no new leader, and a new election has to occur with maybe some other policy pledge to maybe win favour at a later date to maybe have a winner with a new policy that is part of the future for america. its not about deporting people before elections to some other land to win an election by a false election

You can whine as much as you want, but what's the result? Let's assume you're right, and consensus is democracy (that's how you interpret it).

Hard forking is an inevitable part of a decentralized system, and if someone wants to hard fork, there's nothing that can stop him from do so. Soft forks, on the other hand, aren't necessarily inevitable; such forward-compatibility can only be set in stone from genesis. If it isn't, then any protocol change would result in hard fork.

Let me ask you this: if a soft fork cannot be supported with consensus as you've made clear with your definition of consensus, why did Bitcoin v0.1 had explicit support for future soft forks?

so flags just happened to reach unnatural 100% that triggered the mandatory activation, was just a coincidence?

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

do you need me to show you the pretty picture graph of the flags AGAIN
or can you be capable of reminding yourself without a spoon being put in your mouth and teaching you how to digest information

..
doomad wheres your source links for your assertions.. wheres your blockdata of flags used. wheres your bips/codebases to back up your rhetoric

dont respond unless its to show links of actual code/bips or flag data in blockchain. as there is no point in hearing your empty cries for anymore time without you backing up your wet eyes and cries

enjoy the next five years of continual childisms. or hopefully take a chance on yourself do some research accept the immutable data beats your delusional thoughts. accept the data wins. and grow up and act like an adult for once

If UASF had activated, then you might have a point.  But it didn't, so you don't.

apart from the fact that the bitcoin devs themselves admit it was bypassed by naming and shaming Luke Jr and shoulinfry as the people that came up with the bypass to get certain features activated without the need of mass consensus before activation
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki


funny how anyone can google how it was done but you seem to refuse to do research after 5 years

heres just one example.. took me 23 seconds
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#credits
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0144.mediawiki#credits

oh and more evidence to prove my point
how consensus WAS
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0008.mediawiki#motivation
the boefore explanation
after

then maybe you can spend some time with how they used the other bips of mandatory rejecting non-flagging blocks to fake the flag thresholds before activation. to cause a activation without need of majority nodes and without true majority of block creators

yep it took me about 50 seconds of search to find good source data from the devs. .. now show me your good source data of your assertions

Bitcoin has a consensus mechanism.  It does not have a "true consensus mechanism".  It cannot have such a thing because it's a phrase you made up.  It's not real.  Never has been real.  Never will be real.  Only exists in your head.  No one aside from you believes it's a thing.  And consensus still does not function as you describe.  



You are still the only person on the face of the planet who I've seen saying that consensus has been broken, bypassed or faked.  Literally just you.  Again, this is also a thought residing exclusively in your head and no one else's.  


Bitcoin has always had consensus and will continue to have consensus.  I said it never had your entirely imaginary definition of consensus.  Learn to read, plz.



Says the person completely twisting and distorting the meaning of what I wrote.  

Again, Bitcoin has consensus.  It just doesn't have the perverted, nonsensical, made-up nonsense you call "true consensus".



The current situation we find ourselves in suggests otherwise.  Soft-forks cannot be un-invented.  Argue all you like, but here we are.  If anything, it sounds as though YOU are the one saying Bitcoin doesn't have consensus.  Because YOU have stated unequivocally that non-SegWit and non-Taproot nodes are not following consensus.  I believe non-SegWit and non-Taproot nodes are following consensus, but are simply opted out of those features.  So stand by your own faulty logic and accept you haven't got the slightest clue what you are talking about.  You can't claim I'm the one saying Bitcoin has no consensus when YOU are the one claiming consensus is "fake" and "broken" and that there are nodes on the Bitcoin network which supposedly are not following consensus.  That makes zero sense (like just about everything you've said in this entire topic).

now to summarise why this topic even started by loyce



bitcoin lives on the bitcoin network. it never leaves the bitcoin network and no one can create new bitcoin on or off the bitcoin network so anything pretending to be bitcoin outside the bitcoin network is not bitcoin

database balance on a CEX is not real bitcoin
sidechain tokens/ subnetwork IOU's are not bitcoin

if it uses a different unit
EG a token of 11 decimals. its not bitcoin
if its not appearing as a confirmed bitcoin UTXO when you feel that you have been "paid" its not bitcoin
if its not appearing as unconfirmed/pending on the bitcoin network peer nodes. its not bitcoin

LN is a separate network that can work with other coins.
it is not a network that only functions for and only with bitcoin

if doomad thinks bitcoin didnt have a true consensus.. then he is the idiot that does not understand bitcoin
but it is funny how i had to spend years dumbing things down to the most "explain like your 5yo" before he can understand the objections.... but thats on him. not me


he loves the fact that the consensus mechanism of 2009-2016 has been broken and bypassed. where he now wants to pretend it never existed.
that bitcoin never had a consensus (solution to byzantine generals problem)
but thats just his and his buddies that follow his narratives SHAMEFUL, manipulative, malicious, shenanigans and ignorant mind at play

i cannot believe how malicious doomad (and his chums) rhetoric is by saying that bitcoin doesnt and never had a true consensus. .. i understand why he says it. because his favoured subnetwork doesnt have a consensus system to protect their network value.  so he is selling a narrative that systems dont have nor need consensus and pretend bitcoin never had or needed one.. SHAMEFUL sales pitch

very shameful!!

the thing is

YOU idiots want to say that nodes with:
stripped blocks(non witness) that dont offer IBD seeding to peers.
and/or
pruned chains that dont offer IBD to peers.
nodes that dont verify every rule

you malicious deceitful fools are still deeming those nodes as being full nodes, pretending that they fully secure the network fully and are following consensus fully
BUT THEY ARE NOT

you lot do not care about making users risk aware or understand the variances and their impacts


..
consensus is where nodes need to majority be ready to verify new rules BEFORE a new rule is activated so that the nodes can verify the blockchain fully. and fully agree they have all verified all data and came to the same agreed end state

yet you IDIOTS what to have this stupid diluted insecure mashup of variant nodes of one brand, where people are still reliant on one brand even if they are not fully securing the network.

all so you lot can weaken bitcoins system by subversion so you lot can promote your crappy subnetwork as a 'solution' to limitations and flaws added by the devs that should not be putting these limits in but instead should be expanding and evolving bitcoin

take the new RBF. nodes that have full rbf disabled. when seeing a tx. keep the first seen. and thus are left falsely thinking the tx they see pending in the GUI is the one that will confirm. yet other nodes that use RBF will reject first seen and keep the higher fee spending utxo. thus nodes will have different mempools and different trust of whats pending to be confirmed. and thus ruining the risk based tolerance of acceptance of zero confirmation.

yep you lot wanted to break this zero-confirm tolerance because it impedes users that want to accept zero confirm. thus now they cant risk tolerate low value, are being told to use your stupid broke subnetwork as the replacement/solution to the zero confirm acceptance system

---

consensus is not about changing the rule and then if you dont like it, its too late go fork off to an altcoin

consensus is majority without manipulation(by pre-rejection-pre orphan miscounting). then would only activate a new feature if there is agreement by the masses(get a dictionary and learn consensus)


now go play with your silly subnetwork and stop abusing bitcoin with your charades that are malicious and only end goal is to ruin and stifle bitcoin to make your other silly non blockchain.non consensus network seem more attractive

you malicious manipulative vile people

Fairness is subjective, because it's a result from each person's standards. It doesn't surprise me that some people like franky don't find it fair to produce consensus by that manner. Maybe backwards-compatible nodes do, indeed, get treated unfairly according to some, because they might disapprove the change but can't disapprove the transactions of that change (because they can't verify the witness part), and that might seem unfair to them, because they don't get to called full nodes (with the entire sense of the term) anymore.

The thing is: Bitcoin isn't in favor of fairness; it never was. It's in favor of freedom. The moment you start enforcing these consensus rules, that very moment you consent that these rules might as well change by consensus in the future. Like it or not, find it fair or not, that's how this system works. If you disapprove of it, create another one, which is more fair. It's doomed to be less free though, because fairness requires to dictate what's fair.

Bumping the topic as I believe we've achieved a breakthrough.  After many years, franky1 has finally managed to articulate their grievances in a manner which can be interpreted:


The stance franky1 takes here is that backwards-compatible non-SegWit nodes are not following consensus.  It's certainly a... unique... interpretation, but that's not the point.

Their issue is that they don't like the consequences of their choice.  It's not enough for them that they can remain part of the network while declining to utilise, or even recognise, SegWit.  They feel diminished in their role, despite that being the path they chose.  Almost as though it's a form of discrimination to them.  It might sound like I'm reaching, but this point will be evidenced again below.



Again, franky1 reiterates his belief that non-SegWit nodes, with the new addition of non-Taproot nodes, are supposedly not following consensus, yet somehow remain part of the Bitcoin network.  And again expresses anthropomorphised feelings that backwards-compatible nodes are being treated unfairly somehow.  Given the choice between being a part of the network and being forked off the network, I'd have thought most people would be happy with being able to remain.  This, however, is not enough for franky1.  If he can't have what he wants, apparently no one can (except we can and do, in fact, have everything we want, he's simply in denial about it).



It's worth pointing out that Bitcoin's network has no concept of "true consensus" as franky1 chooses to define it.  After all, that's a notion which only exists in his imagination.  It's not a genuine thing here in the real world.  Consensus empirically does not function in the way franky1 describes above.  Yet he continues to argue that it "should" because the alternative is that he feels diminished in his role and that his non-SegWit node is treated as "lesser" because he is making the choice not to take part in that aspect of the available features.

I hope this gives people some fresh insights in how to handle this colossal man-baby and his ceaseless tantrums.

yea obviously
you only want to discuss the Alice pays bob direct in the same channel stuff.
i tried many times to get you to expand out of your narrow examples. to get you to look outside a small subset of messages. and to see the wider stuff actually happening even as far back as 2019

i havnt even got to the bits about 'trampoline' and other stuff outside of your comfort zone. because you want to keep dragging things back to the small narrative of in-channel commitments to avoid talking about routed payments and payments without a pre defined path(three very different things)

(trampoline is just one example where the sender is not defining a pre-defined path nor needing to know full network before attempting a payment)

i have tried too many times to try expanding your narrative out, trying to get you to see more then just a dozen messages you think are involved. but hey.

its not about "what the network could look like". its that you only want to see/discuss a narrow portion/ small feature piece of the network ignoring the other features,. to only want to discuss bits that suit your narrative

right now. in an existing ability/feature. (not a "could be") if i was set to public or private. your bootstrap map wont show all my paths, though i can allow payments through them.
but im guessing im getting to far ahead of your narrative

All messages are encrypted so it doesn't really matter what you put inside (still, the specs recommend using zeros). The overall size of the message is more important as standardised messages have a fixed size, so a third-party might try to guess what you are talking about with some other node.


I have no idea where you got the "private updates" from. Your quote suggests that you can create synthetic traffic in combination with BOLT04. In other words, for example, you can send ping messages while routing a payment to pretend that the payment was split or forwarded to a different node. You just need to send a ping message with the same size as "update_add_htlc".


Encryption keys are changed every 500 uses. Ping/pong messages count as one use. As ping/pong messages are sent frequently, they are the cause of frequent key rotations. They are not used to exchange new keys. No extra data is sent here.


Let me explain my point again. Here's what you said before:


Yes, technically you can fit this information in there. However, an optional TLV payload was not a part of the initial specs and the Lightning Network works well without depending on it. Here's how I replied to you:


None of the existing wallets or implementations expects information about fees, ctlv timelock or liquidity in the TLV payload. They would ignore it. Sure, you could modify your client to behave this way, but you would still have to comply with the specifications to be able to talk with other nodes without any problems. So, if the TLV payload is not used to exchange this information, what's your next idea?


If we assume that all of the C's channels are private then you are almost correct (you forgot about DE). Although, "DNS network bootstrap map" is not really a suitable name for DNS bootstrapping used by new nodes and a local map of the network maintained by every node. Technically, any Lightning node can be listed in the DNS seeds.


What's the point of discussing what the Lightning Network could look like if we can't come to agreement how pathfinding and payment routing works at the moment in existing implementations and wallets? Other people already have a hard time keeping up with our discussion, especially that we are constantly switching between private, public and disabled channels in examples.

really??

ping and pong can be sent:
1. randomly with any extra data that can be false so that it confuses others
2. with onion routing to have private updates, or (1) because just waiting for a official update can be "no new data for a significant portion of a connection's lifetime"
3. to do other things like changing keys, updating status, heck you can even put in personal info like delivery address or a link to something that someone bought

oh and you forgot the "extension" part of the message. yea, i see you just wanted to codebox the 'type/payload(data)'
yep you can put in lots of stuff into the extension part.. but you keep dismissing this. maybe you dont understand, or maybe your purposefully ignoring what happens with TLV in the extension
yep inside the extension part you can put a TLV which has its own type inside the extension.


and if C is private. there wont be a BC or CD or CW on the DNS network bootstrap map..
instead of seeing a full network map  tree that links
ABCDE
ABCWXYZ
ZYXWCBA
ZYXWCDE

you would instead see
AB            ZYXW
which is where you would have to "trampoline"


heres the funny part, there is no consensus in LN. so while you play games saying that the rules are strict and network compliant and everyone is forced,default public. where peopel cant just switch on and off their visibility. and where people cant negotiate payments away from YOUR version of pre organised payment setup from bootstrap data. BUT reality is there is no network wide audit, (well there wasnt and shouldnt.. though public loving person you are, you may want there to be. )

i guess you cant think of PR campaign to promote privacy, so you avoid wanting to discuss that its an option. and instead want to quote andreas saying things about how its default and forced to be public.

i still laugh that you think that it all has to be done via the payload of a update_add_htlc

again very strange tactic your playing

The following post is a continuation of the discussion which started here.

---

And that's how you learned that "Routing" type messages do not contain any routing instructions or liquidity information.



Again, just because you can technically fit some data inside ping/pong messages, it doesn't mean that the other node expects it. In fact, you should not send any data using them:



Feel free to name those privacy-oriented wallets which do not follow the specifications to improve the privacy of their users.


As Z, you won't learn about the CW channel, but you can still learn about AB, BC, CD, DE from either W, who can learn about them from C, or from some outside node which had received a gossip message about any of those channels. W can safely forward gossip messages from C as those messages are exactly the same for every hop.