Topic: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain - page 3. (Read 3211 times)

kind of weird really..
n0nce is the only one that mentioned the silly 'transactions of only 10 bytes becomes only 166tx/sec..
kind of weird that he then carried on with a scenario of leaping in 1 step to large blocks of nonsense amounts..

kind of weird for him to forget what he said in his scenario's and then pretend its what i was saying..

actually, its not weird. its not the first time i seen this lame tactic done.
and im not surprised they do not understand the difference between scaling vs leaping.
and not surprised that they keep pulling on the gb's by midnight or else bitcoin fails propaganda

ofcourse im ignoring his 7gb block theory. as its the same, infact worse propaganda than the "100mb by midnight" theory used to pretend bitcoin cant cope with any scaling by throwing in big numbers where its portrayed that any scaling must be leaps to sky high numbers instead of progressive steps.

but hey, maybe they are not ignorant about scaling, but just soo entrenched in their LN advertising that all they can think about is trying to make LN seem like the utopian place people need to go to.

i guess he also thinks that scaling the real estate market requires 20billion homes to be build tonight 'coz population in 2050'. rather than realise that every 6 months only a few million need to be build at a time.

yea thats basically the LN fans idea of scaling 'leap to 20billions homes by christmas 2022 because they are going to be needed now for the future population' totally ignoring the word scaling. (periodic movements).

but you gotta laugh at the utopianism advert of LN
actually there are many factors.. liquidity of hops. availability. node honesty.

and also. they are not sending commitments between each other. no LN message EVER contains a blockchain format transaction template.

and as for the 'instant-ness' funny how people using LN are complaining about the lengths of time payments are 'inflight'
https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/issues/4381..

oh and if you look at the max HTLC numbers of inflights. a business can only receive 483 payments at a time from its node.
this is why LN businesses run multiple nodes(LNBIG has 26)

yet in bitcoin you dont need 26 addresses to receive thousands of transactions.
LN relies on the lack of confirm payment system, with a later(days-month later) ideal settlement period.

after all  LN does not care about confirmed payments. it only cares about a recipient seeing a zero-confirm signature
yep people can pass around many zero-confirm transactions and the RBF as the 'update' on the bitcoin network

well bitcoin can also send upto 300mb(mempool limit) of zero confirm transactions. if there was a fair comparison.
yet LN peers are limited to a 65kb length to hold all relayed(routed) payments at any one time

It's not about how many it does right now, it's more about how many it can do.
Lightning can definitely do that many transactions per second. It would be extremely easy: 160 users send a transaction to their peer at the same time. We have thousands of these channels already.... so if needed, LN can already provide that speed.

As I showed you, Mastercard + VISA perform roughly 5,000tx/s.

I find it a very weak argument that only because very few people use Bitcoin, it doesn't need a way of scaling.
Because that assumes Bitcoin usage will (and should) never change, and at most by a very small constant factor.

To set things clear: you don't want Bitcoin to replace / rival existing banking systems? Because to do so, it does need to reach at least VISA + Mastercard speeds. These 2 networks don't even include bank transfers, which can also be replaced by Bitcoin.

Nononono I already showed how much data it will use if we scale block size. Then you said you want to reduce transaction size instead, so I gave you the best chance with my assumption that we can get a transaction down to incredible 10MB (that was in YOUR favour!!) and that it still only would do ~160tx/s.

Okay, so you want to simply incrase block size to 4MB, why did this require 12 pages? Everyone here's trying to figure out what you actually want / propose. Just state right away: 'I want Bitcoin to have X block size and reduce transaction size and that's my scaling solution'. Let's say you can then do around 4x the transactions of pre-segwit Bitcoin (7tx/s), that puts you at 28. This works if adoption only slightly rises.

It also doesn't allow for micropayments which happen much more frequently than 'purchasing X things per day'. For example, when listening to a podcast on Breez, I can pay them 10sats/min (so 1tx/min). I would be sending 60 transactions a day if I were to listen for a podcast a day, opposed to the 1-5 transactions you are claiming. Of course you will say that microtransactions are unnecessary and stupid, but the fact is many people would like something like that. I accept your opinion that you don't need or like it though.

Just trying to say that since LN 'truly scales' (not 4x constant factor, that's not really scaling), you can do things that were not possible before.

This all sounds simple and fun, but it's not a real scaling mechanism. It's small improvements here and there, that maybe bring you from 7tx/s to 28, 50 or maybe even 100. In the end, there will be a constant factor formula to get from block size to transactions/s.

However, if you get the load off the blockchain and people send commitments back and forth off-chain, the throughput will be completely independent from block- and transaction sizes. That's the beauty of it. With the same base numbers, you can handle 10, 100 or 1000s of users and transactions, because they're essentially only limited by their internet connection speeds amongst each other.

Wait, who is forcing anyone? Anyone can use whatever they want. In fact, I'm wondering why you're feeling so forced to use stupid Bitcoin with cludgy SegWit, silly LN developers and pruned-node-fanatics. There are Bitcoin forks out there with 4MB blocks, no SegWit and no LN.........

I'm a little bit disappointed you showed no interest in my 7.5GB... numbers, since you like to post so many yourself, but no worries..

LN is not processing (166-7) 159 transactions a second. so bitcoin does not need to be 24x transaction capacity. to meet demands..
.. sorry but LN is not that popular
real world utility puts real people only buying 1-5 things a day. meaning with real life usage of 33000 LN nodes (actually less users due to some having more then one node, but lets pretend each node represent a user)
33,000*5 (yep im helping your side by exagerating) is 165,000 A DAY!! (not a second) which actually becomes 2tx/s extra demand to cope with LN users if all LN users retreated back to using onchain.

and no. dont 'do a rath'. by showing a users "events" (success or fail) as an example of a users real life usage. those events are counts of routing. where 1 persons payment for a coffee appears as events on multiple peoples logs. but is still only one actual payment had been made.

so yea no need to pretend bitcoin needs to leap from 7 to 166.. and instead just needs more of a 7 to 10 scaling

and also you have ignorantly tried to avoid the 'scaling bitcoin transactions' discussion by stating a silly 'stick at 1mb size' and then adding in an impossible scenario of transaction being 10 bytes.. to make it look like bitcoin cant scale.. which is another sweep under the carpet of actual utility of space.

heres a real option.
4mb is deemed hardware safe.
so remove the cludgy code that still insists portions of data stick in a redundant 1mb space. and actually utilise the 4mb space to allow 4x transaction capacity compared to 1mb

EG the 1.5mb-2mb segwit has not yielded a 1.5x-2x capacity increase of transaction count due to the cludgy code.

if say the devs actually insist on a 2mb block (without the 1mb multiplier cludgy segwit weight math crap) then that 2mb can actually achieve 2x transaction capacity.

other things can be done too. like limit the sigops of transactions. so that a block is not filled by just 5 transactions(if someone wanted to) and instead allow more of the space to share with more users.

also fee formulae can be added. to punish people that 'spam' blocks with just 1confirm transaction spends. thus again allow more room for genuine people that just want to buy things once or twice a day. due to the lack of mixers/spams every block.

---

trying to make bitcoin the "reserve" where only hubs, exchanges doing batch withdrawals, and mixers doing spam transactions.. where everyone else is forced to use other networks.. is not the direction people should be aiming for

I'm not shying away! Then we say the blocks stay at 1MB?
Let's say you magically get a transaction down to 10 Bytes each (impossible but let's say it).

That's 100,000 tx/block (maximum 'transaction count increase'). This would yield 166 transactions per second. Clearly not enough.

never said that no one should have choices.
i always said to not advertise LN as
"its bitcoin"
"it is the solution"
"bitcoin cant do this, come use something else"
where the motive and narrativce is not choice. but being shown an exit

if you want to play with millisat messages and channel databases that are measured in millisats. where you dont actually save a blockchain formatted template to your hard drive. but be under the illusion that you think its 'bitcoin' that your choice.
just dont go trying to tell everyone that LBN is the future end place people should all move to with silly excuses of 'bitcoin cant scale'

oh and the 'big block' '100mb block '2mb block" is again ignoring what bitcoin scaling is. its about transaction count increases and decreasing the fee per use.. but yea you will shy away from talking about onchain transaction increase discussions. as many LN fans always do.
and instead make the conversation sound more like "bitcoin weight" vs LN capacity.
just to set an image in peoples minds that bitcoin is about bloat and LN is about capacity.

as for you saying that bitcoin is 0.08 minimum

250byte = 1sat/byte =250sat is ~9cents. but. here is the thing. 1sat/0.01kbyte. can make transactions 25sat for a 250byte tx.
after all bitcoin already has fee calculation code cludge that doesnt actually count full length raw data as full length. so new fee mechanisms can be added to 'round' bytes up to the next significant number

---

i didnt even say everyone should be full nodes(archive and validate)
i have always said
dont advertise
less than full nodes as being full
that everyone should prune where its falsely portrayed as still full
that people should use other networks, which would decrease the current diversity/population of full nodes due to users dropping full nodes in replacement for altnet lite apps for their daily use

Imagine anyone using '2MB Bitcoin' in a brick-and-mortar store, waiting 10 minutes for confirmation..
Or what about buying $1 coffee with $0.08 (absolute minimum!) fee? Sounds like nothing at first, but it's an 8% fee.
Block size doesn't change confirmation time and transaction cost, no matter if the mempool will always be empty or not. Because 1sat minimum is not negligible, especially in the future!

How about microtransactions at the cent-level to e.g. pay for music or movie streaming by the second? Or low-value digital items? Every time a fee of at least 250 sats? At the moment it's only 8 cents, but if Bitcoin reaches $1 million, that will be ~$2.5 for every transaction at 1 sat/vB MINIMUM FEE!

Much rather opening a channel for 2 bucks instead and use it basically for free afterwards..

Also let's not forget in other countries / economies, $0.08 is not 'nothing', like for us. Wages can be >10x lower, so that would be already like $1 for them, at low low Bitcoin prices of $30k. Imagine what happens at $100k or more.

These are not mutually exclusive either. You can be a super hardcore Bitcoin supporter with even multiple full nodes, but prefer to pay through Lightning (from one of those nodes or LN app, whatever), in stores, for micropayments or other stuff, for example.

---

It's just one extra capability of LN. If people want to switch from Bitcoin to another coin, it should be their freedom to do so and it's possible already today through something that we call 'exchange'... Don't you think?

You got it! We scale Bitcoin by taking some weight off its back (the blockchain)... We take actual, real Bitcoin transactions and move them between users without storing every movement on the ledger. This is why we call it 'scalable'.
Any on-chain scaling mechanism is limited to some very hard bounds and thus can't be called 'scalable'.
Like, a 2x throughput increase (2MB blocks) is not 'scaling'. That's a freaking tiny constant factor. It's not nearly enough for global adoption.

I see, you like numbers. Let's go ad absurdum.
Assume every node operator has a 100Mbit internet connection (not all do) and unlimited computing power so a block is completely verified in 1 nanosecond.
This means in 10 minutes (600s) he can transmit 60,000Mbits or 7.5GB. This will be the absolute biggest block size.

The smallest possible Bitcoin transaction is 166 Bytes in size.
A 7.5GB block (biggest 'scaling' you can do on-chain) can thus contain 7,500,000,000/166=45,180,722 transactions, or 75,301 tx/s.
This would suffice for worldwide usage.

Though then we run into a storage issue: 7.5GB/10min is 0.75GB/min or 1080GB/day. After 10 years, the blockchain will have the size of 3,944,700GB or 3,944 Terabytes. This requires over 200 18TB Seagate HDDs, basically buying 20 of them every single year. This is a rate of around 2 Seagate 18TB HDDs per month.

At current MSRP of $600 per drive, that gets rather expensive.
And don't forget about the magical instant-multi-GB-block-verifying CPU and fully saturated 100Mbit/s internet connection (this is the most realistic bit about this whole thought experiment now that I think about it).

Now, you will say, we don't need 75k tx/s. That's true. What if we want to replace VISA and Mastercard (no normal bank transfers)? From what I can gather, together they typically have 5k tx/s.
So if we go from 75k to 5k, that's just a factor of 15. Meaning instead of having 3,944 Terabytes of data after 10 years, we will have only 263TB. That's still 15x $600 drives, driving your node cost upwards of $9000.
If this doesn't drive centralization, I don't know what will.

So you think every Bitcoin user has to 'protect' and 'help' Bitcoin? And that nobody should be allowed to use Bitcoin if they're not running a node at home?

Also, as I said earlier, running a node and using LN is not mutually exclusive.

again lightning can still function without bitcoin

people can deposit fiat into an exchange, buy an asset realise bitcoin is expensive and swap to an altcoin and then use LN.
people can have channels opened for them with 'inbound capacity' without the user needing to have bitcoin. (thor)
heck people can even have channels that are suppose to be pegged to bitcoin transactions without there even being a confirmed transaction to peg to(turbo).

so yea LN is not strictly and 100% hooked to bitcoin.
calling it a layer offers a imaginary pretense of it being a protective skin for something. but LN is not a skin of bitcoin. its a bridge , a transport bypass to exit the area



you want people to think of it as a skin of bitcoin to protect bitcoin utility and add to bitcoin utility
where you see "LN bitcoin" as a separate network from "ln litecoin" as if LN is a skin for each coin
also you probably view it as a skin that has more 'nodes' than the encompassed coin has

yet its actually a bridge between different crypto's to take people away from one to then access another
where there is less nodes than the actual blockchain nodes


funny part is a smart PR guy could actually sell its actual view as its niche, positively. rather than just lame tagging LN as bitcoin to pretend its made for and is for bitcoin and helps bitcoin.

taking utility away, yea it does decrease the weight. but thats not scaling the weight, thats removing the weight. meaning getting rid of transactions, removal, exodus, exit.

users buying their coffee with lightning apps on cell phones are not protecting bitcoin, monitoring bitcoin, helping bitcoin. its doing something else away from bitcoin where users never touch the bitcoin network. yep LN's niche of cellphone apps for people to buy coffee (not home nodes offering services) is where users never touch bitcoin. and when its time to move on from LN decide to exchange to a altcoin like litecoin to then move to an exchange to change to fiat,

Alas, they do use it. They use the Bitcoin network to create channels. They couldn't have Lightning if they didn't have the first layer. And the existence of the Lightning contributes to those who want to only use the first layer. The transactions which would occur on-chain by those who use Lightning, did not happen. The chain weights less!

Another misinterpretation? What else have I said? That I want your death, because I requested a ban? That I hate Bitcoin, because LN iS nOt BiTCOiN? That I'm Satoshi, because ? Quote me wherever I cursed Bitcoin principles for one more time and I'll show to everyone you just misunderstood my sayings...

1. bitcoin network. im going to emphasise this. BITCOIN NETWORK
making people not use the BITCOIN network. is not scaling the BITCOIN network.
it just makes people use a DIFFERENT NETWORK.
this is not scaling bitcoin. its scaling another networks popularity.
decreasing bitcoin network utility/popularity.
you may want to hide the millisats and pretend LN is bitcoin. but LN sends payment messages in millisats. heck even the channelDB that saves channel data saves the data in millisats.

2. your numerous attempts to say that a full node doesn't not need to archive, does not need to offer Initial Block Downloads to peers. doesnt need to regularly check hashes against data... or peers
and instead treat a local utxo set as golden locked. even when this database has no hash to ensure no edits happened.. you seem to have forgot alot of network backbone security/features, just to present a local view of user-only-comfort as somehow being the network full service node for network security and service.

in short YOUR view of a full node is just a local-personal-use-validator

It's clear that we won't ever agree that Lightning does scale. In my opinion, it does as it minimizes the transactions that happen on-chain and therefore, the weight of the chain. In your opinion, it doesn't as ITs' NoT BiTCoIn! But, that's okay. Everything's relative.

Huh?

and instead of leaning what was stifling BITCOIN progress. where you would know the solution is actually in scaling BITCOIN(increase onchain transaction average). but you instead avoided learning about the technical stuff, heck you avoided learning what a full nodes functions consist of. you just leaped straight to idolising LN and propagandising flaws of bitcoin like it cant scale, wont scale.

heck you dont even know all the LN flaws, so instead shy away from mentioning LN flaws just to over promote it as what "everyone" "most" "everybody" should/does use... sorry but its not the case


..
there is a big difference between these two narratives
LN is the solution to bitcoin scaling everyone should use
vs
LN is a choice option anyone can use
..
the first is like saying bitcoins problems are solved and no bitcoin adjustments need to be made because people will use LN instead.

the second is that options are open. but that BITCOIN still needs more work done on and for the bitcoin network to scale BITCOIN

I won't answer to this closed-minded way of thinking, but to this:

Take a look on the dates of those posts. They're not the same. In 2020, I didn't even know how Bitcoin works technically. I was literally a newbie.

first you seemed a little open minded. like it was an option.


see your progression from mentioning flaws of bitcoin without a solution and saying lightning is not a solution for everyone..
..to then go full on LN loyalist mode, saying things like:



LN does not scale bitcoin. LN takes people away from using the bitcoin network.
your advert is like saying exchange custodians scales bitcoin network.. but we all know that is not true. because those using custodial wallets are not even touching the bitcoin network.

if you think that stagnating and immobilising a limit that causes a backlog of transaction delays is solved by removing users. then you are missing the cause of the problem that needs to be addressed

No, I won't, 'cause Bitcoin does not satisfy my needs when I want to make micro-transactions. And I'll continue supporting it and spreading its utility, otherwise merchants will not adopt it.

When did I say that it must be the default end goal? This is just you misinterpreting everyone.

then stop with the adverts that bitcoin is broke and the solution everyone should use is LN

atleast tweak your adverts to be an 'option'(niche usecase) instead of pretending its the default end goal for everyones daily utility.

EG if your saying 'bitcoin doesnt need to scale because LN is here' is more so an advert saying people should stop wanting to use bitcoin often and use an altnet instead.

its not an advert saying people can choose. its more like 'heres the exit, the only way to go'

..
also when it comes to these 'hubs' and channel partners.. explain the disadvantages and limits. stop trying to utopianise offchain niche services

I don't know what's favoring them, but I'm sure they want their chewing gums. They will use what satisfies this need. They could be using PayPal instead or some other payment processor, but they choose to use a cryptocurrency 'cause it comes with benefits. However, they're more attracted by PayPal, because it's faster than the on-chain transactions.

These people won't change by increasing the block size. The vast majority don't even run a node. They're probably satisfied by SPV solutions.

What to do franky? Global adoption brings defects. What matters to me is that you, now, can verify everything. You're not obligated to trust someone. There's another option. Sure, it's tough to handle and sure, trusting hubs has its easiness and comfort including some disadvantages, but there is another option that did not exist before. You don't like trusting hubs? Use Bitcoin without trusting hubs! You don't like LN? Make only on-chain transactions! The fact that some users are satisfied by these inventions means that it's useful to them and you ought to respect it.

Whether people use hubs or not; whether they like exchanging using third parties or not: Trust is no more mandatory.

many people want to hold exchange MySQL balance and trade tokens on MySQL databases thinking they are 'owning bitcoin' but they dont care about maintaining the network, nor care about the 'not my keys, not my coin' stuff, heck they dont even know or care that what they are trading is a different token and not a blockchain confirmed(settled) transaction

same goes for LN.. people using a phone app to buy chewing gum. they dont care about being full nodes(validation AND archiving) they just want to have an account which allows them to move value. no matter the format of the value. and not really think about the security lacking in using such 'easy/fast' option.
yep no one is going to carry around a laptop and sync the blockchain just to validate a channel is real(still open) when just wanting to buy a coffee on an offchain. they will just 'trust' that everything is fine and hope the partner is amicable and honest.

bitcoin does not need to leap to the propagandised 100mb blocks to meet offchain demand. because offchain demand is no where near it. bitcoin however should not be hindered, restricted, stagnated to prevent some scaling (incremental) increases of transaction count possibilities. but that hindering so far has not been based on some technical reason that would break bitcoin. but on political reason to promote other networks as solutions. .. the old 'blockchains are broke use non blockchain solutions' lame advert

there are many reasons people dont choose BCH. such as its technical team(lack of), its not having a wide array of merchant acceptance. and even is lack of fundamental value.

the funny thing is that getting people away from using the bitcoin network and into using altnets or custodian served litewallet apps is going to cause more people to drop from being bitcoin network maintainers(full nodes(validate and archive)). far more so than the 1990's hardware propaganda reasons.

you can spot these people wanting less bitcoin network maintainers, not only do they promote altnets as utopia and bitcoin as broke. but also they try to tell bitcoin maintainers(full nodes(validate and archive)) that the 'archive' part is redundant(facepalm), even go as far as saying that upgrading to remain validation completeness is redundant, 'coz backward compatibility'(facepalm).. yet the fail to convey the actual security and feature of why full validation and archiving is important backbone to the network. and fail to explain how UN-upgraded nodes are not true full nodes as they are handed stripped data and put on a lesser level, but deceived as being told they are 'full nodes' even when not using their deceptive methods of understating what "backward compatibility" actually results in and what pruned actually lessens the features available of.

I just want to remind the people of this thread that the following:


Is answered by:

No comments...

and its people like these that make it obviously clear that what they learned from doomad and their group has alot of errors of thought and research.

windfury has had years to learn. but seems hasnt took the time to learn a thing.

seems this topic is dead. the contradictors want to stick with their contradictions

Hahaha! I told you. I know franky1, I had the best learning experiences about Bitcoin from him and jonald_fyookball, the hard way. Everything, from being convinced that big blocks will scale Bitcoin, to debating about offchain layers.

It’s better to post the truth, then ignore the trolls. You will not sound like franky1. Why? Because you’re neither gaslighting people, nor spreading disinformation.

I’ll post it again.