When you do have more time, do you think the three posts you reserved at the start of the topic for summaries will be sufficient?
I think it's possible to sum it up in only one sentence.
Topic: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain - page 6. (Read 3211 times)
January 18, 2022, 04:28:30 PM
I think it's possible to sum it up in only one sentence.
January 18, 2022, 02:22:52 PM
and BCH split prove that a fork happened on august 1st (the dates of the bips) not based on segwit activation data and segwit actually being used.
Forkcoins like BCH and others are a prime example of how a BIP is not a necessity for a fork to occur. Sometimes a simple announcement on a blog or other website is sufficient. That's how BCH came to exist. They probably had their own equivalent of a BIP in their own code repository, though.
My recollection of the 2017 timeline is:
February 25th, 2017: Shaolinfry proposes the "user activated soft fork" BIP148 approach
Some time in June, 2017 (I forget the exact date): BCH devs announced their intention to fork on August 1st, 2017 regardless of whether SegWit had activated or not.
Mid-to-late July, 2017 (I forget the exact date): SegWit reached the required activation threshold (BIP91 bit 4 flag) and superseded BIP148's August 1st deadline
August 1st, 2017: BCH forked off exactly as they said they were going to.
August 24th, 2017: SegWit successfully locked in.
If anyone can pin these dates down a little more accurately, feel free to chip in. I feel it's important there's as little ambiguity as possible here.
Given everything you've said, it occurs to me that your overarching concern might possibly be similar to the one raised in this (remarkably prescient for its time) post from 2017? But correct me if I'm wrong:
Alright, I've been giving this a ton of thought and and both for and against UASF.
No offense meant to the OP, but it absolutely is dogshit, conceptually. Devs on this thread could instantly see that. It took me -slightly- longer.
The worst part, I'm convinced, is what the BU community can do in response. Since UASF tells everyone to pick a side by X date or be left behind in a hostile manner, the BU team has NOTHING TO LOSE by Hard forking on that date. It would be extremely dumb of them not to.
So basically, UASF forces a hard fork (...)
No offense meant to the OP, but it absolutely is dogshit, conceptually. Devs on this thread could instantly see that. It took me -slightly- longer.
The worst part, I'm convinced, is what the BU community can do in response. Since UASF tells everyone to pick a side by X date or be left behind in a hostile manner, the BU team has NOTHING TO LOSE by Hard forking on that date. It would be extremely dumb of them not to.
So basically, UASF forces a hard fork (...)
[//EDIT: Above quote pruned for relevancy]
This sounds vaguely similar to the argument you've been making all these years. Is that the general point you're trying to hammer home? Or are you saying something else entirely?
unfortunately this topic requires more time than I can spend at the moment.
When you do have more time, do you think the three posts you reserved at the start of the topic for summaries will be sufficient?
January 18, 2022, 12:28:43 PM
especially when "switzerland" has not tried setting the topic of the day or mediated on the cross talk, to try to get to the crux of a certain topic, one at a time like he wanted
I've been to busy to keep up, and unfortunately this topic requires more time than I can spend at the moment. 
January 18, 2022, 11:28:27 AM
by now everyone should know(including Doomad) that 148 and 91 were used and both involve mandatory rejecting non-segwit blocks before segwit activated on 24th august 2017.
I see, so you're blurring the lines between the date when the required activation threshold was reached and the lock-in date and attempting to make some sort of moral case about what miners "can" or "cannot" do during that period? This should be interesting. Please continue.
i know memory escapes you. but if your unsure about the bips. go read them.
your rhetoric for years was that there was no mandatory split. and that the only time there would be a split is if people run incompatible software when segwit activates and starts making segwit template format blocks. (after aug24th)
yet the bips 148 and 91, and BCH split prove that a fork happened on august 1st (the dates of the bips) not based on segwit activation data and segwit actually being used.
i know you now want to play games pretending you mis understood 'threshold, vs 'activation' to pretend, in previous yours you meant that segwit started making different block formats on august 1st. but you are just playing bad grammar games trying to claw yourself out of the hole you dug yourself
there was no segwit(141) code or detail in bips to start making blocks of segwit template format, or include segwit transactions on august 1st..
the split was due to 148/91... not 141
January 18, 2022, 11:27:11 AM
by now everyone should know(including Doomad) that 148 and 91 were used and both involve mandatory rejecting non-segwit blocks before segwit activated on 24th august 2017.
I see, so you're blurring the lines between the date when the required activation threshold was reached and the lock-in date and attempting to make some sort of moral case about what miners "can" or "cannot" do during that period? This should be interesting. Please continue.
January 18, 2022, 10:58:26 AM
by now everyone should know(including Doomad) that 148 and 91 were used and both involve mandatory rejecting non-segwit flagging blocks before segwit even activated(141) on 24th august 2017.
so lets recall some messages from a certain person who spent years denying it ever happened, even contradicting himself
first lets see him admitting it was used.. right when it happened.
as you can see. on august 1st 2017 he was happy to admit 148 led to 91 which would in 3 weeks lead to 141(segwit)
and admits the split occured on the day everyone said it would due to the actions of the 141 91 stuff
heck there are other posts where he also admits that due to the split BCH had to change its magic to actually be an altcoin rather that a reject block orphaner fighting against bitcoin. heck he even mentions how gmaxwell had to plead to BCH to add some changes, heres one: (note the date, ill explain later)
the reason why they had to change the EDA, was because it wasnt its own altcoin, just borrowing blockdata. it was a split based on the 148/91 and so the split of bch begun at the same difficulty as bitcoin
(a true altcoin just copying blockdata but wanting to go-it alone without the mandatory cause, would start at a near 0 difficulty(EDA))
and then.. here he is denying things happened. (as you can tell in 2017- april 2019 date shows how he knows it happened in 2017 . and admits it in 2019.. 2 months later, below = contradicting himself)
even he knows that luke JR invented the code for the mandatory split crap MONTHS before bitcoin cash was even a brainfart
Back to the point on Luke Jr, though, individual devs can do things that other devs don't support. One person's actions does not necessarily represent the views of an entire dev team. It's not a conspiracy, you flailing fruitloop. All that happened is that someone coded something you don't like and now you apparently have to spend the rest of your life bitching about it on the internet, because that's what butthurt sadcases do. You are the only person who still cares about this "mandatory" code that wasn't mandatory in the slightest because not enough people were running it.
here he is saying that no one used those bips. and the bips were not mandatory (facepalm+laugh to his own contradiction)
and for years after he was saying
"it never happened", "there is no mandatory", "bips didnt activate until after 24th aug 2017", "there was no split".. just so he can be a social drama queen showing off loyalty to some core devs
there are many many more posts where he says there was no split (although the world can see BCH exists),
yea i removed some insults from his post but they were just his usual boring ramblings. but as you can tell he is the one thats being uncivilised and contradictory. which then prompts me after years, to bite back.
again i dont feel sympathy for him playing the victim card now, because he was the instigator by doing his contradiction games just to play debater and cause reason for him to act uncivilised as part of his game.
but hey. ill give it a month and he will again forget about 148/91 before 141 and instead go back to insisting 141 activated without any mandatory bips. just so he can cause social drama for his new friends to hug him.
(not his first time with that tactic(forgetting he got debunked when he pretends nothing happened, forgetting his own admissions of what did happen))
yea all boring social drama.
his latest point of wanting to ask about devs can write any code. is to narrate that no one should/can stop core.
(something he is passionate about not wanting people to stop core from being the authority)
he then tangents to pretend that core cant mandate (due to lapse in his memory of events(the contradiction)).
but when circling back to the facts and not his narrative.
they did mandate and they got segwit activated without miners or users needing to upgrade software to actually use segwit.
because all they had to do was edit a couple bits in a block to signal something without needing to upgrade software.. "due to backward compatibility". pools were threatened to change bits because the 'limited' user that did use 148UASF were the main NYA agreement group that included some pools, merchant tools, payment services and exchanges. meaning they were the economic majority nodes of importance. .. which is why the threat worked. and on august 1st the rejected blocks caused the fork resulting in BCH, which core devs demanded they either stop, or change their 'magic' to not disrupt bitcoin
so any time you see a consensus upgrade described as "backward compatible", it means that it does not require majority to upgrade the software.
because bip148, 91, 141 did not need general users to upgrade software to cause activations of segwit. it worked by the threats of the economic nodes(exchanges/payment gateways)
so lets recall some messages from a certain person who spent years denying it ever happened, even contradicting himself
first lets see him admitting it was used.. right when it happened.
Definitely not worth buying the popcorn for, heh. I had a pretty strong feeling that it wouldn't exactly be fireworks, but I thought there might be something happening. So much hype and drama for so little action. Oh well, onto the next big drama, I guess.
Either you've got your BIP numbers mixed up or you've been listening to the wrong people. BIP91 has been locked in, BIP141 is currently on course to lock in, but isn't there just yet. We have to wait for the 1208 blocks currently remaining in this signalling period to complete the lock in for SegWit. Once that happens, BIP148 will become completely redundant and won't be required. Some might argue that it has already served its purpose in forcing an ultimatum to begin with, though.
For those who have been reading the announcements, it should be noted that the first post is based on circumstances that changed not too long after. Initially, there was a chance that BIP148 could result in a split, but this was mostly negated by BIP91. Today was going to be boring from the offset until BitcoinCash reared it's ugly head, but as it turned out, that's pretty boring too, heh.
//EDIT: "The Bitcoin network has forked as of block 478559". BitcoinCash splutters into life... just.
Nothing has happened yet, apart from BIP148 having locked in.
Either you've got your BIP numbers mixed up or you've been listening to the wrong people. BIP91 has been locked in, BIP141 is currently on course to lock in, but isn't there just yet. We have to wait for the 1208 blocks currently remaining in this signalling period to complete the lock in for SegWit. Once that happens, BIP148 will become completely redundant and won't be required. Some might argue that it has already served its purpose in forcing an ultimatum to begin with, though.
For those who have been reading the announcements, it should be noted that the first post is based on circumstances that changed not too long after. Initially, there was a chance that BIP148 could result in a split, but this was mostly negated by BIP91. Today was going to be boring from the offset until BitcoinCash reared it's ugly head, but as it turned out, that's pretty boring too, heh.
//EDIT: "The Bitcoin network has forked as of block 478559". BitcoinCash splutters into life... just.
as you can see. on august 1st 2017 he was happy to admit 148 led to 91 which would in 3 weeks lead to 141(segwit)
and admits the split occured on the day everyone said it would due to the actions of the 141 91 stuff
heck there are other posts where he also admits that due to the split BCH had to change its magic to actually be an altcoin rather that a reject block orphaner fighting against bitcoin. heck he even mentions how gmaxwell had to plead to BCH to add some changes, heres one: (note the date, ill explain later)
Indeed. BCH had to make a few important changes. First and foremost was updating their network magic, so that they would not be following the BTC chain, then they needed the EDA to compensate for the lower-than-anticipated hashrate their chain had.
Either way, it takes two to tango. But I'd personally still argue that BCH announced their fork prior to agreeing to change their network magic, which is why Core responded by implementing the code they did.
Either way, it takes two to tango. But I'd personally still argue that BCH announced their fork prior to agreeing to change their network magic, which is why Core responded by implementing the code they did.
the reason why they had to change the EDA, was because it wasnt its own altcoin, just borrowing blockdata. it was a split based on the 148/91 and so the split of bch begun at the same difficulty as bitcoin
(a true altcoin just copying blockdata but wanting to go-it alone without the mandatory cause, would start at a near 0 difficulty(EDA))
and then.. here he is denying things happened. (as you can tell in 2017- april 2019 date shows how he knows it happened in 2017 . and admits it in 2019.. 2 months later, below = contradicting himself)
dont feed the troll.
Is obvious that he is trolling
yep doomad is trollingIs obvious that he is trolling
even he knows that luke JR invented the code for the mandatory split crap MONTHS before bitcoin cash was even a brainfart
Back to the point on Luke Jr, though, individual devs can do things that other devs don't support. One person's actions does not necessarily represent the views of an entire dev team. It's not a conspiracy, you flailing fruitloop. All that happened is that someone coded something you don't like and now you apparently have to spend the rest of your life bitching about it on the internet, because that's what butthurt sadcases do. You are the only person who still cares about this "mandatory" code that wasn't mandatory in the slightest because not enough people were running it.
and for years after he was saying
"it never happened", "there is no mandatory", "bips didnt activate until after 24th aug 2017", "there was no split".. just so he can be a social drama queen showing off loyalty to some core devs
there are many many more posts where he says there was no split (although the world can see BCH exists),
yea i removed some insults from his post but they were just his usual boring ramblings. but as you can tell he is the one thats being uncivilised and contradictory. which then prompts me after years, to bite back.
again i dont feel sympathy for him playing the victim card now, because he was the instigator by doing his contradiction games just to play debater and cause reason for him to act uncivilised as part of his game.
but hey. ill give it a month and he will again forget about 148/91 before 141 and instead go back to insisting 141 activated without any mandatory bips. just so he can cause social drama for his new friends to hug him.
(not his first time with that tactic(forgetting he got debunked when he pretends nothing happened, forgetting his own admissions of what did happen))
yea all boring social drama.
his latest point of wanting to ask about devs can write any code. is to narrate that no one should/can stop core.
(something he is passionate about not wanting people to stop core from being the authority)
he then tangents to pretend that core cant mandate (due to lapse in his memory of events(the contradiction)).
but when circling back to the facts and not his narrative.
they did mandate and they got segwit activated without miners or users needing to upgrade software to actually use segwit.
because all they had to do was edit a couple bits in a block to signal something without needing to upgrade software.. "due to backward compatibility". pools were threatened to change bits because the 'limited' user that did use 148UASF were the main NYA agreement group that included some pools, merchant tools, payment services and exchanges. meaning they were the economic majority nodes of importance. .. which is why the threat worked. and on august 1st the rejected blocks caused the fork resulting in BCH, which core devs demanded they either stop, or change their 'magic' to not disrupt bitcoin
so any time you see a consensus upgrade described as "backward compatible", it means that it does not require majority to upgrade the software.
because bip148, 91, 141 did not need general users to upgrade software to cause activations of segwit. it worked by the threats of the economic nodes(exchanges/payment gateways)
January 18, 2022, 09:58:53 AM
in response to darkvortex's social drama post of no substance
(yawn)
not beaten
(yawn)
not beaten
Absolutely beaten by the evidences... But you'll never recognize that!
but just seeing your losing your game, where its the same game, just different day. so its boring, so i have better things to do then entertain you lot with your games
To me and apparently to everybody else, the losing game is the one you're doing over and over!
and so i realised more and more with each day that life is too short to care about cheaters playing games, acting cultish.
i have no sympathy for those types of people.
i have no sympathy for those types of people.
Looks like you expect to have sympathy from anyone? lol. I can see the sympathy you're getting.
it has been a good laugh watching a group of people trying to play victim as if they want or pretend to deserve respect and sympathy..even after they themselves have been the instigators of their own injured emotions.
I certainly laugh at you, because all your attempts to convert people via demagogy, failed. That's a good laugh.
but anyways, its starting to sound a bit cultish now. wanting to convert people over to their cause and insulting anyone that does not join their altnet. arguing with anyone that shows the flaws of their utopian religious place of worship.
That's been your game. We just started playing it. Convert people to your unproved beliefs and quotes that were not properly backed as others did.sorry but im not interesting in joining the cult. its not the promised land, its not the utopia you lot present it as.
but you did give it a nice try pretending bitcoin is at it end of days as a currency. you gave it a good try, trying to make it appear bitcoin is useless for daily use. and you gave it a good try pretending that LN is the next blissful life of promise, beyond bitcoins death.
but you did give it a nice try pretending bitcoin is at it end of days as a currency. you gave it a good try, trying to make it appear bitcoin is useless for daily use. and you gave it a good try pretending that LN is the next blissful life of promise, beyond bitcoins death.
Here is your narrative again. The narrative you want to make everybody believe that was ours, in the first place. But you're the only one mentioning those non-sense of Bitcoin not having use cases and whatever!
Don't make up words and scenarios out of the blue and transport them to the rest of the people. That game works with infants, kids! Not with grown people, ffs!
your group is not the first that tried to insinuate that bitcoin cant cope, survive, grow. your not the first to try cutting the legs off bitcoin to stop it moving forward. so, goodluck with whatever new hobby you try next. just dont try to waste 5 years trying to turn your hobby into a cult for your own personal enrichments of getting people to join your commune
nice try, but you failed.
have fun in your group. but try to play with each other next time instead of against others that you see as the opposition
nice try, but you failed.
have fun in your group. but try to play with each other next time instead of against others that you see as the opposition
Clock is repeating, as expected. You decided to make up a group out of nowhere. And you're trying to brute-force the existence of that group into other's minds. Not gonna work once more!
there is only one thing you have all got right, i dont need friends or loyalty to back up my opinions. i just have to quote the data. even if you dont want to read it.. others can, others do
HFSP and lonely then.
You don't need friends nor loyalty to backup anything. You need proof, you need facts, data, which you were unable to properly provide when you were requested.
Done!
January 18, 2022, 08:27:10 AM
Lightning is Bitcoin like WBTC is Bitcoin. There's little difference in my opinion.
WBTC is backed by Bitcoin. LN-BTC is backed by a cheating discouragement. Both are IOUs, but in the former there's trust involved. Try cheating me on my channel (AKA: Refusing to pay your debt) and I'll prove you how idiotic it is to consider it a promise.doomad wants mainly consensus talk but mostly social drama
darkvortex wants social drama/emotion
rath wants LN talk but some social drama, and to play contradiction mind games
darkhatcoiner, picks and chooses. but mostly social drama
Yeah, everyone's wrong and evil while you're an honest angel. Misleading, nonsensical, insulting and psycho drama queen. You keep avoiding the consensus questions. It's not favoring you. darkvortex wants social drama/emotion
rath wants LN talk but some social drama, and to play contradiction mind games
darkhatcoiner, picks and chooses. but mostly social drama
January 18, 2022, 03:52:16 AM
If a user is swapping their BTC for a coin on another blockchain, that means the user on the other blockchain is accepting the BTC. It is therefore not possible to have a mass "exit" from BTC if it's 1 out, 1 in. Someone will always be taking the place of the person who left.
i guess doomad never learned anything from 19th century economics of the gold/bank note scenario
heres a joke:
2 bitcoiners enter a bar. A has funding locked bitcoin and funding locked litecoin, B has only funding locked bitcoin..
.. 2 men leave a bar, A has 2x confirmed bitcoin, B has litecoin
in bitcoin thats called 'thunderdome: 2 may enter, one may leave'
in litecoin thats called '1 in 1 out'
oh and to pre-empt another social game.
even doomads favoured service 'thor' can create channels without needing both partners to fund(have coin) on both sides.
so doomad is aware its not a 1 in 1 out
and thats the punchline that makes me laugh. doomad knows, but pleads ignorant to set a narrative
and to rath_
seems to again forget, to edit/change a htlc in a commitment or update/edit/change/sign a commitment . they need to know what needs changing.
he forgets the messages that communicate the information.
he also thinks alice or bob or carol know erics htlc right at the start.
he also thinks alice or bob or carol know erics is online just from network gossip
he also thinks alice or bob or carol know diana is online and liquid to forward just from network gossip
he thinks the deal is complete as soon as alice looks at network gossip and signs a commitment with bob
to blackhatcoiner below
i didnt avoid the consensus stuff, i even stated bips related to how devs changed its parameters. mandate(148/91) before sw active(141)
the stuff about anyone free to use any software is not about consensus. its about freedom to use any software.
whether its a lite wallet, spv, a altnet, wallet
consensus should only change when majority of nodes have an agreed framework to obide by.
consensus should not change by pre block rejecting before the new feature activates
EG
deciding to lite wallet is a freedom but has nothing to do with consensus
your free to use this forums software or just write aimlessly on microsoft word.. nothing to do with consensus
January 17, 2022, 10:26:55 PM
This also demonstrates a lack of basic comprehension. If a user is swapping their BTC for a coin on another blockchain, that means the user on the other blockchain is accepting the BTC. It is therefore not possible to have a mass "exit" from BTC if it's 1 out, 1 in. Someone will always be taking the place of the person who left.
Come on, you're handing this to franky1 on a platter. There is a buyer for every sale. But that doesn't make it impossible to have more people exiting than coming in, or create price pressure, etc.
January 17, 2022, 10:06:25 PM
//EDIT:
I have presented a logically fallacious argument. I accept that I was wrong and withdraw my erroneous assertions above. Admitting one's mistakes is vital for personal growth and gaining a greater understanding of complicated subjects.
January 17, 2022, 08:31:18 PM
Thanks franky1 for finally answering my question. There are two problems with your answer.
1)
well a good privacy thing is that nodes dont have to network gossip their fee's and updates to become known on a public map.
By default, Lightning channels are public and they advertise themselves through "channel_announcement" and "channel_update".
You can use Lightning explorers like amboss.space or 1ml.com to see information extracted from the gossip protocol for each public node. Here's my node. You can see all of my channels, including their fee settings which are necessary to construct the routing path. Private channels are generally not used for payment routing as the invoice would have to include routing hints.
Even a lightwallet like Electrum forces their users to wait for the local graph to sync through the gossip protocol if they don't want to be able to connect only to trampoline nodes, which can take care of the path calculation for the user if they are willing to compromise their privacy.
You should take a look at at least one paper describing the probing attack on the Lightning Network.
I posted my node's debug log some time ago. My node failed to forward an incoming HTLC due to no liquidity ("CHANNEL_ERR_CHANNEL_CAPACITY_EXCEEDED"). You can see messages like: "update_add_htlc", "commitment_signed", "update_fail_htlc".
Code:
03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: peer_in WIRE_UPDATE_ADD_HTLC
03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: NEW:: HTLC REMOTE 408 = RCVD_ADD_HTLC/SENT_ADD_HTLC
03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: htlc added LOCAL: local 3828178009 remote 1171821991
03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: -> local 3828178009 remote 1074154247
03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: Creating commit_sig signature [REDACTED] for tx [REDACTED] wscript [REDACTED]
hsmd: Client: Received message 20 from client
3562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: Creating HTLC signature [REDACTED] for tx [REDACTED] wscript [REDACTED]
03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-chan#85: HTLC in 403 SENT_ADD_REVOCATION->SENT_ADD_ACK_COMMIT
03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: Sending commit_sig with 1 htlc sigs
03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: peer_out WIRE_COMMITMENT_SIGNED
037659a0ac8eb3b8d0a720114efc861d3a940382dcfa1403746b4f8f6b2e8810ba-channeld-chan#29: Failed to add 1 remove 0 htlcs
037659a0ac8eb3b8d0a720114efc861d3a940382dcfa1403746b4f8f6b2e8810ba-channeld-chan#29: Adding HTLC 1126 amount=97653097msat cltv=716528 gave CHANNEL_ERR_CHANNEL_CAPACITY_EXCEEDED
03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: FAIL:: HTLC REMOTE 408 = SENT_REMOVE_HTLC/RCVD_REMOVE_HTLC
03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: peer_out WIRE_UPDATE_FAIL_HTLC
03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: NEW:: HTLC REMOTE 408 = RCVD_ADD_HTLC/SENT_ADD_HTLC
03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: htlc added LOCAL: local 3828178009 remote 1171821991
03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: -> local 3828178009 remote 1074154247
03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: Creating commit_sig signature [REDACTED] for tx [REDACTED] wscript [REDACTED]
hsmd: Client: Received message 20 from client
3562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: Creating HTLC signature [REDACTED] for tx [REDACTED] wscript [REDACTED]
03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-chan#85: HTLC in 403 SENT_ADD_REVOCATION->SENT_ADD_ACK_COMMIT
03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: Sending commit_sig with 1 htlc sigs
03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: peer_out WIRE_COMMITMENT_SIGNED
037659a0ac8eb3b8d0a720114efc861d3a940382dcfa1403746b4f8f6b2e8810ba-channeld-chan#29: Failed to add 1 remove 0 htlcs
037659a0ac8eb3b8d0a720114efc861d3a940382dcfa1403746b4f8f6b2e8810ba-channeld-chan#29: Adding HTLC 1126 amount=97653097msat cltv=716528 gave CHANNEL_ERR_CHANNEL_CAPACITY_EXCEEDED
03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: FAIL:: HTLC REMOTE 408 = SENT_REMOVE_HTLC/RCVD_REMOVE_HTLC
03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: peer_out WIRE_UPDATE_FAIL_HTLC
January 17, 2022, 07:40:08 PM
in response to darkvortex's social drama post of no substance
(yawn)
not beaten
but just seeing your losing your game, where its the same game, just different day. so its boring, so i have better things to do then entertain you lot with your games
and so i realised more and more with each day that life is too short to care about cheaters playing games, acting cultish.
i have no sympathy for those types of people.
it has been a good laugh watching a group of people trying to play victim as if they want or pretend to deserve respect and sympathy..even after they themselves have been the instigators of their own injured emotions.
but anyways, its starting to sound a bit cultish now. wanting to convert people over to their cause and insulting anyone that does not join their altnet. arguing with anyone that shows the flaws of their utopian religious place of worship.
sorry but im not interesting in joining the cult. its not the promised land, its not the utopia you lot present it as.
but you did give it a nice try pretending bitcoin is at it end of days as a currency. you gave it a good try, trying to make it appear bitcoin is useless for daily use. and you gave it a good try pretending that LN is the next blissful life of promise, beyond bitcoins death.
your group is not the first that tried to insinuate that bitcoin cant cope, survive, grow. your not the first to try cutting the legs off bitcoin to stop it moving forward. so, goodluck with whatever new hobby you try next. just dont try to waste 5 years trying to turn your hobby into a cult for your own personal enrichments of getting people to join your commune
nice try, but you failed.
have fun in your group. but try to play with each other next time instead of against others that you see as the opposition
there is only one thing you have all got right, i dont need friends or loyalty to back up my opinions. i just have to quote the data. even if you dont want to read it.. others can, others do
(yawn)
not beaten
but just seeing your losing your game, where its the same game, just different day. so its boring, so i have better things to do then entertain you lot with your games
and so i realised more and more with each day that life is too short to care about cheaters playing games, acting cultish.
i have no sympathy for those types of people.
it has been a good laugh watching a group of people trying to play victim as if they want or pretend to deserve respect and sympathy..even after they themselves have been the instigators of their own injured emotions.
but anyways, its starting to sound a bit cultish now. wanting to convert people over to their cause and insulting anyone that does not join their altnet. arguing with anyone that shows the flaws of their utopian religious place of worship.
sorry but im not interesting in joining the cult. its not the promised land, its not the utopia you lot present it as.
but you did give it a nice try pretending bitcoin is at it end of days as a currency. you gave it a good try, trying to make it appear bitcoin is useless for daily use. and you gave it a good try pretending that LN is the next blissful life of promise, beyond bitcoins death.
your group is not the first that tried to insinuate that bitcoin cant cope, survive, grow. your not the first to try cutting the legs off bitcoin to stop it moving forward. so, goodluck with whatever new hobby you try next. just dont try to waste 5 years trying to turn your hobby into a cult for your own personal enrichments of getting people to join your commune
nice try, but you failed.
have fun in your group. but try to play with each other next time instead of against others that you see as the opposition
there is only one thing you have all got right, i dont need friends or loyalty to back up my opinions. i just have to quote the data. even if you dont want to read it.. others can, others do
January 17, 2022, 06:43:24 PM
i have no issues if people want to use sidechange, custodial wallets or LN
they should just, if they want to act like advertisers for those niche services. actually explain why and how its different from bitcoin. (which could actually create positive PR for the niche service). and give an honest view of the risks so users are risk aware and know of the pitfalls and issues.
they should just, if they want to act like advertisers for those niche services. actually explain why and how its different from bitcoin. (which could actually create positive PR for the niche service). and give an honest view of the risks so users are risk aware and know of the pitfalls and issues.
You're so oblivious that you can't even see what you say is false. There is no advertising. No one is being paid to advertise, therefore, there is no such advertisment. But you insist in that non-sense!
the attempts to say it is bitcoin it does what bitcoin does but better. and trying hard to put bitcoin down by tempting people over to these niche services like its the utopian solution. well thats bad PR
That's what you say. But it hasn't to be true just because you said it. Your words don't hold the absolute truth just because you spit them out! You're being egocentric all the way.
You say false things about what we say. No one is putting down Bitcoin when we say that LN is good and solves some problems within the Bitcoin network. That's just you making up words/statements as it fits you.
even with these 160posts in this topic. the amount of contradictions played by a certain group, doing every game in the book to try getting people to not highlight the differences, issues, flaws. is just callous actions by that group
which is why i lost respect for them. and dont sympathise for them when they play victim AFTER their own callous acts
which is why i lost respect for them. and dont sympathise for them when they play victim AFTER their own callous acts
You have been caught in contradictions yourself over and over but yet, you can only see supposed contradictions in other people. Typical of someone like you.
You talk about a group that you invented. There is no group. You're the only one making up groups out of the blue!
You have respect by anyone else but yourself. That's it! Egocentric again!
if they actually wanted a good niche service, they would actually be proud to look for flaws and learn the differences and try to get it to work. rather then trying to shut up people that are highlighting the bugs and differences.
those working on bitcoin from 2009-2015 actually inspired desire to point out flaws/bugs. to fix them in bitcoins
now it seems they want to highlight issues to push people into different altnets and services.
those working on LN want to shut up anyone highlighting bugs/flaws/issues with LN, trying to push people into using a less secure network
those working on bitcoin from 2009-2015 actually inspired desire to point out flaws/bugs. to fix them in bitcoins
now it seems they want to highlight issues to push people into different altnets and services.
those working on LN want to shut up anyone highlighting bugs/flaws/issues with LN, trying to push people into using a less secure network
You even contradict the reality. LN implementations are open source. Anyone is free to make PRs to fix bugs, add functionalities, etc but you say that people working on LN are not proud of what they do when they fix bugs and add functionalities and let the code open for everyone to engage.
How many PRs have you committed? How many functionalities have you added to the LN over the years? Yet you're moaning all over the place about the flaws, about the bugs, issues, bla bla bla bla... That's what you're good at. Criticizing and bringing other people down by trying to brute-force all your non-sense and insults and whatever!
as for those thinking i jump across many subjects in this topic. well when there are more then a couple different people asking me different questions. all asking me for answers. crying when i dont answer them, then yes my answers will be on different subjects.. but each answer is on the subject the person wants
EG
doomad wants mainly consensus talk but mostly social drama
darkvortex wants social drama/emotion
rath wants LN talk but some social drama, and to play contradiction mind games
darkhatcoiner, picks and chooses. but mostly social drama
so yes in the last 2 pages i have jumped from talking about LN to then answer doomads consensus stuff because he cries that i ignore him. then rath wants LN answers because he cries that i ignore him.(its like tennis, and im the ball in their game)
yea its one of their games. and it bores me
especially when "switzerland" has not tried setting the topic of the day or mediated on the cross talk, to try to get to the crux of a certain topic, one at a time like he wanted
EG
doomad wants mainly consensus talk but mostly social drama
darkvortex wants social drama/emotion
rath wants LN talk but some social drama, and to play contradiction mind games
darkhatcoiner, picks and chooses. but mostly social drama
so yes in the last 2 pages i have jumped from talking about LN to then answer doomads consensus stuff because he cries that i ignore him. then rath wants LN answers because he cries that i ignore him.(its like tennis, and im the ball in their game)
yea its one of their games. and it bores me
especially when "switzerland" has not tried setting the topic of the day or mediated on the cross talk, to try to get to the crux of a certain topic, one at a time like he wanted
Yet, you're the one with all these crying. But you can only see the crying in other's eyes... Typical once again. Egocentric behaviour.
You have done so many social drama as everyone else. You just can't admit it. Typical of you. Egocentric. It's all about the wrong in other's, never in yourself! Egocentric!
heck i tried to get a summarised view on a certain subject but even that was too much to ask for the main few of the group.
yes LoyceV gave a respectful try at answering the questions. the others, well they just game played to play contradiction/grammar games.
yes LoyceV gave a respectful try at answering the questions. the others, well they just game played to play contradiction/grammar games.
We all gave you a bit of your own game! That's what you get! The buzzwords, the social drama, even the technical part was given to you... All you tried, was given back, still you fail to recognize it! Self-denial...
it got boring. and all i could see was their narrative games of just playing tennis with each other, thinking i was the ball.
i dont care for these games. it solves nothing.
so im going to let them go play with each other in their own little worlds.
night!
i dont care for these games. it solves nothing.
so im going to let them go play with each other in their own little worlds.
night!
So, you got beaten at your own game. F..... FINALLY! lol. Get some sleep!
January 17, 2022, 05:53:47 PM
i have no issues if people want to use sidechange, custodial wallets or LN
they should just, if they want to act like advertisers for those niche services. actually explain why and how its different from bitcoin. (which could actually create positive PR for the niche service). and give an honest view of the risks so users are risk aware and know of the pitfalls and issues.
the attempts to say it is bitcoin it does what bitcoin does but better. and trying hard to put bitcoin down by tempting people over to these niche services like its the utopian solution. well thats bad PR
even with these 160posts in this topic. the amount of contradictions played by a certain group, doing every game in the book to try getting people to not highlight the differences, issues, flaws. is just callous actions by that group
which is why i lost respect for them. and dont sympathise for them when they play victim AFTER their own callous acts
if they actually wanted a good niche service, they would actually be proud to look for flaws and learn the differences and try to get it to work. rather then trying to shut up people that are highlighting the bugs and differences.
those working on bitcoin from 2009-2015 actually inspired desire to point out flaws/bugs. to fix them in bitcoins
now it seems they want to highlight issues to push people into different altnets and services.
those working on LN want to shut up anyone highlighting bugs/flaws/issues with LN, trying to push people into using a less secure network
as for those thinking i jump across many subjects in this topic. well when there are more then a couple different people asking me different questions. all asking me for answers. crying when i dont answer them, then yes my answers will be on different subjects.. but each answer is on the subject the person wants
EG
doomad wants mainly consensus talk but mostly social drama
darkvortex wants social drama/emotion
rath wants LN talk but some social drama, and to play contradiction mind games
darkhatcoiner, picks and chooses. but mostly social drama
so yes in the last 2 pages i have jumped from talking about LN to then answer doomads consensus stuff because he cries that i ignore him. then rath wants LN answers because he cries that i ignore him.(its like tennis, and im the ball in their game)
yea its one of their games. and it bores me
especially when "switzerland" has not tried setting the topic of the day or mediated on the cross talk, to try to get to the crux of a certain topic, one at a time like he wanted
heck i tried to get a summarised view on a certain subject but even that was too much to ask for the main few of the group.
yes LoyceV gave a respectful try at answering the questions. the others, well they just game played to play contradiction/grammar games.
it got boring. and all i could see was their narrative games of just playing tennis with each other, thinking i was the ball.
i dont care for these games. it solves nothing.
so im going to let them go play with each other in their own little worlds.
night!
they should just, if they want to act like advertisers for those niche services. actually explain why and how its different from bitcoin. (which could actually create positive PR for the niche service). and give an honest view of the risks so users are risk aware and know of the pitfalls and issues.
the attempts to say it is bitcoin it does what bitcoin does but better. and trying hard to put bitcoin down by tempting people over to these niche services like its the utopian solution. well thats bad PR
even with these 160posts in this topic. the amount of contradictions played by a certain group, doing every game in the book to try getting people to not highlight the differences, issues, flaws. is just callous actions by that group
which is why i lost respect for them. and dont sympathise for them when they play victim AFTER their own callous acts
if they actually wanted a good niche service, they would actually be proud to look for flaws and learn the differences and try to get it to work. rather then trying to shut up people that are highlighting the bugs and differences.
those working on bitcoin from 2009-2015 actually inspired desire to point out flaws/bugs. to fix them in bitcoins
now it seems they want to highlight issues to push people into different altnets and services.
those working on LN want to shut up anyone highlighting bugs/flaws/issues with LN, trying to push people into using a less secure network
as for those thinking i jump across many subjects in this topic. well when there are more then a couple different people asking me different questions. all asking me for answers. crying when i dont answer them, then yes my answers will be on different subjects.. but each answer is on the subject the person wants
EG
doomad wants mainly consensus talk but mostly social drama
darkvortex wants social drama/emotion
rath wants LN talk but some social drama, and to play contradiction mind games
darkhatcoiner, picks and chooses. but mostly social drama
so yes in the last 2 pages i have jumped from talking about LN to then answer doomads consensus stuff because he cries that i ignore him. then rath wants LN answers because he cries that i ignore him.(its like tennis, and im the ball in their game)
yea its one of their games. and it bores me
especially when "switzerland" has not tried setting the topic of the day or mediated on the cross talk, to try to get to the crux of a certain topic, one at a time like he wanted
heck i tried to get a summarised view on a certain subject but even that was too much to ask for the main few of the group.
yes LoyceV gave a respectful try at answering the questions. the others, well they just game played to play contradiction/grammar games.
it got boring. and all i could see was their narrative games of just playing tennis with each other, thinking i was the ball.
i dont care for these games. it solves nothing.
so im going to let them go play with each other in their own little worlds.
night!
January 17, 2022, 05:47:04 PM
For me at least, the Lightning Network does not contain the properties that to me make Bitcoin special. I don't think it can even be debated whether LN is Bitcoin or not. It isn't. Lightning is Bitcoin like WBTC is Bitcoin. There's little difference in my opinion. Going a step further, I think the LN is just a fancy IOU with some code behind it.
I'm happy if people want to stack sats and transact on the Lightning Network. More power to them. Who knows, maybe LN will never have any issues and turn out to be the main global payment system. I find that unlikely given it's shortcomings, but I think it would probably make a good NFT platform. Even in El Salvador, I'm told that transacting in USDT over the Tron network is the preferred method of transfer for various reasons I won't go into because promoting shit scam networks and stablecoins ain't my thing.
I'm happy if people want to stack sats and transact on the Lightning Network. More power to them. Who knows, maybe LN will never have any issues and turn out to be the main global payment system. I find that unlikely given it's shortcomings, but I think it would probably make a good NFT platform. Even in El Salvador, I'm told that transacting in USDT over the Tron network is the preferred method of transfer for various reasons I won't go into because promoting shit scam networks and stablecoins ain't my thing.
January 17, 2022, 05:09:55 PM
As far as I'm concerned and from what I read, you're the one ignoring facts, evading replies to questions (while others replied yours), not acknowledging you are wrong about quite a few aspects, convinced that you have the absolute truth, insulting others, claiming that others are doing social drama when you're the one doing it, driving/deviating all your posts towards what you want others to believe, trying to brainwash people with inaccurate technical info, playing games with grammar/English language/synonyms/phrase construction/etc.
Well, let me tell you this (facepalm as you like to type countless times): you are wrong in many aspects and everybody here already got your game. Saturation, brute-force, confusing people with inaccurate technical terms and statements, swapping your own contradictions and fails towards other people. This is what I call some kind of cheap reverse psychology. And yet, you convinced no one whatsoever. What this means is that by all means, you have no solid data and facts about what you're saying, otherwise I know that people would recognize your knowledge and would recognize their faults/mistakes, which was not the case.
So yes, lock yourself in your shelf, live your own self believed truth and be happy with it!
Well, let me tell you this (facepalm as you like to type countless times): you are wrong in many aspects and everybody here already got your game. Saturation, brute-force, confusing people with inaccurate technical terms and statements, swapping your own contradictions and fails towards other people. This is what I call some kind of cheap reverse psychology. And yet, you convinced no one whatsoever. What this means is that by all means, you have no solid data and facts about what you're saying, otherwise I know that people would recognize your knowledge and would recognize their faults/mistakes, which was not the case.
So yes, lock yourself in your shelf, live your own self believed truth and be happy with it!
January 17, 2022, 02:24:58 PM
This is the BIP148 possible split point, which is what motivated all of the Aug 1 hubub. But due to BIP91's successful activation about a week ago, it is most likely that nothing of note will actually happen. It is however possible that the unexpected could occur.
maybe you need to spend 5 years arguing with theymos
Nope, no argument necessary. That post from theymos appears to be accurate and supports what I have said.
it was the 148 nodes that rejected blocks which got bip91 to its threshold and beyond which then activated segwit(141)
Impossible. If UASF nodes had started rejecting blocks which other Bitcoin nodes were accepting, they would have forked themselves off the Bitcoin network and formed their own chain. That never happened.
Honestly, this might go better for you if you don't automatically assume the evidence you are providing supports your argument, when in fact, it completely undermines it. Try to understand what the evidence really means first, before you jump to the incorrect conclusion that it proves you right.
as your own words have been saying for years (2018+) that bitcoin never used any mandated activation..
(pretending you have no knowledge that 148/91 were used)
contradicting your 2017 stuff
you even said how you were unaware because you never personally used mandated software so you believe it didnt happen.
then in recent hours you contradict yourself by saying that the bips were used, but however only activated after segwit activated.. by which you are saying 148/91 activated on august 24th
but theymos and many others, and the blockchain data actually show 148/91 activated in late july and august 1st (before segwits august 24th activation.)
as for saying im wrong.. your evidence appears to be just quoting others in your friendship group that say im wrong.. .. and thats it.
thats social drama. not proof.
anyway. this topic has bored me again tonight. seems the certain group doesnt care about facts or data they just want to argue and contradict for the sake of arguing. maybe they should have a private get together with each other and talk amongst themselves and play around with each other, as they seem to like games soo much.
January 17, 2022, 02:13:18 PM
This is the BIP148 possible split point, which is what motivated all of the Aug 1 hubub. But due to BIP91's successful activation about a week ago, it is most likely that nothing of note will actually happen. It is however possible that the unexpected could occur.
maybe you need to spend 5 years arguing with theymos
Nope, no argument necessary. That post from theymos appears to be accurate and supports what I have said.
it was the 148 nodes that rejected blocks which got bip91 to its threshold and beyond which then activated segwit(141)
Impossible. If UASF nodes had started rejecting blocks which other Bitcoin nodes were accepting, they would have forked themselves off the Bitcoin network and formed their own chain. That never happened.
Honestly, this might go better for you if you don't automatically assume the evidence you are providing supports your argument, when in fact, it completely undermines it. Try to understand what the evidence really means first, before you jump to the incorrect conclusion that it proves you right.
franky1 speaks very confidently about his opinion regarding ckpool, solo-mining, pool-mining, nonces, and extranonces. Please do not mistake confidence for knowledge or understanding. He's got some facts wrong, and his concept of what it means to be solo mining vs pools mining is not the widely accepted and understood concept.
I think along with solo-mining, pool-mining, nonces, and extranonces, we can also add consensus, forks, Lightning, routing and freedom.
January 17, 2022, 01:57:30 PM
The technical discussion is over, buddy. It's clear that the problem you have with Lightning is much deeper than just its function. If you want to continue supporting your position, better just dive into this:
If you decide to start talking more socially than technically, the thing changes. We'll probably end up to a point where we simply disagree, ideologically, but this is still good as we'll have cleared up our confusions. If you deny this discussion proposal, then there's really nothing you can do to convince us for your sayings.
Try it.
First you have to demonstrate you understand how it does work before we can accept any of your assertions that you know how to make it "better". So again, before you skip ahead to add new questions, please, at the very least, just answer the first two:
Any developer is free to code what they want.
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
Everyone will be free to run any code they choose.
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
Please demonstrate your understanding of these key aspects of consensus.
Any developer is free to code what they want.
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
Everyone will be free to run any code they choose.
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
Please demonstrate your understanding of these key aspects of consensus.
If you decide to start talking more socially than technically, the thing changes. We'll probably end up to a point where we simply disagree, ideologically, but this is still good as we'll have cleared up our confusions. If you deny this discussion proposal, then there's really nothing you can do to convince us for your sayings.
Try it.
Jump to: