Topic: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain - page 9. (Read 3193 times)
January 16, 2022, 08:40:34 AM
Judging by the questions I acknowledge that franky only understands white and black, true and false, yes and no, one and zero. Please allow me to state that the truth is grey.
January 16, 2022, 08:40:22 AM
so lets stay at a same level of standards
because your consensus questions have flimsy "can be, can happen", rather then "do, are" your not asking anything finite and certain(your same standard argued this when you said my questions were not wrote correct)
i bothered to appease groupies cries with short questions of finite/certain points to answer.. also then to appease your cries of believed bias i re-reformatted my questions to be unbiased and be finite in both for/against formats of a&b variants, so perhaps you can reciprocate, by writing questions without the flimsiness of "can be, can happen" which has no certainty being asked
because your consensus questions have flimsy "can be, can happen", rather then "do, are" your not asking anything finite and certain(your same standard argued this when you said my questions were not wrote correct)
i bothered to appease groupies cries with short questions of finite/certain points to answer.. also then to appease your cries of believed bias i re-reformatted my questions to be unbiased and be finite in both for/against formats of a&b variants, so perhaps you can reciprocate, by writing questions without the flimsiness of "can be, can happen" which has no certainty being asked
Statements can be conditional or situational. Take, for example, "The sky is blue - agree/disagree". Sounds simple enough, right? But what about sunrise/sunset? What about the night? It's not always blue and, as such, is a flawed statement. So I would phrase it "The sky can be blue" - agree/disagree"
but then your not stating what it cant be(silver). thus leaving it as an open question with an open answer means its making no decided point of certainty.
EG
you want to set the narrative that users can be thrown of the network, yet as i know your tactic you want to turn any answer into an argument about bitcoins 2017 event, fitting whatever narrative you please. taking the flimsy answer however you please.
so here is my answer:
consensus 2009-2016 required majority acceptance voluntarily before activation occurred.
consensus 2017-20xx didnt require majority before forking. instead it mandated just a 'bit' flag change without need of compatible software upgrade.. the mandate forced a vote. which caused a fork BEFORE activation. where any pool not changing the bit would have their block rejected in august 2017.
the pre activation fork:
did not happen due to blocks containing segwit formats being rejected by old peers causing their own separation.
did happen by the mandate rejecting legacy(2009-2016) block flags. even before segwit activated
this was not a majority accept then activate it was a mandate which may cause a fork after.
it was fork first.. to cause faked 100% acceptance due to lack of opposition listed. to then get activation after
even the bip91 and 148 state this. and you know this. even though you dont want to admit it
January 16, 2022, 08:15:32 AM
so lets stay at a same level of standards
because your consensus questions have flimsy "can be, can happen", rather then "do, are" your not asking anything finite and certain(your same standard argued this when you said my questions were not wrote correct)
i bothered to appease groupies cries with short questions of finite/certain points to answer.. also then to appease your cries of believed bias i re-reformatted my questions to be unbiased and be finite in both for/against formats of a&b variants, so perhaps you can reciprocate, by writing questions without the flimsiness of "can be, can happen" which has no certainty being asked
because your consensus questions have flimsy "can be, can happen", rather then "do, are" your not asking anything finite and certain(your same standard argued this when you said my questions were not wrote correct)
i bothered to appease groupies cries with short questions of finite/certain points to answer.. also then to appease your cries of believed bias i re-reformatted my questions to be unbiased and be finite in both for/against formats of a&b variants, so perhaps you can reciprocate, by writing questions without the flimsiness of "can be, can happen" which has no certainty being asked
Statements can be conditional or situational. Take, for example, "The sky is blue - agree/disagree". Sounds simple enough, right? But what about sunrise/sunset? What about the night? It's not always blue and, as such, is a flawed statement. So I would phrase it "The sky can be blue" - agree/disagree" because this is more accurate and takes real life circumstances into account. There is certainty that there will be times when the sky is blue. That is not "flimsy". It is factual. If someone were to disagree with the statement that the sky can be blue, it would suggest there is something amiss with their perception.
At the very least, please give it a try. Change the wording to be more specific if you like. If you elect to re-word any "can be" or "can happen" and choose to leave yourself open to any conditional issues in an attempt to provide a more finite answer, that is your prerogative. I changed the wording of your questions to more accurately reflect my stance, so it's only fair I extend the same courtesy to you.
January 16, 2022, 07:36:08 AM
7.b: LN will work without bitcoin
Is this question any different than 6.a?
thankyou for a respectful attempt at answering the questionsIs this question any different than 6.a?
some questions seem similar due to the social drama of a certain group that have cried about reasons to not answer the questions, so i asked similar questions in different forms just to try and get an answer out of them
you might notice my questions about 'always linked' and 'LN is the bitcoin network' is to appease the groupies who DO think it is. and have said so in many topics over the last 4 years. its not my opinion it was just an unbiased question to vet and summarise peoples opinion on their beliefs
you stood up and gave your opinion on my 3 questions
Given that you accept I have answered three of your Lightning questions to a point where you are satisfied, perhaps you can reciprocate and answer three of my Consensus questions? After all, we are attempting to find out what everyone has truly learned. And some might consider it unreasonable to hold others to a higher standard than you are willing to hold yourself.
so lets stay at a same level of standards
because your consensus questions have flimsy "can be, can happen", rather then "do, are" your not asking anything finite and certain(your same standard argued this when you said my questions were not wrote correct)
i bothered to appease groupies cries with short questions of finite/certain points to answer.. also then to appease your cries of believed bias i re-reformatted my questions to be unbiased and be finite in both for/against formats of a&b variants, so perhaps you can reciprocate, by writing questions without the flimsiness of "can be, can happen" which has no certainty being asked
January 16, 2022, 06:25:21 AM
you stood up and gave your opinion on my 3 questions
Given that you accept I have answered three of your Lightning questions to a point where you are satisfied, perhaps you can reciprocate and answer three of my Consensus questions? After all, we are attempting to find out what everyone has truly learned. And some might consider it unreasonable to hold others to a higher standard than you are willing to hold yourself.
January 16, 2022, 06:03:12 AM
funnily enough it seems another groupy who wants to play more social drama queen games and wants to cry and wants a different buzzword. (boring social drama game)
well how about you queens go have your little group chat elsewhere and come back when you can decide on something. and actually able to have constructive discussion, instead of your social drama crap being played here.
well how about you queens go have your little group chat elsewhere and come back when you can decide on something. and actually able to have constructive discussion, instead of your social drama crap being played here.
Clock is repeating itself... Same all shit chat of groupies and PRs and social drama and buzzwords. You're the one using buzzwords over and over again. Non-stop. You keep using the same game over and over again. Jeezzzz...
More question walls, more intentionally directed questions to try to serve your purpose! lol. This is starting to be more of a troll than anything else. Or better, I think this is a troll since the very beginning! Lucky you, you still have people feeding your bear cub here, because that's what you're seeking. Attention, the social drama you so much talk about, etc...
January 16, 2022, 02:01:36 AM
1.a: lightning network is not the bitcoin network.
Earlier in this thread you expressed the opinion that the LN as it pertains to BTC transactions should be considered identical to the LN as it pertains to LTC transactions, on the basis that a) nodes communicate between each other using the same basic protocol, regardless of which cryptocurrency a given channel is funded with, b) one single node can participate in transactions involving both BTC and LTC, and c) the LN protocol is capable of interacting with multiple blockchains. By this definition, the LN is definitely not the bitcoin network. This is because LN nodes and BTC nodes do not use the same protocol.
1.b: lightning network is the bitcoin network.
Well, I could certainly come with my own argument as to why LN is part of a larger network which encompasses all of the layers involved, including bitcoin. For example, I could refer to economic actors as the nodes in the network, rather than the more technical protocol-subservient nodes you are discussing.
2.a: lightning network is a separate network that does different things than bitcoin
Does LN do different things than bitcoin? Yes.
2.b: lightning network is always linked to the bitcoin network that does what bitcoin does
No, because it is plausible that at some point in the future the LN will cease to exist (or, less plausibly, the bitcoin network). In this event the two networks would not be permanently linked. If you want to get into more details, I'm afraid we will need to do a semantic detour and figure out what we mean by "always linked". On a practical real-world level, I believe that widespread adoption of LN would be very unlikely if LN did not interoperate with the bitcoin blockchain. But I don't think that's the kind of "link" you're talking about.
3.a: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in picocoin-1 (11decimal) also known as msat/millisat
3.b: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in btc
4.a: LN "payments" (inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction
4.b: LN "payments" (inside LN) are same format, to a bitcoin transaction
Seeing as I was the one who asked for a definition in the first place, I'm happy to accept whatever combination of 3.a-4.b you feel is correct (unless such combination results in logical inconsistencies).
5.a: bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format
Correct. Incidentally, why are you so hung up on this issue of decimal rounding? The basic point that the protocol LN nodes use to communicate with other LN nodes may not be directly implemented within the bitcoin network is enough. You don't need to invoke decimals to make this point.
5.b: bitcoin network does understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format
See above.
6.a: LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "tethered to only function", but I do agree with the basic point that we can conceive of a LN which does not include any channels funded by BTC.
6.b: LN is tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
See above.
7.a: LN wont work without bitcoin
Is this question any different than 6.b?
7.b: LN will work without bitcoin
Is this question any different than 6.a?
Earlier in this thread you expressed the opinion that the LN as it pertains to BTC transactions should be considered identical to the LN as it pertains to LTC transactions, on the basis that a) nodes communicate between each other using the same basic protocol, regardless of which cryptocurrency a given channel is funded with, b) one single node can participate in transactions involving both BTC and LTC, and c) the LN protocol is capable of interacting with multiple blockchains. By this definition, the LN is definitely not the bitcoin network. This is because LN nodes and BTC nodes do not use the same protocol.
1.b: lightning network is the bitcoin network.
Well, I could certainly come with my own argument as to why LN is part of a larger network which encompasses all of the layers involved, including bitcoin. For example, I could refer to economic actors as the nodes in the network, rather than the more technical protocol-subservient nodes you are discussing.
2.a: lightning network is a separate network that does different things than bitcoin
Does LN do different things than bitcoin? Yes.
2.b: lightning network is always linked to the bitcoin network that does what bitcoin does
No, because it is plausible that at some point in the future the LN will cease to exist (or, less plausibly, the bitcoin network). In this event the two networks would not be permanently linked. If you want to get into more details, I'm afraid we will need to do a semantic detour and figure out what we mean by "always linked". On a practical real-world level, I believe that widespread adoption of LN would be very unlikely if LN did not interoperate with the bitcoin blockchain. But I don't think that's the kind of "link" you're talking about.
3.a: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in picocoin-1 (11decimal) also known as msat/millisat
3.b: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in btc
4.a: LN "payments" (inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction
4.b: LN "payments" (inside LN) are same format, to a bitcoin transaction
Seeing as I was the one who asked for a definition in the first place, I'm happy to accept whatever combination of 3.a-4.b you feel is correct (unless such combination results in logical inconsistencies).
5.a: bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format
Correct. Incidentally, why are you so hung up on this issue of decimal rounding? The basic point that the protocol LN nodes use to communicate with other LN nodes may not be directly implemented within the bitcoin network is enough. You don't need to invoke decimals to make this point.
5.b: bitcoin network does understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format
See above.
6.a: LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "tethered to only function", but I do agree with the basic point that we can conceive of a LN which does not include any channels funded by BTC.
6.b: LN is tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
See above.
7.a: LN wont work without bitcoin
Is this question any different than 6.b?
7.b: LN will work without bitcoin
Is this question any different than 6.a?
dont reply with social drama games
January 15, 2022, 07:34:34 PM
funnily enough it seems another groupy who wants to play more social drama queen games and wants to cry and wants a different buzzword. (boring social drama game)
well how about you queens go have your little group chat elsewhere and come back when you can decide on something. and actually able to have constructive discussion, instead of your social drama crap being played here.
a node is a software working on a network a channel is not a node.
but thanks for being a prime example of the social drama of trying to turn a LN discussion into a grammar nazi social drama game of boring replies
a channel is a agreement with 2 peers of certain terms in which they agree to swap value, with specific agreed terms
a node can have multiple channels (dont confuse the terms)
payment is not about the msat itself. its about the message/service/vessel used for the transport of (in this instance)msat.
hense why when i say payment i also try to specify what the payment is transporting
EG (LN payment denominated in msat)
funny part is. i personally prefer the word LN promises/IOU. but the social drama queens cried and so i compromised and started using one of their buzzwords.
also peg is very descriptive. because bitcoin outputs do not leave the bitcoin blockchain. in an LN payment(you queens can use any buzzword you like). they are converted into a msat denomination which the bitcoin network does not understand. and are pegged at a 1:1000 rate of sat:msat.
(bar examples like turbo, which is avoiding locked pegs and offering instant msats without a confirmed bitcoin output)
anyway
replying pretending to answer questions but not actually bothering to actually answer, but still posting just to say some alternative thing.. you might aswell of completely not bothered at all and just not replied.
you have not said anything constructive or done anything to move the discussion forward.
oh and those latest questions. were directed at Doomad because he took a small step forward answering 3 and so i wanted to get more answers from him.
i can predict you want to reply to this message with more social drama queen stuff, but just dont bother. its boring
..
if anyone else wants to reply. answer the questions properly. or if you cant stand by your opinions of how you think things work to answer and move the discussion forward. then just keep hiding your opinions. by not replying.
if you have the courage to actually answer the questions i stated. and you want to actually come forward and stand by your opinions. then great one step forward
here are the main questions again
insert a * into the answer that applies most towards your opinion of how you think things are.
1.a: lightning network is not the bitcoin network.
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
1.b: lightning network is the bitcoin network.
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
2.a: lightning network is a separate network that does different things than bitcoin
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
2.b: lightning network is always linked to the bitcoin network that does what bitcoin does
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
3.a: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in picocoin-1 (11decimal) also known as msat/millisat
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
3.b: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in btc
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
4.a: LN "payments" (inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
4.b: LN "payments" (inside LN) are same format, to a bitcoin transaction
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
5.a: bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
5.b: bitcoin network does understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
6.a: LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
6.b: LN is tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
7.a: LN wont work without bitcoin
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
7.b: LN will work without bitcoin
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
just dont reply with social drama games. you dont only bore me. but you also end up making your own pages of walls of text which your groupies also dislike.
well how about you queens go have your little group chat elsewhere and come back when you can decide on something. and actually able to have constructive discussion, instead of your social drama crap being played here.
a node is a software working on a network a channel is not a node.
but thanks for being a prime example of the social drama of trying to turn a LN discussion into a grammar nazi social drama game of boring replies
a channel is a agreement with 2 peers of certain terms in which they agree to swap value, with specific agreed terms
a node can have multiple channels (dont confuse the terms)
payment is not about the msat itself. its about the message/service/vessel used for the transport of (in this instance)msat.
hense why when i say payment i also try to specify what the payment is transporting
EG (LN payment denominated in msat)
funny part is. i personally prefer the word LN promises/IOU. but the social drama queens cried and so i compromised and started using one of their buzzwords.
also peg is very descriptive. because bitcoin outputs do not leave the bitcoin blockchain. in an LN payment(you queens can use any buzzword you like). they are converted into a msat denomination which the bitcoin network does not understand. and are pegged at a 1:1000 rate of sat:msat.
(bar examples like turbo, which is avoiding locked pegs and offering instant msats without a confirmed bitcoin output)
anyway
replying pretending to answer questions but not actually bothering to actually answer, but still posting just to say some alternative thing.. you might aswell of completely not bothered at all and just not replied.
you have not said anything constructive or done anything to move the discussion forward.
oh and those latest questions. were directed at Doomad because he took a small step forward answering 3 and so i wanted to get more answers from him.
i can predict you want to reply to this message with more social drama queen stuff, but just dont bother. its boring
..
if anyone else wants to reply. answer the questions properly. or if you cant stand by your opinions of how you think things work to answer and move the discussion forward. then just keep hiding your opinions. by not replying.
if you have the courage to actually answer the questions i stated. and you want to actually come forward and stand by your opinions. then great one step forward
here are the main questions again
insert a * into the answer that applies most towards your opinion of how you think things are.
1.a: lightning network is not the bitcoin network.
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
1.b: lightning network is the bitcoin network.
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
2.a: lightning network is a separate network that does different things than bitcoin
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
2.b: lightning network is always linked to the bitcoin network that does what bitcoin does
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
3.a: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in picocoin-1 (11decimal) also known as msat/millisat
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
3.b: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in btc
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
4.a: LN "payments" (inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
4.b: LN "payments" (inside LN) are same format, to a bitcoin transaction
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
5.a: bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
5.b: bitcoin network does understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
6.a: LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
6.b: LN is tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
7.a: LN wont work without bitcoin
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
7.b: LN will work without bitcoin
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
just dont reply with social drama games. you dont only bore me. but you also end up making your own pages of walls of text which your groupies also dislike.
January 15, 2022, 07:15:06 PM
Okay, I'll take a bite at the apple:
4a. define "payment"
4b. define "payment"
5a. define "peg"
5b. define "peg"
5c. no
6a. define "payment"
6b. define "payment"
6a. define "payment"
7a. no
7b. redundant
7a. (yes, you screwed up your numbering) define "peg", and immaterial *
7b. redundant, and immaterial *
7c. yes, and immaterial
8a. question is directed at a third party
8b. vague ("involve"/"certain situations"), but to the extend the question is cognizable the answer is no (because amicability is not required)
8c. no (again, amicability is not required), and immaterial (everything "involves a level of trust in certain situations", including bitcoin)
You are using the word "peg" in a different way than it's typically used in the cryptocurrency and legacy finance world, so your comments in this vein are largely incoherent.
As for the word "payment", I'm sure I triggered you by questioning your usage of this word, but before you respond please do yourself the favor of going to your local library, taking out a dictionary (Merriam Webster is my go-to), and looking up the definition of the English word "payment". You might be surprised to learn that literally none of the many definitions of the word "payment" make any reference to the notion of currency.
As for immateriality, this debate is not about turbo features, it's about LN. Yes, turbo is an optional feature of LN. Optional. It is not required to participate in the network.
* When you say "LN channels" in these questions what you actually mean is "LN nodes". Based on the rest of this thread, you appear to have some confusion surrounding this distinction between nodes and channels.
4a. define "payment"
4b. define "payment"
5a. define "peg"
5b. define "peg"
5c. no
6a. define "payment"
6b. define "payment"
6a. define "payment"
7a. no
7b. redundant
7a. (yes, you screwed up your numbering) define "peg", and immaterial *
7b. redundant, and immaterial *
7c. yes, and immaterial
8a. question is directed at a third party
8b. vague ("involve"/"certain situations"), but to the extend the question is cognizable the answer is no (because amicability is not required)
8c. no (again, amicability is not required), and immaterial (everything "involves a level of trust in certain situations", including bitcoin)
You are using the word "peg" in a different way than it's typically used in the cryptocurrency and legacy finance world, so your comments in this vein are largely incoherent.
As for the word "payment", I'm sure I triggered you by questioning your usage of this word, but before you respond please do yourself the favor of going to your local library, taking out a dictionary (Merriam Webster is my go-to), and looking up the definition of the English word "payment". You might be surprised to learn that literally none of the many definitions of the word "payment" make any reference to the notion of currency.
As for immateriality, this debate is not about turbo features, it's about LN. Yes, turbo is an optional feature of LN. Optional. It is not required to participate in the network.
* When you say "LN channels" in these questions what you actually mean is "LN nodes". Based on the rest of this thread, you appear to have some confusion surrounding this distinction between nodes and channels.
January 15, 2022, 02:04:08 PM
3. LN payments are denominated in 11 decimal places.
agree[ * ] disagree[ ]
4. LN payments are different contracts/transactions/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction.
agree[ * ] disagree[ ]
5. The Bitcoin network does not recognise 11 decimal places
agree[ * ] disagree[ ]
agree[ * ] disagree[ ]
4. LN payments are different contracts/transactions/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction.
agree[ * ] disagree[ ]
5. The Bitcoin network does not recognise 11 decimal places
agree[ * ] disagree[ ]
atleast i got some answer from you that are not about social discussion, but instead respectfully your opinion/stance of actual features of a software and network.
one step forward
my respect for you was at minus 100, now its minus 97(you stood up and gave your opinion on my 3 questions) it could have been minus 86 if you answered all 14 questions i asked(instead of troll editing to suite your "social discussion" bias).
now to take one step forward. now you are standing by the statements that LN payments are denominated in mediums of exchange not understood by bitcoin.
lets get more clarity on your opinion of the function and the feature of Lightning network (one topic at a time)
i ask for this clarity to summarise a multi-year debate doomad has with myself about his opinion of LN similarity to bitcoin vs my opinion of LN differences to bitcoin
so quote below the line and fill in the suitable answer with a *
after pegging a channel to a bitcoin blockchain confirmed transaction. using actual confirmed and locked funding (not turbo)
4a. is LN when doing the LN payments(msat denominated) making bitcoin payments.
[ ] agree [ ] disagree
4b. is LN when doing the LN payments(msat denominated) making millisat(msat) payments.
[ ] agree [ ] disagree
5a. are LN millisats pegged to bitcoins Sats at 1000:1 (msat:sat)
[ ] agree [ ] disagree
5b. are LN millisats unpegged
[ ] agree [ ] disagree
5c. are LN millsats the same as sats and the 1000:1 difference is non existent and not real thing in LN
[ ] agree [ ] disagree
using an analogy of other economics(help your understand)
after pegging a bank account to a notarised gold deposit. using actual notarised and vaulted gold
6a. are 19th century banknotes when doing the cash payments($$ denominated) making gold payments.
[ ] agree [ ] disagree
6b. are banks when doing 19th century bank payments($$ denominated) making $$ payments.
[ ] agree [ ] disagree
6a. are 19th century banknotes when doing the cash payments($$ denominated) making gold payments.
[ ] agree [ ] disagree
7a. are banks when doing 21th century bank payments($$ denominated) still pegged to gold.
[ ] agree [ ] disagree
7b. are banks when doing 21th century bank payments($$ denominated) no longer pegged to gold.
[ ] agree [ ] disagree
now back to LN features
8a. are LN channels using turbo pegged to locked 6confirm deep bitcoin UTXO when they first 'push' msats to a user.
[ ] agree [ ] disagree
8b. are LN channels using turbo pegged not locked 6confirm deep bitcoin UTXO when they first 'push' msats to a user.
[ ] agree [ ] disagree
8c. are LN channels using turbo able to 'push' msats to a user even with a unconfirmed bitcoin transaction.
[ ] agree [ ] disagree
(and now the ultimate, but long winded question which guide where we have difference of opinions the most on)
knowing of turbos 'features' and the github discussions of making it a bolt. in a scenario of LN when using a chainhash of bitcoin network genesis as the bases of seeking funding:
9a. can you stand by your opinion that LN is always 100% safe and all funding is 100% secure and guaranteed(trustless) in the channel.
[ ] agree [ ] disagree
9b. does LN involve a level of trust and amicable agreement in certain situations
[ ] agree [ ] disagree
January 15, 2022, 12:59:28 PM
as for not answering 14 unbiased quick summary questions.. silence is revealing
i have respect for LoyceV atleast he made an effort to answer summary questions
i have respect for LoyceV atleast he made an effort to answer summary questions
In that case, here's my effort:
Lightning:
1. When the sender and recipient are both using bitcoin, LN is supported by the Bitcoin blockchain and can be freely discussed in the Bitcoin Discussion board.
agree[ * ] disagree[ ]
2. When the sender and recipient are both using altcoins, LN is supported by that altcoin's blockchain and should instead be discussed in the Altcoin Discussion board.
agree[ * ] disagree[ ]
3. LN payments are denominated in 11 decimal places.
agree[ * ] disagree[ ]
4. LN payments are different contracts/transactions/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction.
agree[ * ] disagree[ ]
5. The Bitcoin network does not recognise 11 decimal places
agree[ * ] disagree[ ]
6. LN can function on other compatible blockchains, but if a discussion is taking place in the Bitcoin Discussion board, that means the discussion is about LN as a layer on top of Bitcoin.
agree[ * ] disagree[ ]
7. When people are discussing LN transactions supported by Bitcoin's blockchain, it is against the forum rules for anyone to be derailing that conversation to talk about LN transactions supported by other blockchains, unless it is an atomic swap that involves bitcoin.
agree[ * ] disagree[ ]
Consensus:
8. Any developer is free to code what they want.
agree[ * ] disagree[ ]
9. Everyone will be free to run any code they choose.
agree[ * ] disagree[ ]
10. If enough people run code with different consensus rules, change can happen even if a minority disagree.
agree[ * ] disagree[ ]
11. If you run code which is incompatible with the code a majority of users are running, you can be disconnected from the network.
agree[ * ] disagree[ ]
12. Features implemented by soft fork can be considered "opt-in" and you can continue to remain part of the network even if you don't want to use those features.
agree[ * ] disagree[ ]
13. If you are unhappy with the current consensus rules, there is no onus on any Bitcoin user to surrender to your demands.
agree[ * ] disagree[ ]
14. If anyone wants features which are wholly incompatible with current consensus rules, it is reasonable to suggest they consider looking at other projects geared towards that purpose.
agree[ * ] disagree[ ]
In an attempt to get the topic back on track, everyone feel free to provide your own responses as above. The more posts representing the views of the community, the better. Make it clear who supports what.
January 15, 2022, 12:52:01 PM
Here we go again. You look like a clock in a rush. A clock repeats it self every 12 hours, you repeat yourself every couple of minutes.
You chose to insult others with your buzzwords like ignorant and facepalm. That's it. This is not even more about LN or any other thing related. This is only about you and your holly point of view and the demagogy you're trying to spread around.
You've been asked a few questions and failed totally to respond. Not by me though, but by others, namely @_Rath!
But your strategy is simply brute-force all the way in. And you're not getting it done, so you keep going and going until saturation point and people just give up. Then, you think you made your point and take a night of sleep to come back in the next day and realise that after all, your point was not taken, therefore, repetition comes again and the cycle repeats! That's all.
PS: flip-flops... The foot wear you use at the beach? Or the sequential logic circuit that can keep memory of it's previous state?
Your buzzwords!
You chose to insult others with your buzzwords like ignorant and facepalm. That's it. This is not even more about LN or any other thing related. This is only about you and your holly point of view and the demagogy you're trying to spread around.
You've been asked a few questions and failed totally to respond. Not by me though, but by others, namely @_Rath!
But your strategy is simply brute-force all the way in. And you're not getting it done, so you keep going and going until saturation point and people just give up. Then, you think you made your point and take a night of sleep to come back in the next day and realise that after all, your point was not taken, therefore, repetition comes again and the cycle repeats! That's all.
PS: flip-flops... The foot wear you use at the beach? Or the sequential logic circuit that can keep memory of it's previous state?
Your buzzwords!
January 15, 2022, 12:28:11 PM
i yawn and facepalm.. others insult
i use words like fangirls and hypocrites... others use more antagonising insults. (yawn)
but as this is a topic concerning me and my thoughts about LN, scaling bitcoin and exodus schemes(PR buzzworded as scaling)
i should be posting my thoughts and my references to code, bips, and proposals and other references..
if others just want to social drama.. your in the wrong topic
but it is fun watching you defend a ln fangirl. even when what they say has nothing to do with the topics..
seems you care more about defending chums than you do in actually staying civil and discussing the topic.
(not your first example of going social drama in this topic)
anyway. if any other reader just wants to reply with social drama.. dont hit reply. take your social drama to your private communications with your friends.
lets try to get this discussion back to the topic..
starting again with the non biased questions of shortness to avoid added clauses of manipulation..
and wrote in a&b variants to ensure no bias.
so that we can get to a base point of peoples view of how they see what LN does and doesnt do.
so lets gauge peoples understanding. these questions (by request) have been write short to avoid clauses, and also in pairs of opposition wording to avoid bias. lets see what you know
answer by quoting the questions under the line below.
if you cannot reply without some silly social drama, insult flame. dont bother replying.
this topic is not about you opinions on social drama used as reasons for you to cause more social drama.
instead take your victim crocodile tears(fake tears) somewhere else, i have no sympathy for you when you get bit.
if you cannot stand by your opinion to even have confidence to answer the questions, then your opinion becomes less worthy.
if your reluctance is spouted out as "the questions are bias". then if you think A is bias. answer the B variant.
insert a * into the answer that applies most towards your opinion of how you think things are.
1.a: lightning network is not the bitcoin network.
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
1.b: lightning network is the bitcoin network.
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
2.a: lightning network is a separate network that does different things than bitcoin
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
2.b: lightning network is always linked to the bitcoin network that does what bitcoin does
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
3.a: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in picocoin-1 (11decimal) also known as msat/millisat
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
3.b: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in btc
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
4.a: LN "payments" (inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
4.b: LN "payments" (inside LN) are same format, to a bitcoin transaction
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
5.a: bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
5.b: bitcoin network does understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
6.a: LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
6.b: LN is tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
7.a: LN wont work without bitcoin
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
7.b: LN will work without bitcoin
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
i use words like fangirls and hypocrites... others use more antagonising insults. (yawn)
but as this is a topic concerning me and my thoughts about LN, scaling bitcoin and exodus schemes(PR buzzworded as scaling)
i should be posting my thoughts and my references to code, bips, and proposals and other references..
if others just want to social drama.. your in the wrong topic
but it is fun watching you defend a ln fangirl. even when what they say has nothing to do with the topics..
seems you care more about defending chums than you do in actually staying civil and discussing the topic.
(not your first example of going social drama in this topic)
anyway. if any other reader just wants to reply with social drama.. dont hit reply. take your social drama to your private communications with your friends.
lets try to get this discussion back to the topic..
starting again with the non biased questions of shortness to avoid added clauses of manipulation..
and wrote in a&b variants to ensure no bias.
so that we can get to a base point of peoples view of how they see what LN does and doesnt do.
so lets gauge peoples understanding. these questions (by request) have been write short to avoid clauses, and also in pairs of opposition wording to avoid bias. lets see what you know
answer by quoting the questions under the line below.
if you cannot reply without some silly social drama, insult flame. dont bother replying.
this topic is not about you opinions on social drama used as reasons for you to cause more social drama.
instead take your victim crocodile tears(fake tears) somewhere else, i have no sympathy for you when you get bit.
if you cannot stand by your opinion to even have confidence to answer the questions, then your opinion becomes less worthy.
if your reluctance is spouted out as "the questions are bias". then if you think A is bias. answer the B variant.
insert a * into the answer that applies most towards your opinion of how you think things are.
1.a: lightning network is not the bitcoin network.
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
1.b: lightning network is the bitcoin network.
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
2.a: lightning network is a separate network that does different things than bitcoin
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
2.b: lightning network is always linked to the bitcoin network that does what bitcoin does
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
3.a: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in picocoin-1 (11decimal) also known as msat/millisat
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
3.b: LN "payments" (inside LN code) are denominated in btc
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
4.a: LN "payments" (inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
4.b: LN "payments" (inside LN) are same format, to a bitcoin transaction
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
5.a: bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
5.b: bitcoin network does understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued format
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
6.a: LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
6.b: LN is tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
7.a: LN wont work without bitcoin
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
7.b: LN will work without bitcoin
agree[ ] disagree[ ]
January 15, 2022, 12:12:39 PM
they are trying to put a voluntary feature of one software piece, into becoming part of the official BOLTS protocol, that all software would have to try being compatible with.
I want facts, not words. Where have they seemed agreed with this feature?(then later contradict by saying you think its a dumb idea.. but atleast your honest at that last part)
I never believed it was a good idea to contradict it. You keep making things up for the millionth time. Stop it, 'cause readers can't acknowledge when you're a liar and when not as they don't read the whole page of your walls of meaningless text.people may not like my views on finding the flaws and bugs and faults.. but in coding, finding bugs and flaws is more helpful rather than being a PR utopian dreamer of hope and broken promise.
You've tired me with the PR thing. What makes you think what you are doing isn't public relations? You're propagandistically trying to persuade people to not use Lightning.Excuse me for not responding to the rest of your garbage-post. I'll stick with this:
You also have a flaw, and worse than that, you're not even working. LN is working even with flaws.
At this point I think we've violated the following:
Please keep this topic civil.
January 15, 2022, 10:59:00 AM
my utopia?.. funny. you should be a comedian
im not the one advertising other networks as being bitcoins utility replacement system by dreaming that the replacement works 100% even when facts show it has flaws, limits and bugs.
if you want to ignore the flaws or try converting me to being a altnet loyalist.. well that is your utopian dream. and your right you wont convince me. your dream wont come true, much like other utopian dreams altnet loyalists promote
if all the loyalists want is to convert me, well they failed. ill stick to being risk averse and stick to helping myself and others know of the risks and possible problems, its safer that way, no dreaming
im not the one advertising other networks as being bitcoins utility replacement system by dreaming that the replacement works 100% even when facts show it has flaws, limits and bugs.
if you want to ignore the flaws or try converting me to being a altnet loyalist.. well that is your utopian dream. and your right you wont convince me. your dream wont come true, much like other utopian dreams altnet loyalists promote
if all the loyalists want is to convert me, well they failed. ill stick to being risk averse and stick to helping myself and others know of the risks and possible problems, its safer that way, no dreaming
What is advertising? Do these people you say that advertise, are getting paid by the advertisement? You're the one saying they are advertising. Do you know what advertising is? You're just making non-sense claims out of the blue and you're blind enough to not want to see!.
You also have a flaw, and worse than that, you're not even working. LN is working even with flaws.
You're the only one trying to brute-force your view into other's heads by demagogy. And worse, you're insulting them.
Quote
his 3 insults vs my 1 'hypocritical' hmm....
but i do laugh that you want to pretend your the victim (AFTER YOU POKE THE BEAR)
if you dont want to get bit, dont poke
but i do laugh that you want to pretend your the victim (AFTER YOU POKE THE BEAR)
if you dont want to get bit, dont poke
Where the hell is the bear??? All I see is a cub. If I poke a cub, the cub is dead!
You're saying all over the place facepalm, ignorant facepalm, ignorant facepalm, ignorant facepalm, ignorant facepalm, ignorant facepalm, ignorant
Aren't these insults? You want to discuss semantics? Synonyms? I'm not native English speaker but I can engage with no problem.
January 15, 2022, 10:49:09 AM
my utopia?.. funny. you should be a comedian
im not the one advertising other networks as being bitcoins utility replacement system by dreaming that the replacement works 100% even when facts show it has flaws, limits and bugs.
if you want to ignore the flaws or try converting me to being a altnet loyalist.. well that is your utopian dream. and your right you wont convince me. your dream wont come true, much like other utopian dreams altnet loyalists promote
if all the loyalists want is to convert me, well they failed. ill stick to being risk averse and stick to helping myself and others know of the risks and possible problems, its safer that way, no dreaming.
if you dont like that im not an ass kisser like your friends. well maybe realise ass-kissing has some bad consequences too. you dont see the crap touching your lips, you just keep doing it with your eyes closed
EDIT: in response to below
seems someone is harmed by my facepalm, even though it never touches THEIR face. but nice try playing victim(boring though)
anyway now this group has turned this into social drama of personality conflict.. where is 'Switzerland' when you need it
im not the one advertising other networks as being bitcoins utility replacement system by dreaming that the replacement works 100% even when facts show it has flaws, limits and bugs.
if you want to ignore the flaws or try converting me to being a altnet loyalist.. well that is your utopian dream. and your right you wont convince me. your dream wont come true, much like other utopian dreams altnet loyalists promote
if all the loyalists want is to convert me, well they failed. ill stick to being risk averse and stick to helping myself and others know of the risks and possible problems, its safer that way, no dreaming.
if you dont like that im not an ass kisser like your friends. well maybe realise ass-kissing has some bad consequences too. you dont see the crap touching your lips, you just keep doing it with your eyes closed
EDIT: in response to below
seems someone is harmed by my facepalm, even though it never touches THEIR face. but nice try playing victim(boring though)
anyway now this group has turned this into social drama of personality conflict.. where is 'Switzerland' when you need it
January 15, 2022, 10:39:19 AM
This thread is pointless.
You're missing the bigger picture, which is this:Please keep the discussion only here, and not in other topics.
I must say the discussion so far is much better than I expected in Bitcoin Discussion. I don't think anyone will change their mind, but that was to be expected. At least it's more or less on-topic and I don't have to delete a lot of spam.
I'm not missing the point. What I meant is that you're not gonna be able to convince him of anything. That's in that sense I said that the thread is pointless. I mean, pointless in the sense that he's not gonna give up of his utopia!
And in the process he tries to diminish other people's knowledge, confidence and self-esteem by insulting,
Blinder than a blind man is the one who don't want to see.
I'm almost compelled to say this guy is autistic.
lack of social skills, they find quite hard to socialize and accept other visions and thoughts other than the ones of their own.They can't verbalize correctly and they often get angry/frustrated when they can't achieve their goals.
This person has all these traces.
Blinder than a blind man is the one who don't want to see.
I'm almost compelled to say this guy is autistic.
lack of social skills, they find quite hard to socialize and accept other visions and thoughts other than the ones of their own.They can't verbalize correctly and they often get angry/frustrated when they can't achieve their goals.
This person has all these traces.
hmmm. now should i bother to review all the posts of this topic and look at who has mentioned the most insults..
but anyway funny part is that darkv0rt3x post had no content related to how LN works, or scaling bitcoin, yet was just a personal attack message. (boring, but nice try to poke the bear)
...
Your funny speech of the bear being poked makes me laugh. Where is the bear? I can't see one... Ohhh, that's you? You're just a small cub, helpless and alone.
You only see what you want to see. That's a man than doesn't want to see. And those, are blinder than a blind man! I said right at the beginning that I wouldn't be discussing LN or scaling details. I just came to threw a few conclusions on the way you take conversations, on the way you relate (or not) with others and etc... More of a psychologic evaluation of your behaviour which seems clear to me.
And if you consider yourself a bear, than, I consider myself a bull... All the way. Bull, bullish!
Your type of speech is well known to me. Your behaviour also. lol. Keep it coming!
January 15, 2022, 10:00:04 AM
LN devs wrote the code, LN devs use the code for their features they want to offer..
Look on your github issue. The proposal has 2 likes and 1 dislike. This turbo feature wouldn't be mandatory and therefore the users would be responsible for its usage. And it's a dumb idea, to be honest. Do you see it getting recognized?they are trying to put a voluntary feature of one software piece, into becoming part of the official BOLTS protocol, that all software would have to try being compatible with.
turbo(one use case of breaking the funding lock peg) has been promoting it and doomad(and many others) has been loving the idea, he has even gone as far as doomad jumping off the cliff in defence of it by saying i deserve some court claim harassment for speaking out about its flaws.(facepalm+laugh)
as you can see by the github, its been trying to implement it into the BOLTS for 2 years(many iterations).
heck even with many comments also against it, even with many mentioning the 'fake' and 'trust' of it, you however pivot to highlight the opposite by narrowing down on the '2 likes 1 dislike" narrative as if you want to make it seem acceptable
(then later contradict by saying you think its a dumb idea.. but atleast your honest at that last part)
..
people may not like my views on finding the flaws and bugs and faults.. but in coding, finding bugs and flaws is more helpful rather than being a PR utopian dreamer of hope and broken promise.
people do actually want to know whats at risk, what works and doesnt work. they dont just want to be kissed and hugged. if you are here just to make friends and agree with people out of loyalty.. so be it. just dont try hugging people into risks and telling them its all safe., better friends would actually find the flaws and warn each other.
anyway i am not looking for friends, thats not antisocial. thats just treating this forum as a bitcoin discussion, not some social media site
..
if there is a topic that says everything correct. there is no need for me to post. as there is nothing more to say. yes 85% of my posts are replies having a different side to a previous post. because if the post was correct. again there would be nothing more to add to the topic.
just because i dont reply with a 98% kiss ass rate of loyalty. does not mean im a troll
dont confuse my replies sounding different, to mean i only post just to be antagonistic/troll. my reason for posting is to correct details that need correcting.. i only become antagonistic in the 'mood' of my context after i get poked by the standard social drama insult campaign by certain people.
your groups attempts to play victim by calling me a troll because i became antagonistic, is a memory lapse on your groups side of forgetting who started the bear poking.
here is a reminder of the flow
1.utopian dream of idea's of promise
2.i highlight how the promises can be broke and the utopia never reached
3.utopian dreamer loyalists defend the dream
4.i backup my opinion with references to code, bips, quotes
5.utopian dreamer loyalists start social drama poking the bear by antagonising
6.i antagonise back
7.utopian dreamer loyalists use last resort of avoiding 2 and just grab 6 as their reason why 1 must be correct
8. (repeat 5,6,7)
yep its a know strategy used by a certain group
well. this topic is about me.
The topic is about you, but that doesn't mean we'll talk about your favorite video games. We've chosen the technical background of LN and that means we can include the commitment of direct payments. oh and by the way. in a topic stipulating my name. about my issues with LN and the utopian altnet offramp described as scaling vs actual scaling of the actual bitcoin network
it is my decision to talk about one these things (in a topic about my opinion on things) and i have actually tried to stick to a specific thing at a time. (LN payments, before getting to the commitments)
by others trying to move the conversation to talk commitments.. ignoring the LN payment stuff, but isnt that against your own guideline
I accept to take part in this discussion and not be biased towards franky, but I want to add this as a condition: We'll speak of one topic at a time.
..
This way we can clarify which are our interlocutor's disagreements and constructively (& friendly) correct them.
..
This way we can clarify which are our interlocutor's disagreements and constructively (& friendly) correct them.
seems your bias and desire to take things off topic, is another hypocrisy on your part
January 15, 2022, 09:36:53 AM
he didnt talk about it here..
Yeah, you see he was a little dizzy from this supposed discussion. Forgive him.well. this topic is about me.
The topic is about you, but that doesn't mean we'll talk about your favorite video games. We've chosen the technical background of LN and that means we can include the commitment of direct payments. doomad, you, rath and others couldnt even stand by your own opinion in a short quick summarised questions.
Because they were pointless and misleading questions. LN devs wrote the code, LN devs use the code for their features they want to offer..
Look on your github issue. The proposal has 2 likes and 1 dislike. This turbo feature wouldn't be mandatory and therefore the users would be responsible for its usage. And it's a dumb idea, to be honest. Do you see it getting recognized? January 15, 2022, 08:25:20 AM
but anyway funny part is that darkv0rt3x post had no content related to how LN works, or scaling bitcoin, yet was just a personal attack message.
The funny part is that he does talk about the LN and that responding him likewise make him look right about your behavior towards us.his 3 insults vs my 1 'hypocritical' hmm....
but i do laugh that you want to pretend your the victim (AFTER YOU POKE THE BEAR)
if you dont want to get bit, dont poke
oh well i now agree this topic is dead. seems people just want to talk about commitments of direct payments(not LN's niche) and not the LN payments(ln's niche of being able to pay different people)
Commitments of directs payments is LN's niche. You just want to discuss whatever it's in your interest. Please allow us to try make a point out of this mess, thank you.discuss whatever is in my interest?
well. this topic is about me. this topic is about my interests..(read title) so me talking about my interests is ontopic
doomad, you, rath and others couldnt even stand by your own opinion in a short quick summarised questions.
i had respect for LoyceV for giving it a good try to answer to the best of his opinon.
by this i dont mean they are pegged to a different blockchain transaction for msat payment smart contracts. this means its making 'fake' channel, by sending 'funding_locked' messages on trust even when a transaction has not confirmed
And whose fault is this? Lightning's? LN devs wrote the code, LN devs use the code for their features they want to offer..
LN was not magically created by some vapour entity that fathered jesus.. its not even some self coding AI
so yea LN flaws are LN dev's fault
and the utupian fantasy narrative of LN's advertising misinforming people of what LN is, is the fault of the LN fangirls
This thread is pointless.
You're missing the bigger picture, which is this:Please keep the discussion only here, and not in other topics.
gotta laugh at LoyceV for this, i noticed it and laughed at it 9 days ago when he made the 'guidance'.. thinking he can make a prison for certain topics(not very 'switzerland' of him, seems more nazi tactic)
Jump to: