So who the hell is still supporting BU? - page 17.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 03:06:01 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 14, 2017, 02:31:16 AM

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 01:46:34 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 14, 2017, 12:44:14 AM

Lightning tx are trustless. They are not some idiotic trusted 3rd party solution like Dash's Masternodes.

On-chain scaling is the most secure thing one could do (here you have the biggest hardware + energy investors = miners behind) and we need this first or at least parallel to all the other triggy scalings on top.

LN *is* Bitcoin, so it uses the same amount of energy for security.

Quote from: https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/bitcoin-lightning-things-to-know-e5ea8d84369f

Is Lightning Bitcoin?

Yes. You pick a peer and after some setup, create a bitcoin transaction to fund the lightning channel; it’ll then take another transaction to close it and release your funds. You and your peer always hold a bitcoin transaction to get your funds whenever you want: just broadcast to the blockchain like normal. In other words, you and your peer create a shared account, and then use Lightning to securely negotiate who gets how much from that shared account, without waiting for the bitcoin blockchain.

See? Lightning is 100% Bitcoin. It's just a clever way to efficiently arrange blockchain writes, yielding massive gains in effective TPS.

Only correct thing in this rage-post is: You did not dare arguing against:

'On-chain scaling is the most secure thing one could do (here you have the biggest hardware + energy investors = miners behind) and we need this first or at least parallel to all the other triggy scalings on top. '

I'll let you play with LN in LitecoiN - so you have time for self-education.

Lightning is on-chain scaling. Rusty explains why Lightning is 100% Bitcoin in clear, simple words. If you can't follow the technical discussion, too bad for you.

Your failure to understand how trustless bidirectional payment channels inherit Bitcoin's security isn't anyone's problem but your own.

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: Lauda on February 14, 2017, 03:40:15 AM

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 03:37:09 AM

And to what 'exact' threshold of max block size this will have an real effect to the security ? 2 MB ? 4 MB 10MB ?

This is the more serious Q&A to be formulated.

It starts even at 2 MB. Please look into the original Bitcoin Classic. Gavin knew this was a problem, that's why the original proposal in Classic had additional TX size and sigops limitations (if I remember correctly). The higher you go the easier it becomes to attack via this vector.

Yep - and with BU you just set it to what such a security modeling is proofed to be ok - so even you say it starts with 2MB - > 1.5 MB might be good or even 2.5MB - and with future improvments up to agreed 8MB?

Why the hack promoting 2nd layer gaming first? (see the word game in it ? )

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Can't defend that , Galvin screwed up on Wright.
But he has more insight into BTC tech than you guys.
None of you have made a decent argument against block size increase.
And blockspeed changes would also work. (Litecoin proves that debate.)

how do you defend this :
You used to prefer PoS Cheesy

Seems like a little payment and your opinion changes.

Quote from: Lauda on June 23, 2013, 03:41:04 PM

Quote from: BitJohn on June 23, 2013, 03:04:47 PM

I'm glad it at least a Proof of Stake coin think most of these little alts should start going that route.

I agree on this, imo POS is better, let's see how it goes with this coin, you never know.

FYI: LOL, You claimed Galvin knew it was a problem, so you made him an authority in your post , which his own words refuted your post. Cheesy

https://news.bitcoin.com/andresen-blocksize-limit-remove/

Quote from: Lauda on February 14, 2017, 03:40:15 AM

If you're going to appeal to authority, let's just remember that this is the guy that claimed Craig Wright is Satoshi. Roll Eyes

Quote from: Lauda on February 14, 2017, 03:40:15 AM

It starts even at 2 MB. Please look into the original Bitcoin Classic. Gavin knew this was a problem, that's why the original proposal in Classic had additional TX size and sigops limitations (if I remember correctly). The higher you go the easier it becomes to attack via this vector.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 03:37:09 AM

And to what 'exact' threshold of max block size this will have an real effect to the security ? 2 MB ? 4 MB 10MB ?

This is the more serious Q&A to be formulated.

It starts even at 2 MB. Please look into the original Bitcoin Classic. Gavin knew this was a problem, that's why the original proposal in Classic had additional TX size and sigops limitations (if I remember correctly). The higher you go the easier it becomes to attack via this vector.

Quote from: kiklo on February 14, 2017, 03:38:44 AM

FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Andresen
https://news.bitcoin.com/andresen-blocksize-limit-remove/

Quote

Andresen replied:

Yes, let’s eliminate the limit.

Nothing bad will happen if we do.

“And if I’m wrong, the bad things would be mild annoyances, not existential risks, much less risky than operating a network near 100% capacity,” he added.

If you're going to appeal to authority, let's just remember that this is the guy that claimed Craig Wright is Satoshi. Roll Eyes

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: -ck on February 14, 2017, 03:33:28 AM

Quote from: HostFat on February 13, 2017, 09:36:37 PM

Bitcoins stagnation
https://medium.com/@p.g.tomlinson/bitcoins-stagnation-2098753b2e17#.6ou04fus8

Great article

I certainly don't think so. The fact he's been out of bitcoin for many years shows and he is no longer passing informed judgement. While he tries very hard to make it sound like "it's simple, just increase the blocksize and all will be better" he doesn't remotely seem to understand what a pure blocksize increase brings to the table in terms of quadratic scaling slowdowns and attack vectors. Additionally touting the slim block submission as some technical advantage when all it leads to is every single miner starting to mine empty unverified blocks on every block change is a significant step backwards. Segwit brings linear scaling transactions and core already has compact block propagation where possible without the backward step of encouraging unverified block propagation and mining on them. Scaling the block size alone brings problems with it beyond just the data transfer / storage issues while segwit actually brings added solutions to tackle the extra issues that come with block size increases, increasing both transactions allowed per block now but allowing safer block size increases in the future.

How much is the staff & CB being paid to spread this BS that segwit is a good thing?

Cause really, you guys can't be that stupid?
or
Can you? Cheesy

FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Andresen
https://news.bitcoin.com/andresen-blocksize-limit-remove/

Quote

Blocksize Increase: ‘Nothing Bad Will Happen’
The comments were made in response to concerns about an increase to 2MB by longstanding r/btc subreddit user u/Pool30.
“I believe the network will eventually have so many problems, that an increase in blocksize will happen. But 2MB is not enough, lets push for 8MB or 20MB instead,” u/Pool30 wrote.

Andresen replied:

Yes, let’s eliminate the limit.

Nothing bad will happen if we do.

“And if I’m wrong, the bad things would be mild annoyances, not existential risks, much less risky than operating a network near 100% capacity,” he added.

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: Lauda on February 14, 2017, 03:23:13 AM

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 03:19:39 AM

How can you brake LN = 2nd layer when it's same secure than bitcoin ? (see rethoric inside )

I wasn't specifically referring to LN, but any kind of 2nd layer solution. That question shouldn't even be asked. Everything can be hacked.

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 03:19:39 AM

And how would you brake the protocol if you go from 1MB -> 2MB ?

Find me an implementation that does this change whilst safely covering for quadratic hashing with limitations? Right, there isn't one. There is something which is untested, unreviewed and which does a security 180 degree flip called "emergent consensus".

And to what 'exact' threshold of max block size this will have an real effect to the security ? 2 MB ? 4 MB 10MB ?

This is the more serious Q&A to be formulated.

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

Quote from: HostFat on February 13, 2017, 09:36:37 PM

Bitcoins stagnation
https://medium.com/@p.g.tomlinson/bitcoins-stagnation-2098753b2e17#.6ou04fus8

Great article

I certainly don't think so. The fact he's been out of bitcoin for many years shows and he is no longer passing informed judgement. While he tries very hard to make it sound like "it's simple, just increase the blocksize and all will be better" he doesn't remotely seem to understand what a pure blocksize increase brings to the table in terms of quadratic scaling slowdowns and attack vectors. Additionally touting the slim block submission as some technical advantage when all it leads to is every single miner starting to mine empty unverified blocks on every block change is a significant step backwards. Segwit brings linear scaling transactions and core already has compact block propagation where possible without the backward step of encouraging unverified block propagation and mining on them. Scaling the block size alone brings problems with it beyond just the data transfer / storage issues while segwit actually brings added solutions to tackle the extra issues that come with block size increases, increasing both transactions allowed per block now but allowing safer block size increases in the future.

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Lauda on February 14, 2017, 03:14:59 AM

Quote from: RealBitcoin on February 14, 2017, 02:09:48 AM

Bitcoin's purpose was to eliminate 3rd party middlemen and IOU based fractional reserve banking, Yet, now they want to reintroduce both.

Bullshit. In the traditional sense of third parties and IOUs, there is always one party that can take away your control of the asset in question. This is not the case with LN, because it is decentralized. There will be things like LN hubs for sure, which people will argue that are centralized, but they only serve for better routing purposes.

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 03:06:01 AM

'On-chain scaling is the most secure thing one could do (here you have the biggest hardware + energy investors = miners behind) and we need this first or at least parallel to all the other triggy scalings on top. '

Actually, it is exactly the opposite. Changes which provide on-chain scaling are the most insecure, as you can break the protocol. If you break some 2nd layer, the main protocol will remain functional.

LOL,

mail me some of what you are smoking, I like fantasy realities too.

If you think the opposite is true , why are you not just using a bank (fraction reserve banking) ,
Blockchain is the only thing that prevents fractional reserve & counterfeiting that can occur OFFCHAIN.

@Lauda, Do you even read the white papers or just talk out of your Butt all day?
https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
Page 49 thru 51 Wink

Quote

Improper Timelocks
Participants must choose timelocks with sucient amounts of time. If insuf-
cient time is given, it is possible that timelocked transactions believed to
be invalid will become valid, enabling coin theft by the counterparty. There
is a trade-o between longer timelocks and the time-value of money. When
writing wallet and Lightning Network application software, it is necessary
to ensure that sucient time is given and users are able to have their trans-
actions enter into the blockchain when interacting with non-cooperative or
malicious channel counterparties

Quote

9.2 Forced Expiration Spam
Forced expiration of many transactions may be the greatest systemic risk
when using the Lightning Network. If a malicious participant creates many
channels and forces them all to expire at once, these may overwhelm block
data capacity, forcing expiration and broadcast to the blockchain. The re-
sult would be mass spam on the bitcoin network. The spam may delay
transactions to the point where other locktimed transactions become valid

Quote

9.3 Coin Theft via Cracking
As parties must be online and using private keys to sign, there is a possibility
that, if the computer where the private keys are stored is compromised, coins
will be stolen by the attacker. While there may be methods to mitigate
the threat for the sender and the receiver, the intermediary nodes must be
online and will likely be processing the transaction automatically. For this
reason, the intermediary nodes will be at risk and should not be holding
a substantial amount of money in this \hot wallet." Intermediary nodes
which have better security will likely be able to out-compete others in the
long run and be able to conduct greater transaction volume due to lower
fees. Historically, one of the largest component of fees and interest in the
nancial system are from various forms of counterparty risk { in Bitcoin it
is possible that the largest component in fees will be derived from security
risk premiums.
A Funding Transaction may have multiple outputs with multiple Com-
mitment Transactions, with the Funding Transaction key and some Commit-
ment Transactions keys stored oine. It is possible to create an equivalent
of a \Checking Account" and \Savings Account" by moving funds between
outputs from a Funding Transaction, with the \Savings Account" stored
oine and requiring additional signatures from security services.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 03:19:39 AM

How can you brake LN = 2nd layer when it's same secure than bitcoin ? (see rethoric inside )

I wasn't specifically referring to LN, but any kind of 2nd layer solution. That question shouldn't even be asked. Everything can be hacked.

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 03:19:39 AM

And how would you brake the protocol if you go from 1MB -> 2MB ?

Find me an implementation that does this change whilst safely covering for quadratic hashing with limitations? Right, there isn't one. There is something which is untested, unreviewed and which does a security 180 degree flip called "emergent consensus".

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: Lauda on February 14, 2017, 03:14:59 AM

Quote from: RealBitcoin on February 14, 2017, 02:09:48 AM

Bitcoin's purpose was to eliminate 3rd party middlemen and IOU based fractional reserve banking, Yet, now they want to reintroduce both.

Bullshit. In the traditional sense of third parties and IOUs, there is always one party that can take away your control of the asset in question. This is not the case with LN, because it is decentralized. There will be things like LN hubs for sure, which people will argue that are centralized, but they only serve for better routing purposes.

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 03:06:01 AM

'On-chain scaling is the most secure thing one could do (here you have the biggest hardware + energy investors = miners behind) and we need this first or at least parallel to all the other triggy scalings on top. '

Actually, it is exactly the opposite. Changes which provide on-chain scaling are the most insecure, as you can break the protocol. If you break some 2nd layer, the main protocol will remain functional.

How can you brake LN = 2nd layer when it's same secure than bitcoin ? (see rethoric inside )

And how would you brake the protocol if you go from 1MB -> 2MB ?

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: kiklo on February 14, 2017, 03:12:12 AM

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 03:06:01 AM

I'll let you play with LN in LitecoiN - so you have time for self-education.

He will have to play with it on LTC testnet, the LTC miners are not going to allow segwit either.
It is less than 10% activated on their network.

Chinese dominate BTC & LTC, they are not going to agree for a competing service to steal their transactions fees.

Even these are more educated ...

Funny thing is, even core devs claim for SW is needed to 'better secure LN' - it's simply different than bitcoin.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: RealBitcoin on February 14, 2017, 02:09:48 AM

Bitcoin's purpose was to eliminate 3rd party middlemen and IOU based fractional reserve banking, Yet, now they want to reintroduce both.

Bullshit. In the traditional sense of third parties and IOUs, there is always one party that can take away your control of the asset in question. This is not the case with LN, because it is decentralized. There will be things like LN hubs for sure, which people will argue that are centralized, but they only serve for better routing purposes.

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 03:06:01 AM

'On-chain scaling is the most secure thing one could do (here you have the biggest hardware + energy investors = miners behind) and we need this first or at least parallel to all the other triggy scalings on top. '

Actually, it is exactly the opposite. Changes which provide on-chain scaling are the most insecure, as you can break the protocol. If you break some 2nd layer, the main protocol will remain functional.

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 03:06:01 AM

I'll let you play with LN in LitecoiN - so you have time for self-education.

He will have to play with it on LTC testnet, the LTC miners are not going to allow segwit either.
It is less than 10% activated on their network.

Chinese dominate BTC & LTC, they are not going to agree for a competing service to steal their transactions fees.

One guy even posted this:

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 14, 2017, 02:31:16 AM

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 01:46:34 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 14, 2017, 12:44:14 AM

Lightning tx are trustless. They are not some idiotic trusted 3rd party solution like Dash's Masternodes.

Lol

If you really believe this than every other alt is trustless in nearly same manner.

-> Go and use them.

Think:

1. How much energy goes into making bitcoin that trustless it is?

2. How much do you need for LN ?

Pls go and read physics or Shannon about entropy and order -> security.

On-chain scaling is the most secure thing one could do (here you have the biggest hardware + energy investors = miners behind) and we need this first or at least parallel to all the other triggy scalings on top.

Sorry, cupcake. Not impressed. Some of us went to school for this stuff... Wink

I'll see your Shannon and raise you Kolmogorov. Don't make me break out Wiener and Von Neumann on you.

LN *is* Bitcoin, so it uses the same amount of energy for security.

Your failure to understand how Lightning inherits Bitcoin's security isn't anyone's problem but your own.

Educate yourself, then come back when you're ready to play with the big kids.

Here, I'll even spoon feed you like a baby to accelerate the bootstrapping process.

Quote from: https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/bitcoin-lightning-things-to-know-e5ea8d84369f

Is Lightning Bitcoin?

Yes. You pick a peer and after some setup, create a bitcoin transaction to fund the lightning channel; it’ll then take another transaction to close it and release your funds. You and your peer always hold a bitcoin transaction to get your funds whenever you want: just broadcast to the blockchain like normal. In other words, you and your peer create a shared account, and then use Lightning to securely negotiate who gets how much from that shared account, without waiting for the bitcoin blockchain.

See? Lightning is 100% Bitcoin. It's just a clever way to efficiently arrange blockchain writes, yielding massive gains in effective TPS.

Lightning isn't Layer 2, if that's what you're afraid of. Think of it as layer 1.5 and maybe that might help you understand using spatial intuition.

Only correct thing in this rage-post is: You did not dare arguing against:

'On-chain scaling is the most secure thing one could do (here you have the biggest hardware + energy investors = miners behind) and we need this first or at least parallel to all the other triggy scalings on top. '

I'll let you play with LN in LitecoiN - so you have time for self-education.

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

By the way the Chinese Miners will be able to make counterfeit LN Notes if they so choose.
LN notes can be Counterfeit
BTC can not be counterfeit.

Quote from: kiklo on February 08, 2017, 08:08:20 PM

We all know that LN is a Proposed Offchain solution to BTC backlog of Unconfirmed Transactions.

(Which could easily be fixed just with a blocksize increase or a faster BlockSpeed.)

But instead BTC core devs want to shove Segwit & LN down everyone throats.

Facts
LN Notes are a Offchain Representation of the value of a BTC (with the actual BTC locked in place on the actual BTC Onchain Blockchain)
LN Devs have continuously implied that BTC will be placed on LN and very rarely if ever be returned / unlocked on the real BTC Blockchain.
Combined the Chinese Mining Pools have over 51% necessary for an attack, (~68% at last count).
(With a 51% attack they can perform a history rewrite attacks, rewriting the blockchain.)
(A few years ago at the prompting of the BTC devs, a group (with over 51%) REWROTE the Last 12 Hours of the Blockchain to fix a fork, cause by a programming error.)
(So that was 76 Blocks that were rewritten.)
(We also know the Miners can choose which transactions are included in their blocks.)

So now : Exactly how do you Counterfeit BTC on LN.

Option 1 :
Form a group of collusion between the Miners that control 51%,
Send 50 BTC to an address. Now follow the steps on LN to Lock up that 50 BTC on the Blockchain.
Whether LN requires 1 or 3 confirmations , as soon as LN confirms the representation of LN notes match your amount.
You and your colluding friends, rewrite the blockchain and include a transaction moving that 50 BTC to another address before the lock took place.
You now still have your 50 BTC Free & Clear Onchain, and a representation value of 50 BTC Offchain on LN .(Which you can use for LN transactions forever.)

BTC Onchain Transactions ended Counterfeiting , LN Offchain Transactions will bring Counterfeiting into Crypto. Tongue

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Did you ride a Short Bus to that School? Cheesy

LN is offchain , meaning it can never actually be a BTC, when can only truly exist ONCHAIN.

LN NOTES are only a Representation of the value of a BTC Nothing Else.

Quote from: kiklo

LN freezes the amount of BTC on the BTC onchain network,
what is transferred on LN is a representation of that value.
(No Different than when Banks allowed people to trade cash for gold.
The Gold is held somewhere else and the Cash is a representation of that amount of Gold.
Only redeemable upon request.)
IE: Banking (there is no difference between it & LN)

And here is the kicker, if LN is only a representation of a BTC, it is only a matter of time before a fractional BTC onchain is represented by more offchain on LN.
This becomes possible once LN can calculate how many people never remove their Locks on the BTC frozen on the BTC onchain network.
Study the history of Banking , this is exactly how they started. Wink

http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/6970/when-was-fractional-reserve-banking-introduced

Quote

In the past, savers looking to keep their coins and valuables in safekeeping depositories deposited gold and silver at goldsmiths, receiving in exchange a note for their deposit (see Bank of Amsterdam). These notes gained acceptance as a medium of exchange for commercial transactions and thus became an early form of circulating paper money. As the notes were used directly in trade, the goldsmiths observed that people would not usually redeem all their notes at the same time, and they saw the opportunity to invest their coin reserves in interest-bearing loans and bills. This generated income for the goldsmiths but left them with more notes on issue than reserves with which to pay them. A process was started that altered the role of the goldsmiths from passive guardians of bullion, charging fees for safe storage, to interest-paying and interest-earning banks. Thus fractional-reserve banking was born.

LN = Goldsmiths, (which became Banks)
LN Coins = Notes
BTC = Gold

Class Dismissed! Wink

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 01:46:34 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 14, 2017, 12:44:14 AM

Lightning tx are trustless. They are not some idiotic trusted 3rd party solution like Dash's Masternodes.

Lol

If you really believe this than every other alt is trustless in nearly same manner.

-> Go and use them.

Think:

1. How much energy goes into making bitcoin that trustless it is?

2. How much do you need for LN ?

Pls go and read physics or Shannon about entropy and order -> security.

On-chain scaling is the most secure thing one could do (here you have the biggest hardware + energy investors = miners behind) and we need this first or at least parallel to all the other triggy scalings on top.

Sorry, cupcake. Not impressed. Some of us went to school for this stuff... Wink

I'll see your Shannon and raise you Kolmogorov. Don't make me break out Wiener and Von Neumann on you.

LN *is* Bitcoin, so it uses the same amount of energy for security.

Your failure to understand how Lightning inherits Bitcoin's security isn't anyone's problem but your own.

Educate yourself, then come back when you're ready to play with the big kids.

Here, I'll even spoon feed you like a baby to accelerate the bootstrapping process.

Quote from: https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/bitcoin-lightning-things-to-know-e5ea8d84369f

Is Lightning Bitcoin?

Yes. You pick a peer and after some setup, create a bitcoin transaction to fund the lightning channel; it’ll then take another transaction to close it and release your funds. You and your peer always hold a bitcoin transaction to get your funds whenever you want: just broadcast to the blockchain like normal. In other words, you and your peer create a shared account, and then use Lightning to securely negotiate who gets how much from that shared account, without waiting for the bitcoin blockchain.

See? Lightning is 100% Bitcoin. It's just a clever way to efficiently arrange blockchain writes, yielding massive gains in effective TPS.

Lightning isn't Layer 2, if that's what you're afraid of. Think of it as layer 1.5 and maybe that might help you understand using spatial intuition.

RealBitcoin

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1009

JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK

Quote from: kiklo on February 14, 2017, 01:44:34 AM

You're a foul mouth little Asshat ,

LN is Offchain Transactions , a Service that will Directly compete with the Miners for transaction fees.

LN will allow counterfeiting & banking style fraction reserves in to BTC.
A write cache would not allow counterfeiting & banking style fraction reserves in to BTC.

Thanks for emphasizing, I have a bad way of expressing myself.

Yes, what I was referring to in my above post:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17834215

Was exactly this type of hijacking.

Bitcoin's purpose was to eliminate 3rd party middlemen and IOU based fractional reserve banking, Yet, now they want to reintroduce both.

What a joke!

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 14, 2017, 12:44:14 AM

Lightning tx are trustless. They are not some idiotic trusted 3rd party solution like Dash's Masternodes.

Lol

If you really believe this than every other alt is trustless in nearly same manner.

-> Go and use them.

Think:

1. How much energy goes into making bitcoin that trustless it is?

2. How much do you need for LN ?

3. How much risk is introduced by any interface (complexity layer) like a pegging?

Pls go and read physics or Shannon about entropy and order -> security.

On-chain scaling is the most secure thing one could do (here you have the biggest hardware + energy investors = miners behind) and we need this first or at least parallel to all the other triggy (less trustless! - blockstream cash cows) scalings on top.

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 14, 2017, 12:44:14 AM

Honey Badger really doesn't give a shit if some moon kidz want to characterize his activities as "stagnation." Who made you his life coach?

Lightning tx are trustless. They are not some idiotic trusted 3rd party solution like Dash's Masternodes.

Quote

"As a key feature of the Lightning Network, Poon and Dryja proposed trustless bidirectional payment channels."

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-building-a-bidirectional-payment-channel-1464710791/

A Lightning type payment channel is simply a write cache for the blockchain.

Do you know how much the write cache improves a hard drive's performance? Try turning yours off and find out.

Why don't you moan about the presence of write caches on hard drives, and spew FUD about how output operations to the write cache aren't real "on disk" transactions! Cheesy

You're a foul mouth little Asshat ,

LN is Offchain Transactions , a Service that will Directly compete with the Miners for transaction fees.

LN will allow counterfeiting & banking style fraction reserves in to BTC.
A write cache would not allow counterfeiting & banking style fraction reserves in to BTC.

Also a Write Cache would actually speed up ONCHAIN TRANSACTIONS,
IN NO WAY POSSIBLE DOES LN SPEED UP ONCHAIN TRANSACTIONS!
Due to LN locking requirements it would actually SLOW DOWN ONCHAIN transactions by locking them. Tongue

That would require a blocksize increase or a faster blockspeed.

So your write cache analogy is bullshit. Wink

FYI:
You seem to not understand the following ,

Quote

These off chain payment channels still rely on broadcasting back to the Blockchain.
If we already have congested blocks then how is Lightening even going to work?
The transaction fees and intermittent nature will still be present as these channels will only scale so far and we would still need to figure out how to scale on chain.

Topic: So who the hell is still supporting BU? - page 17. (Read 29824 times)