Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 24. (Read 120014 times)

Thank you for that useful info. This clears up a few things!

In light of that I still think something like it - if not LN itself - is an inevitable requirement if we ever want BTC to compete with the FIAT payment systems. If the BTC community wants for BTC to remain just a sort of digital gold store of value and large value transfer (once in a while) then doing everything on the blockchain will still work.

I fully agree with you. I too expect this tech to be used primarily by exchanges, large traders and perhaps those btc gambling sites and whatnot.

Good luck in finding something more preferable and more tailored to your personal needs.

++

You are not The only One

 

Give it up. If i want Bitcoin to evolve into some super machine overnight, i would have mentioned Visa, 1gb block, etc. Read my posts carefully as i never expect bitcoin to match visa or expect 1gb block. I was imply saying that 1mb block is stupid. I have reservation about segwit and don't think it is a great addition to bitcoin. I don't like LN either. I don't like the current fee system as it is totally, utterly crap.

And what keeps some miner cartels away from attacking those central LN nodes ?

So there are 3 main complaints people make about lightning network and these are a combination of partly true, part misconception, and complete FUD

1. Purists believed the blockchain was good enough for all transactions and the proverbial "cup of coffee" purchases could be done on-chain simply through micro bitcoin transactions. It's clear now that if we had all of VISA's transactions worldwide, in its current form the blockchain would need to have 2GB sized blocks to sustain that volume of transactions. Current technology and even anything we can perceive in the immediate future makes that impossible with transmission of new blocks generated, propagated and stored in a distributed manner. The counterargument is we'll only slowly get up to that size; it won't happen overnight and we'll find a way between now and then to do it.
2. Transactions being done on LN will remove fees from the blockchain by doing all transactions off-chain. LN transactions are actually limited to micro bitcoin values only and the fees all go to the network based on transaction value rather than size (unlike the blockchain) though opening and closing a LN channel requires an actual blockchain transaction and suitable fee. This one particularly had the miners riled up though segwit2x means they no longer believe in it.
3. LN is centralised instead of distributed and blockstream will will run it. Lightning nodes can be run by "someone" but that doesn't mean it will all be held by one entity. It is possible to run a node of your own though it is highly likely that several competing services will come out using the same protocol and people will use that in preference to running a complete full blockchain node and lightning node on top.

Where segwit comes in and where the objection to segwit comes from is that segwit makes LN easier and better featured so most LN development has been done with segwit existing in mind. The people who object to the above were against segwit based on the perception that segwit makes LN possible.

I expect the large exchanges will probably end up providing LN nodes of their own and compete on fees.

They hate it because it is an original code which is coming from the core devs. All the big blockers will ever be able to do for bitcoin is changing the block size parameter. 1 to 8mb, and when it gets filled, 8 to 32mb etc. Their thinking abilities are hard-capped. Very immutable.

They are also waiting for Jihan to come up with LN2x and then, they will be favoring LN.

Pathetic...

I guess I had not participated in enough Lightning Network threads in order to have heard that argument, previously.... So when ComputerGenie began to make various arguments in that regard, I did not recognize or understand that he was making a kind of existential argument that in the end is irrelevant. 

In other words, who gives a ratt's ass if LN is part of bitcoin or not.  LN seems to provide quite a bit of functionality, as described in the FAQ linked article (above) and LN may or may not be used in the future (likely that it will be used), and I am not sure exactly what the speculation is, about LN taking away from bitcoin.

Sure at first there is going to be some transitional period in which LN is adopted more and more and more, so it is not too likely that  all of a sudden we are going from bitcoin today and transforming into some kind of LN domination of our lives, and maybe even by the time lighting network takes some foothold, then we will all be dead anyhow.. .. .sometimes it seems that we might be pushed into argument frameworks that don't really mean too much because they are filled with a bunch of speculation about a world that might exist 50 years from now.. and such a world becomes so speculative that it is no longer relevant to a conversation about the current state of affairs regarding where we are at, as we type.

... and you fully trust into some sales arguments:

"Q 7: Will there be any form of custodian risk in a Lightning Network?

Do I need to trust anyone to hold my money on my behalf?

A:

No, this system is not based on trust; you remain in full control of your money.

If anything goes wrong, you simply broadcast the latest state of your channel as a normal on-chain bitcoin transaction.

All your money will be returned to your address, and it will be recorded on the blockchain as normal."


You would insert 100 coins, no insurance needed ?

Thanks for posting this. This was quite useful in gaining a general idea of the LN. Although I do agree with many people that this feature is "not Bitcoin" as some say, why the hate for it? It seems like a neat addon to bitcoin's capabilities and it does not require a radical protocol change. LN can be extremely useful to those who make frequent use of the bitcoin network (ie transact often).

It is only as difficult for me to grasp as far as it remains relevant to our discussion of what is important or not important.

The situation boils down to you seeming to be quite adamant about your opposition to various innovations including lightning network (and likely other nonsense that you have been spewing)  that are likely to be coming to our lovely system called bitcoin and its appendages whatever those future appendanges may be, whether LN or sidechains or some other still evolving systems that segwit is likely to facilitate.   

Don't come off with this religious framework for your bullshit in order to attempt to attempt patronizing superiority.




I have not been speaking about nodes.  At least so far I have not.



more patronizing and back patting nonsense.





If there is one block that has a minimum blocksize, then I see nothing wrong with that, but it seems that the mistake was to have a minimum blocksize upon the implementation of the 2mb hardfork that would would continue for every block.. 


Even a non-technical person like myself cans see the absurdity in the logic of such a situation if that is how the software plays out.. a locking in of minimum blocksizes. sounds absurd right on its face, and no religion is needed to reach such conclusion.




Sounds like unnecessary bloat to me.





no need to denigrate joe and his capacity and require $100k investments by everyone who wants to participate.




This whole line of discussion sounds like discussion of a non-issue...

If there is no need for increasing the blocksize then you are talking about irrelevancies..

And furthermore, this area of the discussion seemed to have gotten started by segwit2x fucking up the code and making stupid ass changes with questionable impacts and seeming to trick folks by sneaking in dumb and tricky language.  So yeah, let's double down and attempt to justify why their software is good and necessary, when it seems to be neither in part because it is tricky and sloppy.


No need for me to continue to respond to your ongoing strawman nonsensical and lacking in evidence religious dogma allegations.   

No, I come off like LN is not part of Bitcoin and is a disconnected 3rd party service (because it is). Saying that LN is part of the Bitcoin protocol is no different than saying that YoBit is part of the Bitcoin protocol; the exact total difference, in terms of the Bitcoin protocol, is the addition of a single opcode which allows for LN to communicate with the Bitcoin protocol more easily for the LN devs.
I'm not sure what "meaningful discussion" you imagine there can be; LN is not part of Bitcoin, period. No amount of "meaningful discussion" is going to change the fact that LN is not part of Bitcoin and no amount of "meaningful discussion" is going to make LN is part of Bitcoin.
You're looking for an explanation that doesn't exist. LN = you give away your coins to someone, stuff happens to them outside of the Bitcoin protocol, and at some future point the Bitcoin protocol is informed of who later becomes the owner of those coins (just like using YoBit).
LN can't "pervert bitcoin in some kind of nonsensical way", because LN is not part of Bitcoin.
I feel for you that this is difficult for you to grasp; however, it, literally, cannot be defined any simpler.

I'm usually writing stuff that is perfectly logical, but that hurts the religious feelings of indoctrinated people that cannot think outside of their convictions.
Visibly a fundamental such belief is for instance, that full nodes help anything in the decentralization of the power structure of bitcoin, while bitcoin's protocol was EXPLICITLY designed NOT to give any such power to full nodes, and that (contrary to other aspects of bitcoin's design) that part of the design actually reaches its goal: full nodes have NO decision power.

From that ill-informed religious dogma, follow a lot of contradictions, which I patiently illustrate.  These obviously logical conclusions are then provoking strong mental resistance by the True Believers, and I have to say that I take some pleasure in poking logical holes in that belief, each time I find another illustration of it.  The idea of minimum block size, absurd as it may sound at first sight, but brilliant as a very secure and easy implementation of a guaranteed bilateral hard fork (which was for instance the problem with BU, that was unilateral) is again hitting such a dogmatic opposition, while there isn't any to be had.

Apart from big users (such as exchanges) and of course, mining pools, *nobody needs to store, transmit, or verify* the block chain, so if these entities can afford the resources to handle "a few DVD a week", bitcoin will work, and as their investments in bitcoin are WAY beyond the cost of "handling a few DVD a week", there's no problem.  A dedicated Joe can also have his "a few DVD a week" in his basement, but he only does that *for his own fun*.

This is hurting of course the fundamental belief system of bitcoin, and one "shouldn't waste computing and network resources because poor Joe and his old second hand Dell desktop on his 56K modem will not handle this and Joe is important in bitcoin".  It isn't.  Joe's second-hand full node has nothing to say.  But this cannot be heard by true bitcoin believers even though it was the core of bitcoin's design.   Bitcoin is now built on "wasting resources" where almost a billion dollar is wasted a year, but one is discussing about the craziness of copying a few DVD a week on those few data centres that are the essence of bitcoin, and do take, in any case, all decisions.

When you read such stuff, you know how far gone people are in deluded group think.  And yes, it is well known that people putting logical arguments on the table that hurt the fundamental dogma's of group think are badly considered by the indoctrinated.  That's what religious wars are all about.

Well what's the difference that you are suggesting?  You are saying that bitcoin needs to serve both the store of value function and the payment function... and you are suggesting that it's gotta do it now, otherwise it is going to lose market share...

Yeah, heard rushed arguments like that many times, like you want bitcoin to evolve into some super machine over night, and the fact of the matter is that you seem to be focusing too much on aspects that you perceive to be negative rather than appreciating value and appreciating that bitcoin is continuing to be built in a lot of ways.  Are you changing your tune, now?

Your rendition does not come off as very helpful in order to facilitate any kind of meaningful discussion of the matter.  You act as if Lightning network is some kind of private entity that is intended to take over and pervert bitcoin in some kind of nonsensical way - when the fact of the matter is that it is open source and it also is going to quite likely facilitate a lot of transaction flow to allow bitcoin to become more competitive as a payment system, like you BIG blocker nutjobs continue to argue as important to bitcoin's competitiveness in the world of little man finances.

This question answer seems to describe Lightning Network in a comprehensive way that does not really seem to be out of line with my previous layman rendition.

https://medium.com/@AudunGulbrands1/lightning-faq-67bd2b957d70

In fact, I think that the LN is a good way of adapting to what crypto REALLY looks like:

big exchanges with customers trading on it

LN is quite well made for that, and LN links between customers and their exchange(s) is a perfect way to make the link between the customer and the exchange honest and trustless.  By using a LN channel to your favorite exchange, you don't give then coins in return for web-site IOU, but you are still master of your coins, the exchange cannot apply fractional reserve banking, and cannot put up messages like "withdrawals impossible now" and things like that.

LN is perfect for the relationship exchange-customer (which is what bitcoin and most crypto *essentially* is).  Moreover, LN would then even allow links between exchanges.  They would be the central hubs in the LN network.  So through this network, you could pay other people that have accounts on other exchanges, and this would be much more trustless than now, when you have given up your coins, and you hope that the exchanges will treat the IOU correctly (that is, that they will honour in the end, your supposed right of withdrawal).

But this is about the only way of using LN: making exchanges into big banks.  Which is, what crypto is in any case, about for 99%.

I never suggested that.

OK, Lucy, here goes the "quick" version:

• LN is not a sidechain
• LN is not part of Bitcoin
• LN is part of an eCommerce business model that is detached from Bitcoin
• LN is not even similar to a sidechain
• LN is not part of Bitcoin

It sounds like you learned your talking points well, and it also sounds like you are caught upon trying to prescribe bitcoin rather just accepting and recognizing value in bitcoin as it is and as it is evolving.

Evolution takes time, and rome was not built in a day... There are all kinds of ongoing developments, expansion and adoption that is likely going to continue to evolve the whole system..

So your suggestion that bitcoin is broken or deficient because it does not adequately compete with Visa comes off as a load of propagandistic and premature nonsense.. Bitcoin is way to immature to be even striving to compete directly with such a large system - but that does not mean that bitcoin does not have value for what it is - a decentralized immutable secure storage and transfer of value... think of all the power of that?  No other system comes close to bitcoin in terms of the exact thing that it is providing at this moment - even if it remains a "work-in-progress."