Topic: The Lightning Network Alpha Release is Ready for Testing (Read 1169 times)

Its hard to get excited about LN if Segwit cant reach 95%. As far as I know LN needs Segwit to be activated in order for LN to be implemented. Looking at blockchain.info the softfork to get Segwit going is stuck at 25%. Why not implement  a 2mb hardfork and make everyone happy?

A couple of days ago , they released a tutorial on Setting up and Testing LND with the Testnet Lightning Faucet If someone is interesting on running a node on the testnet and they also made a faucet based on it faucet.lightning.community . I haven't tested any of these as I'm not really an expert on the technical stuff.

many have tried rebuttling me, but just used insults and not logic, not stats, not real life scenarios.
but yes. dont take anyones info on face value and run your own scenarios.

the short gist of blocksizes is that with dynamic blocks (node users set the blocksize buffer setting themselves) anything under that setting is acceptable. EG some people already have theirs set at 2mb, 4mb and up. and they are running on the network accepting (1mb)blocks now. perfectly fine.. no issues

using consensus (feature in bitcoin) if the majority flagged a certain level. then pools would flag a level they are happy with too and it grows only at a rate the majority are happy with.
so the rational minded people know it wont jump to gigabytes over night but natural pace that nodes can cope with.

after all if they cant cope, they wont flag desire for it. and any increase wont activate, due to consensus not being reached

only issue is core are withholding an implimentation of that sort of feature to allow users to self adjust. thus we are stuck at 1mb until those running core are spoonfed whatever core devs want to give their users.

so take the blocksize doomsday rhetorics with a large pinch of salt, it just core devs (blockstream paid + lots of unpaid interns) holding things back, because they prfer pushing users into centralist contracts where they can make money charging fee's and revoking payments

Ok.

I think I'll write down this thread in order to be able to check it later xD
Again thanks for taking the time to explain me all this.
I can't say I agree with you because I consider myself far too ignorant to have a decisive opinion on the subject.
But I can say that what you wrote makes sense to me and seems rather logical.

I'd just love to see someone against block size rise discuss with you, I'd learn a lot

when 12 paid blockstream centralist devs hand out scripts to their 90 interns who desire to impress the paid guys in the hopes the interns get a job by showing loyalty. and each of them start going out and repeating the "blocksize rise is doomsday" rhetoric..
many people believe, not because its true but because they are hearing the same story from 100 different people. so they dont even bother to individually investigate, research or run scenarios. but accept the spoonfed info on face value due to "trust". afterall their mindset is '100 people cant be wrong'..

mark twain: " a lie can travel around the world, while the truth is putting on its shoes"

you can usually spot the scripts. when they throw out words like "we are conservative" or "go fork your altcoin" to anyone thats not core friendly
its like blockstream are taking a lesson from mass media
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZVv2AOCnaA
https://youtu.be/jH8dejYGa5A?t=36s

funny part is, this rhetoric thats passed around lacks stats or real life data.
but people will sheep follow just out of trust that if 10 people say the same thing, even if there are no stats to back it up. it must be true

they even went out of their way to say that although satoshi said 32mb is ok.. the chinese firewall has issues far below 32mb.
the problem with that theory is that, the chinese firewall does not have issues. infact chinese pools have stratum servers outside the firewall that hold the actual block data and only need to send a small hash (few bytes) to ASIC farms.. thus ASIC farms inside china are not even handling the real blockchain data anyway(no ASIC has a hard drive). thus killing off the chinese firewall theory/doomsday rhetoric..

yep the 8mb number is to do with the chinese firewall. but the chinese pools have mitigated that risk. though for now the community are only seeking 2mb-4mb so we can delve deeper into the 8mb theory at a later date.

but all in all the community think baby steps is safe. which we all agree.. even as far back as 2015 we all thought we settled our differences and agreed that 2mb was fine. but.. its the blockstream centralists and their sheep that are the ones throwing out the gigabyte blocks by midnight doomsday, not anyone else (with atleast half a brain)

Oh...

Well, thanks for your explanation.
Problem is my lack of personal knowledge makes me a bit like a kid.
Because now I don't understand why so many people are against size block rise, especially when there are huge moment of congestion in BTC transactions like a few days ago, there was dozens of thousands of transactions waiting for confirmation. 

6 months? based on?... oh wait the theory that bitcoin will have 7 billion users by midnight tonight. (blockstream centralists doomsday distractions)

also core themselves now deem 8mb safe but prefer 4mb in mid 2016 wait to stay below safe.. but while they stifle legacy transactions by halting them at 1mb.. the rest of the community see that the communities compromise of 2mb last year should have been allowed all along now that blockstream backtracked.

if we went with your 6month growth imaginary target, lets throw that into a scenario:

so imagine 2mb happened mid 2017.
we can go to 3mb start of 2018.
4mb mid 2018....
and re-evaluate the 'safety' of 5mb, 6mb, 7mb. 8mb.. which would be 2 years after core admit 8mb ok but 4mb super safe.

funny thing is:
millions of people UPLOAD livestreams without issue. requiring 750kbit/s upload.
=93.75kbyte/s   =56250kbyte/10mins   = 56mbyte every 10 minutes

even satoshi himself knew this in 2009 but went with a 32mb hidden ultimate limit concerning the max data / 'messages' bitcoin would transmit, to avoid packet loss.
but later in 2009 added 1mb rule. not due to bandwidth and not due to bloat.. but due to spam tx mitigation

yep bitcoin can handle more. but core want to limit tx count purely to limit tx count.. nothing more

funny thing is:
even bottomline computing that could handle bitcoin in 2009-2016 = Raspberry Pi1
but things have moved on since 2009
raspberry Pi3  and also bitcoins own efficiency tweaks (libsecp256k1, etc) make current bottom line tech able to handle 25x legacy(old) data specs..

as for the storage of data.. do i need to paste in the fingernail size of the last 8 years of bitcoin data (128gb microsd) and do i need to paste in a hard drive thats under $100 that can store much much much much more

Damn...

From Franky1 I read the first arguments against LN in a while...
I never went deep into those technical questions, mainly because it's very hard to find objective source of data, most threads talking about it are either for or against it but rarely objective.
Though you're talking about block size rise, saying consensus will make it able to grow only to an acceptable size for the network.

One question though:
1/ Don't you think it can be only a short term solution as if I remember the maths correctly (which might not be the case), if it's easy to double the size of blocks, considering current adoption rate it would require to double size something like every 6 months no?

Of course is something which many people want to see how works. I believe the debate will not stop but just now started. All things have good and bad side. Some they claim that is like paypal 2.0 and I believe they don't mean the payment flow but the matter of privacy. I don't have the required technical knowledge to defend or oppose this proposal even though I read that someone has to actively monitor the blockchain to avoid peer cheaters (but they claim without loss of privacy) https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/bitcoin-lightning-things-to-know-e5ea8d84369f#.360h4oltq . Besides that, if we want the average Joe worldwide to use bitcoin as payment system and not only as commodity and all day to speak about pump and dump, micro-payment transactions  reasonable fees according these transactions and confirmation time must be settled. Otherwise most of people world wide will use their coins only for trading, saving and as safe heaven when there is economic crisis.

Amen to that brother.  I am helping a broader audience learn that Carlton is a punk-assed negro. 

better to word it in the same mindset the blockstream centralists try calling anything else not a core implementation an alt

1. its not bitcoincore, its LND, so it must be an altcoin - use their own stupid and failed rebuttles against them

but then use rational reasons

1. N stands for network, meaning its a separate network
2. it just has "copies" of bitcoin transactions.. but is not sitting in a bitcoin implementations mempool or blockchain.. it later copies and pastes their separate network data back to bitcoin days/weeks later. meaning bitcoin 'compatible' not directly part of bitcoin itself
3. its not a pure bitcoin compatible separate network. they are hinting to add another prefix to multisigs from just '3' to being 'btc:' to later add other alts to be compatible.. hint LTC is going to be a sidechain. (they are already prepping LTC with their segwit tests, im guessing gmaxwells monero will be there too)

agreed to both statements.. but my messages usually point at one person but the context is usually aimed at helping a broader audience learn something at the same time. if i wanted to reply to only the person i quote in, id do it in PM

also to note. i can sense a rebuttle by the centralists that love LN will pretend LN is not centralist because of the hop ability
eg
if thre were 4 separate channels..
A<->B
B<->C
C<->D
D<->E

but A decided to pay E one day, centralists will hide their end goal by saying a pays b who pays c who pays d who pays e

the issue is that B will refuse to pay C with A's funds because it costs B a 'small fee' to pay C
the issue is that C will refuse to pay D with A's funds because it costs C a 'small fee' to pay D
the issue is that D will refuse to pay E with A's funds because it costs D a 'small fee' to pay E

in short for A to pay E.. A has to pay 4x the LN fee to cover B,C and D's costs.
but if A only wants to buy things from B.. A only pas 1x fee

which is what the centralists want. to commercialise it where someone in the middle gets paid to manage swaps.
which they know will end up as a star network

A<->C
B<->C
D<->C
E<->C

where it saves on hops because everything now loops through C so now A paying E only costs 2x..
but if A only wants to buy things from C.. A only pas 1x fee

but now C earns a tx fee from everyone
this is the HUB manager the centralists love so much... also known as paypal2.0 that blockstream want to be to repay their investors

edit
thanks sportis for showing blockstream centralist Rusty Russel (main LN dev) admitting the Hub requirement


also to add... check out the neon red flat words in the github to see all the signs
"hypershachains", where the hub owns all the seeds to revoke codes...... seriously, getting very centralistic there blockstream! cant deny it now
"funding manager"
"servers"

Anyone see the word Bitcoin up there anywhere?

Reported: should be in the altcoins section

Forget it Frankie - that negroloid is a well known shill for BlockCore.  He is moronic in all his arguments.  You can't feed logic bombs to morons.

Carlton is a fucking cheerleader who sucks Core's dicks every night. 

here is a great idea for LN devs.. only let CSV revoked funds go back to the origin.. meaning back into the LN multisig to open a new channel... never to be used to divert funds into a second persons personal address as a 'punishment'

that way it cant be abused by scammers to rip people off.. but instead funds go back into contracts to get a new mutual agreement again

That is HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE info. Everyone was talking about if lighting network will be crap or not, we can actually TEST IT to see. Computer scientists can now review it and write articles about it.
That is really big step in bitcoin world im so happy right now.

those wishing to increase the blocksize are not suggesting ridiculous sizes
infact if a node cant handle it they wont flag desire for it. meaning it wont activate consensus for it.. thus it will only grow at a natural acceptable rate. so eat that logic bomb, its a feature built into bitcoin.. its called consensus

its also LN hubs that become paypal2.0 where customers have to get the hub manager to sign off on funds locked in with the hub manager.
EG walmart will be paypal2.0, starbucks will be paypal2.0. need i remind you that these hubs will impose >48hour 'funds unavailable' maturity locks even after confirm.. (CLTV: like how block rewards are locked for 100 confirms.. like banks hold funds for 3-5 days) need i remind you that while waiting in maturity funds can be revoked (csv: like bank and paypal chargebacks)

might be worth you doing your research.

wake up to the truth and not the distracting reverse psychology scripts you read and repeat without open minded and critical thought.
everything negative which blockstream try pointing at a different direction, are actually actions they do themselves

It's mostly /r/btc trolls claiming that lightning network will centralize bitcoin. Meanwhile those are the same guys that are okay with raising the blocksize to ridiculously high levels in order to compete at a global level effectively turning bitcoin into paypal 2.0. They dont know shit about bitcoin. They think big blocksizes are a solution.

Who said that ?

I've heard loads of FUD about Lightning, but never any real problems. It'll probably be slightly more limited in use than the most optimistic rhetoric states, everything else so far has been the usual trolling garbage.