Topic: This scene at a mainstream level is impossible without segwit+Lightning Network (Read 471 times)

LN will become very complex without SegWit for arcane technical reasons. There are some doubts as to whether it might not even function well enough to scale up or have game theory attacks without the malleability fixes.


I'm pretty sure that is a DDoS attack vulnerability.

I need to study LN in more detail to be sure. Haven't done so yet.

learn to read code, and learn to read facts beyond the 1 paragraph reddit post you love to script copy from
and you will see that LN can function without segwit.

do you know what the funny part is
by saying segwit is "needed". to fix bitcoin
by saying that multisigs cant work without sgwit..

is you trying too hard to promote blockstream, yet doing so by actually saying that blockstream have had broken code for years. that all the stuff gmaxwell done since 2011 has got flaws and gmax is not perfect.

after all if everything core does shines with sparkly roses, there would be no flaws for segwit to supposedly fix....
so which is it, gmax has a proven track record of flawless coding.. thus not needing segwit
or gmax has flaws and bitcoin is broke and no one should do multisigs right now

..
wake up to logic
..

multisigs are not broke and people use them every day. the dual signing requirement alone mitigates any malleability deception risks. so it doesnt need segwit to do it.

also because its a dual signing multisig. the first party(malicious) cant then just get the second party to re-sign a new tx unmalleated to beat the first tx into a block.. as thats just obvious.

thirdly both parties agree on the totals and who deserves what when they sign so whatever gets accepted into a block with both signatures is what gets accepted.

fourthly.. worse case.. CSV revoke (chargeback) if one party was being malicious..

the truth is segwit is not about making LN work now. its about opening more backdoors ("easier to deploy soft changes in future") and schnorr LATER so that that when LN channels think their doing a 2 of 2 channel. secretly schnorr allows a third party to have a key without any party knowing who signed what..because its just a single signature in the end. thus many hubs could secretly sign out a channel.
..

if only people started reading the real code and the real lengthy documentation and spend time untwisting blockstreams subtly buzzword games and actually understand the real features beyond the reddit 20second sales pitches. by running scenarios and tests they would see the real things going on.

but no the blockstreamists will just blindly trust gmaxwell because he is uber-god of code that has always been flawless.. (even when gmax says the code from 2011+ is broke and needs segwit(debunking his own work, just to try selling segwit as a fix for what he calls a broken bitcoin))

TL:DR;
if your opinion is based on "i trust blockstream".. but you have not actually read the code/ ran actual or even mental scenarios.
then stand back and refrain from commenting until you actually know whats going on by reading the real information beyond the 20 second wordgame sales pitches

LN has a place in the ecosystem as a voluntary side service. that people can choose to use. but hindering onchain growth to force people into using LN is foolish. P.S LN does have limits too so onchain REAL growth dynamically and naturally over time should happen too.

I think your paid gang needs better organisation. Kiklo claims LN can't work without Segwit, you claim that it can. Get your act together.

Your suggestion doesn't make sense.

No second layer scaling == no mainstream adoption possible.

Wrong. We need segwit + LN.



Those are the facts, im not saying anything. If you want your damn coffees, you are going to need LN + segwit, that's just how it is.

Well, I wouldn't mind bitcoin going to $500,000 per coin as an expensive, slow, unregulated digital gold of sorts. Buying a lambo per BTC? im in.

In any case, it's better than BUcoin.

With segwit + LN, you could still get your coffees offchain, and still have the onchain unregulated feature.

LN can function without segwit, but not at 100% for reasons explained a million times (not falling for franky1's bait).

LN doesnt need segwit

but keep trying hard to promote sloppy code just because the blockstream gods want more control

LN can function right how, happily without needing segwit.

But LN would be an actual development of the network.  Not everyone wants to hold all their coins in some weird online wallet that has trouble with the IRS.  If it's run by companies rather than being part of the network it won't even be Bitcoin, just transfers of numbers on a screen within a wallet's database.  Not to mention that people won't all hold their coins in the same wallet and that opens up a whole new world of complications.
It is what it is right now, not what it'll be in the future.  Right now, it's not scaled and there's no consensus.  That's just how it is.

If you want/need off-chain solutions there are wallets allowing you to do so and have transfers between accounts without the need for confirmations, for free.


So you're saying it is impossible to have this at a mainstream level without these systems in place?


Emphasis on the time being It's not "just how it is". If we settle for that, then effectively Bitcoin won't even scale further from what we have. Wouldn't you like to see Bitcoin scale? if yes, then it's not "just how it is".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbNG66nQdqA

Say bye bye to this scene happening at a mainstream level (where not only some nerds use BTC to buy things in real life) without second layer network running at full steam thanks to segwit.

Bitcoin can never scale onchain to massive levels to cater for the instant speed required for over the counter shoping.

Sorry, the dream it's over without segwit + lightning network.

There is no consensus, so BTC will remain some sort of expensive, slow, decentralized-node network, unregulated digital gold for the time being.

That''s just how it is.