Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 9056. (Read 26718608 times)
November 14, 2019, 06:20:58 AM
November 14, 2019, 06:01:33 AM
But the mesh chairs aren't going to be as comfortable as finding a well-designed memory foam chair (if they even exist).
Says the person who -- in the very same sentence -- admits he's never sat in one.
I'm sitting comfortably in the chair you derided, while you're whinging about your chair's lumbar support pain. Observers can draw their own conclusions.
Are you sure it's safe? I threw some memory foam away after reading about the dodgy chemicals in it.
https://hullopillow.com/that-memory-foam-smell/
Quote
... there are various reports and studies which indicate that memory foam may be somewhat toxic. Reports include carcinogenic chemicals and formaldehyde gas. To manufacture memory foam, chemicals are added to polyurethane to make it more dense and viscous at the same time. Additional chemicals are required to make the polyurethane flame retardant. One of these, Pentabde (of the polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) family), was used until 2004. Pentabde is now known to be toxic to the liver, thyroid, and nervous system.(1) A study in 2000 specifically found mattress emissions to be toxic to the lungs of labratory mice.(2)
November 14, 2019, 04:22:31 AM
Observing $8,775
Just giggled a bit out loud in a coffee shop (not the dutch kind).
November 14, 2019, 04:00:22 AM
Since you edited out my addressing of this point, let me re-insert it for you:
A penalty transaction has distinct characteristics:
They all:
- are V0_P2WPKH type transactions
- are roughly the same size of 237-238 B, 121 vB, 483-484 WU
- use SegWit addresses
There is a way to filter through transaction data based on this criteria.
A penalty transaction has distinct characteristics:
Quote
LN channel = multisig UTXO.
To change channel balance write new tx spending the UTXO. Both sign but dont broadcast.
To change channel balance write new tx spending the UTXO. Both sign but dont broadcast.
They all:
- are V0_P2WPKH type transactions
- are roughly the same size of 237-238 B, 121 vB, 483-484 WU
- use SegWit addresses
There is a way to filter through transaction data based on this criteria.
Still absofuckinglutely irrelevant. Congratulations.
How is filtering transaction data irrelevant to the identification of penalty claims?
In case you missed it, another possibility is that penalty txs were never issued. For the THIRD FUCKING TIME, dickwad.
So far none of the 400 nodes connected to him reported receiving any funds.
Hmm. None of the 400 unjustly-enriched parties reported unjust enrichment. Whodathunkit?
Or, perhaps its because they never received jack shit. Not ONE in 400 nodes is honest enough to report receiving more funds than they should have? Just think about it for a moment before responding.
If his counterparties were on the beneficial side of a stale closing tx, what is their incentive to issue a penalty? They stand to win more through just letting the mistaken stale tx broadcasts lie as is. Seems we need to at least consider that possibility before closing the case. As at least one scenario.
So far none of the 400 nodes connected to him reported receiving any funds.
Hmm. None of the 400 unjustly-enriched parties reported unjust enrichment. Whodathunkit?
Or, perhaps its because they never received jack shit. Not ONE in 400 nodes is honest enough to report receiving more funds than they should have? Just think about it for a moment before responding.
Do you deny that it is possible?
It is possible that not one of 400 nodes would have received "unjustified enrichment" without reporting it, but it is extremely unlikely and goes against common sense.
You again edited out the link I provided to a discussion on the LN GitHub about the issue which as far as I can tell is comprised of the first and foremost members of the relevant COMMUNITY:
https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/issues/2468
A couple of the "experts" indirectly referenced in the Bitcoinist article have been posting in that GitHub thread. That's why its not hearsay.
https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/issues/2468
A couple of the "experts" indirectly referenced in the Bitcoinist article have been posting in that GitHub thread. That's why its not hearsay.
Your third link was a news blurb containing allegations, totally devoid of links to evidence. It was -- again definitively -- hearsay.
First of all, this isn't a courtroom. Second, the title of the article is "4 BITCOIN ‘LOSS’ ON LIGHTNING NETWORK IS FUD, SAYS COMMUNITY" --- the whole premise of the article is based on second-hand information. Third, the article does contain links to evidence, which contain links to more evidence.
- Bitcoinist article contains this paragraph:
OK I'm making a concession that he may have lost a maximum of 0.1 BTC (though its still more likely he lost nothing), but it still seems like it was all to make a bullshit point about "the dangers of Lightning." Making a concession is hardly "moving the goalposts."
I was originally stressing that his claims of losing 4 BTC were bullshit.
I was originally stressing that his claims of losing 4 BTC were bullshit.
No, you jumped down my throat for merely asking to see some actual evidence supporting the claim that the entire incident was not made up from whole cloth. From 'case closed, he made the whole thing up' to 'I think he's exaggerating' is the motherfuckin canonical example of moving the goalposts.
Stop being such a baby. If suggesting you verify information for yourself is the same thing as "jumping down your throat" then you're not cut out to talk on an internet forum and should probably go join a sewing circle. He still may have put himself in this situation on purpose, though now I believe he earnestly just made a major fuckup -- for whatever reason is beyond me. Its a one-of-a-kind issue though so its good for LN devs to iron this sort of thing out now rather than later.
Admitting to changing my opinion on something after learning more about it is only "moving the goalposts" if you come from the viewpoint that you are trying to score a goal.
Go fuck yourself. You're the one trying to twist things around to make it appear that you said something other than that which you did.
No, I didn't. I admitted that I changed my stance from "he's a liar" to "he may have accidentally fucked up." I still maintain that nowhere near 4 BTC was lost. Sounds like he lost nothing.
November 14, 2019, 03:32:53 AM
What do you call a 98 lb (7 stone or 44.4521 kg) fraudulent psychic who has escaped from prison?
Come on, tell us.
A small medium at large.
OK, I snorted.
November 14, 2019, 03:01:30 AM
But the mesh chairs aren't going to be as comfortable as finding a well-designed memory foam chair (if they even exist).
Says the person who -- in the very same sentence -- admits he's never sat in one.
I'm sitting comfortably in the chair you derided, while you're whinging about your chair's lumbar support pain. Observers can draw their own conclusions.
November 14, 2019, 02:55:04 AM
https://twitter.com/rusty_twit/status/1189678498337574912 ?
Maybe. Not dispositive, however. The total of penalty txs over the probable time interval of the event show less than 1BTC lost through penalty txs. But tell me - why is it assumed that there were penalty claims?
Maybe. Not dispositive, however. The total of penalty txs over the probable time interval of the event show less than 1BTC lost through penalty txs. But tell me - why is it assumed that there were penalty claims?
It is glaringly a dispositive. During the previous 10,000 block period there were exactly 6 penalty transactions totaling 0.09746883 BTC.
Haha. Glaringly obvious indeed. Even when spoon-fed, you entirely miss the implication of my clearly-stated musing (see italic above).
Since you edited out my addressing of this point, let me re-insert it for you:
A penalty transaction has distinct characteristics:
Quote
LN channel = multisig UTXO.
To change channel balance write new tx spending the UTXO. Both sign but dont broadcast.
To change channel balance write new tx spending the UTXO. Both sign but dont broadcast.
They all:
- are V0_P2WPKH type transactions
- are roughly the same size of 237-238 B, 121 vB, 483-484 WU
- use SegWit addresses
There is a way to filter through transaction data based on this criteria.
Still absofuckinglutely irrelevant. Congratulations.
In case you missed it, another possibility is that penalty txs were never issued. For the THIRD FUCKING TIME, dickwad.
If his counterparties were on the beneficial side of a stale closing tx, what is their incentive to issue a penalty? They stand to win more through just letting the mistaken stale tx broadcasts lie as is. Seems we need to at least consider that possibility before closing the case. As at least one scenario.
So far none of the 400 nodes connected to him reported receiving any funds.
Hmm. None of the 400 unjustly-enriched parties reported unjust enrichment. Whodathunkit?
Or, perhaps its because they never received jack shit. Not ONE in 400 nodes is honest enough to report receiving more funds than they should have? Just think about it for a moment before responding.
Do you deny that it is possible?
Quote
What is more likely is he has the funds, can't access them, and they are far fewer than 4 BTC in total.
Sez you. Sure, it's a plausible argument. But it does not invalidate the alternative scenario which I present. Which, of course, is why I ask to see the evidence. Again, everything you present falls far short of being dispositive.
Its a more plausible argument that yours, which is LN developers don't know what they're talking about when it comes to LN.
Relative plausibility is arguable. And an area not worth treading. However, 'it is technically possible' means definitively NOT 'case closed'
https://bitcoinist.com/4-bitcoin-loss-on-lightning-network-is-fud-says-community/ ?
Oh yes - "says community". Hearsay is not evidence.
Oh yes - "says community". Hearsay is not evidence.
There are LN experts working pretty hard to help this guy recover his funds.
What ever does that have to do with the assertion that your last link is mere hearsay? Do you not understand the word itself?
You again edited out the link I provided to a discussion on the LN GitHub about the issue which as far as I can tell is comprised of the first and foremost members of the relevant COMMUNITY:
https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/issues/2468
A couple of the "experts" indirectly referenced in the Bitcoinist article have been posting in that GitHub thread. That's why its not hearsay.
Your third link was a news blurb containing allegations, totally devoid of links to evidence. It was -- again definitively -- hearsay.
More germane, you have moved the goalposts from 'he made the whole thing up, case closed' to 'I kinda think sorta he might have exaggerated his losses'. Let us recall that this opened with an assertion made to the effect that it was all a lie, followed by me merely asking for evidence, for which you attacked me with the strawman of denial.
I don't know if you're being dishonest, or you are merely incapable of logic.
I don't know if you're being dishonest, or you are merely incapable of logic.
OK I'm making a concession that he may have lost a maximum of 0.1 BTC (though its still more likely he lost nothing), but it still seems like it was all to make a bullshit point about "the dangers of Lightning." Making a concession is hardly "moving the goalposts."
I was originally stressing that his claims of losing 4 BTC were bullshit.
No, you jumped down my throat for merely asking to see some actual evidence supporting the claim that the entire incident was not made up from whole cloth. From 'case closed, he made the whole thing up' to 'I think he's exaggerating' is the motherfuckin canonical example of moving the goalposts.
Quote
You're one of the most dishonest posters in this thread,
Go fuck yourself. You're the one trying to twist things around to make it appear that you said something other than that which you did.
