Bitcoin Lightning Network

File: 95 KB, 350x350, luke-dashjr.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Bitcoin Lightning Network Anonymous Fri Dec 8 17:35:23 2017 No.4896002 [Reply] [Original]

When you actually fully understand the technical and economical implementations of Lightning Network and are 100% sure it is a pile of garbage but all of the normies and newfags might not care and this shit still might go to 100k.

What to do....

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 17:36:48 2017 No.4896043 >>4896002 please explain why LN is a pile of garbage.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 17:38:27 2017 No.4896082 LN-fudders act like nocoiners

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 17:39:08 2017 No.4896105 >What to do.... Realize you are just a little faggot overestimating himself. Than you go kill yourself because there is no hope for you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 17:41:21 2017 No.4896156 >>4896002 Start LN onchain fees go down Offchain fees go down even further Alts with low fee USP die What’s not to like?

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 17:43:58 2017 No.4896209

It's so funny to know you are right and will be rewarded in the long run. Most of you haven't even done a deep dive into how the system works you just heard "fast and cheap transactions!" and ate it up like a good goy.

I can't wait to watch history take place.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 17:51:27 2017 No.4896379 >>4896002 I'm pretty sure you don't understand anything

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 17:52:18 2017 No.4896401 >>4896002 I really can't stand them.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 17:53:05 2017 No.4896426 >>4896379 Okay :)

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 17:53:20 2017 No.4896430 >>4896043 >>4896082 >>4896105 >>4896156 >>4896379 Holy fuck this is the absolute state of biz now. Reddit please leave now.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 17:54:08 2017 No.4896450 >>4896379 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueRVkxrGtLA

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 17:54:14 2017 No.4896454 >>4896426 If I knew you irl I would burn your house down with you trapped inside.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 17:54:39 2017 No.4896469

>>4896002
whales are dumping on normies around activation time. Bitcoin will rise a bit slower for now. Once LN and futures are in place, the price will bleed for a few months because bitcoin is still the same thing and the hype is over. Since big money dumped, there's nothing holding the price

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 17:55:38 2017 No.4896489

>>4896002
Oh no don't point that out OP, otherwise the ponzi collapses because they've pumped something up with no use. They'll call you a BCasher even without bringing it up, they'll call you a shill. None of these retards have even read (especially not understood) the white paper where it LITERALLY says right at the top "PEER TO PEER".

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 17:56:03 2017 No.4896503 this is why you diversify you should be holding at least 33% BTC and 33% ETH for save gains and the rest shoulb be smaller cap coins like Neo or Solarcoin for a bigger gain in %

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 17:57:06 2017 No.4896531 >>4896454 Edgy

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 17:57:13 2017 No.4896533 >>4896454 Cool story bro. I don't even want to explain to you why BTC is garbage and why BCH will win. I have a 100k bonus coming at the end of the year and I want BCH prices to stay low.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 17:57:20 2017 No.4896537 >>4896469 Sick, just bought 100k.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 17:57:21 2017 No.4896538 >>4896043 This is a good start you seem geniune. https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/923309367260274688

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 17:57:31 2017 No.4896541 File: 41 KB, 643x580, 1511911679781.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4896043 >my sides

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 17:58:09 2017 No.4896554 >>4896503 >ETH

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 17:58:23 2017 No.4896559 What are the technical and economical implications of LN?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:00:21 2017 No.4896599 >>4896533 You realize bcash only has bigger blocks and that literally solves no problems? Were you paying attention to what happened to ethereum network this week?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:01:01 2017 No.4896617 >>4896430 Youre. A. Newfagt

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:01:01 2017 No.4896618

you guys say youre all in the know, but did you know satoshi's original whitepaper basically outlines the LN, and its where we got the idea for it in the first place?
>not "satoshis true vision"
sure kids. youre not in the know, you just think you know. well move over, btc is about to win the crypto game.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:02:43 2017 No.4896663 >>4896617 >i have no idea what the scaling debate even is

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:03:11 2017 No.4896671

The reality is that most people won't use the lightning network. The majority of the congestion on the network is just from people buying bitcoin and transferring it to their own wallet. They have no incentive to use payment channels.

Opening a payment channel takes a BTC transaction, so $10-$20, then closing takes another transaction so $10-20. You also have to lock up your BTC WITHIN the channel you put your money in. People don't realise this. So if you want to buy coffees every day for a month you have to do two bitcoin transactions $20-40, and also lock up 30 coffees worth of BTC, so about $100. Lightning will work pretty well for exchange to exchange transactions as they will probably have channels open with each other, but that's mostly it.

Coinbase isn't even implementing segwit in the near future, so there's no way they are going to use lightning network anytime soon. This is really a lot of hype for a very small number of use cases. The only way it works is with ALL of BTC locked into payment channels with VERY LARGE CENTRALISED PAYMENT HUBS. That's not what BTC is about. Lightning is a meme. Raiden is working on ETH, and no one is using it...

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:03:14 2017 No.4896673

>>4896002
What about having a channel just with certain sellers? Would be great for centralized things like content micropayment services, or if you have an amazon account and know you'll spend your money there in the future.

The true scalability is in the lightning network, but the tech without it is pretty useful, too.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:03:27 2017 No.4896680 >>4896002 What is Lighting Network?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:03:45 2017 No.4896688 >>4896618 THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF BIZ

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:03:54 2017 No.4896693 >>4896469 When did big money dump?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:04:27 2017 No.4896705 >>4896618 Satoshi's whitepaper outlines a 1-to-1 lightning channel, which is like a bar tab that you can close out. Lightning Network is nothing like that. You just proved you don't know what the fuck you are talking about newfag.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:04:50 2017 No.4896712 >>4896618 Kek. Mastertroll

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:05:48 2017 No.4896736

>>4896673
You have to lock up those funds in that payment channel. You have to spend $10-20 to open the channel and then how much BTC do you lock up in there? Once you have no BTC left in the channel you have to again pay $10-20 to close the channel, and then pay $10-20 again to open a new one and lock up more BTC.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:05:59 2017 No.4896740 >>4896688 yeah keep saying easy to understand words that everyone keeps saying, its going to help destroy the evil bitcoin you never bought in to

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:07:55 2017 No.4896783 >>4896002 do you want to be right or do you want to make money? the only question that matters if do you think the price will continue to increase? If they answer is yes, buy until you think it'll crash. Don't be an emotional or ideological trader.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:07:58 2017 No.4896785

>>4896082
LN fudders are mostly chinese miners, who are salty because they are not going to get as much in profits anymore. We will no longer have to pay 40 dollars to send 1 dollar of BTC anywhere. I fucking hate these miners. They can go fuck themselves for all I care. I hope chinese gubermint arrests them all and "convinces them" to give gurbminet the private keys. why? because the greedy fucking miners fucking deserve to lose it all. AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAH

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:08:04 2017 No.4896790

>>4896671
Even if very large centralized payment hubs were needed, you wouldn't have to trust those hubs at all. You still control the bitcoin you haven't spent with lightning, and if they want to fuck you, you just got free btc.

I agree that this might not be what people had in mind for bitcoin if it stays centralized like that, but that's why they want to do a network on top of it. If that fails to work, the other tech will be nice to have while they figure out how to scale differently. There is no reason why we can't change to something better later on when it's finished if the network part doesn't turn out to work as intended.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:08:22 2017 No.4896794 LN kikestream will get BTFO. BTC whales will crush them

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:08:37 2017 No.4896802 >>4896740 >never bought into Some of us just sold when the fundamentals went to shit, like investors do.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:08:43 2017 No.4896805 >>4896671 >The only way it works is with ALL of BTC locked into payment channels with VERY LARGE CENTRALISED PAYMENT HUBS. This sounds terrible for buying drugs.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:08:55 2017 No.4896811 >>4896426 You make the claim, you prove buddy ;)

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:09:04 2017 No.4896817 >>4896783 Well trying to predict the irrational market is just gambling at it's core. If you put money into BTC at this point you are gambling. If you buy BCH it is for technical and fundamental reasons aka investing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:09:29 2017 No.4896823 >>4896740 You got me fuck. Really easy to troll people with all the retards running around now.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:11:24 2017 No.4896861 >>4896599 Bigger blocks solve the problem of full blocks you idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:11:43 2017 No.4896866 >>4896817 BCH is literally the steamy pile of shit Jihan ASICBOOST Wu left on Craig Faketoshi Wrights chest after a naughty scat love making session

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:13:21 2017 No.4896906 >>4896802 lol first off, bad move. secondly >like investors do holy shit man, i like to actually drink my coke, not have it plastered all over my monitor. put your fingers away, thats enough typing i think

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:13:36 2017 No.4896911

>>4896790
If adoption grows though it's going to be $50-100 to open and close a channel. So in reality literally everything will have to go through the lightning network. And so wouldn't it be in the hubs best interest to steal money from you, without making it enough that it's in your best interest to close the channel and dispute it? In reality couldn't a large payment hub steal $20 from a person and if the fee for a transaction was $50 it's in the person's best interest to not dispute the hub because it would cost more to open and close than it would to just take the $20 loss?

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:15:35 2017 No.4896947

>>4896866
I would argue that BCH is more Bitcoin than Bitcoin, but honestly, both are shit. ASIC resistance and fast/cheap transactions (aka being an actual currency) are key if a cryptocurrency is ever going to replace fiat and subvert the power of central banks and financial institutions.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:16:33 2017 No.4896976 >>4896002 >when you realize normies don't care about decentralization Buy Bitcoin and sell the news

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:16:40 2017 No.4896981 >>4896906 Investing is all about fundamentals. You're not a genius because you gambled on a ponzi and made it out okay.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:19:35 2017 No.4897058

>>4896947
>ASIC Resistance
>Being decentralized
You will just have botnets controlling everything instead of legitimate mining ASICs then. ASIC resistance is terrible for decentralization.

>>4896866
Bitcoin Cash is literally just Bitcoin following the original white paper. So you'd be calling Satoshis pile of shit. Just saying.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:20:40 2017 No.4897082 >>4896947 Why does everyone have a boner about ASIC resistance. You realize without ASIC miners your network is open to botnet attacks right?

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:22:17 2017 No.4897119

>>4896911
You can only steal money by announcing an old transaction where you had less money than you have in a more recent one. But if they announce that one, you know a secret that will allow you to get ALL the funds, theirs and yours, of the channel.

If you had less money in the channel (in total) than the fees cost you, then they can make you lose money while losing all of their own money in the channel in the process.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:24:21 2017 No.4897158 >>4897119 Sorry. I meant to say THEY can only steal money by annoucing ... (and so on)

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:25:12 2017 No.4897183 >>4896785 number of btc transactions at ATH, miners making more per Tx than ever before. Your argument makes zero sense.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:27:32 2017 No.4897237

>>4896790
Centralized miners bad, centralized (((lightning hubs))) good? Makes no sense. The free market will decentralize miners, bitmain won't be top dog forever. Blockstream literally wants bitcoin to be their company asset, charge people for off chain channels.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:29:40 2017 No.4897280 >>4896861 But bro, that makes the blockchain bigger, I'll have to spend $50 on a new hard drive. I don't understand Moore's law, miners are evil! Don't price out full nodes for the homeless.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:30:56 2017 No.4897305 >>4896002 You are correct. Bitcoiners kept saying Segwit would lower fees, than segwit didnt. Then now they are saying Lightning Network is just around the corner, just hodl some more guys haha.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:31:58 2017 No.4897332 >>4896082 It's funny because ln cannot be stopped, so these threads accomplish nothing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:32:23 2017 No.4897343 File: 97 KB, 750x928, 1506266069308.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4897280 When it costs more to send a transaction than it is to run a node

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:32:55 2017 No.4897351 >>4897305 segwit usage is around 10%. Bech32 adoption is almost non-existent.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:33:27 2017 No.4897363

>>4897237
Oh come on, please at least try to discuss this honestly.

I was making an argument why it doesn't hurt Bitcoin because it can be an interim tech. Centralized miners are bad because they can double spend/51% attack. Centralized lightning hubs can't do shit but make lightning not work, there is no danger to them. Worst case is that the tech doesn't work and we need to figure out something new. Bitcoin security is not affected at all.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:35:29 2017 No.4897401

>>4896911
I like how economic incentives are okay for LN hub owners but not for miners. Miners are evil! Down with big blocks! People forget that Chinese miners used to be against big blocks due to bandwidth limitations in China. Where did the narrative change? (((Who))) got involved?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:35:46 2017 No.4897408 >>4897058 >You will just have botnets controlling everything instead of legitimate mining ASICs then. ASIC resistance is terrible for decentralization. Finally someone with intelligence in this thread. Cashies are utter retards.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:35:55 2017 No.4897412 >>4896469 t. Brainlet When LN goes live the adoption of btc is going parabolic. Normies don't give a shit about muh satoshis vision.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:38:14 2017 No.4897462 >>4897119 >>4897082 >>4897058 Botnets aren't profitable for high difficulty mining though?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:38:17 2017 No.4897464 >>4897363 As soon as miners double spend, the coin loses all value. The block reward provides better economic incentive than trying to attack the network. Please read the white paper you moronic shill, it literally explains all of that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:39:57 2017 No.4897494 >>4897412 normies dont care about using bitcoin for anything either normies buy it cause they hear its gonna raise in value they probably dont even know what LN does or who runs it

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:40:12 2017 No.4897500

>>4897363
Once LN comes out it'll have been over 4 years since the movement was started. When it doesn't work bitcoin still has absolutely nothing. No need to figure out anything new when onchain scaling + graphene + hardware optimization is enough to take us 10x faster than visa.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:40:40 2017 No.4897514 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=58&v=uL9VoxCFqT0 Here are Vitaliks thoughts on the Bitcoin fork and r/bitcoin's censorship of any and all Bitcoin Cash debate.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:40:57 2017 No.4897518

>>4897363
Another thing, you could say bigger blocks are an interim fix. You could increase to 2mb and see if it works, if not, undo the change. The problem is they KNOW bigger blocks fix the problem outright. They can't make money off bigger blocks. They intentionally stifle scaling in order to market their own solution.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:41:10 2017 No.4897531 >>4897462 Not sure what you are saying about the difficulty part but it is definitely profitable. Every advanced RAT being used right now pretty much has a miner of some sort.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:41:17 2017 No.4897535

>>4897401
Big blocks only scale transactions linearly, from a measly 3-7 tx per second.

Have you done or seen some calculations to get us to VISA/Mastercard levels of transactions per day, including bursts? Running a full node will require buying 8TB disks every few weeks.

The lightning paper talks about increasing the block size, too, btw, so miners will profit from widespread bitcoin adoption. The block size increase is much smaller than you'd need if you scaled linearly, though, and thus even you and me will be able to run a full node. THAT is something that's important for Bitcoin to stay Bitcoin. If I have to trust other people to validate my transactions, the whole Bitcoin experiment is over.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:41:38 2017 No.4897540 >>4897494 They really don't and it's currently being used as a bullshit attempt to lead them on.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:42:31 2017 No.4897559 >>4896785 No you fucking retard, LN fudders are literally everyone except you blockstream shills.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:43:37 2017 No.4897585 >>4897183 when Lightning Network is released, things will change. get rekt, scum.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:43:55 2017 No.4897592 >>4897535 Look up Moore's law, read the white paper. Go look at the actual size of the blockchain. Bigger blocks fix everything and they fix it now. Look at the incentives blockstream has to stifle growth. Think. Use your brain.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:44:05 2017 No.4897597 >>4897535 >thus even you and me will be able to run a full node Running a full node without mining actually just degrades and slows down the network. GOOD THING YOU ARE SO SMART THOUGH RIGHT

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:44:18 2017 No.4897601 >>4897518 Why the fuck did it have to be this way. This should have happened years ago when we still had some commerce and adoption.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:46:30 2017 No.4897651

>>4897559
>literally everyone
sure... "everyone" wants to pay 40 dollars to send 1 dollar. The truth is that you chinese miners are a vile group of people and Lightning Network will fucking destroy your scheme. Can't fucking wait to see your pink wojaks. hahaahhaahah.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:46:32 2017 No.4897653 >>4897535 Nodes don't even utilize more than one core, this is going to change on bitcoin cash. Look up graphene it changes it to 30-70 by compressing transaction data.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:46:42 2017 No.4897660

>>4897464
What are you even replying to. I was talking about Lightning and why it's not a liability unlike centralization of mining power. If you think centralization of mining power is not a problem, be my guest, I don't care. Lightning still doesn't introduce any problems in Bitcoin security, the 51% attack was just an example why someone might see centralization as a problem there, whereas centralization in lightning is a non-issue security wise.

The white paper is only 9 pages long. If you only read that, you are missing out.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:47:55 2017 No.4897703

>>4897651
https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800
not even a real scaling solution
https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/923309367260274688
weeeeeeeeeeeeeee the retards never stop flowing

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:48:38 2017 No.4897718 >>4896618 >Fuck Satoshi's vision xD >normalfags are going to destroying my ticket to ancapistan paradise Fuck it. Im cashing out and buying a pirateship and naming her Ron Paul's Revenge. Time to plunder

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:50:12 2017 No.4897765 File: 57 KB, 800x600, 1423480614219.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4897718 my nigga

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:51:21 2017 No.4897785 >>4897651 >he actually thinks bitcoin and LN will work without miners lets all laugh at him

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:53:36 2017 No.4897826 >>4897660 If you don't think locking up your funds in a payment channel controlled by a centralized hub is a problem, use a bank. Stay the fuck outta crypto. If shit hits the fan while funds are locked in the LN, your funds are gone.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:58:40 2017 No.4897920 >>4897785 at least we will not have to pay 40 dollar transaction fees. that alone crushes all your arguments, you disgusting maggot.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:59:35 2017 No.4897940

>>4897518
I'm not disagreeing that increasing the block size would be a way to increase performance. It's obvious and I agree. Maybe it would even be the right thing to do right now. But it only linearly increases performance, and we need something better.

Even the lightning paper talks about increasing the block size (to 133MB) so we can get to world wide adoption. Look at their calculations, they assume ONE lightning channel per person, open for a full year, and the pruned (not full!) blockchain will only be storable on 2TB of storage. (7TB per year for unpruned)

133MB blocks at the current level without lightning will just give us about 500-600 tx per second, and that's not enough for any meaningful adoption of Bitcoin as a currency.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:00:03 2017 No.4897949 >>4897920 Your coin is the only one with this self induced problem.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:00:15 2017 No.4897956 >>4897920 Uh, by your logic Cashies crush all your arguments because they pay cents to send any money at all while Corecucks pay 10$ minimum. You disgusting maggot.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:00:49 2017 No.4897970

>>4897940
>133MB blocks at the current level without lightning will just give us about 500-600 tx per second, and that's not enough for any meaningful adoption of Bitcoin as a currency.
So it's time to move onto something better right?..or are we forced to stay with king shitcoin

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:01:06 2017 No.4897980 >>4897920 I just transferred $120k worth of BCH last night for 50 cents when the BCH network only had 2.5% of the hash power. NICE TRY THOUGH LOL

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:01:34 2017 No.4897990 File: 27 KB, 221x294, hoerse.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4897920 >trade away everything that gives bitcoin value for convenience Why don't you just use fiat?

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:02:38 2017 No.4898014

>>4897597
Slows down the network? I run my full node on a small server 24/7 and help the p2p network to send transactions and blocks to actual miners, fast.

But please humor me: How does this hurt the network? It's kind of like seeding in bittorrent, and I seed way more than I consume, obviously.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:05:13 2017 No.4898059 >>4896430 What a stupid response some I can understand but why can't you elaborate on why lightning network is such a bad thing?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:06:29 2017 No.4898084 >>4898059 Because after you finished reading all these responses you can only conclude.... the lightning network is the only way forward.......

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:07:34 2017 No.4898103 >>4896002 Im friends with Luke-dashjr brother Ask me anything Reddit!

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:08:08 2017 No.4898114

>>4897826
Hello trader. I don't care about how many $$$ you can get for a bitcoin, I care about bitcoin as an actual currency and store of value. Lightning channels lock funds of both parties, and you can close them within the next block if both parties agree on the outcome.

I'm sorry, but it's all there in the Lightning paper and while 60 pages are a bit hard to digest, that part is actually pretty clear from just one read. They even have diagrams to make it more digestible.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:09:13 2017 No.4898135 >>4896533 These morons are total retards, there's nothing to explain to them... The funny thing is that they've been cucked once with SegWit already, but they are still blind sheep. Incredible.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:09:37 2017 No.4898142 >>4898084 Leddit shills the fuck out of this what mental gymnastics are you on about? >Haha go back to redd it you don't support LN

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:09:57 2017 No.4898151

>>4897970
Yeah, off-chain scaling. Even if you reduced the size of bitcoin transactions by using weaker crypto, you wouldn't get much more than that. Read up on how transactions are built and how outputs are spent with public keys and signatures and realize that you really need all those bytes that go into a normal sized tx.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:10:22 2017 No.4898163 >>4898142 I don't get this conversation anymore.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:13:13 2017 No.4898220

For fags who dont understand LN is centralised way to connect to "centralised" channel and payout multiple times.

For example
A burger works 3hr/day for $10

if i want to pay a burger $30 everyday i dont have to give $5 transaction fee everyday.

Instead i can pay transaction once/week using LN. And it will also be superfast because its not actually doing a "transaction". Burger can only withdraw every week.

So nobody will use that bullshit. Who is using Raiden ? Its tanking. Normies dont know shit about tech and hype shit up.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:14:12 2017 No.4898246 >>4897363 top KEK Are you kidding me? The overcomplicated LN is an ad interim tech and we cannot have bigger blocks, not even temporarily? Pull your head out of your ass, then maybe we can have a meaningful discussion.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:14:22 2017 No.4898249 File: 1.32 MB, 1440x2068, Screenshot_20171208-191229.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4898163 Go back to redd it for shitting on LN haHa

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:16:38 2017 No.4898292

>>4898114
And when the 1mb blocks are so clogged, and people are trying to close a channel to actually get their btc, fees will be so high that they can't. Unless the amount locked up is more than they are willing to pay in fees, their funds will be lost, otherwise they will have a lot less due to fees.

Funny how you want bitcoin to be a currency, what kind of currency forces you to pay to open a channel and then pay to close it? Keep in mind, core is predicting fees of $100 plus dollars. Why not increase block size now and fix that instantly, and then play science experiment with bitcoin?

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:17:01 2017 No.4898306
File: 940 KB, 2248x1434, T-90-ET_2010.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4897970
Technology keeps improving. Within 10 years 1GB of data will be treated as 1MB is today. If you're old enough to remember, 1MB was a shit ton at the turn of the century. Bitcoin Cash aims to scale with technology and demand.
We don't need hundreds of thousands of pathetic african and pajeet half nodes.
1000 strong, independent strong nodes around the planet is enough decentralization. We have to keep thing on chain to get rid of the banking cartel. 1 GB blocks might sound crazy to you know but it will be nothing in 10-20 years. the BU science team has tested it and confirmed it works.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:18:23 2017 No.4898337 >>4897920 LMFAO you should be shot right there, right now. Bitcoin already has $40 transaction fees, and LN won't change shit. You'll have to pay before and after, so probably it'll be more. Just kys

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:18:26 2017 No.4898340

>>4898246
I never claimed that we can't have bigger blocks temporarily. I just claimed they are a bad way to scale long term.

Maybe other political reasons might make an increase of the block size bad, but SegWit actually increased the size to 1.8MB if everybody uses SegWit, so Core is obviously not opposed to increasing the block size a bit.

I wrote some more earlier, see >>4897940

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:20:01 2017 No.4898364 >>4898306 and actually, we can have much more than 1000 strong nodes. Probably closer to 10000 or 20000, even if they cost 20k a piece.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:20:17 2017 No.4898371 How are normies going to use LN ? I’ve watched videos on it and i still don’t really get it ,seems complicated and who’s going to want to lock up funds for a set amount of time ?

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:20:26 2017 No.4898374

>>4897990
>trade away everything that gives bitcoin value
>gives bitcoin value
>value
I don't think the word "value" means what you think it does. Value and price are very different things. Just because it has high priced transactions and this forces the price up, it doesn't mean bitcoin is more valuable this way. Real value will come from real world adoption. a single bitcoin could be worth a lot more if it could be used as an actual payment method. The way it is now, it can only be used for expensive products. even Steam has stopped accepting BTC because of high fees (transaction fees cost more than some games). Bitcoin will never have real value, if it cannot be used as a currency of sorts. Lightning Network will solve this problem. People like you are more concerned with short term mining gains than future adoption. This is the reason why countries like china such shitholes. small mind can't see the potential and real value of things. Bitcoin will be much better once chinese miners are put in their place and have some more competition with LN. Better sell your miners, fucktard. hahahahah
>b-but muh bcash
your shitcoin will lose all it's value once BTC has LN in place. get rekt. XD

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:20:26 2017 No.4898375 >>4896861 >Bigger blocks solve the problem of full blocks you idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No it doesn't. Look at cryptokitties. That one game KO'd the Ethereum network in a day or something.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:20:29 2017 No.4898378

>>4898306
no it wasn't, i clearly remember downloading the eminem and britney spears mp3s from kazaa which were multiple MB in a couple minutes so that i could burn hundreds of them to an mp3 cd to bring to school. moore's law is slowing down. kryder's law has long fallen short.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:21:48 2017 No.4898398 >>4898337 you should have been aborted.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:22:32 2017 No.4898414

>>4898220
>if i want to pay a burger $30 everyday i dont have to give $5 transaction fee everyday.
>Instead i can pay transaction once/week using LN. And it will also be superfast because its not actually doing a "transaction". Burger can only withdraw every week.
Or you could do a bank transfer and pay no fee?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:22:50 2017 No.4898422 >>4897592 >Bigger blocks fix everything and they fix it now. Ethereum just disproved that so, no.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:23:29 2017 No.4898442 >>4898422 Wrong, brainlet.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:24:04 2017 No.4898456

>>4898340
Segwit was marketed as a fix all, opt in solution. People thought segwit would fix the scaling. Wrong. Even if people opted in, and they haven't, because no one trusts it, it's barely an increase in capacity. Now LN is the fix all. When that fails, I wonder what the solution will be, and how far away it is? Literally no one wants to lock up funds. And if they're so open to block size increase, why are they not doing it now AND using the pressure that creates to push their LN?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:24:41 2017 No.4898465 >>4896981 >sold early like a retard, probably before 5k >muh fundementals yeah okay you're totally not bitter

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:24:43 2017 No.4898466

>>4898378
and I get multiple GB in a couple of minutes today. Full nodes will have the fastest bandwith to verify transactions. Just because your poor doesnt mean everyone should be. Lite nodes are useless for the network. If your vision of crypto is everyone running their own little full node you are living in fantasy land.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:24:47 2017 No.4898469 >>4898422 Ethereum is only having problems right now because the blocks aren't big enough. By the way BCH is bringing back OPcodes so prepare for ETH to lose some of that sweet juicy smart contract market share.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:26:24 2017 No.4898500

>>4898292
If fees become so large that they outpace the price of the goods I want to buy (Steam games at the moment, for example), then I guess you are right and this can't work. Bitcoin is deflationary, though, so if everything is working as intended, I'd put my money on the tx fee being (a bit) smaller when the lightning channel is closed after close to a year compared to the fee both parties agreed to with their first undo-tx right before channel creation.

Nobody wants to keep the size limit at 1.8MB forever, and I kind of doubt miners want to sabotage Bitcoin. Do you seriously believe a tx will cost $100 in the future? Why?

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:26:47 2017 No.4898508

>>4898340
segwit did nothing more than to say that if you want bigger blocks, you have to play core's game because otherwise they'll stir up a shitstorm.

even now we have segwit nobody fucking uses it because it means giving up on on-chain scaling, which is what literally everyone with a fucking brain wants.

>2016: hurr durr segwit will fix everything
>2017: hurr durr lightning will fix everything

core's brainwashing really does work

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:27:22 2017 No.4898521 File: 192 KB, 1500x1000, q7z3ygmdas001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4898466 Anon watch your words. If blocks are bigger than 1.33 MB she won't be able to run her full node.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:28:06 2017 No.4898535

>>4898374
You have to pay to open a channel, and pay to close it. No one is going to use LN for daily transactions, as you'd have to open channels for every single place you shop, or might shop with in the future, AND lock up your funds in the mean time.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:31:34 2017 No.4898604 >>4898456 can't wait for another 3 years of controlled infighting about lightning while kykestream think of another diversion :-)

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:32:52 2017 No.4898632

>>4898374
>>4898398
Please explain why you keep posting. You just keep showing how stupid you are.

READ WITH YOUR BRAIN TURNED TO 100%:
LN requires to open and close transactions on chain, so nobody will use it for daily transactions. Also, you have to lock your funds inside. Add to this fact that normiebase does not even have SegWit (which has less than 10% adoption, top kek in itself), and you see where we're headed.

END OF HIGH BRAIN POWER ZONE

You can rest it now.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:34:46 2017 No.4898672

>>4898456
I don't do politics, and I don't care what some shills on reddit try to advertise something as.

For me, SegWit is tech that fixes the problem of tx malleability and that (according to some devs, and I haven't checked this) let them clean up the code base to implement other improvements far easier. That's good enough for me. The 800kbyte block increase was probably a way to incentivice miners to adopt SegWit, while also easing the congestion a bit (but sadly not enough).

It took pretty long for SegWit to go live, and I wouldn't want to orchestrate such an update myself. Maybe that's the reason why the increase was so minor. Changing something on last notice doesn't incite trust.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:35:55 2017 No.4898685
File: 70 KB, 500x489, end.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4898374
You don't understand the core fundamentals and vision of Bitcoin. Even if a single coin is worth 3 million dollars, its still completely worthless if its just another bank run in disguise.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:36:55 2017 No.4898702 This thread actually got pretty active and there are a lot of people who aren't sucking blockstream dick and saying thank you sir after they swallow. It gives me hope.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:37:15 2017 No.4898707 >>4898508 How many tx per second would you want Bitcoin to support? Have you done the calculations on how many HDDs one would have to buy in a year to run Bitcoin like it is supposed to be run (full node) for privacy and other reasons?

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:38:37 2017 No.4898727

>>4898707
>Have you done the calculations on how many HDDs one would have to buy in a year to run Bitcoin like it is supposed to be run (full node) for privacy and other reasons?

Who cares? Let the miners who invest hundreds of millions into giant server farms worry about the cost. Why should you as a Bitcoin user care? The answer is you dont.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:40:12 2017 No.4898759 File: 888 KB, 1280x853, just fuck my shit up.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Adam is trying to control bitcoin because he thinks bitcoin stole from his trash hashcash project which was never successful. This is his way of revenge

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:41:34 2017 No.4898774
File: 125 KB, 1024x500, kek.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4898707
>>4898727
>b-b-b-b-but muh full node

if you care about privacy you should be using zcash anyway, you do realise the point of bitcoin is to make every transaction public right?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:41:55 2017 No.4898782 >>4898759 also not referring to the original hashcash but adams plagiarized version

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:43:25 2017 No.4898814

>>4898727
What? Why do you want to break Bitcoin? Of course I want to have a full copy of the blockchain, I need that to verify transactions MYSELF and to do reorgs after all.

Pruning is somewhat of a fix, but it might cause people to not even have the whole blockchain anymore in the future. If we don't have that, miners might just not give us those blocks, killing the whole Bitcoin project because nobody can join the mining process anymore but those who are already in it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:44:12 2017 No.4898827 File: 741 KB, 1280x853, shillbyo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4898759

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:44:57 2017 No.4898841

>>4898774
There is no reason why Bitcoin can't do something like zcash in the future. Sidechains and MimbleWimble are probable avenues for that. ZCash only has 10% of anonymized txes and they often leave back to normal ones, deanonymizing themselves because of the amount of zcash sent.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:45:39 2017 No.4898858

>>4898672
If you followed the politics, you'd realize there is financial incentive for blockstream to keep blocks small, even when a modest block size increase would ease most of the transaction pressure without increasing centralization. As for $100 fee prediction, just look at increased usage, look at times of network congestion. During BCH's giant pump, I saw txs in the mempool with 0.01-0.1btc fees, the blocks couldn't handle that much action so people were panic increasing their fees to guarantee theirs was confirmed next. Look at the mempool now. A modest block size increase would help, there's no denying it.

I know you're okay with bigger blocks, but take a minute and realize it's not being implemented because blockstream wants to shoehorn their LN.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:49:44 2017 No.4898952

>>4898774
Wrong. ZCash is good only in theory. In practice, there's the trusted setup, there's no privacy by default, most transactions can be linked by tracking the amounts, it's run by a company (based in the US!), its CEO publicly stated that in the future it might be possible to track criminals anyway, etc. The list goes on.

Save yourself from the trouble and switch to Monero if you want real privacy. zk-SNARKS is not good in practice. And if zk-STARKS turns out to be good, Monero devs have already stated they will take it into consideration.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:50:58 2017 No.4898976

>muh locked funds strawman
The same as no one will use debit cards because who wants to put money in the account BEFORE buying?!
The same as no one will rent houses because who wants to pay for accomodation BEFORE they've moved in?!

Muh Locked Funds faggots need to get a grip of themselves, preferably around their own neck

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:52:19 2017 No.4898999 >>4898976 putting money into your debit account doesn't cost $50 and it doesn't take 2 days.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:53:59 2017 No.4899033 >>4898999 Don't bother, by these retards logic they just want Bitcoin to have banks with IOUs.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:54:28 2017 No.4899048

>>4898976
You lock it per entity you're transferring to. Not like a debit card, which you can use with everyone.

Just wait, blockstream will have their own entity you lock it to that interacts with all others. Basically turning LN into a centralized debit system. They'll announce it after LN fails to relieve the congestion on the network and it'll be another 18 months away. But THIS time it will fix EVERYTHING. Trust us guys.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:55:02 2017 No.4899061

>>4898858
It's obvious that the developers of lightning have a financial incentive to push their tech. All I'm saying is that the tech has its merits and that it seems sound from what I read so far.

I'm wondering how you think they will realize that financial gain if their tech is broken because I thought they might make money on lightning+Bitcoin integration for web shops and whatnot, and transactions with lightning will obviously be very cheap, so them running one of those centralized nodes (that anybody can run and advertise for) can't be their gameplan, don't you agree?

The process of getting lightning out of the door was very open, though. Everybody can participate, there's a 60 page paper, they have docs, two nice APIs AFAIK, they answer questions thoroughly, etc. Oh, and that first lightning transaction two days ago was actually something that worked with different implementation of lightning (three IIRC), so they do not have a monopoly on lightning capable tech, right?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:55:25 2017 No.4899073 The Truth About The Bitcoin Lightning Network https://youtu.be/6V365_59-Lc

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:58:38 2017 No.4899129

>>4898999
I would tell you how you're wrong but I see Kek himself has your back. Go in peace, anon

>>4899048
Your debit card is locked to your issuing provider. Unless you're poor you'll have other cards from other providers and use the one that's most useful at the time. Same with LN. Pay a buck to open a channel to 6 different providers, use whichever's most useful, settle up at the end of the month.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:01:34 2017 No.4899183 File: 26 KB, 600x600, mockup-1fabe619.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4899129 >i would tell you how you're wrong but i don't actually know tell me more anon, please.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:04:15 2017 No.4899229 >>4899048 Screencapped because truth.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:04:38 2017 No.4899238

>>4899061
Yup, anyone can work on LN. But you're ignoring the politics again. Look at the direction it's pushing BTC in. Take a minute to understand the conflict of interest inherent in their financial incentive to push their tech. It's open and free, as long as it's their tech. Everyone can work on it and test it and promote it for BTC, as long as it's LN. Their tech isnt "broken" it works just fine for what they want.

>>4899073
Watch this guy's video, and tell me this isn't exactly the direction BTC is being pushed in. Tell me that the censorship on r/bitcoin and BCH hate isnt exactly what would be expected if it's true.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:05:29 2017 No.4899255 >>4899183 Sure. It wouldn't be $50 (fewer shitty transactions on chain = less demand = lower fees) and wouldn't take two days (which appears to be a non-sequiter you've invented for the occasion.)

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:06:02 2017 No.4899270 >>4899129 Can you read what you wrote yourself? You just wrote that we'll have "providers" (= banks) on the LN layer. So much for the peer-to-peer topology uh? This one lasted only a couple of days, haha

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:07:32 2017 No.4899298

Look at the mindset behind the types of people behind core. They just flat out refuse to admit that people should be using alt coins instead of Shitcoin core. Also does anyone have source for this vid?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUgL-4fx2JE&feature=youtu.be

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:07:37 2017 No.4899303

>>4899255
No one wants to lock away their funds.
People want to send bitcoin, peer to peer, not deposit into their debit account.

The reason people switched to bitcoin in the first place was for absolute control over their funds. Secondary layers abstract away that control. One step at a time.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:07:40 2017 No.4899305 >>4899270 Literally anyone who can run a wallet can be a provider. Your characterising him as bank doesn't, you know, /actually/ make him one.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:09:52 2017 No.4899353 >>4899073 That's pretty fucking scary that's the shit they also do with derivatives and futures trading. It looks like cryptos aren't even safe from it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:10:19 2017 No.4899363 >>4899305 No, because in practice the network will centralize around bigger hubs. Just see.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:10:47 2017 No.4899374 File: 462 KB, 640x480, 1450476387031.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Big banks are clearly proping up BTC price and hyping it up for the normies. If you like your coin kike-free, the logical choice is BCH (Monero in my case)

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:10:59 2017 No.4899378

If blockstream wanted what was best for BTC, they wouldnt be leveraging the congested network to push their "solution". BTC would get a modest blocksize increase, miner centralization wouldn't happen from this and it'd immediately solve the problem at hand, and then they could work on Layer 2 solutions and see if anyone wanted them.

Instead they use the congested network as a reason to push and shoehorn their way into BTC's code.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:11:31 2017 No.4899387 >>4899363 >In practice In theory really. Anyone who doesn't think that every big banker in the world will be competing to pay a higher price to run a node to collect fees is probably a deluded communist.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:12:37 2017 No.4899408

>>4899073
This whole video does not talk about the tech behind lightning, and what it enables. Lightning does not require you to trust anybody, just like bitcoin doesn't require it.

Calling lightning channel transactions IOUs is misleading (because it's not just an IOU, you basically have a redeemable bitcoin contract that has nothing to do with lightning, it just exists because you could put it onto the blockchain because it's properly signed), and saying that you 'give them your bitcoins' is false, too, of course, because nobody can steal your bitcoins from you via lightning if you don't sign a transaction confirming that.

The video also doesn't talk about lightning networks and assumes everybody has to deal with a central instance because of that. Very misleading IMO, they should at least note that networks are in planning and say they won't work if they believe so.

Oh, and of course everybody can be 'the central bank' with lightning. There's no reason why blockstream would be the only one. I can be the central bank if I have a few bitcoin lying around to open channels with other people (If I can risk them being stolen because someone hacked my 'central bank node'.) If I'm nice, I just charge 0 fee and live with the danger.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:13:44 2017 No.4899425

>>4899303
>No one wants to lock away their funds.
How can you say that with a straight face when 95% of people here are hodling/marines and are doing exactly that for months on end? Especially when a channel can live for as short as ten minutes.
>People want
The market will describe what people want.

>>4899363
You could equally say "democratising" bank ownership, devolving it to individuals. Your attempt to scare doesn't work here, anon

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:16:13 2017 No.4899482

>>4899408
principles come before tech, let's talk about those instead

additionally, blockstream have shown that if you don't support their tech they'll kick you off, so all "hubs" will be running a blockstream-supported node.

blockstream don't have to host the servers, they just have to control the software.

this is an honest man-to-man question: do you think blockstream wants control over bitcoin or not?

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:16:17 2017 No.4899485

>>4899408
>You don't have to trust everyone
What happens if a large group of LN nodes decide to shut down while the network is congested? You will literally have to pay extravagant fees to escape or you will have to wait for days. So yes you do have to trust them.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:17:12 2017 No.4899500 >>4899408 What the fuck is tether is that another scam?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:17:28 2017 No.4899511 >>4899425 >The market will describe what people want. We can agree on that one. People only want BTC right now because they think they can sell it higher. Feels good to be invested in BCH, invested in because of the fundamentals, and not some HODL meme.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:17:42 2017 No.4899517 >>4899500 tether is mt.gox v2

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:18:57 2017 No.4899540 >>4899425 >The market will describe what people want. The market is heavily manipulated, same public opinion and "want"

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:20:06 2017 No.4899563 >>4899378 >Unironically pushing a hardfork in these times

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:21:34 2017 No.4899599 File: 155 KB, 642x401, we-both-know-you-read-it.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4899511 Agreed then! I trust your not this BCH guy because you've been RAPED while I've doubled.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:22:15 2017 No.4899614 >>4899563 It'd be more of a soft-fork, only people would pretend they don't want it so they can dump their BTC before Blockstream admits they're a bunch of crooks keeping the 1mb limit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:22:15 2017 No.4899615 >>4899500 I never wrote tether anywhere. Did you misclick?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:22:40 2017 No.4899622 >>4899485 >What happens if a large group of LN nodes decide to shut down while the network is congested? Why would the do that?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:22:52 2017 No.4899627 >>4899563 The fork already happened.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:23:06 2017 No.4899630

>>4899408
So you're a fucking normie idiot with a fucking normie bank account at your local chase fucking manhattan fucking lightning node, or whatever the fuck it is ends up getting branded over the situation to convince you everything is copacetic, and your lightning node tells you that you have a balance of 1 BTC, but it's also telling nine other wastes of oxygen just like you they have the same amount of BTC, despite it only having 1 BTC on the actual blockchain to cover the total 10 BTC outstanding on its client ledgers, from which it earns fees and whatever other revenue generation scheme the kikes working there have implemented.

Expose the scam without terminating the lightning channel back to the blockchain.

Go ahead, I'll wait. Keep in mind you don't see the outstanding balance of any of your compatriot wastes of oxygen before making a bigger fool of yourself.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:24:53 2017 No.4899666 >>4899615 No Mr. Blankfein but I'm not falling for your tricks

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:26:54 2017 No.4899712

>>4899622
There are literally a million reasons why.
>Power outage
>Government shuts it down
>Not profitable enough because the network becomes so congested that only super hubs can afford to run nodes
>Not profitable enough because nobody else joins in on the node
>Organized attack on Bitcoin
Hell all a government would need to do to kill Bitcoin is take down a moderate amount of large nodes and it'd be Mt Gox 2.0 because nobody can get their money out without paying hundreds or even thousands of dollars. This whole Lightning Network bullshit is just re-inventing the wheel in a way that benefits Blockstream.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:26:58 2017 No.4899715
File: 17 KB, 300x318, iswydt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4899630
It can't declare to have 10BTC if they only have 1BTC: the open channel transaction on the chain declares which 1BTC they have. That BTC is then locked until the channel closes. Any attempt to declare a second 1BTC would be discarded as the chain reveals they only possess 1 BTC.

Consider yourself spanked.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:27:02 2017 No.4899717 File: 62 KB, 600x600, supa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4899630

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:29:21 2017 No.4899780

>>4899712
>Power outage
affecting the entire world you have bigger problems than btc
>Government shuts it down
Goes to another country
>Not profitable enough because the network becomes so congested that only super hubs can afford to run nodes
fees rise to keep them in the game
>Not profitable enough because nobody else joins in on the node
fees rise to keep them in the game
>Organized attack on Bitcoin
You mean dragonslayer? Fuck off out of it mate.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:30:18 2017 No.4899799 >>4899715 >declare Right, thank you for proving you don't understand a fucking thing about what is actually happening in the situation you shitstain fuckstick.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:32:36 2017 No.4899842 File: 9 KB, 211x239, irustlejimmies.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4899799 You sound rustled. Are you rustled? Go learn how to blockchain and you'd feel much less humiliated than now.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:32:40 2017 No.4899843 >>4899780 You haven't answered the question. What are the people with their fees previously locked away going to do to be able to send any money? It doesn't matter that there are new nodes you utter fucking dunce.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:33:49 2017 No.4899866

>>4899482
Aren't there three different implementations that proved interoperability two days ago already? Doesn't look like there need to be 'blockstream supported nodes' at all, at least not right now (and they seem to have put lots of effort into that, too! Don't you agree?)

From what I noticed when reading up on this whole stuff and getting involved I don't think blockstream wants to monopolize power over Bitcoin, but they really want it to scale well and be used by many people, and they even realize this won't happen if it appears as if new monopolies are created, and they also realize that this might jeopardize the whole Bitcoin experiment (or delay it very much)

So, man-to-man: No, right now (after a few weeks of really diving into this) I do not thing they want to monopolize Bitcoin, and I do think they are honest nerds excited to make banks obsolete.
I notice there's many people rooting for BCH coming into their channels and asking questions and they try to answer them, so they obviously know all the arguments we have exchanged already. And I really got the impression that this is the reason why they know they wouldn't get away with a centralized solution. On top of that, this tech isn't easy to understand, let alone implement. They have to be hard core nerds and programmers to implement them. And those kind of people just don't like centralization, either, and they don't have to work in Bitcoin against their own ethics, they can just earn real money elsewhere. I guess I'm rambling, but 'man-to-man', this is my personal judgement of the politics that I usually try to stay out of because I see so many people not understanding the tech and technical reasons because they focus on politics too much (not you included, btw)

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:34:44 2017 No.4899881

>>4899843
>What are the people with their fees previously locked away going to do to be able to send any money?
Their fees are locked until the channel expires. If rapidity is what they're after, it'll expire in ten minutes. They can then raise their fees and try again, or not; what they do with their money is up to them

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:36:24 2017 No.4899910 >>4899881 Fees for what? An on-chain transaction? They will be past thousands of dollars once Bitcoin is even used moderately around the world.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:36:32 2017 No.4899914

>>4899842
Calling a spade a spade doesn't make me rustled, people who think this is all just magic, like yourself and all the fuckwits like you spouting off in this channel, rather than an arrangement consisting of multiple entities where channels have varying levels of visibility and there are limited avenues to expose defection and don't realise the blindingly fucking obvious consequences of the scenario are cattle proceeding to the slaughterhouse commenting how nicely the Temple Grandin designed meat conveyor belt massages their simplistic limbic system.

also kys.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:40:35 2017 No.4899997

>>4899630
Already answered by >>4899715, but I have time so:

Step 1: I have the blockchain and look at it
Step 2: My lightning funding tx with Mr. Moneybanks has finally been commited to the blockchain. Great!
Step 3: I can create a new tx that gives Mr. Moneybanks some of my bitcoin or the other way around

There is no way to pretend to have the same x Bitcoin multiple times. The tx is put onto the blockchain, and the TXO are no longer UTXOs, so they can't be used again.

https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:41:17 2017 No.4900010 >>4899866 three different implementations, all funded by the same jews?

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:41:25 2017 No.4900013

>>4899910
If that were so then Bitcoin would be used for transactions where thousand dollar fees make sense, not for buying some numale a covfefe. I don't see a problem there.

>>4899914
Yes, definitely rustled. Just think! All this effort you put into this fantasy that people can just airily declare they own BTC the blockchain says they doesn't, and all it tooks was someone like me to bring it all down on your head. I suggest you head back to AOL where it'll take more than a few minutes to find someone smarter than you

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:43:25 2017 No.4900063 >>4900013 >I don't see a problem there. It means Bitcoin literally has no use case. No use, no value. No value and your crypto becomes nothing more than a glorified ponzi-scheme that collapses.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:44:19 2017 No.4900084

>>4899630
>Expose the scam
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/56ehi1/fractional_reserve_on_lightning_network/

It's not possible with Lightning. For each satoshi on the Lightning network, at least one satoshi on the Bitcoin network is tied up and unspendable.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:45:40 2017 No.4900119 >>4900063 Sure it does. There are trillions in international trade wired weekly if not daily. For a thousand bucks a time? You bet your ass bankers would buy their own kneepads if you'd do it for that price

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:46:23 2017 No.4900135

>>4899997
You can see the blockchain. The blockchain can't see what the lightning node is telling you that you have. You can terminate the channel back to the blockchain, and if that was done by multiple parties at once with enough total outstanding that it zeroed out the balance of the lightning node, the last people to close the channel just end up getting fucked.

It's a simple necessary consequence of the visibility of the channels, and the entire *purpose* of off chain scaling as a technical solution to the supposed limits of on chain scaling is that visibility must be limited to the chain, otherwise hey, it's a fucking on chain transaction and the entire rube goldberg machine is exposed for the useless contraption it is.

Look up the difference between the original suggested high frequency nakamoto channels and the poon-dryja channels which are the fundamental building block of the lightning network in the very paper which you cite. The implementor of the system has flat out acknowledged that this could happen, so just fucking get over thinking you're smarter than me and have it all figured out. You believe in fairy tales and you are a fucking ignorant cunt.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:47:33 2017 No.4900154 >>4900084 > bullshit https:// www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/56ehi1/fractional_reserve_on_lightning_network/d8j35pa/ Who the fuck is the author of that comment you fucking abject waste of space?

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:48:40 2017 No.4900178

>>4900119
Except bankers wouldn't be using it, because the price would be from free-fall because middle class people would be dumping it. You have serious survivor-ship bias if you think Bitcoins shitty network will be saved by bankers who have been calling it a ponzi in order to save their asses since it surfaced.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:52:02 2017 No.4900245 >>4900084 >G0ymqyhc Sounds like friend ... but that ID tho! >>4900178 Trust me ... people with trillions to move don't give a fuck about what the few remaining middle classes are dumping

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:55:23 2017 No.4900309 >>4896736 Channels are transitive, you'll just open one with a "hub" with decent fee that will route your payments. Portfolio apps will do that for your automatically. You'll still be able to open manual channels with your BFFs if you want.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:56:49 2017 No.4900351 >>4900245 >j-just trust me bro the big bankers love to use a slow piece of garbage coin that nobody even buys anything with DELUDED

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:00:05 2017 No.4900412

>>4900154
>"someone could implement fractional reserve that interfaced with lightning (or, bitcoin for that matter)"
>interfaced with lightning
>interfaced with lightning
>interfaced with lightning
He's writing about some 3rd system that interfaces with LN, not LN itself. He's talking about a fiat->LN side chain.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:00:36 2017 No.4900424

>>4900119
So the last meme is "Bitcoin: transactions for bankers"? That's ridiculous, because the majority of people wouldn't be using it. At this point they might use Ripple for their things. And please, I don't believe for a second that you would. Or are you /biz/'s very own banker?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:01:57 2017 No.4900444 >>4900424 I sure wouldn't use ripple. Well, maybe I'd atomic swap a sat or two for one to pay for a holiday

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:02:16 2017 No.4900447

>>4900412
Which part of "off chain transactions are necessarily vulnerable to this attack by the very nature of their being off chain" do you not understand? Were you dropped on your head as a child? How do I push this through that fucking mass of adipose tissue I am supposed to call a brain? Clearly showing you the actual guy that is creating the system actually telling you that I am right and you are wrong is not enough.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:03:27 2017 No.4900475

>>4896911
>>4897119
No peer can rob the other with LN.
At worst they can force an early settlement (works both ways), everyone getting its unspent money back.
It's like a bank account but you can hit the panic button anytime and close it in less than an hour, getting all the coins remaining on your balance. Nothing they can do to stop it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:04:50 2017 No.4900503 >>4900447 Cite please - it's not in that reddit thread, not in this thread other than you, and doesn't bring any results from gurgle

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:06:54 2017 No.4900543

>>4900475
You've got a signed check from the most serene bank of the blockchain which operates in perfect public view at all times to draw on the account of your lightning hub for the amount of x.

You do not, however, have any fucking idea how many other people have the exact same signed check, and the most serene bank of the blockchain will most serenely inform you that the account of your lightning hub is at zero balance and therefore your signed check is an invalid transaction, when all those other people terminate their lightning channels with the most serene bank of the blockchain before you do.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:08:57 2017 No.4900591

>>4900503
It *IS* in that reddit thread. That is the guy who is actually implementing the project admitting that a hub *could* do this thing, and saying "we'll see if it actually happens in reality", implying he thinks it will not.

The fact is it's a necessary consequence of off chain transactions that it's possible, end of fucking story. Do the fucking math in your head, I have literally rubbed your fucking face in it for multiple posts now, if that's not going to do it for you you're just beyond any hope of redemption.

Accept the fact; the lightning network is about providing bankers with a new realm in which they can ply their old tricks, nothing more, nothing less, end of fucking story.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:10:00 2017 No.4900613 >>4900444 Oh no I meant if you would use Bitcoin if fees are in the thousands.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:10:10 2017 No.4900618 File: 410 KB, 956x1196, 1500289781514.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4900543 DO NOT NAME THE BEAST

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:11:00 2017 No.4900637

>>4900135
I don't know what you want to say here:
>if that was done by multiple parties at once with enough total outstanding that it zeroed out the balance of the lightning node, the last people to close the channel just end up getting fucked

There is just one channel in my example, that channel with Mr. Moneybanks. What are you going on about with multiple parties and zeroing out balances and last people closing a channel. Either Mr. Moneybanks and I agree on closing it by signing an appropriate tx, or either of us close it with the last agreed upon tx (with the downside of having to wait a few blocks until our own funds are free IIRC).

If that was an attempt to explain a problem with lightning networks over multiple hops, I'm interested, but it has nothing to do with the post you are refering to.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:14:40 2017 No.4900699
File: 14 KB, 919x88, pantsonfire.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4900591
Pic related. 0/0 found.
>It *IS* in that reddit thread.
You'll have no trouble linking to it then, or withdrawing your claim, or revealing yourself to be a bit of a twit.

>>4900613
Oh you're right. I'd make THEM pay the thousand dollar fee to transfer them the trillions!

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:15:30 2017 No.4900716

>>4900475
The blockchain doesn't know all of our transactions.
If I announce an earlier tx (where you have 0.5 btc and I have 0.5 btc, despite me actually giving you the 0.5 btc in a later tx and you giving me something in return for that, for example fiat) and you do nothing, I just stole 0.5 btc from you.

I won't do that, though, because I can't DoS the blockchain for 1000 blocks (or however long was decided upon beforehand) and prevent you from releasing a TX that gives YOU -all- of the funds in the initial commitment. You can only release that TX if I release the 'stealing' old TX, so I'm have a good incentive to stay honest. If you were to do nothing, though, I could steal.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:15:48 2017 No.4900720

>>4900637
You're not getting that who you refer to as "Mr Moneybanks" will have thousands of other counterparties, and each of them will have a minescule fraction of the total outstanding balance locked away in that major hub's account, because the only topology that actually works for routing in the architecture is a centralised hub and spoke topology, so that is what will actually fucking be the majority topology in the actual real fucking world, for fuck's sake.

All transactions that those counterparties make with the major hub are only visible to that counterparty and the major hub, this necessarily means that major hub can run a fractional reserve. Yes, it can all come crashing down if the counterparties do a digital bank run and terminate their channels to the blockchain simultaneously, given that they all have enough in on chain fees to do that, and there's throughput to allow it and etc, but none of that stops the actual con from taking place to begin with, nor its continuance in the absence of such a digital blockchain bank run.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:16:51 2017 No.4900735 >>4900699 I don't need to cite that a thing is not seen by saying "when a thing is not seen, it is not seen". That is what an off chain transaction is you utter fuckwit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:19:53 2017 No.4900794 >>4900720 But... the funds Mr. Moneybanks sent between him and anon would be tied up in the channel between them, or "spoke", he can't open a spoke with somebody else without tying up more funds from the blockchain.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:20:19 2017 No.4900802 >>4900618 I have no idea what you're talking about.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:20:32 2017 No.4900805 >>4900735 >I don't need to cite No, it's that you CAN'T cite. Educated people know the difference even when you don't.Go practice with your crayons

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:21:23 2017 No.4900818 >>4900794 Anybody on the same node can be scammed by Mr. Moneybanks.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:21:55 2017 No.4900825

>>4900720
Sorry, I don't get what you mean with fractional reserve in that context, or what me having a channel open with them has to do with other people having a channel opened with them, too.

I'm too tired to continue, but I'll check back here tomorrow, maybe re-read what you wrote in full.

Just to be sure: Are you talking about an addon to the lightning network, or are you only talking about features present in the paper?

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:23:23 2017 No.4900867

>>4900794
What dictates the balance of an account at the terminus of the machine represented by blockchain -> LN hub -> account holder?

Iterate the above scenario for tens of thousands of account holders.

At what point does the blockchain know that the LN hub is running fractional reserve? Keep in mind, I'm not at all claiming that the answer to this is "never".

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:24:25 2017 No.4900893

>>4900805
I can't cite that an off chain transaction is not visible to the blockchain.

That is seriously the claim that you want to sit here and make to me, right?

Go fuck yourself you fucking waste of oxygen cunt, I'm done even trying to communicate with you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:25:49 2017 No.4900929 >>4900893 I'm asking you to cite your quote that "off chain transactions are necessarily vulnerable to this attack by the very nature of their being off chain" Why is that so hard for you? Syllables too long?

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:26:05 2017 No.4900935

>>4900825
I'm talking about any system which relies on off chain transactions, given that the essential property of an off chain transaction is that they are not reconciled to the ledger on the blockchain. Lightning meets this description and is therefore vlunerable, but any similar system would also be vulnerable to the exact same weakness. It's a simple necessary consequence of having off chain transactions, period.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:27:35 2017 No.4900964

>>4900929
It doesn't need citation anymore than saying you're necessarily going to get wet if you go swimming. That you can't get it through your fucking thick skull does not change that. Fuck me. It's very fucking simple, off chain means not on chain, it's fucking binary, get it? Not on chain necessarily means the chain doesn't know about it just like swimming means fucking submersed in liquid.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:29:22 2017 No.4901006

>>4900867
It would always be full-reserve because every bidirectional payment channel LN hub owner Mr.Moneybanks opens with an account holder ties up real blockchain funds. He can't double-spend and open up two channels using the same funds from the blockchain.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:30:45 2017 No.4901040

>>4900964
Then it's truth by assertion and you should REALLY ask for a refund on your schooling.

>>>4900935
>they are not reconciled to the ledger on the blockchain.
But they are: the open channel commits in advance a sum they're prepared to handle to the ONE individual who opens that channel. Their partner then knows he can transact against that one sum, drawing it down. Then close the channel in the happy knowledge that he hasn't been gypped.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:31:50 2017 No.4901066 >>4901040 >But they are: the open channel commits in advance a sum they're prepared to handle to the ONE individual who opens that channel. Exactly, yeah.. what the fuck is he talking about LOL.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:33:47 2017 No.4901106 >>4901006 OK, so when the account holder opens a new account with the bank, the blockchain sees a zero balance on that account, we agree at this stage, right?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:35:17 2017 No.4901130 >>4901106 No, it sees the funds from the two participants in a multi-sig address.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:35:58 2017 No.4901148

>>4901066
He's clearly got the wrong end of a stick somewhere and his fighting what he believes to be true. It's almost messianic.

The thought he could make tens of millions if he was actually right just hasn't occured to him

>>4901106
No, he sees the funds committed to the channel

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:36:14 2017 No.4901153

>>4901040
Outlining the observable properties of two potential boolean states in a system is not "proof by assertion" cocksnot. In a million years you are clearly incapable of figuring out how to define the visibility from the perspective of the blockchain with regards to an off chain transaction, despite the answer to the question being firmly embedded in the fucking definition.

Just be done with it and kys.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:37:25 2017 No.4901181 >>4901153 Quoting yourself is absolutely truth by assertion because it sure as hell isn't truth from authority

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:37:58 2017 No.4901193

>>4901130
Which is for the purposes of the bank, what the blockchain thinks it has, which will be some massive fucking number, and the balance of the new account holder, which will be absent some deposit to make it otherwise, fucking zero. Are you there yet or do I need to spell this out even more slowly?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:39:00 2017 No.4901212 >>4901181 As if the only possible sources of truth were assertion or authority. You really are a fucking idiot.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:41:40 2017 No.4901253 >>4901193 That gibberish doesn't even remotely describe how it works.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:41:52 2017 No.4901259 >>4901193 "I'm prepared to commit $50" said John "And I'm prepared to commit another $50" said Jane "WHAAARGARBL the two $50s cancel each other out!" said ZjxhXU/L deary deary deary deary me baka

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:44:53 2017 No.4901318

>>4900935
Before I really head to bed just a short reply, maybe that's where our understanding differs. I'll still re-read everything tomorrow and respond again:

Lightning is not just one tx. It's actually four transactions per new off-chain agreed on tx.

One I could release and another the other person could release (same tx effect wise minus the detail that it takes a few blocks for the funds to go to the person putting that tx onto the blockchain).

On top of that, there's also a TX per person that can spend the funds of the 2nd output going to the announcer after 1000 blocks, but it can spend them immediately and to my address instead of the original persons.

if we want to invalidate an old off-chain tx, we have to invalidate both of those txes above. We do that by exchanging the secrets to the 'I can spend your 2nd output if you ever release that old tx' and checking that they are correct.

Did you understand that part of lightning, or are you arguing against single off-chain txes that both people signed, without the special sauce of lightning I just described?

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:46:58 2017 No.4901354

>>4901253
Bullshit, it's a multisig bidirectional transaction channel with two parties having recourse at any time to theoretically terminate the channel to the blockchain. That is what it fucking is, end of story. The LN hub has a massive balance to facilitate its massive transaction throughput, and the new account holder has effectively zero.

When the LN hub credits that account with an amount, it does so via the channel, that channel could then theoretically be terminated to the blockchain, but in ordinary circumstances would not be. Furthermore, that channel is only visible to the parties on both ends of it until one of them chooses to terminate it to the blockchain in its present state.

Therefore, there is no way to know from the perspective of the blockchain ledger as an observer now listen very fucking carefully to this next part because you chuckleheads are simply continuously missing this necessary truth; how much total outstanding is on balance on channels that IT CANNOT SEE.

Yes, when those channels are terminated by the endpoints in a bank run scenario, the hub fractional reserve game becomes clear. Before then, it is invisible.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:49:18 2017 No.4901396

>>4901318
Actually too tired to explain this in short while staying unambiguous.

If you read the paper, you know what I mean, and which two txes needs to be disincentiviced to be announced by those two 'I get all your coins if I know the secret you will tell me so I agree that our newly signed tx has actually gone through' txes becoming live (but staying unannounced until you try to defraud me with an old tx)

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:49:40 2017 No.4901401

>>4896156
Completely centralized the coin.
Charging extra to use certain hubs.
The new ability to generally know where a transaction actually took place through positioning of the hub.
Black lists from certain wallets are now possible to prevent people from using their coins.
Thieves can now track you down by watching your transactions.
If all hubs are shut down then the coin is rendered useless.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:50:18 2017 No.4901414 >>4901354 You seem to be asserting that the account holder would do more business than the hub committed to at the outset. Why would he do that?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:54:17 2017 No.4901480 The hubs will not be cheap to maintain. People will have to charge money to make sure they stay up so transaction fees will have to be put in place. If the hub own makes money then the hub own has to report every single transaction to the IRS.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:56:46 2017 No.4901519

>>4901414
I am asserting no such thing, but it does not surprise me at all you have somehow layered yet another misinterpretation on the very simple core fact that LN is necessarily vulnerable to fractional reserve by virtue of its very nature of an off chain transaction layer.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 21:57:43 2017 No.4901536

>>4901354
>Therefore, there is no way to know from the perspective of the blockchain ledger as an observer how much total outstanding is on balance on channels that IT CANNOT SEE.

There is never any outstanding balance. Example: The funding tx of each channel puts 1 bitcoin from A and 1 bitcoin from B into an output. They also create a TX that puts 1 bitcoin back to A and 1 back to B. Now what A and B can do is create another TX that gives B 1.1 and A 0.9. If we finalize this, we still have 2 BTC going back, just in a different ratio to A and B.

Could you tell me where the outstanding balance would be here? Or what you'd call the outstanding balance?

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 22:00:57 2017 No.4901595

>>4901354
Moneybanks owns 10 BTC. He decides he wants to be a "central banker hub owner". So he opens a bi-directional multi-sig transaction with Jane with 5 of his BTC and she commits the same amount. The blockchain KNOWS there is a total amount of 10 BTC inbetween Jane and Moneybanks but it just doesn't know what the balance between them is until committed, it's FULL RESERVE. So at the same time Moneybanks opens another channel with Brock and they commit another 5 BTC each. Now Moneybanks can act as an intermediary between Jane and Brock by but the total amount of BTC in the system will always be the same. It's not fractional reserve. Now all his 10 BTC are tied up in this, if he tries to open another "fractional reserve" channel by double spending his BTC, he literally can't because it requires real funds in a multi-sig address to do it.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 22:03:31 2017 No.4901635

>>4901536
You keep using a theoretical model that simply isn't going to match the actual model of the system deployed in reality. Peer to peer routing in a fully decentralised lightning network is flatly impossible, the only topology that works is major hubs and minor clients, and so you will have channels created on that basis, and on that basis your massively overpowered relative to the minor endpoint clients central hubs will necessarily be able to run a fractional reserve by virtue of the fact that they are dealing with off chain transactions not subject to reconciliation to the actual settlement ledger, period.

It is a necessary consequence of divorcing the settlement and transaction layers of the system. It is a known vulnerability often discussed for years now in many different places, and likely the reason OP simply stated for a fact at the outset that the LN was a steaming heap of shit without having to go through this well established set of truths beforehand.

I see now I was a glutton for punishment for even imagining I should bring it to the attention and explain in detail to people who are seemingly incapable of grasping it, and I'm just going to leave it at that. For anyone who cares to do the research, it is trivial to verify that all of this is just a fact. For anyone who wants to continue living in the dream world, well, you'll get what you deserve in the long run, and don't need me to yell at you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 22:03:33 2017 No.4901637 File: 54 KB, 825x510, DNUdxmAXkAADPcU.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4896430 Friendly Reminder :)

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 22:03:49 2017 No.4901647
File: 55 KB, 500x432, inigo1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4901519
>fact
Well if you're saying the account holder would do no more business with the hub than that visible on the blockchain, where do you get fractional reserve from?

Here's an idea. Can you link to anyone else who thinks like you do?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 22:07:52 2017 No.4901702 Its simple to put it this way. If you want a system that works with the blockchain it has to work within the blockchain. If you want a system that works outside of the blockchain you are no longer working within the blockchain.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 22:15:05 2017 No.4901812

>>4901647
https:// bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/
https:// www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/71ugcz/really_want_to_know_what_the_segwit_lightning/
https:/ /www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V365_59-Lc&feature=youtu.be
https:// www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6wy0lu/how_to_turn_bitcoin_into_a_settlement_layer_1/
https:// www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7dk4x8/segwit_and_the_ability_to_introduce_sidechains/
https:// medium.com/@jgarzik/bitcoin-is-being-hot-wired-for-settlement-a5beb1df223a
https:// blog.coinbase.com/what-happened-at-the-satoshi-roundtable-6c11a10d8cdf
https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgqtcu0zo-k
https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoFb3mcxluY
https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=By0w43NQdiY
https:// www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7cqrwg/repost_holy_shit_the_real_goal_of_the_people_who/
https:// www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7fsbw5/divorcing_the_settlement_and_transaction_layers/
https:// www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4eryfm/ln_supporters_claim_ln_will_never_missioncreep_or/
https:// www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6eyk3a/fractional_reserve_banking_comes_to_bitcoin/
https:// bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-487#post-17813
https:// www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4rl2gp/hal_finney_talking_about_bitcoin_banks_with/

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 22:17:38 2017 No.4901847 >>4901812 Much obliged. Will read up and see you in the next bread

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 22:43:17 2017 No.4902285

>>4901812
IDK if you are still there, but if you are, what really helped understand your point was this: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6eyk3a/fractional_reserve_banking_comes_to_bitcoin/diei5na/

Your point is a more general than the lightning network: there's nothing to stop Bank of America from /saying/ they're offering BTC accounts to people who don't have blockchain access. This is something I would agree, however my solution can wait til next time.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 23:32:52 2017 No.4903223 >>4902285 Here's a super novel revolutionary solution which nobody before has ever considered, just quietly, to the problem of off chain transactions being implicitly vulnerable to this class of attacks; transact on chain.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 23:38:59 2017 No.4903334 File: 2 KB, 490x136, .png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] thoughts?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 23:39:57 2017 No.4903348 The fucking core devs want to rewrite a new white paper

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 23:51:59 2017 No.4903562 >>4899374 Monero is the coin you literally can't fuck up buying. No coins comes close to its functionality in drug trade/laundering.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 23:52:37 2017 No.4903569 >>4903348 That's what you do when you take over a project and completely re-architect it directly contrary to the original goals no? New constitution frequently follows a coup.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 00:15:56 2017 No.4904003

>>4902285
>there's nothing to stop Bank of America from /saying/ they're offering BTC accounts to people who don't have blockchain access.

Have you seen the amount of patents BoA is getting for cryptocurrency?

https://www.coindesk.com/bank-america-filed-20-blockchain-patents-already/

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/biz/ - Business & Finance