'LN rube goldberg network'
thats a perfect description. Hilarious because its true. thanks!
I responded to your Monero comment and didn't say a single word about samourai or your beloved brown knots in my original comment. But youre still seething too hard about someone else in another comment thread to read correctly. Yes, you should pay attention. Yea that's very different from me saying that I said you can "stop a monero update" by swapping (All we have to do is scroll up and read to prove you wrong).
How do Monero users "swim through swamps of KYC" if it is delisted everywhere? Choose an argument. Are we "celebrating being delisted" everywhere? Or are we not being delisted? Make up your mind. The fuck. You can use a DEX, you don't have to KYC and bend over every time they ask you to. But hey man if thats your thing I'm not judging.
Your entire LN rube goldberg network that no one uses without custodians or LSPs that can see everything they do is a tenth the size of Monero. Liquid is 99.9% empty blocks. And all your coinjoin protocols combined are still smaller than Monero. It's sad. Bitcoin is 99% p2p larps, speculators, and tradfi.
We can pick apart the totally bullshit "70% self run" LN nodes by just looking at how many Bitcoin nodes exist vs Bitcoin users. You're telling me that even though only a tiny fraction of Bitcoin users run their own simple nodes...those same users suddenly decide to deal with all the complexities of running an LN node? What are you smoking? Sounds fun
I'll humor you. Let's say that were true. Sybil attacks have absolutely zero effect on Monero encrypted amounts and receivers, but you're probably too stupid to know that. "Hey some user sent Monero", "How much?", "Dunno", "To who?", "Dunno". Sounds devastating! lmfao
Meanwhile poor saps are being thrown in prison for a Bitcoin transaction they made 10+ years ago (not hypothetical).
The computer you're running your bitcoin wallet or node on has AMD or Intel chips, genius. Vast majority of ASICs come from two manufacturers so I guess that makes us both huh?
Discussion
Its hilarious because neither of you are working on or could ever come up with a solution but you will spend all day lying to others on the internet about it. My experience with lightning has been wonderful sorry that yours hasn't (I seriously doubt youve ever used it)
-Need to fund channels before you can even use (the fuck)
-No static/offline addresses
-Can be rugged if node goes offline
-Can be force closed back on-chain against your will (wasting time and money)
-Can fail to send payment
-Can't handle larger payments
The payment network of the future! 🤩
Bro, even LNs literal creator and devs think it's trash lol
1) Come up with a better solution
2) Come up with a better solution
3) Come up with a better solution
4) Come up with a better solution
5) Come up with a better solution
6) You cant because all you can do is whine and complain
Lmao you shared a post made by Paul Storzc the moron behind drivechains. Thats not the creator of lightning whatsoever, thats a guy failing to push an alternate l2 for which he cant even implement in coe. Typical foolishness once again, or as I like to call it retarded fuck wit ery
I don't need to come up with a better solution to recognize something is trash.
The creator Tadge Dryja is in the first quote if you can read.
Who gives af who it came from. Are the facts and quotes true or not?
Tadge Dryja may have played a huge part in lightning but its creation is the result of a truly decentralized group of people working and testing something in implementation without the permission of some faggot named Riccardo Spagni who denies working for interpol and placing backdoors into popular monero wallets even though he clearly has done those things.
You care more about Fluffy than any Monero user I've known. He hasnt been involved in Monero for awhile nor did he create Moneros protocol.
Lol @ backdoors
Let's look at some quotes from a few well known Bitcoiners and a few LN devs:
"it's quite terrible...~95% of users have their lightning address set to a custodial wallet" -Benthecarman
https://x.com/benthecarman/status/1638006709741289474?s=20
"The problems with LN..." -Paul Sztorc
https://twitter.com/Truthcoin/status/1719388665107947959
"Lightning Network -- Fundamental Limitations" -Paul Sztorc
https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/lightning-limitations
"I consider LN a done deal..." -SBW
https://njump.me/nevent1qqsv5jyfh9gp2qnhruevrph39s2mspzfw3e9mx5avg0wenltrdjnnhgsx4pzg
"I think this new class of replacement cycling attacks puts lightning in a very perilous position, where only a sustainable fix can happen at the
base-layer" -Antoine Riard
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2023-October/004154.html
"...I am scared that even in Mastering lightning we won't be able to fix that" -Rene Pickhardt
https://twitter.com/renepickhardt/status/1298918019159207942
"Lightning = unreliable by design" -Rene Pickhardt, LN developer
https://x.com/renepickhardt/status/1726331107560542707
"Threats to Lightning Network..." -Alex Bosworth
https://twitter.com/alexbosworth/status/1400467321093713923
"One of the biggest supporters of Lightning...Learned TODAY how payment channels work" -Eric Wall
https://x.com/ercwl/status/1725903544660705728?s=20
https://x.com/fiatjaf/status/1617295539472683010?s=20
"...All you can build is a half-working payment channel network" -Fiatjaf
“In the future, if you have this one-megabyte restricted blocksize and the Lightning Network, it is still the rich people and companies that can use lightning but the average user probably can’t.” -Tadge Dryja, co-author of The Lightning Network White Paper
https://www.whatbitcoindid.com/podcast/tadge-dryja-on-the-limitations-of-the-lightning-network
stapling the EVM to bitcoin is an infinitely better solution than lightning and several teams are already doing that, but it's too late because ethereum and its rollups are literally right now the most popular bitcoin scaling solution. you just don't want to hear it.
We've found it, the most retardedest opinion possible. Where should I mail your reward?
I'm not even wrong. lightning has 4600 bitcoins deposited into it. the top capacity nodes are all exchanges or some kind of custodian. systems on entirely separate blockchains have more bitcoins deposited into them. a single non-custodial system called threshold has 2900 bitcoins deposited into it, and there's over a hundred thousand more bitcoins deposited into other systems with varying degrees of trust involved. the EVM is the most popular bitcoin scaling solution today, and it's a verifiable fact. when it comes to scaling bitcoin the market has spoken already, you just don't want to hear it.
Just because some VC isnt blindly pumping fake liquidity into the network like you expect them to in daddy money EVM land doesnt mean its not operating. My node is working amazingly well, it backs itself up twice daily and has never encountered an issue. EVM is centralized garbage that cannot properly define integers.
the fact remains, the most popular way to scale bitcoin is by locking coins in a HTLC and issuing tokens against them on a separate blockchain using a smart contract. if the lightning network didn't have so many intractable flaws, people wouldn't have gravitated toward an EVM solution. if the lightning network is so wonderful, it would have the most bitcoins deposited into it. I keep hearing over and over again that the market cap of bitcoin is evidence that it is the best thing ever, but for some magical reason this same logic doesn't apply to the TVL of scaling solutions. your devs had 8 years to fix lightning and they wasted it huffing paint behind a dumpster the whole time.
thats not scaling thats a ponzi scheme lol
it's literally what blockstream liquid does. even lightning does this. it's bitcoins locked in a HTLC where they get unlocked on some other accounting system somewhere else. sometimes there is a decentralized two way peg like in the case of threshold tbtc or even lightning, and sometimes there actually isn't like in the case of blockstream liquid. people spent a lot of time talking about decentralized two way pegs. this whole thing is enabled by segwit, which made HTLCs possible in the first place. I guess you were not paying attention, all you focus on is lightning, and there are no other scaling solutions. I get the feeling that you have never actually studied any of these moving parts.
lmao youre just flip flopping and redefining things, I dont have time for such scatterbrain arguments, just fuck off you aint convincing me of squat
"your devs" yadda yadda yadda , get your faggot money talk out of here clown, I AM my devs
EVM doesnt scale period, you speak like a total end user and its hilarious. I can tell you have zero developer experience. Take your word salad back to the web3 metaverse bro
you can't own your own money on lightning without making transactions on L1, and there is a limited capacity for people to do that. since this pressure exists, people are pushed into lightning custodians where they don't own their own money. lightning doesn't actually scale, it just rearranges itself into a custodial system by emulating banking. a good scaling solution would enable users to obtain coins on L2 and actually own them without having to directly touch L1. then L2 transactions would get compressed into proofs and inserted into L1 blocks. each L2 user would collectively pay into L1 transaction fees by having their transactions included in a proof. this blows the lid off of the node requirements, since the security is inherited from L1 once a transaction is published in a L1 proof. there are good scaling solutions and lightning simply isn't one of them.
you have no clue what you're talking about, there are zero l2s that never touch l1, if they never touched l1 how would you go on and off dipshit? You are so dumb it hurts, please stop. Forreal
you do touch L1, but only to get on and off, it only needs to happen to a coin once, and not everyone has to do it to maintain sovereignty. a person could transfer a million coins to a rollup, send them to other people who have never touched L1 before, and all the recipients would actually own them. this isn't possible with lightning. rollups don't use payment channels, they don't have concepts like inbound liquidity, and they don't require an individual user to interact with L1 to start owning his own coins. with lightning, you have to open your own channels from time to time and do L1 transactions to top off your inbound liquidity. there are also other limitations with payment channels that don't apply to rollups, such as routing issues and the size of payments.
lol still you have no clue what you are saying, you suppose people have sovereignty because they depend on other people to move liquidity for them? Are you even aware of what you are saying dude, I cant imagine you are
so you've got the people who are stupid enough to muck around with
lightning, maybe if they are having a good time it's because a custodian
is taking care of them and they have no sovereignty, or they are
masochist neckbeard basement virgins who install gentoo.
then you've got the people who said fuck this, I'll just use monero or one of the ethereum rollups or litecoin or something.
the
second group of people isn't going to come back to bitcoin and use one
of those EVM contraptions that got stapled to it. they're not going to
sit around and wait for drivechains to exist. they already left the room
and they already found something that is working for them. that also
goes for the developers. the people who are ruining bitcoin have
actually driven away all the competent developers who are capable of
inventing an original scaling solution for bitcoin that doesn't
completely suck. that's why all you have right now is lightning and a
couple of guys who are trying to attach an EVM with duct tape and wood
glue. everyone else already took off. you are living in the aftermath of a brain drain agenda.
I like the #eCash / #XEC on-chain scaling roadmap.