Re: 2018 Clusterfuck Forecast
On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 18:32:19 -0800 Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
The way payment channels can be reasonably used enables fractional reserve abuses.
Are you sure? As far as I know, one of the main selling points of the LN is that it uses...bitcoins. So it's impossible to open a channel/make a payment except by starting with an on chain transaction. In other words, LN transactions are backed 1:1 with real bitcoins.
On Jan 7, 2018 6:24 PM, "juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 17:38:02 -0800 Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
Off-chain, once solid tech that isn't a backdoor for CBs and WS (as LN appears to be), should easily compete with VISA.
how is lightning network a backdoor for central banks?
Yes, it's a rather open secret that LN channel abuse, esp. using Hub architecture, can do FR just link banks. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/56ehi1/fractional_reserve_on_light... By never closing channels it difficult to detect what's going on. On Jan 7, 2018 6:41 PM, "juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 18:32:19 -0800 Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
The way payment channels can be reasonably used enables fractional reserve abuses.
Are you sure? As far as I know, one of the main selling points of the LN is that it uses...bitcoins. So it's impossible to open a channel/make a payment except by starting with an on chain transaction. In other words, LN transactions are backed 1:1 with real bitcoins.
On Jan 7, 2018 6:24 PM, "juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 17:38:02 -0800 Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
Off-chain, once solid tech that isn't a backdoor for CBs and WS (as LN appears to be), should easily compete with VISA.
how is lightning network a backdoor for central banks?
Also, it's been shown, by the Tether USD caper, that most cryptocoin users could care less if there is no proven backing for the fiat they use at exchanges. On Jan 7, 2018 7:27 PM, "Steven Schear" <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, it's a rather open secret that LN channel abuse, esp. using Hub architecture, can do FR just link banks.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/56ehi1/fractional_reserve_on_ lightning_network/
By never closing channels it difficult to detect what's going on.
On Jan 7, 2018 6:41 PM, "juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 18:32:19 -0800 Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
The way payment channels can be reasonably used enables fractional reserve abuses.
Are you sure? As far as I know, one of the main selling points of the LN is that it uses...bitcoins. So it's impossible to open a channel/make a payment except by starting with an on chain transaction. In other words, LN transactions are backed 1:1 with real bitcoins.
On Jan 7, 2018 6:24 PM, "juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 17:38:02 -0800 Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
Off-chain, once solid tech that isn't a backdoor for CBs and WS (as LN appears to be), should easily compete with VISA.
how is lightning network a backdoor for central banks?
cryptocoin users could care less if there is no proven backing for the fiat they use
Fiats being dumped for cryptos... it's about time.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/56ehi1/fractional_reserve_on_light...
BTC must both trace from and returnable to main chain, so any "fractional reserve" scam in LN would be some downstream bankers (hubs) issuing private shitcoin to retarded bagholders. Some other cryptocurrency might offer FR money creation interest lending etc but today's BTC consensus / code is not it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DoCqF4zrWg
let us not talk of "enemies", let us say the guilty
What happens to enemies vs the guilty? Regardless of label, when you don't want it coming back, ever, you have to kill it.
precious
An adjective based on other factors.
even physical government paper is better than cryptocurrencies
Depends on what's being compared. And almost any physical is better than government paper. Btw, bagholding... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwP1DOHYLaE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj5zBD0PISU
On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 03:08:04AM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
cryptocoin users could care less if there is no proven backing for the fiat they use
Fiats being dumped for cryptos... it's about time.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/56ehi1/fractional_reserve_on_light...
BTC must both trace from and returnable to main chain, so any "fractional reserve" scam in LN would be some downstream bankers (hubs) issuing private shitcoin to retarded bagholders.
And exactly who the fruck is going to oppose this? "Gibs me dat 4K TeeVeeee‼"
On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 19:27:55 -0800 Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, it's a rather open secret that LN channel abuse,
abuse, exactly how? I'm not seeing any open secret. LN works like I described it.
esp. using Hub architecture, can do FR just link banks.
No it can't.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/56ehi1/fractional_reserve_on_light...
from your own link Q: "could this lead to a form of fractional reserve bitcoin?" A: "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. "
By never closing channels it difficult to detect what's going on.
It doesn't matter if you close the channel or not. What matters is that in order to open it you need actual bitcoins.
On Jan 7, 2018 6:41 PM, "juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 18:32:19 -0800 Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
The way payment channels can be reasonably used enables fractional reserve abuses.
Are you sure? As far as I know, one of the main selling points of the LN is that it uses...bitcoins. So it's impossible to open a channel/make a payment except by starting with an on chain transaction. In other words, LN transactions are backed 1:1 with real bitcoins.
On Jan 7, 2018 6:24 PM, "juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 17:38:02 -0800 Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
Off-chain, once solid tech that isn't a backdoor for CBs and WS (as LN appears to be), should easily compete with VISA.
how is lightning network a backdoor for central banks?
On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 12:46:33AM -0300, Juan wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 19:27:55 -0800 Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, it's a rather open secret that LN channel abuse,
abuse, exactly how?
I'm not seeing any open secret. LN works like I described it.
esp. using Hub architecture, can do FR just link banks.
No it can't.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/56ehi1/fractional_reserve_on_light...
from your own link
Q: "could this lead to a form of fractional reserve bitcoin?"
A: "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. "
By never closing channels it difficult to detect what's going on.
It doesn't matter if you close the channel or not. What matters is that in order to open it you need actual bitcoins.
BUT, from the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Network "It is expected that normal use of the Lightning Network consists of opening a payment channel by committing a funding transaction to the relevant blockchain, followed by making any number of Lightning transactions that update the tentative distribution of the channel's funds without broadcasting to the blockchain, followed by closing the payment channel by broadcasting the final version of the transaction to distribute the channel's funds." Sure, there's 1 BTC behind 1 LN "satoshi" or whatever they want to call it. BUT, the whole point of LN is that any number of micro transactions (or any tx up to the channel MAX) can be transacted within that channel, and only the final result is updated to the public BTC ledger, "when the channel is closed". This provides for the possibility of walled gardens: * Amazog online retail market supports LN Satoshis, but not BTCs, although they support tx of USD equivalent from your Amazog account to your SWIFT bank account, at an exorbitant fee which makes it not worthwhile. * Googoyle online wallets also support satoshis, and tx to BTC, but within their own bank only; and also supports tx to Amazog, but only in LN Satoshis, since Googoyle and Amazog have opened a USD $10 million LN channel between them, and they honour each other's tx and do USD end of day balancing between themselves, each day; Direct USD → Googoyle Satoshis has a significant tx fee discount. So, two partnered privacy-abusing government-supporting end-user dominating "LN Satoshi" ZOG-loving providers, constituting a Satoshi walled garden, end up never closing out their channel, except perhaps yearly, or simply never, since they do all their non-anon stuff out of view of the public BTC ledger, and who knows if their now internal-only satoshi's actually match up against their $10 million BTC "channel"? And seriously, for those buying the latest Star Wars DVD, who gives a firetruck? And the shareholders? They will praise Googoyle and Amazog for their "incredible" "billion dollar record profits". And the tax man? They will praise the selling out of all the little guys for their non-payment of taxes, by the behemoths Googoyle and Amazog, in return for "favourable tax treatment with respect to off shore cash havens". And everyone else? "Well, there's no real value behind it anyway, right, so why do you give a crap?"
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 19:39:25 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Sure, there's 1 BTC behind 1 LN "satoshi" or whatever they want to call it.
BUT, the whole point of LN is that any number of micro transactions (or any tx up to the channel MAX) can be transacted within that channel, and only the final result is updated to the public BTC ledger, "when the channel is closed".
This provides for the possibility of walled gardens:
* Amazog online retail market supports LN Satoshis, but not BTCs,
not sure what you mean by that. LN transactions are actually bitcoin transactions.
although they support tx of USD equivalent from your Amazog account to your SWIFT bank account, at an exorbitant fee which makes it not worthwhile.
* Googoyle online wallets also support satoshis, and tx to BTC, but within their own bank only;
again, not sure what you mean by that. It's certainly possible for the usual scum like amazon, google or cough cough coinbase to act as some sort of monopolistic gatekeeper, if people allow them to. But I don't think that's necessarily part of the protocol.
and also supports tx to Amazog, but only in LN Satoshis, since Googoyle and Amazog have opened a USD $10 million LN channel between them, and they honour each other's tx and do USD end of day balancing between themselves, each day; Direct USD → Googoyle Satoshis has a significant tx fee discount.
So, two partnered privacy-abusing government-supporting end-user dominating "LN Satoshi" ZOG-loving providers, constituting a Satoshi walled garden,
well yes, if you use them, then they will spy on you and reject your transactions if they don't like them. So hopefully people won't use those 'services'
end up never closing out their channel, except perhaps yearly, or simply never, since they do all their non-anon stuff out of view of the public BTC ledger, and who knows if their now internal-only satoshi's actually match up against their $10 million BTC "channel"?
it has to match unless the protocol is completely broken, which I assume it isn't. I haven't look at the details but I suppose when you get a LN payment you can trivially check that the funds come from the on chain transaction used to 'open' the channel.
And seriously, for those buying the latest Star Wars DVD, who gives a firetruck?
And the shareholders? They will praise Googoyle and Amazog for their "incredible" "billion dollar record profits".
And the tax man? They will praise the selling out of all the little guys for their non-payment of taxes, by the behemoths Googoyle and Amazog, in return for "favourable tax treatment with respect to off shore cash havens".
And everyone else? "Well, there's no real value behind it anyway, right, so why do you give a crap?"
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 06:44:08AM -0300, Juan wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 19:39:25 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
end up never closing out their channel, except perhaps yearly, or simply never, since they do all their non-anon stuff out of view of the public BTC ledger, and who knows if their now internal-only satoshi's actually match up against their $10 million BTC "channel"?
it has to match unless the protocol is completely broken, which I assume it isn't. I haven't look at the details but I suppose when you get a LN payment you can trivially check that the funds come from the on chain transaction used to 'open' the channel.
The point is the "matching" only happens when the channel is closed. So if it's never closed, no need to match. And if it IS closed, it's only between the two mega corporations, who could simply segue their walled-garden users from the old channel to the new - possibly, depends on implementation - but the propensity of corporations is certainly to disempower the end users and to create walled gardens, and once they've successfully achieved that, then a mega corp could mint as many LN Satoshis as they want, and no one would be the wiser, since only they know what's actually happening in their walled garden.
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 21:03:32 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 06:44:08AM -0300, Juan wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 19:39:25 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
end up never closing out their channel, except perhaps yearly, or simply never, since they do all their non-anon stuff out of view of the public BTC ledger, and who knows if their now internal-only satoshi's actually match up against their $10 million BTC "channel"?
it has to match unless the protocol is completely broken, which I assume it isn't. I haven't look at the details but I suppose when you get a LN payment you can trivially check that the funds come from the on chain transaction used to 'open' the channel.
The point is the "matching" only happens when the channel is closed. So if it's never closed, no need to match.
you can't counterfeit LN transactions so you can't create funds out of thin air. It doesn't matter if you close the channel or not.
And if it IS closed, it's only between the two mega corporations,
channels are not closed between peers. They are publicly closed on-chain. But anyway, the protocol doesn't work like you seem to think it does. valid criticism against the LN is that something like amazon routing payments would obviously spy on its users. But to route payments you need to tie money and if you want to route a lot of payments you need to tie a lot of money so hopefully that would discourage them. how flat the network would be? who knows. Who knows if it would even work and be adopted. who
could simply segue their walled-garden users from the old channel to the new - possibly, depends on implementation - but the propensity of corporations is certainly to disempower the end users and to create walled gardens, and once they've successfully achieved that, then a mega corp could mint as many LN Satoshis as they want, and no one would be the wiser, since only they know what's actually happening in their walled garden.
participants (4)
-
grarpamp -
juan -
Steven Schear -
Zenaan Harkness