I have posted answer here, why are you quoting me on 2 threads the same question:

https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/1773254.msg17699808#msg17699808


Maybe my english is not 100% good, but where in this text does it mention that LN will be a permissioned system.

It just says that 2 participants will do TX between themselves and the funds will be locked by a smart contract.

It doesnt specify any custodian or fiduciary role of any trusted 3rd party, like a bank or payment processor.

It could be automated with existing smart contract systems.

WTF are you talking about, in this thread I am debating with franky1 about LN, and I said above that BU devs are amateurs, but that doesn't mean that Core devs do their job perfectly.

It is you who is nagging me on both threads, here is your answer:

https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/1773254.msg17699990#msg17699990

Ok let's suppose it is like you say it is.

LN would still be voluntary, and even if it becomes like a payment processor, why can't people move money freely on the blockchain without a 3rd party's permission.


Because a transaction is always consentual. You sign that TX, that is consent, and after that by publishing it it becomes a real transaction.

But what if the transaction doesn't get relayed after signing, instead it get's put into a smart contract system, that will automatically trigger itself after certain conditions are met.

Like ethereum's smart contract system.


Why can't it work like that? It's still consentual, because the money cant move without the signature, and what happens to the money after signing is just up to the smart contract.

That is not entirely true , I know a little bit of C++ and Python.

But yes I am not a good programmer, and I cant make sense of the BTC code, it's way above my knowledge.


However I can do google searches ,and I can read websites, reddit posts, and forum opinions, I am qualified for that.

And based on my research, I have found that Segwit as a softfork is like a bandage.

It would be more elegant to add it as a hardfork, or perhaps just add a 4 mb block increase, because segwit also has a 4 mb weight , that does get relayed on the internet, its just that it doesnt get included in the blockchain.

So maybe the cleaning up of the signature space is a good improvement, and other fixes that it does is good too, but it's still kind of an unelegant way to do it.

I am an amateur in programming, but even I know that something that takes thousands of lines of code to write ,is not necessarily the most efficient way to do it.


I dont know maybe satoshi has a more simple answer than thousands of lines of code:

Well I suppose they have 2 weeks to uppgrade, until the difficulty retarget is changed, because the minority of miners will mine invalid blocks.

The hardfork can only happen with 51% of nodes and miners, so they all most uppgrade in this period of time. But possibly an even higher consensus (90-95%) to make it smooth.

But I guess they will have the code deployed in the software, that will activate at an agreed date. So they will have months to test the software for bugs, and 2 weeks to signal the hardfork.

It think it could work, but it does require a consensus. You can't just do it with a small percent of people.

If the upgrade happens fast then the financial losses are minimal. If the upgrade doesn't happen then bitcoin cant evolve ,and a lot more potential money can be lost (ex. a high fee can scare away a lot of remittances, which is a huge loss to the network)



I agree, but he was also the guy who had the guts to build Bitcoin, so maybe he made a lot of mistakes in his design, this one I think he got it right.

He's confused (whooooosh, lol)

He thinks that the 2016 blocks used to assess the difficulty re-targeting is the same 2016 blocks that evaluate fork signalling. Which is indicative of the rest of his attention to detail: there is no rationale for using the re-targeting window as a fixed timeframe within which forks are decided. That wouldn't make the slightest bit of sense: it's a rolling 2016 block window, irrespective of the difficulty retargetting window.

voluntary is the utopia/hope. but with onchain tx fee war, the over promotion of LN's utility. halting onchain blocksize. etc etc.. you can see they are aiming for it to be less than voluntary.

EG
if you had to choose between permissionless tx that cost $1 a time and still took an hour
vs
first permissionless tx that cost $1 and still took an hour, but then every 'payment' for 2 weeks was only 5cents and took as fast as both can agree to it (seconds).
would you see the psychological motive of less than voluntary

especially now that they are trying to make LN's locktime become extendable without settling, to keep people locked in.

i would accept LN as a side service.. i see it has a niche for some utility but onchain scaling needs to be sorted.
i dont see LN being useful to everyone

but all blockstream care about is LN as they need a revenue generator to repay the $90m
so looks like onchain scaling is on hold until LN has fully grabbed users funds to charge them fee's


bitcoin legacy (old normal) transactions, dont need consent(permission) you make it, you sign it you send it

LN is consentual(permissioned) you need someone elses consent/permission/signature/authorisation/agreement.
EG like a bank. you can pay anyone in the world. and you dont need the end recipients permission (not 3rd party)
but you do need banks authorisation/agreement/permission(2nd party)

you dont relay after sigining.. its already in a smart contract.. thats what "contract" is.. 2 party agreement.

im sure later there may be more 'smart' clauses they will add. but for now post-confirm maturty after settlement (cltv) and chargebacks (csv revokes) are what they are aiming for


exactly

Yes what I meant was programmable transaction, through not fully Turing Complete, to avoid malwares.


So for example: Alice sends Bob 1 BTC, but only if Bob already sent out Litecoin to him.

So your create a conditional transaction, that will use some API system to checkup the Litecoin blockchain.

So the TX would be the following (pseudocode):


So Alice signs this transaction, and broadcasts it, but this is a smart contract that only sends out the money if the conditions are met.

Now this still needs a 3rd party API system to lookup data, and I assume Blockstream could fill out this gap, to get an income source by providing these kinds of API services.

But I don't see how can they control the entire payment system, that would be too outrageous.


I am not an entrepreneur, I told you. I just have a few good ideas that's all.

If you are a supporter of LN, you can be sure that you will have it even with BU
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip037-hardfork-segwit.1591/

Off-chain tx and on-chain tx will compete each other with the same freedom to scale