thats why consensus is not 100% but instead majority..
i never said true consensus needs 100% agreement. i said majority.
seems doomad and now blackhatcoiner have been propagandising the misinformation of how consensus 2009-16 worked, as well as pretending mandatory activation was still the same consensus. but then contradicting to say the new consensus is different

i just said majority of true desire, is the consensus of how things get activated..
.. not threats of rejection if not flagging (new mandatory version of activation)

funny part is segwit 2016 (bip9+141) didnt reach that 'majority' all the way through to july 2017

its why they needed to brutalise consensus by changing things from consensus to 'mandatory activation'
oh and before we run back down the ignorance of blackhatcoiner and doomad's propaganda scripts, which is to say bip9+141 was not replaced by bip91+148.. i can show you quotes from theymos and pieter wuille  that say they were replaced and used. and the flags are shown in the immutable blocks.

and the bips themselves say they are mandatory activations by using block rejection to get their thresholds met

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0091.mediawiki

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki

and if they want to continue arguing it wasnt. they can take that argument to them

when LN is being advertised as a solution to bitcoin, yet LN is not fit for purpose as a solution to bitcoin because LN cant cope if everyone was to use it. (yes liquidity bottlenecks/route fails happen ALOT on LN. even with small payment value requests) imagine the headache if larger payments bigger then micro-transactions became a daily thing. LN would bottleneck more often

when LN is being used as the reason not to scale bitcoin because they say LN is the thing people should use instead of bitcoin

when LN is used to scapegoat why bitcoin shouldnt scale by suggesting bitcoin cant cope with LN transaction numbers. even thou LN average user count and transactions per day are not that much (ignoring the payments done as route, rebalancing which are just needless transactions not needed to be done on the bitcoin network). yep if you actually count the payments where LN users are actually paying for a good or service. that volume of payment count is not going to saturate bitcoin.

bitcoin does not need 100mb blocks or 2gb blocks like the altnetters suggest as their melodrama excuse to not want to scale bitcoin

their desire to hinder bitcoin scaling just to advertise an altnet, its not actually helping evolve bitcoin. its purely ends up being an advert for an altnet

i dont mind people advertising niche services for niche use cases if they explain the risks and what makes it different to actual bitcoin network stuff.. my main gripe is the promises of bitcoin scaling but then saturate posts with adverts about features, other network stuff, that ends up not scaling and just some other thing to side step people out of using bitcoin daily and into something that doesnt work 100% guaranteed without risk/permission from another party.

if you want a simple list of my issues with LN and its supporters:
1. PR campaign advertising LN as bitcoin (pretending security/feature similarities)
1.a: brand tagging bitcoin into a different network to fake trust/loyalty/fanbase
1.b: brand tagging the trust of bitcoin to hide the risks of the other network
1.c: avoid clarifying the differences of LN payments vs funding/settlement commitments
1.d: avoid explaining the permission required payments/commitments vs the permissionless broadcast of just commitment
1.e: avoid temporality of LN payments vs the immutability of confirmed bitcoin transactions

i already said many times if they're honest. they could actually use the differences as positive spin for their niche use case

2. using LN as an excuse not to scale bitcoin
2.a: saying bitcoin doesn't need to scale now LN exists, as if LN could cope with routes for large value/all value(facepalm)
2.b: LN flaws means LN nodes need to perform more 'events'(payments) even when they are not personally buying things
2.c: pretending their high 'event' count is a sign of high utility of LN of people buying things
2.d: pretending the high events is a sign bitcoin couldn't cope with amount of events if those events were blockchain tx's
2.e: pretending LN solves bitcoin scaling, and is there for all users, all value, and 100% payment success
2.f: pretending bitcoin needs to scale to Visa by this month, but cant so LN can and LN will handle Visa amounts
2.g: pretending LN is dependant on bitcoin and thus bitcoin is dependant on LN

3. saying bitcoin is broke or trying to break bitcoin just so they can say 'LN is perfect'
3.a: saying miners(asics) cant handle 'big blocks' (although asics dont even touch tx data)
3.b: saying people use 1999 tech and cant store or relay bitcoin (sorry average internet is 59mbs not 0.5mbs)
3.c: saying people shouldnt initial block download, 'its to big and meaningless', use LN phone app with an exchange channel
3.d: saying pruning is safe, everyone should do it. blockchains aren't needed. blockchains aren't part of decentralisation
3.e: saying litewallets and pruned are full network feature nodes. lite/prune still support the network 100%(facepalm)

4. not wanting to evolve bitcoin as digital cash
4.a: wanting bitcoin fees to be high with lame excuses like pools need high fees
4.b: not wanting more tx's for less fee's (where 5k tx of $0.50 is better than 2k of $1) because lower fees = less LN niche
4.c: telling people what not to buy using bitcoin "dont buy coffee with bitcoin"
4.d: telling people bitcoin is not a digital cash for the unbanked (goes against the whitepaper)
4.e: telling people bitcoin is a 'rail' reserve network for the elite whales that can afford to use it for batching custodial tx's

i am a whale, but i also see that bitcoin should be useful for the little guys

5. even the usability of LN is not childs play
5.a: needing to lock funds but have to predict how much you plan to spend days/weeks/months ahead
5.b: needing to plan chances of route success and split funds over different 'accounts'(channels) in preparation
5.c: needing to find a channel partner you know will be online when you are to sign permission for your payment
5.d: needing to know he has enough routes/channel possibilities to help ensure payment success
5.e: needing to ensure he is not being used by others too much so that liquidity remains for you to route via him

i could go on but thats just the thoughts at the top of my head

https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/02-peer-protocol.md

worth noting that using chain_hash happens AFTER peers connect,
it can be used to then interrogate what channels a peer already has.
it can be used to ask if that node wants to/can can create channels of those blockchains
it can be used to create channels if they both want to use that blockchain for pegged value

the separate peer connect part that comes WAY before channel interrogation or channel creation. is not blockchain specific. the nodeID uses public key for its ID along with an IP/tor domain.

the nodeID is a public key(bech32) but is not prefixed to a blockchain.
EG not bc1q for bitcoin, ltc1q for litecoin.
instead its just ln1q for LN node id

when using channel creation they can then decide which blockchain they want to both be bound in for that specific channel in which they then change the prefix to the supporting prefix of their desired/agreed blockchain

nodes can have a LN node id, and then many channels within, where some of those channels can for bitcoin, bitcoin testnet segnet regtest, litecoin and its testnets segnets regtests and other blockchain networks. and even private mutually agreed tokens

I'm also replying to @philipma1957:
The intelligent technology of Lightning doesn't care what the majority wants. It's something that runs on top of Bitcoin, without anyone's permission and approval. Even if lots of users didn't want it, they could do nothing to prevent it. There'll always be some who find it satisfactory.

As for if it's damaging in the long term: I strongly disagree. It's what I call the solution to scaling. I'm not going back to paying 10-100 cents and wait for so long just to get my transaction confirmed. I want things to work instantly. I state the exact opposite: If we don't have Lightning, some shitcoins with larger blocks will find their opportunities to distinguish.

The Lightning Network protects the significance of the monetary policy of Bitcoin.

Question, why what you are doing is not advertising?

Yeah, and Bitcoin is just a currency. Lightning allows these agreements to happen in a trustless way and that's how it distinguishes itself from every other debt-based payment system. At this point I have a feeling that I need to quote the following;


It's a 2-of-2 co-signing agreement, but you both have a pre-signed Bitcoin transaction if you don't cooperate. Same goes for connectivity.

You're the only person in this room who thinks I hate Bitcoin.

same as what happened to golds old 19th century medium of exchange status, replaced by bank notes.. and now bank notes being swapped for brass, nickel and copper coins.
.. no one uses gold as a medium of exchange anymore

those wanting LN dont want bitcoin to be a medium of exchange (daily activity currency between the common people) they want it as a 'reserve' currency for the settlement by custodians, payment services, 'hub managers'(AKA banks)

what needs to happen is BITCOIN needs to scale to keep people using the bitcoin network and maintain it regularly/daily. not be shunned away to another network being told to prune their wallet software and not maintain the blockchain, and not use bitcoin network regularly.

Why is this even an argument against LN? Most of the internet requires both parties to be online, and billions of devices are online about 99.9% of the time. My debit card also requires both the shop as well as my bank to be online when I make a transaction. That's not a deal breaker.
And even though Bitcoin can work when the receiver is offline, it still requires both parties to be online and verify the transaction to complete the sale (or whatever deal we made).

I can only speak for myself, but I've said it for years: I don't really care how, as long as Bitcoin does scale! I wouldn't mind bigger blocks (I think it was 32 MB per block when Bitcoin started), but that caused a lot of drama. High fees aren't good for adoption, and although I agree with the argument that Bitcoin can't reach mass adoption by storing billions of daily transactions on-chain, I also think it would be a good temporary solution to allow more transactions until a more permanent scaling solution is created.

@Warless: This isn't the place for oneliners without arguments.

Although technically correct, it's not a strong argument considering the mining fee is much higher than what the LN middleman charges.

True. But how often do you really do that? I don't mind keeping a device online when someone pays me.

But a computer somewhere at the bank must be online.

This seems off-topic.

All true. And I'm fine with that

That's a valid point, LN doesn't facility cold wallets. My counter argument would be that it's supposed to be used for smaller amounts, but it is indeed less secure.

This was years before BTCPay existed. Still works fine.


Not from a merchant's POV. There is more hassle involved in receiving LN payments for no tangible benefit.