This is the kind of gibberish that trolls use to confuse the public, especially newbies, and gaslight users into questioning their understanding of Bitcoin/Lightning/Scaling Debate. Bolded in the quote was designed to confuse you. The moment you start debating him without knowing where he starts gaslighting you, you will fall for his traps.

If you trust him, and don't believe me, then ask the Core Developers who gave him two negative trust-ratings if the bolded part in the post is true.


No one said that, it's just you putting words in everyone's mouths and making other people believe that they said that.


The "is not a utopian dream" debate followed by the bolded quote. Another gaslighting trap.

do you know why Gmax felt harassed.. because i kept informing him from 2016 about segwit enabling JUNK* to be added to the blockchain in upto 4mb lumps where funky tx can add crap like books, images and other stuff

guess what that junk is called now and proven my point... ORDINALS

i was telling people how core was opening an exploit that allowed the junk like ordinals to happen even before ordinals came about to prove my point even before core opened up the exploit that eventually lead to ordinals coming about.. and over years i have been informing people and core devs of the exploit and other issues core have caused.

gmax wanted to pretend its not an exploit, gmax wanted to pretend they are gods who shouldnt be critiqued, reviewed, scrutinised, gmax wanted to pretend segwit was not something that would cause problems(pretending its perfect code).. but years later it proved itself to be a problem
he just was sponsored to force and mandate segwit with its exploit to be enabled and didnt like critique and scrutiny of the bug they were causing from it

go do your research

*

i wont post all the times i kept highlighting the exploit between 2016-2019 to which gmax calls harassment (so he can avoid finding a fix/admitting the fault/exploit)
but my post history is there for anyone to read

yep they didnt want the exploit fixed even when knowing it existed in 2016 before the exploit even activated.. and in the 7 years since it has been active

even now they pretend they had no pre-knowledge and need now endless time to look into ways to fix it (aka stall/delay/avoid fixing it via their lies)
we should always be scrutinising core devs, they should not be banning people who scrutinise them.


even a dead body has utility.. science, research, organ donation.. but here is the thing.. LN is not even on the same scale as bitcoin.. bitcoin has a pulse.. LN does not.. daves failure is he has become a ignorant sheep to a narrative of things he has not researched. he just obides by a narrow usecase of hopes and promotions, of things that have not met its promises but he will just dream the dream in his coma
as for topic: losing faith: yep LN fans sound like a cult


when people realise how limited LN is how it does have liquidity limits and failure rates of payments (even rusty russel admits to this). has bottlenecks and other bugs, including how the punishments do not work(even rusty russel admits to this). even other LN devs admit to the issues. even the remaining LN devs that are lagging around trying to find work arounds admit LN has not fulfilled its promises and instead turned into a different system than first promised/conceived

LN dev and many many thousands of users have found failures and stopped using LN and moved to other projects.. even poon who 'conceived' LN moved away from LN. he grieved the losses and moved on

he wants to insult and antagonise using things he does not understand..

ill make a "offtopic post" to reference his ignorance
https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/5492462.msg63932557#msg63932557

as for LN services doing 'channel renting' using UTXO that were locked/unspent months/years before the user even requested a channel
as for LN services doing 'channel renting' using unconfirmed UTXO's which are not locked when user requests a channel

many LN services also do create channels of msat balance that dont even reference a new UTXO specific for a new channel. nor do some services require ant UTXO reference due to using "temp ID" for a channel

without you sinking your head into the small box thinking of a narrow use case of 'best-case-scenario'.. think critically of LN as a whole and its lack of auditing and restraints, lack of security over all..

people can create channels without bitcoin network communication to someones device. and still swap msats about that are not pegged to altcoins but supposedly deemed as msats pegged to bitcoin value/msats representations of bitcoin value.
LN has no network wide audit that checks each channel against bitcoin. LN has no strict requirement to enforce msats supposedly representing bitcoin value actually being 100% strictly contracted to bitcoin value... LN users have a multitude of ways to create channels that APPEAR or are DEEMED as being pegged value of bitcoin without the need of communicating/checked/secured with the bitcoin network
you are not forced to be a full bitcoin node to use LN when dealing with value or represented credit of a bitcoin locked collateral

i know you want to narrow conversations of the small narrow best-use-case dream scenario of one approach.. but LN is broader than the small promoted use-case and has much more flaws that prove the best-use-case is marginal


how can you agree bitcoin doesnt leave the bitcoin network.. then go silly by saying bitcoin does enter an entirely other network

a reference of a txid is not the same as the bitcoin on the bitcoin network. much like unmoved utxo from say 2012(pre forks) have the same reference in 2024 for bitcoin but when on a different network(fork/crapcoin) that reference then becomes something different and not considered bitcoin because its not being used on the bitcoin network to move value on the bitcoin network.. the value moved on another network is no longer deemed as bitcoin
and again LN also does not require 100% of the time a txid to open channels and supply users with msat.

first clear your mind of utopian dream usecase of LN

now rationally think.. there are thousands of networks right now that have utxo references of early adopters of bitcoin before all the forks
same reference number used over multiple networks.. this does not mean they are all bitcoin
actual bitcoin does not leave the bitcoin blockchain.. thats what makes the coin in the blockchain what it is

the stuff created when using other networks become other units/tokens/iou's of other networks. emphasis: when used on other networks
and LN has no network wide audit that parties even need to form a multisig when creating a channel. nor does it mean that the references (if used) are solely locked to only work in one channel


LN's proposition is not a tool where you just make a couple payments in half an hour then get on with your day.. its actually where you are presumed to need to stay in LN long term and do many transactions to make it financially beneficial compared to just using bitcoin
if you think LN design is to waste a bitcoin fee to open LN.. then make 7 payments in LN in 5 minutes and then waste another bitcoin fee to settle up the IOU, in a small timeframe, to then close LN and get on with day.. not caring about consequences..  well you are incorrect.
because you could just make 1 bitcoin transaction, using bitcoin with 7 outputs to different destinations.. in that one tx and save making multiple tx
and save on the headaches of trying to set up channels and choose partners and route paths etc

the idea of LN is to stay in LN long term. meaning the requirement of never sleeping to monitor malicious counterparty. or hire a watchtower middleman so you can sleep. applies (other work around conditions apply to to mitigate risks of the flaws of LN)

anyway i read your link
your link is more about you foolishly thinking LN is a prepaid card.. when its actually (in its best case way you even speak of its) where you lock up collateral on bitcoin network and then as a reference of credit/collateral. to do buy now pay later on LN.. where the recipient is not pre-paid.. but given a IOU suggesting they will get paid later if/when they settle later
LN doesnt offer settlement confirmation(paid in full).. the bitcoin network does


LN itself does not enforce a 50%:50% multisig channel policy of well audited collateral.. its actually YOU that is narrow thinking of "core LN" which is a narrow view service option of LN
you are stuck in the narrow view of a limited case usage of utopian ideal.. not critical thinking of LN as a whole.
you seem to want to white wash over the issues and just promote the utopian dream..
doomad does it and then blames all issues on "user error" when its infact LN flaw of not securing peoples value no matter the service/software used


you are really blind in regards to bitcoin scaling. completely obvious you are now talking the doomadism cult mantra to earn merit and ass kisses from him..

bitcoin scaling is not "big block" in the terms you have been indoctrinated into speaking about
there are many things involved..

by you just falling into the trap of "scaling=bigblock" narrative of doomadism cult. you have completely lost any intellect of understanding of bitcoin scaling
its not about politics of just choosing a bigger number of blocksize.

i am not "big block" of doomadism cult story/pigeon holing..
i am of the notion of bitcoin scaling

quick lesson
big block = dev/community politics choose a large fixed number and argue about the number
bitcoin scaling is about many approaches to allow more TRANSACTIONS per block
see the difference?

bitcoin scaling has many aspects
make transactions leaner than current average bytelength
re-integrate the 1mb:3mb segregation into a unified blockspace where the main tx data gets to utilise the 3mb space
fee formulaes to not punish everyone in some fee war. but instead to punish the bloaters and spammers the most while incentivising the lean, efficient, less frequent users that dont bloat spam
and code that analyses block fill rates over a period of time and allows more blockspace if there is prolonged congestion
(much like how "difficulty" does not need dev politics decision of changing difficulty, but self manages by using blockdata to work itself out)

---

also it appears you have not done the math on data storage or bandwidth of the blockchain nor how bitcoin functions.
 
firstly most transactions are not validated at block confirmation... they are validated at pre-confirm relay. and put into mempool
we already know by the size of mempool. nodes can handle more then 16mb.. because mempools store, relay transactions in much more numbers than 4mb, 8mb, 16mb per 10minutes
many have already done analysis of how many milliseconds it takes to validate and mempool and collate thousands of transactions.. you would be surprised how little time it takes

do some research on the 'mempool fill time rate' if you want a accurate figure of transaction propagation and validation and bandwidth of majority of data that goes around the network

as for when a block confirms and the block is propagated. due to things like compact block. its normally only the header and txid merkletree that is broadcast. which is much less data than you think moving around when a solved block propogates

enjoy doing that research, it will enlighten you

oh and heres the funny
if someones computer can validate and broadcast to a peer "millions of transactions a second" on LN.. it gives you a hint to how fast it takes to relay and validate transactions pre-confirm on bitcoin..

seeing as you are LN centric.. here is an idea
swap "LN hops per millisecond", for "bitcoin relay per millisecond" and you will get the idea of peer speed of data bandwidth, relay, validation times

oh by the way
due to how LN in your best case scenario needs PSBT and a couple verifications and communication cycles before finalising a 'state' agreement of a valid payment in LN.. before performing another payment
bitcoin relay can actually receive, validate, and store in mempool, and then work on next relay tx faster then LN's numbers
enjoy researching that