For ages, I've been trying to have a debate about #BCH "scaling" VS #LightningNetwork with someone technically knowledgeable, intelligent, and articulate.
I've failed in my search to find any #BCH supporter that fits one of those 3 requirements, much less all 3.
All we get are "MORE BABIES ARE DYING"
"I have more money than your country!"
"F*** you toddler"
and a host of easily debunked propganda being spread by non-technical, individuals with no subject matter knowledge... (Or worse, they don't even know the meaning of the words.)
So many with "Oh it's an IOU". No... Do you even know what that means?
"It's centralized" No... you clearly don't understand the meaning of centralized.
Etc Etc.
Let's debunk some propaganda properly:
1: "#LightningNetwork" are IOUs: No, in no way, shape, or form are the transactions IOUs. The money you receive in a channel is under your complete control instantly. You may spend, or transfer back to the blockchain at your leisure.
"But But... it's IOUs because they can be stolen"
Actually... because they can be stolen, this proves they are NOT IOUs.
Case in point, you get paid cash by your employer. A week later someone robs you at gun point and steals said cash. Did you go back to your boss and
And say "Hey, I never received money from your IOU!"
2: "#LightningNetwork requires 3rd party watchtowers."
Incorrect: Watch towers aren't required, ever. Just like life insurance isn't required.
Secondly, watchtowers don't have to be 3rd parties. They are simply a piece of software you can run on a device (other than your /6
lightning wallet) that's always connected to the internet, possibly cellphone, home PC, leased server, etc.
Watchtowers are for the worse case scenario: Your wallet is offline for 3 days *AND* one of your counter parties is *extremely* technically inclined,
/8 *AND* the channel has less on your side than it did at some previous time, *AND* the person is malicious, *AND* the person is aware your node is down, *AND* person tries to steal your money via highly technical means.
Which is made further unlikely if they think you *MAY* have a watchtower, and lose *all* of their funds. You don't have to have a watch tower... Just the threat of one is sufficient in many cases.
The dumbest thing I've heard is "#LightningNetwork is fractional reserve".
Clearly the person doesn't know what the phrase "Fractional reserve" means. This is completely impossible on bitcoin, on ANY layer.
"But but... It's CENTRALIZED!"
Clearly, you don't understand the definition.
Centralized: Have a central point of control and/or failure.
Lightning can *not* have these by design, so they are 100% decentralized.
"Hubs can sensor transactions"
A: Absurd. Hubs have absolutely no knowledge of the source nor destination.
B: You can route around *easily*. This also applies to debunking the "centralized" propaganda.
This one is... Obvious lunacy. In no way, shape, or form are "Babies dying" because of bitcoin.
Ultra poor ppl whose babies are dying from complete lack of money... wouldn't have more food because they "have access to bitcoin".
"F*** you toddler"
So, why does #Faketoshi wand to do such a thing to toddlers? Poor toddlers. :(
So, save the babies... F the toddlers? That's #Bcash's new motto?
"Routing is XYZ"
SMH: Ok, Routing is a solved problem, it's been solved for decades...
Ok, #LightningNetwork can *NOT* use the same type of routing as "the internet", because of it's random/changing partial mesh topology.
Good thing there are SEVERAL other solutions.
If you want to see other solutions, Check out your GPS... Or many... many... many video games with pathfinding.
The reason routing isn't in the white paper: Because there are MANY solutions to pick from... or even combine together. It's up to the Devs to decide.
"But blockstream and some cabal of XYZ own #LightningNetwork"
Some of these... are just head smackingly stupid.
Ok, First: @Blockstream isn't some evil secret organization out to take over the world.
Second there are multiple implementations of #LN.
Third: Blockstream employees don't even have the majority of commits on any of the implementations, last I checked.
"You still don't have enough on-chains to add everyone to LN"
Partially true, good thing we're not a one-trick pony. Multiple scaling techniques are in the works.
Whereas, ONLY increasing blocksize is guaranteed to collapse.
Any other propaganda floating around that I haven't debunked yet?
Liquidity: This is a legitimate issue, one that has many solutions in the works, and will create an eventual natural equilibrium.
Read up on AMP, Splicing, and Autopilot... and think about what happens when combine all three of these together. Liquidity won't be a long term problem.
Please join me in shaming @NickSmithology for blatant plagiarism.
Here's another Incredibly stupid piece of propaganda:
"It's too complex, no one will use it."
Really? Then please explain to me, at a component level, how data is transmitted through your computer. What is a NAND gate? Transistor? At what voltages does your PC use inside?
"Complexity" is always hidden away behind a user interface.
99.999% of the population that use TVs, Cell phones, Smart phones, radios, cars, etc, etc, etc, have absolutely no idea how complex they are, nor have any knowledge of how they function. AND don't NEED to know.
Back to Liquidity:
I forgot to mention, it's limited by design.
There are hard limits built into the code on some (if not all) implementations of #LightningNetwork, as well as guidelines from the devs suggesting only putting small amounts in each channel.
"Bitcoin is slow, expensive, and unreliable"
No, It wasn't ever unreliable. When the blocks get full, it's on a sliding scale between slow and expensive. Nowhere on that scale is "unreliable".
In Nov/Dec I personally witnessed, via blochain explorer, a sustained attack
on the Bitcoin blockchain. Freshly mined Bitcoin would be sent to a new wallet, stay there for ONE block and immediately be sent to another new wallet. This process would repeat until the entire original balance was eaten in fees.
Once blocks are full, this costs miners absolutely nothing to pull off... in fact it actually increases the profits.
Create a transaction with a fee set so low no other miner will pick it up. Flood the system with such transactions. Then use your miner to manually process
/28 some of these transactions. The transactions are 'free' for the miner, but he also doesn't get paid for that block filled with his own transactions. BUT he's driven up fees by such a massive amount, it doesn't matter. The fees generated more than make up for the attack.
Increasing the blocksize would have only made the problem DRASTICALLY worse. It would have had no effect on the attack, or the fees. In fact, it would make the attack MORE profitable.
With non-full blocks, it's much more expensive to get the attack started.
Currently, fees between #BCH and #BTC are about the same, as represented by their native token. And speeds are identical.
"But 0-conf is instant and safe!"
A: Anyone can accept Bitcoin with 0-conf too. Soo... #Bcash doesn't win on that front.
B: 0-conf is *NOT* safe. 0-Conf is as safe as accepting a check without ID nor personal identifiers on the check. You have NO RECOURSE if it fails.
"Oh, we'll just change the name to "Verified" so people feel safer."
This is outrageously deceptive. "New and improved... Now contains Arsenic"
0-conf IS NOT VERIFIED. It's a RUMOR of a payment. Not even an IOU.
Back to IOUs:
Let me make it *very* clear: At *absolutely* no point in time does anyone owe anyone anything during the creation, usage, or closing of a Lightning Channel. Funds are moved to a smart contract, and the smart contract dictates who has control of the funds
contained with in.
Anyone telling you (or trying to explain the #LightningNetwork) the funds are IOUs have a fundamental lack of understanding of what a smart contract is, and what an IOU is.
If something is stolen, it doesn't equate to having never been paid.
If you reply to this thread with Meme propaganda or animated gifs, you will be blocked.
Use your own words. Be articulate. Look it up if you don't know what the word means.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Brain Gremlin ⚡ BTC LTC

Brain Gremlin ⚡ BTC LTC Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @LN_Master_Hub

Sep 15, 2018
@Valustks1 Each one of the techs listed is revolutionary in it's own right. Combining them sets us up to replace *all* financial transactions with #bitcoin. Once the epiphany hits enough people, there will be a MAD rush to get rid of worthless fiat.
@Valustks1 This will be the trigger for the already 'waiting to happen' global hyper inflation.
Imagine the chaos during the *several* year transition period while people/gov/corps *globally* move from fiat to bitcoin.
All your IOUs that are fiat denominated are suddenly worthless.
@Valustks1 It *globally* resets all debt, at every level, personal, local gov, state, federal, and international... ALL goes to zero. What does it matter if you own $20T in debt, if $20T wouldn't buy a stick of gum?

Then, another big part... the globe goes from inflationary
Read 7 tweets
Jul 10, 2018
Ok, lets do some calculations on Source routing.

What's the most number of nodes you'll have to check to find a path?
The max you'll have to search is the total that exist. You're not going to check the same one multiple times.

So: If you have a partial mesh where each
node is connected to 10 other nodes, and your shortest path is 20 hops.
The average number of nodes would be (10^20)/2 [On average, you'd only check half the last hop)
So, that means you'd check 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 nodes, right?
If there are 4 billion nodes
That means, at MOST, you'd check only 4B. You don't check the same ones multiple times.
So, how long would it take a modern computer to process this?
1 Ghz = 1 Billion cycles per second.
So, a Six core 4 GHz processor has 24 BILLION cycles per SECOND.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!