Reddit User Account Overview


Redditor Since August 27, 2017 (1,042 days old)
Karma Posts: 460 Comments: -100 Combined: 360
Active in

Just after [u/ZipoTm]( posted his story, I checked my node logs for breach transactions, but found none. I concluded that I was not party to any of the channel funds he has lost. Upon doing some more investigation, I have found that I was. But what happened is not at all how the story was portrayed. That kind of misunderstandings tend to happen when you are kind of rash, blame the technology, and fail to acknowledge it was your fault. Nevertheless, he does still deserve help to find these coins. He still have them, though, at least those in my channel with him, provided he has not deleted anything. So, what happened? On october 2nd, the lightning-casino node is starting with an old channel db. It tries to reconnect to all its channel peers, who notice that his state is out of date. This, however, is not the same as a force-close. What happen then is that data loss protection protocol will handle this. My node sees this data loss, and says: `2019-10-02 09:26:53.429 [ERR] LNWL: ChannelPoint(XXXXXXXX (removed for my privacy):0), sync failed: remote believes our tail height is 0, while we have 1117!` `2019-10-02 09:26:53.429 [WRN] HSWC: Error when syncing channel states: possible remote commitment state data loss` `2019-10-02 09:26:53.429 [ERR] HSWC: ChannelLink(NNNNNN:840:0) Failing link: unable to synchronize channel states: possible remote commitment state data loss` `2019-10-02 09:26:53.429 [INF] HSWC: ChannelLink(XXXXXXXXX:0) has exited` `2019-10-02 09:26:53.434 [INF] HSWC: Removing channel link with ChannelID(XXXXXXXXXXXX)` `2019-10-02 09:26:53.434 [INF] HSWC: ChannelLink(XXXXXXXXX:0) is stopping` `2019-10-02 09:26:53.534 [WRN] PEER: Force closing link(NNNNNNN:840:0)` `2019-10-02 09:26:53.534 [INF] CNCT: Attempting to force close ChannelPoint(XXXXXXXXXXXXXX:0)` `2019-10-02 09:26:53.552 [INF] CNCT: ChannelArbitrator(XXXXXXXXXXXXXX:0): force closing chan` This is a normal force close. A couple of days later, my node can sweep the funds in my end, and does so. A whooping 546 satoshi to me. lightning-casinos satoshi is, however, still sitting there on the blockchain, waiting for it to be swept by [u/ZipoTm]( Discussing this on slack, and checking some other force closes from that day, we find this is the issue with all the channels we checked. How can these be restored? Likely a seed restore followed by a restorechanbackup. [u/ZipoTm]( might need to change the lookahead window on the restore, and by all means, \*be patient\*. Another possibility is to go back to slack, ask for help. He'll surely get it, but I \*would\* recommend being a bit less triggerhappy, and it'd probably have been wise to ask for help before he started doing things he knew little about. Noone have seen a single instance of a channel breach, so likely all of his force closes were actually force closes by the other nodes due to DLP. They are now waiting for his node to sweep them. Side note: In channels created with newer versions of LND, and probably the others, this extra sweep step would be unnecessary, because protocol was changed to be a bit simpler in this regard, and the force-close-address is now managed by the seed itself, when doing a seed restore. Previously, it'd be managed by another address generated by a special set of channel keys, which is most of the content of static channel backup - these keys.

posted by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on October 25, 2019 18:44:36

I am one of those who disagree with a lot of what the established narrative is here. I am fine with that, we don't have to agree with anything. I try to provide facts and information, and I \*try\*, although it's not always easy, to steer away from the pure propaganda. My posts and replies falls mostly in these categories: \- Provide the opposing views from the views here, because my standpoints are very often not the same. \- Provide \*facts\* about things I actually know about. Now, I don't really mind very much that my opinions in category 1 is downvoted to oblivion. Annyoing, sure. But what the sensible members of this sub \*should\* do, in my opinion, is to call out those who downvote factual arguments. My sole reason to be here, nowadays, is so that those who end up in r/btc gets to hear the other side of the story, and get presented actual facts where I have them. I am for people choosing what they believe in, but if there is anyone left here that believes in free flow of information, they should call out those who downvote factual counter-arguments to oblivion. And please - don't come say r/bitcoin is worse. It very well may be, I happen to be not too fond of the moderation policy there either. I am not talking about that. I am talking about a subreddit that prides itself for being for free flow of information that does not call out those who seek to hinder that.

posted by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 24, 2019 05:24:51

I will start. This is the \*full\* text of Greg Maxwells famous celebration of high fees: ​ Personally, I'm pulling out the champaign that market behaviour is indeed producing activity levels that can pay for security without inflation, and also producing fee paying backlogs needed to stabilize consensus progress as the subsidy declines. I'd also personally prefer to pay lower fees-- current levels even challenge my old comparison with wire transfer costs-- but we should look most strongly at difficult to forge market signals rather than just claims-- segwit usage gives us a pretty good indicator since most users would get a 50-70% fee reduction without even considering the second order effects from increased capacity. As Jameson Lopp notes, more can be done for education though-- perhaps that market signal isn't efficient yet. But we should get it there. But even independently of segwit we can also look at other inefficient transaction styles: uncompressed keys, unconfirmed chaining instead of send many batching, fee overpayment, etc... and the message there is similar. I've also seen some evidence that a portion of the current high rate congestion is contrived traffic. To the extent that it's true there also should be some relief there soon as the funding for that runs out, in addition to expected traffic patterns, difficulty changes, etc. Quote from [](

posted by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 28, 2019 07:36:43

Now that LND has been in beta for a few days, I thought I should share my experiences with those here actually interested, too. There's not a whole lot of LN adoption yet among vendors, of course - so what you can do except send back and forth with others is limited :) Nevertheless, it's promising. I have ran a node on the main net since saturday. Since then, I have opened a total of 8 outgoing channels - none with much funds, though, as it's still early days. The 8 channels cost me a total of $0.11 in on-chain funds to open. I have done a total of 6 outgoing lightning transactions, for a total of 3 satoshis in lightning fees. What have I done, so far? - Wrote an article for This gives me $0.01 each time someone reads it, but I had to pay $0.15 to publish it. It wasn't a very interesting article, so honestly I am happy that I have gotten back $0.06 so far :) Last time I withdrew was this morning, a whooping 105 satoshi. Since I have a direct channel with them, it was free, else it'd have cost me (or them, not sure if they cover the fees) a satoshi or two. - Not bought stickers from Blockstream yet. - Playing with the technology. - Considered what services I can provide? This is fun, and enables microtransactions on a previously unprecedented way. We'll start seeing services with sub-dollar costs. Safety: My LN node is up 24/7. Not worried about fraud so far. Also because there's honestly speaking not a lot to steal :) Protocol-wise, it works well as long as I am a bit careful about who to connect to. SInce other implementations are not as mature, there's a "stable LND" segment building, which I guess will become more diverse once the other implementations get up to speed. This was just some random thoughts :)

posted by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 20, 2018 05:40:16

There are some players in the cryptocurrency ecosystem that have som good quality videos. The problem with them, however, is that the ones I have seen is *full* of misleading and false information. Now, within the cryptocurrency ecosystem, this isn't really a problem. We know good information from bad information. The problem is, the ecosystem is *growing* a lot these days - and a lot of the new people not understanding key concepts, and will buy into the information in the videos. I will be willing to pay some BTC - not a lot, because I don't have *that much* - but it would be in the hundredths of a BTC range :) With some more people chipping in, it might actually be worth it for someone. I'll try to describe my first one with words. It's the one about why full nodes matter. It will piction miners in the central of the movie, all mining bitcoins. Then, it'll add nodes to the ecosystem. Nodes will validate/look at the coins, and determine whether it's a bitcoin or not. Then, goods (for example coffee cups) and money will flow the other way, to the miners. The money will flow out the other end, towards the electricity company, which is the bills that the miners have to pay. Now, we'll picture some of the miners - let's say 70% - of the miners going rogue. This, I want to picture with a pirate flag instead of the bitcoin system, and the bitcoin turning black. It's bitcoins that has changed. Now, we'll need to picture what happens when those black bitcoins get to the full nodes. No goods or money will flow the other way. Eventually, the power company will want money, and we'll picture a sad miner with no money in his pockets. We'll compare that to the 30% of miners mining true bitcoins, sending it to the nodes, and coffee and money flows as before. For this comparision to work properly, I think we might need to have external people using the full nodes to validate. Now, we need to change this picture. We'll need to remove the full nodes, and have the external people use the full nodes of the miners to validate instead. The users trusting the miners nodes will still give coffee and money to the miners. Now, we'll need to picture what happens after a while: The users having used the rogue miners to validate will be sad, and hold bad bitcoins, while the users having used good miners will be happy, with good bitcoins. There has to be a good narrative here voice, here, describing the ways bitcoins can be "fake", the rules having changed, suddenly there having been printed more bitcoins than 21 million, signatures not being validated, etc. We don't want to create FUD videos either, this has to be realistic scenarios. What do you think? Does anyone here have the means and artistic knowledge to do this, or know someone who does? I'll be willing to chip in a small BTC payment for it.

posted by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on February 16, 2018 12:29:55

So, I have been spending too much time in another sub. (I suffer from a tad of I have a hard time getting *anyone* there, *anyone* at all, to agree with my view. So, I'd like some balanced comments, from I am talking about the value independent nodes play in determining which hardfork has value. Please hear me out, and tell me where I am wrong: Let's say 70% of miners decide to change the rules. - Examples: Add one extra mandatory output to themselves, that doesn't need to have a valid signature. Can be done, if they are the ones who validate the rules... - Decides to stop validating signatures and treat Segwit as anyone-can-spend (already done on a competing coin) Now, all else being equal, the majority chain would win. But there would be two chains, not compatible. If mining nodes were those that decided whether or not transactions was valid, it's a given which side would win - right? But ok. The economic part of the ecosystem is not interested in that. They'll not perform those changes, and will still only accept coins mined by the 30% minority chain. I am arguing that the minority chain is doomed to win in this case, unless they actually manage to fool the non-mining nodes to run that hard-fork too...and why would they? The majority chain would of course have majority hash power, but their *market* would be reduced to an internal market equal to the I still correct? So, only the 30% remaining honest miners coins could actually be spent, and eventually DAA would come in...and adjust difficulty so that blocks were still 6 per hour. Still correct? How would this not reduce the 70% majority (which were obviously dishonest so hardly any external actors would give value to the coin) to more or less a miners toy they can transact with each others? Please correct or improve on my world view.

posted by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on February 16, 2018 11:08:28

I see so much disinformation here, that I thought I'd start a thread with a discussion. Let me start off with *my* understanding. - Miners: - Ultimeately have the power over the features of a coin, 51% can in reality do pretty much what they want. If they change features in an incompatible way, they are creating a hard fork. - Nodes independently validates the rules. If noone is *using* that node, it doesn't really matter what the node does. But.... - Users decide what the coins are worth. If you send me coins for a cup of coffee, *I* decide if they are worth a cup of coffee. If I run a full node and finds out that your transaction is mined in an invalid block (one following rules I don't agree with), I am not going to give you a cup of coffee. The same goes for exchanges, and anyone else that exchanges your crypto for something else. If they validate your transactions and find them false, your coins are worthless for them. Running a full node helps you with this validation, and ultimately the majority of the economic activity is what decides what the coin is worth. Miners do not decide what a coin is worth, users of it does. - Businesses is not going to accept coins that they know that noone else will accept. If a business is not running a full node, they are ultimately trusting that someone else is validating for them. An SPV node will validate the transactions themselves are involved in, but if *another* transaction in the same block is invalid, this actually means their own transaction is invalid too. For people accepting small transactions and not a lot of them, this is likely to be a fair trade-off. If the *majority* of the economic activity is trusting that someone else is doing the validation for them, we are actually in big trouble and it's a disaster waiting to happen. - Developers - develop the software. Nodes, miners, businesses and users decide which software to use. Since all full node software is open source, it's possible to fork it if you don't agree. Your software will still have to be compatible with the network, though, else the network will find your transactions invalid, and your coins would be worthless if you were mining. It's actually not so difficult to understand all of this. This is based on what is *actually* power between actors today, not Satoshis vision or anything else. We are talking about money, and no person is going to tell *me* how much to value a coin. That's part of the attractiveness of crypto, that it's a *decentralized* crypto, free from government manipulation. The market forces are in power. This was just my two satoshi. In any coin you want.

posted by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 14, 2018 09:20:55

Ever since talking about block size increase has been a thing, the importance of running a full node has become increasingly under focus. As blocks become bigger, running full nodes will be more expensive and take up more of your bandwidth. CSW states that running a full node does not help the network. He is only partially correct. I will explain why. It's true that an extra node in itself does not matter. What matter is that those who actually engage in economic activity do it through non-mining full nodes! Why? Because it's an extra disincentive to doing 51% attacks! Let's take a scenario of a 75% attack, where *all* exchanges run their own full nodes. It's true that they have the most hash rate, but unless they can convince the exchanges that *their* chain is the valid one, and not the remaining 25%, their coins will not be possible to sell. Now, they might collude with one exchange, selling their coins there....but what happens with that exchange? Where should *they* sell their coins? So that the *economic majority* runs full nodes is what matters. But let's continue. The remaining 25% of the hash rate will happily be able to sell their coins to the exchanges. Difficulty will eventually adjust, and hash rate of the remaining chain increases. Now, what are the remains of the 75% attack? They have effecively hardforked to a worthless coin! They can't sell them anywhere. This is why we should not increase the bar for running a full node. We need the incentive for running a full node.

posted by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 22, 2018 02:54:39

I have been playing with lightning the last few weeks, and have been thinking about how *I* want to use it. And how I would *like* my Trezor to be part of it :) Feel free to take my ideas a part, critizise them, point out weaknesses or build on them. First: My trezor will never be always on, and I do not want my keys to be active without me confirming it. But I still think some lightning interaction might be useful. I use the web wallet for now, as for me this has made most sense. It was early to use Segwit, and has the features I need in a hardware wallet. I think I will never use only my trezor/hardware wallet. I am currently using Samourai for my spending wallet, but will probably switch to the first one that supports Lightning Network in a meaningful way. I will, however, never keep that much BTC on a mobile wallet. My TREZOR will have to be brought out to refill it from time to time. And here is where I think it makes sense to use lightning on TREZOR. First: I don't personally foresee I'll miss not having the ability to create a lot of channels from TREZOR. I will need a few reliable ones. These, I will use mostly to send transactions - so I am perfectly happy for now not to receive. I would also perfectly happy with only using trezors own lightning nodes, and I think that might make sense for a couple of reasons. First: I already sort of trust trezor. Since my trezor will not always on, it will probably not really watch the channel. However, since I can envision *only* using it to send LN transactions to fill up my active channels on my mobile wallet. As the benefit of broadcasting an old transaction state is negative (they'll effectively only be able to give me back coins), we can then ignore the always-on-to-watch aspect. With running dedicated LN nodes at Trezor, it will be possible to customize/fine tune the behavior so that it suits the things Trezor needs, keeps channels open for a long time without any action from the Trezor side, etc. What do you think? Spend-only channels? Trezor-run lightning nodes? This will simplify the UI and conf needed in wallet, I think. ...and only possible to use it while connected - and key presses will be necessary to sign transactions.

posted by /u/vegarde in /r/TREZOR on January 4, 2018 01:18:01

We've had a few rough months with BCH, mainly due to the faulty EDA. Now that the storm has passed, sort of - there are some remnants that still thinks it's magically going to topple BTC - I will provide *my* view on the main players. - Jihan Wu - He's a miner and a business man. Pretty smart, not inherently evil. He knows that two coins is better than one coin, for his business. He's pretty satisfied either way, and actually tries to speak against the "Bitcoin Cash is bitcoin" nonsense and tries to separate them. - Roger Ver is perhaps the main player. He's a gambler, betting most of his BTC on doing the same again with BCH. He's very dependent upon selling the narrative that "BCH will topple BTC", because if not a lot of other people than he believes in it, he'll not really gain anything much. He's in it for the money. - The small investors. These are the people who believe they missed out with BTC, and believes they can jump on the BCH train and get "all the money from BTC". Some of them buy the things Roger tells them, some just think they too can join in in Rogers pump (and dump?). - The traders. Chinese and Korean. They'll trade anything. Helps pressing the price up. The small investors take this as a validation of BCH in itself, and joins in. Someone of these makes sure to keep BCH stable at around $1200 between the pump&dumps. My bet is on Roger Ver and someone else. They must burn a lot of their money from BTC on it, but they are gamblers who believe they can get it back in the pump&dumps. Does anyone agree with me? Disagree?

posted by /u/vegarde in /r/CryptoCurrency on November 24, 2017 14:15:41

I saw a video, saying it willl be big banking running Lightning Nodes, because it will require locking up funds to fund all the channels. I pondered this a bit, and then it dawned on me. This will not happen. Why? Because of HODLers. The HODLers are those who have bitcoin to tie up, not the banks. It's a perfect match. Say I have 1 BTC that I'm not planning to touch this year, probably not next year either. It's now sitting in my wallet, doing nothing at all. It grows in value, sure, in fiat, but not growing in bitcoin. So what if I could borrow it out to a lightning node pool - perhaps through a smart contract, even? I allow the pool to fund lightning channels with it, but nothing else. Now, there are probably going to be some small fees involved with lightning transaction. As a funder, I will of course be entitled to *my* share of these fees, after expenses for the node is paid. Yay! Finally! I can actually gain some extra coins from my HODLing. I don't expect this will amount to much, of course, but it will be *nothing* when it sits in an offline storage. This will become the "mining light" that HODLers can do. Of course, miners will still receive coins, and are free to commit their proceedings to fund Lightning Node channels, just as everyone else, after their own mining expenses are paid.

posted by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on November 8, 2017 02:53:25

Getting a bit tired of the fork, wanting to discuss something more, here goes: - Who do we expect will run lightning nodes? - BitPay - I guess this is a given.... - Amazon? - Various community driven projects - FinTech companies? - More? Use cases: For, say, Amazon, would it make sense to allow it only for buying amazon stuff? Or, waiving the fee for amazon purchases? I guess this would make sense, business wise, for amazon.... Likewise for BitPay For community projects, I guess it could be a way to finance your web pages and other minor costs. Adoption: Is any wallets actually working on lightning support? I think for example Samourai is feature-rich, and it wouldn't surprise me if they had support almost from day one when we had the first lightning node... This is an attempt to actually start discussing something interesting :) As for when we see lightning, any guesses? I know open source mantra, "we release it when it's ready, not before", so I understand there is no promises. I have heard the big-blockers say "lightning is 18 months away". I guess this is the pessimistic estimate. Given that it's being tested on testnet now, and I think I even saw some brave souls doing it on mainnet, I think that is fairly pessimistic. My guess? Between 4 and 8 months until we see lightning nodes and the first experimental wallets appear on mainnet.

posted by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on October 31, 2017 15:04:38

I used to be more in the "let's just give them 2 MB and get it over with", when I first started studying the issues around the hardfork. I still am not completely sure that the block size increase will be *that* large of a problem. But I am sure that I am not willing to risk it just yet. Now, what can the problem be? I mean - I have a 100/25 Mbps line at home, and I believe 8 Mbps is the absolute minimum of what can go for "broadband" connection here. And it can't be that much worse in rest of Europe - and I believe also Russia, China, etc are getting there. And even the US, slowly. But then I though: Isn't Bitcoin also about decentralisation? freedom? From censorship and oppression? Is it *only* about astronomic returns, an instant non-expensive payment systems, or is there also other goals? What about people in Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and other places where they have dysfunctional regimes and hyperinflation? Isn't important that they too can run their own full nodes? Shouldn't we also allow people there to participate? How is it with bandwidth in rural Africa? Am I not a bit selfish if I want *cheap fees now*, and sacrifice whole parts of the world where people actually *need* to be part of bitcoin economy, where it can actually make a difference? So: I am now against Segwit2X. I don't want a rushed doubling of block size. Segwit was necessary to allow scaling by other means, a doubling is just selfish.

posted by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on October 25, 2017 03:58:33

First, let me just state that I don't necessarily endorse this as "best practise". My bitcoins *will* stay in my own wallet. But.... We all know that keeping the key secure, in a world where everyone owns bitcoins, *will* end in disaster for quite a lot of the bitcoin owners. There will be a lot of people thinking "this backup does not matter, if I lose it, I can just call Mycelium (or whoever is their wallet provider) and have them give me my bitcoins. So, what could be done for the average user? I'm thinking bitcoin bank. Basically, every bank have to become a bitcoin exchange - but under bank security regulations. And bitcoins *should* be kept in a customer specific wallet, where all the keys are stored in HSM (Hardware Security Modules). There are, of course, improvements on this. We could create multi-sig wallets, where the bank keeps one key and the customer keeps another. However, for a 2-of-2 setup, the customer would again be very sorry if he lost his key. We could create a 2-by-3 setup, where the customer kept one key, the bank one, and a trusted third-party kept the third. The trusted third-party would act on behalf of the customer upon strong authentication (think electronic ID or personal appearance with a passport)- barring legal actions agains the customers etc, I would guess.... Of course - this defeats half the purpose of bitcoins. I'd not want this to *replace* user-owned wallets, but it's a heck of a lot better for the non-technical user than keeping all the bitcoins in exchanges. Banks *do* have security standards to live up to, exchanges has proven lots of times that they don't...

posted by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on September 26, 2017 09:17:07

### Keybase proof I am: * [vegarde]( on reddit. * [vegardengen]( on keybase. Proof: 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

posted by /u/vegarde in /r/KeybaseProofs on September 7, 2017 00:54:43

Yeah, that strategy seems to be working wonders. Keep on doing that.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 4, 2020 12:14:35

Ultimately, I think only changing the PoW algorithm is the fix. The rapid difficulty adjustment will make it much easier to exploit. Changing it back to Bitcoins difficulty adjustment would also help, but you'd risk much longer periods with almost no blocks. So, inherently the problems follows from having a superminority of shared hash rate. Not a good place to be.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 4, 2020 11:29:48

This was a pretty good writeup - recommend everyone to read it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 4, 2020 11:19:42

Nowadays, I guess the best option is to buy gift cards. There is a site, [](, that sells a lot of different gift cards for bitcoin - including Steam.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 4, 2020 06:21:56

Bitcoin transactions are reliable, but they are not necessarily fast, and not necessarily cheap. I think Adam Back has always been one of those *for* compromise, *for* a slight increase in block size increase. His signature on the various agreements show it. However, what you need to understand is that Blockstream doesn't own Bitcoin Core development, they only fund a few developers. Yes, yes, I know the narrative here, but it has *always* been that way. Blockstream was funded by a bunch of developers realizing Bitcoin development was *not* just about "raising the blocksize". Oh, btw, I also believe r/bitcoin moderation is way to0 strict, I have no love for the moderation policy - but it is what it is, and it might have averted a contentious hard fork (Bitcoin XT). Metrics about Blockstreams influence in Bitcoin Core can be found at the github, I guess, and the PR activity etc. Btw, *that*'s where decisions are done, not at conferences. But this seems hard to grasp - so the conferences even had to spell it out litterally - that "No decisions about scaling will be taken at the Scaling Bitcoin Conference". That sentence has been ridiculed a lot in here, but in reality it was a statement of fact - Bitcoin doesn't *have* official representatives with authority to speak for it, everyone are individuals. And many of those would not be at the conference. You are right that people create companies around what they believe in, though. If you know that scaling by "just raising the block size" is not the right way, you are not going to build a company on that foundation. So, I encourage you to view the companies around BCH in that light, and start considering whether they *are* the saviours of bitcoin, or if they are just working for their own profit. Any company are ultimately going to want profit, though, that's not really strange. But, back to your final "Blockstream bad" you are saying people building on Bitcoin should not be allowed to fund Bitcoin development? Sorry, but *all* open source development of some size receives corporate funding. I know funds Bitcoin ABC (at least they have promised to do so), I'd guess Bitmain does (although I can't remember if I have seen it stated). These "corporate fundings", however, is a distraction. I try to use my own judgement. And to me it boils down mostly to "a broadcast to all" solution that a blockchain really is, it makes extremely well sense to limit how much you broadcast. Because anything you send is going to send *a multiple times* and stored *a multiple times*. There needs to be incentives that limits the extent to how much data is sent.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 4, 2020 06:01:50

That's your loss. Literally and financially.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 17:46:16

And yes - I mean noone. Any lightning network channel can be closed, \*unilaterally\*. Now, if you do it without coooperation from channel partner, there is a time lock there to give him a chance to dispute it, but all this is well known. (No: I will not answer anyone trying to compare it with onchain. It's not the same, never will be and never was meant to be).

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 10:22:11

At that time, numereous actors had stupid fee policies, and numerous exchanges didn't even try to use the blockchain in effective way. Not to mention that most of the transactions were likely people doing speculation, sending bitcoin between exchanges, despite it being not particularly good for speculation, and the main chain *never will be*. 10 minute block time with a lot of variance will always be too long for that. Limits today are effectively higher, and we have people providing solutions more tailored to speculation and such. Not to mention that we now have a solution, making good progress, that means you can do your coffee cup spendings without wasting space on the main chain too. There's improvements going on, and these improvements *will* be first priority, because I know that real progress isn't storing as much as we can on the blockchain, it is limiting how much we *have* to store on the blockchain.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 09:51:59

Noone *ever* said the current limit is final. *Noone*. But most sane people agree that we shouldn't have increasing the limit as a first choice. Smaller will *always* be better when it comes to how much data we have to store, validate, transfer and sync.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 09:34:45

Any arguments except "Satoshi said so" and "it was always the plan" ? If not, then please shut up.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 09:22:30

The only reason you think this is that the "early adopter" influence is disappearing. Blockstream? They pay money for development of Bitcoin because they need Bitcoin to work well for the solutions on top of bitcoin that it provides or plan to provide. That's the *only* role. There has been *numerous* metrics provided showing this. But to you, th "Blockstream bad" conspiracy is just more convenient than the world actually learning the limitations, use cases and advantages of a distributed blockchain. Everyone supporting bigger blocks nowadays are people that financially would benefit from it, either directly or because it is a way for them to regain influence they have lost in bitcoin. Why don't you try to use actual arguments, for once, instead of "Blockstream bad" arguments?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 07:19:47

I hate to break it to you, but that is exactly what he was trying. Haven't you gotten it by now? Bitcoin has proven its resistance to corporate takeovers quite a few times now, which, I guess, is largely part of the reason for its relatively high valuation.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 07:01:35

There's nothing official about r/bitcoin.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on July 3, 2020 06:49:34

The transaction size in LN will also rise over time, and larger transaction values is not that sensitive to high fees, so they'll likely be done on-chain for now. Remember: LN is not and was never ment to replace onchain transactions, only supplement it. Oh, btw: I have sent transactions in the range a few hundred dollars quite a few times. The largest I have had the need for is around 5M satoshi, which is in the $500 range. That was done with a multipath payment, and it's very likely not the maximum I could have done. But I agree, small payments is probably the best use case. What do you think, do people do most small payments or most large payments?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 06:29:17

The current liquidity is probably good enough for current demand. Remember: Channels are used both ways. I have channels that have sent and received *multiple* times its own capacity, over its lifetime. The amount of bitcoins locked in these channels is thus a meaningless number. We're also seeing multipath payments, i.e. the possibility to split up payments, to manifest, so the need for having large channels are starting to disappear (I have tested multipath payments - no issue there on mine) But yes - I realize it's still early. I earn not much in routing fees, but I earn a ton in learning. (And no, spending bitcoin is not that much in demand. Which is manifested in BCHs low transaction count)

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 05:50:15

Difference is, in the eth tokens, you have a \*single\* functionary, BitGo. In Lightning Network, you don't need to ask permission from anyone to redeem the bitcoin onchain.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 05:40:11

While that's true, you don't really send other coins over the \*same\* Lightning Network, so what is measured here is how many \*bitcoin\*-channels there are. You can not send Litecoin over a channel that has bitcoin in it (though of course you can do some swaps in/out). Note: You can only see public channels here - and most users will likely now use mobile wallets, and those will create private channels per default.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 02:51:39

Most people thought that at the time. Everyone was learning back then. Satoshi, too.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 01:25:17

Yes. Everything is a tradeoff. Adding/changing on-chain properties also adds attack vectors, which is why development there should explicitly be slower, evaluated *extremely* well, and not done unless we are quite sure it doesn't do any harm. We do tradeoffs in layer two, because we don't want to do them on layer 1. Any more obvious statements?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 10:35:20

Most of the moderators in this group is actually employed by Roger Ver. I truly don't think Roger understands crypto either. To him, unless it builds up under a business case for him, it's not really worth it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 09:38:34

Doing my best, but it is difficult to ignore sometimes :)

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 09:20:22

Cool - does that mean I now get a pay check? I didn't know you were working in the Core Shill HR department.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 07:21:57

So...what happens when a few of the miners have decided mining BCH isn't really worth it? You need an insane amount of transactions to retain the incentive a couple of halvings down the road. If you get that, how many people will bother to validate the blockchain. I know that you don't think it matters, but *it does*. I know this community have tried to ridicule quite a few of the people behind this research. There might be good reasons for that. Maybe they don't want people to read it? I'd encourage to read anyhow, maybe you'll learn what the *real* issues are.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 07:11:06

It's initially their risk, of course. But as a user, you'd likely not like to be a customer of an exchange with risky policies wrt to this. A doublespend attack towards it would be extremely easy, and then they would lose money. Maybe your money. Not your keys, not your coins.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 05:09:45

Cheers! I encourage you and everyone else to do more of that - it's part of "do your own research". In reality, the same people you saw critizising me have chased away quite a few people that simply got fed up with the channel narratives here. And yes - people have been banned. Maybe for a reason, maybe not, for an active person it is easy to break a rule at some point, and thereby create an excuse for moderators to ban them. Now, I can predict the replies to this, there will be replies accusing me of hiding the fact that banning is done more in r/bitcoin. I hide no such fact, I am fully aware of it. In fact, I don't even particulary like the moderation policy of r/bitcoin, but I am not up to the task and step up as a moderator, so I don't really get the right to complain. They do have a very different goal than r/btc with moderation - for good and for bad. There's a lot of narratives in here, different agendas. Most of the moderators are employees of Roger Vers company, and thus directly involved in the success of BCH. Their bias does show, too. I am always for "do your own reseach". I encourage everyone to do that. Don't trust, verify is a slogan of bitcoin, and that counts for everything said about it too. And yes - this includes me. I'd hate for people to trust me blindly. Always do your own research.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 04:51:25

This is not exactly new, this attack vector have been sort of known since the start. It is not that easy to perform. Contrary to what the article says, there are possible mitigations. Sure, restricted block space is restricted block space, and something we know that have to be there economically, although the restriction can be changed over time. At least in LND, there is a change as to how commitment transactions is created which will make it possible to bump fees of the force-close transactions. This is already merged in latest release, but will likely be improved a bit over time. See []( \- the section about "On-chain fees, new Anchor Commitment Format"

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 04:40:28

Yup. In BCH, you trust that someone comes to your aid. Miners redirecting hash from a more profitable chain to defend against a reorg attack. You being at the same side as the checkpoints that will be declared the winning side in case of 10+ blocks. In BTC, we believe in maximalizing trustlessness. You know, the way bitcoin was meant to be.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 02:53:06

Anything more than 10 is superfluous. Above 10, you will have to trust that you are on the same chain as the ones who will - in case of a reorg - be deemed to have the most valid checkpoints anyway. 11 confirmations doesn't really mean anything in BCH, because unless you are on the correct chain, majority PoW can be overriden anyways. But 10 confirmations is sensible, though in security, that corresponds to a fraction of a BTC confirmation.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 02:37:26

To claim that "bitcoin was meant to be" and follow up with anything but "money you can use whatever way you want" is dishonest. BCH doesn't really follow the concept of bitcoin anymore. It has PoW-overriding mechanisms, and its most popular client has a software expiry date every 6 months. Whitepaper? Was a nice starting point for an awesome learning experience these 10+ years!

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 02:26:46

The most popular one these days seems to be btcpayserver. It's a self-hosted solution, and it supports Lightning Network. See []( Note: It does no automatic fiat conversion, so you get bitcoin, and if you want to sell them you have to handle that yourself.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 01:24:14

Please present to me the follow up slide, or the oral part of the talk.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 15:36:16

No, "we" don't know that. Please tell me what rule "Bitcoin Core" broke.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 15:24:10

Slides taken out of context? I was not at the conference/lecture/whatever where this was presented. But it's not uncommon to present some rather provoking talking points in slides, and then present a more nuanced view in your talk. But that explanation is of course not as FUD-friendly.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 12:20:50

At least you are aware of the tradeoffs you are doing. It's fine to use BCH as a spending coin, really, when low-fee methods on a more security-oriented coins are not well developed yet. I don't even dislike that part of BCH. I dislike the narrative that the only explanation that people have valued security over low fees are sabotage. I also dislike the fight and FUD against techniques like Lightning Network. I realize that it has a way to go before it's battle-tested, but it *is* being used and provides value in real life, today. Most of the security issues being touted, btw, have been discovered by people in support of LN, that wants to have *real* security as opposed to "something where the security issues just isn't found yet". But: I have no problem with people choosing a low-fee coin for spending because they don't have a more economic way of spending, and they need/want to spend crypto.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 12:08:37

Oh great. Then we might go back to discuss things based on the experience, and value experience higher than what is in the whitepaper. Satoshi was on a learning trip as much as anyone else, and changed his opinion several times. He removed features because they were not safe enough, and he changed his opinion of fees subtly over time. If Satoshi is alive, he probably cringes at those who does not value learning over an 11 year old whitepaper.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 11:25:34

Sure, I know it's not profitable to attack you for large values, but are you satisfied with being simply a low-value coin? What you are saying is that it's utterly unsafe to receive more than $10k without waiting an hour. Of course, any attacker might do *more* than one attack in the same block, potentially? So if he says, do two of $5k - you can't automatically assume that $5k is safe? Of course this is difficult to perform with many frauds at the same time, but I guess two is plausible.... Now we get to the reorg-protection. It *might* seem like a good idea. But I encourage you to think of it more from the blockchain, and not so much "me vs. an attacker". PoW is meant to resolve that, and these checkpoints is *a tool for someone to override PoW*. Remember, there's symmetry in this, so seen from the other side, the 11 block that is overriden, the 10 blocks that declare their versions valid is an attack! Now, for the fee part. What you are *actually* saying, is that there's little demand for your block space. In fact, given that block reward of $1391 whereas only $1 in fees, there's little direct incentive to include those transactions at all... What you are *actually* saying, is that you are *way* behind bitcoin on your way to replace the block reward by a meaningful amount of fees. I get it. Noone like to pay fees. But a PoW blockchain is what it is, and if there's no financial incentive for PoW, there will *be* no PoW and no security.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 10:46:47

It's fine to tell you believe BTC will fail. I have no problem with that.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 08:38:40

I had nothing to do with the reporting. just pointing out that your financial interests might very well make it not fair game to tell fairytales about your competitors. No specific accuses here.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 08:24:11

Continue that narrative, if you like. It's not my conscience.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 08:10:59

Fraud is a felony. It is not a felony to claim your coin is better than the competing ones, you have all the right in the world to do that. To mislead people to take financial decisions by telling lies about your competition might well be. Now, being a part of a community probably does not present any risk. But employees at places that have a strong financial interest in BCH probably need to be more aware.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 07:59:37

No. You are welcome to succeed, but not by telling fairytailes and tricking people into buying your coin, pretending that it is the real bitcoin. Now, I don't know how much of that really goes on offically, but it is definitely the narrative among some people here, and the mods are \*definitely\* doing nothing to stop it. It borders on fraud. It has to do with peoples financial decisions, and people in this subreddit is telling fairytales about its competition.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 07:01:32

Duh. I have read the whitepaper. In detail, multiple times. A whitdpaper is a very great starting point, but it is \*no bible\*. I am not very religious. I prefer basing my choices on what works.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 05:39:04

Fees have to increase quite a bit, but there's no real limit to how much economic activity an onchain transaction can represent. You'd be a lot more willing to pay a higher fee if you knew it represented tens of transactions in real life. I know you don't agree, but a distributed blockchain doesn't scale very well. Smaller is *always* better, from a technical perspective. The difficult issue is to find out where the lower limit is. Only after Segwit has it been possible to start exploring this to the full, when malleability was fixed. We're still early in offchain mechanism development. But this is where we're going to grow our capacity. There is, however, some gains to be had with improvements like Schnorr and Taproot, that will end up in a softfork in some upcoming version. Not to mention that using the blockchain in an effective way, i.e. batching, are becoming more popular since 2017 and onwards, which means effective throughput has increased. In summary: BCH community is wrong that more transactions are better. It is not. More economic activity is of course good, and it need to have proper representation onchain, but not everything need to land in an onchain transaction.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 03:42:41

This is also BCH strategys biggest problem. Long term security means there has to be meaningful fees. Meaningful fees will not be there unless there is a limit. ​ Now, we may disagree about where that limit should be - long term I am not completely sure, but I know that for the good of the network, the answer is \*as low as possible\* - but the limit has to be there.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 03:23:49

BCH has gone down in value, compared to BTC, constantly. BCHs price hasn't kept up with anything, really. My point stands: Long term, you depend on very large blocks, and that *will* inevitable lead to centralization. The alternative is sticking with a block size that keeps block space as something that's valuable, so people are willing to pay real fees. I am not saying here that BTCs block size is the correct one long term, but the premise that "block space should never be the limitation" is false. Sure, for a paypal and VISA, that live off planned fees, is a single actor and can set it themselves, that works. For a decentralized cryptocurrency with competing validators, not so much.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 17:27:13

I get caught up in the tone. I admit it. I never answer honest communication with other than facts and reason, only after the other side has been unreasonable might I, sometimes, answer in the same tone. I am not proud of it. I try to stick to facts and reason.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 17:16:30

Your second last paragraph is the reason I liked the BCH hardfork. It means we can now again progress. No, we don't need this rushed, progress-or-die-every-6th-month. Since BTC aims to be sound money, the community only do changes when we are completely sure it's sound. That can take *time*, but there's no worse than a rash decision here, so time spent is worth it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 17:06:20

I am not against BCH. What on earth gave you that idea? I don't believe too much in it, but it's a free world. What I am against, is desinformation against BTC and technologies for BTC, like Lightning Network. I try to debunk some of it, but gets little but hate in return, even if I only provide factual information. So, BCH? I don't hate it. But a lot of people in this community is dishonest and toxic. If you are to succeed on your own terms, that needs to go away. I hate lies and propaganda. I don't hate BCH in itself.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 16:55:35

I don't think you fully understand the economics of PoW. With low block reward, it won't buy enough PoW to protect it. Sure, the checkpoints "protect it" somewhat, but I encourage you to consider, honestly, what I am telling you now, because you seem to be one of the less handwaving people in here that actually tries to understand this in a technical way. So, here goes: The checkpoints you introduced is nothing more than a tool for the "leaders" of BCH to declare their chain the correct one. No, BCH is not trustless if you just can go ahead and declare your blocks more valid than 11 competing blocks with more PoW. That means you have elected central validators. I encourage you to think if you'd follow anyone who came along with a checkpoint of 10 blocks...remember, those 11 competing blocks could have checkpoints too! So, in this case, you'd have to pick a side. Declaring one side more valid than the other. This is what PoW is meant to solve, but PoW needs to be enough to discourage this. There is a site,, that calculates how many blocks and how long time you need for various competing coins to gain BTCs 6 block "immutable" standard. Go check BCH. The lesson is: PoW matters. And there need to be significant fees to create an incentive to use significant PoW.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 16:45:36

BCH has no demand for space, but BTC has *real* demand for transaction space. BCH has proved *nothing* at all. When you forked, I had some hope that at least the world could learn something valuable from it. In reality, 3 years has gone, and *nothing* of value has been learned. Nothing at all.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 16:29:44

At least in LND, there are mitigations on the way, and the name is Anchor commitments. This will allow for properly fee-bumping force-closed channels. This might eventually also pave the way for lowering the overpayments of force-closed channels, because it's now easier to mitigate it after. See for example []( which describes this in a not too technical way, along with the other latest improvements.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on June 30, 2020 15:37:38

So, this has already been on its way to be mitigated for a long time. A good article describing this and other improvements in a lightweight way is [](

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 15:33:03

That's your narrative. But it's been three years, where's the metric showing data that you had more support? Given that you believe you had the most educated supporters, do you believe they're living under a rock and don't know about BCH?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 11:11:27

I see what you are saying. Imho, BCH-wallets could do more to prevent sending to any-miner-can-spend addresses, too. I agree, the DAO hack was a bad incident. The BCH incident was also assisted by the bug in the hard fork, see So...hard forks are totally safe? The checkpoints are protection, sure, but it is definitely centralization. We have PoW for a reason, and the valid chain is the one with most PoW. If 11 blocks with more PoW comes in from nowhere, it is actually just as valid seen from the chain, What the checkpoints are: A method to automatically declare that invalid. And I am pretty sure I know which faction gets to decide the valid chain in case there is a dispute. That's centralization. It might be necessary, but it's still centralization. And yes, the automatic replay protection is definitely forced. An ABC client that is not updated at least once every 6th month or so, *will stop working*. But I agree, anyone is free to run other non-consensus-breaking node implementations - running consensus-breaking node implementations create a hard fork. As seen in BSV/BCH.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 10:58:54

No. 1) Blockstream doesn't own Bitcoin Core. It funds some development, sure, but haven't got the final authority. Now, I would agree with you that it's difficult to change Bitcoin because of this, that noone owns Bitcoin, but it's *actually* a feature. 2) Most metric shows that most community agreed with not raising the block size. Sure, not without heated discussion and a bit back and forth, but eventually metric tended towards staying with Segwit and not go for Segwit2X. Segwit2X was *cancelled* by those who was pushing for it because they believed it would be too contentious a hardfork and didn't have enough support. Eventually it was cancelled by 2 guys in an email. Muh, decentralized decisions.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 10:44:07

So..the flippening will save you?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 10:19:43

Have you done the calculation of per-halving block size increase to replace fees? Do you know how much you'll need to grow each halving to replace your security? Sure, BTC has sort of the same problems, but not as dire as BCH - as we have accepted paying real fees for real security.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 09:50:54

See, here's the thing. Segwit2X was never a consensus, it was an attempted corporate hijack. Decisions in bitcoin are never done in backroom deals in conferences. That's not bitcoin. You got it completely backwards.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 09:37:04

Yes, bitcoin was meant to be trustless. But it's *fine* to build semi-trustless systems on top of a trustless system. But once you decrease security and trustlessness of your base layer, anything you build on top of it will be band-aids. Liquid is optional. i've never used it. LN is also optional, you only need to use it if you have a need for cheaper and/or speedier transactions than the blockchain can give you. Anyone can use bitcoin as they like. But there is a fee. And anyone can create solutions on top of it that gives people that elsewhere would have to use a not-particularly-well-suited onchain transaction for their need.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 07:48:25

Idea is not as stupid as it sounds. But there will never be consensus for it. Which incidentally is the same reason I won't support a reckless blocksize increase - that cat can never be put into the bag again.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 07:02:50

Bitcoin is a currency, it's permissionless. There's nothing that can be done against this. Nothing. If people only wants to speculate, then that's what they are going to do. I'd actually not be sad if those that shuffle their money between custodial/trusted entities does it via less trustless solutions like Liquid. Or wrap BTC on ETH if you like. Onchain isn't a particular good solution for them, block variance is too large, 10 minutes is way too long for some, and the need for this speed makes them overpaying heftily to make sure that "oh well, at least I will be in 1st block". They don't need onchain, they need Liquid, with a guaranteed 1 minute block time, and a federation making it at least more trustless than the exchanges they send their money between. Taking away that, I believe we have plenty of capacity on the BTC blockchain still. And there's a lot of other use cases we can go after, like the coffee cup payments and e-commerce, that will be well served by the likes of LN. So: There's plenty of capacity on the BTC blockchain. We just need to create the tools to make sure people don't bloat it unneccesarily. It's not that people need their transactions in a block, most times they actually just need to transfer the value.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 06:35:01

No, it was never debunked. "Most people" with a clue realized that a "broadcast to everyone"-system, where everyone sees, handles, and stores all economic activity, doesn't really scale without hurting decentralization. No, there's been *no* debunking except "Satoshi said it could be done". That's literally *all* you have. And most metric says there's no real demand for your "broadcast-to-everyone"-pipedream either. If demand is currently for a speculation asset, then that just means we do have time to get offchain mechanism to mainstream usabilty. Because decentralization is always better. Smaller blocks is *always* better. It means easier validation, and without validation falls the whole point of a blockchain away, we might as well all go to custodial, centralized solutions then.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 06:06:33

"It doesn't necessarily cause centralization unless blocks actually get that big". But, didn't you start out by claiming small-fee extreme amount of transactions made sense? That would mean blocks had to *get* that big - and not only now and then, *sustained* and *over time*.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 05:23:04

BCH gets closer and closer to paypal for every bandaid security measure it adds: - Demonstrated ability and willingness to roll back transactions. - Checkpoints making in effect centralized, trusted validators. (No, in a dispute, you'd *not* select the chain that your thought leaders is not on. This means you have made them your validators. I am not the first one to compare it, and will likely not be the last.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 04:39:55

Is it \*that\* hard to think that we are some people who are of this opinion? I have no instruction book, I have a well-paid day job. I am not paid for anything bitcoin related. And especially not my social media activities.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 04:09:31

Bitcoin didn't get truly popular until people understood it actually stored value, free from central manipulation. Sure, the draw on instant transactions, anywhere in the world, almost for free might sound tempting - but this is a market that the fintechs of the world will take, and as long as we have the extreme volatility, we're not going to see it being used much as a currency. Revolut likely is increasing at a much more rapid pace than bitcoin cash (note: I have no statistics, but I guess it's pretty easy to guess). And no, paypal isn't really more expensive for a user, and it's way simpler and "safer". I also doubt we can realistically convince and teach the world about "not your keys, not your coins". The mainstream *will* want someone that runs this for them, and are simply not ready for that responsibility. Sure, custodial wallets might onboard some of the last ones. I hate them, too, personally, it goes against most bitcoin stands for, but it's a free world. I, personally, am supporting the effort to use this time to create new mechanisms so that we retain the core properties on-chain - maximum security, maximum decentralization etc - then we can build up other layers upon needs of the people. Everyone will need a decentralized, secure base layer, only some people will need instant, low-fee transactions.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 03:55:18

How do you plan to create that level of demand - even a fraction of it? What is the reason to use this over, say, paypal, if you can't realistically validate the soundness of it?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 02:35:05

Spin your stories. I am done. Hope I never talk to you again

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 17:31:57

It has been sort of entertaining. But an utter waste of time. They probably does not even make sense in your head.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 17:18:23

Never. That is not its use case.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 15:56:13

Deflecting my questions, you too. Please answer: When do you plan to make BCH trustless and permissionless? Because it's far from.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 15:40:27

Lightning Network will never be finished. No system is ever finished unless it is dead. LN has tons of possible improvements, and being a 2nd layer, we can explore them all! Much easier than on-chain changes. And given that it is meant to work as an addition to on-chain bitcoin, "feature parity" isn't a goal either. ON-chain bitcoin will always be here. When do you plan to make BCH trustless, btw? Decentralized? Permissonless?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 15:14:28

It's great! We're building this P2P cash system that has cheaper fees than ever, and that does not have the doublespend risk. It also scales much better. Learning from experience is a wonderful thing.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 14:41:57

I only see the usual "blockstream bad", "small black take over", "big blocks are proven to be safe" propaganda censored. Can you point me to the reasonable critic?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 12:07:34

How is this narrative working for you so far?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 10:39:59

Satoshi didn't have Avalanche. Do you support it? Satoshi didn't have automatic replay protection and mandatory acceptance of a centrally dictated consensus. Do you support it? While there was checkpoints also earlier, there was never a 10 block rolling checkpoint, basically allowing "the central validators" to declare which side of a 10-block split is the valid one. Please do not go around cherry-picking Satoshi quotes while ignoring other fundamentals. It's utterly dishonest.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 10:27:55

If you ignore fundamentals, learned lessons, security, decentralization - i.e. everything we have learned since Satoshis days - you can declare anything safe and possible. You can declare that non-mining nodes does not matter at all, while we have hard demonstration in 2017 that miners will listen to signals from non-mining nodes. You miight call it a trick, I call it game theory. You can declare that on-chain scaling is totally without consequences, because you believe Satoshi would have said so. There's not all that much difference between you in the BCH camp and the BSV camp. You both read the whitepaper like a bible. Though, the BCH camp might be a *tiny* bit more realistic. But you still decide to interpret whatever you like in the whitepaper as a bible. I believe in peer to peer electronic cash, but a spot on the most secure, most decentralized, global ledger in the world has a cost. Dirt cheap transactions on-chain was never the goal. Validatable, fair economy, free from central manipulation was the goal. The coinbase message in the genesis block was not random.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 10:17:06

There is no *single* paper describing that, rather a whole lot of literature, opinions and reasoning. Me? I personally think that a block size doubling wouldn't be a total disaster - but there is no block size increase without negative effects. I also have my doubts it'd have a lasting effect not being eaten by cryptokitties, so it probably would not be worth it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 10:02:47

Lightning is not a competitor to bitcoin, it's an added value technology for use cases bitcoin isn't really well suited. Try harder.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 09:36:15

Oh, it's a paper he referenced, and not one he wrote? That makes it both easier and more difficult at the same time. First, it is now no surprise I couldn't find such a paper written by him. But still, while I likely have read it, I can't really possibly keep track of what everyone mentions. So no - I have no idea what paper you are talking about, but chance is I have read it. Satisfied?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 09:04:44

Fixed issues: - Backup is now possible. - AMP is getting deployed. - The key that governs the funds from force-closing channels is now recoverable from the seed, closing one fund-losing vector. - Watchtowers are possible now. Operational security is getting better all the time, but we'll still see attack vectors found, and they will get mitigated. This might sound like a big handwaving, but no: I know that any serious system *does* need battle hardening, things *do* take time. And in the mean time, LN does see real-life usage these days. I run a small routing node, and while I don't route *many* transactions per day (I realize my node is likely a detour for quite a few transactions), I still see them. I see transactions as small as 1 satoshi, and transactions as large as a few million satoshi. What I am trying to say, is that no: It rarely happens that a system is fully battle-tested and hardened before getting any usage whatsoever. The trust in it will go hand in hand with security research, issues getting found, and issues getting fixed or worked around.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 07:04:26

I am not sure I would call LN permissionless if it was running on top of a permissioned platform.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on June 29, 2020 04:57:21

I will elaborate a bit, and forgive me for becoming quite technical here. It is necessary for complete understanding. In this attack, the attacker initiates payments on many channels. A payment initiation is an \*irrevocable\* promise that if the payment is fulfilled to the end, it can be claimed - onchain if necessary (by closing channels). Though there are timeouts to claim them. What this attack says, is that if you send many enough, and this force in mass-closing of channels to claim these, \*some\* of these you have sent will likely not be able to be claimed before the timeout is expired. ​ The cost of these payments is not negligible, but of course you could pay to yourself. There is however both on-chain costs by opening and closing channels, and it's likely that the cost of this will exceed the amount of funds you'll be able to steal by performing this attack. It's said not to be an obvious fix for this, but here's what will make it easier: Policies in channels is not networkwide. It's always parties of two. You don't have to upgrade \*the whole network\* to fix this, you can fix it gradually. This is the beauty of something like LN, you can have a much more rapid development pace because of this. We've seen a lot of features and changes in how channels work over the short time LN have existed, and this is governed by feature-flags you announce to your channel partner. Fixes to this, if possible, will likely be introduced in a similar manner, but I haven't kept up to date with the actual discussion about how this can be fixed. In the meantime, there are mitigations each node can take: Not allow too many inflight payments is one of them. As I said earlier: Any protocol goes through these steps on the path to become hardened. Research is done to find attack vectors. Some are easily fixed, some take longer time. But it's a necessary path to a safe and secure protocol.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 04:20:27

Sure, but there is a cost attached to opening and closing this many channels.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 03:53:33

Keep on believing. It is working wonders for you, obviously.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 02:28:52

This is how we know a solution is more than just smoke and mirrors. Research teams searching fcor - and finding - attack vectors, developers mitigating them over time. ​ This attack, however, would likely be a non-economic attack, it would be hard to actually have financial gain from doing it. The cost would be too high and the success rate too low.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 02:11:14

You can't refute it. Noted.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 28, 2020 12:11:21

Refute my arguments. Should be easy if it is nonsense. I agree with first comment, though, I guess I should have said "the BCH community in general".

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 28, 2020 11:46:18

Go on. Refute it. That's how it looks "from the outside". This is why you are not taken seriously. I know there are reasons, i.e. that the hashrate is extremely low, but that's what you get for choosing to have a superminority hash rate of the most secure PoW blockchain in the world.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 28, 2020 11:35:06

As BCH does not believe in store of value, it does fit their narrative. At best, it is "paypal tokens", and this also fits how the security model, upgrade schhedule etc are. \- The automatic replay protection: This is a forced expiry of the client, they \*have\* to update. Users are not part of consensus in BCH because of this, but they very much are in BTC. \- The automated checkpoints makes the "main actors" able to declare which PoW is the correct one. PoW stops to matter at 10 blocks. \- The demonstrated rollback ability - where blocks were rolled back because it had transactions they wanted spent elsewhere. It doesn't matter that the other transactions were malicious, in a permissionless system the blockchain does not differ between good and bad transactions. BCH is not a cryptocurrency, it's a "paypal token system". Store of value are not important in those, because you are not meant to keep them anyhow. Too bad someone has to keep them.... Someone should really start to question: In a trade, there's always a winner and a loser. Since BCH has lost so much value, and those who holds BCH has lost that value - who are the winners?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 28, 2020 11:10:01

I am sorry that my facts destroy your narrative.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 28, 2020 09:23:00

THis is no more bitcoin than cointext or r/tippr is BCH. They are all solutions built on top of their respective chains. r/tippr had funds stolen. Cointext is a disaster waiting to happen. Liquid is a trusted soluton, and noone has said otherwise. At best it is semi-trustless, because you have several trustees that watch each others.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 28, 2020 09:12:50

Might not have read a paper as such, at least I can not find it now. I don't keep all links at hand, so I might and I might not. Are you sure there was a paper as such, and not just something he wrote somewhere?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 28, 2020 05:06:56

keep on believing that. It is working wonders for you, obviously.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 27, 2020 17:39:01

A question: Do you think this narrative helps you? Why do you think price vs. bitcoin is going down?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 27, 2020 16:17:37

Of course it does. I have read it. Now, go on refute it. Prove that it does not.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 27, 2020 13:31:42

I'll be right back at you, but after you first prove that a purely unchain scaling strategy won't lead to centralization.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 27, 2020 13:20:00

Do I seriously have to provide sources that increasing the cost reduces the number of people willing to run a node?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 27, 2020 12:55:29

I have read most arguments, both pro large blocks and pro offchain scaling. I am not going to waste my time looking up things again, just to win a stupid argument with you that is even meaningless as you are as little interested in my arguments (that you have heard before) as I am in yours, that I have heard before. Come back if you have something new.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 27, 2020 12:32:34

No, you don't. You have proven time and time again that you only want to take what your opponents write out of context. I am done with that. Go on and claim you win.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 27, 2020 11:47:23

I wish you look as you decide to prove it through failure. It's no wonder the price of BCH is going down. Noone want to be on a car run by someone who decide to increase speed until it crashes....

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 27, 2020 10:51:13

So, you still believe blockstream rules everything in BTC development. I guess your narrative depends on it. L But it also means I get to dismiss you as a conspiracy nutcase. Good bye.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 27, 2020 10:29:02

Hard forking is your right. And if there is too much differences, it might be the only way to resolve it. Difference is, this subreddit has to resort to FUD and conspiracy theories, and their old and tried claim of authority, to try to convince the world that *their* version of bitcoin is the right one. I have no problem with you claiming BCH is better. But the bitcoin community at large seem not to agree, and neither do I. So, bitcoin.remaIns bitcoin. We are again doing real progress that matters. Myself, I look forward to Schnorr and Taproot with real use cases.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 27, 2020 05:16:33

I have the same sources as you, likely. But different interpretations, *and* my own common sense and opinions. Unlike you, I know that we are not following a grand masterplan, but adjust as our knowledge and experience increases.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 27, 2020 04:59:58

He outlined the procedure for a block size increase, something I have never denied. He *never* mentioned a timeline for when to do it or conditions for doing it. To claim that not raise it now is against Satoshis plan would be disingenious. As would it be for me to claim he'd never raise it - something I've never said. Satoshi left the project. As he was on a learning trip as much as everyone else in the ecosystem, he couldn't possibly leave a plan. Since Satoshi left the project, we have only had our own knowledge and guidance for bitcoin development. I am sorry for you, that your vision for bitcoin doesn't align with the rest of the ecosystems wish for it. But as bitcoin is decentralized, you have no claim to authority. I have no claim to authority either, but I happen to agree with the current concensus. This actually more or less per definition makes me right and you wrong. I am sorry to say it, but a superminority will never define what bitcoin is or how bitcoin should work. You might try to convince people to adopt your world view, but claiming authority? Nope. Doesn't work that way.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 18:04:38

Satoshis description of a method to increase the block size was a purely technical description of how it could be done in the future, in direct reploy to someone who wanted to do it at that time. Satoshi avocated that there was no harm in waiting, because it could always be schedule well in advance at a specific block time. I never lie.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 17:29:55

Feel free to attract some attention from reddit admins if you like.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 15:34:06

Yeah. Everyone thought that was viable in the beginning. Satoshi was probably one of the first to see the issues, introducing limits to reduce spam.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 15:21:08

This is against reddit TOS. Report him if you feel harassed. Harassment is not allowed on reddit.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 13:58:37

Bitcoin Core has not raised the fee. The fees are set by users. Bitcoin Core is the informal name of the developers to happen to work on the bitcoin core client. As such, there's only a loose roadmap, decided by those who is currently working on it. The inclusion of features is proposed and decided by the BIP process. Right now, there's no block size increase on the roadmap, but there's no reason that can't change if tech improves enough over time. Please stop spreading misinformation. This sub literally is founded on the misconceptions that there is a "plan" one needs to follow except for making bitcoin the best, most secure and most trustless form of digital money there is.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 13:40:26

So, this is the misconception: Miners doesn't provide block space, they provide PoW. The block space is limited, inherit in the protocol, and a common good to be shared.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 13:28:21

There is no such "plan". It's in your head. But you are right, transaction cost *will* increase, so most smaller value will happen in solutions like LN.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 10:50:09

I can. Can't remember the numbers you had, but if 100.000 users that were performing economic activity and validating everything is reduced to 40.000, then the 60.000 others are fully trusting others to perform that service for them. Now, I realize noone can force anyone to run a full node, but let me use a number you throw around, a quote that you like, from Samson Mow (whom I don't particularly like the argumentation style of either). But: - Bitcoin is not for people who live on $2 a day. If you live on very little money, and running a full node starts to cost significant portion of that income, then you are forced to trust that others do the job of keeping bitcoin trustless. Which is sort of an oxymoron. If you run a small business, you don't want your economic solution to eat a significant amount of your business' income, so you'll be forced to do it cheaper. You'd have to trust others to do that job for you. The more nodes that does not find it economically viable to run their own node will go to a trusted solution, to some degree. Sure, I know about SPV, but it *does* have its limitations inso far as doing it trustless. Bitcoin is meant to be trustless, and if you make it more expensive to run it in a trustless manner, then you *do* hurt the trustlessness.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 10:35:20

It's not even about the network as such, and this, I have explained you *a lot* of times. More than I can remember. Bitcoin is meant to be trustless, but it is only trustless because enough people/economic actors maintain this trustlessness. Reducing numbers of nodes *is* a problem - but I agree, only if they were actually used to validate transactions. If your next answer is the same answer again, you are a turd, and I will never again reply to *anything* you say.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 09:08:32

I am sure that the operators of "The Great Firewall of North Korea" will seriously appreciate the tipping.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 07:05:23

It has everything to do with it. The fee market, or more correctly the block space market, should replace block reward gradually. Have we had halvings? Yes. It's also a block space limit mechanism, or more rather a spam prevention mechanism. And that will *always* be necessary, because there is no upper limit on how large the demand for a a space on the most secure blockchain in the world is. We have proof, too. At least if we believe Vitalik when he says he wanted to build it on bitcoin. I have said it before: if your block space becomes too cheap, sooner or later you get cryptokitties. Dirt cheap is not a desirable goal, it just means "worthless"

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 04:40:06

So - you \*still\*think that the fee market is something you "switch on" at some point? Good luck.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 03:46:13

This isn't easily quantifiable, but the effect is still there. A few articles; I'm not going to sit down and do that math - for me it's pretty evident that a blockchain is meant to be trustless and validated, and outsourcing that job means fewer actors do that job, and the fewer actors do that job, the easier it is to coopt it. But since BCH network is already fully coopted, with forced expiry of node software, and users not really having a say in accepting a fork or not, I don't even expect you to recognize this. BCH supporters believe in a better paypal. BTC supporters believe in an economy free of central manipulation.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 02:42:19

My largest LN transaction up to now was actually 5 million satoshi.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 01:24:10

It was an example of a ridiculous question, about as ridiculous as yours. But you are again dragging me down a "wasting time on no valuable discussions whatsoever". Feel free to claim victory as you have done so many times before, just by making sure you twist words until your opponent just grow tired and give up.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 11:25:58

Good to know that you advocate pushing the limit until it breaks. Given that it's next to impossible to "put the cat into the bag" here, I'd say that's a pretty reckless thing to do. You can't just restart a currency. Oh wait, you can. But we're trying to move away from the systems where you can do that, not replicate it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 11:08:36

Please quantify how many of the transactions in a given block needs to be express/confirmed in first block. Until you can, you have no proof there is a capacity problem on the BTC blockchain.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 10:57:59

You'd not have a problem transact if there was just 1 node either, in fact it'd technically work much better/create less possible issues, there'd be no doublespend possibilities, etc.... Is that your measure of success?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 10:47:34

I know that more disk space costs money. I know that more bandwith costs money. I know that more memory costs money. I know that the blocksize takes significantly longer to sync today than it did 3 years ago. Which means things isn't getting better, technology is not catching up. Trying to calculate exactly how *much* it hurts is like arguing how much it hurts to beat your wife before deciding that it's wrong. Not worth my time, because the answer is given: Smaller blockchain is better than a large one, so we need to scale much smarter than "just rise the block size". Sure, it will take time, sure it is more difficult, and there is no magic bullet, we'll see a *multitude* of solutions that will allow growth of the ecosystem without blockchain bloat.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 08:45:11

Who says nothing was hurt? But it might have been, it might not. It's not like /u/luke-jr is wrong that the blocksize is larger than health and that the size of the blockchain is growing too much. I, personally, don't believe we can ever put that cat back into the bag, but I'll still not give up on the notion that tech can improve enough that it can catch up with the blockchain again. But I definitely am not for making it even worse.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 08:34:32

Look, it is *pretty simple*: There is no such thing as a "safe" block size increase. It will all hurt. Even Segwit did. Reason I was still for Segwit is that it provided other benefits than a pure block size increase. So - unless we can provide clear evidence that a block size increase on BTC has a lasting effect and won't just make people more complacent, I am *personally* against it. I don't have to explain other peoples reasoning, as I can't possibly know, but I can *guess* there is quite likeliy a few that are of the same opinion as me. I am pretty certain that the ecosystem will be better off having whatever doesn't need the full onchain security/decentralization/trustlessness properties done in other mechanisms. Lightning Network is one example. E-commerce is not particularly well suited with onchain, as block variance can be pretty large. Liquid is another example, of which I personally have no use, I am pretty indifferent. But it *does* provide for people in need of moving money to/from between already non-trustless exchanges in a predicitive but not-as-trustless-as-onchain way, and as such it does help me as there will be more space for people like me. The bitcoin ecosystem *will* be full of such mechanisms, and I prefer that they are built now, when the ecosystem is small, as these things take time to build. I don't owe you any more explanation than this. There is ample people with opinions of why block size increases are harmless, but it's dead simple: A blockchain is meant to be validated, by anyone who damn well want to. If we make that harder, we reduce the value of it. I feel this discussion goes nowhere. Unless you provide me with arguments and/or proof this is wrong, I have no particular interest in continuing this discussion.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 08:23:21

Yes, this never fail to amaze me, either.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 06:55:40

Some of them might be the same. A lot of them are likely old-time miners with the view that "miners are the issuers, creators" of bitcoin, failing to realize they just are hired PoW. Then, there's those with commercial interests, either in or in Bitmain. We know for a fact that a supermajority of the subreddit moderators are employed by Roger Ver/St Bitts LLC, the company behind Roger Ver was an early crypto-influencer that had a problem with his influence waning and people agreeing with him. He's more of a sales type, not that tech type, so he tend to treat the BCH space as tool for his business. There's likely quite a few bagholders here.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 05:39:59

THis is the speciality of the BCH crowd - large amounts of badly researched and non-founded allegations. Most of them hinge on the premise that "Bitcoin was supposed to" do like they expected it to do, instead of the way consensus has decided. They also believe: \- That 0-conf is totally safe from double-spends, so that signalling that you want to be able to replace a transaction (which is a more honest way to say: Don't trust this for 0-conf) destroyed that use case for them. \- That Gavin was a good and active maintainer and someone stole bitcoin from him, when reality was that he'd largely stopped maintaining it long ago, and once he started pushing weird narratives like Craig being Satoshi, plus hinting that he'd force through consensus-changing code against the will of the community. \- That Blockstream holds any authority other than that of individuals and have authority do decide what goes into Bitcoin Consensus. These are just three examples. BCH as a "cheap payment coin" for those who needs that could actually have been fine, but the narrative is kind of discouraging. The BCH community is BCHs worst enemy, but they don't really realize that themselves, because they continue fighting this conspiracy they believe must be there when there's not a single shred of evidence except for their own unfounded belief that they know best what bitcoin was supposed to be, against the majority consensus that decides what BTC is.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 05:12:38

The reason we actually discuss this, is that there are no absolutes. It is *pretty* obvious that utility of a blockchain disappears with increased cost of validating it, because without validating it, there is really little point of a blockchain. It is also pretty obvious that the less people are part of the number of people able to create incentive for miners to stay on the path the community agree with, the better it is. And no: Don't give me the bullshit about "most skin in the game" and "would never do anything to hurt their income". Power corrupts, and that's about the only thing we know (hint: Who has the most skin in the game in FIAT? It's central banks....). We need to strive to limit the amount of power any entity have, and that is a large part of the value of bitcoin *to me*. So, to me it is like this: Until I see a clear proof that the tradeoff we do by raising the blocksize give more positives than negatives, I am against it. And I believe this goes for very much of the BTC ecosystem. So, back to you: Where is your proof that bigger blocks (that are actually used, not the "small block style" of big blocks that BCH has) will not have negative effect?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 02:21:48

It is a bit more complex. The issue is not technical as such, it's got more to do with incentives for miners, trustlessness and similar issues. Most people in here seems to think that three mining pools watching each others are enough incentives ( I am likely exaggerating a bit here, but hopefully you get my point). And yes, you are right: it's not about the total node count, it's about being part of the consensus about what is a valid transaction and valid block is. You need to have a node with economic activity to be part of this. Since you are going to spin my non reply as avoiding the issue, you are hereby warned: I will be occupied with non-bitcoin stuff for the rest of the day. Just as I was yesterday, when you complained I did not reply.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 24, 2020 09:31:57

Any loss of nodes because they don't have the resources to spare *does* hurt the ecosystem. Now, for significant gains to the ecosystem in other ways, the tradeoffight be worth to take. I simply doubt a temporal fee relief is worth that gain, and at the time of the segwit2x/bch splits, I definitely did not think it was worth it to follow a minority chain to get it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 24, 2020 09:17:48

It's not misinformation - though we *do* disagree on a whole lot of things. The fact that you call it misinformation and not disagreement of opinion repeatedly, and even at several occations have taken comments/replies out of context and creating new posts, where you "feel the need" to try to ridicule me is the reason why I usually refuse to engage with you. I usually discuss in good faith, you *don't*. Take note, people: Don't ever disagree with /u/500239 - he'll put you on his "follow around and ridicule"-list, and you'll never ever have valuable opposition/input from him.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 24, 2020 08:33:12

A block will be mined approximately every 10 minutes, where transactions paying the needed fee is included.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on June 24, 2020 06:44:29

From the conclusion: Elevated hardware requirements could result in a substantial percentage of full nodes dropping from the network should the block size increase to 8 MB right now. This makes an argument against proposals to raise the maximum block size in a single big jump. Similarly, proposals implying a fork of client software could have negative consequences for the whole Bitcoin ecosystem. Jeff Garzik’s BIP 100 and Pieter Wuille’s proposal are sound in both these aspects. But I digress. I admit it's not updated, and what Bitfurys stance would be today. My very own opinion is that smaller is better. The less data we need to process to validate the economy, the better it is. Onchain scaling is the worst form of scaling, but eventually will likely have to happen. I am very much against it as the main form of scaling, because doesn't scale. And no: BCH has proved nothing. Other than that larger blocks will cause nodes to drop off the network. See: - Bottlenecks caused services such as the transaction generators to slow & error out, preventing mempool from exceeding 22 MB - Largest block: 21.35 MB - Avg block size was ~3.6 MB: 11% of max capacity - 16% of Bitcoin ABC nodes dropped off the network

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 24, 2020 01:43:34

BCH stress tests proved absolutely nothing. There was little of value to learn from them, except perhaps what maximum theoretical technical limits are,, and how to increase them. Few people in the BCH camp understand the game theory and necessity of making sure the incentives are not shifted towards single entities in the bitcoin ecosystem.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 23, 2020 17:56:13

It also concluded that 8 MB was too much and would hurt the ecosystem. Since then block size was raised too. But I agree that eventually we need to raise it more.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 23, 2020 17:06:13

There is another explanation. You might be a person I have no interest in debating because you never provide anything od value except trying to ridicule your opposition. So I'll go back to not replying to you.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 23, 2020 14:07:13

I am glad you asked! There's going to be obvious limits to how low resources you can expect to validate the worlds economy on. We all agree. But the larger amount of people who can't realistically do it, the less trustless do we become. It's as simple as that. LN doesn't completely solve it, but it (and other future offchain mechanisms) are part of the solution. In LN, you don't *need* to track every transaction on the whole network to know the part of the economy that concerns you,but onchain, every transaction *potentially* concern you, because you never know which UTXOs eventually end up in transaction you are interested in! In LN, you are really only interested in what's in your channels, economically, so that's the limit to what transactions you need to validate. Yes, you do not need to know about transactions you are not part of (either by sending, receiving or routing). And if I don't use LN, what then? Then, LN is just a set of smart contracts sitting on the blockchain, nothing of my concern unless the UTXo's end up in my wallet. Obviously, as the network grows, LN routing itself needs to be smarter. But this can be improved as we go, because routing isn't really part of "LN consensus mechanism". But as far as the economic activity goes, you only validate what concerns yourself.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 23, 2020 10:55:21

Keep on believing BCH has proved anything. The limit means nothing, I agree. It's actual block size that does. Given that BCH doesn't have demand to fill up BTCs 1MB block limit (which is larger now due to Segwit), the only real metric we have is BSV. BSV continues to prove daily that extremely large blocks do lead to issues like orphan rate increase etc. I would be for a modest blockchain increase if there was proof it actually helped the ecosystem. This is the reason I was for Segwit - it helps scaling smarter. I have little hope there would be any significant gains in actual economic throughput from just raising the blocksize. Weather data or transactional ticker data or other kind of non-monetary use, which BCH and BSV have quite a bit of, is *not* worth the negative effects of on-chain scaling. Unless you are a miner and just want to sell more block space.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 23, 2020 09:13:48

Oh, you can scale. To a limit. But there is *no* block size increase without negative consequences. Yes, *no*, any blocksize increase have negative consequences. Thus, we need to make sure that we at first are at a stage where a block size increase actually matter. And that is when block size increase actually can be used, for example, to open more LN channels (which to a degree can price out spam), instead of just allowing a lot more spam transactions. Anyone with a few brain cells understand that "broadcast to all", which Bitcoin is per default, *does not* scale to world wide level. The only way it actually makes sense if you limit the nodes you broadcast too. Which seems to be in line with BCH goal - only miners need to validate blockchain, others should not - but not with mine. A blockchain which is not viable to validate might as well just be a custodial solution.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 23, 2020 09:03:25

I think the best one is from Bitfury.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 23, 2020 08:53:23

LN is progressing well, technically, but growth is limited. Though, vendors like Bitrefill that was early to the game processes a great deal of their transactions on LN. But spending bitcoin in general is not an extremely important use case for bitcoin, most people have plenty of fiat and credit cards to use, and economically it doesn't make sense for them to spend bitcoin if they can use a credit card. Some of them even provides cashback, so they pay you to use it. We can like it or not, we can believe bitcoin is "meant to be spent". We will continue to make it easier, because obviously it's a use case for some. But in the end of the day, people will do what is most convenient and most economically sensible for them. Neither LN nor on-chain crypto can compete with credit card convenience, and though you have some services that provides bitcoin cashback (i.e. Lolli), economically it makes sense to spend your fiat.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on June 23, 2020 06:29:48

1. There is, but the change has to be gradual. 2. Of course it is. I advocate for safety and care instead of "just raising the blocksize". That cat can *never* be put back in the box. If it becomes obvious that increasing block size is safe and will not harm the ecosystem - it is even likely that over time, it will - block size can be raised. 3. I don't believe in non-sustainable growth an adoption. We are in no hurry. The adoption should be with technology we believe in, not "yeah, let

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 23, 2020 05:24:25

There is no way onchain scaling will make it to world-wide scaling. Literally no way., Siince we already know this, I (who are more in the BTC camp) believe that we should use this low adoption period to build a more future-proof ecosystem - with LN and other offchain mechanisms. We can always increase the block size later, as it's a much simpler change, whereas it'd be difficult for the ecosystem to get used to new mechanisms at a pace we need it when we hit the limit of offchain scaling. at the same time, I do recognize that betting the future security of the chain on there being millions of transactions in a block is risky. Very risky. There is a halving every 4 years, and every time fees fail to replace that reward, your security lowers. BTC of course also have that problem, but at least we in that camp recognize the problem and believe in meaningful fees.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 23, 2020 02:28:22

This is an extremely simplified view. I can see why people fall for it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 23, 2020 02:01:32

You assume you can "switch on" a fee market. A fee market need to develop along with reward shrinking. A network where we have successive halvings but no incentive to add meaningful fee will definitely not be robust enough to compete with banks .

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 22, 2020 17:18:11

Can someone check the code of /u/Egon_1 ? I think it's broken, maybe there is an update?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 22, 2020 10:09:52

Is the 0.06 percent fee an acceptable reward for including transactions? The difference in income between including transactions and not including transaction is actually almost non-existent.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 22, 2020 09:29:39

I am pretty sure you'd like to be able to present your narrative without someone correcting it, yes. No such luck for you, I am afraid.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 16:29:25

Noone takes Cobra seriously anymore. Come to think of it, noone except for the BCH crowd takes as a non-biased source either. Sure, quotes may be true, but cherry-picked as hell.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 09:08:22

Please provide a ciation that someone wants to change the whitepaper. Yes, someone might have advocated writing a new and updated whitepaper. I honestly don't really understand why I need to explain this: It is \*perfectly\* ok to create a new whitepaper containing new learnings. It's even ok deviating from a whitepaper if you actually learn something since the publication of it. It is highly unlikely that one won't ever learn something new, so this will usually be the rule rather the exception. What you are advocating is to treat the whitepaper like the bible, and not only that, like the old testament. It never was meant to be.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 08:35:19

Liar. What Satoshi said here was not that it \*should\* be phased in later. He was specifically advocation against a block size increase at \*the specific\* point of the discussion , outlining a mechanism for how it could - and still can - be done in the future.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 06:02:37

PoW has some nice properties, like the inbuilt loss of money if miners go rouge. I have yet to find anything with the same properties

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 15, 2020 13:11:49

Our views differ on a lot of things. For example I believe the slow and steady BTC way, where the role of the blockchain is to remain secure, decentralized and easy to validate is the key feature, anything more complicated, less decentralized and less secure should be done in other layers. But on this we agree: The toxic level in this sub if you don't follow the narrative is extremely high. Intelligent discussion is hard. The only reason I stay here is to correct factual errors, deliberate (there are a lot of those) or accidental, and to make sure people get to also hear other things than the usual r/btc conspiracies.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 15, 2020 05:12:56

Sure, but.... How does this help a vendor? Now, he'll have to either be aware of Avalanche, or wait for *a couple* of confirmations? There might be solutions to this, but there needs to be serious considerations into what ways this introduces new attack vectors.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 14, 2020 15:19:12

I seem to remember hearing that avalanche was going to be "optional" to use? If you aren't querying what Avalanche has agreed to before you create your block, you run the risk of being orphaned? I see tons of possibilities for gaming, censoring and "keeping out the others" here.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 14, 2020 11:03:13

To get more usage - real, high-value usage - you need to be on the right track. You've had 3 years of negative development. - Lower value == lower security (in amount of PoW) - As a consequence of this, introducing PoW-overriding mechanisms like rolling checkpoints == lower decentralizationa and trustlessness. You need to start going in the right direction for this to happen.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 14, 2020 10:48:21

So, querying Avalanche will be considered sort of mandatory, not doing so will be reckless? I don't know, but this sounds like it will be sort of a clearinghouse for transactions. How do we prove the randomness? I recognize this issue being there also in PoW, we can't prove whether miners do any other evaluations than "first seen" and/or "highest fee". But after it is mined, we know what ended up in a block, and for some value it is final. (The security/difficulty of the blockchain determines to which degree it is final). But wait - if Avalanche can override this, are we not trading away some of the finality in PoW?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 14, 2020 09:52:58

I have no issue with this. The problem is the low security that the BCH chain has, but as long as it's opt-in, that is a personal choice. This is, and have always been my point: If at all possible, negative tradeoffs like lowering security, decentralization and trustlessness, should always be done on optional 2nd layers. Base layer should always remain secure, decentralized and trustless.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 14, 2020 08:39:10

Only after the deployment will you know this - though there may be some simulations that have been run at this point. My problem with Avalanche is the problem to decide who gets a vote to decide which transaction is the correct one. Only PoW solves this, and it solves it in a fair and neutral way. Do you want Avalanche mechanism to be able to orphan blocks, i.e. override PoW? Miner-assisted double spends are possible today, will Avalanche be able to avoid creating Avalanche-assisted double spends? All of these are hard issues to solve - but unless they are solved, I think Avalanche doesn't solve much, it will only introduce new ways to game the system.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 14, 2020 08:20:59

Fully developing LN takes \*time\*. Sure, it's being used now, but it's not nearly ready for world adoption. Even as one who believes in LNs future, I acknowledge this. Building up the ecosystem and the adoption will also take time. This is \*regardless\* of whether you start now or if you start 5 years down the line, if you discover that you hit the limit with bigger blocks. So, I will ask you: What do you propose as the solution should this happen, and you find out you need to explore something like LN: \- Every merchant needs to switch their POS terminals, their wallets, everything. ​ \- Every user needs to switch to LN. Remember: All of this building will need to result in onchain, and presumably you'll already have a strained network - because that is how you discover your path was wrong. Me? I could be sold on a minor blocksize increase. But I recognize that it's just kicking the can down the road, and probably wouldn't help for long. Eventually LN, sidechains and/or similar technologies will need to take load off the main chain. There's no way around it, unless you buy into the "3 nodes in 3 datacenters with dedicated multi-GB links is decentralized enough" infrastructure ideology. So, I much prefer going in the \*right\* direction now, even if it's a bit slow while we build the infrastructure/tech, than having to start on this when we have less time to convert a much bigger ecosystem to new technology.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 12, 2020 08:05:25

How long will a bitcoin mining pool keep their miners if their miners need to spend their hash rate to defend BCH instead of making profit? But sure - go on believe that all mining pools support BCH. There is *no* data whatsoever supporting it, though.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 18:21:43

When all coins has been mined is when we will be glad we understood that a fee market is a necessity. And this won't magically happen when the coins has run out, this will become a larger issue each halving until then. This is an extremely large topic, though, and security isn't "absolute". If you want just a single number as to how far we are in achieving a fee market, see []( and "fee market development". It also compares it with the fees of BCH, a coin who largely reject this fee market.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on June 9, 2020 12:42:34

You burn money, but a successful 51% attack can be profitable. Though, there's no real risk anymore, since BCH is basically a federated chain after the introduction of the checkpoints. Any large amounts will require 10 confirmations, and above that the BCH chain is now in effect a federated chain.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 08:22:31
/r/btc/comments/gzfjjs/psa_despite_what_you_may_have_heard_there_are_no/ftgv15s/ 1h attack costs about $9700, so 12 blocks = 2h should be just shy of $20k. Even a dedicated enthusiast would be able to shoulder that cost.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 08:03:05

This is already possible today, with the checkpoints - which is specifically meant to let a minority declaring a majority chain "an attack" and orphan it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 07:44:54

...except when it suits your version of the history? There's plenty of "this was how bitcoin was meant to be all the time", and complaining about how bitcoin has deviated from "the original experiment", in the r/btc community.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 07:31:50

Follow up with a random experience that flew past: Willingness to learn will get you far. I don't believe we need to dumb things down at this point to onboard people not willing to learn. Or they can go custodial, it's their choice.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 8, 2020 14:07:47

No. I want the myriad of consulting opportunities to handle it. Only the smart ones will educate themselves, the rest will need help. You might try asking Hayden Otto how many of his merchants handled the onboarding experience themselves.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 8, 2020 13:11:45

/u/egon_1 are you a bot? Do you have the ability to tell your developer that your software needs updating?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 8, 2020 12:22:53

There is only a few times it makes sense to close channels: 1) You know you're going to be offline way beyond lock times of the channels. 2) You specifically need to spend those bitcoins to people who only accept onchain transactions. 3) The other end of the channel is dead and presumed gone forever, or at least long enough that your bitcoins can be used better elsewhere. With increased adoption, 2) will be less necessary. We're starting to see exchanges with LN support, so the circular LN usage is starting to be possible. Other than that, Haydens statements doesn't make sense unless he describes his experiment better. I.e. the reasons for closing, how he closed, and what fee levels where chosen to close channels (and why). We already know that high time preference can cost you a lot in fees. There's no news there.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 8, 2020 11:30:49

I do. Bitcoin is money you control yourself. Don't you ever let anyone tell you what is the correct way to use money. If I think the correct way to use bitcoin is to hold onto it and spend my fiat first, then that's entirely correct...for me! (Side note: I do spend some too, but since my income is in fiat and has greater inflation, I know it's totally uneconomic to do so)

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 7, 2020 07:52:46

You are onto something. What we pay for is \*security\*. There is actual some metric into how much time it takes for confirmations to reach BTCs "6 confirmation is immutable" standard. []( Currently, it's 1 day 17 hours for bitcoin cash.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on June 1, 2020 12:26:05

To be honest, unless he managed to sell you bitcoin cash, you will get your bitcoins. Even if you bought bitcoin cash,you're likely to get them. But bitcoin cash, not bitcoin. You might have problems if you tried sending bitcoin cash to a segwit address, though.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on May 31, 2020 03:52:01

Sure. When flippening? 😀

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 30, 2020 10:08:13

Yup. It can be easy to be fooled by a shiny appearance. Bitcoin might be boring, but it's secure and dependable. Smart money stays with secure and dependable, just like smart guys stays with the secure and dependable girls.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 30, 2020 05:35:59

No, it is not. BCH is dead slow. The notification that a payment will happen might be lightning fast, but the security is slow as hell. ​ Though, of the altcoins, it's not as bad, but not in bitcoins league. ​ See

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 29, 2020 17:35:48

Sure, we agree that as fees increase, channels will likely have to be larger to allow them to be settled onchain trustlessly, etc. But channels should be larger than your normal payment anyhow, so normally they would. I do, however, agree that using an altcoin for transactions, like BCH, is another tradeoff people might take. It's a free world.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 29, 2020 10:30:52

Right, sorry. I stand corrected, HTLCs smaller than the dust limit is not trustless as such, but the attacker also really has no financial incentive to try to steal it - it'll vanish in fees, so he can't really do that. There's definitely trade-offs in LN. Noone denies it. It's just that most of us thinks that 2nd layers and not the base layers are the place to put these tradeoffs.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 29, 2020 10:03:34

This is sort of wrong, if I understand your argument correctly. If you publish an old state, you will only have the pre-agreed force close transaction to submit, which the other node has signed. The smart contract in this pre-signed transaction is basically like this: "My balance, I can take only after N blocks" "The remote balance can be claimed immediately" "Upon presentation of the proof (which is always embedded into the next transaction) that the older transaction is invalid, the other node can take \*the full channel balance\*, immediately" ​ An attacker can always lose his whole balance by submitting an old balance, but yes, if the whole balance is lower than the fees, both persons will lose everything. I acknowledge this. However, every place the transactions is designed in such a way that if you do something wrong, the other party gets better opportunity than you to take your money.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 29, 2020 09:33:33

Liar. The only correct way to use bitcoin is "any way you want". Noone can decide what the purpose of bitcoin is.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 17:25:55

Yes, running nodes with different consensus is not a good idea. You of all should know that by now. Have you forgotten BSV?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 17:11:43

Sort of, but electricity is neutral, and it can be replaced by other electricity. That's the *very* reason PoW is difficult to replace trustlessly, and why PoW is so genial. Mining centralization is bad, but it's not as bad if we have a healthy amount of the economy they depend on, that won't accept their coins if they fail to follow the protocol. If you accept bitcoin, you and only you decides if the transaction is valid as per bitcoin, PoW is only solving the doublespend issue. Of course, a miner not validating transactions and thereby including an invalid transaction (or otherwise creating an invalid block) would have his PoW rejected. Yes, by other miners, but if they were colluding, they would totally be rejected by the economic relevant other nodes.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 15:31:29

Not by sacrificing the very *reason* bitcoin exists. So no, I would *not* want to threaten fiat if it means it hurts bitcoins core properties. Bitcoin is for those who need it, and noone ever needed it because credit cards were too expensive or slow.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 14:47:04

I have no problems with people using an altcoin to solve their problems with sending money to others. The thing I have a problem with is those not seeing that this is a marginal use case for bitcoin, and a use-case not worth it to sacrifice the primary benefits for, and claiming that anyone not wanting to risk sacrificing those benefits are not acting in good faith. Sure, we can do it in 2nd layers and side chains. Tradeoffs make sense there. But to optimize on-chain performance on scalability only is to sacrifice the very *reason* for bitcoin to exist to compete with fiat methods on fiats home turf. It's fine as a personal choice, and anyone is free to create any altcoin they want. But bitcoin should focus on its primary benefits, not try to solve non-issues by sacrificing them.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 14:04:53

97.49% as I am reading this, actually. Yes, Bitcoin Core is a pretty good node software, that does a good job of validating blocks and transactions. You are free to run any software, though.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 12:32:48

I listened to this. What happened, Roger? Back then, you thought that the most important thing was to protect against central entities(central banks etc) manipulating the supply/debasing and that you could actually validate it was important? But lately, you seem to have changed your opinion so that now, capacity, speed and transaction costs are most important, more important than decentralization and the ability to validate the economy? What happened? Since then, you have been fighting against the part of the bitcoin community that wants to - above \*all\* properties - to retain decentralization and security, even to the point of halting enabling further growth until we have developed more sane technologies to allow more transactions without hurting bitcoins main properties? What made you change your mind?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 09:38:57

Thank you for this wonderful service. With one bot, you are able to save a lot of r/btc'ers the need to think for themselves, and instead have a bot tell them what others think they should think. I am pretty sure an echo-chamber-enhancing bot is valuable to someone, somewhere. In that case, they will hopefully thank you.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 09:02:04

In other words - you would be satisfied with becoming paypal if Bitcoin disappeared at the same time? Crypto as a competitor to paypal is rather uninteresting to the world, and it totally reflects in the price of BCH vs BTC. "BTC going south", which will not happen without BCH going even further south, will not change that one bit.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 05:56:35

Tether bubble popping would obliterate a whole lot of altcoins, maybe even BCH. Bitcoin is not immune, but a lot more robust, with a more proven track record. I'd expect a significant price drop in bitcoin, but bloodbath in altcoins. BCH is an altcoin.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 05:23:45

Your question doesn't really make sense, Lightning would probably work the same way in this regard whether or not it runs on bitcoin or an altcoin like for example Litecoin or BCH. But I will still answer: It's up to my lightning node to validate the state of my channels. My channel partner can not just introduce bitcoins out of thin air and have my node accept it as bitcoin. ​ It would probably not be all that hard for nodes to create new types of channels where the partners does not do this validation, but it doesn't in effect create bitcoins out of thin air, and I will try to explain this. We have a channel A->B, a channel B->C and a channel C->D. ​ Now, let's say: \- C allows B to pay more than he has, i.e. that Bs balance can go negative. \- A pays to D which brings Bs balance into the negative. Now, does this affect A? No, he still have to pay real bitcoins, as his channel to B is a normal one. Does it affect D? No, he will still get real bitcoins, and he will validate that. So, where does the bitcoins that B has loaned come from? Well, in effect they are a loan from C to B, and the loan is fully backed with C's balance in the C->D channel. C is loaning out that channel liquidity to B. It's not fractional reserve at all, it's fully backed loans. Now, of course D having a proper channel, i.e. borrowing balance to C, would change a bit of it. But that is more akin to allowing to buy on credit, and it's a risk it's fully up to D to take. That credit don't really pass over to anyone else, if D pays A after that, A still receives real bitcoins because that's how his channel is set up. So, any "credit" that might be introduced into this system is strictly between parties of two, and doesn't really spill over into the system as a whole. If you have a channel, you can validate the bitcoins in it. Period. Edit (because I can probably not reply for 10 minutes): Liquid is a bit different, but not totally. We can all validate how much bitcoin is in Liquid, that's all onchain. But we have federation nodes with a bit more power here, so it's not as trustless. Which is fine, because Liquids use case is all about trading trustlessness for convenience when dealing with trustless entities (i.e. exchanges) anyhow.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 04:05:36

The average user can't verify bitcoin transactions either. That's what we have software for. This will be done by the average users' software.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/lightningnetwork on May 27, 2020 16:28:07

When I got into bitcoin, this was one of the things I did ponder quite a bit on. Here is a summary of my conclusion: Beyond food, clothing, sex and other purely physical things, there's hardly anything that has *objective* value. Even those things at some level have subjective value, but people do need food to not starve, and clothes not to freeze. Sex to reproduce. In the early days, people did trade these things more directly. Food for clothes, food for sex, etc. But this becomes quite impractical after a while, so we need to find something to substitute it with. Now, pebbles don't work very well. There's hardly a limit, so why should I trade my scarce food for something you can just go outside to pick at any time? No, it definitely have to have some properties. Being scarce and hard to come by is the obvious property. It has to be hard to generate and/or hard to fine, so hard to find that I'd rather trade my food for them than finding them myself. The future promise that someone else will pay you more (or about the same, at least not *much* less) is definitely a large part of this. Without it, trading would not really be possible except for bartering as we had before. There exists no objective store of value. Everything is subjective. Gold is subjective, rai stones were extremely subjective. Shiny rocks have been used. Now, rai stones really only worked within a limited area where rai stones where scarce. The market was largely destroyed when people got to that area and found that just by bringing some rai stones, the inhabitants were giving you a surprisingly large amounts of goods in return. Gold is a store of value largely because we know how much gold there is. Though, there exists these rocks in space (asteroids) that holds a tremendous amount of gold. If only we could get at those...we could tank the gold market. Bitcoin is mathematically proven scarse. It works perfectly as a store of value, because it is built into the protocol. Objective store of value does not exist. It is *all* about the properties and subjective value.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 27, 2020 04:12:39

I actually think 300 kb block size would make sense, but a block size reduction is just as hard to get consensus for as a block size increase, so I am fine with 1MB (or, actually more since we now have Segwit. It was a tradeoff worth doing, since it allows easier/safer offchain mechanisms) I believe a lot of the transactions we see onchain today is well served by other mechanisms. I also believe the difference in fee if we were to double the block size would be a temporary relief. If it goes too low, auxiliary use cases will return, and people would return to wasteful mechanisms. Block space is a shared good, it needs to be used responsibly. And it shouldn't be regarded as "unlimited", because it's not going to be. Paradoxically, you'll not experience this in BCH, as the demand fails to actually be there to create these issues. But you are welcome to cater to the weather data and tickers on the blockchain. That's not a use case I believe is worth sacrificing block space on. If BTC blockchain was as cheap to transact on as BCH while retaining same security, BTC blockchain is where they'd be, though. I am not sad we are pricing them out. In short: There has to be a limit, and the 1 MB limit we have now is fine, and certainly is not worth sacrificing being on the most secure, decentralized blockchain in the world.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 27, 2020 03:59:51

I'm sorry. I don't believe in onboarding a horde of people who have no idea even *why* they use crypto. Imho, only people willing to educate themselves need crypto. The rest are finely served by credit cards et all.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 27, 2020 03:48:55

Oh. That old conspiracy. There is metric *all* over. Even though the transactions costs a fraction of BTC transaction, noone wants to use them. Only a fraction of the number. Yes, price. Which you only can explain away by introducing a Tether conspiracy. Now, I am as sceptical as you (ok, maybe not all that much) of whether Tether is fully backed, but no, I highly doubt new tethers now are "printed out of thin air". They are simply printed because people buy, and people buy tether because that's a convenient vehicle to buy/trade crypto. I honestly think that at this point, there's two people left in BCH community: Those trying to fool people, and those being fooled. Which one are you?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 26, 2020 15:00:18

All metric shows the community that believe bigger blocks now is important is some very low percentage of the bitcoin community. And hash rate follows demand. Yes, miners can decide to mine whatever they like, but if that is not bitcoin, then noone will pay the price of bitcoin for the coins they mine. Simple.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 26, 2020 10:29:12

Blockstream are not the ones who decides. The community does. Earlier, now and in the future. And large blocks *will* become an issue. Sure, large max block size will not, but if they are to produce a meaningful fee revenue under the assumption that block size should never be scarse, then *actual block size* will *have* to be large enough to become an issue. Now and in the future.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 26, 2020 09:18:58

I repeat: *Noone* has said blocksize will remain 1MB forever. But 1GB blocks? Even 100MB? *on average*, not only peak? The sweet spot is very much somewhere in between, and the market *will* have to live with block space being a scarce resource. That's why it's important to build up adoption around that philosophy, instead of tons of adoption that's built up around transaction being basically free. Right now, I believe 1 MB block size is about right. Also, there will always be demand for the most secure blockchain in the world. If we doubled the blocksize, only a little bit of that would go to reducing fees for actual payments, the rest would be eaten by other use cases. Weather data, trading tickers are examples of things I don't think is important can afford the block space. But it's a free world, so if transactions get too cheap, that's what you'll get. And I would not like my node storing and validating others non-financial use cases.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 26, 2020 09:03:37

Anyone who is interested in transacting small amounts of bitcoin, will of course have LN channels open to receive them, and they'd have got them either from peers, from free/cheap services, and at times where fees are lower than usual. You seem to not get it. BTC is the most secure, most decentralized distributed ledger in the world. In a world where you keep your money on such a ledger, why would you switch some of it to BCH for payments when you could create LN channels - which is basically the same fee - and use the channel multiple times? Only in a world where store of value was considered important, i.e. where you *don't* switch in/out of BCH, would you keep enough spending money in BCH. So: Store of value comes first. For anyone to actually want to hold the money for other than just tokens for immediate payments that you sell again once you got them, you'd want the best. LN is not quite there for everyone yet, but it's improving. Which, incidentally, is what you say about BCH too. It's not money for the world yet, but it will be.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 26, 2020 08:14:01

There's places like []( that can convert that and swap it over lightning, but that seems to be barely below the limit they'll bother to exchange. $1.5, he could totally exchange to bitcoin on the lightning network, there.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 26, 2020 07:29:29

BCH is kicking the can down the road. They are trying to push adoption to the max with on-chain scaling. Part of the community believe that if they hit a limit, they can just implement offchain solutions. I believe this to be a mistake, basically because: \- It being recognized as a mistake will likely not happen before chain have become too large and unwieldy. \- Good luck getting a larger community adopted to on-chain e-commerce with nearly free transactions to halt "until BCH implements offchain mecahnisms". I believe it's better to build the adoption around the tools and concept we believe will be viable in the future, even if it means delayed adoption. We'll then have a much healthier growth, and less chance of hitting a harder problem later. Bigger blocksize on BTC is of course possible if the community agrees. This will likely not happen before it's needed to allow growth in off-chain mechanisms, and only if it doesn't have significantly negative consequences. There will be disagreements here. Bitcould \*should\* be hard to change, it's a feature.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 25, 2020 16:21:07

Fees are on the way down. If it continues, your transaction will confirm sooner or later. I am not sure whether or not []( can do CPFP. I can see that you have a small rest that goes back to yourself. If you can create a transaction with a little higher than necessary fee that spends those bitcoin, a miner will calculate the combined fee and pick that if it's profitable. This is called CPFP. ​ But if the transaction is to yourself or someone that is willing to wait, there is no danger in doing so.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on May 25, 2020 13:58:57

So, it's not "scaling" per se, just as Lightning Network is not scaling per se. Liquid is created for specific use cases, and these are use cases that the bitcoin blockchain is not particularly suited for: 2 minute guaranteed transactions, confidential. LN is another example: Instant transactions of relatively low value. Neither of these are use cases the bitcoin is particularly well suited for, so solutions on top/side of bitcoin is created to give the users having these needs a better suited tool. The upside? People not particularly well catered to by the blockchain can now stop wasting block space, thus limiting the \*need\* for onchain scaling. We'll see several tools like this, we'll see more efficient way of doing things on the blockchain, all limiting how much we will have to scale the blockchain itself. It's a way to scale the economy, but \*still\* keep the blockchain as it was meant to be: Easy to validate for all participants. Note: I am not saying \*everyone\* have to run full nodes and validating it. There are two things that I think is important, in order of importance: \- That the economy that uses full nodes are large enough that it's not profitable for miners to mine invalid PoW. \- That everyday users know that users \*like them\* can and are validating the chain. This is my own belief - there is value in trusting the integrity of the chain, and people are more likely to trust it when their peers are validating it than when "the big guys" are.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on May 24, 2020 13:03:26

Your fee of 200 sat/b should just have been confirmed. We have seen a period with high fees, in the low 100s, and the last few hours also long block delays, which means that we had even higher fees the last few hours. Right. now, we have about 10 MB of "more than 10 sat/b" fees, and this has been more or less neither increasing much or decreasing much for the last week. We're moving into a weekend, and traditionally we're seeing transactions being processed during weekends.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on May 22, 2020 09:05:36

Spending with on-chain transaction is not going to be the future of retail bitcoin transactions. I'd get a wallet that supports Lightning Network and check if you can find vendors that supports Lightning Network. Even if Lightning Network still have its issues, you are then at least future-proofing yourself and staying up-to-date with technology. Many people (me included) are shifting their online spending to LN-supporting vendors these days.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 22, 2020 07:14:16

Trickery by making sense. Yeah, that's my speciality.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 21, 2020 17:24:23

It's pretty evident that basing capacity increases on onchain scaling is not a realistic or sustainable strategy. Right now, as I see it, are we in a period where we explore and develop the offchain mechanisms, which was largely made easier and safer by malleability fixes with Segwit introduction. So, progress will not be measured in how much we cram into the blockchain, but how much economic activity we can have without it having to touch the blockchain. Blockchain space is a shared good, and should be used responsibly. Those who do will be rewarded with lower fees.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 21, 2020 10:57:55

We're seeing early adopters starting to use LN, that's for sure, but we're not ready for world wide adoption yet, and world wide adoption isn't ready for crypto at all. The base layer is what it is, I don't support changing it to reduce the unique properties bitcoin have for a temporary fee relief. That said, once we have enough offchain mechanisms in place that the added economic activity outweighs the negative effects, this might change. We're not there yet, though.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 21, 2020 09:27:47

There have been a lot of development on lightning network. Liquid is deployed. I have said it before and I will say it again: success will not be measured in how much you can cram into the blockchain. It will be measured in how much you don't have to.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 20, 2020 16:58:10

DDOS was running rampage towards everyone in the bitcoin space at the time - heck, over the whole internet, bitcoin or no bitcoin,. That said, there is bitterness and hostility in this debate for quite some time. I belong in the camp that believe the "just raise the blocksize!" camp was holding back the good innovation we've seen the start of since BCH forked off, and it's not inconcievable that someone was bitter enough that they believe they were doing the good work by DDOSing XT. I also believe XT activating would have created a devastating hard fork at a time where we were far from mature enough. It might have eroded trust in bitcoin and cryptocurrencies for a \*long\* time. If there was DDOS and it was part of stopping the XT activation, it \*might\* just have helped stopping a disaster. I don't necessarily believe the end justifies the means, maybe we would have deserved that crypto died if XT activated. We can't really know what went on and what happened, though, and I believe it just looks the BCH crowd petty. They have their large block fork, they can see by their own eyes that there was no "massive community support" for it, and at this point, rehashing this over and over just makes you look like sore losers. Build up your paypal 2.0. Add non-trustless and POW-overriding mechanisms like checkpoints, avalanche etc all you like. It's a fine paypal 2.0, but it's not going in the direction of a trustless cryptocurrency.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 20, 2020 05:09:24

I don't believe LN needs "pumping", but using it will be good for yourself (if you want to use bitcoin for smaller purchases) and actively choosing vendors that promote a responsible blockchain usage is good for bitcoin. I see block space as a shared resource that people should use responsible, else everyone will pay too much for it. On the other hand, future security of bitcoin \*does\* depend on a willingness to pay fees for block space that are significant. One way to do that, is to have every transaction on the blockchain count for more economic activity, and LN is doing exactly that. So: Definitely try LN - it's fun, it's going to help you in the future if you need to spend LN, and you support vendors that are more forward thinking.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on May 20, 2020 04:59:12

Yes. We largely agree. You are trusting beneficial miners except the game theory of bitcoin itself.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 19, 2020 17:09:09

Sure. For larger amounts, you have to trust the checkpoints. But you are wrong that it's POW that rules. The checkpoints is a mechanism to let minority hash override majority hash. The blockchain does not differ between good and bad hash. This is why POW matters, and why the fee market will be important. If you don't have enough POW security, you will have to implement POW overriding mechanisms if people are to use it for larger amounts.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 19, 2020 15:18:27

See, here's the thing: BCH is not trustless for larger amounts, either. Right now, it costs not all that many 1000 dollars to do a 11 block rollback. This is the point where the rolling checkpoints come in. So: For larger amounts, you trust that the "good guys" will be those that are on your side, should there be a 51% attack for 11 blocks. Other than that: I agree that LN is a tradeoff. You'd not keep your wealth in a hot wallet. But for spending money, it's ok. But there is of course various security mechanisms. If I accept money on a website via LN, I'll typically give people access to pay me on the website. This website in itself does not necessarily run the LN wallet, but it needs to have access to the wallet. The LN node software I know best is called LND. This has a kind of a "supercookie" mechanism for controlling rights. You would typically give your website a macaroon that gives it access to generate invoice and checking whether the invoice is paid. That's really all it needs. This is a typical way now to receive money via LND. Sure, it's a hot wallet. But a hot wallet doesn't mean "total access for everyone".

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 19, 2020 14:54:33

Ok, thanks for your valuable answer ;P

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 19, 2020 11:15:19

No arguments, as usual. Whenever it becomes a bit more complicated than "more capacity is better", "miners will always be good", there's little substance in counter arguments from the BCH crowd. I don't know why I think I'll have anything but worthless answers here, but I keep wishing I'd have some more thoughtful replies now and then.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 19, 2020 10:38:15

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are honest in your question. You are being misled on this sub. I will try to answer your original question as good I can, and relate it to your assumptions etc, and the answers you will likely have gotten here in the meantime. First: You are not supporting bitcoin by transacting on it, per se, it's the \*fees\* that support it. That is what is supposed to pay the miners. Right now, miners also get a lot of new coins for doing this job, but every 4 years the amount of coin they get extra is halved. This means that fee income need to increase to replace this. The BCH supporters believes this can be done by assuming there will be 10s of thousand of transactions per block, all paying an extremely low fee. But this will create e burden on mining, and it will also shift the incentives quite a bit. Bitcoin security largely relies on game theory. Doing the wrong thing should not be profitable. Miners will keep to the bitcoin protocol because noone will accept their coins if they don't, and they need those coins to pay their bills - which to a large extent is the power needed to secure the chain. There is this assumption that enough of the network actually validates the protocol fully, and does \*not\* accept invalid blocks. For this job, they don't get any reward, except some extra possibilties to validate their own transactions. If the cost of doing this becames too large, less people will do it. Bitcoin - as in BTC - is already in not \*too\* good shape here, but it definitely need to not become \*much\* harder to validate, rapidly. A lot of the BCH supporters here will say that "naah. The miners will never do that. Because they do not want to destroy bitcoin, because they have most skin in the game". But this largely is a circular argument, because if bitcoin gets so much of the payment market that fee income provides meaningful security, we have already become dependent on bitcoin. We will have no choice, as much as we don't have a realistic choice other than trusting the central banks today. So, we need fees to provide meaningful security, but we also needs the burden on validating the chain to be not too large for those not earning the fees, because that will change the game theory that bitcoin so much depends on. Right now, you have experienced one consequence: As block space is limited, fees will increase - at times quite a lot. This is a \*good\* thing for bitcoin security, but obviously a bad thing for the user experience. There exists solutions that alleviate this. They are a bit harder to implement than just raising the blocksize, but they don't have all that negative effect that raising the blocksize does. Bitcoin has smart contracts. You can utilize this smart contracts to "lock up" some coins on the bitcoin network, that you will spend through other mechanisms (other networks). Lightning Network is currently the mechanism that is furthest along this line for consumer payments. Myself, I spend a small amount \*each month\*, no matter what fees there are, in bitcoin to pay for my VPN. This is because I have bitcoin in the Lightning Network, that I have set aside for future payments. If I need to set aside more, I will add more at times when the fees are not so high. As this system evolves, you will likely be able to buy bitcoin directly over LN from an exchange, and your hardware wallet might also have a possibility to be on the Lightning Network - but not with todays version of Lightning Network. Lightning Network is able to evolve rapidly because it doesn't require network-wide consensus to change. All consensus is between parties of two, so we can have lots of "parties of 2" that operate under different versions of LN. We're seeing exciting tech being created on LN today, but the BCH supporters will try to downplay this, because it \*directly\* competes against their own coin. Should LN have some success and adoption, they are afraid noone will bother with BCH again. This is the reason you'll see much FUD about LN on this channel - their future depend on it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 19, 2020 06:45:05

Yes, because 2 cent is *so* important to register on a public ledger. You know, I once asked the mods here if they could enable the Lightning Network tipbots that exists. I'd return you some over LN if they had, but they don't want to enable it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 18, 2020 10:41:35

It's noble of you supporting BCH with your own money, seeing your purchasing power reduce as you hold BCH. I'll remind you, however, that as you are losing, someone is earning. All the people holding and supporting BCH should ask themselves who is profiting when BCH fails to store its purchasing power. But, I'll answer your question: You are less than trustless because your security features *all* adds more need for trust: - Checkpoints - removes trustlessness. - Hardfork schedule? You are trusting a centralized cabal to change the properties of your money at will. - Low hashrate - you are trusting that there exists some noble miners willing to defend the coin by spending hashrate they could earn more on by mining BTC to mine BCH in case of an attack.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 18, 2020 10:09:29

Yeah, so I am not in the "lambo now!!" camp. You are not incorrect in this. There's lots of clueless speculators in bitcoin. It's difficult to see through it, and difficult to not let tribalism, greed and ignorance affect you. I will always be on t

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 18, 2020 09:42:25

No, it's *far from*. The only reason exchanges does not require a shitload confirmations for deposits is because they *trust* that the checkpoints will magically make someone be able to claim what's the right side of an 11-block reorg. And secure? Nope. Hash rate matters, also see above. For everyone? Sure, if you think less-than-secure and less-than-trustless-money is useful...then go ahead. I am not trying to stop you. I am only trying to educate people to think about these things.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 18, 2020 09:11:20

We have seen the same earlier. This isn't fundamentally different than what happens all the time, price goes up but then someone sells and price goes down. But remember: For each sale there is a buyer. If people buy at 19.5k, they're not really likely to take profit at 20k. Sure, if price jumps rapidly from 10k to 20k, like we saw at the last bull run, we might see this. But people aren't necessarily going to do that this time, it'll likely be a more gradual climb for a while. When will mass-FOMO hit? A while after people like you have discovered that "oh my god, the limit was not 20k! We're now at 25k! Better buy!". Sure, this is speculation. But with more liquidity, we'll see the highs being more moderate, and perhaps the dumps being more moderate. I certainly prefer slow and steady as opposed to massive bull runs, but it's not up to me, I am hardly a market maker. All I can do is believe that bitcoin has value, and stick to that. To hell with the rest of the market, I know what I believe.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on May 18, 2020 08:46:03

To some degree, you are correct. But it's better to have P2P *sound* money for 1% of the world (and possibility of increasing via 2nd layers over time), or kinda-semi-trustless-if-you-stretch-it, kinda-sound-if-you-stretch it and secure-with-some-bandaids P2P money for the world. See, we *care* about retaining trustlessness, security and decentralization. It's more important than onboarding the whole world. Onboarding the whole world to something less-trustless, I feel is not interesting at all, and it will be the Fintechs that take that market. I am fine with that. Bitcoin is sound money, but it will still be only for those who care about sound money. I don't for a second buy into the "we need to get to world domination, fast!" narrative. We'll build for those who need and want it. If people want to use credit cards, Revoluts and other non-trustless payment methods, and they have no problems with that, I am *fine* with that. (and: Most of the world does not have a need for trustless coffee cup-spendings). So there. Go on, ridicule me for not wanting to take over. Bitcoin isn't a political tool - it's a tool to take politics out of money.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 18, 2020 08:15:16

Price going down erases purchasing power. But, somehow, being a store of value is not important? There's a whole lot of conflicting narratives in this camp. Other than that, we agree. Price of transactions are important. There need to be ways to transact value cheaply and quickly. Which is why LN and other offchain mechanisms are and will be developed. We just disagree on what order we do it, and what is the most important properties to preserve as we are building our ecosystem. Do we add capacity now and hope to get security later, or do we maintain the security now and as much capacity as we can safely do later?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 18, 2020 07:24:41

Yes, we have accepted the fee market as a necessity. We believe in PoW, and we believe in developing a very necessary fee market now, rather than dealing with adoption around the false premises that transactions should be free. u/nullc didn't celebrate high fees, he celebrated the market demonstrating willingness to pay the needed price of a transaction - but he did clearly state that he didn't celebrate high fees in itself. And every time we have a small peak, the market demonstrates this again. There's definitely a fair share of overpaying to get into the next block going on. This is \*fine\*, it is how a working market looks. If block size was not limited, there'd be no incentive to add meaningful fees.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 18, 2020 06:54:43

You know what would increase spending? Adding more inflation. Why don't you remove the halvings? It'd rid you of some hash rate droppins every 4th year. Come to think of it, if you instead of halving, you double, it'd increase spending even more. Or, maybe it's not "the amount of spending and circulation" that is the measure as to how good money it is?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 18, 2020 06:39:55

Yup. An attacker will have to wait at least 144 blocks, while the counterparty will be able to claim it immediately. Note: this is a minimum, if you have a mobile wallet you don't use that often, you would negotiate channels with larger time locks- up to two weeks I think.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on May 17, 2020 11:45:50

This was exactly what I said. But for this to work, we need to make sure there *is* economic incentives for miners to care about. And that is not only other miners. The more of the community that participates in this, the less centralization we have.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 17, 2020 09:30:58

Decentralized security always was and always will be the prime utility. Spending is a niche. I wish you luck on your road to understanding this at some point in the future.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 17, 2020 09:17:04

Or maybe *you* are the one that failed to understand the important features of cryptocurrencies. The product is security. There will always be demand for space on the most secure decentralized ledger in the world

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 17, 2020 08:11:12

Sure, they had better validate the transactions. If they mine blocks with invalid transactions, their blocks will be rejected and they waste the time spent on mining. Any miner is free to timestamp any transactions, but for them to be valid in a cryptocurrency, they have to follow the rules of that cryptocurrency, and any user of that cryptocurrency can validate that.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 17, 2020 05:36:29

With software, 10 minutes is an eternity, and the difference between 10 minutes or 2 weeks is not a lot. I have said it before, and I say it again: Should cryptocurrency go mainstream, we'll see user-friendly doublespend-by-default wallets in the wild. Doublespend-fraud will be the new credit card fraud. Basing world wide adoption on that would be horrendously foolish. Avalanche might help some, but it can not be done without compromises on the trustlessness and decentralization of the blockchain. It makes sense if you live in a world where you think of the miners as "the issuers and providers of a service". In Bitcoin, they are only performing a PoW-backed timestamping service.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 17, 2020 05:08:33

RBF is signaling intent, nothing more. If you set the flag, you signal that you may want to replace it. Without that flag? Then 0-conf on BCH and BTC is basically the same. Anyone accepting 0-conf should check for RBF, and I am not in the "we need to handheld everyone and protect them from having to learn the technology" camp, at all. If you accept 0-conf with a TX that has the RBF flag or where the parent have the RBF flag, it is your own fault. Noone else is to blame. Anyone accepting 0-conf transactions are of course always taking a risk, but for small value it's fine. Claiming 0-conf as totally safe because of some gentlemans agreement, however, that's dishonest. Bitcoin isn't based on gentlement agreements, it's based on code and protocols.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 17, 2020 04:44:51

I'll explain that one very simple: Each channel state update gives the other node a proof that the previous channel state is invalid - it can simply watch for a spend transaction of that channel state. Once it does, it has at least 144 blocks to submit a transaction to take all the money in the channel - also those that belonged to the one submitting the invalid channel state. This is made passible because all channel updates creates a smart contract giving the conditions for how the UTXOs are spent, once they hit the blockchain. One of them is - if you can present the proof it was an invalid state within N blocks, you can spend all UTXOs.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on May 17, 2020 03:47:14

Maybe because you have misunderstood the "product" they are waiting for. The product is trustless security, of which BCH has little but BTC has plenty. There will always be demand for space on the most secure, trustless, distributed ledger in the world.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 17, 2020 03:40:47

So, it will create a "set of miners" that can agree on which channels are valid. You are right, this is difficult to do trustless. I'd say likely impossible. So, you are on board with "we can ignore any extra power we give to the miners, because they have to be good for this to work anyways?"

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 17, 2020 03:28:40

It's not radically different. Counting non-confirmed transactions final will always be risky, there's no way to know whether it will make it into a block, or if a different TX spending the same bitcoin will. The BCH route seems to be to find a way to have miners agree on what TX they will include, i.e. Avalanche. Unless it orphans blocks going against it, it might not be worth much, and if it starts orphaning blocks, this might open up whole new ways for abuse/fraud. There's a reason it is not deployed even if it's been discussed for quite a while - this isn't easy to do safe. In BTC, it is LN that seems to take that role. Basically, LN is based on smart contracts on the blockchain and each transaction operating within those smart contracts, creating new spend-transactions. It's quite simple in principle, but the devil is in the details, so we've seen a few issues - not least of them along the usability and recovery of wallets. The essential thing is: There's no way we can totally replicate the security of confirmed transactions. (Side note: A conformation is not necessarily equal between the two coins. A confirmation on BCH only has a fraction of the security of a BTC transactions - because there's more PoW behind a BTC transaction).

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 16, 2020 15:58:10

I rarely do any direct spending with on-chain BTC anymore - that usecase is being shifted to LN for me. When opening LN channels, I do it well in advance. There's no need to wait until you need it, so you don't have to pay next block fee. I've never ever paid over 10 sat/b to open a channel - and then I did it just to be nice to provide someone with incoming liquidity.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 16, 2020 15:40:02

I do. I pay my VPN with BTC - over lightning network. I do play some games, paid with low amounts of BTC. A good amount of those support lightning network. I see "making sure my LN wallet is filled up" like a necessity these days. That will only get better as more of the ecosystem supports LN - some exchanges here and there have implemented LN support. Last year, we saw the start of usability focus in LN wallets. Here is an article almost a year old, a good amount of new wallets have been launched since then: []( So spending bitcoins is definitely a thing. However, the economically sensible thing for most people is and will likely be for the foreseeable future to spend their fiat first.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 16, 2020 15:29:10

There will be a number of ways to solve this: \- Traditionally, the exact technique you are talking about is splice out. It means that you and your channel partner cooperates within the protocol to create new balances, and a new backing address on the blockchain. This means there has to be an onchain transaction sending you 12 btc and the remainder into the channel. This is a bit simplified, as this isn't really implemented anywhere yet, there might be nuances to how this needs to be to do it safely. \- There already exists services where you'll somewhat trustlessly/atomically send a lightning payment to them, and they will send you back an onchain transaction with your funds back. The one I am thinking about is called Lightning Loop., but there might be others. \- Lastly, it's of course possible that you can just send the exchange the payment via Lightning Network. There are exchanges that are starting to implement Lightning Network, but not really any of the large ones yet.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on May 14, 2020 10:07:18

There will be plenty of solutions like Liquid that solves specific problems for specific users. Not everything is dependent upon being recorded onchain. Liquids primary use case is and will always be people who have a need to send coins between already trusted environments like exchanges, and with speed and properties that onchain can not achieve. Like 1 minute block time guaranteed. LN is another such technology, but it's fundamentally different than Liquid and solves a totally different use case. We have only seen the start of this. It all revolves around: 1) Not all TXs need to be registered onchain. 2) To get to a state with a sufficient fee market, we need to let it develop. 3) Smaller blockchain is better. *Always*. Blockchains are meant to be validated, if you don't validate it, then you don't need a blockchain. And yes - I am very civil when asked honest questions by people willing to accept that people can have different opinion than them.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 14, 2020 05:34:04

It's because you are asking the wrong question. You need to decide for yourself: Are you paying for speed of "notification of payment" or are you paying for security? Are you paying for raw capacity or are you paying for trustlessness? There's *lots* of tradeoffs here. If all you are interested in is a better paypal, then sure, by all means - use BCH. But BTC and BCH has fundamentally different security, both in amount and philosophy. In BTC camp, we strive to minimalize the degree to which we have to trust *anyone* - and that includes the miners. This means we will *not* compromise the game theory that keeps miners hones to a larger degree than is already done. Then there's the amount of security you are paying for. It can also be seen as "speed of security". There's *no* coin that gains security and finality as fast as bitcoin. See I also believe speed of payment notification and price is a market crypto can hardly ever win, at least not when talking blockchain. it might in second layers, eventually. That market will be eaten by the fintechs. Not the banks, necessarily, but there's tons of payment fintechs out there that have free and instant transactions - to far more users than use crypto.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 14, 2020 04:46:31

That's not really answerable, because it's not an absolute. And you said it yourself: Some people will pay more than a dollar because the timeliness outweighed the cost! That's called a market. And it's a necessity for bitcoin to work, long term.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 14, 2020 00:59:09

I never paid Even a dollar in fees. If price increases, I will have to have each transaction count for more economic activity

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 13, 2020 16:03:31

I like Lightning Labs mobile wallet. Fully non-custodial. Others also like "Bitcoin Lightning Wallet", also min custodial. Bluewallet is party custodial, but you can set up your own server

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 13, 2020 13:00:13

BTC has higher fees, noone denies it. But it also has periods with lower fees, so if your transaction isn't time critical, you can pay lower fees. Express transactions will sometimes (often) have a premium price, and I have accepted this. I believe most people who support BTC have. But that doesn't mean we all have to go on paying 10 times the necessary price. Wallets can be better or worse to estimate fees. I will personally pay the needed price, but not more. If it's urgent (not that often), I'll overpay. And LN works for larger and larger degrees of working. Have you heard anything about it that you haven't read by BCH supporters here? Have you tried it?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 13, 2020 06:23:36

There's more than one way to scalability. BCH approach: Cram as much possible data on the blockchain as possible. Probably needs VISA and Mastercard combined, multiplied by a factor, to achieve the level of security it needs. Do the math. I have done it roughly in my head. BTC approach: Make each transaction count for more economic activity. See: LN, sidechains (of which Liquid is an example). Have a fee market that actually works, because there is incentive to add a real fee.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 13, 2020 05:56:38

Probably not. Personally, I have accepted it as a necessity. But LN is already viable in that situation, for those willing to be early adopters of it. (And think of it: We are all early adopters, so there's only degrees of being early adopters).

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 13, 2020 05:39:44

No, it's not. 1) Not everyone that supports BTC does it for the same reason. 2) There's \*lot\* more nuances than "low fees bad, high fees good". There's time preference of transactions. I often submit low-fee with low time preference, but if it's an urgent transaction, I'll overpay. If there's no fee pressure, there'd be no reason whatsoever to overpay, and that'd create less fees and less security. You might say that those with a high time preference subsidize those with a low time preference. 3) Just because we don't think it really makes sense, economically, for a lot of people right now to spend their bitcoin and that there's about 0 chance of mass adoption both on BCH and BTC for the foreseeable few years, doesn't mean we don't work to ease the spending experience. I believe we have \*time\* to do it right, we have \*time\* to create spending mechanisms that does not bloat the blockchain, and where we can have a fee market with low and high time preference because most of the small-scale spending won't touch the blockchain anyway. Most of my onchain transactions right now are LN channel openings/transactions, really, but I do quite a few LN transactions.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 13, 2020 04:06:59

Fine, I agree. Well, if you fail to get sufficient hash rate because your fee market is unable to sustain the security, then you will need the checkpoints, and with "unlimited blocks", there's really little incentive to pay more than a nominal fee. So those two are largely related. But I agree, Avalanche was unrelated.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 13, 2020 03:51:28

I don't know if they were unable to or decided not trying. I am pretty sure you would have defined his chain invalid and been happy with it. But seen from the blockchain, it would be perfectly valid blocks! If not,you'd not need checkpoints, they'd be discarded anyhow. That means you have created a PoW-overriding mechanism, and in the case of 10 blocks, *you*'d have to decide which blocks are valid - and not the blockchain.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 12, 2020 17:28:47

How would you differ between a normal reorg and a reorg attack?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 12, 2020 17:18:44

Then explain how they work?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 12, 2020 17:08:38

*no* downsides to checkpoints? Think again, but now picture someone having got their transactions confirmed 14 blocks ago - and boom - comes checkpoints at 10 blocks at another chain, suddenly declaring those 14 blocks invalid. Why on earth should those 10 blocks override the longest chain?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 12, 2020 16:54:31

This, we agree on. But,is a confirmation the same on all blockchains? See for some math. BCH isn̈́'t fast. It's slow to get to the same security as Bitcoin. That is, until it gets to 10 blocks. After that, PoW doesn't matter, then it's up to those defining what checkpoint is the correct one.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 12, 2020 14:35:33

I am pretty happy that the people without any economic understanding of bitcoin left to create their own coin when they understood they couldn't just push their own agenda on a supermajority of the economy. And on this supermajority, we have numbers. Hash rate, price, number of transactions. That's all numbers.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 12, 2020 11:59:37

There have been at least one successful chain rollback on BCH, a 2 block rollback, so I beg to differ. I don't consider 0-conf to be something that's meant to be secure at all, but PoW? That's meant to be final. At best 0-conf is a form of credit, trusting that the user will pay. A fine tradeoff for low value things.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 12, 2020 11:49:29

contentious? not really. only in your mind. It was activated with a 95% activation threshold.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 12, 2020 11:38:19

Well. If there is not enough meaningful fee pressure, then hash rate \*will\* be low. Your strategy is that you will somehow get 10s of thousands of transactions per block. Do the math. You might say you have until 2140. That is true. You have until 2140 to be \*completely\* sustained by fees. But the longer you postpone that, the more will it hurt later to do it - for tyo

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 12, 2020 11:15:41

A transaction will always either be confirmed or not. 0-conf is per definition *not* secure, it will always be a risk tradeoff. And double spend risk *caused* by RBF? No such thing. That risk is there with or without RBF. If nothing, RBF makes the intent more honest, and noone should accept RBF as 0-conf. But a confirmed transaction with RBF is as secure as a confirmed transaction without RBF.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 12, 2020 10:24:49

Well. I don't personally think reddit is a good place to learn about bitcoin, at all. Neither r/btc nor r/bitcoin is particularly good, in different ways. However, on the last point I will vehemently disagree with you. I agree that r/bitcoin is not the best place to find info about it, but the fee market development and "smaller is better" approach to blocksize is the most viable way to keep the coin secure for the future.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 12, 2020 09:25:14

Yes. If I disagree, it causes a chainsplit. But a majority of miners are free to walk away to create something that the community does not want to pay for. Which is what didn't happen during UASF, miners understood they'd mine something they'd not be paid as much for. The community signaled, the miners followed the signal. That's what UASF was.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 12, 2020 07:32:05

...and a crash course in /r/btc narratives and conspiracy theories, just to make sure you know what to believe in. But don't worry, you'll have people constantly reminding you, all the time, through helpful bots like /u/cryptochecker that people will use to remind you which people you should agree with or not, and there will be people like u/ShadowOfHarbringer that will warn you that you are reading stuff that's supposedly harmful for you to read. Welcome to the echo chamber! Here, you'll be told what to believe \*all\* the time.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 12, 2020 07:21:14

When have I *ever* not cared about PoW? But PoW have to be valid. Just because a majority of PoW decides to change the protocol, it doesn't need to be deemed valid. The node validating received transactions actually have the final word here. I honestly fail to see why this sub has problems understanding that.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 12, 2020 07:08:24

There is \*noone\* that has said block size will never increase. Literally \*noone\*. The thing we pretty much agree on in that other camp is that it \*should\* be in place to create a meaningful fee market. This is a necessary thing to preserve decentralized security. If we don't, we'll have to go the BCH route and create bandaids like rolling checkpoints, perhaps avalanche, and other PoW-overriding mechanisms. That's something that is a red flag to me.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 12, 2020 06:43:28

1. I love bitcoin because it's bitcoin I control myself. I know the inflation rate, it can't be debased, and there's noone that tells me how it's right to use it. 2. I plan to add a couple of LN channels to my node, maybe spend some (probably on LN), but save most of it. Sorry to say, but my FIAT is easier to spend and loses value more rapidly.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on May 11, 2020 17:15:23

I will answer here instead: I paid my monthly VPN bill with BTC just the other day. $9, every month. Other than that, I do random spends here and there.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 11, 2020 03:55:58

This is the narrative here. However, there is no way they can know whether the tether is printed "to prop up bitcoin" or if it is printed because people buy it so that they can trade and buy bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies). Personally, I have a hard time seeing why exchanges would deal with USDT unless they were pretty sure it was (approximately) equal to 1 USD. Everyone need to do their own risk calculations, I guess.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 9, 2020 18:21:59

As you probably guess, I am not that interested in the coins that have compromised on security and decentralization to increase capacity and decrease fees. That doesn't mean that I believe it's not a tradeoff that is sensible to do if you need to do cheap crypto payments right now. I am, however, more interested in off-chain technologies like Lightning Network, where the base layer is kept secure and the cheaper transactions, increased capacity and lower fees arche achived within separate protocols, protected by smart contracts on the base layer. Different strategies and different priorities.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 8, 2020 10:28:28

I have a personal stake, of course. I hold some of the bitcoin I belive in for the future, little of the others. I want it to become the most decentralized, most secure, most trustless currency in the world. I believe the only way to do that is to not comprimise on those features for some short-sighted "world domination now!" dreams. Adoption, development, improvements are necessary on all levels - but never forget that the role of the blockchain is to be decentralized and secure and trustless. Compromises on that should be avoided on the base layer, but fine on other layers. That's where compromises belong.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 8, 2020 09:36:48

I am. My part is only education. I am *not* the one propagating FUD/conspiracy theories here. Fact is: you have *no* evidence whatsoever that the tether printed is not because of an influx of money into the market. Saying it was printed out of thin air is just a conspiracy theory this sub likes to peddle. And no: I am not invested in Tether or have any financial gain into protecting it. I only value truth and honesty.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 8, 2020 07:30:10

I am not the one taking the greatest risk. Exchanges are the ones taking the greatest risk, giving out hard value like bitcoin for USDT. I do believe in "not your keys? not your coins". I don't keep any significant amount of crypto in exchanges. Other than that, there's not much else one can do except sell all crypto. Tether is used for all cryptos, not only bitcoin, so no crypto is immune from this risk. Personally, I believe that if tether implodes, all markets will take a hit, but after that, the tether risk is gone. If tether is printed out of thin air, it might need to happen sooner or later.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 8, 2020 07:01:00

Likewise. I was not the one who had the claim that tethers was printed out of thin air. You are the one who needs to provide some evidence. But - I don't *have* any tether. I am just trying to have people think for themselves, not necessarily just believe any of the wild conspiracy theories posted here.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 8, 2020 06:48:53

I see this Tether conspiracy is still thriving. Whenever Tether is printed, usually it is because someone deposits USD - or otherwise buys Tether with something worth a specific USD value. You are right, we could use some more conspiracy. But it'd first and foremost the exchanges that takes the risk, they accept USDT as de facto worth approximately 1 USD. I hardly think they'd do that if they believed people just printed Tether without getting something deposited. Now, it's a known fact that after various governements confiscated tether backings a while ago, the 1:1 backing of Tether has been cast in doubt. But that is a different issue on whether or not Tether is printed out of thin air. Tether is a useful vehicle for transferring something holding USD value between exchanges. Nothing more, nothing less.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 8, 2020 05:29:05

Thank you for performing this constantly valuable service. It saves the members of this from the need to learn how to think for themselves. I am pretty sure some part of the future will thank you.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 7, 2020 10:11:44

1. A *hardfork schedule* ? That's centralization, per definition this means the end of the day, a committee sits down and decides how the currency is going to change. 2. Checkpoints. A mechanism so that "the good guys" can override the PoW of someone they don't like, should they get majority hash power. It might be necessary, but it's still centralization. 3. Planned features that likely lead to centralization: Avalanche.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 7, 2020 09:16:33

I am fine with people choosing BCH as a payment coin. A better paypal, if you'd like. But don't go on comparing it to a decentralized, trustless cryptocurrency. Actually, the reason you *are* being ridiculed at this point is because you continue to do this comparision.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 7, 2020 08:58:51

Compromising on security for ease of use seems like a splendid idea. Please go on.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 7, 2020 08:31:41

This accurately reflects the value of what is paid for. ​ In BCH, they pay for the service of the central validators (the ones who will decide the correct side, via checkpoints, after 10 blocks). In BTC, we pay for decentralized security via PoW, on the most secure distributed ledger in the world.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 7, 2020 06:57:19

In reality, it's now more difficult than that. The checkpoints fixed it. But what is the checkpoints? It's a mechanism by which entities of miners can collude and just agree to disregard majority PoW if the community agrees to follow them. In other words: Attacking the chain is not profitable because it's now not run by PoW but of a cabal that will override any PoW it does not like.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 7, 2020 05:09:33

My tiny node occationally see transactions in the above-$100 range. Now that atomic multipath payments is implemented, I expect it to be possible to send more, though.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 7, 2020 01:12:49

First - this notion that the block size can never change on BTC is false. However, it will not change because "transactions should be free", or "unlimited". Because no, they should not. That does not create a fee market, and a fee market is absolutely necessary to keep the incentives in place. Premature, I hear people say. Gradually and slowly, is what I think is better. You can't go from no fee market to a developed fee market in short time, that will be brutal for adoption around "transactions should be free" being there from the start. We've seen it now, since 2016/2017. It has been brutal for some, that suddenly there is limits and a fee market, and using block space actually costs money. But if you believe in the security of PoW, you know that it will happen. Better sooner than later.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 6, 2020 17:40:51

We're seeing start of a fee market right now. We'll see periods with high fees, but periods where fees go down and sometimes go completely empty - like weekends and especially long weekends. Now, what will constitute a high fee or a low fee? That, I don't know. I can't predict future demand. We might also see efficiency improvements and new methods to move part of activity off-chain.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 6, 2020 15:47:58

I tried that, when BCH had stayed in the 0.11-0.14 BTC area for \*long\*. Suits me right, I guess, that not long after, I cut my losses at 0.08 BTC. Looks like a pretty good decision right now :)

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 6, 2020 12:52:00

Bitcoin isn't slow. It's fast. See Bitcoins utility is trustless security, and BCH uses *a lot longer* to get the same security as bitcoin does. And because checkpoints break that trustlessness at 10 blocks, that's where trustlessness stops, too....

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 6, 2020 10:14:50

It is more Bitcoin than BCH. LN transactions, *all* steps and *all* stages in them, are signed, ready-to-submit bitcoin transactions. For each and every step on the way, every node holds the keys to spend the money it has, in each and every channel. Now, there might be steps that are temporarily under time locks, of course. But it still means you *and the bllockchain* is in control, and the blockchain is about the only thing that can be trusted in bitcoin. Everything else should be as trustless as possible.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 6, 2020 09:24:13

Why should I? I know that he didn't talk about Lightning Network. I know that you don't want to build anything that Satoshi didn't specifically mention. You probably even belong in the "Satoshis Vision" camp? If it hadn't been for that CSW was so...far out. Satoshi did, however, mention payment channels.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 6, 2020 09:12:42

I can, but I won't bother to quote in literal. I know the context. It was an argument where someone was arguing for raising blocksize now, rather than later, but Satoshi outlined the mechanism where activation could be done on a specific block. Satoshi did not outline any plans for when and under which conditions the block size should be raised, and it's hardly relevant, because Satoshi didn't know everything either - he didn't have this "grand plan" you all are speaking about, he showed a willingness to learn and adjust, just as most others. Except those that believe he had a plan we need to stick to slavically, which is outlined in the whitepaper and there only...

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 6, 2020 09:01:06

A "maxi" here. The fee market is what it is. Long term, we all know that fee income need to increase, but that doesn't mean all fees have to be equal. One thing you start to realize as you start \*really\* thinking about this, is that we'll see people paying for express service. These will cover quite a bit of the necessary fees. A lot of people will have to manage it more smart. LN is quite a bit of the part of this, in the future offchain will be necessary for low-cost instant transactions. Fee market is what it is, and it's a necessary part of bitcoins security. But won't LN need onchain? Sure it does. But it doesn't need grossly overpaying, as you can create channels way before you actually need to use them, making sure there's always spending money in your LN channels. Other than that, I'll loosely quote Satoshi: "It would be nice if some transactions can still be low-cost".

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 6, 2020 08:20:00

Digital gold is: \- Easier to store. \- Easier to validate \- Easier to transfer Did you know that Royal Mint of Canada one of the latest years sold a certified, genuine gold bar....that later turned out to be fake? Somewhere in their supply chain, the fake gold entered.. Don't trust, validate. Edit: Here is a link to a story about the genuine fake gold bar: [](

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 5, 2020 15:33:06

How is BCH a better story? See also post from u/PrairieCrypto "Even if Bitcoin Cash goes down to 1c I will still use it. As long as someone somewhere will accept it as valuable, it will be used" - isn't that the reason fiat also works? I.e. it works until it doesn't? BCH value also seems to go down over time.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 5, 2020 01:44:16

He is speaking the truth. The modlogs are open. Do the modlogs include proof with the claims they state? "Breaking reddit TOS" is easy to state.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 5, 2020 01:34:12

I actually think the least a wallet could do would be to warn a user trying that, if it aimed to be a userfriendly wallet. Mom and pop will not accept that user experience.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 4, 2020 14:43:46

Might be. But you're even more of a douchebag if you base your financial decisions on the friendlyness of a subreddit. Do your own research. Always.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 4, 2020 14:05:41

bitcoinvisuals' private channel statistics are educated guesses. They're probably not *way* off, but still educated guesses. I don't really see why you're so obsessed with number of BTC that are in LN channels. That number in itself is pretty meaningless, I could create a network of large channels between my own nodes, with only *one* channel out from it, and those BTC wouldn't really be usable except if you wanted to transact with me. Likewise, good channels will have funds flow both ways. I agree that in the beginning, people created channels like crazy, without any thought as to how they were going to be used. The guy behind the LNBIG nodes did discover this, that just throwing money at it doesn't solve or help much - so he ended up closing a lot of his channels. After that, we have seen more of a slow growth. LN will be as big as it needs to, this will be demand driven.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 2, 2020 07:38:44

Coming from you, this is a compliment. You still obsessed with me? I usually try to ignore your normal attempts at smearing people you don't agree with, thogh.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on May 2, 2020 07:21:34

I live by one thing, in most things I do: I own up to my mistakes. You should try that once, it increases your overall credibility among your peers. My statement was an inaccuracy, but none of these LN explorers that are regularly quoted here gives the full truth, which is what I was trying to say. However, if doing chainalysis, I recognize that it would be possible to estimate how much LN there is in LN channels. Your turn: How much bitcoin is there in LN, and where is your source?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 30, 2020 17:35:36

You can - everything is on the blockchain. But no, you can't *easily*, and certainly not based on those online explorers.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 30, 2020 17:22:11

I stand corrected. Right now, doing chainalysis and finding channel-openings and closing aren't that difficult. But it's not a ready-made number for you, lots of those channels are never announced publicly, so you'd have to puzzle it together. Getting Schnorr and Taproot will make privacy on these things much better, but it's likely some time until they are merged in. But you can't just take the list of open channels from, from your own node or anywhere else and assume it's the total liquidity. It's not, because private channels are not broadcasted. They are made known to the payer, for examle, in form of "hop hints" in the invoice, or a payer will of course be able to use his own channels even if they are not broadcasted to the network.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 30, 2020 16:24:02

Want some facts? How much bitcoin is locked in LN is a useless metric. Not to mention that you can't know, you can only see what's in public channels, and most user-oriented wallets create private channels per default. Liquidity in LN channels are also regularly spent over and over again. Here is data from one of mine: "capacity": "1000000", ​ ....... "total\_satoshis\_sent": "2390862", "total\_satoshis\_received": "1602693", Yup, transactions flow both ways, coins are sent multiple times.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 30, 2020 16:04:23

Talking about non-credible lies... LN works for quite a lot of people today. Next month and next year, even more development will have happened. That LN does not work is a myth spread by this subreddit. No, it is not finished. Neither is anything else within crypto.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 29, 2020 12:38:14

Not everything need a space on the most secure decentralized ledger in the world. Layer two like LN and various side chains will be a large part of that economy.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 29, 2020 11:04:59

I actually have no love for champions on either side. They are a distraction. Difficult as it is, between all the noise, I try to find out what \*I\* think is most important, and I find that \*my\* view resonates more with your so-called "Core Maxis". Fine, I recognize that they come off toxic. But that can also be said about the "cheap and instant transactions to the world"-maxis. In this world, we need to use our brain. Trying to make crypto scale to the masses by sacrificing the very principles that are better in crypto than in fiat (which more or less scales limitlessly, it's just to throw more money at it), that's stupid. Bitcoin is first and foremost trustless money, and it is not trustless because the miners are good and nice, it's trustless because \*you\* are part of upholding that game theory making sure every actor in the system is incentivized to do the right thing. Not recognizing this and thinking that game theory between the miners is enough? That's extremely short-sighted. But that said, I do believe a lot of those who like Bitcoin, not Bitcoin Cash, are equally as clueless as you are. This is your recruitment base. And that these exists is a reason to continue education. It's not going to be easy. These things are hard to grasp for people who are used to trusting their bank. I believe reducing bitcoin to "a better paypal" would have been a major disaster. I wish you all the luck in becoming a better paypal, but please stop detracting our goal of becoming the most trustless, less manipulatable money in the world. You can have your adoption, but don't be mad when people decides to compete with this adoption on top of the most decentralized, most secure PoW-based blockchain in the world. It's going to happen, and it's happening now. It's going to take more time, and using alts as payment coins in the meantime is fine by me, if you need to use crypto now.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 29, 2020 09:48:13

There is some terminology difference, here. Satoshi used the term "network node" as a mining node. \*This\* is the part thart is going to be datacenter-based. But I don't really find "what Satoshi said" to be \*the\* determining factor, anymore. He was a good programmer and designed the protocol well - but he \*did\* mistakes too, he did have to fix earlier mistakes just as the rest of us. He was wrong about Moores Law, it was already slowing down in his time, and Moores Law is no magic bullet that will come and save us. In his email exchanges, we can also clearly read that he was learning about economy, incentives and safety limits, too. Believing that we should refuse to change things just because Satoshi didn't specifically mention that change, that is beyond stupid. Similarly, changing things just because Satoshi said that "this can probably be changed in the future" is equally stupid. It's been close to 10 years of learning, that we can not disregard just because "Satoshi said so". We don't know what Satoshi would hold as opinions today. But we do know that as time progressed, he did learn, and he did changes because of what he learnt.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 29, 2020 04:26:44

It can be partially priced in. But this isn't a short-time "shortage of bitcoin". This is a lifetime decrease in supply. The halving is not priced in, but you are correct in that the actual effect on the price remains to be seen. It really depends on how much real demand for buying bitcoin there is, long term. Noone can know this. But if there is demand, and the supply decreases, logically price will go up somewhat.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on April 29, 2020 04:18:20

In some ways, you are right in this. But BCH did not start from 0. It was launched into a world that already had heard about cryptocurrencies and tokens, where some people are willing to use them.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 29, 2020 02:06:11

Well. That would mean bitcoin had utterly failed. Whether or not there were other coins I found interesting at that point, depends on their properties, I guess. I''d of course have to consider BCH, but I'd also have a look at other altcoins.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 29, 2020 01:50:09

Now the discussion is going somewhere. Me, I tend to think: What is it that bitcoin fixes, that paypal and VISA does not do? Is it speed? No. Both are pretty instant seen from a consumer. Is it price? No, the price of financial services and consumer transfers are rapidly gojng to zero, and that's pretty easy to achieve with fiat based systems. What is it that paypal and VISA doesn't do very well? Well, VISA and mastercard are proon to fraud because people steal cards (not physically but card details), and people fraudulently report bad transactions, generally causing transactions being rolled back. Paypal is extremely prone to censorship, and have all sorts of random do's and dont's, and sometimes will lock your account just because it has to be overly careful not to get in trouble. These are the things that bitcoin fixes. It's existense is not justified mainly because other systems are too slow and expensive. That's a non-issue. PoW solves the finality. 6 confirmations? It's as good as non-cencellable. Or - it is, on BTC. On BCH, rolling back 6 blocks costs merely thousands (maybe less sometimes). It has extremely low security. To fix this, BCH has added checkpoints. It might sound like an extremely good idea - and if you happen to be cozy with someone that defines what BCH is, maybe it is. But it goes against all bitcoin is. Suddenly, longest chain is not it anymore, 11 blocks? Forget it, the thought leaders, the ones that everyone follows will declare your PoW invalid and their PoW valid and roll back your chain. Suddenly, it's all centralized under a leadership. I think it will be extremely easy, in BCH. Because it's not very decentralized, a few pools will declare their chain the valid, and because Jihan or Roger Ver or someone else that says so, this will be the chain that is followed. Everyone cheers, because the attack was averted, but in reality you just proved rhat the decentralization and the geniality of PoW is not something you even believe in anymore. Now - it might be fine as a better paypal, if that is your goal. But it's not the decentralized currency "I bought into", as this sub so often says. In my book, PoW rules. Defend against roll backs? There is only one defense that matters: More PoW and network effect. Now, I am aware that the capacity of onchain bitcoin is limited. Of course I am. But it is what it is, and I am not going to go and follow a fucking small minority fork. Even if I believed in big blocks, I believe more in PoW. Ditching majority PoW is stupid and reckless. Now, why I believe we need a fee market, a small and easily validatable blockchain and all that? It's all about decentralization and game theory. The BCH gang like to think that is bullshit - but Segwit2X failure, BCHs decline and the activation of segwit can be explained by this game theory. Users are the ones who decide what bitcoin is. Not miners. Not a centralized committee. Sure, developers have some saying, but in the end of the day, users decide what transactions their node finds valid. That's the true network consensus. And that game theory is intertwined with a fee market, meaningful incentive, and *everything* in bitcoin. It's not easy to understand. Many people reduce it to "miners produce the blocks, so they have all the power". And in the end, noone can force them to mine anything they don't want to mine. But they can incentivize them. And this explains why BTC generally have in the high 90's of SHA256 hash rate. Incentives. Hash rate follows price. It's simple. If you want more hash rate, someone have to pump BCH *seriously*. It's not something that "just happens". Of course BCH can be more successful, but that will come from BCH performing better at the things that matters. Is it TX price? No, imho. Is it capacity? Again, no. It's trustlessness and decentralization. That's bitcoins core strenghts. If you increase TX capacity and reduce TX price by sactificing security and decentralization, you have seriously misunderstood bitcoin.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 28, 2020 16:59:07

Keep on believing this. All the way through 0.02, 0.01 BTC value, when people get tired of propping up the 0,03 BTC price. It'll break, just as 0.15 BTC, 0.12 BTC, 0.1 BTC, 0.05 BTC broke before it. It's not proving that you are correct. But I don't really care about you, because you have had so many warnings that you could have jumped the ship earlier. I only care about there being enough people speaking against this BCH propaganda, which goes against anything and everything bitcoin stands for. But you are right. The flippening is fabled. But it doesn't mean it's a likely scenario. And every day that goes with a BCH where most metricts that matters are dwindling makes it less likely. f you are still believing in BCH, you are either in it because you are fooling people, or you're one of those being fooled.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 28, 2020 14:02:34

You have been working on this adoption for almost 3 years, now. It doesn't look like it's much helping. It's almost as if a better paypal isn't what people need.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 28, 2020 13:51:07

...and you can write this and not realize that in relation to trustlessness and decentralization, this is all against it. You trust that the right miners will declare their side BCH, and that will be your side. I get it. You trust that miners will, perhaps at a loss, defend BCH. In reality, you are a federated chain without much security, it can be attacked from without. But still, people trust the centralized powers to be able to protect it for the foreseeable future, at the cost of the trustlessness we learned to love in bitcoin. And you have the nerve to pretend to be the real bitcoin, here. It's no wonder all metricts on BCH are plummeting. It's smoke and mirrors camouflaging that you are building paypal-on-blockchain. Good liuck. I believe in a decentralized and trustless currency.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 28, 2020 13:36:27

That is demonstratably and factually incorrect. First: You have to trust that noone comes around doing chain rollbacks. There is a proven willingness to do so under the correct circumstances, and that will always be easier the less hash rate there is. Second: You can alleviate some of that by waiting 10 confirmations, for checkpoints to hit. But that's even less trustless, you are now trusting that "the good guys" or those on your side picks the side you agree with. Because the checkpoints is \*exactly\* that: The ability to pick a side in case of a 19 block reorg and hardfork away - or away from - the other side.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 28, 2020 09:45:43

Bullshit. The goal was to become money you don't have to trust others not to manipulate. If you learn that your current path is detrimental to that, you *change* that. "Better paypal" was never *my* goal.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 28, 2020 06:38:25

By the same logic, BCH fails if it doesn't get to a seriously high number of transactions per block. That's it's \*only\* way forward, to retain security. BTC blockchain has already proven that there is willingness to pay higher fees. And if nothing else, because some people overpay because time is more essential than price. BCH blockchain has failed to prove much demand for a large amount of transactions.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 28, 2020 04:40:41

I usually consider the possibility that I am wrong, but in most of these cases, there isn't a *single* person who can or will tell why. Noone. The closest I get is when someone tries to interpret the white whitepaper like the bible or claim to know anything about what Satoshi would have said. So no. My conclusion so far is that that is not the reason in most cases. Though your comment is pretty typical, trying to make people feel dumb without having a *single* technical or economic argument whatsoever.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 13:53:56

Welcome to the club. T

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 07:05:27

I have no love for r/bitcoin either. But I try not to let the quality or lack of quality affect my financial decisions. And I never lie. I might be wrong sometimes, that is human, but I don't lie.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 26, 2020 09:53:02

No, a reorg is not that. After a reorg, the coins are either back in the sending wallet or in the receiving wallet, noone else has keys to spend them. The problem is that it makes it unsafe to receive. Bitcoin solves this through PoW, which makes it expensive to do such an attack. Problem is that on BCH, this isn't really expensive anymore, for a couple of 1000 dollars you can roll back 10 blocks, which means that the safety limit on accepting transactions with less than 10 confirmations is somewhere quite a bit below that. Exchanges will typically require 10 confirmations or so on BCH, because after 10 blocks, the checkpoints come into play. The checkpoints will override PoW, so after 10 blocks, it comes down to someone having to decide which side is the correct one anyway.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 25, 2020 06:02:53

There is the economic cost, but on BCH, to achieve the same security as 1 hour of BTC blocks, the number would be a couple of days for BCH. There is a site which calculate this for a number of coins, see

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 24, 2020 17:43:36

Yup. But to move hash rate to defend BCH, they will have to move hash rate from the most profitable coin to mine, to temporaily mine the less profitable. You are trusting miners to behave against economic incentives, i.e. be altruistic. Now, I'm not saying miners won't do it, I am merely stating facts.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 24, 2020 13:46:59

There is no network-wide reorg-protection, it's all subjective. In fact, the "other side", if running Bitcoin ABC while mining, would of course come to the conclusion that there was an attack, because its check points would tell them that. In effect it's a guaranteed hardfork should it happen, and the only way to resolve it would be to convince the other side that they should drop their last blocks - manually. Bitcoin is meant to use PoW to resolve this, but at some point the hash rate of BCH became so low that in effect it could not, anymore, except if transactions required an insane amount of confirmations - for larger transactions, that is, coffee cups are still an acceptable risk.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 24, 2020 13:17:19

This has been known for ages. ​ In reality, most open source companies that doesn't really believe in patents pile up a stock of them - and then put them in pools to use against wood-be patent trolls. This is also what Blockstream has done.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 24, 2020 13:07:20

Refute? In fact this is in line with every critisism of BCH. You're dependent upon a smaller group of people stepping up to provide the needed security. Maybe at a loss at the time. There's a limit to how much of that members of pools will take before they run to a different pools. Most miners are into mining to earn money.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 24, 2020 10:04:37

The thing you call "from the outside"? It's from inside your echo chamber, that by all known metric is quite a small minority of the crypto space. Good luck, you will need it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 24, 2020 07:04:21

And yet, you fail to grasp the concept of decentralized developments, bips, voting and the whole software development consensus model of bitcoin. If you understand this, you will also understand why someone had to spell out in clear words the policy that "no decisions can be made in a the scaling bitcoin conference". It wasn't a new rule, it was a statement of fact.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 24, 2020 06:36:34

I think most people believed that in the time that he was active. But, as time goes, one learns, one \*updates\* ones world view based on this learning. Refusing to change the plan because it goes against what someone who left the project 10 years ago said then? It's beyond stupid. Satoshi was learning as much as anyone else, and if you have read his mails and his opinions on the necessity of fees etc evolving, this would be quite evident. There is \*noone\* in the ecosystem that knows what opinion Satoshi would have held today, and the "project" has grown way larger. We only have our own knowledge and opinions to lean on. Those who refuse to learn, will be stuck in the past. As I see it, the BCH camp mostly consists of those "continuing the plan from before 2013". That says \*tons\* about the unwillingness to learn and unwillingness to change based on learning.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 24, 2020 04:51:59

And you don't even understand bitcoins governement model. There was \*noone\* present in New York with the authority to decide on Segwit2X on behalf of bitcoin, simply because noone actually have this authority. How could there have been a binding agreement?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 24, 2020 03:59:27

The only reason you get away with exchanges not requiring a gazillion confirmations today is that the exchanges trust the checkpoints. Checkpoints is no more than a tool to declare which side of a reorg was the correct one. Think of it, what happens with the checkpoints that the other side of the reorg creates? They will happily be able to declare *their* chain the correct one. So, why are exchanges going along with this, again? They trust that "the powers that be" will swiftly figure out which chain is the correct one. Most likely, they'll go with Roger and Jihan and be happy with it, because that is what they expect the community will do. So, the checkpoints are creating massive centralization around the ones you expect will protect the chain. PoW doesn't matter any more up to 10 blocks, after that it's all manual intervention anyway for BCH. In BTC, this mechanism does not exist. PoW matters. We can do that, because a 6 block reorg is massively expensive on BTC, but on BCH it's not that expensive to reorg 10 blocks, only a couple of thousand dollars. This is why people pay for BTC transactions. They actually get security on a decentralized blockchain in return, but in BCH they'll have to wait 10 blocks for them to be able to trust the checkpoints to keep the security intact. But it's far from decentralized. This is of course fine for coffee cup spendings, that's a fine calculated risk. But you won't get sane people to trust real amounts of money to it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 23, 2020 05:36:40

This is where you think you have all the answers. \*You\* seem to think the best utility is cheap transactions and high capacity. The market seems to value finality and security, though. See []( to see which coin reaches finality with more security fast. Now, I do know that you have the 10 block checkpoints. But all this checkpoints do is that it allows you to easily declare which side of a reorg that is the correct one, so it is in effect centralization. Myself, I also value decentralization, and I \*hope\* the market does, but that would be guesswork.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 23, 2020 04:30:35

yet, people choose it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 22, 2020 14:28:52

BTC has hardforked multiple times, recently to fix the inflation bug. This is an example of a non-contential hardfork, one that there is agreement on, and a hard fork is unproblematic. But you are correct that it''s not easy to do hard forks. I consider it actually a feature, most of us are in cryto because it's predictable and increasingly proven, not to opt into some experintal token/paypal platform.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 22, 2020 13:15:37

This is first-class FUD. BTC can *of course* hard-fork. Most people are pretty conservative here and hope we don't have to, but it can. it will not hard-fork to win a popularity contest or a foolish run for "world domination now!", though, it'll only be once the community at large deems it necessary, useful and safe.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 22, 2020 08:06:27

So, you believe in not changing that strategy until it's a proven, definite failure. Boy am I glad we're not following that strategy in BTC, but believe in learning and adjusting the strategy as we learn.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 22, 2020 04:12:19

Are *you* open to the idea that BCH could be a failure? That's as meaningful a question. I don't *see* Lightning Network as a failure, and I follow the development in it pretty tightly. Sure, we learn something, sure mistakes are done and new weaknesses are discovered and fixed. At least half the point of doing the rapid development in second layers instead of base layer is that mistakes along the way is not so catastrophic. Will it be adopted? Only time will tell. Sure, a lot of the beginner hype is over, just as a lot of the beginner hype in bitcoin is over. From here on, it's hard work and continuous improvements. There's no world domination magic bullet, but if you build good solutions, people will use them. But, *if* LN fails? I don't see it as likeliy that LN will fail completely, but if it should? Then, we'll surely have *learnt* somehing along the way, and without destroying our base layer. What happens if BCH fails? Sure, you'll always have BTC to "move back into". What would have happened had we done the same kind of experimenting in BTC as is done on BCH now? There would *be* no fallbacks....except fiat. Crypto would have failed. I think it's a good thing that BCH does the experimenting it does. If something good comes out of it, fine, it can be used by BTC too. I don't see much useful on BCH that's not best solved offchain or in sidechains, currently, though - except of course things like Schnorr, which was merged into BCH before it was merged into BTC. The BTC way is more slow and steady, and Schnorr in itself doesn't give too much improvements. Combined with Taproot, for excample, we'll increase privacy drastically. It's on the path to happen, but we don't believe in fork schedules in the BTC camp. Fork schedules can only happen in centralized governed bodys. Yes, your development is a lot more centralized than you think, it's ridiculous to claim decentralized development at the same time as you maintain a hard fork schedule.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 22, 2020 02:49:11

I hear you, and I understand the temptation to run as fast as you can to try to outcompete the others, but running as fast as you can in the wrong direction ends you further away from your goal. *My* goal is trustlessness and decentralization, and if we can scale this to encompass the world, *great*. My goal is *not* "world domination, and if we can scale with trustlessness and decentralization, *great*" I do recognize the need for *good enough* payment solutions, though, but making the base layer into merely a good enough payment solution? It's easy, sure, but it sacrifice what bitcoin shine at: Trustless, decentralized, finalized transfer of *value*. We're adopting around second layers already. Lightning Network is improving rapidly. No, it will *never* be as trustless and decentralized as on-chain bitcoin. But it will be good enough for payments and ecommerce, and on top of the most trustless, most decentralized blockchain in the world, it will rock. "In 18 months", is the meme here. Problem is, the goal post for those 18 months have changed. A lot. It used to be "will be released" in 18 months. We're way past merely released now. I lost track of the latest goal post that it's supposedly the 18 month goalpost now, I can only say that in 18 months, LN will be a lot better than it is today, and that is fine. We're going in the *right* direction, not as fast as we can in the wrong direction. Liquid is another solution. It's far from trustless, but it's going to give traders what they want/need, we do not want to destroy our base layer to make it attractive to traders. You say it might be the only chance? Well, if it is, then we had better make sure we don't botch it by destroying the very things we are best at. Banks will build blockchaiin technology? Let them. Blockchain in itself is nothing more than a distributed database. It's a tool, but it doesn't make anything better in itself.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 22, 2020 01:26:41

I mostly belong to those who believe that the smaller we can have the blockchain, the better we will perform. This mostly has to do with trustlessness. Each and every one of us need to decide *why* we trust bitcoin as a system. Me? I trust it because I know that it's validatable money, that we can and do validate the correctness all the time. Running a full node is like being an auditor. In finance, auditing is fine and desireable, but any auditor can of course be corrupted and do mistakes. I trust bitcoin because I currently audit it myself, I run a full node. For some people, it will be enough that they know that people they know and trust audit it. For others again, it will be enough that they can trust that *people like them* audit it. Increasing the block size and the size of the blockchain itself increases the burden to run a full node. For a normal people here in the developed world, with a decent internet line and good equipment, it's the time to sync a node for the first time that will matter. If that takes week, suddenly, who will bother? Sure, you can sync from a known good point (see: UTXO commitments), but we're then trusting the previous system to have worked and those that was before us to have done the correct thing. It's actually a pretty neat thing that you can go back to the start, and then get your node to validate it all, and come to the answer of exactly how much bitcoin you have, and knowing that this is something that will not be in dispute. I don't want to lose this. So, as you have guessed, I don't believe in BCHs roadmap much. I believe that if we now build our ecosystem around not growing the blockchain, then if we *should* find that we can safely raise the block size, it will count for *much* more than a mere linear improvement. I don't share your optimism that "adoption" is the key, and that it will prevent corruption. If the barrier to participate to prevent corruption increases, people *will* get tempted. All history have showed that - power corrupts.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 21, 2020 17:34:34

The thing is, most of this community doesn't even understand why it's a problem. You claim BCH is decentralized. But in the event of a 13 block reorg (however unlikely it would be), what is the likelihood that Roger, Bitmain and friends are on the "non-correct" side? Virtually none. They \*will\* declare it to be the correct one, and this sub will cheer for them protecting the chain. Satoshi once said that it was vital that the chain with most PoW is deemed the correct one. But what happens on BCH if that should happen to be "the wrong one"? My guess, we \*would\* end up in that situation, "the good guys" would declare that their chain is the correct one, and everyone lives happily ever after. But, does this sub not realize that this is actual, real-life centralization? You \*are\* by that point no more than a "paypal 2.0". The rolling checkpoints makes you a non-decentralized cruyptocurrency. You are becoming paypal with a blockchain, though I must admit, not for the reasons people have warned about.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 21, 2020 15:32:22

Yes. This isn't \*really\* news. Worst case, privacy gets closer to onchain privacy again, which isn't all that great. Other than that, looking at things with a critical view is how you improve things. Hiding issues claiming "everything is fine here" never gets you further.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 21, 2020 15:16:17

Have you ever done the opposite calculation? Have you done the calculation on how many $0.01 transaction fees you need to secure the chain with 100 EH hash rate?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 21, 2020 09:22:53

Entry/exit through FIAT will always be controllable, the KYC requirements tend to change/be clarified/extended, and many a company have had to shut their business unless they subject their customers to cumbersome KYC procedures. This is much easier to avoid if money stays within the same cryptocurrency, and transfer from person to person. But there are pitfalls. We need to keep the entry barrier to participation low, we need to make sure no participant gets too much power. All participants have to be beholden to the community at large. I bitcoin, for example, miners are kept honest by the fact that unless they do their job properly, they are not getting paid. They will have to do mining that creates transactions/blocks that are in demand by users, if they try anything nefarious, their blocks will be rejected, and their competitors blocks will be chosen instead. We need to make sure there is enough people with ability to oversee the miners, and that actually does it, else we run a risk that the system corrupts from the incide. This is a tradeoff that has implications for capacity. If entry barriers are too high, not enough users will elect to do their own validations, and miners can disregard them. To keep the core system decentralized/trustless, we may also have to accept that some use cases doesn't really need the same level of protection - rarely have we heard people not being allowed to buy a cup of coffee, so personally, I accept that coffee cup spendings can have different properties than main chain. Another type of transactions are those that relate to trading/speculation, here people send frequent large transactions between trusted/KYCed platforms, which can eat up a lot of capacity, and the nature of bitcoin (wiith non-deterministic transaction times) isn't even a particularly good fit. For these use cases - and I must stress that this is in my opinion - we can use offchain mechanisms, where the funds are anchored to the blockchain in multisig-addresses, but the owners of the multisig addresses have other mechanisms than registration of the blockchain to determine ownership of the funds. That can for example be bilateral mechanisms like payment channels, where you and I just constantly update the balance by signing new transactions both of us can spend on the blockchain, or it can be sidechains where transactions/ownership is registered on blockchains with different properties than bitcoins blockchain. In all of these systems, we do tradeoffs to not have to do tradeoffs on the main bitcoin blockchain, which should always remain decentralized, easy to validate, low barrier to full participation. These are just ideas to give you food for thought, things are rarely as simple as they seem at first.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 21, 2020 02:04:44

Which of these properties are most important? Do you think we can achieve them all with the same sysftem, or will we have to do tradeoffs?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 20, 2020 15:09:13

So, in other words, only non-censorable transactions are important, but the transactions might as well have been in FIAT as long as they were non-censorable? Or, is there also other properties of cryptocurrencies you find important?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 20, 2020 08:53:47

Even if we share the same sentiment, I would not go as far as calling it perfect. It is, however, been in a steadily increasing usable state of the main net for over 2 years. Offchain is where we can experiment, where we can deploy a bit before everything is perfect, where people can decide their own risk levels, etc. There's a lot of different "consensus levels" on the current network, different implementations are at a different stage and support a different set of features. The last one that is maturing these days that have been long expected is AMP, the mechanism in which you can split a payment into different shards and send them separately to the destination in a secure way, i.e. either they all go through (of course with possibilities of retransmit failed attempt on each of them= or the the transaction fails and no money moves hand.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 18, 2020 07:19:38

Don't pay. I get it regularly. It even has my password in it. The correct Evernote password from the breach in 2013, that I changed shortly after :) Yes, if they have your password, it likely means it was leaked at some point, but it does not meen they were in your computer. That's highly unlikely. ​ ​ What it does mean, however, is that you should stop using that password everywhere you use it. Better yet, always use different password at different sites, maybe with the aid of a password manager that generates secure passwords and store them securely for you.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 16, 2020 09:09:30

I fail to see how you can conclude that Lightning has not worked out well. There's constant development in lightning, and it's moving in a much faster pace than onchain, simply because it can. The consensus is basically reduced to a number of "parties of two" (the channel partners), which means development can go much more rapid because it doesn't have to be done as coordinated. We might have different sets of consensus in different channels. Examples are atomic multipath payments - some wallets can receive, some can send, at these days. Some lightning nodes have different limits for maximum channel and payment amounts. Various other features are also rolled out gradually, used by those who support them. Which is how it should be. In 2nd layers, we can have rapid development and even allow to fail a bit,with different levels of risks taken by the users, because failures are limited to channel partners and don't generally affect the whole network. There's quite a bit of LN usage out there, but you'll not see it "conquer the world" immediately. Spending bitcoin is too much a niche anyhow, mostly because the \*spending\* part was never the thing people had problems with in money.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on April 16, 2020 08:49:38

Yes, being good at estimating fees and creating effective/space-saving transactions helps \*a lot\*. If you use bitcoin for payments, starting to look at lightning network and finding vendors that has lightning network payment options, along with keeping your spending bitcoin in a lightning wallet is also a good optiion. Anyone that is spending bitcoin online \*should\* start to look at that option - as it's a way to make your transactions less dependent upon onchain fee market at the time of the transactions.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on April 16, 2020 08:26:23

Anyone is free or not to deal with tether. The fact that exchanges accept it as fair value for cryptocurrencies, is \*at their\* risk. It eludes me why whether or not tether is fully backed by a currency we know that at the end of the day is far-from fully backed is that significantly a catastrophic question. Tether serves as a decent trading vehicle, and presumably those who uses it to buy crypto \*has\* bought it for money. Do your own risk calculations, though, and put yourself at your own risk level: 1) Do you think it is risky personally to hold tether? Don't use it, don't hold it. 2) Do you think it has an exchange-takedown potential? Don't use exchanges that deals with tether 3) Do you think it has a significant and catastrophic impact on crypto? Sell all your crypto. This isn't a BTC-specific problem, though, last I saw BCH volume was at least as much if not even more tether-fueld than BTC.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 16, 2020 08:20:46

Yes, I am sure people appreciate being told what to think. Please continue the good work, you really catch the spirit of this subreddit!

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 14, 2020 14:29:30

As long as this is an enthusiasts only market, you might be correct. But, my prediction and concern is that if large scale adoption increases significantly, there \*will\* be more people taking advantage of this. There \*will\* be more malware-type-wallets, that doublespend-frauders use to automatically double-spend. ​ Fact is: Double spend will not in itself be safe. Sure, Avalanche might help, but avalanche also runs the risk of creating a cartel of transaction-approvers, and might also introduce other ways of gaming the system. That said, I agree that accepting double spends in the current market is an acceptable risk. But it's far from that and to "doublespend is safe enough for now and for the future", as I see a lot of people here is touting as the truth.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 14, 2020 06:45:04

Then why was no other proposal ever created?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 12, 2020 19:01:21

To anyone that might read this: Make sure you read through what he pointed to to learn what he think you should think is stupid. It's a decently long reading list.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 12, 2020 14:55:27

No arguments. Only the party line. Make sure to tell everyone that I am stupid, but you haven't got any arguments. Classic r/btc. Once it becomes complex, go back to ridiculing the person.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 12, 2020 14:45:28

Can you elaborate? Can you name one thing I've said recently, and elaborate *why* it's stupid? Or are you just parroting everyone else, making sure anyone not following the subreddit party line is labeled as stupid?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 12, 2020 14:33:50

The work on segwit was stalled for years, because big blockers didn't want any forks without a block size increased bundle with it. Fixing mallability was perhaps the greatest improvement the ecosystem needed to safely build offchain mechanisms, but it was blocked for years.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 12, 2020 13:11:20

Thank you for this wonderful service. I have no idea how this subreddit would know what to think without the cryptochecker bot. Thinking may be damned hard. The future will surely thank you for saving a whole subreddit for the effort of thinking for themselves.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 12, 2020 11:33:58

I am pretty indifferent to Blockstream except that they do fund quite a bit of the developers ine ecosystem. But here, I agree with Adam Back. Most of the bitcoin ecosystem are pretty happy that the big blockers got out of the way, and the "just double the blocksize"-simplifying rhetoric has moved to their own coin ecosystems. We're seeing quite a bit of development in the Bitcoin ecosystem since BCH forked away, a lot of it offchain, enabled by the things that the big blockers blocked for a long time.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 12, 2020 08:30:02

Liar. The only way bitcoin is intended to use is "any way you want". If people want to use their fiat first and save their bitcoin, that's \*their\* choice, and there's noone with any right to tell them that they are using bitcoin wrong.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 10, 2020 05:38:20

Are you sure you are using the correct pass phrase? You would not be the first one to make this mistake. There is no such thing as a wrong passphrase, you get a totally new wallet for each pass phrase you use.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on April 9, 2020 09:19:57

The only similarity is that funds in Liquid and funds in LN channels verifiably exists on the bitcoin blockchain in multisig-addresses, but control/ownership of it is done outside of submitting a transaction to the blockchain, the control is done with mechanisms/protocols between the signatories in the multisig contract. So, what's the difference? Liquid has a separate blockhain, Lightning Network does not. Funds in Liquid is controlled by a federation of entities, while funds on LN is always controlled by the two parties that has a channel between them. Everything in LN builds on these channels, that is not much more than these two parties sending signed-but-not-submitted bitcoin transactions between them. If you do a multi-hop transaction, the payer sends a transactions with a smart contract that says the recipient can only receive the money if the transaction is verifiably paid fully to the destinaton. The channel partner will then pass on the payment, which is basically a similar smart contract towards the next hop. There will be a cascade of smart contracts that will either be fulfilled or cancelled, as these smart contracts have a timeout, but no money will move hands until the destination have gotten their money. Money will, however, be reserved, by the payer having given his partner a signed bitcoin transaction ready to be submitted to the blockchain should he fulfill the payment. This isn't all that easy to explain in a reddit post, but the previous is an attempt at a simplified explanation. In Liquid, there's a blockchain to inspect, though it does support confidentisal transactions, so it might not get you much wiser.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 8, 2020 08:55:48

Not really. For trading and arbitrage, speed is essential. In traditional currency trading, we're talking about systems with a guaranteed latency measured in milliseconds. "On average every 10 minutes" is not really cutting it. Traders will gladly trade away from some of their trustlessness to get this down to 1 minute. Liquid is giving people with a need the tool their need. If you don't have this need, don't use it. I don't.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 8, 2020 08:23:51

I have *never* ever claimed Liquid being meant for other things than what I mentioned above. *my* goalpost haven't moved an inch. I will not force people not needing the most decentralized, most trustless ledger in the world, where it even can not provide their need (larger and more predictable speed), to use it just to spin a narrative that "onchain bitcoin is best for everything".

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 8, 2020 07:27:40

It never has and it never will. L-BTC is not the same as bitcoin, but it is has a fine use-case if you need to transfer bitcoin between exchanges in a more predictable (but less trustless) way. It is a fine fit for traders, but apart from maybe from the educational aspect in blockchains, sidechains, pegs etc (which means interested users may still try it), there is little other uses for it. Still, I think Liquid is good. It gives people that is interested in trading bitcoin the tool they need, leaving more space on the blockchain to the rest of us, maybe especially in a bull run where transactions between exchanges is more prevalent. This post will be downvoted to oblivion, though, because noone here is interested in other arguments than "blockstream bad, BCH good". I write this article only so that those willing to dig a bit deeper will get another picture than the one especially op paints. Dunno why I bother, though, as I don't think anyone takes OP serious anymore.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 7, 2020 14:53:51

The problem with bitcoin for the very use cases Liquid was meant to solve, is that it has a probabilistic block time of 10 minutes vs. a guaranteed block time of 1 minute. For that, traders trade away some of their trustlessness? I have no problem with people trading away \*their\* trustlessness, or people providing less trustless solutions in an open way. I have a problem with those who advocate that everything should have the \*exact\* same properties (i.e. onchain), disregarding the fact that that might not even be the best fit for some of those users, and disregarding the unintended consequences of doing so. Onchain bitcoin is alive and well and very much in demand. But it is not the best fit for everything.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 7, 2020 03:18:24

Depends what you want. There's always [](

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on April 6, 2020 07:26:51

Liquid is built with the Elements Sidechain framework. The Elements Side chain framework is open sourrce. Anyone can launch a competitor to Liquid, based on the very software that Liquid was built with. Yes, Liquid is very much a federated sidechain, built for specific purposes. Not to replace onchain bitcoin. Liquid will never be "the most decentralized, most trustless" decentralized ledger in the world. Noone have claimed it will. Not to replace Lightning Network. It's use case will never be instant transactions for ecommerce and (to a limited degree, I agree) peer-to-peer. Liquid is built to address use cases for traders who use exchanges. It's as simple as that. With it's 1 minute block time, it is much better suited for this than onchain both Bitcoin and BCH, that has variations in block time and 10 minute average. I don't see what's so difficult to understand with this. If this is not your use case (as it is not mine, either, I am no trader), don't use Liquid, and move on.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 31, 2020 06:49:31

Yes, 0-conf is not secure, this is widely known. LN will overtake it for the low value segment is my prediction, but I also guess that it might be possible that if you are buying i.e. a computer onchain, you will be forced to wait for one confirmation. A car for sure. LN progress may seem slow, but as long as it is going the right direction, I am happy. I think any "we need to scale to world domainance now!" will bring inherent dangers, rash decisions, unsustainable strategies and all of the above. We can afford for it to take a few more years, we can not afford to fail. Period. If LN is not prepared for a sudden surge of popularity, then it is not. I don't see the mass-adoption for retail scenario as likely for years to come, though. Altcoins my shoulder some burden, this is true. Using an altcoin is better than unsustainable growth in the wrong direction on bitcoin. As LN and possibly other mechanisms mature, we will see people migrating back, the "most decentralized and most secure distributed ledger in the world" will always be a tempting value proposition.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 23, 2020 07:58:52

Sure. The limited numbers are there. A lot of people have *tried* LN, but myself I do quite a lot less LN transactions now than I did in my "peak LN testing" period. Some novelty have worn off, for sure. But LN is still here. Progressing every day. For my casual bitcoin usage, I prefer vendors that supports LN, because as long as I have LN set up, this is going to be the most cost effective for me. If you try to think of LN as something that will outcompete onchain, I have no clue where you got that idea from. Virttually none. What it will do, is that it will enable people interested in and in the need of doing instant (relatively low value) transactions, now have a way to do so. Now, since I believe this isn't what bitcoin does best anyway, it's difficult to tell what need there will be for this use case. There are, of course, also upcoming competing ways to receive LN transactions, self-hosted BTCpayserver is quite popular, so payment processors does not have the full picture either. How much transactions LNBig routes doesn't tell all that much, it has lot liquidity for sure, but it is not *that* well managed. There is also some healthy scepticism towards centralizing on LNbig, I myself have never opened a channel there, though they have opened channels to me. If that keep happening, we'll see some unbalanced liquidity, that is not so well for routing. These days, we are seeing a new milestone, though, most node implementations is now working on implementing Atomic multipath payments, which will improve routeability and make the penalty for many small vs. few large channels less. All in all, I feel LN is on track. Do I think we need to "outcompete" something now? Not at all. Is it used? Definitely. Those who share data says there's usage that often dwarf BCH, but it doesn't yet come close to on-chain bitcoin.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 23, 2020 03:16:03

I'd say the key reason for this perception is that there's not a whole lot of statistics to be found. What statistics is there is only there because someone williingly share it. Near the top of my googling, however, I found [\_Research\_Q1-Report.pdf]( Sure, it's a payment processor, but those are probably going to be the ones with enough data to create meaningful statistics.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 22, 2020 11:39:39

What metrics do you use when you say it's not widely used?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 22, 2020 07:36:44

That's the difference. You think there is an objective design criteria that you need to hold up to, to the letter. The "BTC crowd" generally does not, they (and I) believe that what we learn *will* change our perceptions and how BTC develops.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 20, 2020 02:31:19

Satoshi was on a learning trip as much as anyone else. Not one single person can claim they'd know where he'd be in any of the current debates. All we have, is our own knowledge and opinions. The BCH crowd, which you belong to, are the crowd that has chosen not to learn from experience, but still insist on following a not-updated, presumpted vision that noone even knows whether was true. I don't really know why I even bother replying to you anymore. The only difference between you and the BSV crowd is that you don't have anyone claiming to be Satoshi among you. Other than that, you are pretty similar.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 19, 2020 18:45:10

Of course he is. Problem is, he hasn't voiced his opinion for almost 10 years. The few years he was involved, his opinions evolved quite a bit, though. It showed that he was on a learning trip as much as anyone else. Anyone claiming he knows what Satoshi would have said today is lying. We only have our own learnings since then to guide us.There *is* no "original plan" to follow that is not seriously outdated.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 19, 2020 18:04:35

You are complaining about people labeling your old account an astroturfing account, and then down in the thread you accuse \*me\* of astroturfing? Pot. Kettle. Black.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 19, 2020 09:18:10

In other words..,.you try to decide what is on topic or not? How is that different than r/bitcoin moderators deciding that promotiong consensus-breaking software is off topic? Good to know that I am on the "uncensored" subreddit. I will post what I want, and what \*I\* feel are relevant answers.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 19, 2020 08:45:41

Does this abstract mention price? No, it does not. Does this abstract mention time? No, it does not. The relevant is "without going through a financial institution", and that is the only plan \*I\* follow.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 19, 2020 05:43:22

Bitcoin was never "meant" to be anything but money you are in control of yourself, free of a central bank that can manipulate it at will. Anyone that claims bitcoin was "meant to be" anything else is overinterpreting something, or lying.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 19, 2020 05:32:37

I have said it time and time again. I have no love for r/bitcoin moderators, but I am definitely sure that moderation was introduced with good intentions. As you all have begun to realize now, the threat of a chain split will not be taken lightly. Bitcoin XT was exactly that, a threat of a chain split, with ridiculously low percentage required for activation. It might have destroyed crypto as we know it, and I am pretty sure moderators felt any and all means to stop that was justified. I am constantly labeled troll and paid shill here, ridiculed for my posts. The sentiment towards people with different opinion on this sub is not very much better than on r/bitcoin, but one of your selling points is the censorship on r/bitcoin, so there's less moderation. This could be good, but at times it also makes this sub into a cesspool of trolling, from \*all\* sides. I only advocate one thing: Do your own research. Never pick thought leaders that you trust 100%. And decide what is important for \*you\*, and follow that. If cheap, instant transactions is what is compelling for you, then BCH is probably the right place. If you believe the easiness of validation, the knowledge that people \*are\* actually validating it, and the avoidance of making one group of actors the central bank, then you need a bit more research. You need to avoid listening to conspiracy theories, try to evaluate facts, physics, incentives and long-term prospects. ​ But do your own research. Avoid picking thought leaders.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 19, 2020 05:22:17

Bitcoin will always be there for those who needs it. If it's one thing all these "sales teams" of other cryptos show, is that sure, you can sell niche things based on crypto, but crypto itself, people will choose consciously, or not. What we need to do is focus on making bitcoin sound, hard money, decentralized, dependable, trustable, money that you trust because you dont have to, because you can validate it. All else is secondary.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on March 19, 2020 02:53:24

I have no need for other usernames. One is enough.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 18, 2020 11:18:34

Believe what you want. I only encourage people to think for themselves, and by that, they need to get information that is not part of the official narrative here. Anyone is free to disregard anything I say, though. But for your own sake, do it because you disagree with me, not because u/scotty321 told you to disagree with me.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 18, 2020 11:02:02

How much would it have to drop for you to buy "a shitload" of it? Do you think a lot of people would buy above or below that point? One thing you have to understand is that you \*are\* the market. Not a large part of the market, but still a part of it. It probably can never ever drop to the level where it would be "dirt cheap" for you to buy a whole bitcoin, because there is more people in the world that would have the same or high price point for "the place they'd buy a whole bitcoin".

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on March 18, 2020 08:41:38

So, then - BCH ceases to exist twice a year? And BCH ceased to exist when BSV forked off from it, just because a minority of people disagreeing with it forked away? I don't know how all of that works, in your world. The original bitcoin is alive and well, and has occational changes in form of forks - latest one a soft fork, which probably will be the norm for changes that can be done as a soft fork. It's less disruptive.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 18, 2020 07:47:56

Thank you for this wonderful service. With one bot, you are saving a large subreddit from the need to think for themselves. With this service, you can tell them what to think! Isn't that wonderful? The future will thank you!

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 18, 2020 07:02:51

You forgot: \- People that care about the truth. \- People that does not subscribe to the r/btc narrative. Can you update your post?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 18, 2020 06:51:17

Sure you are. But end of the day, you have bills to pay. Miners can decide to mine worthless coins, and they can mine coins in demand. Miners doesn't create the demand, the community does.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 16, 2020 07:01:02

Yup. You are aiming for paypal. We are aiming for currency. We care about creating proper incentives now and for the future, to keep the currency going. You are paypal, and don't care what happens to the value, as it's not meant to be held onto at all. But if miners "quit", about as many BCH are stuck unmovable as there is BTC if miners quit. It's not much different. Incentives matter.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 15, 2020 11:49:41

I'll try a simplified explanation. It's not \*entirely\* correct, but works as a starting point. When you want to pay someone, you send the first half of what is needed to claim the money onchain. This first half is encoded in the invoice. Along the way, this is done through the update of smart contract spending transactions for the channel balance, so that only if you have paid money to the destination are you able to spend it onchain. This half together with the preimage that the destination has is enough to spend the money onchain, if necessary, and this is what makes it safe enough to use. The last hop in the network gets back the preimage when sending the hash to destination, and now is sitting on a risk. Not that large a risk, because there are time limits in the smart contracts, but nevertheless, he now has to either: \- Send it to the previous hop, and settle the transaction fully \- Close the channel (before the timeout occur). Each time the preimage is sent back towards the payer, the fully signed transactions that define the channel balances are replaced by new ones. All of this also includes proof that the previous channel state was invalid, and a smart contract built into the protocol (or, rather, the only channel type that currently exists) allows you to claim \*all the money\* in the channel should your channel partner try to submit an old state. Built into channel properties are the time limit, in blocks, that a channel partner has to claim all the money. This time limit is negotiable, and for example mobile wallets that are sporadically online might choose two weeks, while stable routing nodes can opt for only a day or two. The security in all this is ruled by smart contracts coded into fully signed (but not submitted) transactions, with time limits that are there to ensure that someone getting cheated have plenty of time to catch the cheater. This all goes on under the hood, a user will not really have to do anything except for keeping his node/wallet running from time to time. The time ticker starts to run at the time a channel is closed, btw, so that you can't sit around and wait for your channel partner has been away for the full time limit - you will have to guess that he will be away for the time limit from when you try to cheat. This explanation became a little more complex than I thought when I started it. LN isn't dead simple, it takes some time to grasp, but the concepts aren't really that difficult.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on March 11, 2020 15:19:58

Miners get paid if they do their job. They have an important job to do, but if they aren't doing the job that the community requests, they aren't paid.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 11, 2020 04:15:15

you are talking about different things. From the total reserve, we deduct a channel reserve. This is a reserve that is there to ensure a channel partner stays honest. From the remaining capacity is deducted a negotiated (and renegotiated when needed) commit fee. This is what ensures that a channel can always be closed. I will show you one of my channels (with private data removed): { "active": true, "remote_pubkey": "XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX", "channel_point": "YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY, "chan_id": "ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ", "capacity": "100000", "local_balance": "1000", "remote_balance": "95375", "commit_fee": "3625", "commit_weight": "724", "fee_per_kw": "5006", "unsettled_balance": "0", "total_satoshis_sent": "0", "total_satoshis_received": "1000", "num_updates": "1397", "pending_htlcs": [ ], "csv_delay": 144, "private": false, "initiator": false, "chan_status_flags": "ChanStatusDefault", "local_chan_reserve_sat": "1000", "remote_chan_reserve_sat": "1000", "static_remote_key": false, "lifetime": "993080", "uptime": "993077", "close_address": "" }, This channel has a commit fee of 3625, and a channel reserve of 1000 (in both ends. This means my channel partner will not allow me to send the 1000 in my end because it would go below the channel reserve, but I can still receive plenty.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 5, 2020 17:22:41

Here is link to spec. This is how it is implemented in today's nodes. Then, what you are thinking about is the commit fee, which is always set aside to be allowed to force close a channel. This comes in addition to this.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 5, 2020 09:45:30

Avalanche is a cabal agreeing on what transactions go into a block before blocks are mined. The reason it takes so long, is that noone has yet found a mechanism to find out which parties are right and which is wrong....before there is PoW behind it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 4, 2020 15:22:43

There is per default a channel reserve of 1%, beyond which your remote node will deny you to spend it. It is there specifically to counter this attack. There should always be something left to lose if you misbehave.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 4, 2020 11:09:53

I have no love for r/bitcoin moderator, but I recognize it's a daunting task, moderating a large forum, so I will not volunteer to take over the job, so I simply accept it. It's only a reddit forum, not the world. And while I in general believe it's better if things are resolved I the open, I do believe r/bitcoin moderators may have stopped the Bitcoin XT activation that would have led to a chain split at a time the crypto space absolutely did not need it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 4, 2020 00:55:45

I am not that perfect. I do make mistakes. I also think some discussion is necessary, it's how we learn. It's good to meet a perfect person. I am sure you have a list of my lies too, then? Looking forward to it, it would be good to know from someone who knows better than myself when I am lying.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 09:15:24

I don't lie. You might not like my opinions, or believe the same things as me. But that is not the same thing as that I am lying. You might think my opinions are stupid, and that's fair game. I can say the same about your opinions.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 08:04:15

You misunderstand. I am not here to convert any of you. I am only here to make sure people not having made up their mind is *not* fooled by this community without someone telling them "the other side" of the arguments. At the end of the day, though, everyone makes up their own mind about what they value most. But everyone deserves hearing both sides of the arguments.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 06:56:00

Thank you for the service, making sure noone needs to use any brain capacity on thinking for themselves. The future will thank you!

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 06:12:08

\- Every physical BCH merchant was asked. Did you ask every physical BTC merchant too?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 03:36:50

Disputed. Here is their data policy (my annotations inlined in <>) #### Sourcing Data and Data Policy While Bitcoin Cash physical merchant data is difficult to obtain due to its peer-to-peer nature, we have built up a list of merchants <hand-picked, surely, to support the BCH narrative (not proven)> that are polled for each report. In addition, we have access to a small payment processor (TraveByBit) that supports a dwindling number of transactions for principally other coins that still enjoy limited use <from which we will exclude all transactions we don't think fit our narrative - proven!>. Finally, several merchants that subscribe to the HULA <our own service, built to further BCH adoption> provide an additional source of data to help assess the extent of the Bitcoin Cash economy in Australia. Commercials are fine - but they should be clearly labeled as such.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 02:23:37

BTC have already proven there is demand even as fees rise, while your coin has failed to prove any meaniningful demand for block space even at miniscule fees. I don't know why this sub continues to brag about BCHs lack of a realistic plan for security?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on March 2, 2020 13:17:47

1) It's not necessarily. But "as large as a node can validate" is not either. 2) Adding activity drives security. LN will lead to more onchain fees, because it will enable use-cases that is not economically viable on the bitcoin blockchain. Your question is based on false premises. 3) You are assuming a trustless cheap base layer is possible. Trustlessness requires security, security needs PoW, and long term, this means real fees. Your question is based on false premises.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 02:32:58

I am pretty happy with that too. BTC protocol can finally continue in the slow and steady direction of sound money, while allowing "world dominance now!" crowd to continue their experiment on BCH.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 09:45:32

And yet, you continue to misunderstand what the true value of cryptocurrencies are. Speed? Price? Easy to do with fiat-based solution, and the fintechs will outcompete you. Fiat-based solution also have an endless supply of printed money to give you even negative price (i.e. kickbacks), while you can't print crypto to fund kickbacks. Decentralization, security and trustlessness is what \*I\* find valuable in cryptocurrencies. Most metric says that this is what the rest of the world find valueable too.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 06:45:29

Myself, I believe LN will be as decentralized \*as it needs to be\*. If problems because of centralization starts to emerge, this is just an opportunity for other people to create LN channels around it. We're still quite early in LN development. AMP is starting to appear these days, though, and this will make it possible for smaller-liquidity channels to be more useful. Since LN is not a network that is centrally planned, the topology will be changed along with what opportunities people see. Myself, I have a small routing node which doesn't see a lot of transactions, but the ones I see are a mix of large (sometimes a couple of million satoshi) and small (a satoshi or three). My strategy when opening channels? I try to check what destinations I think will be popular and create direct channels there, plus I have a few channels to other routing nodes. Watching LN develop is actually quite interesting. I believe we'll see both commercial solutions (Lightning Loop, paid incoming liquidity) as well as peer-to-peer. channels between friends. We'll see a mix of people doing this as a business and people doing this as services/to between others. But none of this will work without a good base layer. Having a base layer that values decentralization and security above anything else is crucial for sound money to stay sound.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 05:51:09

Thank you for this valuable service, saving a ton of people the effort of thinking for themselves. It's amazing that a bot today can tell how valuable a contribution is! The future will thank you!

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 26, 2020 10:36:28

Finding channel opening and closings is apparently not all that difficult, really, looking at the blockchain. Not done that kind of analysis myself. With more of the planned privacy features planned, like Schnorr and Taproot, it will be much more difficult to find this information. There's no central registry beyond the blockchain, though.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 26, 2020 10:18:24

When you use the bitcoin network, all nodes that are involved in the transactions sign ready-made bitcoin transactions, so that every node at all times have the keys to spend *their* bitcoins in the channel. The bitcoins in the lightning channels are always registered onchain, any channel has an UTXO which are the funds. A lightning transaction changes a set of spending-transactions for this UTXO, that each channel partner will be able to submit to the blockchain. Actually the transactions change several times for a transaction, they change once when the transaction is initated, and once when it is fully completed. They aren't submitted to the blockchain, though, until a channel is closed. When you want to close a channel, you can at all times submit the last transaction your channel partner signed to the blockchain. If you do that unilateraly, a timelock (agreed to between you and your channel partner upon channel opening) is there, to allow your channel partner to dispute it - because potentially, you could of course have held onto an old transaction he had signed. If both you and your channel partner is online when closing a channel, a cooperative channel close can happen, where you both sign off on a final transaction that does not have this time lock. I will warn anyone replying at once: Only serious replies will be replied to. I was answering a technical question, and I am not interesting in debating outside of that right now.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 26, 2020 09:42:31

There is not. LN transaction is known only in the channels which are involved in them. This data will have to be shared volountarily by channel operators. In a transaction A->B->C, only these three nodes are aware of this transaction happening at all.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 26, 2020 09:31:04

You can transfer the bitcoin currency over Lightning Network, of course, and also over Liquid. Myself, I use Lightning Network quite a bit, but have no use for Liquid. But, onchain is not really a perfect match for traders: \- Block time is too variable \- Exchanges require confirmations (will never accept 0-conf) Liquid is more trustless than just keeping your money on the exchange, and has a guaranteed block time of 1 minute. For traders, it can be a powerful mechanism, and between non-trustless platforms, you'll not really care that you're not using the most trustless mechanism anyhow. It also means that at the next bull run, people trying to trade it might have other mechanisms than onchain to do so. It might relieve some stress off the chain, leaving more of it for pure p2p payments. Does this mean that anyone want to replace onchain by Liquid? Of course not. The bitcoin blockchain will always be there, for those who need that trustlessness. But: \- It won't be dirt cheap. Security and trustlessness have a price tag. LN is a tradeoff people can \*choose\* to apply in this case. It also solves the doublespend problem. \- Block time will never be guaranteed. It can take 2 minutes, it can also take an hour. Liquid solves this, at the cost of some trustlessness. It's an optional solution for those who \*choose\* to use it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 26, 2020 08:58:39

That used to be true until around mid last year. These days, there exists a numerous good, user-friendly wallets you don't *really* need to learn much to start using.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 24, 2020 16:32:38

LN is full of tradeoffs. This isn't a secret. It does work quite well nowadays, though, but like bitcoin, it requires actual learning, and actually understand a bit about how things work. I never subscribed to the "onboard as many clueless people as possible" part of bitcoin. Bitcoin is here for those who decide for themselves to use it, I don't believe in neither propaganda or onboarding people who isn't really ready for it. I don't believe we *need* to "destroy fiat". I believe that when/if fiat destroys itself, we need to be there for people to use it if they have educated themselves enough. But not everyone will, and not everyone need to. For some people, probably you included, credit cards work quite well for most cases today. I *know* this one does not sit well in this group, but it's the truth. credit cards even have consumer protection., Bitcoin does not. Bitcoin has it's use cases. But it will never be able to *outcompete* credit cards in credit cards home market. Credit cards are financed by the fiat world, which * basically* means the powers that is will be willing to print money to support it. There's no *real* defense against that, except being the currency who doesn't just go printing money.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 24, 2020 14:18:42

Thank you for making sure people do not have to use their own brain to judge my posts but can use the echo-chamber-enhancement-bot called cryptochecker. With this tool, numerous people will surely be spared from thinking. The future will thank you!

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 24, 2020 13:35:09

That's actually the essense of "store of value". Either you believe that they'll be worth as least at much tomorrow (at least over time), or you run to the shop to buy your daily groceries because tomorrow your money will be less worth. \*No\* money of today is really accepted on another basis. Oh, wait: Sometimes they are accepted reluctantly because the governement says you have to accept them. In the countries where inflation is high, it's not unusual that the people rather like to accept currencies that store value better. Like USD - which isn't all that good, but one of the less bad ones :)

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 24, 2020 13:13:02

of course you can. There are numerous tipping solutions. The ones I know are based on LN, because that is the cheapest and easiest solution to transfer small amounts of bitcoin. See for example

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 24, 2020 13:03:04

I don't care what you think. The only thing I care about, is that people also hear the other side and can form their own opinion.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 24, 2020 12:32:05

Yup. Sometimes my arguments may sound reasonable. It's good that you are here and can tell them what to think

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 24, 2020 12:02:57

Please. I think his comment demonstrated pretty well what opinions are accepted in an uncensored cryptocurrency subreddit

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 24, 2020 11:48:22

Thank you for showing your bias. I am pretty sure OP will thank you

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 24, 2020 10:41:10

Here is the FAQ: It might help you form an opinion of the importance of various aspects of bitcoin.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 24, 2020 10:12:05

As always: This is the "big block" narrative FAQs. There doesn't really exist \*that much\* of "small black narrative" FAQs, because we don't have to spin so much story around it. It's hard to argue against the "we want everything, now!" narrative. It's an easy sell to some people. Myself, I don't think any newcomer can find a non-biased FAQ anywhere in crypto. Do not be fooled to think that the above FAQs are non-biased just because they are called FAQs. Do your own research. It's hard. And decide why you are into crypto. If "cheap transactions now!" is what makes crypto worth it for you, then yes, Bitcoin Cash and a number of other crypto currencies than fulfill that need for you. If you think there is more to cryptocurrencies than that, then you need to look more places than a subreddit.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 24, 2020 09:17:05

| Because Satoshi himself said "remove this limit when it gets close to hitting it" and "here's how to do it...". Also because as hardware and software improves, dangerous block sizes get pushed further and further away. Keeping the 1MB 10 years later is outragious. It's been pointed and tested times and times again that we can go orders of magnitude higher without problems. Yet the BTC chain is basically useless because of "dangerous >1MB blocks". Context: He was specifically replying to another guy, Jeff Garzik, who advocated for removing the limit immediately. Basically, Satoshi said we should not do that yet, we can do it later, and we have a mechanism to do it. If you read "we can do it when we get close to hitting it" as a definitive statement that we \*should\* do so, you're overreading. Satoshi was learning just as much as the rest of the ecosystem at that time. &#x200B; The rest of your rebuttal is basically the big block version, which I actually included. Most people in bitcoin cash can not accept that there are more important things than onchain transaction capacity. I also don't agree with you that "LNs future is not too bright". Yes, there's tradeoffs in LN. There always will be. There's tradeoffs everywhere in cryptocurrencies. The development of LN is progressing nicely, but no, it's not something that will be finished overnight. It's getting better over time, though, and is seeing quite a bit of real life usage these days. Since there's no central points where you can measure this usage, it's hard to give hard numbers. Some points exist, though, but only by people volountarily publishing statistics: January 2019, LN had more usage in Bitrefill than any altcoins: []( []( \- LN accounts for 18% of transactions. The narrative that "LN is not progressing" is also a big blocker biased opinion, in my opinion. It's important, for people that try to enter the crypto space, to understand that there is rarely any non-biased people left. I don't claim my arguments to be non-biased, but I feel that in this case, even if I try to be as non-biased as I can, had to include the arguments to counter your very biased "Future of LN is not too bright".

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 24, 2020 09:06:52

Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash are two totally different currrencies. You cannot send BTC to anyone who want BCH, or vice versa. I will start with a disclaimer: I am not neutral. There no longer exist neutral persons in this space, but I \*will\* try my best to present both sides. In the beginning, there was only bitcoin. There was in practise no limits that required fees to be high, because the usage was so little. Most people thought, in the beginning, that Bitcoin could remain that way, with transactions being dirt cheap. However, even the creator (Satoshi) recognized that too large blocks could lead to problems, He installed a temporary block size limit of 1 MB. The people who want big blocks think it is dead certain that this limit was always meant to be removed, and that it's important to follow this, because cheap transactions is the most important thing about bitcoin. Most people in Bitcoin started to recognize in 2011/2012 that raising the block size had negative implications, but ever since then there has been a dispute of the way forward. Because of how bitcoin is governed, that is decentralized, it is a bit hard to change, and the needed consensus for safely doing changes are quite high. The people in favor of larger blocks saw this inability to change as a bad thing, and also did not truly believe anyone \*should\* hold the positions that we shouldn't raise the block size, because they believed it was important to follow Satoshis guidance here. For years, there was a standoff, some needed changes to make i.e. Lightning Network easier to create (see: Segwit) was not activated, and block size was not raised either. In 2017, all this changed. Segwit was activated. This may partially have been because someone believed there was a binding agreement to double the block size 3 months after, but after Segwit was activated, the support for the doubling started to disappear too, and in the end was not activated. This was in parallell that Bitcoin Cash was forked, some people was so against Segwit and for bigger blocks that they decided to create their own cryptocurrency, Bitcoin Cash, in august 2017 - just before Segwit activated. So, where does this leave us today? We have Bitcoin, which has a community that believes more effective use of the blockchain is the right way to go, and that not all activity need to be registered on the blockchain. This community also believe that keeping the transactions dirt cheap is not the ultimate goal, it's other goals that are higher (security, decentralization, ....) Then, we have Bitcoin Cash, that believed the true goal of bitcoin was to allow dirt cheap onchain transactions for everyone. &#x200B; As a newcomer in the space, this is a lot to educate yourself about. It is also possible to use both - Bitcoin Cash when you need dirt cheap onchain transactions, Bitcoin for the rest.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 24, 2020 07:51:58

I believe you have not been living under a bridge, and *might* have heard that we still believe in cheap and predictable transactions. We just don't believe in compromising the security of our very foundation to do it. LN is progressing nicely. It is full or tradeoffs and will never be as good as onchain bitcoin. But it is optional, and it *is* being used. No, there's no accurate metrics to say how much, but there have been numbers shared here and there. I have honestly *no* idea why this subreddit insists that *everythjng* in the bitcoin economy has to be recorded on the blockchain

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 23, 2020 04:18:59

Oh, go on. Twist my words. It doesn't matter. Google "sound money", please. I read through your link for money, and there's nothing in there that says money needs to be cheap to transact to be money. Nothing. But other than that, there are cheap transaction mechanisms for bitcoin too. We do recognize the need for more predictable fees for daily transaction in that camp, of course. We just don't think it trumps everything else.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 22, 2020 16:50:19

My first reply to you stands, though. Unless you are one of the nutcases that believe the most important property of bitcoin is "almost free transactions for everyone", there's no evidence whatsoever that Blockstream has been trying to destroy bitcoin. My valuation of security, trustlessness *above* "free transactions for all" is independe nt from what Satoshis opinion was. I might be bad with explaining my reasoning. But I am into bitcoin because I believe in sound money, not because I believe in free transactions. Your *only* argument against it is that you think you know what Satoshis opinion was and would have been now.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 22, 2020 14:29:45

See, here is where we differ in opinion. You think it's all about sticking to satoshis plan. I think it's about creating secure, trustless money. I think the second trumps the first, you think the first trumps the second. This is why we can never agree.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 22, 2020 13:48:11

You can not prove that this was what he found most important. Pretty much everyone thought this would scale and remain almost free when he first released it. Reading his writings that was very sparse on opinions of how things *should* be, though he was good with code, you can however see that he was learning how it all panned out like everyone else in the space.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 22, 2020 12:07:53

There is literally \*nothing\* at all that paints blockstream in a bad light. Sure, they take funding from actors seen as an enemy of crypto - but there is \*nothing\* whatsoever that indicates that this has had a negative influence. Zero. Nil. Nothing. Unless you are one of those nutcases that believe "almost free transactions for everyone in the world" was the great invention Satoshi came up with.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 22, 2020 09:38:23

In other news, diving clubs are seeing a huge uptake in people interested in deepwater diving.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 21, 2020 14:27:16

Might be, but they are still valued differently. There is a market that settles this, and the miners is only a small part of that market. They are the ones setting the supply. But they are very little part of the demand. With no demand, their supply is worthless.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 04:11:02

At the behalf of humanity, I thank you from the most inner part of my heart from this service. With just some simple code, you can save a whole subreddit from having to form their own opinion, they can instead believe to what the cryptochecker bot tells them to believe. The future will thank you.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 15:41:48

This subreddit was founded by a bunch of conspiracy theorists that could not.understand that the world not agreeing with them was not due to some conspiracy. The continued infighting was inevitable, but they still blame the same people that they forked away from. The smart people will and probably has seen this. The only people left are either the fools or those earning money on the fools. If you still support BCH, which of those groups are you in?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 14:15:33

It does not have to be. If you, say, own a restaurant, you can measure it in wine or dinners

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 13:37:58

hash rate follows price. If you are able to differentiate, you can put different price tags on different chains. A minority may mine more profitable coins. Hash rate follows price. It can never be repeated too often.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 13:04:03

This isn't exactly new. I'm a bit optimistic, and believe LN will be as decentralized as it has to, because one man's censorship is another man's opportunity. This locking up might also be countered by having preference for nodes that does not require as long "lock times", which is also selectable by nodes. Whatever happens, it has always been known and never hidden that LN is definitely a tradeoff. It's a tradeoff we take off chain because we believe that is the place you take tradeoffs.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 02:48:21

Bitcoin itself offers no consumer protection or the sorts, so you are right that as a system for consumer payment, it might be shitty. It has slightly better privacy, though, so if that is important for you, you might still elect to use bitcoin. And it's of course fine to use bitcoin for services where you get things there and then. For internet, I would not use bitcoin for random services unless I knew the vendor to be a reputable vendor. I trust services like Bitrefill which has been in the game for long, and Adafruit, which cater to geeks and have a reputation to destroy (to give some examples of where I have spent bitcoin). Being interested in LN development, I have also done my share of LN payments - both to known and unknown vendors - but more likely to send only small amounts to unknown vendors. But you are right. Retail online payments isn't a very good use case for bitcoin. In-person might be slightly better, though unless you use LN, the shop takes a risk unless they make you wait for a confirmation.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on February 18, 2020 09:37:12

This isn't really new. Sure, if you connect to a single node, you are more vulnerable than if you have more channels. Like, duh? It has also be known for ages that you can probe to find out balances. This can sort of be countered by using private channels, but this limits their usage to your own interactions when sending and receiving money. It's good that people learn about the tradeoffs between one and several channels, and between public and private channels, though.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/lightningnetwork on February 18, 2020 09:11:50

They are free to do it, of course. Anyone can donate whatever they want. By not spending it on mining, they are however leaving money on the table for those who do not want to fund BCH development.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 17, 2020 12:53:16

Like I said, free world. But you can not dictate what others want

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 17, 2020 12:03:57

You are in this problem now because you have accepted that there should be a "committee" that decides what goes into your bi-yearly hardforks. Over in the BTC camp, we have no such things. Only changes that meet the high bar of consensus makes it in. Small changes that don't affect consensus will typically make it in pretty quickly, but consensus-changing code deserves all the time in the world when we are talking about our future currency. Coincidentally, the BCH actors also created the fork in the first place because they felt they had a decreasing influence on the protocol. It's fine, it's within their right, but everyone that is in the BCH camp now has to understand that any coin which does a hard fork schedule is per default centralized in its decision mechanisms. It does not really matter how many node implementation they have, it's still true.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 17, 2020 10:52:10

Ok, we can discuss terminology all we want, but the fact is the same. If miners have to pay this dev tax, then it *does* increase their cost base. Today, this cost base is mostly electricity that goes to pay PoW, but of course also other operational cost is part of cost base. Increasing the cost base will make it less profitable to mine BCH,meaming more miners will move to BTC. This fluctuates continuously. Now, I myself am more of a BTC supporter, but I am more than that a fact-lover. I believe people should take their own decisions based on the facts on the table.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 17, 2020 10:41:42

There is inflation, but it's fixed and known. Right now, there's around 18.5 million, it will increase to around 21 million. u/ErdoganTalk is correct. This will be calculated in as "cost" of mining BCH, and if all else stays the same, the hash rate will decrease, which leads to decreased security. PoW matters.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 17, 2020 10:21:38

You also need the other side of the story to make up an opinion. In here, you are likely to mostly get the BCH version of it. What we believe in the BTC camp, is that bitcoin is not primarily about the ability to send small amount of money for free anywhere in the world. We believe it's all about the security about it, all about the participation of the various actors, and making sure no groups of participant in the economy get too much power. Most people that believe in the BTC version, including me, believes that it's important that users can and do validate the blockchain. After all, if you come to the crypto space and see that only a small elite is running the show, would you trust it much? I believe it's important that you know and believe in people like you validating the system for themself - and being more interested, you'd run a full node and do it yourself. We need to make sure the bar to run a full node doesn't rise all that much. Also, the future security of the blockchain depends on a fee market evolving. What you'll hear around here that "we have until 2140 to figure out that". In reality, of course it's not that simple of course. The fee market needs to grow alongside the block reward going down. The block reward halves every 4 years, and need to be replaced with fees to exist. You'll hear a lot of people here saying that BCH is just as secure as BTC, while in reality it has between 2.5 and 5 percent of the PoW hash rate. PoW is what makes it secure, it ensures that creating an alternate version of the blockchain too expensive and that it is more profitable to continue building on the "real" one. The reason the BCH crowd manages to confuse so many people, is that this requires quite a bit of knowledge. It's easy to buy into the "better capacity is good!" arguments. So, what do we in the BTC camp want to do with the capacity? You might have heard about LN and sidechains. THey are basically variations of the same theme: Compartmentalize the economy a bit. I don't need to know how much you spend on retail via LN, I just know that there is an amount of BTC you have that is reserved for your retail need. We call this "offchain" mechanisms, because this isn't recorded on the bitcoin blockchain. All the funds still exists on the bitcoin blockchain, it's just that the ownership of the funds allocated in LN channels and in sidechains aren't fully recorded on the blockchain itself. This can also be good for privacy, depending on the privacy of the offchain mechanism. So, does this mean BTC blocksize will never increase? No, it doesn't. But it means we have realized that a blockchains quality isn't really how much data you can cram onto it, because it's not really good at that. Being "broadcast to all" in nature, you need to limit how much of the data you \*need\* to broadcast to all. Aka: I don't need to know about all the cups of coffee you spend.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 17, 2020 07:09:39

I don't hate BCH. It's a free world, anyone can create the coin they want. It's only the conspiracy theories I hate, and the deliberate misleading of people.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 17, 2020 06:44:19

It does. Or custodial, but neither you nor I like custodial. But it works fine for that, as does *any* central database. But, bitcoin is PoW. Bitcoin is based on storing and validating the history, and making sure that is not only possible, but *done*. It's an extremely large part why *I* trust bitcoin, because I know that it can and is done. In fact, I run my own full node (comes with running a routing lightning node, more or less). We can *think* and *feel* that a system should work in many ways, but we need to decide what properties we find most important, and where we can compromise. Myself, I am into this because bitcoin is money meant to be validated, to make sure power is distributed enough that central actors don't have too much power. Now, things built on top of bitcoin? Fine, this is where compromises belongs. Not on the main chain. We only have one.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 14, 2020 11:51:15

The worst thing is that we don't disagree all that much. I am a trustlessness and security-maximalist when it comes to on-chain. Which actually is in line with most of those who consciently choose BTC. But this has some implications. I know people here likes to refer to Moores law and how only miners have to be able to validate the chain, and all that. I simply don't agree, I think the ultimate high goal for bitcoin is to have money you don't have to trust any actors, you can validate for yourself. So - the implication is that we need to not raise the bar to validate onchain. I have no clue whether 2MB instead of 1MB would be "safe", I actually think there is no blocksize increase that have no negative effects, so we need to decide whether it's worth it. NOw, I happen to think that there will always be demand for space on the most secure PoW chain in the world. Since it's all permissionless, making it too cheap *would* just mean it would fill up with weather data, social media, and other things that this sub seems to like a lot. I am not in that camp. I believe bitcoin is money, and non-monetary use cases is just "spam" that we don't need to serve. By that, I mean we shouldn't try to stop it - we can't without starting to censor - but we don't have to go out our way to enable it either. it's perfectly fine that the blockchain is too expensive for it. So, what implications do this have? Well, it means that if we have payments of so low value that onchain is not worth it, we have to do tradeoffs. We'd want the tradeoffs in second layers, I am against too much tradeoffs on the mainchain. So - LN is one such tradeoff. Yes, LN will never be the same as onchain, and to some extent it's more complex, but a lot of the UX can be solved by better wallets. We have seen a tremendous improvement there the last year. So, what should someone who have a need to receive small amounts of BTC regularly do? Make sure to have some LN channels! It's really simple. We're in this space because we believe in being self-sovereign, but that also comes with some responsibility. We don't expect hand-helding, we expect to have to do *some* learning to use it. That said., some wallets *will* automatically handle some of this, and there's nothing that stops a wallet from contacting a channel-provider and ask for a channel to be opened. Whether or not someone will provide that for free is another thing - this is something market and ecosystem will have to figure out. In short: I don't believe $10 onchain payments is the use-case we should optimize for. Noone ever needed bitcoin because it was too hard to buy coffee. But LN is a tradeoff enabling it, for those that *have* that special use-case.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 14, 2020 08:48:12

Nope. Likely, you'd have a few larger nodes creating channels to you, using their money. They might do it only for the fee return they expect that day, but you might also opt to pay for the service - like, for example, 1 percent - or the fees to open the channels plus some for the trouble? I don't know, this is all business opportuntiies the market will sort out eventually. Right now, what we have seen so far is that people have been eager to provide channels to places which is going to have events, and they have often done this without expecting more than some routing fees in return. Eventually, people will of course expect things to be profitable.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 14, 2020 05:40:44

This is incorrect. There need to be that much money \*in a channel\*, on the "other end" of the channel. But the channel can be initiated/funded by the other end, and in fact, it's much more effective to fund a channel from the end that expects to have to pay you, no? I believe we will see different modes of handling this: 1) Larger businesses will want someone to handle this for them, and will likely gladly pay for having someone create channels to them. 2) Routing nodes might expect there is money to be had by having direct channels to larger shops. and create channels for themselves. 3) People will swap channels. This is already happening between hobbyists. 4) There exist some places that give you channels for free, and some where you need to pay a fee to have a channel funded. But you don't have to \*have\* the amount of money you need to receive. So this argument, I have no idea where it comes from. Probably because of the 5th possibility: You can create a channel yourself, and pay out the amount of money in the channel, maybe to a service that swaps LN-funds to onchain bitcoin - or to an exchange to sell them again? Your choice. No, you can't receive more than there exists in channels to you, but no, you don't have to "have" all those. You don't own the balance on the other side of channels, that is owned by someone else. But of course you can pay out over the channels again, and in fact people who receive a lot of bitcoin via LN will likely not want to keep all of it in LN. They might want to send some out, maybe to swap services and send it to their cold storage - or again paying vendors via LN. I have channels which has moved several times the total capacity of the channel, because funds flows both ways.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 14, 2020 05:29:56

Wrong. People give a shit about what chain works best for \*their\* use case. Right now, most metric says more people align with use cases which BTC fulfill. Anyone who says "bitcoin was meant to" do something other than what the owner of them wants is lying. That's the whole point of bitcoin, money you control yourself.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 16:39:55

The article is wrong, I think. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a way any intermediates can steal any money here. The payer decides the \*whole\* route, and any intermediate knows only where it came from and which node to forward to. There is no way an intermedidate can even know that you are paying to yourself. Well, if he is both receiving from and sending directly to me, then yes, he can guess. But then, he would be the sole recipient of those fees anyhow :) In LN, intermediates can not steal money. They \*can\* delay and stop payments (in which case the payment never happened - a payment never happens before a recipient has got their money), and they can force other actors to go on-chain, but not cheaply. And since everything is source-routed, malicious actors are likely to not be used. LND, for example, has the last months worked on using experience from failure and successes for future routing decisions, and I'd be surprised if the other nodes aren't doing similar. But this has nothing to do with my answer. You \*can\* receive money without having had a single cent of bitcoin, but you \*would\* need someone else to open a channel with their bitcoin. So it's categorically false that you need to have bitcoin to receive bitcoin over lightning.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 12:05:40

this is categorically false. Someone need to lock up those money in \*their\* end of the channel, but \*you\* can start with 0. The reason to lock up those money would presumably be because you anticipate there will be demand for sending lightning transactions that way. Now, \*I\* believe we'll see 3 main incentives: \- Routing nodes opening channels to stores that either are or they see has the potential to be popular. \- Stores paying for liquidity. \- Users opening peer-to-peer channels to each others as mutual favours. \- Users can of course also pay for liquidity (I haven't had to yet, but I have done for small amounts to test the services. Then there's always swap-services, and in this case you are right, then you first have to lock up the liquidity, but you would get them back when you swapped them for on-chain bitcoin back. See i.e. Lightning Loop.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 10:18:51

I mean that the argument that BCH should be worth more than BCH because it is more scarce is not really sound. If that was a deciding factor, then Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Diamond etc should likely have more scarcity. Not to mention BSV, that mathematically (at least until they implement the possibility of stealing old coins) necessarily is more scarce than BCH..

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 08:11:07

Noone was forked off the network for not upgrading. There still is i.e. some Bitcoin Unlimited nodes on the network, but they are rapidly losing market share, of course, as they will not support Segwit. But they are not forced off the network.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 07:35:53

There is probably a lot more people that haven't been able to claim their Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Diamond, Bitcoin Clashic, etc. Do you think they should be more worth because of that?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 07:22:32

It will never be finished, because it's the layer two that will always have room for improvement. Layer 1 should be stable, with few changes and only with consensus. Layer 2 does not really need network-wide consensus, in fact in layer 2 the consensus is reduced to a party of two. Yes, *every* channel can run with a different type and view on how LN works. This allows for faster innovation, in a less coordinated way, and improvements rolled out gradually. I will give you a few examples: 1) In first spec, the force-close address was not derived from the master key seed, which means that if you lost the channel state, you couldn't claim it even when the remote party force closed. Later on, after some experience, this was found to be an unnecessary complication, and the spec was changed. Today, even within the same node, we have channels with both policies. Upgraded nodes will now create channels with the new policy, but may still have channels with the old policy. For the network, this is no problem. 2) Some nodes understand AMP, some does not. This is not a problem either. Intermediate nodes does not need to know about AMP either, they are only forwarding HTLCs the same way as before. This is not a problem. AMP will be rolled out gradually. 3) It is expected that at some point, we might get SIGHASH_NOINPUT. This will pave the way for eltoo, which gets rid of the need for penalty transactions. At this point, we will have both channel types, but this doesn't matter, as long as it to the outside world behaves as before. For this reason, we don't really need development on LN to stop, old nodes will use old mechanisms, new nodes will use new, and once you upgrade your node, you will have access to use upgraded features. This allows for more rapid development, as we have seen the 2 years LN has been "officially in production". Btw, did you know that the max channel size of 0.16 BTC is not there anymore? That is, it is per default, but some nodes have just abolished it and have larger channels between them. So, I hope LN never is finished. Because no innovative technology is ever finished before it's dead. THere will always be room for improvement and innovation.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 7, 2020 08:31:21

LN is in production, used daily, and for those vendors where we \*have\* seen data, usually does more transactions than BCH. That LN can and will still be better is a good thing. Will it ever be finished? No. And because we don't really need "consensus" and "rules" to be the same across all LN network, we'll continue to see innovation at a pace larger than a blockchain can and should. Current versions of most mainstram nodes are these days starting to support AMP (my own node, for example, is all set up to receive AMP transactions, but there's still a few bits and pieces and choices to take to how to send AMP transactions in LND). So, to conclude: Noone is "kicking the LN can down the road". On-chain/off-chain? A personal choice. LN will never and was never meant to replace on-chain, but it will take a lot of the smaller retail and instant transactions off-chain.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 7, 2020 07:45:34

The worst thing is, you're not that wrong. You *are* trusting others to validate,but you do provide incentive to do it. Without meaningful incentive, noone would mine your transactions. And yes, you are trusting the collective to validate the chain. With bitcoin, you can either choose to be part of it, or choose to trust that "everyone else" is doing it. And yes, a 51% attack (or let's make it 80%) where the miners did something fishy, i.e changing the protocol, would be nasty. But the more people who don'rt use those miners nodes to validate their transactions, the *less* nasty would it be. This is why I have earlier stated that if you don't want to use your own node to validate your transactions, you at least need to make sure you don't pick mining nodes. Non-mining nodes validating transactions (as in: final validation - does this transaction pay for this coffee or not) is an extremely vital part of the game theory. I don't care whether Satoshi mentioned it or not, Satoshi might well have had a naive assumption that miners would stay honest without other than self-incentives, but this doesn't mean we should all be. And yes - self-validating can only help so much. But the more people and the larger ratio that does self-validation, the more is the incentive for miners and other large actors to stay honest. Self-validation is good for the chain.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 5, 2020 13:32:16

I have a hard time figuring out why whether tether is fully backed by something we already know is not fully backed at all is fundamentally important. &#x200B; Sure, a "run on the bank" towards tether would be a blow, as in there would be less liquidity in the markets for a while. But, realistically, if people were to want to get rid of tether, how would they realistically be able to do it, fast? Sell it for fiat? Or buy bitcoin? The exchange rate tether vs USD and also tether vs bitcoin would go down. We might see a crypto credibility hit. But no: No cryptocurrency is \*backed\* by tether, no more than USD is \*backed\* by any other currency. Any tether implosion would hit the whole crypto market, it's not really possible to say that anyone of them is more exposed to tether. So, what can people who belive tether will go down do? There's three steps: 1) Don't buy tether. For some people, this might be enough. 2) Don't keep any assets at exchanges with an exposure to tether. 3) Withdraw from the crypto markets. Any person should decide where to lay the bar. Personally, I am about level 2.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 5, 2020 10:08:39

If you believe bitcoin is money and not some funny-things without value, then no - theft is theft. Just because you are a liberalist that doesn't believe the state should have any ruling about money doesn't justifty theft.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on February 5, 2020 07:41:20

Yes. PoW matters. This is nothing new. BCH having between 1 and 5 percent of SHA256 ASIC capacity at any time is a constant risk. Yes, some of the miners are likely to protect it, those who are presumably friendly to BCH. We agree. But miners are businesses, and mining at a loss is...well, loss. Noone like losses. I don't advocate for attacking cryptocurrencies, but using "but miners like BCH, they will protect it" as a sleeping pillow is kind of short-sighted. Unfortunately, there's no real easy fix. There's checkpoints, variants of Avalanche/pre-consensus, but all of them are just tools you are prepared to use against someone who actually has more hash than you. It's deckaring "some random thing that is not PoW" being more able to overrule PoW. In other words, it is called centralization.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 5, 2020 06:10:06

There's multiple axis where we need to watch out. One underrated but probably the most important is to make sure the UTXO set doesn't grow too large. LN doesn't leave UTXOs except for channel openings/closing, so this also helps with that. Then, there's initial sync time. 10-20-30 years down the line, how large will the blockchain be, how long will initial sync be, etc. Now, you may say that there's no reorg risk a couple of thousand blocks backwards, but in limiting the possibility to validate it *all* from the start, you are losing some of the trustlessness. Why should a new person in 30 years trust that the actors, nodes etc that exists today did a proper job? I also think that it's not the *absolute* number of people that validate the system that is important, though it's of course important. A system with only 100 participants that validate everything equally is obviouslty trustless enough between them. The *ratio* matters. 3 billion bitcoin users with only a million full nodes? I'd say that might not be good enough. There's lots of discussions to be had here. I don't believe the goal is to have as many participants as possible on an absolute scale, we need enough full participants that can and do validate the system.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 4, 2020 10:39:23

Not every actor can validate the economy now, you are completely correct. Which is why we want to make sure not even fewer can. The fewer that can and do participate in this validation - *and* actively reject transactions based on node under their control - the more are we moving towards being a paypal 2.0. You might think 5 pools running the show is decentralized enough. I don't.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 4, 2020 09:30:35

Going PM for this :)

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 4, 2020 09:11:42

Is your alter ego Satoshi, or do I have equal saying as you into what I find important?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 4, 2020 05:14:14

Sure, we agree there. LN is progressing nicely, I use and depend on it for a lot of my bitcoin spending now. I both use it online, and in a retail setting, Not that many places you can spend bitcoin physically here, but I have both bought coffee with it (and that was in early days, summer 2018), and I have a beer place that takes both on-chain and Lightning bitcoin. With AMP finally manifesting (I can now receive but not send AMP with my LND node, that will likely be in next version), paying larger payments should also be more reliable. You still need the liquidity, though, but you don't need to have it all in the same channels, so smaller channels and smaller nodes should become more useful. This will counter some of the centralization issues people in this subreddit is worried about.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 4, 2020 04:29:28

So, is it the onchain transactions themselves that has the unique properties, or is it the fact that we have an economy each and every actor can validate, free of a central entity that manipulate it?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 4, 2020 04:19:31

Sure it does. But it's a question of definition, really.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 4, 2020 04:07:03

You are sort of correct that Lightning Network is not "scaling" as such. What it is, though, is a way of limiting the need for scaling. We don't any more need to scale for guaranteed low-value instant payments onchain being possible, we have LN for that. I know people like to equalize LN and Liquid, but it's two entirely different things with two entirely different use cases. But Liquid does serve some of the same purpose at another transaction space. For guaranteed payments between various environments that are not trustless anyway, think to/between exchanges, arbitrage, etc, then Liquid finds its use case. Myself, I don't engage in any of that, so for me Liquid is not so interesting. You can also have tokens on the Liquid platform, but to me tokens aren't that interesting either. I know people finds use cases for it. What you and I fundamentally disagree with, is to what extent all economic activity needs to be onchain. I say no, as long as we ensure that the economic activity are properly governed by onchain smart contracts, it might be \*trustless enough\*. I also see it as a way of limiting the amount of data any person need to validate to fully participate in the bitcoin economy. I don't need to know how bitcoins in LN channels are spent, I only need to validate that the bitcoin are there, in the UTXOs that every LN channel is anchored to.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 4, 2020 03:11:16

This is why routing is not part of the protocol specification. Routing is a node choice. We can have different implementations running on the same lightning network, using different algorithms for routing.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 4, 2020 01:20:45

But the payer presumably have the preimage, which means he can prove it's paid at least.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/BitcoinBeginners on February 3, 2020 17:21:54

I fail to understand how a node that does not support segwit would generate a segwit address, though.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 3, 2020 15:22:59

We all decide ourselves how we use crypto. That's actually the whole purpose of it. I'd love to have an app as easy as strike to buy bitcoin with my bank account, but I'd likely use it to fill up my own LN channels, i.e. send to my own LN wallet(s). (Yes, I have a few. Two main, one LN routing node plus one main phone based (non-custodial of course, I don't share the love for those who trade ease-of-use for self-custody. But again: crypto is all about choosing for yourself)

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 1, 2020 06:56:17

He was buying bitcoin, and directly using it for a payment with LN. Not any much different than buying on an exchange and withdrawing to pay a vendor without going to your own wallet. The difference, I guess, is the easiness of how it's done, in one app.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on February 1, 2020 06:13:06

So do I. But I don't let it cloud my technical and financial judgements. r/bitcoin may actually be crap Reddit kommunist, but bitcoin is not backed but Reddit posts. If it were, then god help both communities 😀

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 22, 2020 13:30:21

What reconciliation do you expect is possible? I have nothing against BCH as such. What I dislike is the part of the BCH community that through lies, conspiracy theories, and pretending superiority tries to misleading people to stop them from forming their own opinion. I have always tried to be honest in my communication, trying to label opinions and opinions. I don't see the same behaviour from the most vocal members in r/btc. They tend to label most of their opinions, conspiracy theories, etc as facts. I have nothing against people using high-capacity, low fee coins as alternative because transacting on the BTC chain is not worth it for their use case. It's a free world. At the same time, I do believe that at some point people will want to keep their money in the currency backed by the most secure PoW chain in the world, and right now that is beyond doubt bitcoin. For this reason, I believe that they'll gravitate to use 2nd layers and other offchain mechanisms on BTC. After all, if you have BTC, opening an LN channel is \*one\* onchain transaction, and exchanging to BCH is one transaction. I recognize that LN is not mature enough for everyone yet, but for me, it is usable, and it \*is\* seeing increased uptake. It's a free world, as I said, I have no problem with people chosing otherwise. But I do believe in free flow of facts, and trying to keep it free of propaganda.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 18, 2020 10:38:38

Always more than the attacker. And worst case, you can CPFP.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 17, 2020 00:58:33

Probably not a lot. I don't think people using bitcoin for payments are a large share of the number of onchain transactions. But other than that, LN can help \*you\* be prepared for a possible congestion. If you do have need for instant payments of relatively low value, which is what LN does best right now, go on research it. Put some money in an LN wallet and open some channels. Don't put all your savings there, you are here for the learning for now. Familiarize yourself with invoices, sending and receiving over LN. Get puzzled by the need for liquidity in channels, and learn to manage it. Over time, LN wallets will also be better at managing for you. Find out if the people you pay use LN. A lot of vendors use bitpay, which is not exactly a forward-thinking provider. Show them Btcpayserver. If self-hosting is not for them, there's also Opennode, Coingate and others that does LN. LN is the solution that can make your bitcoin purchases not so dependent upon the onchain conditions. It won't necessarily relieve the load onchain, but it will allow you to transact more independent of it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on January 16, 2020 15:23:28

No. Because only the nodes involved in a transaction keep a record of it. If I send a transaction A-->B-->C, these three nodes are the only ones who know about the transaction. People smarter than me could probably find some rough estimates. I am willing to write it off as a privacy feature. Of course, A, B or C \*might\* willingly share some high-level statistics, but there's no global data points.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on January 16, 2020 11:52:04

The penalty transaction has the full channel size to spend from.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 15, 2020 23:50:06

Oh, but it has happened. Not on BCH yet, but here is an example: There are some analysis here, about profitability of doublespend attacks and required resources:

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 15, 2020 17:07:28

It's not *that* easy. You need quite a bit of hash rate, but I guess coingeek and the BSV crowd could pull it off, if they were willing to destroy their reputation. I'm not saying the required security they demand isn't adequate, but if it is, then required BTC security is more than adequate. BCH transactions are getting a PoW discount. That is a fact.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 15, 2020 16:04:12

Well, theft is still theft. Some, I'd say most, people still have morals. But I believe in a trustless bitcoin. One that minimizes this requirement of assuming honesty. Binance is taking a large risk. There's actors out there that are not favourable to BCH that *has* a significant hash rate. If they make good on their promise on double spending exchanges, they are an easy target. Ayone requiring more than 10 confirmations can probably relax as long as they validate against well-known and Bitmain pool nodes. They'll override any 11 block reorgs they are not in agreement with. It's well known know that at least a lot of "unknown miner" is Squire Mining, which has close ties to Coingeek and Calvin. PoW matters. Giving up being on the most secure PoW chain in the world? Unbelievable. It shows dedication, at least. Willing to risk so much.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 15, 2020 15:13:18

I'm not saying it's super easy, but it's way easier than for BTC. Except that if you require 11 confs or more, you can validate your transaction against one of the nodes of or Bitmain, because that is in reality the only PoW that matters. All other PoW will be overridden, should they be in disagreement.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 15, 2020 15:02:09

Look. I believe in the security of PoW. BCH ecosystem willingly gave up being on the security of being on the most secure PoW blockchain on the world. There is a reason the 10 block reorg protection was added. It was inevitable. There is a reason you are not taken seriously in the cryptocurrency world. It's because the ecosystem shows little to no understanding about what matters on a PoW blockchain, and most of your mitigation efforts will increase centralization and take away the power in PoW. Already, I doubt it's impossible to actually be in disagreement with and/or bitmain, whatever happens, that chain will be declared the real BCH. You are already becoming paypal. It's far from being a decentralized cryptocurrency. Which is why you are not taken seriously. It's fine to want to create a better paypal, but I am interested in cryptocurrencies. That's why I don't believe in BCH as such.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 15, 2020 14:42:37

I get it. You don't believe that PoW matters. Incidentally, you are in line with the coin you believe in. The 10 block checkpointing? It will override PoW. What's the chance that an 11 block reorg that does not contain and Bitmain pool will be declared the real one? Almost none. You have created a PoW-overriding mechanism. Avalanche? PoW-overriding mechanism. If you are not "in the cabal", your blocks will be orphaned. PoW matters, but the BCH ecosystem is doing everything they can to mitigate the properties of PoW. Partly because they have so low security. Binance and Coinbase lists shitcoins easily. And they are taking more risks with BCH than they do with BTC, in that regard. PoW matters.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 15, 2020 14:27:12

Binancde and Coinbase is taking a calculated risk, because they would rather take peoples money than not. Fact is: PoW matters. And BCH isn't particularly secure at the moment,

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 15, 2020 14:16:26

of course not. But $10k with $50-$100 transaction fee is also not unreasonable. I simply don't share the same vision as you - with "dirt cheap, instant transactions" being the innovation. The fintechs of the world is quickly eating that market, and this is what BCH will need to outcompete. I believe in bitcoin transactions with security high enough that they are worth paying for. That's something the fiat world simply isn't competing with. And BCH is not on that road. (Incidentally, BCH confirmations is a lot less "secure" than BTC transactions. See

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 15, 2020 14:00:51

First, you are confusing average and median transaction fees. "More than average" transactions fees will only be paid by transactions with a certain urgency, and LN channel openings will rarely be urgent. It's more likely the the median fee is more where a channel opening fee will be, and even that might be high. There will be people who pay $1000 to make sure their $1M gets in the next block, and this will bring the average up. And then there will be people who top up channels on payday, with no particular urgency, that can afford for the transaction to wait a day. Second, 1500 might be average but not maximum number of tx fees. We're not running at capacity. We still have room for more transactions.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 15, 2020 13:39:47

No problem. Let's assume 100% segwit adoption down the line. This would mean a blocksize about 2MB. The graph you showed me wasn't clear if it was block weight or tx size, but let's assume tx size, since this is a worst-case scenario for BTC. 2M/500 = 4000. Block reward last week is $103k. $103k/4000 = a little more than $25. Dunno where your "more than $75" number came from? (this is a rough calculation, if I'm wrong, you'll surely correct it before I'm back from my walk with the dog) We have already demonstrated willingness to pay fees much higher than that. Also, please note that this is an average. We'll see important transactions - those transfering millions - willingly pay $1000 in fees, because it's still a small percentage and because confirmation speed matters more. Those that are willing to wait will pay less in fees - as today. But you are correct, fees *will* be higher in the future. This is well known.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 15, 2020 12:12:28

I will present my numbers when you show me *how* many <$0.01 transactions you need on the BCH chain to maintain security. I know fees will be higher on BTC chain. LN is one way of compensating for that, there *will* be others. We have already had situations where the fee was more than the coinbase. I am pretty sure you know that I know that fees will be much higher than today. And this is exactly why I believe we need solutions like LN, to use wisely the capacity we have, and make each transaction count for more economic activity. No, I will not present you with math. This can pan out a number of different ways, the protocol and ecosystem evolves, channel factories might see the light of the day. There's no "finished", only continuous improvement. But if you demand this from me, that demand had better be accompagnied by some math that says *how many transactions* you'll need to maintain security. I have done some rough calculations in my head over that one, and can totally understand why you are that much in a hurry for global adoption.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 15, 2020 10:39:35

First, opening/closing channels, you are rarely that much in a hurry that you target first block. I never do, at least. 2nd, your argument has a flaw. You assume that people don't see value in the most secure, most validated PoW chain in the world. \*I\* believe people would rather keep their spending money in bitcoin instead of transacting to a whole different currency. Switching to BCH is one transaction, opening an LN channel is one transaction. LN funds are all onchain. The security of LN is all backed by the original funding transactions on-chain, that \*I\* will fully validate before I use a channel.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 15, 2020 10:16:51

Yes. There is *tons* of tradeoffs in crypto. - When you accept 0-conf transactions, you are trading security for speed. - When BCH forked to have bigger blocks, they were wlling to trade away being on the most secure PoW blockchain in the world. - When I choose to put money into LN channels and accept LN transactions, I trade away the finality of the blockchain for my transactions for lower fees and higher speed.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 15, 2020 00:54:49

Time lock delta is different from the CSV delay. Time lock delta is the time you add to the HTLC timeout. It is the time you give yourself to forward the preimage back to the previous steps. If time lock delta expires, you will not be able to claim the forwarded amount. You will have to settle on chain before it has expired. Of course, all of this is handled by your node itself.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 15, 2020 00:39:06

If you attempt a theft, when will you know it worked? \- Answer: After the timelock has expired, which is \*minimum\* 144 blocks (usually increases with channel size) If your first, low-value attempt at theft works, how long does your offline channel partner have to avert your second attempt? \- Answer: \*Again\* minimum 144 blocks. The timer starts to run at the point you do a force-close, not at the time a channel goes offline. Can it happen? Sure. Is it predictable and will it, statistically, be able to do this profitable? \- Highly doubtful.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 14, 2020 16:54:27

There is a channel reserve, of 1% of the channel. A channel partners node will never allow you to spend those last satoshi. The reason is exactly this.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 14, 2020 13:46:59

He did. Specifically he said that third-party use cases with different needs had no business on the bitcoin blockcchain, and would be better served elsewhere. And that people that tried using bitcoin as a currency was likely to be vocal about keeping the blockchain more lightweight (because it was in their interest). Go look it up. It was not exactly those words, but he did say it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 6, 2020 12:54:13

The reason people aren't using bech32 more, is that still there is way too much software that doesn't really know about it. It's about the same struggle you have/had with cashaddresses. LN wallets are all made after segwit was activated, and typically have no use for legacy addresses. LND doesn't even support them (as in: can't create their own legacy addresses, but can of course send to legacy addresses onchain), there is no need. LND also uses bech32 per default, for its channel-related on-chain addresses, and I see no reason why other wallets should not do the same.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 6, 2020 07:13:25

You are free to continue your road to paypal 2.0. Good luck.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 4, 2020 17:32:07

Sure, the formula is more or less known, and right now BCH is more or less 2-3% of BTCs hash rate. But in your formula above, you are missing one variable - the value of the coin. Why would more TXes necessarily preserve the value of the coin?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 3, 2020 09:27:22

Some gameplay-review. Whenever I roll "nothing", I always get 600, 100 and 4000 (but these numbers doesn't necessarily mean I rolled nothing). Consequently, when numbers are different than this, the differing number is my winning number. Might be good if this looked a bit more random.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/lightningnetwork on January 3, 2020 09:16:55

There is a bug. If I press "claim prize" a second time without buying another set of cards, the balance in the top increases with my winnings once more! The real, withdrawable/spendable balance, however, didn't update, and when I bought another set it updated to my real balance again.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/lightningnetwork on January 3, 2020 08:50:15

This is the most unfounded statement seen so far... "A competitor doing everything on-chain will always win in the end" ? You'll need some reasoning to back up that, I don't buy it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 3, 2020 08:29:52

Already we are seeing one entity abusing the BCH DAA for their own profit. Is it an attack? Maybe, maybe not. Depends who you ask. If the alternative would be to lose all your assets (or diminish the value of them), how much leeway would you give "all-powerful" miners? If miners can increase their profit per block by 150% in coins, would they tolerate a loss of 50% of the value of the coin? There's all sorts of nuances, here. A currency is a currency, you can't just "take your activity elsewhere", necessary, without incurring a loss. How far will the community let the miners go before they take that loss and moves elsewhere? Miners are in this for a profit. Profit might be both short-term and long-term, and throughout history we've seen lots of examples on people hurting long term prospects for the sake of short-term winnings. I don't trust miners to stay honest. I don't really trust anyone to stay honest. That's why we need bitcoin.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 3, 2020 08:19:22

Exactly. You are worried about incentives being messed with if other people than miners are allowed to do payments. In reality, they have for a very long time - exchange-based trading, shopping etc have been a possibility for very long time. As we onboard people to Lightning, you also are aware that Lightning has an onchain presense. More users and more usage of Lightning will also drive up demand for block space, but that will not be in the "instant, low cost"-class transactions, that will be in the "can be allowed to wait a bit" market for onchain transactions. If you think I am hostile to miners, you are dead wrong. I just believe all actors in bitcoin, including miners, need a healthy dose of external entities that makes sure they stay honest and in the best interest of the coin.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 3, 2020 08:06:42

There will always be demand for a space on the most secure, distributed ledger in the world. I am not worried there won't be onchain usage providing this incentive. Spare capacity will also be eaten up by the likes of Veriblock - activity I wouldn't shead a tear if we outcompeted/made it non-profitable, but applications like it will always be there as demand for the space.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 3, 2020 07:53:27

I think miners work honestly among themselves because the incentives works for them to do so. I think that we need to be careful about messing too much with those incentives. I think that your future vision, with SPV nodes trusting mining nodes mostly, not really other nodes, is messing with those incentives.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 3, 2020 07:34:28

The technical description wasn't bad, but it failed to mentioned that Lightning Network is in production for close to two years, now. (production is in: a production version of node software released to the public). There were people running Lightning Network with real bitcoins quite a bit before the official launch, though.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on January 3, 2020 06:35:53

Ok, I guess you can say that an SPV client is not a node. There is of course variations, a pruning node is obviously a variation of a full node. But my point was: The statement quoted really says that most people will not run mining nodes "in the future". And that, I think is pretty evident. Of course, I agree that people should also have the option to run SPV nodes. But that does not mean that I don't think more fully-validating nodes are healthy. One explanation I sometimes like to use, is that running a full node is like auditing the economy. It's inherently a good thing that your economic activity is audited by independent actors.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 3, 2020 06:25:59

Yes, I know that. Satoshi used the term "network node" for a mining node. All other nodes are non-mining nodes, but it doesn't really say whether they are full nodes or not.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 3, 2020 06:15:48

What was Satoshis definition of a "network node", again?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 3, 2020 04:34:16

I didn't particulary find it interesting to argue that, no, given that this is something I have never even claimed. Yes, LN is a tradeoff, we all know that. It will never be as secure as fully onchain confirmed bitcoins. It's use cases are: - Instant transactions. The competition here is mainly 0-conf, and even though LN security is different and not directly comparable, I'd argue that it's much more secure than 0-conf. However, once 0-conf transactions are conformed, security of course increases for them. - Transactions that are not economically viable to do onchain, i.e. because fees would be too high. I route transactions as low as a couple of satoshi, btw, and don't come here and claim that is economically viable on BCH :) (I route transactions as low as 1 satoshi, but I'd not say those are economically viable on LN either, because then you might end up paying more fees than transaction value). Trusting miners is not a discussion I find interesting. Bitcoin was designed to be trustless - any security model that increases the need for trust is not interesting to me.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 3, 2020 00:42:31

You are asking this in a subreddit full of BCH-supporters, which I presume you know. I hope you are/have been looking for counter-arguments elsewhere, because you will not hear neutral arguments here. I am by no means neutral myself, but I will try to provide fact-based counter arguments. The first thing you might hear, is how bitcoin has been sabotaged. You are free to chose to believe that, but that argument hinges on basically \*one\* premise: That bitcoin first and foremost was meant to have as high capacity of as cheap as possible transactions. If you take away that premise, all the conspiracy theories fall together. If you want to learn, you need to decide whether that is the most important thing to you, or if other things can be more important. You are correct that it's not very secure, PoW wise. It continues to lose PoW compared to bitcoin, because its relative price to bitcoin goes down. Of course, it's not a given that this trend will continue, but it's a factor to watch. The long term security is also something to watch out for. Since BCH believes fees should always be dirt cheap, its security hinges on its usage growing at an enormous rate. It may very well do, though, as dirt cheap transaction tends to attract secondary use cases. Already around 50% of it is one such use case. While it does of course help to pay for security, it does add an extra burden on nodes. BCH supporters will tell you that only miners really matter, so this is of no importance. I, and most other people who support bitcoin, believe that the actual trust in bitcoin as a system hinges on other people having the power to provide economic intencives to keep miners honest. As miners income depend on their coins actually being spendable, something everyone running a full node contributes to deciding, much more so than people with lightweight nodes. Again: Feel free to dismiss this and buy into the argument that miners (that sometimes are extremely few, there are times where the majority of the hash rate is from the same enntity) keeping each other honest is enough. People here will tell you that non-mining nodes have no power over the blockchain, and they are not that wrong. But non-mining nodes that are used for validating transactions do decide the \*value\* of the bitcoins that exist. Should a group of miners stray away and unilaterally perform changes, their income depends on other people accepting their transactions. A minority group of miners that actually are in line with what the people giving value to a coin wishes might actually be better off (though things will get messy during a hash war). I am usely ridiculed for these arguments,and will warn you at once that I have no need of debating those who ridicule me. In this subreddit, trying to "win" arguments against the BCH arguments are pretty futile, so that's something I try not waste time on. I do, however, try to provide my opinion to people who genuinely ask questions. You are free to decide which arguments you value most, and you will no doubt hear the BCH side of it here.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 2, 2020 14:36:43

Fees will go up gradually, and become a greater part of the block reward as the block reward shrinks. It will not happen over night, it will happen gradually, along with the bitcoin community making each bitcoin transaction represent more economic activity. Lightning Network. Sidechains. Other methods. It will all contribute to this.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on January 1, 2020 15:49:07

I don't see it being a better way than other communication methods. I am not going to lose sleep over this one.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 1, 2020 15:45:47

I don't. I am only responsible for the activity that my node is participating in. There will be well managed nodes and badly managed nodes. If your bot activity enters my node through a badly managed node to such an extent that it's noticable, I might decide to close my channel with it. This isn't terribly different than other parts of the Internet - bad management leads to possibilities for unwanted activities.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 1, 2020 13:49:44

Yes, it's sort of arbitrary, sort of an approxiation that people can relate to. I don't believe everything is lost if we never get there, but it's signalling that *I* think it's way premature to increase the blocksize. Veriblock finding it profitable to spend fees on "spammy behavior" (non-BTC-related transactions that doesn't serve economic purpose for the BTC currency, feel free to say it's not spam, I just lacked a better expression) is another sign our block size is large enough now. This "can not onboard billions" nonsense, I find funny, btw. I don't think we're in immediate danger of world economic collapse making that many people need bitcoin, and I don't believe in the "we need to outcompete visa!" mantra either. I have said it before, I will say it again: Bitcoin need to be as good as it can be. Slow and steady progress, catering to those who need or choose it of their own free will. If you don't agree with me, that's fine, btw. Metrics shows that we're mostly on the right path, and that most economic activity agree.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 1, 2020 06:48:20

So, with your behavior, your channels would have: - A lot of state changes - Without balance increasing/decreasing - No successful payments, only cancelled payments. Let me go and write a little script on my node that watches for this behavior.You can try and hide it among other activity, but then you'd have to have successful payments, and that'd cost you fees. I don't really believe this will be much of a problem. I am free to close any channel I want to my node. Channels with a lot of meaningless behavior, serving no economic purpose, are good candidates for closing.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on January 1, 2020 06:36:20

No. I happen to agree that we'll need to wait quite a bit with raising the block size. Do you know what blocksize I find is the correct one? I think a decent approximation is the size that makes it a *sensible* option to run a full node on a standard cell phone - even if it's just a pruning one.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 31, 2019 11:39:31

...but it will be a rich-person game. Everyone else are customers/2nd class citizens. It will also be difficult to run over non-optimal network conditions. Meaning, we're going towards a setup where we have dedicated network resources to bitcoin. I know, we're very accustomed to thinking "larger is better". Which is why the concept that bitcoin gets better the smaller footprint it has is difficult to understand.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 31, 2019 09:58:45

Well. Given that *you* are on your way down the path where you'll end up with only a few large actors running full nodes - I know what I prefer. Do you want to build something better than paypal on top of the most trustless cryptocurrency in the world, or would you want your cryptocurrency to be "merely something better than paypal"? You are not that wrong, but you are assuming that LN is *meant* to outcompete on-chain, while it is not. It is simply meant to: - Provide a means to transfer smaller sums than is economically feasible on the blockchain. - Provide instant finality which the blockchain can not. To do this, there is *of course* trade offs. Noone has ever said there is not.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 31, 2019 09:01:11

So, let us pretend "LN is paypal". LN is like having a network of paypals, all competing for your transactions. With LN, you can choose how many of these paypals you have a relationship with - and oh - they don't know if you are acting on behalf of yourself or if you are another paypal. With the "LN version of paypal", they can't steal your money. You always hold the keys to spend them - right up to the very point where they are in the recievers wallet! So much "like paypal"? I am not saying - and have never said - that it is better than onchain, and it doesn't have to be. It just have to be good enough that it provides a service worth the cost of the transactions.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 31, 2019 08:11:04

With paypal, you can not take your money elsewhere to a different paypal and send money to the same destination as before. LN is a network of nodes, all competing for users transactions. If one of them stops routing transactions, that's a tremendous opportunity for the others. Paypal is one entity, under one jurisdiction.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 31, 2019 08:00:53

This is heavily misleading. There's quite a few lightning wallets today that uses Neutrino, and does not require a full node. How can I be for that, if I believe everyone should run a full node? It's simple: I don't believe everyone should run a full node, but a very healthy proportion of people should run full nodes. For there to be a reason for people to trust bitcoin, they need to understand an *believe in* the fact that anyone can fully validate the total bitcoin blockchain. I have been pondering on what that means, myself, and my closest approxiation is that this means that I need to know that *people like me* are running fully validating nodes. Any segment of the population that doesn't have that assurance is simply customers. Now, you might still be "better than paypal", but that's not a high enough goal. I want bitcoin to be the most secure, most trustless currency in the world. We need to be very careful not to erode the very reason we trust bitcoin: We trust bitcoin because we don't have to - we validate it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 31, 2019 07:49:21

There is, of course, differences. What I am saying, is that censoring LN nodes will fail to be in a position where they can censor any significant amount of LN transactions, because people will simply not use them anymore. Do I believe LN transactions are "as good as" or "the same as" on-chain transactions? Of course not. On-chain is always the gold standard, but on-chain transactions is a limited resource. LN is all about making good enough, trustless enough transactions with slightly different properties than on-chain: - Instant. And no, spare me for the 0-conf transactions. - Cheaper, because they aren't competing for the same limited blockchain space. If I believed that blockspace should never be limited, I might have had other opinions. But I believe blockspace needs to be a limited resource, because bitcoins future depends on it. We have discussed this before, and unless you can provide me with better arguments than "It was always the plan" and "Satoshis vision", we are done discussing it. LN is simply aiming to be good enough and trustless enough for retail/instant transactions. For the truly trustless, we have and always will have onchain transactions. But prepare to pay the price, because better usually costs more.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 31, 2019 07:38:48

But, your paper is already being used for FUD: I realize this might not have been your intention. Now, to continue: I fail to see how LN would provide the "ideal" communication channel over for example regular Tor. LN channels costs money, so to build up a large botnet, this would require some bitcons. Also: Creation of LN-channels leave an on-chain footprint, that could be used in similar kinds of analysis as you mention elsewhere in your paper.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 31, 2019 06:13:38

I try to keep attack vector of my Lightning Node low. For that reason, I run no other service on the node itself (that is publically accessible, but of course I need to be able to log into it from somewhere, myself). Whatever I use the LN node for will not run on the same box as the node, it will run at other machine - and with LND, I can give it minimal access rights. For example if you want only to receive payments, you can give it rights only to create invoices and to check for payments of invoices. Your article was sparse on attack vectors, but concentrated on the damage that could be done with control over a number of lightning nodes. I agree that OpSec will be extremely important for running lightning nodes - but since LN nodes comes in quite a few varietys, with non-uniform attack vectors, I don't really think it will be too easy to spread in the wild. This is just my thoughts. But as I said, I agree security is important.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 30, 2019 17:58:15

Bitrefill offers gift cards for Steam. Payable with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, both on-chain and via Lightning Network.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 30, 2019 15:08:44

Oh, sure. But anyone can run a node. I do. If you want to try to guess at what happens in a world where crypto becomes more restricted by various governements, I encourage you to envision a world of larger blocks via Tor network. Being able to run via Tor is an extremely important reason to not grow bandwidth reqirements or increase latency sensitivity too much.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 30, 2019 14:58:44

Not more so than BCH. Any miner is free to mine any transaction he wants, and ignore the others. No lightning node that engage in censoring will remain a large or significant node. Can censorship happen? Sure. Can it happen without activity moving away from it? Not likely.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 30, 2019 14:22:20

That probably means someone restored data they shouldn't have restored, and force-closed with an old channel state. Your node discovered this, and was able to claim the full amount of money in the channel. What node software do you use? If you use lnd, can you see it in ***lncli closedchannels*** ? Can you see a positive amount corresponding (roughly, remember there is fees) to the channel capacity in ***lncli listchaintxns*** ? In short: Your node will police your channel partner, making sure no earlier valid close transactions are submitted to the blockchain. There's time locks here, making sure your node has at least a day (growing with channel capacity, usually) to claim the money.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/lightningnetwork on December 30, 2019 07:50:17

You can not in honesty claim that the users should *never* have to do some research, to learn? With great power comes great responsibility. "Be your own bank" is fine, but you can't expect to be hand-held and protected from your own mistakes, when dealing with crypto. With that mindset, are you sure that you are not better off staying in the banking world?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 30, 2019 06:25:12

YOu are talking like a confirmation equals a confirmation. The reality is that PoW matters. BCH security is extremely slow. []( tells you the facts.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 29, 2019 14:19:46

You do know that none of those sources are updated with new info? Did you know that most of those 4 BTC lost has been recovered, btw? The loss happened because of incompetence, not because of LN faults. \- He failed to upgrade his node as new versions come with bug fixes. This lead to important reliability and backup features lagging behind. \- He failed to ask for help, but decided to mess up even more, once he was in trouble. Eventually, he received help. I'm not exactly sure how much was recoverable, but it was at least over 3 BTC last I heard. It's simply dishonest to keep using these stories without updating them as new information comes.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 29, 2019 13:23:03

I have answered him. Long ago. I - and everyone else - know that you need a channel to receive bitcoins via lightning, so that's the direction the discussion took - how to get channels and incoming liquidity on a cell phone wallet (and not only Lightning Labs' wallet). And you need a reality check. Reddit is way beyond much other things in my life. And you rarely provide any interesting things to discuss on reddit, even, so discussions with you tend to fade out.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 29, 2019 13:12:34

Ok. Since you are running the underwriting business too, do you have any statistics as to how many keep it and how many exchange immediately? Btw - I do think that using low-fee payment coins make sense, for those who feel LN is not quit there yet. But *my* belief is that volatility towards BTC - which aims for maximum security, maximum decentralization etc - will make people want to do the tradeoffs on 2nd layers of BTC instead of on different coins.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 29, 2019 13:02:22

Are they truly receiving BCH - with all its volatility risks? Or are they sheltered from the volatility of BCH by your underwriting service?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 29, 2019 11:12:15

I didn't know you were paying me for the service of replying you. Do you want an LN invoice for that? (This reply delayed nearly 10 minutes by the downvoting-army of r/btc. That has also previously made me having to skip replying to r/btc comments).

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 29, 2019 10:53:32

You need incoming liquidity, yes. Lightning Labs' wallet is perhaps not the easiest to get incoming liquidiity technically. for example "Bitcoin Lightning Wallet" allows the mobile wallet to open the tcp connection while the other end funds the channel. This is what Thor (a place you can pay for incoming liquidity) uses, see [http]([s://]( Another possibility is of course to get bitcoin onchain and let the wallet (Lightning Labs' mobile wallet has autopilot enabled) can open outgoing channels automatically. It's of course also possible to open an outgoing channel and use for example Lightning Loop to push some of that to the other end, and receive on-chain bitcoin back. LN is good for instant and so far relatively low-value transaction, more typically in a retail setting. If Lightning Labs' wallet gets the same "connect-but-don't fund-channel"-functionality, I'll gladly give you a few 100k incoming liquidity from my LND node. Or, if you select BLW instead (although I myself prefer Lightning Labs' wallet, probably because I've been more involved in LND developement, even with some code). Some of this is fixable with better UX, but some things are inherent in LN of course.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 29, 2019 10:43:00

Sorry. Was interruoted by life. Like, actually going out for some beers with friends.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 29, 2019 05:35:52

How is that any more different than recommending cointext for small amounts? Myself, I tend to stay away from custodial wallets, so I use Lightning Labs' mobile wallet nowadays. It's based on lnd (from Lightning Labs) and Neutrino, and fully non-custodial. (Tho, I can understand those that say funds in lightning channels are shared custody. It's all about tradeoffs)

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 28, 2019 12:25:44

I would argue that it's custodial enough, maybe even worse than custodial: the entropy of the private keys are greatly reduced. Anyone that got hold of the algorithm and data to generate private keys from phone numbers would have a great start at guessing private keys holding coins. Probably a fine tradeoff for small sums of coins, but for educational aspects, anyone should understand the above before they actually use cointext for anything serious.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 28, 2019 07:26:54

Sort of. &#x200B; In any channel state update, you sign off on a proof that the previous channel state update is now invalid. (This a bit simplified, but that is the effect). Anyone that wants to dispute this just need to submit that proof to the blockchain. That proof is embedded in smart contracts that for example allows this job to be outsourced to watchtowers.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/lightningnetwork on December 27, 2019 09:20:24

there are actual analysises of this.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 23, 2019 16:55:02

You must be kidding. Just look at the bitcoin core repo. Only a minority of contributions come from people employed by Blockstream.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 23, 2019 14:32:25

Actually, no. Tho I can see where it came from, XT being run in the wild with a dangerously low hardfork activation level. I am not really a Blockstream fan as such, though they finance some development.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 23, 2019 13:48:47

I don't think 1MB is better than 0.8MB, and give true consensus, I'd Even accept 2MB. I'm perhaps not a true maximalist. What would be a loss would be if 2MB could happen through a backroom deal. Bitcoin is hard to change, and that is how it should be.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 23, 2019 11:16:45

And in one long post, you summarize pretty well why BCH supporters continue to be regarded as the nutcases of crypto. Only surpassed by BSV supporters. You have not \*one\* technical reason why BCH is better than BTC, or symptoms of BTC being hijacked. It \*all\* - yes \*all\* - hinges on your assumption that the purpose of bitcoin is to allow as much low-fee transactions as possible on the blockchain. The very reason we can still argue about this today is because Satoshi was not exactly clear on this issue. He was good at the technical issues, solving double spend with PoW at the same time as you guarantee against centrally-control-induced inflaction was the invention. Satoshi was on a learning trip as much as the rest of us. The only ones refusing to acknowledge that we might have learnt quite a bit since Satoshi left, are you - along with the BSV crowd.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 23, 2019 09:07:19

You are right, unless custodial wallets themselves publish this info, there's no real way to know. When you receive a payment, you don't know who the sender is, so there's no way to know if it's custodial or not. Neither can a routing node truly know. Sure, there's going to be tons of people doing analysis and estimates, but fact is you only know which channel it want in through and which it went out through. I myself is a believer of the "not your keys, not your coins" saying, so apart from just trying out for a look at the UX, I haven't used custodial LN wallets. My favourite mobile LN-wallet nowadays is Lightning Labs' mobile wallet, but I understand that there's quite a few slick non-custodial wallets on the table nowadays. But the end of the day, it's up to any crypto-user how to manage their crypto habits. Custodial? Not for me, but I am 100% sure that we'll for the foreseeable future find a lot of people not up to the responsibility of managing their own keys.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 23, 2019 07:34:35

RBF can not be added \*after\* a transaction is spent. It's true that if a parent transation is RBF, then the transaction itself has to be considereed RBF too. However, it is possible to determine 100% reliable if a transaction can be RBFed, using no more than your own node. Doublespend in general, however, have only one 100% foolproof remedy: Waiting for the 1st confirmation. That is, if you are not using LN. With LN, you are in total control over your own security, only your own operational routines set the limits of your transaction security. Ignoring bugs, of course. It'd be dishonest to claim bugs can't happen, in any system based on software.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 23, 2019 07:22:39

Depends what goal is. Mine is to create the most secure, decentralized and trustless money ever seen.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 22, 2019 16:47:38

I know narrative here depends on people believing LN is failing. In reality? LN development is progressing nicely. Latest development is atomic multipath payments, that is on its way into all the main LN wallet software implementations now. But I know. BCH depends on LN failing. Good luck with that.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 22, 2019 13:18:21

No, it's certainly not fine. Which is why on-chain \*sucks\* for instant transactions, and which is the reason why Samson Mow said Bitcoin is a horrible payment system. Lightning Network is created to solve this problem, make a good payment system on top of bitcoin. Travelbybit simply removed 0-conf onchain, while LN is still usable. It's natural progress, and onchain 0-conf will likely lose out to LN as LN matures.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 22, 2019 12:37:47
/r/btc/comments/edel6j/how_to_understand_watchtowers_for_bitcoin_core/fblo1q8/'s fine to rely on altruistic miners? But not to rely on potentially paid services?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 21, 2019 17:04:45

....So are you? I have *never* ever claimed that there are not tradeoffs with using LN. To claim that there's no security tradeoffs by using BCH, like is usual here, is the dishonesty.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 21, 2019 04:36:01

You can run your own watchtower if you like. No need for a third party. I've seen no need for a watchtower yet, either, but eventually I guess I'll use one - it's mostly game theory that make me need one, because noone should opportunistically be able to guess that he can do fraud if I've been away for a while.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 20, 2019 15:52:44

The first is actually the correct result. Did you check pendingchannels afterwards?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/lightningnetwork on December 20, 2019 02:16:43

Here is my take, and why I am a "BTC maximalist": We need to focus on keeping the security and the decentralization. Not only this year or this decade, "pushing off" the fee market is not a solution. The mythical mass adoption *might* not really come. I believe making the most decentralized, most secure form of money is the primary goal. Yes, this *might* even have limiting effects on the capacity. At the same time, I think working on 2nd layers to increase the capacity will be a worthwhile effort. Not to replace on-chain. On-chain will *always* remain the most secure (and most decentralized) way. We need to work on 2nd layers to *keep* the on-chain properties that way. As for user experience and "ways of transactions", I am a realist. At a very personal level, I very much believe in the "not your keys, not your coins" mantra. I don't use custodial wallets. But this mantra is probably not really grandma-safe. Mass adoption will happen in a multitude of ways (if ever), and custodial solution will *surely* have some demand from some segments of people. And where there's demand, someone will provide it. So, no: I don't believe in this "let's take the payments segment now!" is as important as working on building up the infrastrucure to be as ready as possible for the *real* demand out there. Looking at all these BCH adoption success stories and comparing it with the transaction statistics also tells me that the demand for serious retail just is not there yet. We have time. Focus on long-term improvements, work on getting 2nd layers as good as possible, so that we *are* ready if/when the real demand comes. But there's no need to do much marketing, really. If people need bitcoin, the demand will come.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 17, 2019 09:49:54

This is actually a problem BCH has. The future security of BCH very much depends upon taking an extremely large chunk of the payments market. This is a bit of a catch-22, if you ask me. For this to happen, one of two things have to happen: 1) FIAT has to fail completely. 2) BCH has to become "worse money" than fiat, so that people are incentivized to spend it first. But for this to help, they'd actually have to own and get new BCH regularly, and it's not something I expect is going to be normal in quite a while yet. Of course, in the case of 2, noone will really bother with crypto, so it's only #1 that is the realistic scenario where BCH could win. Now, I \*do\* agree that getting a foothold in countries where fiat \*is\* bad is doable, but in countries where fiat works pretty well, it's going to be a hard sell to get other than enthusiast to use crypto for payments.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 17, 2019 07:18:27

Fine with me. It's all optional

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 1, 2019 16:29:22

Yes, but in the meantime - you are perfectly fine selling coffee cups, computers, whatever - validating against unknown rules because you are using SPV? They likely can't pull it off, but it *can* cost you money.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 1, 2019 14:54:20

I have ran LND since march 2018. I can seriously say that most of the hassles he went through was because he did not do his research. u/ZipoTm would likely agree. I have never felt the need to have 4 BTC in LN channels. I have enough that losing them would be sad, but not enough that it'd ruin me. Still, I have done my research, so: I copy off the SCBs that are \*automatically\* generated when channels are opened or closed. This can be totally automated. I have never once had to use it, but I have practised using it on the testnet. As anyone getting to know a technology should do. I don't run a UPS. If I had one, I would put my LND node on it, though. I have lost power numerous times, but so far it's no problem at all. And in the worst case, I have the SCB that I know how to use. I am always patient and checks the status of my node before I do anything rash as force-closing channels. I always check logs instead of panicking. &#x200B; This has served me good for soon 2 years, now. &#x200B; Conclusion: When using new technology, you are always expected to do your research. Especially when it's labelled experimental still.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 1, 2019 14:23:50

Which would you use? Most other coins lose value in relation to BTC, so storing your coins in it makes you lose money per default.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on December 1, 2019 14:06:26

Much of it is. There has actually been quite a few UX-related fixes going into LND after this. I think this experience, as much as losing access to money is never fun, has also helped showing where it needs improvement, and where we need to add additional failsafes.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on December 1, 2019 14:04:11

Tether affects all of crypto. I have no maths that say how it affects price. It's nice FUD, though. Personally, I avoid both tether *and* tether-exposed exchanges. That's basically all I can do. As for the rest, I have all respect for the whitepaper. However, it is not a bible, it doesn't preclude learning as things play out. Satoshi himself was on a learning trip and changed several things from when he wrote the whitepaper. Anyone referring to the whitepaper as a description on how incentives and economics works demonstrates a lack of knowledge. It was a very good technical starting point, but we still have a lot to learn.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 1, 2019 13:58:12

You keep saying that. But what if it is you that does not know how bitcoin works. Remind me how Segwit2X could fail again, and how Segwit could activate. I'll give you a hint: Hash rate follows price.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 1, 2019 13:37:20

I'll tell you how the fuck it works: Coinbase will run its own node and not blindly accept miners coins because they, *too*, need to sell their bitcoins. They, too, risk not being able to sell their coins if they accept invalid bitcoins. The more people that run an independent node from miners to validate their transactions, the more risk is there to just "blindly trust the miners", and the more advantage will there be in running your own node, validating the transactions against the protocol you know is bitcoin. In such a case, where the majority of people validate their transactions using their own node, miners that just change the protocol like that risk mining worthless (or, at the very less much less worth) coins. As shown by the futures markets for example for Segwit2X - if you don't gain commuity support, your coin will be less worth. And this is what creates the incentive for miners to stay honest, We can not, in the long run, rely on miners being "inherently good". History is ripe with example of people taking bad decisions for short-term gains.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 1, 2019 13:11:08

...which is why not only this is important, but also the ability to run open source mobile phones, the ability to run bitcoin over tor - and anything else that increases privacy. Incidentally, the tor requirement increases the argument for small blocks. Tor increases network latency etc. by quite a bit, so if we get into "adverse governement conditions", we're pretty much fucked if we have built us into a blockchain that can no longer be ran over Tor.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 1, 2019 12:59:54

Right now, it requires quite a bit of knowledge to do it safely. But it's actually not all that unsafe if you have that knowledge. But I'd not put life-altering amounts of money in LN yet.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on December 1, 2019 12:51:31

You can still lose your private key.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on December 1, 2019 12:49:52

It doesn't have to be quietly. If all economic activity is validated by mining full nodes, then miners have all the power. If they have to sell/spend their coins to people using their own full node to validate, then they don't have all the power anymore. It's pretty simple, but also, seemingly hard to grasp.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 1, 2019 12:47:32

As always, you are right. But do you think this is a realistic scenario? Do you think there would be consensus enough for a softfork? I personally believe we'll have to survive a few years of too large blocks, after which the technlogy will have caught up enough that 1 MB is small enough. But I'm an optimist. But, I also think it would be extremely foolish to increase blocksize to prolong the time we need to wait for technology to catch up.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 1, 2019 11:28:19

Yes, you are right. But from a profit view, is it in a miners interest to do it? Given that people rarely have a multi-year/multi-decade economic perspective. We can not "force" miners to decrease the block size without a hard fork. And miners will likely always be selfish. Which is why we need to keep the incentives correct.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 1, 2019 11:18:21

No. \*Some\* people involved in Core development have theoritized over those two things. Personally, I think reducing blocksize to 300KB will never gain consensus. It has much less chance than a block size increase in the future. I understand what u/luke-jr means, I applaud him for being consistent, but that it will never gain consensus is an \*extremely\* good argument against just mindlessly increasing blocksize. Once done, reducing it again will likely never be possible, so if we discover that "oops! that was too much", we have destroyed the bitcoin we have. And contrary to you, I believe we are in no hurry to reach a decision here. Any delays in blocksize increase will - as we have seen the past year or two - only encourage people to use block size more responsibly. And that is an undeniable win. As for inflation? That was just someone thinking loud over what happens if fees are not enough to provide security. I believe BCH will have that problem much before BTC. Either that, or they get to the "constant full huge blocks" that they need to pay for security, thereby achieving the status of paypal 2.0, with just a few large mining pools validating the blockchain.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 1, 2019 11:05:18

3. You want to have a possibility to consciously \*choose\* what part of the hard fork is the true bitcoin. Bitcoin is \*all about\* giving people power over their own money. That also comes with responsibilities, for taking their own decisions.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 1, 2019 10:52:10

This statement is what *really* puzzles me? How can you not understand that the more people can say "that's not bitcoin!", the more can we trust bitcoin to remain bitcoin? Reducing the "network" to just mining nodes reduces it to a mere paypal 2.0. That might have been the bitcoin you subscribed to, it's not the bitcoin I subscribed to.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 1, 2019 10:39:46

In my opinion, there's various degrees, here. We can never force anyone to run a full node. Forcing never works. That's not why I am into bitcoin, either. Instead, it's all about incentives. The decentralization and trustless of bitcoin gets better the higher percentage of people \*that receive transactions\* runs a full node. This is pretty logical, because running a full node gives you more power to validate the transactions you receive. Since there is no direct monetary incentive to run a full node, we need this to be not overly expensive, so that more people find the extra effort/resources worth it. In my opinion, in these cell phone times, we need for bandwith, cpu, memory etc. to catch up so much that it's a sensible option to run a full node on a cell phone. Madness? You might believe so. I say it's a laudable goal. Making it harder to run a full node is to play risky games with the trustlessness of the most secure, most audited form of money in the world.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on December 1, 2019 10:29:40

I don't really see how it would work. By incentives, I presume you mean monetary incentives. There's already an incentive to running a full node. There's certain types of malicious on-chain activity that you can only catch by running a full node. If someone breaks the protocol, you are in full right to say "Nope! That's not bitcoin! No coffee for you!". Anyone running a full node to receive transactions is doing that. Sure, as an individual user, you aren't having as much impact as i.e. coinbase, but it is nevertheless extremely important that people choose to do. I don't think we'll get to the point where everybody choose to run a full node, but we need to make it a sensible - i.e not too costly option. If it eats too much of a standard broadband connection, it's too costly. If it needs its own hard disk, it might be too costly for some, Then, you have all the cell phones. I have one noble goal: We should get to the point where it's actually a sensible option to run a full node (but probably pruned) on a cell phone. And why is this important? It's not really important for *the network* as such. It's important for the economics incentives - everyone controls everyone. Every full node is *constantly* auditing the economy. If you were an econmist, you'd probably see this as huge. And an economic system need transparent auditing. It's the *very reason* we don't really trust fiat. It's not transparent, and it has only a few entities that can control it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 30, 2019 06:12:44

Herein lies the belief we have. I believe it's crucial that we have a healthy number of diverse players in the space volountarily running a full node to validate their own (and others) transactions. Will people do that with 100MB blocks? Seen from the blockchain, I believe the BCH opinion is that it's unneccesary. But I think that we *need* incentives for everyone, including miners, to be "watched" by someone. We do *not* want miners to replace the central bank, simply.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 29, 2019 15:11:37

There was never 4 BTC stolen from the lightning network. Please do your research.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 29, 2019 00:58:04

Well, there's this thing called markets. I think you are well aware that the exact same things are sold to different persons at different prices at a lot of places in the world. We need enough fees to cover security, but if someone decides to pay a fee of $1000 because it's *extremely* important that his $1000 000 go through in next block, then he is contributing more than he needs. This is more of a problem in BCH, which stated goal is to have "as high capacity as possible", and strives to not let block size be a limit. This strategy will never give any incentive to add more than 1 sat/b for anyone. Exercise for your mind: try to calculate how many 1 sat/b transactions you need to maintain security on BCH blockchain, a halving or two down the road.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 28, 2019 09:00:16

Non-custodial LN removes a lot of the time-preference for the onchain transactions. When spending on LN, my fees for instant transactions are not dependent upon the next-block onchain fee. LN and other such offchain mechansisms will use caoacity in low-traffic times. Already today, people create LN channels with low fees, not really minding waiting a day or two for it to go through.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 28, 2019 08:23:24

Yes, we agree. We need to improve on that before we are "ready for world domination". But we absolutely don't have to improve on all that on the blockchain. We have LN. It's improving every day. We have sidechains like Liquid, for those not needing as much trustlessness as main chain gives them. It's all about the tradeoffs. Bitcoin ecosystem is and will continue to be full of them. We just need to make sure the main chain stays sound, secure, decentralized and easy to validate.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 28, 2019 07:51:29

Segwit is actually using a mechanism that Satoshi himself said had to be there to allow for new transaction types without a hardfork. Look it up: The 1MB hard fork was instated by Satoshi himself, and he did not say under what conditiions it would be safe to remove them. I actually sat down last christmas, reading cronologically Satoshis writing. The outcome? Satoshi was at at learning trip as much as anyone else. He want from "transactions should be free" to "you can pay a fee if you really want to", to "it would be good if we could allow some free transactions through". Towards the end of his involvement, his last comment I saw about blocksize related issues, was in the discission about other data on the blockchain. He stated clearly "Someone using bitcoin for payments would prefer smaller blocks". Not in those exact words, but look it up? My point? The only plan we are following is to create the most secure, most distributed currency in the world, free of central manipulation.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 28, 2019 07:40:47

You might believe that, and that is fine with me. I don't necessarily agree, but we don't have to agree on everything. If that is your argument, then you should argue for noone using the name bitcoin. Not for randomly picking BCH, that you yourself admitted has deviated from bitcoin whitepaper, and argue that this is the real bitcoin.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 28, 2019 07:24:04

I actually think measuring "how much bitcoin it is" by how closely we are following the whitepaper to be a prettty stupid idea. That said, BTC follows whitepaper pretty good. And I don't know your reason for peddling the notion that it is not P2P cash. BTC works at is has always done: Pay enough fee and you will likely be in the first block (i.e. within approximately 10 minutes).

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 28, 2019 07:08:06

Satoshi was very clear and to the point that it was strictly necessary that longest chain always being considered the correct one. Since BCH now uses rolling checkpoints and will manually decide in case there is a fork lasting 11 bloicks or more, I assume you will stop using the bitcoin name?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 28, 2019 06:42:47

This? This is just an interest. I have a pretty decently paid IT-job, even when I only work regular hours. But it has nothing to do with bitcoin. I got an enquiry whether I wanted to work with LN, not long ago. I turned it down, though, because I am quite happy keeping it a hobby, and quite like my current job. So no. Noone pays me for my opinions.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 26, 2019 14:38:30

Nothing is guaranteed, we are pretty much in agreement there. The fee market theory is pretty much known, though. It's bad for security to have a "fees should always be almost 0" as a strategy. Security has a cost, and transactions will have to cover it. It *really* is simple. What's your plan to increase security on BCH chain? Have you done the math? HOw many transactions will you need after next halving? The halving after? Remember: "capacity should not be the limit", so 1 sat/b should be the norm then too. BCH lacks security *now*, and future? How is your plan to restore security?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 26, 2019 10:39:49

But you lack security. You have good enough security for small transactions, but totally lack in the large transactions area. This says that BTCs 6 confirmations equals 209 confirmations, or *over a day*, on the BCH blockchain. BCH may be cheap, but it has *slow* security. BTC has fast security, but it has a cost in fees. BTC users have accepted that.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 26, 2019 10:29:52

LN is optional Watchtowers are optional. Looping out is optional. BTC onchain will always be there. Works 100% of the time. But you have to pay the cost. Bitcoin is no charity, and not a "free service provider".

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 26, 2019 10:13:10

Yet, this sub praises TipprBot, CoinText and other 3rd party services...built on top of bitcoin cash? Stop with the hypocrisy. There's \*nothing\* wrong with providing optional services on top of a free base layer. Btw: LN is optional. You know that. On-chain will always be possible, but it \*does\* have a cost. Fun exercise: Try to calculate how many 1 sat/b transactions you need to have on BCH to replace lost security, one or two halvings down the road.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 26, 2019 10:03:09

oh, but you can. You're likely to have to use a swap service to swap it to onchain funds. There's no need to close the channel, though, maybe you want to keep it open to have the extra incoming liquidity. The most prominent of them in "Lightning Loop", a servive from Lightning Labs.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 26, 2019 09:50:34

Forcing consensus is what is sabotage, if there's no consensus to increase it but you go ahead to do it? What are you then? A *central bank*. Changes come about as part of broad consensus, not because some central committee says so. I also don't think it's realistic to onboard the whole world on todays scaling. But I also think that this "world adoption, now!" is totally premature. We build the ecosystem so that we become as good as possible for the criteria we have, but there's no need for a rushed world-wide adoption. Bitcoin should be there for those who need and volountarily choose it...forced adoption? Gah. Where's the freedom in that? No, bitcoin is there for those who need it. But they need to be willing to pay the cost, do their research, and all that comes with it. Bitcoin isn't a charity, it's money. And no ship has sailed. The same way you are puzzled as to how 2X could fail will you not even grasp it why consensus can *actually* change. But change comes slowly, and only after most people (no, not most miners only) understand that it's needed, and that it's needed sooner rather than later. Right now, I think we have a lot of optimizations to do before we raise the block size. I am patient. But in the meantime, I believe in maximum decentralization, maximum centralization, and transaction capacity given within those limits.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 26, 2019 09:27:26

What you need to understand, is that the blocksize is not made small just so that LN is necessary, it's the other way around. We already *know* that a smaller block size is better for the decentralization. That's not even in dispute, though we can disagree on where the optimal "tradeoff point" is. So, what do we do? We create solutions that are trustless enough and enables instant transactions that will be independent of actual onchain fees, at the time of the LN transactions. Yes, wallets and people need to be a bit smart about what time they do their onchain traffic. Now, if fees *never* go down, we're in a bit different situation, I want to emphasize that we haven't so far been in that situation, and are currently not even close. But what if? Well, then those doing their channel management best will be in a better position that those who don't. Do we increase the block size beyond the "safe limit"? I'd say. no. In *my* - and a lot of other peoples - opinion,trustlessness, security is way ahead of capacity of importance. Note: Also in the BTC camp, we recognize that computers get better. It's just that moores law has *slowed* significantly - and this is also a fact that isn't really in dispute. So, do we rule out a block size increase? I think noone does. But it's in the future, now is not the time. Now is time for more optimization. Because smaller is *always* better. But of course there is a limit - I don't think a lot of people will agree to u/luke-jr proposal of 300kb. I am fine with that, but I also know that in a way, he *is* right. I do, however, believe that computers/internet etc. will catch up with block size at some point, so that the situation will become better again. So, for me: Increasing capacity if it hurts decentralization and peoples ability to validate, then that's a no-no. In my opinion, *money you can validate* is almost the *whole* value proposition of bitcoin. Take away that, and you're in "paypal 2.0" territory. Now, I am an enthusiast, I would probably handle 32 MB blocks. But what level of internet connection do you think is fine to reduce to "customers of paypal 2.0"? Because in my opinion, that is what we are talking of when we are speaking of increasing block size too much. And yes, I am aware that LN will never be as trustless or as decentralized (for some values) as onchain. But that is also the whole point - do the tradeoffs on layer 2, but *keep* a trustlessness-maximized level 1, so that at least we have that option and can use it smarter. Buying coffee cups was never the silver bullet for bitcoin anyway for me, but I admit it can be sort of fun. I do currently spend, but I choose LN wherever I can. This got kind of long and not so structured. Your "what if" doesn't change a lot to me, because I don't think sacrificing decentralization and validation for capacity is the right choice anyway.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 26, 2019 07:57:05

That's your assumption. I never had that assumption. Normal people will hit the blockchain. But first block confirmations is and will be a premium service.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 26, 2019 03:59:52

1. Probably, I'd wait until they went down. That's the beauty of LN, it lowers your time preference for onchain transactions. 2. Yes but why would I not be? Who in their right mind would peer with a censoring node? There's going to be competition for this. 3. Every LN channel and even every transaction has an onchain anchor that you can fully validate. Every state in LN is, in fact, immediately submittable to the blockchain. Though there are cases of time locks for safety reasons.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 25, 2019 12:10:26

I agree that they are about as factual as the rest of your posts/comments.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 25, 2019 09:09:05

Hey, I am not into conspiracy theories. I am into facts.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 25, 2019 08:52:33

Fine. There was a softfork for BTC introducing Segwit. Since it was non contentious, it's a straight line, there is no "alternative" variant that came out of the fork.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 25, 2019 08:33:19

It was a softfork, and you know it. It was also a non-contentious fork. Do you also count BCH (spring 2018), BCH (automn 2018), BCH (spring 2019), BCH (automn 2019) as different and equal forks?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 25, 2019 08:18:41

Bitcoin Core is not a fork, it's a software client (that happens to follow the protocol consensus for bitcoin). As does Bitcoin Knots, btw, and a few others. Or, do you also want to treat Bitcoin ABC and Bitcoin Unlimited as different forks?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 25, 2019 08:07:56

So...all forks are equal? And BSV is an equal of BCH, too? What about Clashic?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 25, 2019 07:57:59

So, how does this flipping math works? When iẗ́'s worth 50% of BTC, BTC is still worth 100% more than BCH. Percentages are weird, that way.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 24, 2019 12:33:13

I see the fundamental difference like this: \- BCH supporters want to replace FIAT, and can't do it fast enough. They see this as the main goal, and a "slow and careful" approach is simply not accetable. &#x200B; \- BTC supporters wants to be an alternative that people can go to when \*they\* are ready to ditch the fiat system. There's no "forcing" here, no war. We just need to create a sound and viable alternative, ready for people to use when they come to that conclusion on their own. &#x200B; I am firmly in the last camp, I believe we can afford a couple of years of development on the LN/sidechains/effectiveness-bandwagon now, before we need to worry about block size increases. &#x200B; As I see it, after BCH forked off, BTC development is progressing nicely. Not necessary as fast as BCH, but in the right direction, and slow and careful instead of fast and reckless. &#x200B; Slow and careful has its time. The properties of "money for the future" might just be one of them.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 23, 2019 01:10:51

I have obviously read the whitepaper numerous times. Don't lie. I admit it, my article wasn't dead serious. Duh. No shit sherlock. I wrote it to make people think about what is important. Is it important that everything you build in the bitcoin ecosystem emulates cash? Is it ok if we make compromises, as long as we make it trustless \*enough\* for the use case? You and I have totally different opinions on how the bitcoin ecosystem actually works. But, you are the one who have to resort to conspiracy theories to explain how bitcoin has not yet got bigger blocks, and that segwit 2x failed. To me, explanation is pretty simple, it is all about the economics. My opinion is that the failure of segwit2x was a victory because it proved bitcoin was immune to backroom deals. It's dead simple: Hash rate follows price. If everything points to Segwit2X being valued less than the alternative, then miners will follow the price. \*Dead\* simple. The innovative thing about NO2X signaling and UASF isn't really that they "forced" the miners to not hard-fork, it was that they had a tool to use to signal pre-valuation of the hardfork. Hash rate follows price. This is the basis of almost everything. So, what does that have to do with everything? Yes, it means that we need to make sure \*not\* to raise the bar to participate in this ecosystem. BCH ecosystem believes only miners matters/should matter. BTC ecosystem has understood that this is false, and want to make sure it stays false. It's not that we believe miners is evil. It's because we believe neither developers, nor users nor miners of bitcoin should have too much power. We want a more than healthy amount of people with the power of keeping miners honest - not alone, but collectively. Like in NO2X. So, this "should work like cash" as a dogma is bullshit. Not if it decreases decentralization and security. That said, I am all for systems allowing people to make tradeoff. In LN, we trade a little bit of trustlessness (it is still trustless enough for its use case), we changes the security model a bit (requiring a bit more onlineness). in return for instant finality (as seen by LN). In Liquid, people trade trustlessness against guaranteed 1 minute block times. Never used it, might \*try\* it just for the experiment, but don't see I have the use case. So, my post was made to provoke some "muh, the whitepaper says" comments. The whitepaper was a mighty fine start, but bitcoin is what the bitcoin community wants it to be. Don''t ever let anyone tell you that "bitcoin was meant to be" something. Your bitcoins are yours to do as you please with.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 22, 2019 15:19:37

I am not pro-blockstream, I am pretty indifferent to Blockstream. But they provide some fundings for developers, I wish them happiness in their pursuit of creating supplementary services that bitcoin doesn't fulfill. I don't really expect to have use for any of them myself, though. Segwit was a much needed improvement that made it much easier and safer to build offchain mechanisms, that I believe is a large key of feature scaling of the ecosystem.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 22, 2019 10:20:23
/r/btc/comments/e024ta/features_bch_needs_to_implement_to_function_more/f8bfi7m/ - in other words, it's ok to deviate from the "is digital cash" for the features you don't want to implement, but not for others? Just trying to understand what criteria you use for deeming where you can deviate from this, or not.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 22, 2019 10:13:59

No, and the shop doesn't need to worry that the money disappears because you spend them somewhere else, either. Fact is: Cryptocurrencies and methods to transact them *are* of course different than physical cash.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 22, 2019 09:08:00

I have \*no\* idea where this notion comes from. Someone need to open a channel with you, with more than you want to receive. A shop might want to pay a fee to a service to open a channel. A hobbyist would likely have a friend open a channel to him. But no, you do not need to have money to receive money. And if you pay out - maybe using swap services to get on-chain bitcoin, or paying for your expenses again using bitcoin, you will not have to "keep adding money".

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 22, 2019 01:45:16

I know this is the narrative here. But if mass adoption ends up hurting the other properties? Then, you are full speed ahead towards PayPal 2.0.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 18, 2019 16:24:32

You are not totally wrong, but it's a feature. Nevertheless, we are on the route to get features like Schnorr and MAST soonish. Since you are on a hard-fork schedule, I know you are able to change faster. But it's also that your ecosystem of decision stakeholders, are much smaller. In \*my\* book, something that can have a hard-fork schedule at all is pretty centralized. Nevertheless, future hard-forks are not out of the question, but it has to be quite evident that there is no way without doing it. And I doubt we will ever agree to jeapardize decentralization and security goals on the sake of mass-adoption. Noone that is into bitcoin (as in BTC) nowadays believe that is priority one, most of those went your way - BCH. Which is fine with me, I believe we can still have quite a bit of meaningful scaling off-chain at the same time as we don't jeaopardize the on-chain properties that is most important to us.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 18, 2019 13:23:29

This is the reason RBF was invented.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on November 17, 2019 10:24:04

Was anything I said wrong? And please leave faketoshi out of it. He was outed as a fraud in the BTC community *long* before large parts of the BCH community decided to support him. I have nothing to do with BSV, I largely consider it to be a more shitshow than BCH. So at least you have that.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 15, 2019 08:46:17

This isn't strictly correct. You \*can\* still have 11 block reorgs. I'll admit not too likely, but with the block time variations we see on BCH nowadays...who knows? The correct answer is: The BCH blockchain has the tool built in to \*manually\* decide to roll on with the chain that "someone" decides is the correct one. The other chain won't magically disappear because of this checkpoint though, so in reality a fork is created. &#x200B; THis does, however, create a new question: If there is an 11 block reorg, who gets to decide which chain is the correct one?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 15, 2019 08:34:39

This is quite easy to answer. &#x200B; []( has this, based on math. The real question should not be "why does BCH require more than BTC", the real question should be "why do BCH not require even more?". PoW doesn't lie. We have the data. Someone has done the math.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 15, 2019 08:23:50

The fee market wasn't a decision as such, it's a natural development and even a necessity for the security. Have you attempted to do the calculations of how large blocks would actually be on BCH when you have to replace block reward with fees? If block size should never be the limitation, will we assume that 1 sat/b will be enough for first-block also in the feature? If so, then I encourage you to do some rough math as to how many transactions you need to have within a couple of halvings to maintain security - and how this affects decentralization onchain. For cash? I use what is most economic sensible, I use what money I don't expect to hold its value, and I hold onto what I believe will appreciate value. I am not super-rich, and of course I would like more freedom, economically, in the feature. Like everyone else. That said, I believe in peoples right to use whatever money they want as cash, so I believe in solutions to make it easier to use bitcoin as cash. But there'd have to evolve more economic incentives - like discounts for using crypto (because there's no credit card fees involved) - to get people to use it in a massive way. That said, I do spend bitcoin regularly, but not for most of my daily spendings. My grocery shop doesn't take bitcoin, and my girlfriend would totally kill me if we limited our social life to places that takes bitcoin. Most of my cash-spendings in bitcoin, I have moved to LN these days, because it's quicker, saves fees, and generally more convenient for me.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 15, 2019 01:03:08

> > But you are again doing the mistake that keeps you prefering BCH. You are comparing it to visa and paypal, and ignoring the "sound money for the world" aspect of it. > I never said any of that. You just made a straw man argument that you go on to challenge using this as your foil. If you don't wish to discuss the content, don't bother. Well. Let me give you another one: It's not easy to mine for gold. It's much easier to dig out dirt. Does this mean that mining equipment "would work better" with mining for dirt? It's kind of meaningless, just as it's meaningless to say that LN would work better on BCH. That may be so, but I am interested in using it for transfering value on (well, off-chain, but cryptographically linked to) the most secure, most decentralized public ledger in the world. Why would BCH make it easier for me to do that? > > I believe sound money means it should be validated. > Surely... > > By as many people as possible, as often as possible. > Ah, well, that's just your opinion dude. You're damned right it's my opinion, but in a decentralized cryptocurrency, opinions matter. Metric says a super-majority agrees with me and almost noone with you. Does this make me right? Not necessarily, we might all be wrong. But bitcoin is fulfilling a purpose for all of those people. Whether that's HODLing, transacting on lightning network, large-sum settlements or anything else, that's *all* valid use cases for a currency. Noone has the right to tell anyone how "they are meant" to use their money, so to say that "bitcoin was meant to" fulfill one of the above use cases is flat out wrong. Bitcoin is meant to use it however you please, free of central manipulation. I believe the best way to ensure it continue to do that is to keep it the most secure, most decentralized, most validated blockchain in the world.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 14, 2019 02:11:01

As a 2nd layer in itself, it might work better atop of BCH - if BCH had a proper malleability fix (which I have heard said it is going to get). But you are again doing the mistake that keeps you prefering BCH. You are comparing it to visa and paypal, and ignoring the "sound money for the world" aspect of it. I believe sound money means it should be validated. By as many people as possible, as often as possible. This is what keeps the money sound. BCHs goals sacrifices this in the attempt to make the blocks as big as a datacenter node can run. For me, this isn't good enough. A cryptocurrency ecosystem doesn't get better by putting more data on the blockchain, it gets better by limiting the amount you \*have to\*. LN is good because it doesn't sacrifice this, it makes people do "unlimited transactions" on their own costs, paying the fees to those who route their transactions and not incurring costs on other people.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 13, 2019 01:43:30

There are ample ways to lose money in crypto, if you don't use it properly. At least we agree on that.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 13, 2019 01:33:24

I agree with you that the security properties and trustlessness is different than onchain. I just think that for it's use case , it is a mighty fine tradeoff. But as with any crypto mechanisms, it requires the user to take responsibility for his own actions, and do a minimum research about how it works.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 12, 2019 17:26:49

Of course it can. There's no real limit. Any transaction only happens between the participating nodes, so transactions can happen many places at once, and the larger it grows, the more transactions can it have.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 12, 2019 16:55:07

So, you are saying it's impossible to do stupid mistakes and lose your money with BCH? The first instance of loss, the 4 BTC, turned out to be a bit different than what's stated in the history, btw. Turns out that most (if not all) of the funds was sent back to that user in a normal force-close initiated by his channel partners, just waiting for him to be able to claim it. I am pretty sure it's technically possible, but the user is not very technically inclined, so it seems to take some time. But since he has the keys, time isn't really the issue here anymore. For channels created with the newest version of LND, he wouldn't even have had this problem - the protocol is slowly getting better, and the funds for a force-close from your channel partner now ends up in directly in the on-chain wallet, and will be reclaimable with a normal seed restore.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on November 4, 2019 07:43:27

1. It was never meant to replace all on-chain transactions. 2. Remains to be seen. They can censor,m but they will quickly *stop* being a large hub if they start to be. Anyone can be a hub, and if large hub censors, we'll see plenty of transactions routing around them. Plus: There's a limit to how much a "hub" knows about a transaction, so there's little knowledge they can use to discriminate. 3. You validate your own channels. *My* channels will always contain real bitcoins. I can't prevent people to enter into credit agreements with each others (there's no implementations of it that I know of, but I have of course heard the idea), but it's not based on nothing. They can't *print* bitcoin, they have to lend out liquidity from their outgoing channels.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 31, 2019 09:13:44

You need to understand this: Watchtowers are *mostly* an extra security precaution, game theory if you like. Right now, we're just starting to explore watchtowers, the LND implementation now doesn't even give anything to a watchtower, so right now it'll be mostly for your own usage - or perhaps mutual agreements. Eventually, and this is on the roadmap, watchtowers will be paid, they'll be able to take a share of the penalty transaction, etc. Sure, you still need to trust them to do so, but it's in their interest to do so. Sure, you need to trust that a watchtower is willing to do this - but that's all you need to trust. They *can't* take your money, they *can't* just publish penalty transactions out of order. For them to be able to publish a penalty transaction, there has to have been a fraudulent force close. This is due to how smart contracts in the commitment transactions are created in combination with what watchtowers get. But watchtowers is no replacement for your own OP-SEC. It's an added value, optional, and an important part of game theory in LN. The rest of your comment didn't make much sense. Custodial services have a *lot* more control over your bitcoin than a watchtower has. But contrary to you, I do think custodial is the choice *some* - maybe even *many* - will choose. Yes, we have to continue making the non-custodial solutions better, safer, easier to use. But some people will always want the hand-helding of having someone else managing that for them. It has nothing to do with LN, though, in itself.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 31, 2019 05:27:00

I dont think he intentionally lied - he simple didn't understand what happened.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on October 26, 2019 11:42:49

There is new information in the first case. There has not been found any case of this so-called theft. What has been found, though, is a lot of \*normally\* closed channels (at least a lot of them on october 2nd, including one on my node). What happened? The guy who alledgedly had his coins stolen started up his node with an old database. This is not in dispute. But he does not force close the channels, he starts it up and connects to his channel peers. The channel peers notices this, and due to the mechanism called "data loss prevention", they close the channels normally, sending the balances where they were due. In my channel, I have got my share back in the wallet after the time lock that was there to allow [u/ZipoTm]( to dispute the closure. His share of the channel is still sitting on the blockchain, waiting for him to move it back into his on-chain wallet. I have written about it here: [\_4\_btc\_on\_the\_lightning\_network\_is\_likely\_not/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x]( &#x200B; u/ZipoTm will get these coins and all the other coins back when he gets sorted out his node problems and do a real restore through his static channel backup. This channel backup is what holds the keys to sweep those funds back into his onchain wallet.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 26, 2019 06:14:25

You could have restored from static channel backups. Probably still can, not tried exactly that scenario. Your problem is that you triggered your channel partners to force close. You can't ask them to close already closed channels? Makes sense? However, those force-close-transactions was perfectly normal, and your node \*should\* sweep those coins, provided it sees them.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 25, 2019 19:00:19

We just see things differently. For me, bitcoin is meant to be validated, and if you can't reasonably validate it - or at least know that people like you can and do validate it - we have lost the trustlessness of it. This logically means that for adoption to happen, a lot of it *will* have to happen in layers outside the main chain. This might seem like an oxymoron to someone, but it's really simple: Make it possible to validate what concerns you. LN is one implementation of that, your node will validate its channel, and that's really all you need. There's also going to be various levels of trustlessness. I am not *really* a fan of Liquid for my own personal usage, but on the other hand, I don't think bitcoin can handle 1 minute block times, which you totally can do on a federated sidechain. I would thus not support changing main chain in that direction to accomodate features that would be harmful for the main chain ecosystem. All of this will hopefully do two things: Reduce the fee pressure on the main chain, and making higher fees more acceptable because they represent more economic activity than before. And no: increasing block size were *never* ruled out. We still have *lots* of optimizations we *know* we have to do, before we know what the right size is. Once you start kicking the can, it can be tempting to kick it just once more time. I have said it before,and I will say it before: The success of your scaling will not be measured in how large your blocks can be, it will be measured with how small blocks you can manage with. But I agree, nothing of this is cut in stone, and I also believe 2 MB would not be a disaster. What would be a disaster, though, would be to ignore the consensus that rejected Segwit2X, because that would lead to a contentious hard fork, and those are not fun.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 25, 2019 10:03:13

Bitcoin doesn't really live on the internet, it lives on the blockchain, and that blockchain is distributed to 10s of thousands of nodes around the world. It would of course be difficult to transact for a while, but apart from physical things like gold, I fail to see any representation of value that is more resilient than bitcoin.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 24, 2019 15:18:17

Well, with governement money, the users does not actually have any saying in the case, while *I* can say that my LN channels will always be fully backed by bitcoin. The bug a few weeks ago existed, and was fixed. It was handled pretty responsibly, and patched versions of the software was made available well before the bug was made public. It was discovered, patched and disclosed by developers themselves, though. You'll never ever hear me claim that bugs can't exist or be found in any piece of software. The measurement should be if quality improves over time and if bugs are handled properly. The forces that will act against non-fully-backed channels is simply one: People that take payments in bitcoin - whether onchain or by for example LN - will demand that they are real bitcoins and fully validatable. The transaction mechanism doesn't really change the mechanisms around this - If people stop caring if the payments are validatable bitcoins, we *are* losing the project. And yes, dollar is no longer backed by gold. It could stop be because the governement had the power to change it. Not so with Lightning Network, my node validates that *my* LN channels are fully backed, and given the option, people will choose backed over no backed. Bitcoin is *all* about that, giving people control over the money they transact and receive. And *this* is the very reason I oppose making it significantly harder to validate that. Bitcoin was meant to be validated. Lightning Network doesn't change that one single bit.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 24, 2019 15:07:52

The main difference between BTC and BCH is that the BCH community believes block size should not be a restriction, while the BTC community believes that BTC community believes the block size should be low enough that we have a healthy participation of people running a full node to do their own independent validation of the blockchain. The BCH community mostly seem to believe that consensus stops at miners, while the BTC community believes that it's also important that people who receive transaction (i.e. trade things for bitcoin) validates "what bitcoin is". This provides an incentive for miners to stay honest - they need to sell the coins they mine, and validation should be as separate from them as possible. There is also another difference: In the future, much more of the miners income - i.e. what goes to pay for the security of the blockchain - will come from fees. BCH community believes this should come from adding as many minimum-fees as possible, but keeping fees low is extremely important. BTC community believes there need to be a market for fees - and to a great degree, there already is. This means we believe there will be a lower amount of higher-paying fees - i.e. each transaction will count for more economic activity. This will also encourage a smarter usage of the blockchain, whereas if it is dirt cheap to transact onchain, people will create more "wasteful" transactions, and this will drive up block sizes and the costs of running a fully validating node. And as the BTC camp believes the number of people doing validation is important, that is considered a bad thing. Most of the differences build upon these fundamental differences. I tried to describe it as simple as I could, hope you understand the arguments. I will also mention that currently, the security of BTC is much higher than BCH. In short, this means that it's much cheaper to "roll back" history on the BCH chain than on the BTC chain. This mostly follows the income of the miners, though, which mostly means the block reward (the portion of their income that comes from newly issued coins), because they will use as much power (which is what backs the security) that it is miningful for them to compete for mining blocks. This block reward halves every 4th year, and if there is not increases in fees to replace it, security will go down. It's difficult to predict the future - how much people will transact, etc - but the BCH community believes the \*number\* of transactions will skyrocket, but the BTC camp believes that the value of each transaction will go up and people will be willing to pay more fees. This can as mentioned mostly happen if you make each onchain transaction account for more economic activity.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 24, 2019 14:53:14

And why is this bad?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 24, 2019 11:55:15

But LN is not separated from BTC in the same way as fiat was separated from gold. LN transactions are, literally, spendable onchain multisig bitcoin addresses. If you have an LN channel, you hold the keys to spend a certain portion of that LN channel. Onchain. Of course, having spent fees to create the channel in the first place (if it was initiated by you), you are not likely to spend fees to close it until it becomes useless. And if you are receiving LN transactions over an LN channel, you are similarly not likely to close it to prevent others to send LN transactions to you.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 24, 2019 11:29:00

No. It's fine to hold others. We might not agree about their security and properties, etc. But if you are doing this as pure speculation, then many things can happen. Short term, long term etc. Most of us that are interested in crypto for the technological aspects, however, at least like to think that over time, these properties will reflect in the price to.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 24, 2019 11:12:55

What's your reasons for holding BTC? And your reasons for bying BCH? Your question is rather difficult to answer, unless I know your specific interest It's a perfectly legitimate use of bitcoin to hold it to protect your wealth from the inflation in fiat currencies. And bitcoin is permissionless, so per definition it is also legimtimate to hold it because you expect it to be worth more in the future. If you want to use it for paymentx, things get more complicated. if you plan to just buy it just before you use it, and not hold on to any, then fees is probably the most important thing. BCH is a viable solution then. If you want to hold more to spend over time, then things like security, store of value, decentralization etc starts to matter more. This isn't a black/white issue, which is why I guess there's still difference in opinion. Concrete questions will get you more precise answers.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 24, 2019 10:44:30

I have been on the receiving end of downvotes many times. One of the thing I *do* try to provide here, is clear, factual information - also in response to misleading FUD. And yes, it is an *undisputed* fact that there's misleading FUD here. *Most* often, I find that when I provide factual information in response to that FUD, my facts are downvotes, and supportive comments are upvoted. Now, most often comments with negative points are collapsed. This means that most people probably won't read them, and they are *not* getting enough information to learn what really is the issues and circumstances. Again: My opinions, you are free to disagree with. But I kind of hope that most people will agree that we want people to form their opinions on having enough information on the table. Side note: I am fully aware that also BTC supporters engage in that game. I don't condone that, either.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 24, 2019 07:26:30

So, you think this is part of some "grand plan" to remove backing from LN. I heard about Anton's proposals of credit in LN already some time last year. So far, he is the \*only\* person that have been supportive of this idea, really, and this rfc is written by him and only him. What some random person decide to implement is not really of concern to me until it gains some support, but even then, I would know that \*my\* channels will be fully backed. Because my node enforces it. I personally fail to see how this can gain much traction at all, but there might be special use cases. I fail to see a large number of people willing to send along real bitcoin on real channels when they themselves are getting non-real bitcoins on non-backed channels.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 24, 2019 07:16:34

It's quite possible that you might be able to "lend" bitcoin in Lightning Network. But you \*can't\* just print them, and if \*my\* channel demands real bitcoin, which is something it \*will\* validate, then those real bitcoins will have to come from somewhere. So, how would this work? Let's say we have Alice<---->Bob<---->Charlie<----->David Alice and Bob does not have a lending agreement, Charlie and David does not, Bob and Charlie Does. Now, Alice wants to send 1000 satoshi to David, but Bob can only send 500 satoshi to Charlie. Since Bob and Charlie have a lending agreement, Charlie allows it. But where does those satoshi comes from? The answer is: From the channel between Charlie and David. Since David demands real satoshi, not credit, Charlie will have to send him real satoshi. So in reality, Charlie is letting Bob borrow some of the satoshi in the Charlie<--->David channel. This is a mutual agreement between two parties, and nothing neither Alice nor David need to worry about, because \*their\* channels are fully backed, and this is enforced by \*their\* own nodes. I don't believe this is happening at the moment, but I also don't see the disaster if someone \*should\* create mechanisms for dual-party credit agreements. All I can say is: \*not in my channels\* - because my node will enforce it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 24, 2019 04:04:15

Sure. This is why we have watchtowers. Noone should ever be sure that their channel partner has lost all state.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 23, 2019 14:24:47

This is part of the smart contract that makes it not profitable to steal. And remember, to the protocol old this looked like rolling back to a previous channel state where he possibly had more money in the channel. The smart contract says that in this case, the other user takes it all. This means that his previous channel partners got all his BTC. Given that it was 4 BTC, it was quite a few channel partners. He can of course try to find them, he can likely find contact points for at least some of them. They might be willing to give him back some or all of it. There is of course a record of this, at least in their nodes logs.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on October 23, 2019 13:40:11

This was not the reason for his loss. But you are right that there is a risk with staying offline for too long. But for funds to be stolen, a channel partner would have to be able to guess that he will be away for a long time into the future. It's not like anyone can steal once a user has been gone for two weeks. But you are right, we need wider watchtower deployments as a further deterrent from that. What happened in this case, though, was that instead of doing a proper restore of a proper backup, which he actually had, he decided to restore and force close with an old database. This is well known to lead to exactly this issue.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 23, 2019 13:20:28

The guy restored a database and force closed with old channel states. This should be well known to be dangerous, but obviously not well enough. What's more, he actually had static channel backup that would likely have given him at least most of the funds, but instead of following that thread he decided to do the biggest no-no in lightning.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on October 23, 2019 13:13:18

Do you have some reading issues? You might want to do a minimum research before you comment

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 23, 2019 13:09:44

4 BTC lost by a guy who used a product in a wrong way, doing stupid things. No, nothing in bitcoin is idiot-proof.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 23, 2019 12:15:28

It is, actually. You should try it, once. We even have testnet so you don't need actual bitcoin.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 23, 2019 12:01:35

So, let me get this straight: If you want to send someone a small amount of bitcoin, you want to exchange it to BCH, send that to the recipient, and then have him exchange it back to bitcoin? We are talking about how to allow small amounts of bitcoin, not just any crypto. There's tons of options then, btw, and maybe some with actual security would be better.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 23, 2019 10:59:51

He tried to do restore by putting in place an old database, instead of using the static channel backup that would request his channel partners to close the channel. This is an extremely basic "no-no", and running a node with 4 BTC he could not afford to lose, he can blame himself for not doing a minimum of research first.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 23, 2019 10:37:43

Multiple descriptions, this one is good (found by googling):

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 23, 2019 08:12:10

This guy did most things wrong. He even had backups to do it right, but got impatient and decided to do it wrong.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 23, 2019 07:45:17

What's more, he had a proper backup but was too impatient to do research into how to use it. My sympathy is somewhat limited here, given that he was playing around with large amounts with tech he didn't research properly

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 23, 2019 07:02:25

He also had static channel backup, but did not properly do his research on how to use it, and/or the required patience. Anyone that uses systems that developers says are only ready for early adoption should do their own research into how to properly use it. My sympathy is somewhat limited, here.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on October 23, 2019 06:57:39

It did it's job, but it also showed the true danger of forking off as a minority chain. And for that reason, you had to add some non-PoW protection. I get that. But I still believe it made it less bitcoin than before :)

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 23, 2019 00:02:48

No, I don't believe we can establish such rules. Bitcoin is trustless. So all we have is incentives. And I also think lots of traffic in autumn 2017 was speculation. Yet again a lot of transactions was seemingly moving back and forth small amount between the same addresses, clearly not really meaningful economic activity. Speculation can go to side chains in a lot of the cases, and non- economic meaningful transactions is not something we need to make room for. Adoption? We are building it now. Difference is, now people understand that not all adoption belongs on the main chain. Some of it belongs on for example lightning network. Yes, all of this takes time but doing it right is much more important than doing it fast.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 22, 2019 17:42:11

Yes, so let us just ignore any incentives to keep them honest and any protections and safeguard as dishonesty. By all means, let's design everything under the assumption that they are, and ignore any safeguards and incentives to keep them honest. Adding that would be blasphemy against the whitepaper?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 22, 2019 12:45:38

Well. Even in the case that you have two groups that refuse to build on the others chain, which I guess would count as an intented fork, how would you resolve it if they decided to call it quits. With PoW it would be nasty, but PoW would manage. With rolling checkpoints, you'd have to decide which side is the winner.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 22, 2019 11:31:48

It is not, actually. Which is why we need LN. High-value transactions can afford high enough fee for first-block inclusion, low-value transactions not so predictably. What you don't seem to get, is that this is an accepted inevitable outcome. Nevertheless, had BTC had as little usage as BCH, the fees would also be negligable. But I have never understood how a whole community can cheer a failing fee market from developing. Unless your number of transactions go parabolic the next 5 years, your security is not looking good. Whereas the BTC camp has understood that the fee market is not something we just turn on in 2140 - it's something that we should let the market adopt to as time goes by, BCH camp seem to think that they have ages to start worrying about it. In reality, they are postponing the inevitable, and assuming they survive as long as a half-serious coin (low security is not really going to reassure the market), the climb to a fee market will be steep. This is the reason u/nullc cheered. Not because fees were high, but because the market accepted a fee market that is a necessary component in a secure PoW chain when block reward decreases. I honestly fail to see how you can keep up your narrative and sell it for this long. Either those pumping BCH have deep pockets, or way too many people still get fooled by the lure of low fees. The other answer might be that BCH is fine for use cases that doesn't really need much security.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 22, 2019 11:17:09

So, to elaborate: how do you define the correct chain, should you happen to get 11 block reorg? Maybe both chains have checkpoints that say they are the correct chain now?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 22, 2019 11:03:25

There is, at this level, non-bitcoin use cases that find current fee levels acceptable for their use case. I am talking about Veriblock, and I will quote a source that is accepted here:m[]( Do you think if fees went down, Veriblock \*and\* other non-payment usages would eat up much of the relief quite quickly? I do. I think it's ridiculuous to believe that there's not going to be a high demand for the most secure PoW chain there is. This is the reason that I, while I don't think a block size doubling would be a disaster in itself (it would merely be a little bad), is also an extremely short term solution that might not even give much lower fees at all. Our only way forward is to make each transaction count for more economic activity so that we can outcompete those those non-payment use cases because it can then afford higher fees.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 22, 2019 09:27:07

Right now, it is the best alternative we have to allow instant/small value transactions. And no, *please* don't talk about 0-conf, that will *always* have issues, and none of those issues will be possible to solve in a decentralized matter either.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 22, 2019 09:08:30

Disitributed? Who talks about distributed? We need decentralization, not merely distributed.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 22, 2019 08:13:10

Personally, I decided to lower the base fee to 500 millisatoshi, but multiply my fee\_rate by 10. This makes my fees cheaper than default up to about 50k satoshi, where my transactions start to cost more than default. I still route larger transactions, though - but maybe not as many. I don't believe in a free lunch. Providing a liquidity does have a cost for me, and I'd like to regain at least some of it in fees. Right now, they are still about diddly squat, though, which I guess is fine at this point. I have (with this policy) had outliers with about 100 transactions per day over some days - but I also have days without a single transaction forwarded. I guess the intention behind the proposal is to set it "too high" by default, but make how much to lower them up to the operator. Right now, I believe most of the network operates at too low fess. As this only really affects themselves - which is something i like in LN, your fee rate signals what \*you\* want to have to cover \*your\* costs, and nothing else.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on October 22, 2019 08:07:52

But in case of a random 11 blocks unsync, however unlikely, how do you determine which one is the correct?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 22, 2019 02:40:02

Of course there will be a fee market. Anything that has a cost, should have a market around it. It is part of a free economy.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 22, 2019 01:48:09

What I see is a tremendous opportunity for other nodes to correct this, should the red node not do its job. Yes, nodes will increasingly be better at replacing "non-working capacity". It's a logical improvement, and wouldn't actually be that hard. Anyone failing to route transactions will simply be routed around, and are wasting their own fees when opening those channels. And btw, this isn't something newly discovered, this sub has been touting this issue since LNs inception. Even though I am fully aware of it, I am pretty sure we can mitigate it by more intelligence in nodes. An effect that makes LN develop more speedy than the normal blockchain develop, btw, is that LN smart contracts reduce the "consensus" in LN to distinct parties of two. This means improvements need not be deployed network-wide, but can always be rolled out gradually.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 22, 2019 01:37:20

It is actually not. []( I quote Satoshi: ''It is strictly necessary that the longest chain is always considered the valid one. Nodes that were present may remember that one branch was there first and got replaced by another, but there would be no way for them to convince those who were not present of this. We can't have subfactions of nodes that cling to one branch that they think was first, others that saw another branch first, and others that joined later and never saw what happened. The CPU power proof-of-work vote must have the final say. The only way for everyone to stay on the same page is to believe that the longest chain is always the valid one, no matter what.'' After rolling checkpoints was implemented, you are not that anymore.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 22, 2019 01:26:42

It did. It was the date where someone gamed the hash rate for a full weekend, using the last opportunity to exploit the old EDA. This sub cheered it, not realizing it's the sole reason BCHs hash rate percentage will be approximately half of what it's now for a whole week, because halving comes too early. But none of that mattered, as long as they could experience a weekend of slow BTC blocks. It was the point when I stopped looking at BCH as something resembling a serious project. Before then, I had actually considered getting some BCH in case the world was so misguided it actually wanted bigger blocks. At that point, I realized that if it wants bigger blocks, it will never be BCHs bigger blocks.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 21, 2019 13:54:28

This can of course be built into whatever terminal system the pizza shop owner has. You know, kind of like the user experience the adoption in Townsville is, where they get handed free terminals and have handhelding setup etc. This isn't particulary difficult. Lot of it can also be automated in wallets - and with protocols for swapping liquidity etc. And no: A friend doesn't need to *send* me BTC, he opens a channel. Sending would kind of defeating the purpose of adding incoming liquidity. And yes, of course he would have to have some incoming liquidity already. But seriously, I don't really see the problem. There's actually so much incoming liquidity going around now that I myself have a hard time keeping up the *outgoing* liquidity :) The ecosystem is still young. No, it won't ever be as good as onchain. But onchain will never be so fast or cheap, predictably. Ever again. Everything is a tradeoff.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 21, 2019 13:44:08

there are numerous options. &#x200B; \- You can open a channel yourself and loop out some of the balance to get it back onchain. \- You can get some incoming liquidity from a friend. If you have any. \- You can get some incoming liquidity from an incoming liquidity provider - either for free or paid.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 21, 2019 11:50:50

Happy to help. I take wishes for my next lightning-related blog post :)

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on October 19, 2019 10:58:07

Mostly as a deterrent, I believe. I doubt they will *actually* be serving many penalty transaction. They are there to make sure noone can predict if anyone is watching. Think of this scenario: You run a shop out of New Orleans. Suddenly, Hurricane Katrina strikes, which is an event that is known to the whole world. You take LN payments, and your node goes down as Hurricane Katrina strikes. Would someone be willing to take a bet that your LN node is not up again in a couple of days? Some might. With watchtowers, they can't even know that noone is watching. Your watchtower could be in Australia, unaffected by Hurricane Katrina. The bet would suddenly be much more difficult.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on October 18, 2019 14:54:58

No, I'm good, really. I have enough of incoming and outgoing liquidity, but my incoming liquidity is in total much higher than my outgoing. This isn't *exactly* good for routing, but I do route some transactions. I am in this for the learning experience, so it's not extremely important either :) And I have plenty of liquidity to both send and receive for my own needs.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on October 18, 2019 13:45:28

> I'm cool with that. That's why we're working on Avalance, Storm, preconsensus, fraud-proofs etc. I follow these, of course, to a certain degree. Anyone that rejects ideas purely on the basis that they come from "the other camp" is losing out on a lot of possible solutions. Here are my criticisms: Who gets a "vote" in Avalanche/preconsensus is an unsolved problem, and will be very hard to solve without creating some form of centralized decision. If you're not following Avalanche, you can't know whether someone comes later and says the transaction isn't valid. Double spend proofs doesn't solve all that much. You can still bribe a miner to mine a transaction directly, and likely comes with a few attack vectors that you need to watch out for. Fraud-proofs is more about making SPV more safe, and these might be genuine improvements, but it does nothing for solving 0-conf issues. > What's true consensus? I don't believe it exists. There's always someone that disagrees. And this time, this someone owns the forums. Of course there won't ever be true consensus, thus never a blocksize increase. I am not saying it has to be 100%, I agree that is not possible. It is more in the line "so much support that the rest of the network would be a minority chain by large margins", and the bar for that is *pretty* high. But it will happen when it becomes evident that there is an immediate need for it. Bitcoin is meant to be hard to change, in fact it is partly a direct response to fiat being too easy to change. > If I can't keep my savings in my payment method, I'd just use fiat and gold. This doesn't work, that's why Bitcoin was created. Free world. Anyone is free to choose. This is your choice, other people will have other choices.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 18, 2019 13:42:49

Thank you. I actually have a pretty unbalanced node, I have *way* too much incoming liquidity :) Appreciate any attempt at lowering it!

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on October 18, 2019 10:21:45

!lntip 5000 Returned so you can test my paid likes instead :)

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on October 18, 2019 09:23:46

....but, thank you very much! Tipping you back 5000 so that you can try out my on-page tipping system with it :) !lntip 5000

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on October 18, 2019 09:23:05

What? And you did *not* see my smileys at the right side? My blog has a built-in tipping-system :)

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on October 18, 2019 09:19:48

This is a perfect use case. The second node acts as a watchtower for the first nodes channels, and the first one as a watchtower for the second nodes channel. Note that in my example, node B didn't have a watchtower. I wouldn't really care, as an LN node operator, whether or not my channel partners run a watchtower. And in fact, you should never inform anyone if you do, or how many you have. I think it's important that it's somewhat usual to run watchtowers, though. It's part of game theory, your channel partner should not expect to get away with fraud :)

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on October 18, 2019 07:00:12

In lightning network, you have the concept of channels. Basically, you establish a smart contract on the blockchain, and then the channel have to operate within that. But, part of the security is that you can see and prove that the other node have done something wrong. The smart contract establishes a time window for submitting a proof to the blockchain that he have commited fraud, but if you fail to do this in time, he can potentially submit an earlier balance than the latest one. Seen from the blockchain, all channel states from the start of the channel is valid, but the LN protocol creates undeniable proofs that earlier channel states are invalid, that the other party can subit to the blockchain. Anyomne that submits an old channel state not only are not able to steal the other partys money, they also lose everything they have in the channel. A watchtower is a way to outsource this task to someone else, you give them just enough information that they can watch for fraudulent transactions, and a mechanism to spend the outputs from that fraudulent transaction and send \*all\* of it to you.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on October 18, 2019 06:47:14

>Reply Why do you think, if you reach your goal of mass adoption, that 0-conf will be safe enough? I feel there is a lot of downplaying of the 0-conf issues in this sub. I believe that if crypto payments becomes a thing, then there will be wallets there that doublespends 0-conf transactions as a feature, and fraud will go up. I think it's a fine tradeoff when the market is mostly/only enthusiasts, but once the credit-card-fraud people get their eyes on the crypto payment market, we'll see how well it keeps up. I am fully aware that LN has its own tradeoffs, but it does not have exactly that issue, that a shop has little or no control over.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 18, 2019 05:41:13

I was here, too. I lived through the fee spikes the automn in 2017. I remember the r/btc crowd cheering everytime there was a slight backlog then, too. I remember when the original EDA was switching to DAA, and the whole r/btc was *cheering* when someone caused hyperinflation for a weekend, eating a whole two weeks block rewards during that weekend, before the hard fork on the monday. I remember your blockchain with the new DAA not producing a block for several *hours* after the hard fork, because of this. I admit it, I did FUD a bit on r/btc that time. I try not to, but sometimes it just gets..tempting. During all this time, I decided to not complain, but instead to learn. Lesson 1: Fees are never ever again being constantly low. Predictably cheap first-block transactions will never be back. Lesson 2: Lightning Network development was picking up speed. I started watching that more closely. Lesson 3: LN mainnet was released spring 2018. r/btc intensified the FUD, and the "18 months to release" kept changing to "18 months to ....." in rapid steps. I think nowadays, it's 18 months until we are Granny-friendly. Or maybe it's 2*18 months. As long as there's progress, I am happy. Lesson 4: There's a lot of pissed people that thinks they know what "bitcoin is supposed to be". They are wrong. Bitcoin isn't supposed to be anything other than what consensus makes it, and that has given us the bitcoin we have today. You either work within that, or - as in BCHs case - you create an altcoin. Good luck. And I mean it. But stop portraying yourself as some sort of beligerent saviours. That's far from the truth.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 17, 2019 16:54:46

> Yes! Just being fast and cheap enough is enough. < $0.01 fee, < 3 seconds. That's about enough IMO. I don't believe in 0-conf. Sure, when it's all basically only used by enthusiasts, that works. But mass adoption based on 0-conf? Madness. We'd see lots of wallets that conmen would use, that would doublespend *per default*. Forget fiddling with a phone trying to do a doublespend while the shopkeeper is watching. Won't be necessary. It'll all be done for you. Doublespend per default. And about 1 MB limit: It will be changed when there's true consensus for it, but not more. Losing true consensus to a backroom deal like Hong Kong or New York was touted as, that would have been a true loss. Because that's not how consensus is formed on bitcoin. Sure, you can discuss, but the policy about "no decisions at scaling bitcoin conference" is there for a reason. It's because decicisions in conferences are per definition centralization. Second, I believe truly that the most important work we do is keeping economic activity that doesn't need the full onchain security, trustlessness and decentralization away from the blockchain. Yes, that means side chains. Liquid is a good idea, but it's not a replacement for the main chain. Yes, that means Lightning Network - but that, neither, is a replacement for onchain. But when it's totally evident that we can't do more optimization, and that the side chains and LN and the rest of the onchain traffic *really* need more than 1 MB (and not just in peaks), then we're getting into where we can start getting consensus for it. But in the meantime? Most people can live with the fees we have now, and bitcoin didn't die in automn 2017. (edit: formatting only)

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 17, 2019 13:22:56

You are wrong. In my opinion, trying to compete on being the fastest and cheapest payment form will be futile. For the user? Nope. A user uses credit cards, gets *cashback*, and goes away happy. For the business? Maybe it can get some traction at some point, but it won't be able to outbid the fiat world. Ever. Why? Because fiat is controlled by central banks, and they can literally subsidize lower fees by printing money, and they *totally* would do it if they felt that fiat-based payments were threatened in any way. So, what, then, is it? Validatable. Decentralized. Not changeable by a central authority on a whim. That's the most important part. Anything that reduces those properties on the main chain is destroying parts of bitcoins properties. But everyone is free to do their own tradeoffs on layers above it. Trustlessness not important? Then, use Liquid. Anyones choice. I think it's a mighty fine inter-exchange method, where you are operating in a totally trusted environment anyways. You need more speed/lower fees? Fine, use lightning. It has still different properties than onchain, it might be slightly more censorable, slightly less trustless. And security properties are different. It's a again a tradeoff. Onchain will always be there. Easily validatable. Hard to change. Hard to coopt. Just like gold.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 17, 2019 10:29:20

You keep repeating that like it was true. There is today *noone* that does not know about the big blocks vs. small blocks ideological schism. At least not a single person. But still, most metric shows that people prefer Bitcoin over Bitcoin Cash. Price. Number of nodes. Number of subscribers to different subreddits. Hash rate. Please, find *one* metric that shows majority would prefer Bitcoin Cash. Just one.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 17, 2019 09:12:36

If you believe this, then you have been sold a narrative. Who dictates the narrative in this sub?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 17, 2019 06:45:56

Only a bit. The relative hashrate will pretty quickly move to "pre-halving" ratios, barring any price swings that tilt it in one way or the other in the meantime. BCH halving one week earlier than BTC will make its security in terms of "percentage of the available SHA2 hash rate" approximately half of what it was before the halving for that full week, making it a one week window of easier 50% attack opportunity. I am not saying a 50% attack is guaranteed, but this is how the protocols are built, so this is pretty much facts.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 16, 2019 13:30:17

We actually do know a bit about this. If a significant portion of BTCs hashrate moves to BCH, this will lead to more than 6 blocks per hour being mined on BCH. BCHs DAA adjusts quicker than BTC, and \*as\* BCHs difficulty adjusts upwards again, it will be more profitable to mine BTC. Sure, at the time of BTCs halving, we might see some disturbances in the capacity. But it will not last for a week.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 16, 2019 13:15:59

They can't. They don't have any information to post anything to the blockchain until there is a force close transaction submitted.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 16, 2019 00:50:55

Reckless is relative. I'd not put my life savings in LN channels, but I do run a minor LND public node, and of course an LN wallet on the phone that I use for my payment usage. Use cases so far: Coffee - check. Beer - check. VPN - monthly payment via LN. Amazon - via bitrefill. Numerous other online services, mostly for fun and testing. Keeping an LN wallet on the phone with what is basically spending bitcoin is, to be honest, not too risky. But do take the tame to learn proper operating procedures, i.e. backup etc, because it's a little bit different than a standard bitcoin wallet.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/lightningnetwork on October 15, 2019 10:19:07

Well, yes. Nothing is as good, security wise, as onchain. But there is a difference between onchain on a chain with lots of PoW behind it, with proper decentralization, and more centralized chains. As such, I recognize that LN is definitely a tradeoff. The benefits are: - Instant confirmation, no traditional double-spend risk. - Lower number of transactions on the blockchains. Downsides: - Your channel partners might perform DoS-type attacks on you, but given proper operational security, it's hard to really steal money. But it's definitely a tradeoff that each user needs to take. Onchain will always be an option if you are not happy with LN tradeoffs, but most of us have accepted the fact that space on the chain is a premium service we have to pay for.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 15, 2019 08:58:28

What's the difference between this and profiting from a normal spam attack? That is also potentially profiting for miners? This is not an LN issue as such, really

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 15, 2019 08:27:34

Yup. I recognize that miner centralization is an issue, and we should aim at not raising the bar for mining, and make sure we have enough economic actors that independently validate that miners have limited power. For everything we create that uses bitcoin, there is probably attack vectors that malicious miners can exploit, which is why decentralization matters, and on the base layer more than other places.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 15, 2019 07:40:50

The fees for the force-close transaction a would-be-attacker can use, is of course part of the commitment transaction that you sign off on. He can thus not really spend all channel balance on fees, only the amount you have agreed on. You, however, can spend all of the money at once when you prove that the balance submitted was an old balance. You are correct that would-be-attacker can likely cost you money in fees, but it is highly unlikely that they will have anything to gain from it themselves.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 15, 2019 01:20:31

Not really effective with cpfp, because the attacker is bound by the time lock before he can spend the funds from his force close transaction. Yes, the time lock is there for a reason.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 14, 2019 18:17:08

The honest user will always have the full capacity of the channel to spend when broadcasting a penalty transaction, while all a fraudster can have is at maximum any value he has previously had in the channel. This ensures that there is little chance of gaining any money all by this strategy, as you correctly stated.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 14, 2019 17:52:13

The best time was 10 years ago. The second best time is now. Seriously, noone knows. You have to form your own opinion, based on what your goals are. Short-term gains? Then, prepare for disappointment. It's difficult to predict. If you believe that there is genuine need for bitcoin in the future, then the logical consequence is that it will be worth more, though - since we know that there will never be more than 21 million bitcoin (minus those that are lost).

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on October 14, 2019 13:46:11

They are free to participate, as is everyone else. Miners are performing a work, but they're not all-powerful. It's you and I, through accepting/validating the blocks when we accept a transaction, that deem what is \*valid\* bitcoins. If miners try doing something fishy, as issuing more coins than they are entitled to, noone will accept their blocks, and they will be wasting electricity for nothing. We can choose to participate in this validation, by running our own full node, or we can outsource it - either partly by running SPV, or fully by keeping our bitcoins in a custodial wallet. Bitcoin needs to be easy enough to validate so that a large proportion of economic actors actively choose this. If not, then we are nothing more than a slightly better paypal.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on October 14, 2019 13:37:10

I have done that a few times. Difference is, the store doesn't accept my library card, so no harm done, and no story there. The library doesn't go around claiming to be the "real VISA", either. The BCH camp, however, at least part of it, encourages this misconception, because they want the part of the people they fool that didn't lose money and got burnt as part of their camp. How many people they scare off from crypto? I haven't the slightest clue.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 3, 2019 03:51:16

I did not start. But fine. I can stop. You can win if you like.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 1, 2019 16:12:01

Sure. But anyone that gambled on security bugs being fixed before they became a serious issue was totally right in this case. Bugs happen, and you judge a piece of software on how the developers handles them.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 1, 2019 12:46:50

No, I don't agree that, because the bug was not of that magnitude.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 1, 2019 12:28:53

Anyone that think there is no Security bugs in a piece of software is an idiot. I judge a piece of software along the line if people are honest about the bugs, is responsible in their disclosure policy, and fixes them.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 1, 2019 12:18:45

I admit it. My statement was pretty ridiculous. But no more so than the one I was replying to. Which was pretty much my point.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 1, 2019 09:14:33

So you are saying there is no security bugs in BCH? That is a pretty bold statement.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 1, 2019 08:39:29

I can say with near 100% certainty that there exists security bugs in Bitcoin ABC. Prove me wrong.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 1, 2019 07:56:18
/r/btc/comments/dbmkua/if_you_knew_that_the_lightning_network_was_unsafe/f23ftpp/ - you want to replace this with them buying the BCH story? Concratulatons. You are starting to grasp the market. You don't have a compelling story that makes people buy into it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 1, 2019 05:33:08

I do, but I don't believe you will ever grasp it, so I choose not to waste time trying to convince you.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 1, 2019 03:12:05

I don't care what two parties use to settle between them. Any party that wants to let the other party go in to debt will have to use his \*own\* BTC on the outgoing channel. This isn't fractional reserve, it's more like fully backed lending. You can't forward a transaction unless you have the BTC in the outgoing channel. Once again: Fractional reserve? \*not in my channels\*. And the design of LN is such that this is all I need to care about.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 1, 2019 02:10:40

..and the discussion is over. Muh, censorship. That must be it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on October 1, 2019 01:27:42

Yup. It's likely to be vicious. You had a likewise vicious time around the BSV fork. Sorry, but that's just how crypto is. People will, to a varying degree, fight for what they believe in.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 30, 2019 15:42:26

The blocksize was attempted risen a few times already, and rejected by the community. The blocksize will rise when there is consensus for it. If *we* (for whoever group you think I belong to) rise it before then, we are simply creating an altcoin. Bitcoin is whatever consensus says it is.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 30, 2019 13:12:05

He was. I am going to assume you don't know this before, and will answer as if it was a honest question :) What LN basically does, is that it sets up fully-confirmeded, on-chain, smart contracts among parties of 2. The unconfirmed transactions that is passed along between those 2 parties have to spend the outputs of that on-chain smart contract. So, basically you use the security of the blockchain to establish a different set of security parameters. Sure, they're unconfirmed, but they are not the same as unconfirmed standard bitcoin transactions, because they have other security parameters in addition. But yes, LN is a tradeoff. It will never be as secure as fully-on-chain confirmed transactions, and *everyone* agrees with that. But some of us think that it's perfectly ok that higher security can cost more. I'd like to take this a bit down in the stack: Both BTC and BCH is built around the same cryptographic algorithms. If you could decrease the price of transactions by loweriing the security of that cryptography, would you agree to that? I bet the answer is no. Yet, it's perfectly fine to do tradeoffs along accepting tippr-bot transactions as "good stuff" - but those transactions of course does not at all confirm to the security standard of the blockchain. It's a tradeoff doing by those who willingly use tippr-bot, and we would not change the properties of the blockchain to accomodate the tippr-bot, would we? It's the same way with LN. Most people that believe in LN does not at all think it should replace on-chain. LN is a tradeoff that exists because thost of us that are firmly in the BTC camp is decentralization and security-maximalists. We believe there should be as few tradeoffs to the security and decentralization on-chain as possible - but it is perfectly fine to accept tradeoffs in layers above it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 30, 2019 12:12:35

You would not ask this if you knew anything at all about LN. LN is safe \*only\* because you can trust the safety of the blockchain it's built upon. It \*needs\* a secure "anchor" to the underlying currency. Without an underlying platform (technically, I guess it could be something else than a blockchain) that can hold the value, then it's not possible to transform any value.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 30, 2019 10:55:50

While an approximation, it's not \*entirely\* correct. As you well know, it's not \*exactly\* the same on-chain BTC that is passed along over each hop, so if the sender sends invalid BTC, it doesn't necessarily mean that the reciver \*gets\* invalid BTC if it's routed through a couple of nodes. It's up to each and every receiver to validate what happens in their channels, but you are right that nodes so far failed to validate everything they should. But it's not like any of the wallets per default would create "non-fully-backed" channels, so it would have to be a malicious hacker that modified one of the wallets to send not-fully-backed-opening-transactions. I agree with you that this is a pretty serious bug. What does this mean, \*right now\*? Are LN users at risk that someone with a non-upraded node sends you invalid bitcoin? No, not if they themselves upgrade their node, and validate that their existing channels are all fully backed. I have seen easy tools for at least 2 of the 3 affected implementations to validate their existing channels. As with everything else in bitcoin, it's your responsibility to upgrade your software when vulnerabilities are made known. And you know as well as I that \*existence\* of a vulnerability should be made known \*well before\* the nature of the vulnerability is made public, to give people a reasonable chance to upgrade before everyone knows how to write an exploit. "Being your own bank" comes with responsibilities. One of them is that you are responsible for your own security. That includes upgrading the software you are using. You can go along and post snides towards the LN developers all you want, and it's not \*totally\* undeserved. But you know as well as I do that bugs will happen, and that the developers in this case followed pretty standard practises for responsible disclosure, given that they themselves were the ones who found the bug and that it was not publically known at all before non-vulnerable versions of the software was available.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 30, 2019 10:45:24

No. You don't. And that has never been the case. What needs to be the case, is that someone need to have $50k to dedicate to forwarding to you. That can be done in various ways, either because they believe people will want to send you $50k, \*or\* you could pay him to do so - but the price would of course not be $50k. Paying for incoming liquidity might be a viable and necessary method for the larger businesses out there, and there already exists such services. Hobbyists are, of course, instead swapping incoming liquidity as favours with each others. I have only paid for incoming channels twice, to test two such different services, but I still have plenty of incoming liquidity - in fact much more than my outgoing liquidity!

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 29, 2019 05:47:29

First: This wasn't a design bug. It was an implementation bug, even though it hit all of them. The design, of course, did not say you shouldn't validate properties of on-chain transactions. Other than that, I agree. Bugs are meant to be learnt from.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 28, 2019 13:32:35

What are their incentive to include transactions? They're not leaving much money at the table, transaction fees only amounting to 0.03% of the income in a block ? (source: []( ?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 28, 2019 11:02:17

While the bug was serious enough in itself, no need to add half-truths to it. What happens in an LN-payment, is that balances shift - starting with closest to the payee. Then, each node that has settled the balance in their outgoing channel in the payment can settle with the incoming channel - but also have enough information to settle on-chain, should the node on the incoming channel have gone away, or fail to cooperate. What happened in this bug, is that node implementations failed to validate the properties of the actual funding transactions, but took the negotiated contract metadata as good proof. I, myself, have now run the tool provided by lightning labs, [](, on my node that was upgraded even before the existence of this bug was known to the public. It provided the assurance I needed, \*all\* my channels are ok. Now, but wait a minute - can I not get "fake" bitcoin from somewhere else? No, I can not. My channels are all ok. I only need to validate my own channels, what happens in other peoples channels are of no concern to me. All of bitcoin is like this. Being your own bank comes with responsibilities - you need to keep up to date with security of the tools you are using. Was it a bad bug? Definitely. When could you upgrade? End of july is when LND 0.7.1 was released, and this is when I upgraded to it. I knew nothing about this bug then, but I know that a ton of bugs are fixed at each release, so I upgraded - as everyone should do when bugfix releases are released. Upgrading your software is important, and when your software holds money, it's financially important.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on September 28, 2019 10:14:36

Either a full node, or with SPV yes. Mobile wallets are obviously not going to to run a full node. As Neutrino has matured, various intermediate strategies have been in place for mobile nodes, but nowadays Neutrino gains traction. Here's basically what happens when an LN channel opens: - The peers negotiate the channel first. - The initator then sends the funds into this contract. - The channel is not considered open before that transaction is confirmed (usually a couple of confirmations, but that's not a strict requirement) So, it's quite obvious that you need to validate that the transaction contains what the metadata said it would. It's also quite obvious that you need to set up contracts etc before the funder sends the funding transaction, don't want any transactions spending those funds outside the bounds of the LN contracts being possible.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 28, 2019 07:32:23

Here's the basis of what happened. An LN channel is nothing more than a multisig-address on the blockchain, with a smart contract that supports the LN protocol and safety mechanisms (timelocks, etc). The bug happened because the previous implementations didn't fully verify the initial balance of the multisig-address, but took the metadata that a potential malicious partner sent as the truth. Bad mistake, yes. Don't trust, verify. It was fixed, life goes on.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 28, 2019 06:32:13

The general disclosure: []( And more from the one I follow closest and run: []( There also exists a tool for LND, to check if you were affected, pointed to in the second link. Running it gave me this result: \*\*\*\*@thundroid:\~$ ..../bin/chanleakcheck 2019/09/27 19:38:17 Obtaining candidate set of invalidate channels... 2019/09/27 19:38:17 Filtering out valid channels... 2019/09/27 19:38:17 Num invalid channels found: 0 2019/09/27 19:38:17 Your node was not affected by CVE-2019-12999! If anyone have not upgraded to a non-vulnerable version, now would probably be a good time to do so!

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 27, 2019 13:45:26

Proper working product? Where onchain transactions can easily be rolled back, as proven in events this year? BCHs security is flawed (any PoW coin which has a minority hash rate of its kind has weak security), and its economic future depends on a massive onchain scaling that \*would\* destroy its fundamental properties. This sub would have been funny if it hadn't been for that there is people that actually think it's better that way.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 18, 2019 11:48:56

Seems there is a measurement error here - both transactions are finished in about 3 seconds, it's the LN shop that in itself is slow to show it. Anyone who know a bit about LN transactions know that for the receiver, the transaction is finished \*earlier\* than for the sender (unless there's a direct channel, then it's the same), and in the movie, the LN transaction was finished for the sender in about 3 seconds. But the finality of it isn't even the same. LN transactions are, as far as LN goes, finalized, while for BCH, we only have a notification that a transaction will happen. Even in the case of on-chain transactions, it's much easier to roll back BCH, and in fact willful rollback of chain has happened. The finality of one BTC on-chain transaction is at least 20 times better than BCH (Mathematically speaking, it was about 24 last time I checked [](, but now it seems to be down). Price is also different, BCH 0-conf pays a full on-chain fee, while an LN transaction is much cheaper.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 18, 2019 01:59:05

I said, WalletOfSatoshi paid for it, that is the most likely explanation. I have of course not seen any logs, only screenshot of some UX that doesn't really show much, so I have to deduct from that, his explanation and my knowledge about the LN protocol itself. WalletOfSatoshi custodial wallet, where channels are shared between users, and the most likely explanation here is that they failed to deduct and inflight payment towards a users balance. Corner cases, a payment can be inflight for longer, and this being a while ago, such occurrances were more prevalent. I rarely see this anymore, myself.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 11, 2019 17:19:09

None of them. WalletOfSatoshi did, because it failed to reserve inflight payments towards a users balance, like the protocol itself does. Remember: Custodial means numbers in a database.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 11, 2019 17:09:01

The existense of the bug was public, and that it was patched in newer versions of all the affected software. As is always the case, nowadays. Responsible disclosure nowadays *means* witholding some exploitable details until people have had a chance to patch, so that the chance of it being exploited are minimized. There will always be debate here.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 11, 2019 16:58:28

sure. Fwiw, this sounds like an easily patched protocol bug or common interpretation of the spec (not *every* little details makes it into a spec, some times are ironed out as you implement, and it's not uncommon that there has to develop a common understanding how to do things even if it's not written in a spec). But I agree we need to wait and see until it is fully public. As in the LN concept, I still believe it's good. But no, neither me nor *anyone else I know, including LN developers*, believes it will solve all scaling issues, neither was it meant to. It will allow for instant and (relatively) small-value transactions on a chain that will have fee fluctuations, it will relieve some tx pressure (as in most channels will be used more than a couple of times).

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 11, 2019 16:48:30

That's not your biggest problem. There will be a very normal reorg there, and anyone receiving payments should be aware of the risk for reorgs and require as many confirmations as their risk willingness say they should. What you really have to worry about, is what happens when two competing chains get to \*11\* blocks. You will now have two chains that will \*not\* accept the other chain as valid, even if it has more PoW. Congratulations, you have a hardfork, and if you want to avoid it being permanent, you will have to manually negotiate between the two sides who is "the correct chain". Now, the real question is, would []( and friends accept that there could be a chain that is not them that is the correct chain?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 11, 2019 15:31:10

I believe this is the first time bi-directional payment channels have been proposed: []( I found this by googling "lightning network 2014". The draft-0.5 is likely from early 2015, 2015-02-28, according to []( Google does not seem to have earlier draft versions available, so if there were any earlier, I doubt they were published.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 11, 2019 15:20:07

Based on my knowledge of LN, I think it's most likely an accounting bug in walletofsatoshi. This is likely one of the corner cases they decided to hide for the user, but at their own risk. It is likely they didn't deduct it from OPs wallet before it was fully settled, making it possible for him to spend it twice. As far as LN is concerned, though, walletofsatoshi will have paid both times. This is really one of these cases that OP should report to walletofsatoshi as a bug. I prefer using my own, non-custodial LN wallet, though, that way I know what goes on, which is more like the point of bitcoin. It's a free world, though, and as long as some people want to use custodial wallets, someone will provide it to them, and vice versa.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 11, 2019 15:07:55

So, here is what I believe happened: WalletOfSatoshi is a custodial LN wallet, where all channels are shared. Your balance is just a number in their system, and has nothing to do, really, with what is in LN channels. So, you send a payment. Or, rather, you send an instuction to walletofsatoshi to send a payment. WalletOfsatoshi of course did that. Now, that payment ended up as a stuck half-paid payment. This used to be more of a problem a while back, I see it a lot rarely these days. It is still a part of how the protocol works in case of problems, though... But, walletofsatoshi probably didn't subtract it from your number in their database since the payment was not fully settled. This doesn't mean it wasn't paid fully by walletofsatoshi, it most likely was. So - my guess, a bug in walletofsatoshis custodial accounting system, not an LN bug per se.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 11, 2019 14:53:25

Of course I am. But I am also aware that at the time this bug was disclosed, all affected software was already patched, and I was already on a non-vulnerable version when the bug was public. I am an IT professional, so I *know* that bugs happen. I know that you judge software providers with how responsible they handle bugs, and I get *very* suspicious towards anyone who claims that there's no possibilities bugs exist.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 11, 2019 14:31:32

The network was not out of consensus, that does not really happen. Which wallet is that? Here is my simplified explanation of what happens with an LN payment. &#x200B; You send an irrevocable payment initiation to a node. If this is not the destination, it passes it on along the route you have specified. No money has still not moved hands - if the destination does not receive the money, noone can take them. The payment request eventually reaches the destination. This has the secret that is necessary to claim the payment - onchain if needed. The destination sends that secret \*back\* the way it came. Once it has sent it back, it has received its money. Any node that holds this secret \*can\* claim the payment onchain. However, usually they'll not, because then they'd need to close a channel. Now, they will have to forward it before the payment request times out. If they can't forward it, i.e. that node has gone away, they'll hold on to it until a few blocks before it needs to be settled. Once this secret reaches you, everything is settled with everyone. Of course, wallets may have bugs, especially if this was a while ago, and it could be that your wallet was bad at handling these special cases. It doesn't mean you didn't pay, it just means your wallet had a bad UX in regards to how it presented it. If blockstream got their money, you paid it. It's as simple as that. There is another alternative: A node om the way can have failed to claim the payment from you, after having settled in the direction of the payee. But money either reaches the destination, or they don't move at all. And since I never lie, I will not deny that early in LN mainnet history, there were still a few bugs. There probably still is. No software is bug free. Things are progressing quite nicely, though, as fr as I see it, and nowadays, most of my bitcoin payments are via LN.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 11, 2019 14:05:25

The smart contract that the pre-signed force-close tx that Alice can broadcast, is set up like this: Bob can spend his share at once. Alices share can be spent in two ways: 1) After the timelock has passed, Alice can move them. 2) Before the timelock, Bob can use the revocation transaction he was given in the next lightning transaction to move Alices funds to himself. Yes, you read it correct: By publishing an old commitment transaction, she essentially gives those coins to Bob, providing his node provides the fraud transaction. Any node will watch for older commitment transactions from its channels, and watchtowers will be the last part of the game theory: Alice might for example know that Bobs node belongs to a company in the area of a natural disaster, making it unlikely that it comes back online before this timelock has passed. But she can not know whether he uses a watchtower, and/or where this watchtower is. It is still totally not safe to publish an old commitment transaction.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on September 9, 2019 01:36:42

It is absurd. Not every user needs to validate every transaction, but every user should have the *possibility* to validate at least what concerns themselves. On the global ledger, in the end, *all* transactions might end up concerning themselves, while in offchain solutions (think LN), it only concern them if they participate in said transactions. And there has been no hijacking, but I understand your project depends on you selling that story to the world. What makes you "own" the project, and not the 90%+ community behind BTC?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 9, 2019 01:21:04

So, you don't think that as we move towards only larger entities being fully participating in validation - think nation states, large companies - there is a possibility this will lead to it being easier to control? Like, in international trade agreements, UN? Don't you worry this might even lead to it being easier to control, making censorship possible? Don't you believe that as bitcoin grows in importance, the incentive to control it will be much higher, so we should strive to make it as decentralized as possible?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 9, 2019 00:59:23

I agree that there is a lot of speculation and outright gambling in the field. But can you answer this: how on earth are the fees going to stay high without a demand? And I still think that trustlessness of a chain you can validate beats massive chain only large actors validate. This is the essence of my belief: take away people's possibility to validate, and their reason to trust it also disappear. The demand will erode, and security will be hurt

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 8, 2019 18:14:36

Or, make each transaction represent more economic activity, and in the process making the chain more decentralized and easier to validate. Those that can not even afford one fee? Well. Bitcoin is not a charity, but I am *quite* sure there will be a way to let them participate still. It might not be on chain transactions, but at least trustless and decentralized still exists as an option when they are ready for it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 8, 2019 18:04:37

BTC has already demonstrated that there is willingness to pay high fees. Can you disregard that? To me, keeping the trustlessness of the chain is *more important* than world domination. Without trustlessness, what is left?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 8, 2019 17:50:36

I never lie. Seriously. I am an avid believer in honesty

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 8, 2019 16:11:30

How will you get there and at the same time have sufficient fees to pay for security?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 8, 2019 15:46:51

Do you have anything to back it up with?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 8, 2019 15:22:39

Whatever. For me, I tend to get less interested in a discussion once someone brings up trust in an original plan, without explaining *why* we should trust it. Satoshi was good at protocol work. But as to the actual incentives and workings, he was on a learning experience just as much as everyone else. Do you think he was finished when he left? And do you think it's even remotely possible that he might be even wrong about some things? If not, then you are not believer in a cryptocurrency, then you are religious, and even a fundamentalist one.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 8, 2019 15:06:37

Whatever you beleive, man. This is a pattern, here. Once discussion becomes too complex, just refer to the whitepaper. Works as charm, every time. Do you have any opinions/explanations of your own?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 8, 2019 14:54:54

Bitcoin is *more* than technology. In itself it's of course technology, but it's also social and economic. I believe Satoshi was much better at technology. I don't for a second believe that what BCH tries to achieve is *possible*, it's just that I believe it will seriously alter the reason to socially and economically trust bitcoin, it will make it much less trustless over time, and make it resemble more "paypal 2.0" and less a decentralized currency. If you believe in paypal 2.0, then that's fine. Most people don't think bitcoin should strive to be paypal 2.0, it's even quite foolish to think that you can compete on i.e. price with something that's in a central database. Blockchain/PoW will *always* have higher intrinsic cost, and the added value you get for this extra cost is trustlessness and security. Low cost *was* never the reason for bitcoin, and if you believe that, you believe in a pipe dream.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 8, 2019 14:26:57

I have been giving it a thought. A normal user is probably the kind of users you think should normally choose an SPV wallet. If it's totally beyond their reach to running a fully validating node, and they don't even know whether or not people "like them" (which will vary depending on where they live etc) can/do this, then their total reason to trust bitcoin itself erodes, and they are back to trusting that the "central banks" are watching over their economy.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 8, 2019 13:55:09

This *is* pretty hard. But let me explain something to you about value. A thing is worth something only because someone is willing to pay for it. If I am selling coffee for bitcoin, I am *part* of the ecosystem giving bitcoin value. If I am selling fiat for bitcoin, I am too. What my node says is bitcoin is very much part of the valuation process, here. I agree, as a small time user, the trades I validate with my full node doesn't count *that* much, but it is still part of it. The miners need someone to accept their transactions as valid, because they have to sell their coins to pay their electricity bill. Yes, that bill is normally *most* of their revenue, the actual profit is much less. This is actually an important part of the game theory, but you know all this. Now, *anyone* that takes bitcoin transactions are part of deciding "what bitcoin is". If the miners unilaterally change the protocol, it does not mean that what they mine is bitcoin, it might mean they are mining invalid blocks! As a receiver of bitcoin, you very much have the power to decide what bitcoin is. If no receivers accept any blocks the miners create, then their block reward is worthless, and they can not pay their electricity bill. Now, of course, I do agree that if you decide to change unilaterally what bitcoin is and have your node accept only that, you do the same errors as miners do if they mine invalid blocks, only at a smaller scale. Noone will accept your "invalid" bitcoins, any more than they should accept the bitcoins a miner that decide to change the protocol gives them. The decentralization, which amounts to "how few people need to collaborate to change bitcoin", very much depend upon people independently validate transactions. And that the ability for central entities not to change bitcoin at will is extremely important for the trustlessness nature of bitcoin.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 8, 2019 13:38:49

You "cash out" where you get the absolute best price - and in USD if USD is what you ultimately want. Or, just keep it and spend fiat instead, if you need fiat. If you absolutely need to sell, then sell for the highest price of course. But factor in the "cost" of getting the fiat to where and what currency you ultimately want it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on September 8, 2019 12:54:55

It's not that it was wrong per se, it's just that we didn't have the experience to adjust the course. But, all the way from 2014, and even before, we did know that it was *not* as simple as raising the block size. It's just that the stubborn big-blockers believed we should follow this "plan", because the white paper apparently said so. I'm not that fond of analogies, but I will try again: Back in the days, we did have dirt roads. They were meant for horses, carriages and people. As cars came along, it became apparent we needed to change the roads. And as traffic jams became a reality, we understood that it's *not* as simple as just raising road capacity, we need to do it smarter. But even today, we have people that believe "just build more roads!" is the solution to all traffic problems. As we learn, we have to adjust our expectations and knowledge. No grand plan is good enough to not adjust the expectations as new knowledge and experience comes along. But if you believe that the original course is the final one, and we have nothing to learn from the years since Satoshi left, then I agree: you and I have no more to talk about.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 8, 2019 12:07:33

If it pleases you: I think it's a dumb idea to continue on the path to destruction just because you believe it was what a whitepaper said. A whitepaper is a good starting point, but if you're not willing to adjust your course or expectation from real life experience, then you are *doing it wrong*.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 8, 2019 11:46:33

We simply disagree with what are the "product" of bitcoin, and whether or not there is a grand plan/mission statement we have to follow. You think the primary product is that it's low cost. I think that the primary product is that it's secure, irreversible and trustless. I don't believe there is a final *mission* statement, a *grand plan* we have to follow to the letter. We do what works, what makes bitcoin the best, most secure, most trustless money. If you believe you can outcompete trustbased systems in price, I have some news for you: You can't. The intrinsic cost of doing it in a central database will always be less than doing it on a PoW blockchain.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 8, 2019 11:07:32

None if this really contradicts what I am saying. This talks about the *hidden* costs from the possibility of reversals, and we *both* agree that it's the finality of it that is the "product" of bitcoin. And no, noone finds low-cost undesirable. That's just *bullshit*. What we care about is that there is sufficient fee pressure to actually pay for the security of the blockchain/PoW combination that provides this finality. If that's not there, then we might as well just use a centralized database, it's much easier and cheaper.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 8, 2019 08:53:37

There *is* actually a reason for u/luke-jr to want to reduce the block size. It's because he actually believes 1MB is too large. Understand this: Bitcoin does not exist because iẗ́'s too expensive to send money. That is a problem that can be solved better in a centralized solution, blockchain will in total always be more expensive than a centralized database. Bitcoin solves the finality problem of transactions, but little more. It guarantees that a transaction can not be reversed - not by the network, not by the governement, not by anyone. *Anything* that reduces this property of bitcoin contributes to making bitcoin a worse currency. The reversed transactions on the BCH blockchain was a big red flag to many people. It doesn't matter if it was a good reversal or a bad reversal, it was a reversal, and it demonstrated *beyond doubt* that BCH transactions are easily reversable. There is a site that calculates finality as defined by PoW, - at the time I write this, BCH is at a bit more than a day to have 6 BTC-block-equivalents of finality, or *more than 4 hours* to have 1. It's still better than visa, sure, we don't disagree on that. But, i strayed away from your question. Because your question is not one I feel a need to answer. It's not even relevant, Bitcoin is about finality of transactions, and decentralization is a very important aspect of this finality. Centralization makes it easier for said centralized entities to cooperate to reverse transactions. Or change other properties of transactions, which might be equally bad. If anything, you argue for waiting quite a bit more for "normal people to catch up" before we raise the 1MB limit, which is more in line with my opinion. I'm not against raising the blocksize *when concensus is that the upside is worse than the downside". That has not happened. If it had, then blocksize would be raised. Consensus, btw, is a strange word. In bitcoin it's more than "majority", in bitcoin it is more akin to "all rational actors agree". This makes it quite hard to change bitcoin. That, too, is not a bug, it's a feature. Bitcoin literally came to be because it was too easy for central entities to excercise control over money. Bitcoin isn't a charity, to help people transact for free. It's a way to make sure people have *the freedom* to transact, with hard money. But that's not the same as free of cost.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 8, 2019 08:21:40

The answer lies, probably, somewhere in between. I still believe that if it's beyond the reach of a normal person to validate the blockchain, then we *lose* the reason for that normal person to trust the blockchain, we have to trust the validators. Which is not much different than trusting the central banks and the paypals out there. I am not saying *every* person will run a full node, that goal is simply unattainable, I am saying that every person should know, beyond doubt, that there is a healthy number of *people like him* that can and do validate the blockchain. But if we do raise the bar of running a full node, then we quickly end up in "surely there's going to be someone else doing it, but for me, it's just too much trouble" for almost all of the normal people out there. Then, we have paypal 2.0 again. Side note: I have been giving thought to this question a lot, over time. "How small is small enough?". My current answer is: Small enough that it's sensible to run a pruning node on a cell phone.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 8, 2019 07:38:16

On this, we can agree. If you believe in maximizing payment throughput, trusting a decreasing number of full nodes to be honest, acting in your behalf, go for BCH. If you believe the security of bitcoin to lie in the numbers of people validating what all the others are doing, then you need to be concerned about it actually being a sensible option to run a full node - not only to miners and the coinbases out there, but also to people like you. If not, we're going to have "the little man vs the big man" all over again.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 8, 2019 07:25:52

That's just it. Blockspace that is not scarce, for some definition of scarce, simply doesn't make economic sense. At all. There will be a race to the bottom for fees, and there has even be talks here about encouraging lowering fees should your coin appreciate in value. On the BTC chain, we have accepted the fee market. None of us really *like* paying high fees, but there's a market, and it's there for a reason. We need it to develop along-side the reduction in block reward. I have heard it said, many a time, here, that "block reward runs out in 2140, we can worry then". Guess what: It halves. Every 4 years. This means that unless you want security to dwindle, you are going to have to make up for it. BCH strategy is to make up for it in mass adoption *on chain*, making it necessary for massive blocks - no, not only massive max blocksize, the actual blocks have to be massive, because fees will be small (race to the bottom), making it only be those who *really* have to - miners - to run full nodes. Sure, actors like coinbase, bitpay etc will still do, but that's going to be *it*. Basically. There's a reason some of us call BCH "paypal 2.0". It's because this is *centralization*, and it stops at being a paypal-on-blockchain. And yes, feel free to point out that there's some centralization pressure in LN. I know there is, although it's a bit different than the one in BCH. Where do you want centralization? On your main chain, or on layers above it? Pick your evil. It's there. Capacity. Decentralization. Speed. Security. You *have* to do trade offs. In BTC, we believe security and decentralization is the most important properties to retain on-chain, and in the payment layers above it, of which LN is the current best bet, we can lower decentralization and do some security tradeoffs to achieve capacity and speed. We sure as hell are not going to chase a physically impossible pipe-dream of achieving all of those on-chain. Pick your tradeoffs, where they make sense. But don't lose sight on what is the most important properties.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 8, 2019 06:51:34

So, let me get this straight: When you have got 1 million merchants doing onchain transactions, and you hit this limit, you are going to ask them all to halt adoption for a year or two until you have developed off-chain mechanisms they can use, and then have them all switch to that?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 8, 2019 06:35:46

yet, you can not accept that it takes time to make LN granny-safe? This happens to be my take on it too, adoption will take a lot of time - no matter what. We need to use this time good, make sure that our adoption is around technologies that actually scale nicely, not incurring the technical debt of a huge blockchain. Which is why my current focus is Lightning Network.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 8, 2019 06:24:26

It's interesting as in noticing that even in this sub (and not only over on where the BSVers are these days), they tend to quote Satoshi when they run out of technical arguments. Guess what - Satoshi was on a learning journey in Bitcoin reality just as much as the rest of us.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 8, 2019 06:11:15

Please remember: The time starts from the time the would-be attacker submits the old state. He can't wait until the time has gone out and \*then\* submit an old channel state. If the timeout is 2 days, then a would-be attacker that has seen you being away from two days would have to guess that you would be away the \*next\* two days, too.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/lightningnetwork on September 7, 2019 05:05:32

I agree. A lot of people fall in the trap of picking people to follow instead of trying to think for themselves.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 2, 2019 01:10:06

Why do you jump to the assumption that I feel any love for r/bitcoin mods? I think r/bitcoin is almost as much of a cesspool as r/btc is. However, bitcoin isn't a popularity contest. It's sound money.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 2, 2019 00:51:23

See, here we disagree again. You can not judge bitcoin by technology alone, because it's as much a sociological, political and economic system. It's genius is that the rules of the blockchain limits the influence of single actors, but there's still economics incentives, politics to some extent, that we need to be careful *not* to destroy in the process of evolving bitcoin. I don't doubt that some DDOS happened to Bitcoin XT nodes, but I have no specific knowledge about this, i.e. who was behind it etc. I *do* consider Bitcoin XT, with it's ridiculously low bar for activating, a reckless attack on bitcoin. I like to think that if UASF had been invented at that point, we'd have avoided a lot of bad blood. UASF was totally revolutionary. Does UASF prevent miners from unilaterally changing the protocol? Nope. But it's a *pretty* strong signal to ignore. 95% of the nodes saying they're going to consider your blocks invalid if you don't change the protocol? Sure, it's not perfect, but it's a signal. Any signalling can be ignored, but miners that choose to ignore it risk to mine invalid and/or coins of less value. Which is also the reason Segwit2X failed. All signals in the market pointed to Segwit2X being worth *much* less than the alternative. It'd be highly uneconomical to proceed. Hash rate follows price. Deal with it. Price is not set by miners but by the market.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 1, 2019 12:20:15

We simply disagree, but as I said, I am not going down that road anymore, because it's counterproductive.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 1, 2019 11:50:10

1) Yes, liquidity management is structural, but there exists solutions today. The UX for it can probably be made way better, over time, for example by defacto-standards for requesting incoming liquidity, that may be built into wallets over time. 2) I refrain from getting into an argument about who has been using dirty tactics, I will just state the fact that opinions on this differ *wildly*. Arguing about that usually is a waste of time, so I try to discuss facts and tech, these days. LN is getting better every day. You can't easily *temporarily* raise the block size until LN is "ready" (whatever that means; for *me* and an incrasing number of other peopple, LN is ready today. I use it as my primary mean of instant bitcoin payments nowadays). But ok. As I state again and again: You have the option of not using LN. On-chain will always be an option. And yes, of course you have the option to use other coins for payment - with the added complexity of exchanging to/from bitcoin, or the exchange rate risk of having larger amounts of that other coin instead of bitcoin. It's a free world. Market will and is sorting it out.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 1, 2019 10:39:12

I hear this a lot. We are pretty early in the building of the LN ecosystem. There's already some options for incoming liquidity, more will appear over time. 1) If someone opens a channel to you, you get incoming liquidity. There already exists a few options, both as a commercial service or free. Keep in mind that most *users* will spend more than they receiver over LN, at least for the immediate future. Businesses, however, will of course be able to pay a tiny bit for their first incoming liquidity. Good channel management and a growing LN ecosystem will make sure you can spend incoming liquidity over and over again, by sending out again what people have paid you. Sure, it's different than on-chain. On-chain will always be safest, but it will be prone to irregular block times, fee variations due to a fee market, and all those things. LN is a tradeoff. You can choose not to use it, and continue to use on-chain payments. But you will have to pay the cost.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on September 1, 2019 06:33:47

Routing through an unpatched node is safe. No node ever holds funds for you.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 31, 2019 05:53:45

Not strictly, but: Noncustodial, check. No intermediary? Question of definition. Your cash register \*can\* have just minimal access rights given. Typically, you'd assign it only rights to create invoices and check for events relating to those invoices. In fact, at least in the LND world, this is best practise today. No full node: Check, although not fully recommended yet. Neutrino will allow LND to run without its own full node. Receiving wallet can be offline? Nope. But as a shop node will likely be more concerned about having incoming liquidity than outgoing liquidity, you'd likely not keep too much funds on the side of the shop, but send off those funds elsewhere so that you'd replenish the incoming liquidity.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 31, 2019 05:16:47

You can, but it is and has always been unsafe to accept 0-conf transactions. There is a *reason* we actually have Proof-of-Work. RBF doesn't really change much, but of course if you do a transaction where you want the shop to honor 0-conf, you *shoud* turn off RBF, and any shop accepting 0-conf should of course not accept 0-conf transactions with RBF - but rather wait for one confirmation if RBF is there. Fortunately, for a shop it should be fairly easy to automate this, as it is a flag in the transaction that the should could have its software check.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on August 28, 2019 11:05:31

You might decide to use a wallet that can do RBF. Segwit will also save you some fees.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on August 28, 2019 10:28:03

First, do you know the person? Then, he'll tell you what amunt he want *in bitcoin*, everything else is bullshit. Second, it sounds like you're not quite sure what you're doing. There's quite a lot of scams in the crypto markets. Make sure you're not falling for one of them. In particular: - If you just got a mail saying he have some pictures/movies of you doing things you don't want others to know about: Ignore them. We all get them. They're fake. - If you are paying someone that promises to give you more back later, this is also usually a scam. - Remember: bitcoin is non-reversible. If you trade something with unknown people, make sure you have the money before sending the bitcoin. Paypal can be reversed, and almost all fiat-based money transfer methods can be reversed. Be careful. And: If you're not quite sure what you're doing, it'd be a good idea to get quite sure before you do it, if you care about the money.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on August 27, 2019 11:05:41

I don't know what kind of account you are talking about? Exchange account? Bitcoin account in your own wallet? Custodial account? Also, where are you going to trade a grand? In an exchange? Selling bitcoin for a grand? Buying a grand of bitcoin? There's way too little information here. Also, I'm not much of a trader, but I do know that if I want to trade something, I'd better make sure I have what I want to trade at the place and time I want to trade it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on August 27, 2019 10:27:46

When sending btc, there's no $ involved. The receiver, however, might \*count\* it in dollar, although this is very rare in shopping/trading systems. If a price is given in btc, then btc is what he wants. Now, while sending to \*yourself\*, you don't need to care about the dollar price of bitcoin at all. Bitcoin doesn't know what a dollar is, it's only we that knows what we are willing to sell a bitcoin for, in dollars. What you need to learn something about, though, are bicoin transaction fees. My favourite fee estimator is []( \- it visualizes neatly the fee trends, but it doesn't tell you exactly what fee to pay. Only you can decide that. Most automated fee estimators greatly overestimates the required fee, in my opinion the above fee estimator is the one that gives me the best overview of how fees fluctuate over time, allowing me to decide for myself how important/urgent my transaction is.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on August 27, 2019 10:19:15

Completely is a strong word. \- The sender obviously knows who he's paying, he has the public key/node ID of the recipient. \- The receiver might know who he has given the invoice to, but there's nothing in LN that tells who paid it. He knows over which incoming channel it arrived, but he doesn't know if that was the source or if it was routed. The existence of private channels make this even more difficult. \- Intermediate nodes knows only over which channel it comes in and via which channel it goes out, but he doesn't have information about the payer or who the payment is really for. \- There's likely quite a lot of analysis that \*can\* be done, but in it's core, this is the information that nodes in the network has. And: If you're not part of a transaction (i.e: neither the sender, an intermediate node or the receiver), you won't know about the transaction at all.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 27, 2019 09:03:09

There's difference between double spend of unconfirmed transactions and double spend of confirmed transactions. Double spend of unconfirmed transactions is not extremely easy, but can be done. It's a \*tradeoff\* a shop needs to take of its own free will, it'd be dishonest to label it as anything else. Doublespend of confirmed transactions is expensive - but much less so on BCH than on BTC, due to the difference in hash rate.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 26, 2019 14:09:56

Sorry, really hard to know what policies/routines various exchanges have.... The fee is plenty high, so there's likely some other reason the exchange hasn't sent it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on August 25, 2019 05:28:00

Then this is an exchange problem, not a bitcoin problem as such. Are you sure he doesn't have to do something to confirm it? (Like, an email confirmation) ? Some do. It's hard to know for anyone why an exchange doesn't send it, he'd have to ask the exchange support, I guess.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on August 25, 2019 04:51:24

First, 900 satoshi fee doesn't say anything itself, it's the satoshi \*per byte\* that matters. But, barring he was using a \*really\* faulty wallet, your transaction should have been mined. [,8h](,8h) says there's no real backlog, mempool is emptying all the time. Can you see the transaction in for example

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on August 25, 2019 04:45:00

I tested bottle. It seems to work ok, but it doesn't leave a message at reddit. Did you get any notifications I paid you? Or, try logging in/creating an account?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/lightningnetwork on August 11, 2019 08:25:34

He's a salesman, simply. Salesmen can be great to have "on board", but a lot of them jump ship once they see a greater opportunity elsewhere. For them, that is. Now, Rogers influence was waning in bitcoin, so he wanted to repeat it elsewhere. Any salesman will try to hold on to "his" customers, by luring them on board in their new project. Hence, he need to convince people to ditch his previous project and buy his new one. Is it evil? Dishonest? It's simply sales. You need to be aware of it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on August 11, 2019 05:41:04

I also would like this to happen, at least a pruned node. &#x200B; This means we probably need a few more years of improvements before we can afford to increase the block size. But: If we can effectivize the economy so much in the meantime that we don't have to increase the block size, that would be even better.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 10, 2019 11:23:08

Please don't quote sentences out of context.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 8, 2019 23:08:58

It just moves it somewhere else. Now, a legacy node, not understanding segwit, would not see the signature. But it still begs to differ: How would you even come to that situation that you needed to validate signature for a segwit transaction unless you created it yourself. Now, of course you could run on legacy transaction and \*someone elses\* invalid segwit transaction would be in that block. So in the case of legacy nodes, your security is more or less somewhere between an SPV node and a full node. For full security, you should of course upgrade to a segwit aware node, and you will see that the segwit signatures are indeed in the blocks.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 8, 2019 16:58:25

Sure. Anyone using things they don't fully understand is running a risk.. In my opinion, it's much more honest to say that 0-conf is not safe, period. An unaware vendor could also easily get doublespent without RBF, and imho if we get significant adoption wallets doing easy double spend attempts will totally be prevalent.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on August 8, 2019 16:06:36

thank you :)

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on August 8, 2019 14:44:25

That is true, yes. That is, if the wallet supports it. But in reality, there's no safety in anything that is only in the mempool anyways, any miner is free to pick any transaction, even transactions not submitted to the mempool. And it's also a bit misleading to talk about \*the\* mempool. Any node has its own mempool, and timing issues, different fee policies etc can easily make it so that one set of nodes have one transaction, another have a different one, spending the same output. RBF is, in many ways, just more honest. If a transaction has set the RBF flag, you signal to the receiver that you \*can\* replace it with a new version. Note: there is a flag on RBF transactions, so the receiver can easily verify if the sender can use RBF or not. If RBF is set, you probably should not accept 0-conf transactions - but then again, accepting 0-conf transaction is a security tradeoff anyhow, so it's up to the receiver of the money to decide when to count the transaction as settled. Note also that LN transactions are also quite instant, and does not have these doublespend issues at all. Most stores selling stuff where a sufficient fee would make it linger in the mempool should probably prepare to support lightning network soon.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on August 8, 2019 14:18:37

I have only one answer to that: Good enough is relative. People are already using it. When it gets even better, more people will gain confidence and start using it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 7, 2019 09:23:05

Thanks I stand corrected. It can pay invoices of less, but you need to adjust minhtlc in lnd.conf. Payment and balance will be shown in satoshi, but I verified that the millisatoshi are actually counted as that internally.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on August 7, 2019 08:36:15

I can't really remember, something like that :) But you'll also need to change a setting in LND, setting minhtlc parameter to 1 millisatoshi. By default, it won't accept transactions below 1 satoshi. Can be done, is not too hard, but in my opinion it's really just for the curious, so far, without too many practical implications.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on August 7, 2019 07:41:31

We are not. We are totally making that compromise in the BTC ecosystem, but we can totally have our cake and eat it too. One of the compromises is called LN. No, it is \*never\* ever going to be as good as on-chain, but never was it meant to. It just have to be good enough to use for day-to-day small-to-medium ecommerce. Exactly the use-cases we give up by not scaling too much on-chain, btw. In conclusion: We are making the compromise, just not on layer 1 (the blockchain).

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 7, 2019 06:45:38

It's actually not that hard. I sent 1000 1 millisatoshi transactions over an LN channel to a friend I had a channel with. That feeling when you have just sent 1000 transactions while the balance has stayed at same value in satoshis, and then balance decreases by 1 satoshi as it should when you sent your 100th 1 millisat-payment. I know math, but it's still magic :)

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on August 7, 2019 02:45:24

He didn't say that. He said he was popping champaign that people paying high fees validated the fee market, i.e. that there is always sufficient demand for fees, making it more likely that we'll see fees paying for the security in the future. But the first half of the sentence was that he'd personally like to see the fees to be lower. There's a ton of difference. This sub likes to quote things seriously out of context, don't fall for it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 7, 2019 02:17:56

You might be mostly correct. A hardfork will only be possible if it's almost s lf-evident that there's much more positive than negative consequences. For a serious bug-fix, then that's a nobrainer. But there might arise other things than that. At some point, we might have optimized things around block propagation, technology have improved so much, etc, that a block size increase is deemed safe enough (as in: won't have significant negative consequences), even. But I won't hold my breath on that one yet. And there's still tons of improvements to do on effectivizing the usage of the chain, work on that has become much easier to do now that those who only want to raise the block size went off to start their own coin.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on August 7, 2019 01:57:57

Yes. To be honest, LN channels was created to a demand that wasn't quite there, yet. It's not all that surprising if people are closing channels there's no real demand for yet. But, feel free to track this largely useless metric. I know you like to FUD in here.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 6, 2019 14:16:55

Yes, it does. But hash rate matters and it's really the only external form of security (besides your own OP-SEC) that you should trust. That, and verified strong crypto.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 6, 2019 11:45:45

For someone that claims to have been here a while, you demonstrate surprisingly low degree of understanding of bitcoin. Do you claim that there is not more security with more hash rate?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 6, 2019 11:17:56

Yup probably because we currently have no rogue miners. Not that rogue at least. But bitcoin is meant to eliminate the need for trusting people. That includes the miners. Just because noone takes advantage of this now, does not mean that they won't do in the future.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 6, 2019 10:59:49

I do know why I am in bitcoin. It's because I see the need for a coin - with known properties, free from quantive easings (i.e. fixed inflation schedule) - that *everyone* can validate - that has *quick* finality (no 3 month random rollbacks) Cheap is secondary to this, and quick without finality (i.e. 0-conf) is uninteresting.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 6, 2019 10:35:10

During the two years since BCH was created, your coin has decreased in price compared to BTC - look up a graph and you can see that the trend os slow downtrend, but you have managed a few good pumps. This is a sign that BCH is failing to provide the utility that people are willing to pay for. In my opionion, this is: Security (See []( Finality. (See above) Feature stability (see the 6 months hard fork schedule where a cabal can change the coin properties every 6 months, as opposed to the true consensus mechanism in BTC where things are discussed until it's obvious it's a good thing). Predictability. See above, and the addition of "surprise" features like the rolling checkpoints. Cheap and fast transaction is something there is already a ton of providers for. See for example Revolut and a ton of other fintechs. BCH is misreading the market and going in a direction that there is no market need for, so it's value, hash rate and every metric is dwindling. On the BTC chain, fast and cheap transaction is secondary to the first mentioned properties. We'll get there, but not if it costs us some of the important properties, so it will be a bit more complex than just doubling the block size.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 6, 2019 10:17:41

No, we can all do better. But I am not paid for this, so it's limited how much time and effort I can put into it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 6, 2019 07:05:48

Good luck competing against the revoluts another fintechs. Bitcoin is more secure money, not faster money.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 6, 2019 06:55:24

> Why? The capacity is there so what's the big deal? If Bitcoin is to compete with established payment options AND other crypto, it needs to accommodate such transactions and not make them 2nd class citizens on the network (AKA LN), we also want such transactions for fees, a LOT of transactions with minuscule fees, not the other way around. Sorry. I don't agree. We're competing in the "immutable, secure transactions" space, not "fast, cheap transactions". Another crucial property of bitcoin is that it has known features, and *can and is validated to such an extend that you don't have to trust single entities*. Large blocks takes away that possibility for more people. It destroys core properties of bitcoin. Yes, LN is a tradeoff, but it's a tradeoff that each one using LN is taking, and it's not a tradeoff that hurts the whole currency. > It's "easy" when you're doing it from the comfort of your home for a research article, try it with a cop/security staring at you at the shop when any failure is a potential jail time or ass whooping - not so easy then ;) I totally believe that if we mature beyond this being an enthusiast thing - because let's face it, if you use bitcoin for payments today, it's because you're *into it*, it's rarely the cheapest or even the most convenient way for normal e-commerce - we're going to see people creating wallets catering to people wanting to do fraud. They will look like normal wallets, there won't be anything suspicious about them to a shopkeeper. But when sending a payment, it will at the same time do a doublespend attempt. Such wallets *will* appear if e-commerce is built around 0-conf. It's inevitable. > If you like the security model of LN, you can use the same on BCH by using 0-conf with deposit forfeiture if someone tries to double-spend thanks to DSV, with several advantages too - you do not need to watch for months, just for ~10m and it's settled, no watchtowers needed, no risk of broadcasting old state by the other party, no channel setup needed, you can choose the deposit amount etc. Yes, LN is a tradeoff. But so is increasing the blocksize to accomodate all the coffee cup spendings. With LN, the users are doing that tradeoff themselves. They can choose to pay the onchain cost if they like, but most will use LN because it's good enough. Yes, there are different attack vectors, but *all of them* you can avoid by just doing your research and using LN properly, and *all of them* is possible to improve on by improving LN. 0-conf is inherently insecure, and trying to introduce other "pre-consensus" mechanisms like Avalanche will totally open up a can of worms and mechanisms that can be gamed to the advantage of the large players. Contrary to what the narrative is here, there's good progress in LN development. But it won't ever be "finished", because no project that's not dead yet is ever finished. It can always become better. But today, it's good enough that it sees significant usage.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 6, 2019 05:51:18

You might be correct for coffee cup spendings, but at some point, PoW becomes interesting. I also think it's early days, we can't *really* read anything out of the statistics of how often double spends are happening. However, we don't really want coffee cup spendings to bloat our blockchain at all. BOth u/rizun and u/alexbosworth has earlier shown that double spends on the BCH blockchain is relatively easy, so you probably should not accept it for transactions over a couple of hundred dollars, at max. Or, in other words, in the territory where LN have its prime use case. I have used LN with a couple hundred dollars several times.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 6, 2019 04:02:30

Why does Gavin deserve forgiveness, when he: 1) Ran off and talked to CIA. 2) Was bamboozled by CSW and gave him some credibility early on? At the time of his commit access was revoked, he was not doing active development at all. It was risk management. Bitcoin is larger than one man. It has no \*owner\*, and noone that the rest of the community does not trust fully \*should\* have commit access. The code is probably the weakest point, trustlessness-wise, in bitcoin, but even if it's in the code, noone has to upgrade to that piece of software if it has dubious code in it. I am pretty sure that Gavin could have had back his commit access if he wanted it enough and was able to justify his previous actions to his fellow developers.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 6, 2019 03:39:04

Bingo! They can orphan existing transactions. NOw, what is the incentive for not doing that? PoW. The assumed "gold" standard for when something is for all practical purposes final on BTC chain is 6 blocks. You can see how much that corresponds to on []( (numbers will of course vary, because they are based on \*actual\* math and metrics from the relative blockchains). Now, BCH isn't all that bad per se, it achieves this immutability in a bit more than a day (compared to BTCs one hour). Monero and Dash are worse off, while Bitcoin, Ethereum and Litecoin is better off. But fact remains: Compared to BTC, BCH is dead slow, not fast!

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 6, 2019 03:28:57

Maybe it's because LN is not a coin that needs this kind of valuation? It's simply bitcoin in multisig-addresses governed by two parties, ready for truly instant transactions.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 5, 2019 17:02:33

If you are creating an invoice, you give channel hints in the invoice, which tells the payer about your private channels -which he then can use when paying the invoice. When you are paying your own invoices, you of course know about them already. Private channels can thus be used both ways, but they won't be used for routing. They are simply letting users be users - to borrow a term you like to use much in thus sub. It's not that they're that secret, though, they are just not announced to the network as a whole. This trend is only natural, because now there are more mobile wallets to chose from. They usually default to create private channels. I also know that the guy behind LNBIG has decided to close quite a few of those big channels he was setting up (those not being used), instead providing incoming liquidity (in private channels, often) to people who need it. Quite a bit of that largely useless metric has moved to other kinds of channels, in other words.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 5, 2019 16:48:32

I actually also have a hard time keeping my channels balanced (which is better for routing, especially until AMP is here), because I have much more incoming liquidity than outgoing liquidity. In real life, this turns out not to be \*that\* much of a problem currently.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 5, 2019 16:37:04

Question for you: How much do you think it would actually help? This year, and two years down the road. What do you think the effect of it would be, in the expectations about future scaling, in the push for more effective use of blockchain, in LN adoption? In other words: Would it be good for bitcoin \*in the long run\* ? I believe in developing the bitcoin ecosystem for the future, not only for today.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on August 5, 2019 13:51:08

Yes. But if you're going to go that route, ignoring bitcoins \*main\* properties, why have a blockchain at all? The fintechs will eat your lunch - look at for example Revolut. Cheap and fast transactions are uninteresting. We'll get there, but not by sacrificing the most important properties of bitcoin.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on August 4, 2019 05:22:34

He's a salesman. Some salesmen will "sell something" way beyond them believing it themselves - until they get something else to sell. A good salesman can be nice to have, but never ever trust a salesman, always do your own research. Which also nicely sums up my opinions of the crypto space. There's not really anyone you should trust, unconditionally. And in fact, this is really the whole point about bitcoin - you limit the trust factor because you know the rules, and you can and should validate that people follow them to any extent you can.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 3, 2019 10:24:11

It's actually quite a good read on why Moores Law is no law of nature, the ways in which it's ending, and the implications.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 3, 2019 06:11:50

6 confirmations on BTC chain is as of this moment equal to 187 BCH confirmations. See - BCH isn't fast compared to bitcoin, it's slow.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 3, 2019 04:46:55

In my opinion, there's very few real bitcoin-maximalists. Most of them are "truslessness"-maximalists, "security"-maximalists or "validation"-maximalists. \*All\* the alts, without exception, is made "better" in some way by compromising on some of these values. Most of us in bitcoin is unwilling to do that - at least on the mainchain. That said, on layers above (which of course are not mandatory to use, anyone can pay the required fee to use the main chain), we're fine with some compromises. That is actually the whole point. If we need to compromise on some of these most important features, let's not do it on the main chain. That's maximalism. We believe in building a coin that's \*best\* in those areas. Capacity, cheap transactions, other things that the alts do, we'll eventually do. But not on the main chain if it decreases the core properties.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on August 2, 2019 10:02:34

It does not. But reddit is not a permissionless platform.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 2, 2019 09:56:02

To be honest, I believe you are right. But this is the *whole point* of most of us you'd call "BTC maximalists". We believe in maximalizing the most important aspects of crypto on the main chain. *Any* compromise should come on layers atop of it. Which is why you'd see some come up positive about Liquid, even though they have no love and such for trusted solutions. We believe in giving people what they need, but *not* necessarily on the main chain if it takes away core properties. (I say "we believe" as a gross generalization here, I speak only about myself and what I understand from what others are saying)

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 2, 2019 08:50:51

Ok. I guess I was a bit inaccurate. Last time we had this discussion, I checked that bots policy, which was to enable it only of a moderator requested it. Sounds reasonable for me. Then I pinged a moderator, which refused to request it, to "protect the sub from the bad user experience of LN".

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 2, 2019 08:40:53

I can give you a few. I have filtered out those I believe had the half-truths you speak about, these all contains things that was said in good faith. But the tone might be a bit harsh at times, which is just the tone of the actual discussion, or a reaction to people trying to spread misinformation. Simple factual information, void of opinions whatsoever, downvoted: Information about technology people don't like having positive exponation here: Goes against the narrative that full nodes doesn't matter. They are my own, honest opinions: My description of LN progress, and my opinions of the progress: My opinion of what makes bitcoin valuable: Goes against the narrative that "believers of BTC believes *only* in store of value: Education about fees and the possibility of using Lightning: Goes against the conspiracy narrative that is so vital to BCHs survival:

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 2, 2019 08:20:39

Well. To be honest, it just proves they actually believe in the \*value\* of bitcoin, i.e. the ability to store value. Which is a necessary requirement for it to be sound money. I call it a victory if that is so. In fact, I'd call it a victory for bitcoin if every fiat coin the world was backed by bitcoin. Bitcoin is permissionless, we can't \*possibly\* go around deciding who can/can't buy bitcoin. If that is central banks - so be it, they will be part of validating the legitimity of bitcoin in the eyes of public. Of course, if fiat was backed by bitcoin, you'd find people questioning why they use fiat and not bitcoin directly.... Which would definitely not be a bad thing. I'd call it a win.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 2, 2019 08:00:47

No idea. But there is an LN tipping bot.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 2, 2019 07:40:54

This is false and you know it. Unpopular opinions are downvoted here \*constantly\*. Granted, there's also a counter-upvote-army I have seen at work here. Myself, I mostly read and comment. I never gilded \*anyone\*, though I have been guilded a few times lately? Who's behind it? Your guess is as good as mine. I don't care, I am here for the discussion. Which seems to be harder and harder to do on this sub, day by day.... (and now I got: "You are doing this too often. Try again in 4 minutes").

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 2, 2019 07:30:28

!lntip 1000 You could have had that over lightning. But your moderators said no to LN tipping.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 2, 2019 07:01:47

well, of course. Sort of :) But I don't *really* see what PoW gives us here.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on August 1, 2019 16:07:23

A variant of it is still possible. It's possible for a miner to mine transactions that was never in the mempool. You could possibly submit a tx directly to a miner, possibly with a much higher fee than the one that the merchant has seen. A miner could be incentivized to mine your transaction instead of the one in the mempool. This of course becomes much more feasible with fewer mining pools, but are difficult with more decentralized mining.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 1, 2019 14:01:16

Ah. So finally you admit you agree that it's important that users run full nodes? That's a first from you, I believe. When did you change your mind?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 1, 2019 09:53:50

Blocks will still be mined, but now miners only earn transaction fees

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on August 1, 2019 09:45:17

Yes. We are pretty fucked for as long as dishonest miners control the network. Noone disagrees. Running a full node, you can have a much greater chance of differentiating between honest and dishonest miners. A full node operator is by no means forced to change the protocol in line with the majority if he believes the majority is dishonest. And here is the part you fail to see about the segwit2x cancellation: The signaling gave the miners a pretty clear signal that most nodes would deem segwit2x transactions invalid. That means they would have less chance of selling their coins than on the old chain, and miners need to recuperate their costs. It's the fucking reason for "hash rate follows price". This again was enhanced by futures signaling the price. Now, here in lies also the clue to the importance of a healthy pool of non-mining nodes: it empowers users to differentiate between fraudulent and honest miners, and the more people can and do that, the less do a chance of an attack from dishonest miners have of being profitable. It's all about the fucking incentives. By running a full node, you can be a part of giving that incentive instead of being a sheep.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 1, 2019 09:43:51

Satoshi said in the whitepaper that SPV was safe as long as honest miners controlled the network. Why on earth would he say that if miners was allowed to control bitcoin by themselves, would they not per definition be honest then?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 1, 2019 09:04:02

I don't believe in putting everything into the bitcoin blockchain. The reason? The trust in bitcoin hinges on the ability to validate it. If you make the blockchain bloated, you reduce the possibility for large segments of users. I don't condone making it less usable as decentralized money for any reason, especially not putting auxiliary data into it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on August 1, 2019 07:59:37

That might actually be the best option for BCH. Having a minority hash rate (compared to bitcoin, by such a large margin) will be a huge uncertainty for a coin. There's actual mathematics behind this, of course, and when BTC deposits some places require 6 confirmations, the actual corresponding number of BCH confirmations is 400. See Having a different PoW algorithm than bitcoin would help some, but the absolute hash rate is also important, no matter what algorithm is used. There are coins where the actual equivalent number of confirmations that correspond to 6 on bitcoin is *a lifetime*. Have a look at the site.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 1, 2019 06:39:17

It's a decent idea, but it's totally different properties than money, so I don't think it \*really\* belongs on the bitcoin blockchain. I don't really see how "longest chain" comes into picture for this, or what it means to wait in the mempool, or, god forbid, a double spend :) I think this falls into the "decent idea, but we might as well just use a centralized database for something that has a centralized authority anyways".

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on August 1, 2019 06:20:32

you have the same issue really. But of course it would be more costly to do both a majority and a minority-attack.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 1, 2019 06:09:50

Segwit native if you can. Segwit is wrapped, the transactions from them will be slightly larger, more expensive, and will take up more space on the blockchain. Segwit nested, the ones that start with 3, are there for backwards-compatibility. Not every place will accept sending to a native address, it won't recognize it as a valid address format. Note that every place I have seen, have no problems \*accepting\* from native segwit addresses, it's just that the software will not validate the bc1-type address when entering the destination address.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on August 1, 2019 05:00:02

This is an ongoing risk with the BCH checkpoints, and it doesn't necessarily have to be a deliberate attack. Say there's a split issue - could be network, could be something else. Somehow, 11 blocks are mined on both sides of this split. The checkpoint says not to accept more than 10 blocks reorg. Yes, this means that a \*minority\* hash rate in this split will not accept the longest chain when the split issues are resolved. What to do? You'd have to manually resolve it. You'd have to convince this minority that their effort is worthless, that they have to give up their income from the 11 blocks mined. But, let's say this majority was an unknown entity. Let's say some prominent pools was on the minority side. Would they accept that hash rate as the true Bitcoin Cash? No, they might in fact decide not to, that they instead are going to call it a 51% attack, and ignore it. Maybe it was an attack, but maybe it was not. Maybe it was just someone that believed in BCH so much that they wanted to support it with hash rate. Contratulations: Your currency now supports power grabs by the popularity-contest winners! They can possibly minority-attack a majority they don't like! Your checkpoints are a disaster waiting to happen.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on August 1, 2019 04:51:41

Well, to be honest, I think they won't actually steal your money, so in that regard it's safe. But take care to not buy Bitcoin Cash instead, because you might come across they label it as bitcoin. It should have the bitcoin cash price, though. But well - I myself have a hard time justifying buying bitcoin from an enemy of bitcoin. Yes, not only a competitor, they actively work against bitcoin, with fear, doubt and propaganda.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on July 31, 2019 09:54:48

As much as I disagree with much of your opinions, I agree with you. It's this forums moderators right to set the rules for the forum. If anything not in favor of bitcoin cash is disallowed, it's fair. Kind of like what was done in r/bitcoin. Anything that advocate for things that is detrimental to bitcoin isn't allowed.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 31, 2019 00:16:52

Sure. But Liquid is not a mandatory part of bitcoin, it's a commercial service. It trades away the trustlessness for some speed and predictability, and it's not sold as a crustless service. Bitcoins success depends on a larger ecosystem of off chain and side chains to survive long term. This is an example of such a system, which is why it's a good thing even though I have no need for it myself.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 31, 2019 00:06:10

Oh, it still can. But maybe not on the main blockchain.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 30, 2019 14:24:54

I guess we read different things into this.. To me, it was an illustration of how Satoshi was learning and updating his views on bitcoin, like the rest of us have to do, based on reality. Anyone who claims that Satoshi had a grand plan for everything is lying. He had a core protocol, he had solved the double spend problem with PoW, but other than that? He was learning how it all played out, like everyone else.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 30, 2019 13:45:32

I am cool with trusted third parties in that context, and *as a choice*. There's little use of trustless blockchain if you are transacting between two totally trusted exchanges...

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 30, 2019 13:35:18

Bitcoin Core doesn't attack you. The only thing they do is refuting the endless storm of propaganda from this camp. Stop with that, and you'd be left alone.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 30, 2019 11:30:16

It's not as simple as that. I wrote an opinion piece on my blog where I try to explain more. Basically: Small is good, because bitcoin is supposed to be validated, and small makes it easier to validate.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on July 30, 2019 11:29:05

You do know that Liquid is based on Blockstreams open source Elements framework? Yes, please go ahead. Do create a competing sidechain. You are allowed to. Noone has ever claimed Liquid is trustless, though, you have to show me that.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 30, 2019 11:10:06

I guess if you just want to use something that you can donate for cheap to someone else, bitcoin cash isn't bad - but it's not bitcoin :) It's cheaper, and cheaper to transact with, though. It also loses value much quicker, and is more volatie (changes value) more than bitcoin. All factors you need to take. I never really understood that millionairemakers thing, but I guess it is a lottery good as any. There exists an LN tipbot, description at but I can't demo it here, because the mods here didn't want to enable it.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 30, 2019 10:03:26

This subreddit have been taken over by people supporting a fork of Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash. If you are interested in Bitcoin, there is a subreddit at r/bitcoin, but I will agree with this sub that the content there is not exactly high quality either. I believe you can for example buy bitcoin from [](, which is the exchange I happen to prefer. What you do with after it, depends on a few things: 1) What do you want to use it for? 2) How much is it? It seems to me you are interested in trying to use it, so I'd recommend a wallet that supports some of the new and upcoming technology, like Lightning Network. My personal favourite among the current publically available mobile wallets are Eclair. Not sure if it's available for iPhone. Next on the list is "Bitcoin Ligtning wallet" (yes, name sucks, I agree). There's a closed alpha for Lightning Labs' mobile wallet ongoing. I was able to join it, and to me it has become the favourite wallet - so look out for it! Now, all of these are sort of experimental technology so far, safety features are not that mature yet, but things are falling into place. I would not put my lfe savings on such a wallet just yet. If you are looking to buy a little more than "just a little", most people recommend a hardware wallet, and the most popular are Ledger and Trezor. This is a hardware thing that keeps your private key on the device, which handles all the usage of the key. That way, malware on your computer is unable to steal your key, and usually they have other features, like Trezor, that I use, have a display that shows which address I am paying to. This is useful because there exists malware out there that actively look for bitcoin addresses in your browser usage, and replace them with their own addresses. The Internet can be a bad place, and security is important to learn. Next, there's research. There is a lot of people who has an opinion of what bitcoin should be. Some of them have parted from bitcoin and gone their own way, and some of them again are bitter enough to spread propaganda against bitcoin. This community supports mostly Bitcoin Cash, which is founded on the belief that BTC is now run by people not wanting to further bitcoin. Full disclosure: I am no means impartial in this, I believe more in bitcoin than bitcoin cash, I don't own any significant amount of bitcoin cash. I am just telling that you need to do your own research, and \*don't believe everything you are told\*. Yes, obviously this also goes as far as not taking everything \*I\* say as gospel. You need to verify, always, what you are told. Sometimes, it can be hard to find the truth. Is

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 30, 2019 09:26:56

Because it's not as trustless,and it's a permissioned network. That is, however, fine for the use-cases it was intendend for anyhow - people operating in the non-trustless space between trading and exchanges. Your question should be rephrased: Do you need to pay for trustlessness and extra security if you don't need it. The answer is no: You can design more lightweight solutions at the cost of these properties, and Liquid is giving people exactly that option. I don't think liquid is necessarily cheaper, though, but it's a federated sidechain with an interblock-time of 1 minute, so for people doing arbitration between exchanges, it's a perfect match.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 30, 2019 06:35:09

Not much difference will happen, feewise, is my guess. Already, when fees get low, we have this company that is called Veriblock, that uses a lot of transactions and pushes the price up again. Lowering the fees will just allow Veriblock or someone else to take up more space, and in not too long, fees are high again. It's better to design systems so that we can use block space more effectively, allowing us to pay more fees for the block space "before it hurts". This forces these secondary use cases to either do the same or stop transacting. It's a bad idea to decide your block size around the "fees should be low" mantra, becauser there will \*always\* be demand for space on the most secure PoW block size in the world. Block size should be designed to continue being the most secure, most trustless blockchain in the world. Being cheap is easy. Being trustless and secure is what's valuable.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on July 30, 2019 06:20:28

Did you even read my blog post? There's significant disagreement about this between r/btc and r/bitcoin, but not among the bitcoin community as a whole. That only what is *possible* to handle is important is extremely naive, and *totally* ignore the question of *why* the public should trust the bitcoin currency at all. If you can't reasonably validate it - or it's not economically viable to do so - then there's no basis to trust it any more. The only reason to trust bitcoin is because you don't have to - you can easily validate it. The less easy it is to validate it, the less reason is there to trust it. This is not even difficult to understand.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 30, 2019 06:09:30

...and totally ignoring why small blocks are preferable. 0-conf transactions need to be included in blocks too.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 30, 2019 05:54:56

There are various microtask-sites. &#x200B; []( seems to be a company/organization documenting nutritient content of various consumer products. New work is posted sporadically, but are fairly easy to do. They do payouts over Lightning Network, no lower limit of payout. []( is another microtask-website. This is more of a job market, where people announce jobs and people volounteer to do it. Price is set by job provider, offers are made by workers. Payouts via Lightning Network, also no minimum payout. This is fairly easy way of "stacking sats", but you won't get rich from them. It might be a fine way of earning some spending satoshi instead of buying them. In these days where LN is starting to take off, there's a lot of places where you can spend not-too-many-satoshi on either entertainment or more useful things. There are also various other sites, I have just mentioned two of the new ones that take advantage of the reduced cost of moving smaller amount of bitcoin, via Lightning Network.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 30, 2019 03:52:46

It's definitely a centralized (or, at least a more centralized) service than the main bitcoin blockchain. This is the whole point, really. Liquid is meant for one type of transactions that does not need the full trustlessness of the bitcoin blockchain. Another example of transactions that doesn't need the full security of the bitcoin blockchain is simple retail, like coffee cups and cell phone top-ups (which bitrefill sells). By building services like Lightning Network and Liquid - which are totally optional to use, btw - we are giving people places to do those transactions. The security and trustlessness of the bitcoin blockchain is not necessarily cheap or fast (though, sometimes it still is), and by doing tradeoffs, we can provide those services in a more predictable or cheaper way. That said, usage of none of those are mandatory, anyone is still allowed to pay $0.50 in fees for a $2 cup coffee. Most people believe people will chose a more economic way given the option, so we believe we can still reduce the load on the blockchain, keeping it more easy to validate. I wrote a piece on that, actually. Not sure if it's finished, but heck, here it is: [](

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 30, 2019 03:26:15

I encourage everyone to listen to this, in cronological order, to understand the process everyone - including Satoshi - learnt from experience, and updated their view on bitcoin as they learnt.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 30, 2019 03:15:31

I am all fine with tradeoffs for small amounts. Problem is, for a currency to be a currency it needs to be able to transfer large amounts too. So, if we need to do tradeoffs somewhere, we'll have to do it for the small amounts. Enter lightning and other offchain solution. Full of tradeoffs, but necessary so that the mainchain stays good also for large amounts. Maximum security, maximum trustlessness. There is no such as too much.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 29, 2019 16:10:27

Noone disagrees that it's a sensible tradeoff to run SPV. The problems starts when it starts to become too burdensome to run full nodes. We all know that the only ones who absolutely \*need\* to run full nodes are miners, and if costs to run a full node becomes too large, we run into trust issues. Simply spoken, we are moving into paypal 2.0 territory. I quote section 8 from the Bitcoin whitepaper here in the full, with a couple of highlights that are mine. Fraud proofs make it a little bit better, but we still need nodes to check for fraud, and preferably as many independent entities as possible. That happens to be called \*decentralization\*, and is a very important reason why we trust bitcoin at all. &#x200B; 8. Simplified Payment Verification It is possible to verify payments without running a full network node. A user only needs to keep a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain, which he can get by querying network nodes until he's convinced he has the longest chain, and obtain the Merkle branch linking the transaction to the block it's timestamped in. \*He can't check the transaction for himself\*, \*but\* by linking it to a place in the chain, \*he can see that a network node has accepted it\*, and blocks added after it further confirm the network has accepted it. As such, \*the verification is reliable as long as honest nodes control the network\*, but \*is more vulnerable if the network is overpowered by an attacker\*. While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency. Businesses that receive frequent payments will probably still want to run their own nodes for more independent security and quicker verification

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 29, 2019 13:38:14

I don't recommend anyone to believe anything they find on reddit. Anyone trying to get information about bitcoin today, should \*probably\* stay away from reddit. If you still want to get your opinion based on reddit, then at least go to a few subs and form your own opinion. There's a lot of tribalism going on, and a lot of ignorance both here and in /r/Bitcoin

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 29, 2019 10:23:46

Interesting take. What is your reason to support BTC if you believe BCH has the right plan? And vice versa, how can you support BCH if you believe BTCs strategy is right? The only way I can see, is if you advocate BTC as the maximally decentralized, maximally secure coin, and then using BCH as your cheap payment alt. I am a firm believer that we definitely need to explore off-chain payment solutions, and right now, LN is the best option we have. Will it \*ever\* be as secure as onchain? No, of course not, but not every transaction is worth the full onchain security. If we want that onchain security, we'll have to be willing to pay the cost for it, and that means there's going to be a lower bar on what's economically possible to do onchain.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 29, 2019 08:39:49

Lightning is important. Layer two is the only way to do relatively small, instant ecommerce payments - and microtransactions - in the future. Right now, Lightning Network is the best we have. The alternative, raising block size, has too many negative effects, and it would probably not do all that good, either. There will always be demand for space on the most secure POW blockchain in the world, so we need to build for the case where that space costs money, and optimize around using that block space smart. The important scaling we need to do, is: 1) Make transactions use less space. See for example Schnorr. 2) Take transactions that doesn't need the full on-chain security away from the main blockchain. See side chains, Lightning Network and other such solutions. Lightning Network is performing nicely, but I guess the "throw more money into ligjhtning to show support" phase is stagnating. People that use Lightning Network does so without much fanfare. I myself have gotten past both my first cup of coffee and my first beer with Lightning Network, but we're still early. Some security feature still need to arrive before anyone is willing to recommend it to the general public, but we're slowly getting there. The stats on 1ml doesn't say very much, especially since mobile wallets are now starting to mature, so people will often use them more for their regular Lightning Network usage. Mobile wallets normally create private channels, and those doesn't show up on 1ml - thus the numbers might lie a bit.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on July 29, 2019 07:50:43

THere's a lot of stores at []( \- some where you can spend only a few satoshis. Else: You might test my site at []( - read a few of my (old by now, I should write some new ones) articles, and buy my paid smileys if you like them :) I also "sell" some of my least crappy pictures, just as a playground to test what can be done.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on July 28, 2019 16:13:06

Without watchtowers being fully implemented, you really would like this number to be high, especially on channels on a mobile or other device that regularly goes offline. This delay is the number of days you have after a fraudulent transaction is spent by the other party to prove that he has done so. Remember that lightning network is a tradeoff, you trade away some finality and some security for lower fees and speed. That said, it will definitely be better with watchtowers fully deployed. Not that I expect them to really be used much, but as part of game theory making sure it's even less possible to publish old channel states successfully. If you close a channel while the other node is online (i.e. the channel is active), your node and that node will be able to agree on the final state. This makes it a cooperative close, and this long wait goes away.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/lightningnetwork on July 28, 2019 13:57:42

Oh, sorry. I misread your comment. Apologize for that. Your contrarian thread made it plausible that you had some influence from the altcoin-pushers. Again, sorry for that 🙂

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on July 28, 2019 07:24:06

lightning network is not an altcoin, it's a method of transacting bitcoin (well, it can work on other cryptocurrencies too)

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on July 28, 2019 06:49:46

This is precicely the reason why anyone sending/accepting BTC transactions should run a full node. A full node will not accept a transaction or a block that's not following the rules of the blockchain. Should the chinese miners be duly influenced by the chinese authority to change bitcoin to their liking, they won't be able to spend the bitcoin they earn from it. While mining is centralized in china, I don't think you can say the same about the rest of the bitcoin ecosystem. The 30% remaining hash rate would churn out blocks at a rate of 1 per 30 minutes until the next difficulty adjustment, when things will start normalize. Congrats, a new hard fork, China Coin is born, bitcoin will work without them.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on July 28, 2019 06:45:52

Can you retrieve the secret key?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 27, 2019 14:39:37

Tremendous is an exaggeration, but yes: it would have been better as a hard fork. Unfortunately, it was not possible for the miners to come to a consensus about it, the big blockers refused to do it without a block size increase in addition. Bigger blocks adds another technical debt: we'll even further worsen the non mining full node ratio. Miners of course did not care, because it would increase their power, while the rest of the ecosystem understands the role independent validation performs, as part of the game theory in bitcoin.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 27, 2019 08:10:00

[]( Segwit uses \*exactly\* that mechanism.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 27, 2019 07:02:08

Do you want to pose another question, or do you want to continue to look like you have no clue what you are talking about?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 26, 2019 14:44:56

It's true. I too am recipient of anonymous gold. I know I can find out who it is, but I prefer not to. It's nice to know that someone like my comments, but I honestly don't need reddit gold either :)

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 26, 2019 14:31:21

I fail to see how you can say it's not totally custodial. How can you spend your funds if they decide to block your phone number?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 26, 2019 13:04:30

Whether cointext holds funds is a matter of definition. The keys are based upon the phone number, some secret stuff that only CoinText knows, and is protected by a PIN code and the supposed hardness of faking SMSes. In my opinion, this is custodial, as \*users\* don't hold the kets themselves, they are only given an access way to use them.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 26, 2019 08:38:23

When not implementing a trustless infrastructure, you can do almost anything. This is paypal 2.0.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on July 26, 2019 06:13:48

Thank you for this wonderful service to the community. You are doing a tremendous job telling this sub what thoughts and opinions are in line with this subs narrative. Keep up the good work, and the future will surely thank you!

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 26, 2019 06:05:12

I agree with this sub that the moderation on r/bitcoin is too strict. But it is entirely possible to think that, and \*still\* believe that a block size increase should come only when consensus decides it, and that will likely happen when research says it won't have any negative effects. What I would \*really\* like, is for technology to catch up with the block size, making it not too much of a burden to at least run a pruning full node on a cell phone. Because people accepting bitcoin transactions is ultimately who gives bitcoin value, and we want as many of those as possible running full nodes. It's what makes trustless trustable.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 26, 2019 05:54:59

He is talking about fees on Lightning Network, not onchain. On Lightning Network, every node sets its own routing fees. If it makes sense to give a discount to routing nodes, then LN node operators will do that. It's up to them. &#x200B; Alex Bosworth is one of those who is giving most attention to lightning node management, and he is usually well worth listening to, if you care about that sort of thing.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 26, 2019 05:41:50

It would probably dump price by a lot. A lot of people would be able to buy cheap bitcoin. Those who believe in bitcoin will buy. Some people will be given a second chance to buy some cheap coins, but will fail to do so because it's going too much down. Eventually, those coins will be gobbled up. People who still believe in bitcoin will have bought them. Market will stabilize, but without Satoshis one million coins being the big unknown it once was. I don't believe it is a likely scenario at all, but in the long run it would probably be a good thing for BTC.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 26, 2019 04:27:04

Too bad. Then I guess you didn't really want this, either: !lntip 10000 :)

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 25, 2019 14:40:07

No. According to , he'll only activate in subs upon request from a moderator. Maybe you can ask /u/bitcoinxio to ask for it?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 25, 2019 14:13:27

This fee market comes with a pretty strong assumption that only the mining nodes matter. I don't subscribe to that theory at all. Cost to run nodes increasing mean that fewer will do so, and I consider that a fact.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 25, 2019 13:12:13

Link? I have a hard time to see how it would actually work.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 25, 2019 12:30:30

You seem like one of the more reasonable guys in here. I respect you for that. How do you expect BCH to transition from here to the fee market it eventually will need, once the block reward is for most practical purpose gone? And no. Don't come with the "we have all the way to 2140" to find out. Every halving you fail to provide needed increase in fees compared to BTC is a dwindling of your already mediocre security. I will spell it out for you: Noone \*wants\* fee to be high. It's just that most people have understand that there need to be an actual fee market for bitcoin to work, security wise. If you are content with beeing a "peer-to-peer-electronic cash system" and not a cryptocurrency, then I wish you the best. But please understand that as long as you fail to admit that you don't even have any plans to address what bitcoins fee market will adress but instead will be content with relying on miners being mostly honest because they have skin in the game, and then \*continue\* to ridicule BTC developers and commnity for addressing it, then you will be continued to be labeled a scam. I have nothing against BCH per se. It's the community that's bad. It's actually not that bad idea to exchange some of your secure, valuable assets to something that's cheaper to spend, as long as you consider it spending money. I think you might have heard BTC developers say "just use an alt" several times, and this has been their message. So, why do the BTC community develop LN, then? Because it's more sensible to use LN - which transmit actual bitcoins - than to exchange to alts that fluctuate much more than bitcoin in value. At the end of the day, noone but yourself can decide what you do with your bitcoins. It's noones right at all to tell anyone that they are using Bitcoin wrong if they just hold onto them, and it's not wrong to spend them either. But we all know that the economically \*wise\* thing is to spend your fiat first. Some of us still spend bitcoin for the fun of it. But I'd be a fool if I spent all my bitcoins, before I spent my fiat.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 25, 2019 08:21:50

But Bitcoin Cash has? I haven't heard what your plans are in case you are not able to add 50000 transactions \*per block\* within a halving or two? That's what you need to match Bitcoins current fee-market-induced security, And yes, your 32 MB blocks will be able to support that, but you will not even recognize that as a \*problem\*. The BCH gang is the ones with a low economic understanding, and failed to understand that Gregs cheering over a working fee market is a cheering over there being a willingness to actually pay real fees, not a cheering over the fees being high. The fee market is needed for security. With your strategy of "block space should never be a limitation", you won't ever have one. I wish you good luck with a pretend-security chain, adding more and more Avalanche- and checkpoint-like features until PoW means nothing at all anymore. As a conclusion: I admit I have no idea how this "was supposed to" work. Because in reality, you have to adapt your expectations to the reality that you actually discover. Satoshis vision might have been nothing more than paypal 2.0 for all I know. This doesn't mean \*we\* should limit our goals to that, I for one support having goals that supports actual POW-based security, and that \*means\* a fee market.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 25, 2019 07:38:58

I agree wholeheartedly by this. It's not significant enough, and the loss of reputation would probably be significant. It's security wise still not a good place to be - depending on not being a target that anyone find worth targeting.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 25, 2019 07:12:54

Let's do a small fee market calculation. BCH, 7 day average: 153 kb blocks. $1 average fee per block. BTC, 7 day average: 1166 kb blocks, $4134 average fee per block. Mempool of BTC chain has occationally emptied. For BCH to reach BTCs fee level with the current fee rate on BCH, blocks would have to be 153kb \* 4134 = 632MB! Let's divide it by 30 to account for BCH being worth only 1/30th of bitcoin, and you'd get 21 MB average blocks. BCH would need to have 21000/153 = approximately 137 times amount the transactions per block as it has today. Or, approximately 50000 transactions per block. How's that BCH fee market you need for the security long term going?

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 23, 2019 15:32:04

First, you need to understand that contrary to popular opinion, there's no central authority on Bitcoin development. &#x200B; However, the dominant node software is Bitcoin Core, so it's likely that whatever is in bitcoin core roadmap will end up to be bitcoin features. Now, who controls bitcoin core? That again has a fairly decentralized development team, with some developers paid by various companies, some independent. The lead developer - who maintains that his role is more of a janitor - is Wladimir J Wan Der Laan, who works at MIT Digital Currency intiative. You might have heard that Blockstream runs Bitcoin. They do have a stake in development, as they pay a few Bitcoin Core developers. Their reason for this funding is of course that their business model depends on a working bitcoin, so in line with what's normal in open source, they help fund development. That said, without finding a direct source, I have heard that their working contract is pretty specific about their work on Bitcoin Core is not to be influenced by the company, their work there is their own. There is of course no requirement to run Bitcoin Core, and being open source software it can, and has been, forked. Users of it tend to stick with Bitcoin Core when running on the real bitcoin Blockchain (BTC), because that's where things will be happening. So, what can we expect? &#x200B; A few things that's currently being discussed: Taproot and Schnorr: []( &#x200B; SIGHASH\_NOINPUT: []( \- improvements mainly benefiting Lightning Network. &#x200B; Improvements/merging of Neutrino, which is a better SPV node protocol that Lightning Network light nodes uses. More? Probably, but those were the ones I remembered off the top of my head :)

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on July 23, 2019 12:07:35

1) Bitcoins trilemma: Scalability. Security. Decentralization. Pick two, but \*three\* at the same time is nearly impossible. 2) A fee market is \*needed\* sooner or later to pay for security. It's much better to establish one gradually than discovering that your hash rate has dwindled to \*nothing\*, thuse there's no fees to pay for it. This will also be a vicious circle - would anyone pay for transaction on a chain with low security? Probably, but it will not be enough. That said, you can totally create something based on the blockchain, achieving the 3rd thing while doing some tradeoffs on the two you have onchain. Now, you can't really compromise on onchain security, you'd want to maximize that one. Compromising on decentralization is also a risk. LN is exactly such a solution. It achieves capacity by compromising a little on the decentralization and security aspects: \- Security compromise: you and/or a watchtower need to periodically check for submission of old channel states. \- Decentralization compromise: There is some centralization pressure in the liquidity issue. Both of them are acceptable tradeoffs to me, for spending money, but I'd of course not put all my bitcoins in LN channels. At least not yet :) Each and everyone has to decide what tradeoffs are worth it. But you can't have it all onchain. You have to compromise to achieve the 3rd property.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/Bitcoin on July 22, 2019 15:32:20

I have no problem with you holding this opinion. But the world at large does not agree with you, so it's pretty insignificant. Consensus rejected it - no, even worse, you didn't even want to test it so you created replay protection and new EDA - in august 2017. Things are not very much different from then, except that anyone who haven't yet sold their BCH keeps losing their net worth compared to bitcoin. To some people, this is perfectly fine, there's nothing wrong with supporting a project you believe in. Keeping your money in a currency that retains its value more is of course always the best financial decision.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 22, 2019 09:31:04

There are some security related limits that any node will enforce. Basically, you will have to retain 1 % of the channel size. This is to disincentivize any node from being dishonest, think of it as a deposit that the blockchain makes you forfeit if you are dishonest. So, if your channel size is 1 million BTC, and you pay 15000 BTC to the other side, you can still only receive 5000, because 10000 has to remain in the other side to disincentive your channel partner from stealing from you. Now, if you again pay 10000 over the same channel, you can of course receive all of those back incoming, it's not a per-payment reservation, it's a per-channel reservation.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/lightningnetwork on July 22, 2019 09:23:00

LN channel funds are always looked in a multisig address on the blockchain. There \*has\* to be an onchain transaction to get them there, else it's not LN, then it'd be something else. Yes, of course you can make "something else" that steals some of LNs protocol. Or, you might decide to make a modified version of LN that doesn't have this backing. But LN transacting bitcoin will always have bitcoin backing in channels. And anyone receiving bitcoins via LN always have the possibility to fully validate that this is the case for the bitcoin they receive.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/lightningnetwork on July 22, 2019 09:16:01

Yes, and it has happened before. BCH decided to split off because it didn't agree with what consensus wanted, now nearly two years ago. Bitcoin survived it just fine, and it retained both the mindshare, the ticker, and was able to increase technical progress now that the big blockers stopped blocking progress. \*I\* believe a block size increase will come only when it's proven beyond doubt that it's needed, and that it brings actual benefit beyond a short-term fee relief. I certainly don't \*hope\* we'll increase the block size, I hope we won't have to, because block size is \*cost\*, and smaller is always better. Block space optimization can be seen as cost optimization to the benefit of everyone. It's a good thing. Personally, I'll do my research on the time such a block size proposal comes, and should I have to choose, I will follow the most credible fork at the time. And my full node will enforce that for me. But there's more than just technical merit to a hard fork, a hard fork that was shoehorned in through a backroom deal deserves to get rejected. That's not how bitcoin consensus is formed.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 22, 2019 09:07:29

Yes, Certain miners have hoarded massive amounts of BCH that have continued to slide compared to BTC. I too am not so sure how long they will continue to do that, but I usually try to hold off from speculation and guesswork,

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 22, 2019 07:58:12

Well. If you disregard the utopian "we can scale block space to encompass all economic activity", off-chain mechanisms are inevitable. It becomes a necessity. While I agree that a block size doubling on BTC, or perhaps even times 4, would not encompass a major disaster, it would also do exactly *nothing* to solve long-term problems, rather it would make the ecosystem relax its development pace to find the long-term solutions we need. *My* take on this is that the ecosystem need to move in this direction sooner rather than later, rather than build e-commerce adoption around on-chain payments. My take on this is that BCHs future is bleak, since you don't accept the inevitability of a fee-market to take care of paying for security. What I find puzzling is that a lot of people seem to not understand that in the BTC camp (if such a thing exists, we're just a bunch of individuals there, too), the fee-market is a given. We have accepted it as a fact, a necessity, something that needs to develop. It's what's going to pay for security into the future. Fee pressure is not a bad thing, it is validation that there is willingness to actually pay for this future security. Yes, of course each and every one of us would like to pay less fees. That's natural. But the fee market was built into bitcoin *from the start*. BCH is gambling its future on gigantic blocks filled up by a massive amount of transactions. This community *cheers* when secondary use cases decide to use BCH blockchain. On the BTC chain, secondary use cases is a sign that fees can still rise a bit. It's something we'll probably price out of the market at some point. BTC transactions can increase in value, a "tweet" (i.e. can not really. So, how will normal folks be able to use the chain when transactions have to increase in value to be economic? Off-chain solutions. It's inevitable. BCH gambles that it can just "plaster on" offchain transactions should they discover it's necessary, but forgets that it would then have a *massive* ecosystem built on the premise of onchain always being cheap and available. That's technical debt. You are going to have to pay it. Not this year, not next year. But every solution built on the premise of an abundance of space for low-cost on-chain transactions is tecnical debt to the ecosystem.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 22, 2019 06:24:42

Summary of the arguments against my arguments the last two years: "Delusional". "ROFL, you are stupid". "Bitcoin was meant to be P2P cash". "Satoshis plan was..." "I have been here longer than you." *some mumbo-jumbo about a so Blockstream takeover, never mind that Blockstream never ever had the lead Bitcoin Core developer on its pay-roll* "Noone will use BTC chain because fees will be too high" (which is an oxymoron in itself) "Running a full node without mining does not matter anyway, so it doesn't matter that we make it harder to run one" "Moores law (which have been thoroughly debunked and has shown signs of slowing down significantly) says that capacity will increase by X per year". "We will see how far we get with on-chain scaling, we can always optimize later". Can you give me an answer that does not fall into these categories? I have heard them *all*.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 22, 2019 05:57:30

I never "shilled" for anyone, if by shilled you mean paid shilling. And I never supported BSV. The BSV strategy is even worse than BCH strategy.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 22, 2019 05:44:04

Miners that "support BCH" will mine a bitcoin with a consensus-based blocksize increase for the same reason that they mine segwit transactions today. True knowledgeable people will understand why, but I'll still provide a hint: Hash rate follows value.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 22, 2019 04:37:43

How will they want to settle? Close their channel? Already there exists services to send out LN and get onchain bitcoin back, that will be preferable to close channels - they'll need their channels to receive customer transactions. Further on, they will of course prefer exchanges where they can pay directly with LN. Yes, users that connect directly with small shops without performing routing themselves will risk having their channels closed if the shop needs the liquidity. To avoid that, they could make sure to fill up their channels again, through the shop. Smart LN wallets will manage this for them, taking advantage of periods with low fee to refill channels i.e. with loop/swap services - or splicing when we have finished that part of the LN protocol. We're likely going to see more logic around this built into automatic channel opening functionality in various end-user-oriented lightning nodes/wallets, and yes, this will lead to some degree of centralization - some nodes will have more channels than others. Centralizaton pressure here is a ton better than centralization pressure on the base layer, so this is a tradeoff I think we need to accept. But, what I can say is: We're rapidly approaching the stage where it will be a business advantage to support LN. LN users will prefer to deal with shops where they can do LN transactions, to save on their fees. Exchanges that allow to send and withdraw over LN will of course have a business advantage. Shops will prefer to sell their coins there, if they need to pay vendors in fiat, and users will prefer to fill up their channels directly over LN, not having to close channels with low liquidity and open new one. No, I am not worried there won't be onchain transactions left to pay for onchain security. There will \*always\* be demand for block space on the most secure POW chain in the world. And yes, users \*will\* need to open and close channels still, but they'll prefer to keep their channels. In sum, with an influx of new users, we'll not run out of onchain transactions, but will have to continue improving block space usage efficiency, and who knows - maybe possibly a block size increase down the line. Personally, I \*hope\* it will not be necessary, because smaller blocks is always preferable.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 22, 2019 04:26:48

I can't make any sense of what you think I said or what you think I said to correct it. But no. A 51% miner is not like a central bank *as long* as he is dependent upon a healthy portion of independent full nodes validating anything he does (i.e. spending the reward for his work) Once that balance is broken, he *is* a central bank.

Commented by /u/vegarde in /r/btc on July 20, 2019 05:10:24