News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

kain_niak

Re:Ask HN: What are decentralized Twitter alternatives? on Saturday January 09, 2021 @12:42PM (#25702456)
I use a protocol for a decentralised message board that builds on top of the Bitcoin Cash blockchain. Initially it was developed for Bitcoin but it can only work on Bitcoin if transactions under 1 cent are possible.

The protocol is also used by various portal sides like memo.cash and member.cash

I prefer member.cash because it has that feel of reddit.

It's pretty cool actually, if somebody upvotes you instead of karma you get satoshis!

Re:Ask HN: What are decentralized Twitter alternatives? on Saturday January 09, 2021 @12:40PM (#25702425)
I use a protocol on the Bitcoin Cash blockchain, through my software wallet. It also has a bunch of portal sites like memo.cash and member.cash

These protocols were initially developed for Bitcoin but after it dropped the ball on scaling everything was ported over to Bitcoin Cash.

Are you not American? Have you notified the IRS of every single Bitcoin fork and every fork of every fork?
So what. Most of us take the same username here so you know exactly who we all are.

Do I have to verify with 1Niak6WPi1NDYquYGBc6TYVerheyEGeXM7 or is my very fimilair style good enough for you?

We mainly use the Bitcoin.com wallet on our phones and Electron Cash on our computers. Both are open source with many eyes looking at the code. We try to teach our user to verify hashes on upgrades and to have copies of dev pub keys on their computer to verify on a fairly regular basis (but not every upgrade).

We also try to keep scammers out our community and I think we are doing a fairly good job, better than most crypto communities.

Do you have any proof of any scams other then calling their coin Bitcoin Cash and the original Bitcoin, Bitcoin Core?

The MIT license gives the right to rename.

Copyright <YEAR> <COPYRIGHT HOLDER>

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

End license text.

Yes this is true because Bitcoin core plays by the speed of the weakest link.

It's not true for Bitcoin Cash which plays by the "if your node is not making you money why are you running it"

When we upgrade every 6 months or useless nodes just get stuck on the old chain forever and that's it.

Last upgrade there was one miner who upgraded one block to late and lost about 1000 USD. That miner will be the first to run the new software in may.

We had a hacker who got a smart card to get Bitcoin cash to work like a credit card without needing to be online.

Bitcoin cash tx are instant and take on average about 2 seconds to spread to about 1999 out of 2000 mempools.

They settle on the chain on average 10 minutes.

Credit card tx also take a couple of seconds but much longer to settle.

Right now BCH can not yet scale like Visa but we already have the capacity to compete with paypall.

Satoshi's design works at scale but only when you don't delete point 6 from the whitepaper which is "Simple Payment Verification"

Core tries to make you belief the whitepaper was written without points 6 and 7.

7 is how to make the blockchain smaller by pruning it using merkle trees.

Nobody does that yet because storing 200 GB for 10 years is super cheap.

But 6 and 7 are ESSENTIAL in the design to scale.

Core completely ignores them or says: Well SPV is not 100% secure there for it's insecure and should not be used.

Gmax does this with everything, he flips it to extremes.

Meanwhile right now on LN there is couple of hundred thousand dollars that is very easy to steal from non technical people.

1) you find people that want to open a channel with you. These people go online to post their ip addresses and open ports on /r/bitcoin. These posts are encouraged on /r/bitcoin.

2) You open a channel with them for like 100 USD in BTC.

3) You push the balance to their side of the channel by using a swap side that accepts both LN and other coins.

4) You sell this 100 USD for another coin.

5) You publish an old state.

6) You do this to nodes you monitor using nmap to see if they go offline on a regular basis for longer then nlocktime.

7) You can't lose money on this, only win with people that should not be running LN but are.

There is like 6 million USD locked up in LN and about 10% is for grabs.

8) The victims have nowhere to go because if they post about it on their channels they get called stupid and banned and their post deleted.

9) People are already doing this but the victims are still not speaking out. They just belief it was their own fault and move on. Meanwhile the watchtower software is not there yet and if a node does not go offline for nlocktime you can easily DDOS that node for 144 blocks and you doubled your money.

This is hackernews dude, you don't control this one.
Hardly, because building LN on the 1MB base layer is like building a pyramid upside down, it's unstable and creates more problems than it was meant to solve.

Lightning was supposed to make tx fees low right? Well it technically has, but it also introduced the following problems that Bitcoin never had:

- LN requires that both sender and receiver be online at the same time to transact. This never existed on Bitcoin.

- If you're an LN merchant accepting payments, you must periodically topoff your side of the channel...just so you can keep accepting money. This problem never existed on Bitcoin. I can have an empty address on Bitcoin and receive any amount of money without any limits.

- In Lightning when making a transactions you must always reserve the current Bitcoin onchain miner fee, so that if either channel party wants to close the channel it'll get accepted and mined by a Bitcoin miner. Well when Bitcoin fees hit $3 a few months ago, 60% of the Lightning network capacity was locked up in miner fees lol... defeating the purpose of microtransactions and the LN network

- In Bitcoin my coins can only be stolen if I leak my private key. Well for LN your money can be stolen simply by not being online to monitor your money. In addition to stealing your LN private keys, a bad user can attempt to steal your funds when you're offline. Which is why LN requires a 3rd party service called Watchtowers to watch over your funds. Way more complicated than Bitcoin

- The unsolvable routing problem. A good chunk of LN transactions will fail simply because the routing is weighted and chanes constantly. Compare that to Bitcoin's gossip network which doesn't require any weighted routing. FYI weighted routing is currently a mathematically unsolved problem.

- LN is centralizing around LNbig.com At one point LNBig.com had over 70% of the entire LN network capacity. LN will continue to centralize around these big hubs, because they can offer cheap connections and low fees than a regular peer can. Welcome to Bank of America LN Hub TM.

- With Bitcoin I can keep my money in a cold wallet. With LN it's either a hot wallet or cold wallet and I must close all my channels and pay the Bitcoin onchain fee just to close it. You're literally choosing betwen low fees OR security with Lightning, where as with Bitcoin you have both.

- Both creators of Lightning Drya and Poon have publically stated LN was never meant to be a scaling solution for Bitcoin and show many problems that will simply never be solved. Like the race condition when a big hub closes and hundreds of users all attempt to race to transmit their transaction to miners.

- In the Lightning whitepaper, LN requires AT LEAST 133MB+ blocks for global adoption for LN to work without congestion... And Blockstream blocked a minor 2MB increase. So good luck.

So congrats to Lightning, for "solving" 1 problem and creating 12 new ones.

There's many more, but these are the ones easily digestable by users without going into the deeper technical problems with LN. There's a reason Lightning is always 18 months away from completion....for 5.5 years now. While Bitcoin Cash just works.

Still limited to 1 000 000 bytes per 10 minutes and then some for segwit which was a unnecessary hack job that actually makes blocks bigger without much added throughput.
No we are not. Lots of devs, miners and businesses got together and forked to BCH.

The only thing holding up BTC price is Tether, it will fail and Ethereum and BCH will lead the space. The rest is pretty much bullshit because Ethereum and BCH together can almost do anything.