I found this http://barterdex.supernet.org/
would be great if dev would talk to them!
They want to add more coins and help with everything almost at the end of the page!
Well i contacted them allready lets see what they say!
would be great if dev would talk to them!
They want to add more coins and help with everything almost at the end of the page!
Well i contacted them allready lets see what they say!
While direct barter between individuals is a goal.
Time Locking / aka segwit code allows counterfeiting and will never be implemented in ZEIT.
Barterdex requires time locking / segwit style code to allow the cross chain atomic swaps for their system to work.
Can you prove the statement regarding counterfeiting? How does one do that?
We all know that LN is a Proposed Offchain solution to BTC backlog of Unconfirmed Transactions.
(Which could easily be fixed just with a blocksize increase or a faster BlockSpeed.)
But instead BTC core devs want to shove Segwit & LN down everyone throats.
Facts
LN Notes are a Offchain Representation of the value of a BTC (with the actual BTC locked in place on the actual BTC Onchain Blockchain)
LN Devs have continuously implied that BTC will be placed on LN and very rarely if ever be returned / unlocked on the real BTC Blockchain.
Combined the Chinese Mining Pools have over 51% necessary for an attack, (~68% at last count).
(With a 51% attack they can perform a history rewrite attacks, rewriting the blockchain.)
(A few years ago at the prompting of the BTC devs, a group (with over 51%) REWROTE the Last 12 Hours of the Blockchain to fix a fork, cause by a programming error.)
(So that was 76 Blocks that were rewritten.)
(We also know the Miners can choose which transactions are included in their blocks.)
So now back to the Title of this OP, Exactly how do you Counterfeit BTC on LN.
Option 1 :
Form a group of collusion between the Miners that control 51%,
Send 50 BTC to an address. Now follow the steps on LN to Lock up that 50 BTC on the Blockchain.
Whether LN requires 1 or 3 confirmations , as soon as LN confirms the representation of LN notes match your amount.
You and your colluding friends, rewrite the blockchain and include a transaction moving that 50 BTC to another address before the lock took place.
You now still have your 50 BTC Free & Clear Onchain, and a representation value of 50 BTC Offchain on LN .(Which you can use for LN transactions forever.)
BTC Onchain Transactions ended Counterfeiting , LN Offchain Transactions will bring Counterfeiting into Crypto.
(Which could easily be fixed just with a blocksize increase or a faster BlockSpeed.)
But instead BTC core devs want to shove Segwit & LN down everyone throats.
Facts
LN Notes are a Offchain Representation of the value of a BTC (with the actual BTC locked in place on the actual BTC Onchain Blockchain)
LN Devs have continuously implied that BTC will be placed on LN and very rarely if ever be returned / unlocked on the real BTC Blockchain.
Combined the Chinese Mining Pools have over 51% necessary for an attack, (~68% at last count).
(With a 51% attack they can perform a history rewrite attacks, rewriting the blockchain.)
(A few years ago at the prompting of the BTC devs, a group (with over 51%) REWROTE the Last 12 Hours of the Blockchain to fix a fork, cause by a programming error.)
(So that was 76 Blocks that were rewritten.)
(We also know the Miners can choose which transactions are included in their blocks.)
So now back to the Title of this OP, Exactly how do you Counterfeit BTC on LN.
Option 1 :
Form a group of collusion between the Miners that control 51%,
Send 50 BTC to an address. Now follow the steps on LN to Lock up that 50 BTC on the Blockchain.
Whether LN requires 1 or 3 confirmations , as soon as LN confirms the representation of LN notes match your amount.
You and your colluding friends, rewrite the blockchain and include a transaction moving that 50 BTC to another address before the lock took place.
You now still have your 50 BTC Free & Clear Onchain, and a representation value of 50 BTC Offchain on LN .(Which you can use for LN transactions forever.)
BTC Onchain Transactions ended Counterfeiting , LN Offchain Transactions will bring Counterfeiting into Crypto.
Option 2:
Secondary Way Segwit allows Counterfeiting is thru creation of a Fractional Reserve System
At any point they deem fit, the LN programmers can modify their code so that multiple LN Notes represent more than 1 onchain BTC. It is the history of the goldsmiths all over again.
Quote from: kiklo
LN freezes the amount of BTC on the BTC onchain network,
what is transferred on LN is a representation of that value.
(No Different than when Banks allowed people to trade cash for gold.
The Gold is held somewhere else and the Cash is a representation of that amount of Gold.
Only redeemable upon request.)
IE: Banking (there is no difference between it & LN)
And here is the kicker, if LN is only a representation of a BTC, it is only a matter of time before a fractional BTC onchain is represented by more offchain on LN.
This becomes possible once LN can calculate how many people never remove their Locks on the BTC frozen on the BTC onchain network.
Study the history of Banking , this is exactly how they started.
http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/6970/when-was-fractional-reserve-banking-introduced
LN Coins = Notes
BTC = Gold
what is transferred on LN is a representation of that value.
(No Different than when Banks allowed people to trade cash for gold.
The Gold is held somewhere else and the Cash is a representation of that amount of Gold.
Only redeemable upon request.)
IE: Banking (there is no difference between it & LN)
And here is the kicker, if LN is only a representation of a BTC, it is only a matter of time before a fractional BTC onchain is represented by more offchain on LN.
This becomes possible once LN can calculate how many people never remove their Locks on the BTC frozen on the BTC onchain network.
Study the history of Banking , this is exactly how they started.
http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/6970/when-was-fractional-reserve-banking-introduced
Quote
In the past, savers looking to keep their coins and valuables in safekeeping depositories deposited gold and silver at goldsmiths, receiving in exchange a note for their deposit (see Bank of Amsterdam). These notes gained acceptance as a medium of exchange for commercial transactions and thus became an early form of circulating paper money. As the notes were used directly in trade, the goldsmiths observed that people would not usually redeem all their notes at the same time, and they saw the opportunity to invest their coin reserves in interest-bearing loans and bills. This generated income for the goldsmiths but left them with more notes on issue than reserves with which to pay them. A process was started that altered the role of the goldsmiths from passive guardians of bullion, charging fees for safe storage, to interest-paying and interest-earning banks. Thus fractional-reserve banking was born.
LN = Goldsmiths, (which became Banks)LN Coins = Notes
BTC = Gold
Option 3 for Hackers
Is exploiting the Time lock , so that the other party is blocked from the internet or collusion with a Bitcoin Miner to include your transaction stealing your coins back before the other user can retrieve it onchain.
Quote
https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
Page 49 thru 51
Page 49 thru 51
Quote
Improper Timelocks
Participants must choose timelocks with sucient amounts of time. If insuf-
cient time is given, it is possible that timelocked transactions believed to
be invalid will become valid, enabling coin theft by the counterparty. There
is a trade-o between longer timelocks and the time-value of money. When
writing wallet and Lightning Network application software, it is necessary
to ensure that sucient time is given and users are able to have their trans-
actions enter into the blockchain when interacting with non-cooperative or
malicious channel counterparties
Participants must choose timelocks with sucient amounts of time. If insuf-
cient time is given, it is possible that timelocked transactions believed to
be invalid will become valid, enabling coin theft by the counterparty. There
is a trade-o between longer timelocks and the time-value of money. When
writing wallet and Lightning Network application software, it is necessary
to ensure that sucient time is given and users are able to have their trans-
actions enter into the blockchain when interacting with non-cooperative or
malicious channel counterparties
Quote
9.2 Forced Expiration Spam
Forced expiration of many transactions may be the greatest systemic risk
when using the Lightning Network. If a malicious participant creates many
channels and forces them all to expire at once, these may overwhelm block
data capacity, forcing expiration and broadcast to the blockchain. The re-
sult would be mass spam on the bitcoin network. The spam may delay
transactions to the point where other locktimed transactions become valid
Forced expiration of many transactions may be the greatest systemic risk
when using the Lightning Network. If a malicious participant creates many
channels and forces them all to expire at once, these may overwhelm block
data capacity, forcing expiration and broadcast to the blockchain. The re-
sult would be mass spam on the bitcoin network. The spam may delay
transactions to the point where other locktimed transactions become valid
Quote
9.3 Coin Theft via Cracking
As parties must be online and using private keys to sign, there is a possibility
that, if the computer where the private keys are stored is compromised, coins
will be stolen by the attacker. While there may be methods to mitigate
the threat for the sender and the receiver, the intermediary nodes must be
online and will likely be processing the transaction automatically. For this
reason, the intermediary nodes will be at risk and should not be holding
a substantial amount of money in this \hot wallet." Intermediary nodes
which have better security will likely be able to out-compete others in the
long run and be able to conduct greater transaction volume due to lower
fees. Historically, one of the largest component of fees and interest in the
nancial system are from various forms of counterparty risk { in Bitcoin it
is possible that the largest component in fees will be derived from security
risk premiums.
A Funding Transaction may have multiple outputs with multiple Com-
mitment Transactions, with the Funding Transaction key and some Commit-
ment Transactions keys stored oine. It is possible to create an equivalent
of a \Checking Account" and \Savings Account" by moving funds between
outputs from a Funding Transaction, with the \Savings Account" stored
online and requiring additional signatures from security services.
As parties must be online and using private keys to sign, there is a possibility
that, if the computer where the private keys are stored is compromised, coins
will be stolen by the attacker. While there may be methods to mitigate
the threat for the sender and the receiver, the intermediary nodes must be
online and will likely be processing the transaction automatically. For this
reason, the intermediary nodes will be at risk and should not be holding
a substantial amount of money in this \hot wallet." Intermediary nodes
which have better security will likely be able to out-compete others in the
long run and be able to conduct greater transaction volume due to lower
fees. Historically, one of the largest component of fees and interest in the
nancial system are from various forms of counterparty risk { in Bitcoin it
is possible that the largest component in fees will be derived from security
risk premiums.
A Funding Transaction may have multiple outputs with multiple Com-
mitment Transactions, with the Funding Transaction key and some Commit-
ment Transactions keys stored oine. It is possible to create an equivalent
of a \Checking Account" and \Savings Account" by moving funds between
outputs from a Funding Transaction, with the \Savings Account" stored
online and requiring additional signatures from security services.
Hi Kiklo, although the information you have presented above is detailed and probably comprehensive I have to admit that it does not mean anything to me hardly because I do not understand it I don't think. I take responsibility for not understanding it and in no way am I trying to undermine or discredit you in anyway. I accept that you probably do understand it clearly and that I am not able to make any of confirmation because I don't. I am hoping that you might help me to create a simpler explanation that I can understood more easily, please, if you do I thank you for your time and understanding.
My thinking on this subject is that the BTC block chain was a continual and unbroken ledger of transactions that could not be externally changed without that change also being recorded onto it. The introduction of Segwit allows changes to be made to the BTC block chain by locking coins onto it and then making the changes on an external block chain using the coins already locked on the BTC block chain as collateral . Transactions and changes are made on the external block chain but those actions are not recorded on the main BTC block chain because those coins never left the BTC block chain.
If what I am saying is correct then I can make as many changes off the BTC block chain as I like so long as I can confirm those original coins on the BTC block chain can be accounted for.
If what I am saying here is correct then these external chains can use the same coins over and over again with no actual bitcoin being used at all in any of the transactions which also means that I can pretend to have a 100 coins but only really have 50 and so long as I can account for those 50 coins at the end of the day it does not matter because the main BTC block chain has not changed.
It also means that the so called decentralized Bitcoin and attending block chain are now a centralizing feature and the solution has become the problem.
Thank you again.