Quote from: Carlton Banks on July 24, 2018, 09:27:04 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on July 24, 2018, 05:55:11 AM

That debunks the Lightning critics' "conspiracy theory" that Blockstream wanted an off-chain layer to compete with the miners in collecting fees.

Quite alot of the 7829 satoshis here is profit, assuming that the Bosworth node opened the minimum number of channels to host 1.01351351 BTC of liquidity (i.e. each channel had the maximum 0.16777216 BTC per channel). If the original outputs used to open the channels were segwit outputs, and if the fees were rock bottom (that part is very likely), then profits are even more likely.

Pennies of profit though, lol!! (but still better than nothing for running a full-node, which is the status quo)

(note that it's impossible to have a conspiracy where the facts are publicly available, conspiracies are secret by definition. Labelling Lightning critics "conspiracy theorists" actually therefore makes you look uneducated)

But I am uneducated. No offense taken. Hahaha.

I said "conspiracy theory" from a point of view that big blockers having been saying lies on the Core developers want small blocks because "words", that Blockstream is backed by the Bilderberg group, the Lightning Network, before it went online, they said it was developed for the bankers to centralize Bitcoin, etc.

Quote

Quote from: Wind_FURY on July 24, 2018, 05:55:11 AM

Watch them criticize it again by propagandizing that "running a Lightning node should be incentivized".

Indeed, it's very telling how much effort they put into trash talking in comparison to how much they want to add supporting voices to alternative ideas to improve cryptocurrencies.

Zero confirmation is one. But what they cannot do with that is, https://satoshis.place/ Cool