Quote from: hv_ on October 19, 2018, 01:13:39 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on October 19, 2018, 08:41:16 AM

Quote from: franky1 on October 18, 2018, 10:10:49 PM

Quote from: BitCryptex on October 18, 2018, 08:25:30 PM

Quote from: franky1 on October 18, 2018, 07:20:49 PM

but there are things such as lightning explorers
they reveal many things, balances per channel, who the nodes connect to. they actually reveal alot more then the bitcoin block explorer does about individuals

Actually, you are right. 1ML.com is an example of such explorer. However, it is possible to open a private channel which is only known to nodes which maintain it. Such channel is excluded from routing outside payments since other nodes don't know that it exists. LND allows their users to open a private channel by adding --private parameter while opening a channel. I guess it's only useful for people who often trade between themselves and don't wont other people to interrupt.

Quote from: https://api.lightning.community/#gettransactions

--private make the channel private, such that it won't be announced to the greater network, and nodes other than the two channel endpoints must be explicitly told about it to be able to route through it

i can also without LN make private payments. yep you dont need LN nodes.
people have been using multisig for years and doing things privately.
many exchanges have had multisig reserves between themselves for years without LN and without needing to broadcast every trade to a blockchain

people have actually done physical bitcoin trades (paper wallet and casascius coins) without needing to broadcast to a blockchain

in 2012-2013 i remember arbitraging between mtgox, btc-e and bitstamp without seeing bitcoin broadcast onchain

But that should not suggest that layered protocols for Bitcoin should never be explored. If the Lightning Network fails then it fails. What should matter is the base layer, it should remain censorship resistant, secure, and immutable, not taking risks like this,

Maybe you should start working for a risk dept in a bigger institution first - than you learn what it means and what to do about.

But thx that you brought up that very good point!

Meaning what? That the risks of that on the whole system itself are imaginary?

Quote from: franky1 on October 19, 2018, 09:13:19 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on October 19, 2018, 08:41:16 AM

Quote from: franky1 on October 18, 2018, 10:10:49 PM

i can also without LN make private payments. yep you dont need LN nodes.
people have been using multisig for years and doing things privately.
many exchanges have had multisig reserves between themselves for years without LN and without needing to broadcast every trade to a blockchain

people have actually done physical bitcoin trades (paper wallet and casascius coins) without needing to broadcast to a blockchain

in 2012-2013 i remember arbitraging between mtgox, btc-e and bitstamp without seeing bitcoin broadcast onchain

But that should not suggest that layered protocols for Bitcoin should never be explored. If the Lightning Network fails then it fails. What should matter is the base layer, it should remain censorship resistant, secure, and immutable, not taking risks like this,

oh here we go again
calling lightning a bitcoin feature but using the term "layer"
you might aswell call ripple a bitcoin layer. or circle.com a bitcoin layer
whats next re introduce NXT as bitcoin2.0

Can you explain how they each work, and how they are the same? I am confused. Cool

Quote

.. and then for no reason at all you introduce a random tweet from a nobody talking about a different altcoin.......
seens you really have ran down the rabbit hole of not letting people talk about the reality of lightning and to keep trying to meander the topic into a point finger at bitcoin cash..

The point of showing that random tweet is, "what should matter is the base layer, it should remain censorship resistant, secure, and immutable", that makes a debate for off-chain layers.

Did you not argue that on-chain scaling is the way because Bitcoin is supposed to be "peer to peer cash"?