need i remind you that Rath_ a LN dev had a 70% payment fail rate with amounts way under 0.009($500)
I'll leave @Rath respond to this himself as it's not my business.Rath already did respond, but sociopath1 continues to phrase things in a manipulative fashion to make it sound like LN fails to send payments 70% of the time when that's not true:
(bold emphasis mine)
(success:fail 143:389)
oh and his payment fails. were all of amounts under 9000000000millisat (rounded/converted under 0.09btc)
oh and his payment fails. were all of amounts under 9000000000millisat (rounded/converted under 0.09btc)
Sure, my node failed to route 389 payments. Some of them were probing attempts, some failed at a further point in the route and others could not be routed because I didn't have enough coins on my side in the outgoing channel. However, those were not my payments. I keep my fees fairly low compared to other nodes so no wonder why I am getting a lot of routing attempts. Anyway, my point is that my node failed to route 70% of the payments, but it doesn't mean that LN failure rate for transaction smaller than 0.09 BTC is 70%. You can't tell if another attempt for the same transaction was successful or not.
Just because Rath didn't route those particular payments, doesn't mean no one else did.
Also, there's no requirement for people to route payments at all. It's more accurate to say Rath successfully helped 143 transactions go through despite having no obligation to do so. It's quite possible that sociopath1 (being a sociopath and all) isn't capable of altruism and finds it a really difficult concept to grasp. No wonder they're so confused about all this.
funny part is that im not the one telling people to f**k off to other networks. thats not consensus.. thats exodus.
I never told you to fuck off or that I screw your solution. No, that one is definitely aimed at me.
See this post and about a dozen others I've made over the years which follow a similar theme (but he still doesn't get it). I keep pointing out that other networks would give him the so-called "scaling solution" he desires. And it's true. He can have bigger blocks and be part of a network where those who secure the chain are willing to carry that cost. Yet, for reasons that even he can't explain, he keeps whining at us to give him the same thing he can get somewhere else, despite a clear demonstration that the users on this network don't want that. Consensus mechanisms are great for resolving ideological disputes like this. You want different rules? Create a fork and do it. So others did exactly that. And the matter is now resolved for everyone else. Just not for him, it seems. The war is still raging in his head, but everyone else went home and got on with their lives. He doesn't understand that it's over.
But yes, he should definitely see a psychiatrist.