Depends on how you understand consensus. The current rigmarole that has started with you and my
ban request is caused because we both have different understandings of the word “consensus”.
your interpretation is flip floppy.
you first (and mainly) pretend that consensus is devs can do as they like and if users dont like it they can fork off.
then you flip flop that users cant propose anything because they are not worthy
then you flip flop that upgrades cant happen without the community where devs cant mandate
then you flip flop that no one can implement an upgrade
then you flip flop that bitcoin is open and anyone can propose
my interpretation is simple
pre 2015 consensus required any user to propose and if enough devs 'ack' and it gets put into code. and enough users then download that software release implementation, it activates
pre 2017 consensus required mining pools and nodes to have consensus of devs chosen rule before an upgrade would activate
post 2017 devs can upgrade the network and force users/pools to upgrade or be thrown off the network
In the Lightning Network everyone does whatever they wish, they don't have to come into an agreement for their implementations. There are different sets of rules (different protocols), but each participant follows the same rules with their co-participants.
i am not in disagreement with you at all in this. i was not the one saying that LN has to work network wide with bitcoin.
i wasnt the one suggesting LN is reliant on bitcoin
the ip/tor address connection.. and the subsequent public key, handshake does not lock peer partners to a specific blockchain. that public key and formation of joint multisig can be used on multiple blockchains, or no blockchain at all and just some private token they invent together. the lack of consensus allows this
Of course and they can. However, in LN it's not just an invented token. Each participant holds signatures which can be used to unlock outputs from the blockchain where there is consensus. Hence, the consensus of Bitcoin is connected with the Lightning Network.
oh boy.. my comment is on the peer connection.. not the locked output of funds vs token promises..
its the public keys used purely at the peer connection stage.. that those keys.. SEPARETLY at a later stage can be used to bind together to create a multisig. and separete stage again later then that the multisig can be used to fund locks. on different chains.
the public keys are just random generated priv->pub nothing about the keys force it to a certain blockchain at the peer connection stage
its not like a channel is funded. and then keys are produced to then use to node connect to a peer.. (time doesnt travel backwards)
so lets deal with your obvious confusing in 2 stages, or what appears as being a mish-mash of different parts of the network protocol done to confuse the issue
1. peer connection
the gossip: node_announce section of handshaking with a peer.. is a completely different process to that of discovering the channels and which bridged coin a node has.
you cant work out how many chain_hash channels a partner has BEFORE joining the partner(time moves backwards)
you can join the partner to THEN find out what chain_hash his multiple channels might have
(time and action moves forward)
meaning. a litecoin bridged node and a bitcoin bridged node are not separated on different LN's. they can peer connect on the same LN. and then agree on some atomic swap of their different chain_hashed bridged channels
lets just use the flimsy 'bolts' as an example (working backwards, seems the direction you prefer)
4. nodes 'shouldnt' send a channel_update notifying the network of a chain_hash locked channel until funding_locked
3. nodes 'shouldnt' send do funding_locked unless they have funded the multisig
2. nodes 'shouldnt' send funds unless they have shared public keys, made multisig, agreed which chain_hash
1. nodes 'shouldnt' agree on a public key until they are peer_connected
what you learn is this paradox you pretend exists where there are different 'lightning networkz'... does not exist
but if you cant connect to a node1 without a channel4. then you cant connect to a node1 to create a channel2.
the reality is though. there is no paradox. you can connect to a node without a pre-existing channel and then inspect what channels they have.
being able to connect to nodes without a channel.. is not a paradox which you hint at, where nodes need to have assumed some chain_hash locked channel with funding already provided before even connecting..
please please please understand the difference betwen peer connection.. being different to channel locks
(i think you separately know it. and just said some weird mixing of different aspects just to be silly and cause irritation)
2. locked funds of funding_tx vs LN promise.. and their signatures
seems as part of you rmish-mash of aspects of the network. you want to impose your opinion that the signatures of a peer connection are that of the same signature as a established channel with locked funds
signatures of a series of bytes(message) which includes value of msats. wont match a series of bytes(message) of a contract measured in sats. not a series of bytes(mesage) that contains an IP, port and public key
i think you might want to learn the association between what signatures sign. EG you cant take a litecoin transaction signature over to a bitcoin transaction message and make it fit purely because the use the same public key.
the message(contract wording/node data) have to match too
what you find is that a there is no single signature that lasts for the duration of all things LN
many signing processes happen. signing different things ..
a couple signing processes happen in the payment part. one for the LN payment(mast) promise and another for the commitment(sat). at GUI level you dont see it happen. but at code level it does. and a malicious attacker can mess with is via delays in signing.
just because you dont see the signing stages happen for their respective things. doesnt mean they dont happen, so try not to confuse it.
and definitely dont try pretending a signature for one message can be used on multiple messages
that sounds a bit faketoshi to me. taking an old signature and pretending it refers to a new message
if you cannot tell the difference. please look into it. dont confuse the two
I don't confuse them, I'm just telling you that whether you make a Bitcoin transaction or a Lightning one, in both cases, you carry a signature that can be used to move funds from the blockchain.
i just corrected your paradox. you cant use a litecoin signature on a bitcoin network. the message/signature wont carry...
but you seem to be meandering away from the actual initial debate now.
you dont need to have an active channel with funds locked just to peer connect to a node..
thus you dont need to be locked to bitcoin with funds locked to talk to other peers.
just because YOU dont use it for altcoins. doesnt mean the network cant
Didn't say the network can't.
just because you might only want to use a condom as a replacement of party balloons, does not mean thats its only function. other people have other uses of condoms.
Didn't restrict their use, stop making things up.
as for your final two points.. you debate that the nodes of different bridged blockchains cant communicate together. and then at the end flip flop to say you never said they cant and you never restricted their use (facepalm)