Re: Anyone up for Beta Testing a Prototype on Lightning Network?
@LoyceV
So you have to openly take an insult from the only angry customer out of hundreds?
I wonder how that goes down irl for you. I'm sure you don't because I bet no one wants to be around you :-)
I run on a no asshole rule basis -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_No_Asshole_Rule#:~:text=The%20theme%20of%20this%20book,the%20same%20degree%20of%20awfulness%22.
You're an asshole you don't get service, easy. Move on with your day.
Really mature, so I guess you're white knighting your way into seeing this fail because you can't even understand how it works?~
No wonder BTC and crypto are treated as a public enemy, specially when goofs like you seem to be "community gold"
The legislation in which this enterprise is based might have a permit. The legislation where this enterprise is based might not have a requirement to identify itself.
You're now going to say it's impossible to trust it.
Then why is Satoshi Nakamoto not a fraud? Wasn't he called a fraud when btc just started? I bet he ran into a million people like you, but unlike me, he chose to ignore it, which I will from now on.
@AdolfinWolf
That's my point
You're going down the route of a hypothetical case where I am in fact trying to supply a preimage to game out a randomness function thats deterministic based on an input. Or that I've altered the lightning protocol in a way where preimage generation is fixed.
Not what's happening not what I'm doing.
The only things that I do see offering more transparency are:
1) Get an audit from a third party - link to it from the page. Some eth contracts do this. I don't think it helps them appear as more transparent
2) Offer a "longer" receipt. Where you see each interaction with the lightning node, so you can exactly what params were supplied for each time you interacted with it
3) Have a multi-seed setup where seed A) is supplied by the user and seed B) is supplied by me and rotated constantly.
Quote
Clearly, you're missing my point. If you want to run a business, you should never be rude. Talking about running a business: how's your gambling license doing?
So you have to openly take an insult from the only angry customer out of hundreds?
I wonder how that goes down irl for you. I'm sure you don't because I bet no one wants to be around you :-)
I run on a no asshole rule basis -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_No_Asshole_Rule#:~:text=The%20theme%20of%20this%20book,the%20same%20degree%20of%20awfulness%22.
You're an asshole you don't get service, easy. Move on with your day.
Quote
Talking about running a business: how's your gambling license doing?
Really mature, so I guess you're white knighting your way into seeing this fail because you can't even understand how it works?~No wonder BTC and crypto are treated as a public enemy, specially when goofs like you seem to be "community gold"
The legislation in which this enterprise is based might have a permit. The legislation where this enterprise is based might not have a requirement to identify itself.
You're now going to say it's impossible to trust it.
Then why is Satoshi Nakamoto not a fraud? Wasn't he called a fraud when btc just started? I bet he ran into a million people like you, but unlike me, he chose to ignore it, which I will from now on.
@AdolfinWolf
Quote
Yes it's true the preimage for us only "exists" is known once the invoice is settled, because YOU have to reveal it in order to claim the payment that was made to the payment_hash (a hash of the PREIMAGE)
That's my point
Quote
Since a preimage is really just the equivalent of a random sha hash, you could start with a good secret and then make a hash of a hash n times, and replay that. Once the new bet is placed you can reveal the old hash to everyone in order to prove you're not alternating between hash chains.
Now that I think about it, this might be less than ideal since the kth+1 hash will be the payment_hash of the kth hash, though I don't see how this could be exploited really, just a funny gimmick.
I think you genuinely seem to misunderstand how payments are done through the lightning network, so I don't really get all the negative vibes in this thread here.
Now that I think about it, this might be less than ideal since the kth+1 hash will be the payment_hash of the kth hash, though I don't see how this could be exploited really, just a funny gimmick.
I think you genuinely seem to misunderstand how payments are done through the lightning network, so I don't really get all the negative vibes in this thread here.
You're going down the route of a hypothetical case where I am in fact trying to supply a preimage to game out a randomness function thats deterministic based on an input. Or that I've altered the lightning protocol in a way where preimage generation is fixed.
Not what's happening not what I'm doing.
The only things that I do see offering more transparency are:
1) Get an audit from a third party - link to it from the page. Some eth contracts do this. I don't think it helps them appear as more transparent
2) Offer a "longer" receipt. Where you see each interaction with the lightning node, so you can exactly what params were supplied for each time you interacted with it
3) Have a multi-seed setup where seed A) is supplied by the user and seed B) is supplied by me and rotated constantly.