Quote from: Bitcoin Smith on Today at 11:20:00 AM

I still don't think what I said is false information, I haven't said the OP to use LN to mix his coins in this way but when he send from one to another and withdraw it to a different unused address then it is almost impossible to link with the origin of the trail and that's what I used exactly the word 'almost impossible' and the only way to link is to have access to LN nodes and where the funds are routed through. SO if that's wrong then I need an explanation why I am wrong and I am happy to learn though cause that's what this place is about. But just saying in many ways doesn't prove my statement is wrong.

If you don't know something, you should not write about it. Especially not in the technical boards. I tried to make a really good reply there and had you read it before writing yours, you would know you are wrong. Responding to a thread without reading other replies usually means you are a spammer. Further, you could just read also the research paper that I linked afterwards too but instead you are busy writing more posts. Roll Eyes

Your statement is a lie, using the word almost does not excuse you from it.

Quote from: ABCbits on Today at 10:30:42 AM

Quote from: Satofan44 on June 13, 2025, 01:00:08 PM

--snip--
Is one post enough? In both cases the information is extremely false, one can potentially damage the user and the other is damaging LN's reputation with lies. I'll watch out for more.. Undecided

It's not self-moderated thread, so anyone can mention another user who they think spread false/fake/unhelpful information on technical board. What @Bitcoin Smith also said doesn't make sense to me either.

I get it now I think. You report people that you think deserve to be tagged for this, and if someone who does that agrees with your post they will do it on their own. Did I get it right? I also wanted to ask about something else. I've seen many members here tagged as AI spammers. Isn't that something that a user would get banned for?

Quote from: ABCbits on Today at 10:30:42 AM

But i expect @dkbit98 can give acceptable reasoning why he think LN is centralized, so i'll wait him to reply about it either on this or that thread.

I have tagged Bitcoin Smith then, and I'll give dkbit more time but I don't think there is any way to justify this position. As part of the LN challenge, I recently opened a channel with a random node of an unknown person. I interacted with LN, I closed the channel without anybody's interference or knowledge. There is not a single part of LN that is centralized. Even if the node or channel topology looked centralized, that does not make the protocol centralized. That does not give someone centralizing powers either.