LNhance LAUNCHES WEBSITE🎊🎊🎊 (THE GREATEST OF SOFT FORKS) \ stacker news ~bitcoin

LNhance LAUNCHES WEBSITE🎊🎊🎊 (THE GREATEST OF SOFT FORKS)

1116 sats \ 29 comments \ @EverythingSatsoshi 18 Oct bitcoin

SUMMARY

"LNHANCE.ORG", launched to show the LNhance proposal by Brandon Black (Reardencode) and 4moonsettler, which aims to improve Bitcoin's scalability, privacy, and flexibility by introducing four new opcodes. These opcodes enable several enhancements for the Lightning Network, including the creation of symmetrical channels, non-interactive channels, and more efficient vault setups. The proposal also introduces payment pools, which allow users to share UTXOs and create channels without requiring individual transaction footprints on-chain. Overall, LNhance seeks to advance Bitcoin's capabilities by facilitating more efficient and secure transactions within the Lightning Network.

Audio Summary below👇🏽👇🏽

Audio Summary

view all related items

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @028559d218 18 Oct

I am not a developer or a coder. So maybe I don't know... But by introducing new op_codes there are risks however small.

For what benefit? The largest driver of transaction fees is runes tokens which no soft-fork really addresses. And OK I've opened a lightning channel for less than a cup of coffee, from which I can make an infinite number of transactions... at almost no fee. Cheaper than a credit card and have reasonable settlement instantly...

Now what? The Uber driver or Lyft driver has never heard of a 'lightning wallet'. They just look confused when asked about it for a tip. And it is tough to find merchants and shops in person that take Bitcoin on-chain or lightning... so why do we need Op_codes and forks to "help people "use lightning" that they don't fucking use anyway.

Most people right now if they want to imo can open a channel, fill it up, and spend away on... Stacker News and Nostr. They've got that down and that's enough.

When that day comes when the average Uber driver is begging and pleading to open a channel YES we need more scaling solutions (forks) that balance risks and scaling.

But right now it is a Solution in search of a Problem. Not necessary without carefully evaluating risks and the tangible benefits now...

My 100 sats.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @theonevortex 18 Oct

But by introducing new op_codes there are risks however small.

Yes introducing new op_codes is risky, hence the years and years and years of development on them.

For what benefit?

The 2 op_codes created that make LN possible for example were in development for years before going live, but without them we wouldn't have LN. CTV for example has been in review for 4+ years with a 5btc+ bug bounty on it that's never been claimed and without CTV or something like it we'll never have feature rich and efficient covenants without which would make scaling custody much more difficult.

The Uber driver or Lyft driver has never heard of a 'lightning wallet'

Lightning has been steadily growing by thousands of percent over the past 5 years and will continue to grow and get better and easier to use, however it's still very early days though and like you I wouldn't actually expect a regular person to understand channels in the slightest so there's still more work to do there.

Luckily there are a bunch of scaling solutions that bitcoin will use because like we've known for many centuries already a global money requires many more layers than 2 to function equally as well for everyone.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @EverythingSatsoshi OP 18 Oct

Your points are 100% valid. I'll say this, a lot of people who use LN today do so without understanding the technical nuances. But to those who do, the challenges it presents can be smoothened today. We just need a ton of people who need to understand, to a degree, the depth of knowledge needed to appreciate the urgency of this upgrade. You don't want a problem to present itself, before debating a fix, as things move slow in bitcoin soft fork proposals. This enhances the protocol on a level that, it still makes it even more superior than other alternatives, and choosing to refuse any fork of LNhance, is a sensible opinion, but one that needs re-examining once one fully groks the concept of the need for the fork.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @nerd2ninja 18 Oct

This is new:

OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY Works like CSFS but is compatible with all script types, not only tapscript.

but then if we have that why do we need CSFS?

442 sats \ 0 replies \ @moonsettler 18 Oct freebie

but then if we have that why do we need CSFS?

the same reason we have CHECKSIG and CHECKSIGVERIFY and EQUAL and EQUALVERIFY. different contracts are easier with either. bitcoin script has a lot of redundancies for slight optimizations.
because we can not soft-fork into legacy script a new opcode that alters the stack, this is only possible with OP_SUCCESS in tapscript. so the CSFSVERIFY will simply fail the script if the signature is not valid, but won't consume any stack elements. which is sometimes very inconvenient.

2251 sats \ 22 replies \ @justin_shocknet 18 Oct

"LNhance" is affinity-driven neologistic manipulation being pushed by scammers.

The purpose of this particular psyop/scam is to prop up FUD narratives around Lightning to gain support for their fake L2 shitcoinery.

Don't be fooled by scammer narratives. These are shitcoiners.

231 sats \ 18 replies \ @theonevortex 18 Oct

Bro WTF are you talking about, it's just an upgrade combining a few op_codes. One of the devs works at SWAN there is no FUD narratives and there is no fake L2 or altcoin, it's just combining some op_codes, at least learn how to code before spouting off some nonsense.

305 sats \ 17 replies \ @justin_shocknet 18 Oct

It's just a harmless upgrade bro just try my new op_code bro don't like it dont use it bro, seriously bro not FUD bro its just a broken chain bro we can fix it bro totally not a scam bro

learn how to code

lol fucking clueless

117 sats \ 13 replies \ @EverythingSatsoshi OP 18 Oct

🤣🤣🤣🍿🍿🍿🍿

Justin I think you should have a nuanced convo with Rearden or Moonsettler.

274 sats \ 1 reply \ @justin_shocknet 18 Oct

I thought the moon retard rage quit a few months ago, scammers always come back for another bite at the apple I guess.

Scammers like this don't engage in nuanced conversations, they repeat emotional appeals to needs non-technical people can understand, and copy paste half-assed diagrams and technobabble that fool the 99.5% of people that can't parse as non-solutions.

They're snake oil dealers, only the snake oil is shitcoins ("vTXOs")

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @EverythingSatsoshi OP 18 Oct

strong statements there

100 sats \ 10 replies \ @theonevortex 18 Oct

judging from his past history on this site there's no way justin has the ability to have a nuanced conversation...

2 sats \ 9 replies \ @justin_shocknet 18 Oct

Scammers love tone policing because they can't break through with substance, it's either mean tweets or WW3. So Gfy.

If you could stop scam simping things you don't understand anything about technically for even a second, you could explain plainly how a vTXO isn't a shitcoin.

My tone doesn't matter if you could, but you can't and won't.

121 sats \ 6 replies \ @theonevortex 18 Oct

Ark is one of the primary uses so far of VTXOs and they are most certainly not an altcoin, it's not much different then people sharing UTXOs with lightning. Extremely simply to understand if you're not intent on being contrarian and do any little bit of research at all.

2 sats \ 5 replies \ @justin_shocknet 18 Oct

Ark is no different than any other sidechain scam before it.

Just because it's native shitcoin is "pegged" to Bitcoin doesn't make it Bitcoin, anymore than the Liquid scam.

Lightning doesn't share UTXO's, a channel point resolves to 1 UTXO per party. If Lightning did share UTXO's, retards wouldn't feel the need to FUD it over fake scalability concerns.

Get a clue then try again.

view replies

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @EverythingSatsoshi OP 18 Oct

shockingly I'm anti-spam, but it seems you're pro 1MB block size. So I'll leave it at that

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 18 Oct

I have no idea what that means. I cant even remember the last time I talked about blockspace, the block-size isn't changing, and also big blockers were confirmed to be retards years ago so there's no need to re-hash it.

reply on another page

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @theonevortex 18 Oct

wtf are you talking about most of the op codes aren't even new, CTV has been around for over 4 years and the rest have been researched for years. Do you not pay attention to bitcoin development at all or something?

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @EverythingSatsoshi OP 18 Oct

That's why a nuanced conversation is important. I don't think ad hominem is necessary cos it's a net-positive for most people to really be on board and critique critically.

Your passion is admirable tho @theonevortex

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @theonevortex 18 Oct

appreciate you bro!

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @EverythingSatsoshi OP 18 Oct

@moonsettler thoughts on @justin_shocknet thinking this is FUD

Also @justin_shocknet what do you think about the Vault setup?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @theonevortex 18 Oct

The features and efficiencies that CTV can bring to vaults are huge not to mention being able to create even bigger arks.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 18 Oct

The vault use-case is meant to sound harmless, but seems more of a Hegelian dialectic for covenants and outsourcing security. If locktimes and multisig are inadequate for ones storage needs then no added scripting nonsense is going to help.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @theonevortex 18 Oct

Thanks for sharing the site!