0 sats \ 1 reply \ @nullcount 23 Jul \ parent \ on: Why do Taproot gets so much hate?? bitcoin
RGB can't meme
More paths means smaller value HTLCs. Payment success probability is higher with smaller payments. LN channels can hold hundreds of "in-flight" HTLCs simultaneously.
321 sats \ 1 reply \ @nullcount 18 Jul \ parent \ on: Multi-path payments in Lightning - question bitcoin
@tolot Assuming we're only talking about Base MPP... In your first scenario:
B E A -> -> -> G -> D C F h0 h1 h2 h3 h4
NodeD creates an invoice and signals support for
base_mpp. NodeA creates two HTLCs using the same payment hash in NodeD's invoice for each HTLC. HTLC-1 is routed B->E->G->D and HTLC-2 is routed C->F->G->D. Remember, only NodeD knows the preimage for this invoice.NodeA sends both HTLCs at the same time, but they arrive at NodeD at slightly different times. NodeD gets the first HTLC and they have the preimage to redeem it, but they also know that there is a second HTLC incoming. They don't want to redeem HTLC-1 until they have HTLC-2 also. If they did prematurely redeem it, then they would have to reveal the preimage to NodeG who is also responsible for forwarding HTLC-2 and NodeG could use that same preimage to prematurely redeem HTLC-2 without actually forwarding it to NodeD.
Once NodeD has both HTLCs, they can safely redeem both of them by revealing the preimage to NodeG, etc.
Your second senario would happen in a similar way:
B E A -> I -> -> -> G -> D C F h0 h1 h2 h3 h4 h5
I think the confusion lies in this statement: "meaning two HTLCs flowing in the same channel for the first hop, then splitting and the riconverging."
The HTLC's don't "split" and "recombine". They are two seperate HTLCs. Its just like making two separate payments that happen to use some different hops and some of the same hops. Only the receiver has to worry about "combining" these HTLCs into a single payment.
Every LN channel has a limit to the number of "in-flight" HTLCs allowed on that channel. The default is 400+ HTLCs so most nodes should have no problem holding two HTLCs. It does not matter that those HTLCs happen to have the same payment hash (preimage).
Multi-path payments (MPP) is a general term for payment splitting. There are many implementations of MPP with different attributes: https://www.gijsvandam.nl/post/all-types-of-multi-part-payments-in-lightning-network-explained/
"Average" is not necessarily indicative of middle class. Outliers exist. Median would be a better indicator.
According to page 8 of the Bitcoin whitepaper, if a single miner has more than 45% of hashpower (as Antpool likely does). We should be requiring upwards of 300 block confirmations to reduce the probability of a reorg to 0.1% for that transaction.
Since there are miners with ~50% hashrate, anyone who only accepts a tx after only 3-6 confs is still facing a 20-30% probability that their tx could be undone by the miner (if the miner wanted to).
If you mine BTC, consider joining a pool which is not a proxy of Antpool or Foundry. Or better yet, switch to solo mining.
If you don't mine BTC, you can spread awareness of the pool centralization issue. You can also demand that any transactions you do in BTC require at least a couple hundred block confirmations (wait a couple days) before you call the transaction settled. If enough people acted rationally in this regard, it may be enough of an inconvenience to spark action.
However, most BTC users are still comfortable accepting 6-confirmations and trusting the largest miner won't reorg their tx.
Autism became recognized as a developmental disorder distinct from schizophrenia for the first time by the WHO, in 1978.
Ever since Autism was recognized as a distinct disorder, researchers and doctors began to include other disorders and behaviors (that have long been studied in children) into the "autism umbrella".
Awareness of autism in the public culture increased with the release of Rain Man (1988) and other media portrayals.
The DSM-IV TR (an autism test deployed in year 2000) contained an almost complete rewrite of the definition of Asperger syndrome. Notably, it now no longer included speech and language difficulties. This greatly increased the number of people deemed to have the condition.
You can read more about the history of Autism here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_autism
If you've read this far, its probably because you have a hyperfixation and you might be autistic. /s
Take the Free RAADS-R Autism test here: https://embrace-autism.com/raads-r/#test
One could argue that a superior money encourages you to do business with faceless brands. Pay and done. So you can focus on your specialization and maintaining the friendships you want to maintain instead of maintaining "friendships" just so you can buy things from them.
Its great if you want to shake your supplier's hand. But maybe there's a reason people are more likely to do business in BTC if they know/trust the other party. And maybe this "preference" to transact in BTC with trusted people isn't a good thing.
Great to see more client-side liquidity automations that won't doxx your channel balances to any third party.
Suppose Antpool has demonstrated a pattern of mining on the competing fork (as opposed to mining on their own block during a fork).
As you explained, if Antpool were trying to maximize profits (short term) then they would mine on their own block during a chainsplit.
What are you opinions on the following reasons why Antpool would abandon their own block during a fork?
-
Antpool does not want to be "liable" for a 2+ block chainsplit that could appear as an attempt to reorg blocks (its a way to guard reputation as an "honest" pool)
-
Antpool is using the Tit for Tat Strategy (its a long-term strategy of mutual cooperation)
Do you have a theory why a pool would mine on the competing fork?
Often, hyperinflation manifests itself as wage deflation (relative to commodity/asset inflation). Build a hedge by adding an additional income stream where you have complete control over the prices you charge and don't hesitate to raise your prices as your costs rise.
Redundancy in all supply chains! This includes energy. Used car batteries are pretty cheap and can be wired in series to get 120/240v with an DC to AC inverter. Even if you keep them charged them with grid power, a little investment in redundancy can be cheap insurance.
You could get a 100W solar panel, mount a Bitaxe (or two) on the underside. Add a battery with charge controller so it won't cut off when a cloud passes over. Throw it on the roof of your house (unless you need a permit) or build a stand to keep it off the ground. Wipe the dust off when the output drops too low. Could probably build this setup for less than $300. Option to add more batteries/panels to get it running 24/7
Assume you average 30W of generation (assuming 80% efficiency and 12 hours of no generation at night), then you'd rack up 21.6kWh of generation over 30days. Assuming you would have paid $0.16/kWh for grid power, that's a savings of ~$3.50/mo
However, the bitcoin network won't pay you $0.16/kwh (especially with a bitaxe). You'll be lucky to get $0.05/kwh
So a $300 setup would "pay for itself" in about 7-21 years (depending if you count "savings" or "income" as your ROI).
However, you'd learn a lot about electricity and some people pay $50k to a university to go do that, so it could be a massive opportunity depending on your goals!
There can be virtues in Selfishness. Just like there can be negative effects (even if unintended) by being a "selfless" missionary.
For example:
Short-term Focus - Maybe you convince someone to buy BTC, but without long-term support, that person who was easy to persuade, may be just as easily persuaded to gamble on shitcoins. Its possible that person would have been better off if they focused on their career instead of being coaxed into becoming an amateur "investor".
Ethnocentrism - Bitcoiners tend to believe they have it all figured out. This can lead to a certain arrogance or "know-it-all" attitude as they have encounters with curious no-coiners. This attitude can cause resentment or tension to build that actually pushes people away from Bitcoin.
Psychological Impact - Not all are ready to fall down the rabbit hole. Many bitcoiners tend to have radical changes in political/social/cultural views after taking the orange pill. It can lead to estranged or divisive relationships between friends/family. Many people want to stay ignorant of the world's issues so they can focus on work and relationships instead of spending all day discussing geopolitics and macro on internet forums.
Lately, it is my belief that few are able to achieve strong personal responsibility. Those that do tend to be the ones who govern or employ the rest of the population who just want stable incomes and a carefree existence.
Some religions have a strong emphasis on missions, others have emphasis on a personal relationship with the divine. There's no right way IMO, but it can be helpful to identify the virtues and vices with each approach.
Why so focused on adoption? This seems like something a person with low personal responsibility would want: "my bags need to go up and it requires the actions of other people to make it happen"
Just be a humble hodler, you don't have to convince everyone that a flood is coming. Just build your ship so that when it starts to rain, there's room for anyone you care about to come aboard.
What deters people from embracing uncertainty is a lack of personal responsibility.
People without personal responsibility are quick to blame external factors that they cannot control for the cause of their suffering. They blame the economy/the president/the immigrants/the fiat money system, etc. for their problems.
When asked what would help them right now, they'll describe actions others should take: president should lower inflation/interest rates, the gov should issue more stimulus/welfare, the corporations should lower prices and pay workers more, people should adopt a BTC standard, etc.
Someone with high personal responsibility is more likely to focus on what they can control. They accept that they alone are to blame/credit for their situation. They are more likely to bet on themselves and embrace uncertainty because they are aware of their own power and limitations and have faith in their ability to navigate uncertainty.