pull down to refresh
For one, you cannot receive a lightning payment to your node if you're offline
Correct, I clearly specified this condition that the user must have previously received funds on lightning. Read my post again:
If you receive a Lightning payment, your node MUST stay synced with the Bitcoin network to protect against theft.
- The first premise is that only someone who has previously received a Lightning payment is vulnerable to being drained.
- The second premise is that your channel is only vulnerable if your node does not stay synced
So there's no corrections for me to make, as my warning is already coherent.
Second, you anyway need a watchtower
I acknowledge watchtowers as a (trusted) fallback.
It's classic Non sequitur and it would surprise me if you don't know it. Your conclusion simply does not align with your technical analysis. It's exactly the same shit that the knotzis were doing and it's kinda crazy to me to see you copying that bullshit.
To each their own though. I still hope that former non-capitalized @kruw is also still somewhere in there, because that one was smarter and would influence for real, rather than making people puke.
What other possible conclusion could you draw from these premises? If someone is deliberately trying to get Bitcoiners to expose their funds to theft, it's obvious they are a scammer.
So ethan, humpus are scammers? That's what you're saying?
Idk who ethan, humpus are. I would rather not change the subject though, we are making progress.
We're not making progress at all because you're still doubling down, still boosting your own comments, still either not being honest or having some major brain damage.
Feel free to specify any corrections I should make to my scam warning.
Sounds to me you are just not well informed about ~lightning (otherwise you'd know who ethan, humpus are) and building a thesis and accusations on a tweet is kind of absurd.
I valued you as a member of SN, a knowledgeable bitcoiner. Everyone has limits, and we cannot knwo everything, nor we can't always be right. That's why within a community we are all stronger, together. You know about ~Coinjoins, keep your mind open to learn more about what you don't know, because believe me, what we don't know is largely much more than what we know.
I don't see any of the additional conditions you just posted here in your post, so I guess that that's not going to do any good. These conditions are not in your "warning". Yet you keep boosting it. It's fine Kruw... you obviously don't care about anything. So why should I care about you? Better to just counter your bullshit when I can.
I would have upzapped your post if we were going to have a discussion about what the tradeoffs really are. But there is no such discussion. It's all just ad hominem bullshit based on a false, non-connecting argument and cherry-picking half a sentence in a tweet.
Perhaps one day I will understand why this is so important to you that you're massively burning your reputation over it. Until then, I'm just going to continue to be baffled by the cognitive decline.
For one, you cannot receive a lightning payment to your node if you're offline, so it's a non-issue. The sending node will construct an onion path and the payment will time out because the handshake protocol is interactive. Second, you anyway need a watchtower construct if your phone client has inbound liquidity from nodes other than your own.
What does that have to do with what Justin is saying? Justin has forever been saying that the interface to LN must run on a (your) server and then the phone interface should be a light client. This is very similar to the bArk lightning bridge you're a fan of, and you're both bickering over competing tradeoffs and design choices, except with increasing escalation into the absurd.
I don't know why you feel like you should write accusations as if you're Luke. You're a smart guy. Respected. Why are you on a villain/retardation arc?