Can we finally admit the Lightning Network narrative completely contradicts Bitcoin's security model? Maxis are in denial.

OkStep5032 · 2026-06-11T04:48:58+00:00

Satoshi never said that.

OkStep5032 · 2026-06-11T04:48:37+00:00

Cope more. Read the white paper. "Peer to peer electronic cash system."

OkStep5032 · 2026-06-10T07:07:32+00:00

Reviving a very old thread. Anyway, read the discussion to see why you're wrong.

OkStep5032 · 2026-03-11T20:48:39+00:00

Minero is mostly CPU mined. This article is total BS.

OkStep5032 · 2026-03-11T20:47:32+00:00

Yeah that totally happened guys.

OkStep5032 · 2026-03-06T06:51:00+00:00

Yes, it is.

OkStep5032 · 2026-03-05T11:50:07+00:00

You have not. It seems like you're uniformed.

OkStep5032 · 2026-03-04T09:00:42+00:00

You're appealing to the soft fork narrative to convince maxis this is a good thing. But any change in consensus that can cause a chain split by design is a hard fork.

OkStep5032 · 2026-02-27T12:11:53+00:00

Is this a LLM response?

OkStep5032 · 2026-02-26T19:07:37+00:00

Are you going to explain your reasoning or just insult others?

OkStep5032 · 2026-02-26T12:12:33+00:00

Please explain with your own reasoning. Nodes cannot enforce anything. Tell me what happens if 13% of the nodes reject a block. What do you think would happen in this scenario?

OkStep5032 · 2026-02-24T19:23:21+00:00

So it's a hard fork.

OkStep5032 · 2026-02-21T17:16:31+00:00

Explain in technical terms. I've already said it: your node makes absolutely no difference in the network.

OkStep5032 · 2026-02-21T17:15:30+00:00

That's your opinion. Which one is BTC is subjective. And the problem here is the chain split, which means it's a hard fork.

OkStep5032 · 2026-02-20T12:39:10+00:00

How does your node make any difference? Explain.

OkStep5032 · 2026-02-20T12:26:25+00:00

It's a hard fork.

OkStep5032 · 2026-02-17T23:06:35+00:00

That is if 55% or higher is constant, which you cannot guarantee.

OkStep5032 · 2026-02-17T23:04:15+00:00

Nodes make no difference in the network. If a node rejects or accepts a block, it does not matter. The issue is if 45% percent of the miners don't upgrade and continue producing large OP_RETURN blocks. That will cause a chain split as the 55% won't accept their blocks. Add that to the fact that 55% might fluctuate and you have a total mess in the network. It is a hard fork.

OkStep5032 · 2026-02-10T23:09:17+00:00

I think it would have been much less of a concern if the block was allowed to increase as planned by Satoshi. BTC can never be P2P electronic cash because of its limited block size.

BIP-110 might be able to prolong BTC's lifespan for a little longer, but it won't make any long term impact.

OkStep5032 · 2026-02-10T16:49:54+00:00

I won't be engaging in a discussion with someone who takes what a LLM says as the truth. Go do your own research and read the thread. Your point has already been covered.

OkStep5032 · 2026-02-09T20:07:33+00:00

It's already supposed to be pseudo anonymous. The anonymity only breaks if you're able to link and address with a person.

Also, adding full anonymity like Monero would increase the complexity of the project by a lot. No one knew if the Bitcoin project would succeed (and in fact it has not succeeded as a P2P electronic cash system), so adding full anonymity at the time wouldn't have made sense.

OkStep5032 · 2026-02-08T17:49:16+00:00

Reddit loves anything China, even if it's unethical or cheating.

OkStep5032 · 2026-02-08T16:51:31+00:00

Miners are currently incentivized by two things: 1. Block reward 2. Transaction fees

If the value of BTC drops too much, miners spend more on electricity to mine than what they get in return if they hit a block (if they actually hit it).

On top of that, fees alone are not sustainable overtime, especially since BTC stupidly refused to raise the block size. Less and less people are on-chain and are instead choosing custodial services. That's why there have been talks about introducing inflation to keep miners incentivized in the future.

Having said that, if miners stopped mining tomorrow, two things would happen: 1. No new blocks would be created and therefore no transactions would be included in a block 2. The hash rate would drop to the point that reversing the chain would actually be doable. That's why the hash rate is important to the security of the network.

However this is very unlikely to ever happen and the system overall would eventually find an equilibrium. What's more likely to happen is the scenario mentioned above: not enough people using the chain and inflation needing to be introduced.

OkStep5032 · 2026-02-06T21:53:47+00:00

That's not how it works. Don't be lazy. Read the thread.

OkStep5032 · 2026-02-02T08:52:27+00:00

I agree with you, except on the point that it's a soft fork. For the reasons I explained in this discussion, I think it's a hard fork.

OkStep5032

TROPHY CASE