i didnt try to establish segwit as an altcoin

segwit debate over,
but nice try on diverting away from your lack of LN valid points.
care to take a break and research for an hour, to make a point...or waste an hour not making a point
your choice.
you really should learn though. id love to see a valid point backed up by research. within the hour
your only wasting ur own time if you just keep posting pointlessly within the hour

carlton you have since 21 hours ago. be saying nonsense and avoided checking, learning, researching..
21 hours and you are still no further forward then you were yesterday

next time dont wast your 21 hours with baseless non factual dreams.
and instead
sleep for 9 hours.
wake up
do 2 hours of research and then using logic, documentation and facts to make a valid point.

which means IF you actually done some research you would have had a valid point HOURS ago, thus not wasting time.
by not researching and not making valid points you are only wasting your own time.

the funnier part is carlton has been tryng to make a point about LN since the 11th of the month on several topics.(4 days)
failing each time, getting no further forward then he did before.. learning not one extra thing to make a valid point.

i even suggested he take a break and try to learn something, to really think about it and try making a valid point.
kind of a shame he wastes his own time trolling and not learning

proved yourself wrong
go research. atleast lauda seems awake to atleast try finding the truth. follow his mindset and atleast try

lastly


ive read the code.
ive checked the code.
ive understand the code.

have a nice day

thank you for doing research
to help you
the timeout. is just a timeout. signatures still need to be signed.
hopefully a ETHICAL pre-channel transaction (the reset) was signed initially so the deposits can go back out the same way they came in.

but that can be then abused the other way.
EG previous post was party A deposits 1btc, B deposits nothing.. B can extort funds with UNETHICAL pre-channel transaction (the reset)

and flipping it to this new scenario
previous post was party A deposits 1btc, B deposits nothing..ethical reset created where A gets funds back. then A-B trade goods and services.
now A has the power. A refuses to sign unless he gets the majority back. and eventually A gets the whole thing back and keeps the goods because of the reset is released.

now the problem and flaw carlton is missing.

signing a transaction of 100,000,000,000units
results in a different signature AND TXID compared to
signing a transaction of 100,000,000units
bitcoin will reject it as an invalid tx.

also B cannot just broadcast an in-channel tx based on blockstreams current demonstration as the settlement tx onchain due to in-discrepancies.

LN only works if LN is measuring in sats.
LN will only work using milisats if (in carltons dream) bitcoin is measured in millisats

by the second party not signing. first party cant have them back, they remain locked. because it requires dual signing to release
by this i agree the second party cannot simply "take it from you" without your signature, because they remain locked, but you cant take it without theirs either

here is the point..
they can blackmail you to sign X over to them just to get an agreement. thus
taking it from you via extortion (they win)
or
locking you out of ever getting them back (no one wins, but second party feels good about screwing first party)

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
not a single line of code deals with LN transactions
job done
not a single line of code deals communicating with LN nodes
job done
not a single line of code deals with storing inchannel payments on bitcoins mempool
job done
not a single line of code deals with LN's millisats
job done

the coins locked within the multisig require dual signatures. thus its not all your property. you require the second party to sign too..

ok ill edit
prove it..
you cant because you dont even know what an TN transaction is
but you you suggest you do know what a LN transaction is
PROVE IT

and you pretend nothing will happen because your dreams tell you to think of fairy utopia's that corporate dictatorship is the solution to bitcoin, without understanding bitcoin
the funny thing is that carlton wants to screw with bitcoin to make LN compatible rather than making LN compatible with bitcoin.. (facepalm)

now thats settled your off topic question

back on topic,
prove with code, documentation and knowledge that LN signed payment can be broadcast to bitcoin and be accepted

remember
A)the deposit (prechannel) is not LN
B)the LN payment (in channel) on the LN node is LN
C)the withdrawal (post channel) is not LN

demonstrate (B)
stay on topic and talk about (B)


comparison
A)the deposit (pre-exchange trading) is not exchange trading
B)the LN payment (exchange trading) on the exchange is the exchange trading
C)the withdrawal (post exchange trading) is exchange trading

demonstrate a exchange trade-order can be broadcast to bitcoin
stay on topic and talk about exchanges and trade-orders

you fail to show knowledge of the concept of blockstream LN. you cannot even be bothered to look into it, and instead you bait an offtopic question involving the front end market of speculation.

which no one can predict speculation accurately. all that can be learned is that changing the units of measure WILL change how people perceive it.
and it WILL affect things.
just like trying to rebrand a btc as 1000units does the same change to peoples perception of rebranding a btc to 100,000,000,000units

afterall you cant go back and rehash all the 7 years blocks to give users 100,000,000,000units instead of 100,000,000 to keep them on par with still having 1btc. (so your dream is flawed) due to older users losing out.

extending the reward creation cap from the year 2141 to 2181+ does has ramifications too
the best answer there is to your question
its inflation hidden by a rebranding of the metric to pretend there is no inflation.. but smart people will see through the ruse

but we all know you want to screw with bitcoin. because you dont care about bitcoin. you only care about is the dream of corporate dictatorship and control for financial profit.(you have no libertarian ideals nor ideals for protecting peoples assets against corporations)

how about instead of meandering off topic.
how about instead of crying that answering people is a waste of time
how about instead of crying that researching facts to answer people is a waste of time

you instead just do the research for your own understanding and your own benefit. then you wont be wasting your time failing each time

because LNs millisats are not part of bitcoins sat
they are different nodes.

again lets do the theortic dream of yours of bitcoin changing its units of measure to include millisats
bitcoin miners right now produce 1250000000 units of measure per block. FACT (check the code)
USERS call this measure at the GUI, conversation end 12.5btc. but not at protocol/code/consensus level

in your dream scenario
bitcoin miners would produce 12500000000000 units of measure per block. DREAM
making miners stop producing units of measure as a blockreward in atleast 2181 instead of 2141 (screwing the production/rarity mechanism)
USERS call this measure at the GUI, conversation end 12.5btc. but not at protocol/code/consensus level

anyone can rebrand how many units a BTC is measured as.
last year people were proposing without even adding more units of measure. to call a btc just 1000 sats.
the community decided to leave a btc at 100,000,000 units and instead just use a different term 'bits' which is 100 units of measure

what people call a btc has no relevance to mining, no relevance to code.

WAKE UP!!!

LN payments in bitcoins mempool??

prove it. show me bitcoin-core code.
show me code in bitcoin core where millisat payments are logged in bitcoin-cores mempool

show it.
if you wont or cant. you have nothing more then empty arguments to get laughed at

i guess you forgot the LN node was not a bitcoin node
i guess you forgot the LN node had to connect to IRC to locate other peers, rather then using the bitcoin network IP discovery process
i guess you forgot LN uses millisats that are not sats
i guess you are stuck in a lucid dream.

wake up, deal with reality, not the dream you were sold

your semantics are about the deposit and withdrawal. not LN itself.
it seems you fail to understand. so it requires wording it differently to hope you understand. but you instead just put your fingers in your ears and plead ignorance to everything

so how about go watch the demo video. read the details. that way you learn directly from your leader and probably wont have your fingers in your ears.
the guy made a payment ON BITCOIN(deposit). and the separately used the LN node for payments.
the payments within the LN node are NOT accepted by bitcoin. go watch the video
only the settlement (withdrawal) is accepted because a process is done to create a bitcoin transaction when the channel closes.

seriously carlton. watch the video, read the documentation and understand LN.


i know you admitted you have no understanding and blame your lack of desire to research LN on other people rather than yourself. but you are only failing yourself

lightning is OFFchain tech.. 'payments'/'trades' are not done onchain.. and thats the point of LN


LOL
lets word it a different way,
exchanges accept bitcoin but while an exchange holds the bitcoin, they separately allow users to play with their 'balances'(mysql database) to make orders.
exchanges are not bitcoin, they are a SERVICE/BUSINESS layer at the edges of bitcoin, but it is not bitcoin.
the trades do no appear on the blockchain. the trades are incompatible with bitcoin consensus
only the deposits and withdrawals are part of bitcoin. not the service offering itself.
LN is just a service layer.

even blockstream admit LN is a second layer.
even blockstream admit LN is OFFCHAIN.

seems carlton needs to go back and get retrained by his leaders

lets word it a different way.
exchanges are part of the community. but not the protocol of bitcoin
LN is part of the community. but not the protocol of bitcoin

atleast be honest and call a spade a spade. then be realistic about what a spade can do and cannot do

as the other commenter said.
dont bother with the "loanshark/scamhaven" microloan systems like btcjam

instead write up some documentation about your project
include:
the concept.
give a demonstration/scenario of how it operates (how alice pays bob)
give an example of why it should operate (why alice pays bob - the niche market/service it is creating)
give details of what your expectations of it are in 6 months, then 1-5years (realistic, not utopian)

and then go search out funding with your documentation

carton fails to provide a reason why blockstreams LN is not an altcoin, even where:
it uses a different node
contains no bitcoin blockchain,
uses a different unit of measure,
uses a signed instant 'payment' method incompatible to bitcoin consensus(thus gets rejected if they tried broadcasting the 'payment')
requires deleting the 'payment' and setting up a hopefully ethical agreement when signing a bitcoin tx when settling(much like withdrawing exchange balance)

so he then meanders to attack the people that even dare to highlight the reality of stuff blockstream create.

i defend bitcoin(open financial system), carlton defends blockstream(dictatorship desiring corporation)

now my point.
its best to call a spade a spade and actually accept what a spade can do
and cannot do. then while remaining with reality realise that a spade is a useful tool for some people and able to clearly show what a spade does.

unlike some people who pretended NXT was bitcoin 2.0 and other things. which helped no one but purely done to defend and promote the business behind the concept rather then highlight the advantages and disadvantages of the technology/altcoin

lauda is correct segwit is part of bitcoin.
sidechains and blockstreams LN however is an altcoin, that is crediting users via a peg that suppose to represent bitcoin at certain ratios.

the funny thing is, if revealing the honest truth hurts. then there is something those hurt by the truth want to hide.

if you feel the technology is sound then be honest and show what it can and cannot do. rather then circle jerk the utupian dream of perfection purely to give some rep' points to the business conceiving it.

i personally do see the positives of where LN can be useful. but i also see the flaws.
there is no point "selling" the usefulness before its even usable, but highlighting the flaws can help fix the issues to make it useful.
and there is definitely no point "selling" the utopian dream of perfection to honour a business. its open source after all. the business should not matter

bitfinex is trying to grab cash from private investors to pay its customers.
though customers see this as a positive. this can lead to a bigger problem later for bitfinex and the investors side
http://blog.bnktothefuture.com/bitfinex-signs-letter-of-intent-with-bnktothefuture/

thats the right way to think about it
have an open mind and think about all possibilities good and bad
good: to benefit users
bad: to suggest solutions to benefit progress which benefits users
bad: to know it could divert security (hashpower / node counts) away from bitcoin.


keep that open mind and think of all possibilities... dont become close minded like carlton

[1]though its not a LN feature but a bitcoin a smart contract feature, you are also correct that when locking bitcoins into a multisig can lead to many possibilities.
such as
[2]you are then credited with units pegged at 1:XXXX in a different network or node to then use in a different system, the smart contract feature is the mechanism planned to be used for things like side chains, LN and other protocols in conception and production right now.

and like you say, these altcoins and sidechains and offchain payment systems can have different possibilities, but also some flaws and limitations. which is what the devs need to work on before making a public release.

1. REALITY: bitcoin wont accept more units because it screws the maximum possible units that are minable within bitcoin
   REALITY: bitcoins stay in one place onchain and on a different codebase people play around with something they have been credited with (an altcoin)
   REALITY: a LN payment dual-signed to show: A owns XXmillisats and B owns XX millisats will get rejected by bitcoin.

2. THEORETICAL SCENARIO: in your dream where you had millisats included in bitcoin (not going to happen, but talking about your dream) it would be inflation

i said altcoin. you said miner
i said altcoin. you said blockchain.

there are MANY altcoins without needing mining
there are MANY altcoins without a blockchain

LN is an altcoin because the units of measure do not match thus making signatures not match and txids not match.
if you compared a bitcoin tx measured in sats to a LN tx measured in millisats.
they do not match they are not compatible just like monero and bitcoin are not compatible.

no one of any intelligence and coding knowledge is proposing to add any units. so LN payments are not compatible, thus LN is an alt.
with btc hodled on bitcoins blockchain people are credited with and play around with millisats using a different codebase/node.

it was only you that suggested it would be compatible if bitcoin added some units



by the way i laugh when your own words ruin your own argument