read the whole scenario again.. i explained this.
i made the quote below bold to emphasis when user A can spend the old tx. based on the promotion of "never closing channels" by describing how it would be possible to never close the channel even when the time was up. HINT: mutual /naive trust of each others honour, to have deleted old tx's


invalidates the previous how?
right now the only concept of invalidating it, is the newest TX has a date lock one block less than the previous tx's lock.. as explained.
EG
tx1: possible release 460,000
tx2: possible release 459,999
tx3: possible release 459,998
so that when bitcoin has solved block 459,997. someone can broadcast tx 3 and have it accepted in 459,998 but cant broadcast tx1 as that wont be accepted for atleast~30 minutes.

this raises the importance of closing channels ontime BUT.
but then read the issues at the bottom of the last post. where that concept falls apart based on the "utopian" promotion of infinite transactions and never closing channels.
(mutual agreement based on naive trust of each other to make a new transaction for 470,000 and trust no one holds the tx's of releases 460,000 or 459,000)

i personally feel that when the latest tx (most soonest locktime) actually gets to the blockheight. it should ALWAYS close the channel, thus not allowing older tx's a chance to get broadcast when they finally get to their time.

which then although securing possible double spending to get a TV and bitcoin back. limits how long a channel is open for and how many tx's can be done within the channel before it needs to close.

the only reason ethereum split. was not about the differing rules or consensus.
because the orphan mechanism would have taken care of it.
high consensus of 95%=only 5% of blocks "may" get orphaned. low consensus=major orphaning happening and people are required to wait XX confirmations to ensure the tx's dont just disappear.

by the way orphans happen every day, its nothing new. its part of bitcoin security

for ethereum it was about ethereum added extra 'blacklist' feature to ban nodes with opposing rules "--oppose-dao-fork". thus doing a work around to prevent the orphan mechanism of consensus from sorting it out the differences to keep just 1 chain. and allowing the splits to continue by ignoring the other side.

ethereum was not a consensus hard fork. but an intentional split known as a controversial split (creating an altcoin)

non of the bitcoin proposals have proposed a controversial split, instead they all want a consensual upgrade and desire it to activate at 75-95% to reduce the orphan headaches as much as possible. (most have agreed 95% is acceptable risk)

the issue however is 'conservatives' who will protest against any changes probably will add a ban list to avoid the consensus orphaning mechanism and force their own split. to live on a minority 2nd chain based on the old rules.

but as long as there is not intentional ban list/protest.. then we wont have a problem, there wont be 2 chains surviving. and the doomsday was never a dooms day.
the funny part is that those crying doomsday are probably the protesters that will actually be the 5% against it and use a ban list mechanism to force 2 chains to survive. thus self creating the doomsday they pretend to cry they dont want

what i feel johnyJ might be theorising is.
using LN people can "replay" doublespend to get goods whil other person is playing with LN tokens and the scammer has moved out the real bitcoins.


knitpickers: my next scenario has some assumptions
this is not about blockstreams current release of LN(very flawed) but how things are still not sussed out conceptually even in a more release worthy version.
this is not a blockstreams current release of LN with 1:1000 pegged LN tokens, instead its 1:1 LN tokens to allow instant signing of tx's that would get accepted by bitcoin

here goes:
imagine the date is: blockheight 450,000 (bitcoin doesnt care about calenders)

when Scumbag A and merchant B form a multisig. scumbag A deposits 1btc.
at first they both sign the reset transaction where A gets his 1BTC back.(rightfully so) date stamped to only be accepted at BlockHeight:460,000 (10 weeks from now)

then within LN A and B set up the channel and scumbag A is credited with the LN tokens, to represent 1btc
they do some trades and using the LN tokens. scumbag A gives some tokens to Merchant B for.. lets say a TV.
B gets A to sign a real bitcoin tx wher the outputs now give the merchant some bitcoin for the TV. date stamped to only be accepted BlockHeight:459,999 (9 weeks 6day, 23hours and ~50minutes from now)

but A doesnt care about the second TX, he cares and keeps the reset(a:1btc) tx and thats all he cares about
they keeps the channel open as if A and B will trade more next week.(meaning B does not broadcast the second tx)
later.. they keep trading, blah blah blah to keep the channel alive.
later..
10 weeks are nearly up they agree to extend the channel for another 10 weeks by signing a TX for blockheight 470,000.
merchant B thinks scumbag A deleted old tx's and is only holding the latest one of blockheight 470,000, wher merchant gets some btc.
scumbag A has never cared about the latest tx's and still has the first reset tx

so the channel carries on and they date passes block height 460,002
scumbag A broadcasts the reset transaction without telling merchant B and gets confirmed
merchant B was unaware and couldnt send out his latest one because its date stampted for 470,000
now all merchant B is left with is a hand full of LN proxy tokens, no TV, no bitcoin.

issues that have to be resolved.
1. using the time locks, limits the "infinite transactions" because each transaction needs to be one blockheight less than the other to remain most valid.(eg a 10k gap limits it to 10,000 transactions)
2. by suggesting a "channel never needs to close" means that trust is needed that the party with most at the start wont transmit that initial transaction to get back everything he first had, once time passes the time lock due to naive trust the party with most to lose didnt close in time

dont get me wrong. the time lock concept is good. but then saying a utopian dream of "never needs to close" and "unlimited transactions" reveals that the time locks can be used to scam, just by being patient and persuasive to keep the channel open beyond the first time lock

the problem is not with bitcoin and other crypto's

losses and thefts are when people hand over bitcoin in exchange for something not crypto. and the the person giving the non-crypto pretends something went wrong and takes the non crypto away. while not handing the bitcoin back either.

deleting bitcoin helps no one.

instead we need to stop doing stupid things like swapping bitcoin for things that can evaporate.

credit cards/paypal
anyone wanting to trade bitcoin for creditcards/paypal and other chargeback scamming currencies deserves to lose funds. but destroying bitcoin due to lazy exchanges helps no one.

FIAT is the flaw of scams. if people want to buy bitcoin then they should use a payment method they cannot charge back. such as face to face bank note<->btc....... using btms. setting up businesses. and slowly do away with the paypal/credit cards that are scammable and also high in fee's

exchanges
we need to stop using exchanges that end up with the sole permission of the funds. giving users deletable mysql database "balance"
who can fake a hack and keep the bitcoin at any time.
multisigs should be used

spending bitcoin
instead we need to move bitcoin forward to buy produce direct. that way once the person who has the tin of baked beans cannot chargeback a tin of beans. and the guy selling the baked beans cannot ask for them back and keep the bitcoin too. again multisig can help as an escrow for distance selling

we need to stop trying to screw with bitcoin to allow losers to play with fiat flaws. and instead stop caring about the fiat flaws and use bitcoin more direct.. as a real currency

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