democracy.. is only on the 4th or 5th year. and only for 1 day
after that its then capitalism, socialism or communism
                               ^                ^              ^_for the politicians benefit
                               |                  |_ for the citizens benefit
                               |_for the corporate elites benefit

true democracy is where citizens should get more input on a more regular bases

[23 seconds to debunk]
you mean the same guy that only became the president of Eco-Health Allience in 2021
oh wait. i guess your soon to begin further 'research' will be "coz time machine"
mhm.. moving on

oh and he was put in place so that he can do further investigations into covid
after all you dont send a covid expert into an investigation and a month later throw him out in the trash

but yea. he was not in eco pre 2021. so just quit your conspiracy before you start chanting about time machines making your theory possible

you really have no clue about history or facts
seriously go check actual blockchain data.. not your friends opinon and dream

it was not those opposing segwit that changed code in their software to create an altcoin
it was the segwit side that arranged the NYA flag to ignore legacy blocks to cause a split.

also compared to 2009 hardware/bandwidth limitations to which satoshi decided 1mb was ok limit
things have moved on since then. on average hardware/internet has increased 33x
yet the blockchain is struggling to get passed only 2.5k tx a block since 2017


what you are finding is average joe just wanting to buy coffee will not want to carry around a desktop computer to make LN payments 'coz decentralised full node required'
they end up not giving a crap about bitcoin and just deposit fiat into a central exchange and have the exchange manage their micropayment millisat token channel. thus avoiding any need of caring worrying,securing bitcoin

its like accepting bank notes. no one cares about securing the bank vault of gold. thats for the vault owner to do and people are not vault owners. they are paper holders.

LN will cause more people to move away from using bitcoin as a full node because they are not doing daily things onchain to want/need to keep a full node open all day everyday

removing bitcoins daily utility makes average joe not be full nodes. leaving only large central services to be the full nodes. (like the NYA guys)

in 2000 internet was 0.005mb/s and 4gb hard drive was the norm
in 2005 internet was 0.5mb/s and 60gb hard drive was the norm
in 2009 internet was 1.5mb/s and 120gb hard drive was the norm

decisions were made that transactions of ~226byte had to fit into a 1mb based on the norm
this was ~4k transactions .. or the promoted "upto 7transactions a second"(4k)

but things have moved on
in 2015 1tb hard drives were available 25mb/s internet
in 2020 4tb hard drives were available 50mb/s internet

so internet speeds increased by 33x since 2009
hard drives have increased by 33x since 2009

yet blocks transaction capacity has not even surpassed the average of 4k a block of 2009
let alone being utilised to an hardware acceptable 33x growth(82k-132k(actual vs possible repsectively))

technology has moved on in 12 years, but capacity has stifled at ~2.5k for 4 years

many scenarios, making this question complicated
ok imagine there are 1.04mill LN users. and they are spread independantly as average routes
eg each node had 4 channels where their channel partner has 4 channels
    4
(1 )16
(2 )64
(3 )256
(4 )1024
(5 )4096
(6 )16384
(7 )65536
(8 )262144
(9 )1048576


thats upto 9 'hops' you might have to route to to get from one side to the other of the network
so if each user had a fee of say 1sat to go through them. it could be upto 9 sat to get your payment to the other end (if it required 9 hops)
(sounds easy so far right.. lets get more complicated)


however those 1million people have 4 channels
and those 1 million people can only guess their spending habits for about a month ahead to know how much funds to put in each preferred channel
so in this example that is 4 channels opening. and closing a month = 4mill onchain transactions
in a month there are about 4048 blocks. meaning ~1000 transactions onchain per block happening just for lightning. which is about 40% of onchain congestion(impacts onchain fee pressure)

also imagining if people only want to spend say $300 per channel. and they know that onchain is say $1.50 per open $1.50 per close=$3 cost (1%)
then they will charge a 1% fee to use a certain amount of their value, just to break even and not lose when offering their value as a route

which in short becomes $0.05 per $5 spent
which over a 9 hop route would be $0.45 fee to get a payment sent end to end

(i can leave you to work out the other nuances of variables.. if you want to get more complicated)

     if they locked up more or less per channel=100/amount locked*(onchain fee*2)=fee%
     if it was a network only needing 1 channel connected to hub(spoke instead of hop) =fee%/4
     if they locked in value for 3 month or 12 month =fee%/3 or fee%/12
     if the onchain demand pressure was high or low =fee%+-
     if there were more or less than 1million users =fee%*x hops
     if it only needed X hops =fee%*X
     if you only transact once= fee%*x hops+(2onchain/1)
                                                                      this $3 openclose+9hop=$3.45
                             50times=fee%*xhops+(2onchain/50)
                                                                      this $3 openclose/50+9hop=$0.51

the ledger is a digital representation.. of value
and there is a way you can tell that the digital representation has value.
is because there is proof of work
yep real life costs of equipment and money to create the blockrewards(digital representations)

let me explain, and it all becomes clear
week one of bitcoin in 2009. had like 1 computer running 24/7
so them 1008 blocks that week of 50coin each means that
50,400bitcoin cost about a weeks worth of 1 pc electric (call it ~$1.75 for 50k coins)

however to make  6.25 coin today requires about 80exhash
(727,273 s19pro (at 3.25kwh = 54wat per block) = 393939.5kwh
which is at say a low of $0.04/kwh = $15.76k per block= $2521 per btc of just the electric
add in the other costs like
the physical ASIC hardware = $7k*727k asics = $5,090,911,000
                                         = $97,125 a block
                                         = $15,540 a btc
the warehouse lease=$0.30 per asic per month
                             = $50 a block
                             = $8 per btc

the labour(estimate 1 person monitoring 1k asics) = 727people *3shifts of 8 hours=. 2181
i wont bother work it out in detail but a crew of about $2181 a day = $15 a block= $2.43 a btc

so
$2521+$15540+$8+$2.43=~$18k a btc (scenario: cheapest region china 100% asic farms)
in places like america where industrial electric is say 12cent instead of 4 cent
a btc is worth ~$23k right now based on hashrate
in america/UK residential area of upto 24cent electric instead of chinese industrial 4cent
a btc is worth ~$30k

here is the thing.
if UK/america cant afford to set up cheap mining. they would rather buy bitcoin when its at the low $30k range as its cheaper to buy. and if it goes to $60k they can mine it at home cheap and get 2x profit

bitcoins market PRICE is not the underlyiing value. as each person defines value differently
EG japan and denmark think bitcoin is super cheap at $30k because their mining costs are higher

..
but getting to the point
the bitcoin ledger is not formed by just random input. its made up of actual value. by way of the PoW
much like gold has value due to the labour and mining cost of getting gold. and then the value of the supply demand of people wanting it via:
preferring to mine-to-sell(supply) or market-to-buy(demand)
and
with each new owner/holder/ they set their value based on their cost of acquiring it.(demand)

which is where the older(cheap coins) appreciate as they swap hands over time also (no one sells for a loss unless silly)
(bitcoins creator(satoshi) can sell his 2009 coins at any price and profit)
(someone buying in february 2021 wont sell at a loss)
(someone buying last week at $30k can make a bit of profit)

emphasis:
bitcoins PRICE is speculative. and separate from bitcoin underlying VALUE.. BUT THERE IS VALUE

so there is no imaginary porsche on bitcoin. and bitcoin is not zero value..
but to use an analogy. there is proof of porsche.(physical work PoW) and then people can determine their own value of what that porsche is worth depending on their own calculations of value to build one themselves or buy one
(a porsche 'kit' might be cheaper than a showroom porsche.. a porsche in one country might be different then a porsche in another.. .. but the porsce is real and has value as there is Proof of Porsche)

..
with all that said...
'market cap' is a meaningless dollar value because there are not billions of dollars in some bank holding that number up
its just a stupidly oversimplified mathematic multiplication of the current market price OF ONE coin

.. but bitcoin does have VALUE.

there is not $50bilion "going out"
when a chinese person puts their fiat into a bank account. and then wires it to another bank account
the funds are still in a chinese bank account. all that has changed is the name of the chinese bank account holder, holding the chinese fiat.

chinese fiat is never destroyed, it still circulates chinese banks. its just the bank account name the balance is held under that changes

when someone buys bitcoin. another person is selling.

china does not like "red letters" being sent abroad. where bank notes end up in other countries. and then held by say american exchanges
but wire transfers stay in the chinese banking system where only the chinese named account holder changes

..
as for mining
china is on the mission to stop home-hobbiests/ illegal miners that are in regions of fossil fuelled domestic electric networks

as for exchanges
china is on a mission to stop the non-regulated/uninsured exchanges that dont pay taxes. exchanges that accept chinese fiat deposits but dont have money-service licences, or do tax evasion
any exchange that accepts fiat deposits is not immune to fiat laws, just because they also handle crypto
crypto does not immunise exchanges from their fiat laws if they also accept fiat as half of their business

for instance the UK banned binance. due to binance not wanting to comply to all UK fiat laws
(promising high return investment options, but not supplying a insurance scheme should binance not meet its promise)

if you stop beating your chest for a slight moment.
have a cup of coffee, take a breath and read the details.

none of my posts say human hand picked keys are more secure
NOTE: yes i mentioned human chosen words are LOW entropy as people usually only hand pick from a vocab of about 500 common words
that was an example of low entropy. no conclusion or suggestion was made that hand picked brain chosen words were better(though your chest beating assumed so due to weirdly looking for something to oppose)

ill explain the separate part now
your 1 round 128bit random...
then add on 4 bit checksum
then divide by 12 (call it the backward flow method of seed)

is not as much entropy as
12 rounds of 11bit random. then joined together
(call this the forward flow method)

both equal 132bit. but forward flow random 12 words, gives more combinations than your backward flow single random 128bit
(the extra 4bit checksum adds no extra combinations because the checksum is linked to the 128bit)


so we both agree(if you stop thumping your chest) that hand picked low vocab human chosen is bad
that has never been a debate.

let me take it one step further as it seems you missed the entire point
i understand your backward flow method

BEFORE going into a ECDSA cycle. that 128bit+checksum of yours needs to be padded out into 256bits
meaning your limiting how many possible private keys you can have by only seeking within the first 128bit
meaning your scheme has less entropy than whats possible
yes your 128bit may calculate to having more then private key for a public key. meaning you are not going to be calculating all possible 160bit public keys.

for emphasis:
i know you will be beating chest ready to growl how there are only 160bit of public key so no need to worry about 256bit. but only having 128bit means your not finding all 160bit publics

but hey lets limit it to your chest beat of 160bit public key as the max entropy for the private(still not enough, but lets play it your way)

so
12 rounds of random 11bit is more possible combinations (132bit)
13 rounds of random 11bit is more possible combinations (143bit)
14 rounds of random 11bit is more possible combinations (154bit)
15 rounds of random 11bit is more possible combinations (165bit)
    ^15 rounds is a bit of an over flow but would atleast cover all 160bit public keys

and one step further
10 rounds of random 15bit(32k library) is more possible combinations (150bit)
11 rounds of random 15bit is more possible combinations(165bit)
    ^11 rounds is a bit of an over flow but would atleast cover all 160bit public keys

so the point of my answer is
to the topic creator
using the standard 2048word library(11bit)
doing 13-14-15 random rounds is more secure than o_e_l_e_o's single round of 128bit
so more seed-words of 2048library-words (rounds of 11bit random) is more secure
but, so is
10 random seed-words of 32k library-words(rounds of 15bit random) is more secure
11 random seed-words of 32k library-words(rounds of 15bit random) is more secure

i wont do the math of all the privates needed to get EVERY public including all double privates..
because o-e-l-e-o wants to keep his debate to 160bit. so just on the limited scope

forward flow method of 13-14-15 is more secure

have a nice day,
hopefully a more calm and relaxed day

i understand lightning fully, more than most of these expert-fans

but over the years. it becomes a social drama PR rampage by the fans..
whereby i use one buzzword, they jump straight to knit pick that i did not use the other buzzword of the month. all done to distract/ignore/avoid the point of the context.
 
claiming they can ignore the whole context because i must not know because i didnt use their buzzword of the month(facepalm)

they get so wrapped up and ramped up on trying to find the most minimal grammatical issue to scream about and dismiss the whole context. that i just end up avoiding the buzzword drama and instead ELI-5 using common real world analogies.(laymans)

then they think my layman versions are to be ignored because of lack of buzzwords.
round circle arguments to avoid the context (social drama and very boring)

its funny because
they avoid discussions about funds arnt claimable until they have "secret" of hash160(secret)
they avoid discussions of the inner HTLC messages and invoice.
they avoid discussions about the many ways to break the route midflow. (even LN devs have lost funds)
they avoid discussions of capping out max limit of routes to save entire channel balance depletion
they avoid discussions of the payment success rate

yea a $3 coffee might be 99% success
but what about buying 3 coffees because most people dont drink alone

coupe years ago LN had a dismal 10% payment succesrate with 'folds lightningpizza'
(1500 attempts only 10% success)
and that just for pizza.. not a lambo

but hey i get used to the fan base of drama queens with your overpromises and utopian dreams

oh and if you look at the stats properly.
if you take out the elitist hubs. and just look at the average joe channels. the capacity is not there to have 99% $100-$500
but yea if we then redefine LN as a custodial only manager of ElThree micropayment channels they dont broadcast. then yea custodians can guarantee it.. but without users independance and freedom

just imagine wanting to buy pizza. and out of 10 people only one getting their payment to complete..
... id call that a failed payment system
if bitcoin had that issue in 2009 or 2011. it would never have moved forward
imagine lazlos 2010 pizza demo. imagine if he said he tried 10 times and got nothing.

many altcoins are bitcoin rip-offs
all thats required is not to change masses of code of the altcoin
but to change the first couple characters of an invoice in the LN software.
many LN node software already have litecoin and other coins already coded in.
........
as for you believing that LN is 99% successful for $100-$500
care to show me the latest 'payment success rate' graph

like this one from 2018


as for 2021
seems the lightning network stats sites (removing the elite hub/gateways) shows the median node capacity is only $60 for the general network. channel being less

LN is not fixed as a bitcoin feature
LN is a separate network that multiple altcoins can use too

so any niche benefit bitcoin gets. altcoins will too

many have run scenarios.
and here is the main conclusion
people deposit bitcoin into custodians so they can play around with outbound millisat balance on LN phone app.. coz yea who wants to carry around a desktop full node when in starbucks buying coffee

so they play around with millisats in lite custodial apps

and instead of exiting LN back to bitcoin. to avoid onchain fee's that custodians have determined as the channel initiator. users atomic swap to an altcoin and exit LN via cheap fee altcoins
end result custodians keep the bitcoin. and users play with altcoins

its how the banks did it over the last 200 years. grab the gold hand out paper. at the end swap for nickel and copper

i have bitcoin. probably more then most
there is no magic that a channel just appears
i have to get an app and ask for a channel to be opened.
if i want to spend i have to fund that channel

(there is a big difference of language between 'dont need to open' and the reality of 'dont need to be the funding initiator')

you can play mind games about how the channel opened but if i have to use another app  which i have to download and i have to request a channel using such app. its still triggered by me even if a 'custodian' then 'initiates' it

i do love it how people try to make things sound magical and utopian,
but end result is the same

if i want to spend coins. using LN.. it still requires a channel. and that channel is not magically existing already. its created by my request. and i still need to fund it

but anyway have a nice day with you "LN solves everything"
its weird that people are sooooooooo determined to say bitcoin is broke and another separate network is the sole solution everyone needs.
even when bitcoin transactions are more guaranteed, and its the other network that cannot guarantee stuff

when the solution is more broke than the presented problem.. its not a solution

LN's biggest flaw. its liquidity.
payment success for micropennies is ok
payment success for 1 coffee is almost ok
payment success for a months worth of coffee is varied and not always ok
                                                          pizza has more issues
                                                          weekly groceries is poor
                                                          house rent is even worse
you get the idea the more you want to spend the less chance you get to spend it

so the LN fan philosophy is to pamper and promote LN beyond logic and outside of moral risk just to get OTHERS into LN for the hope OTHERS will facilitate the fans payments. whilst others then suffer the issues the fans avoid telling them about
the flaw in that philosophy. is more people=more competitions for the route liquidity
EG someone might have 1500,000sat ($450)(split into a a few channels of $150) they want to spend themselves. but they only allow 10,000sat($3) to be spent via autopilot routing of others
so people end up in bottlenecks because everyones using up the $3 route to try getting their $150 spent
..
and no . no one is silly enough to open up their whole $150 to be used by others. as the sub penny fee's of such act makes that channel void of spending in just 50 attempts. but at a cost that wont cover the fees onchain to re-org channels

no issue calling LN an 'option' for utility. or an alternative. .. but dont praise LN as THE SOLUTION.. as that is trying to push the mantra that everyone needs/should use LN. even when LN is a niche and not a all out solution

many scenarios where LN does not solve things. heck LN does not have a 100%payment success rate for its minimal usecase/bestcase

its niche is very small. and so people need to be informed on its limitations to then make wiser choices. rather then be bombarded with myth and PR that its better than bitcoin

inbound

accept

..
the other persons question was in general.. 'if i have bitcoin and i want to spend..'
 you mention a "solution" where
i have to pay a company. and they hand me channels so that i can 'receive' upto 0.04btc
i dont think you really understood the situation and requirement
i give you a hint. when people want to spend . they want an outbound solution

oh and a quick search and it shows that breez offers that as point of sale merchant tool
basically its like saying dont worry about bitcoin addresses, sign up to bitpay as your merchant shopping cart

many dont want custodial solutions. and others dont want to spend funds to be given an option to receive
after all wasnt that the point of bitcoin

oh and yea breez is still not a solution for everyone

theres actually alot.
but it comes under many many buzzwords.
elthree
factories
hubs
gateways
custodian services

in most cases you got to imagine it as you depositing funds into a manager and the manager just sets up a non-broadcastable channel set under them
(current buzzwords 'micropayment channel' as oppose to 'payment channel' (micro denominated in msat))

which requires the manager to control if/when//why users should be allowed to completely exit LN and retrieve some real bitcoin utxo via a separate commitment in control of the manager

bitcoins structure is simple. you get paid when its confirmed. anything else should not be treated as a payment until confirmed and immutable. thats the security and the whole beauty of what makes bitcoin and blockchains and crypto such a unique and trusted system

however
inside LN
"get the right to settle in the blockchain" = commitment..
these commitments however have conditions(if statements) thus not the same as legacy/native bitcoin system

but so many obsess about commitments and pretend its like a guarantee. and a security that people will always get paid..
with the fluff that these yet unconfirmed commitments are as secure as a confirmed bitcoin transaction

reality is people are not guaranteed. and there is no security of always getting paid.
definitely not while unconfirmed and in many cases not even after confirmation(IF conditions attached)

there are many many bugs and flaws that break the ability to claim whats owed.

note: commitments are separate from the HTLC/invoice messages in ln
its like a commitment is a signed cheque of ajoint bank account. and an HTLC/invoice is a post-it note IOU between users in LN.. handed around the routes of users

i know people are going to obsess and want to distract people with the commitments and avoid with their very harsh insults that people should only think and discuss commitments.. but,. take a breath and start thinking about the real inside LN stuff.. beyond the commitments

commitments are sent onchain to settle
HTLC'offers'/'invoices' (the inside LN messages looping around the network) are not sent onchain

there is alot of stuff happening between commitment updates. there are also alot of issues around the bugs and flaws of not getting the "secret" of a hash160(secret) commitment outputs 'if condition'.

so even if someone was to form a commitment and broadcast it. they are not able to claim all thats owed unless they have the "secret" and they only get the secret AFTER all the inside LN flimsy htlc/invoice stuff is complete

many users AND DEVS have lost funds this way. many malicious users playing around outside the flimsy non audited rules, abuse the system to ensure they get an advantage

..
if alice-bob-charlie-dave-eric were on a route

and alice wanted to pay eric. where alice has NO COMMITMENT with eric.
its not a system where alice only talks to bob. via commitments
alice sends messages to eric and eric provides messages back to alice with a millisats  value and hash(hash160(secret) accepting the offer
alice then and only then talks to bob. and starts the gossip/path finding through the channels to get through charlie dave  to get to eric where then and only then the commitments are created with the hash160 added output 'IF condition'

but in all this part described above. has bob charlie or dave got the secret?? NO.
 and alot can go wrong
however bob-charle-dave have locked value toward their own outbound counterparty unable to be spend on other things..  and also dont have the secret to spend the promised inbound funds
thus unable to spend it themselves and the other party unable to claim it

again lots can go wrong here
even broadcasting the current commitment wont help as they dont have the secret to claim

its a known fact that lots can go wrong here. its not just the low success rate of "payment success" issues

these locks are not measured in milliseconds. but have lengthy timeouts.
these lengthy timeouts are to allow users to accept and help out or reject

during these lengthy timeouts of initial offer...  alice can reject/abstain/not respond to the bob-charlie-dave route to eric

and instead use zoe-yenson-xena to get to eric and leave bob-charlie-dave waiting with locked value they cant spend of their own commitment forward(outbound) nor claim funds owed/promised to them(inbound)

because they are left waiting for the other LN messages that are not commitments.

so please understand there is alot more happening in LN then just the commitments. and alot that can break/delay/make unclaimable those commitments.
so please understand the other "layers" of LN outside the over promised and utopian dreams of commitment guarantee

pensions. have to have a high standard of fund security to reduce cost and minimise loss..
much higher standard than just plain 'investing'

so pension funds have portfolio in hi-grade secured/high standard regulated investment options

because they are protected by investing in other regulated companies. it pushes the risk/loss liability off them.
having direct holding of raw asset is a risk. costing them more on their insurance and liabilities, licenes, auditing etc

EG. just take the insurance part
imagine you had bitcoin hoard of $1m. to insure it under ur home insurance its a $1m liability. causing you a high premium.
but have shares in a bitcoin company collateral. where they have insurance. means if your 'shares' are lost. you can then claim on their insurance. meaning your own insurance for your share holdings wont be as high
because your more protected. and chances are you will get funds back from any losses via the third party insurance

EG just take the regulation
hoarding bitcoin would mean you have to KYC and taint analyse your incoming deposits. as you are liable for any AML.
however have shares in another company that hoards bitcoin where that company is regulated. means you dont have to KYC so heavily and dont have the licencing and auditing costs that come with it. because the other company is doing that before you

EG take the liabilities.
if you hoard bitcoin. and a thief/hacker stole them from your house.. all your customers would sue you. and your in bankruptcy. however have shares in a company that hoards coin. your not directly liable and its passed down to the other party, which falls onto their insurance. and their liquidity. protecting you

its all about several layers of protection, cost reduction of admin/insurance. and also if bitcoin goes up by 10% and the company trust share goes up by 10% .. why invest in bitcoin when you can invest in a more regulated share system with less management costs and still get the same market movement offers

institutional pension portfolio managers dont want to dabble in bitcoin direct.
for their own regulated and insured treasuries they can only invest in other regulated and insured assets/companies

so that is where ETF trusts are to be created
whereby the ETF trust(company) holds bitcoin and values the ETFtrust(company) at the amount of bitcoin held.. and offers regulated and insured shares of the trust(company) where the share value a division of the value of the collateral(bitcoin value) held within

..
as for people personally 'saving for retirement' in their own lives.. outside of institutional portfolios
they are free to buy bitcoin and hoard it for a few decades

just wondering if there are legal loopholes


EG if court order is that "COBRA" cannot display it on his website bitcoin.org
what if a cough cough randomly created pseudonym cough..  took over ownership of bitcoin.org
(not revealing the human name behind a just thought up creation)

whereby the 'new owner' is not bound by the court order. and where the new 'ownership'  updates every month.. meaning CSW has to re-file every time 'ownership' changes

imagine it
next week its owned by venomousworm.
next month its owned by hissyhissywigglything
following month owned by sliverslivernolegs

there we go again.. people talking about spending commitments(facepalm)

ok well.
i think ill give it one last chance. and i will try to speak slowly

commitments have a output promise with a condition hash160(secret)
but a commitment is not the HTLC itself. its the link to a HTLC that needs to be provided


however until the intended recipient has the "secret" the recipient cant spend that value. so is owed it but cant collect

let me explain
the commitment of, for instance alice-bob of 0.001 each where alice wants to pay dave0.0005 via bob

would be like:
before:
bc1qalicebobfundting(0.002) -> 1bobleg4cy4ddr3s5 0.001
                                           -> 14lic3l3g4cy4ddr3s5 0.001
XX
becoming
bc1qalicebobfundting(0.002) -> 1bobleg4cy4ddr3s5 0.0005
                                           -> 14lic3l3g4cy4ddr3s5 0.001
                                           -> 1bobleg4cy4ddr3s5 +condition: hash160(secret)
YYY

what most people are missing it seems. is the multiple rounds of communication at the "XX" part
where although alice and dave have no commitment.. alice and dave are sending communication direct
to offer and invoice eachother

some call them HTLC some call them offers. some call them invoices depending on the direction, current status and details of the messages

being rhetorical:
after all how does alice get the public key=hash160(secret) from dave.. to start the ball rolling
after all how does bob get to path find the routes and offer the chains of hash160(secret) to all participants along a route to dave.
how does alice then decide which route to accept/reject causing the rejected route to undo it all to free up their funds
hint: its not all done via commitments

as for the YYY part where dave passes "secret" to his partner who passes it to his back down the route
all the potential flaws, bugs, offline, fund loss, locks, that can cause bob to not get the secret

well a new attempt must be made via another negotiated route leaving bob at a loss this time
(sarcasm: i hear windfury/rath say: dang it i was sure bob was guaranteed those funds)
no 'secret' no money.. even if the commitment is signed

these htlc's and invoices are not commitment transactions between the commited partners. but separate agreement of promise outside the commitments(travelling around the network)
and where at the YYY stage bob still does not have 'secret' yet to be able to spend.
hense IOU.. he cant spend it yet but is promised it.

point being a commitment is not a HTLC
a commitment is a bitcoin zero-confirm with a potential utxo which requires a secret from a HTLC/invoice
a HTLC/invoice is the flimsy non bitcoin denomimated IOU parts(that some people avoid thinking about)