Wow, so you're saying that if people transact with scammers, there's a chance they might get ripped off? What a truly shocking revelation! I mean, you might have noticed how Karpeles, BitConnect, BFL, ICO scammers, etc didn't actually
need to use Lightning to steal peoples' money? So firstly, in what conceivable way is that an argument against Lightning?
firstly you have not used LN.. thats obvious
secondly. in bitcoin you need to push funds to a scammer, so many people will say its the victims fault for not doing due dilegance.
in LN. there are MULTIPLE ways to tap away at someones funds without even having to be a channel partner. and without the victim needing to manually decide to make a payment to someone they dont know.
the LN devs themselves have said there are risks of losing funds.. yes the devs themselves.
Secondly, Lighting isn't a chequing account or a bank. You are utterly incapable of understanding the meaning of words if you think it is.
you do not have 100% signing authority over btc in LN.. with banks you dont either. even if you think its just you signing a cheque, thee banks can refuse to authorise the cheque(refuse to sign their part you dont see). you also need to pre fund a ledger entry that is co managed.. for LN and banks. unlike onchain where you can push the funds to anywhere you please without needing to find the right routing system (americans call banking system routing numbers.(if thats not enough of a hint). uk calls it sort-code..
right now LN devs are concepting factories (fortknox) and channel managers for when your asleep or offline
..
it might be worth you stop reading reddit and start using LN, and not under the selctively find the merchant you want and only fund $3 to make a one time $3 payment.. but a more realistic deposit a months salary of testnet coins and then try finding 84 mrchants and try paying them randomly over 2 months.(more realsitic to real life scenario)
And thirdly (the main point), your hypothetical scenario still makes no sense in the real world. You don't appear to be grasping the timelock part correctly (or pretty much Lightning in its entirety for that matter). CLTV means that if the transaction isn't signed by the recipient within a set time, the sender gets their coins back.
you are wrong.
CLTV means the funds are not spendable for a certain time even after confirmation onchain EG 3-5 days (ELI-5 like mined coins 100block maturity)
and CSV is where by your counterpart can show a signature and take the funds from you (chargeback) in that unmatured timeframe
again learn LN
It doesn't mean the customer's funds are "locked forever". If that's what you think it means, you need to forget everything you think you know and start again from scratch.
seems your stuck at th now 2 year old glossy leaflet utopia image of LN..
maybe you need to start from scratch.. learn things like auto-pilot, factories, managed channels.. but maybe first start with multisig. because it sounds like you dont even know what a multisig requires.
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. But, chances are, you probably do know it doesn't mean what you've been saying and you're just spreading FUD to make newbies think it's something bad. That's seemingly just the kind of person you are. Deceitful.
you might want to check your research.. factories(fortknox).. where funds are locked and then allow you to fund channels from the factory. when you close channels you dont settle/unlock to blockchain freeing them up back to your sole control.. . but it just updates the factory 'balance' and then you just use the balance to set up new channels if you have funds available in the factory to do so. thus keeping the funds locked into LN
again do some research.
And the customer would still be incredibly unwise to spend from an older state, regardless of how much money is in the channel. The funds are not "in limbo", either. What drugs are you even on? Try learning something for once, rather that just shouting "BANKS BANKS BANKS" like a total buffoon.
stop hyping up stuff you have not used or not researched. and then insulting people that have used it and are purely not going to just toe the party line of kissing ass and screaming utopia is near..
the worse type of people are thos that scream everything is great and perfect. as they are the ones in dream land. its better to be open and honest and admit there are issues then promote something broken as if its utopia
also look into the issues of sighash_noinput and the other opcodes the devs are implementing. even they are agreeing its dangerous and would require users to actually read the raw tx data before signing to know what they are signing.
LN has many holes.. the devs themselves dont even trust it and warn people of using it. stop promoting it as utopia
It's called
beta software. No one is under any illusion about the fact it's not ready for mainstream usage yet, you contemptible, manipulative little weasel. No responsible developer would encourage people to throw large sums of money at something that's still in development, so stop trying to twist decency on their part into something sinister. You are a total and utter disgrace. Is there nothing you won't try to distort or pervert with your insidious rhetoric?
Again, none of the wasted keystrokes you've expended here come close to forming an argument against continuing to develop Lightning. I hope everyone sees you for the hollow, morally bankrupt vermin you are. Troll harder.
funny part is. i have highlighted issus about segwit a couple years ago and the devs after fighting their utopian mantra, eventually twisted their own words and gameplan to then work around the issues i mentioned ..
ask the devs why they didnt release segwit address/wallet utility until way after segwit activation.. then look back to 2016 and my gripes about 'anyonecanspend'
as for lightning some devs have reacted to what i have said and changed their game plan and adjusted a few things..
even now they are arguing about a few things.. right now they have just realised that a few opcodes thee added has rintroduced malleability.. i am laughing mega hard at that.
but what i do find completely irrelevant is people who advertise LN as the bitcoin solution.. especially those saying its great, perfect, the thing bitcoin really needs. even though its obvious those propagandists have not even usd it, let alone researched it.
when its not a feature just for bitcoin. not something that all users will need and for those that dont need it, those non LN users are still stuck. meaning bitcoins issues have not been solved.
by this i mean its not advantageous for people who are not daily spenders or have a good continual 100% guaranteed routeS to all their merchants as and when needed to trust thier funds in channels for lengthy periods
maybe you should use it under real life scenario with a critical mindset, put a blackhat on and act as if you are more interested in finding the holes in it to fix it, then you might get something positive.. instead of pretending its utopia already yet not even used or researched it.. as thats you wasting your keystrookes
have a nice day
and dont reply until you have used it for more then one selective test purchase.
run proper scenarios, research the concepts look at the features. and you will start to see