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.
No one is denying there are ways in which you can lose your funds, but you're embellishing the risks. The threat of losing funds is the
required disincentive to cheat. You're criticising the very thing that makes it work. If there were no revocations in LN, it would be
easier to steal funds. Try learning the basics, perhaps?
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)
Yes, it does sound realistic that you would deliberately use something in a way it wasn't meant to be used at this stage to make it sound like it can't do anything. Way to be the extremist I recognise you as. You are fully aware (since you've said it in other threads) that, in the early stages, LN will be most ideally suited for recurring payments to the same recipient, not random one-off payments to 84 different recipients. Obviously there's no practical way to conduct transactions like that yet with the limited number of users.
It's also worth noting that if you are using the testnet, that now has fewer nodes than mainnet does.
However, as Lightning usage grows and matures over time, spending in that manner
might, in future, start to become a plausible option, depending on adoption and how people freely choose to use it. Market forces are in action so the outcome is not predictable. We'll just have to wait and see how it all unfolds (as it's clearly not going to stop, despite your incessant protests).
You really are contemptible if you think that it not being perfect out of the box is a good reason to give up on it. Particularly if you then use the double standard to claim that other people are saying it's already perfect (when it obviously isn't), when you're the one arguing it has to be all or nothing straight off the bat.
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
"
A certain time" is not the same as "
Forever". If you have spent from an old transaction state, they can issue a penalty transaction and take all the funds. If you haven't spent from an old transaction state and they close the channel unilaterally while the CLTV is in effect, they get
their portion of the funds in the channel back, not your portion. If the innocent party went offline and the CLTV elapses, the malicious party then has the opportunity to steal all the funds.
You learn LN.
I'm tired of trying to explain it to you, so I'm just going to quote other sources (rather than just making up a total load of bullshit like you are):
Are LN hubs the same as banks?
I hope by now it’s clear the answer is — no, not at all.
The most important difference in my view is that, unlike banks, LN hubs don’t hold your money. Your money is stored in a channel, anchored to the Bitcoin blockchain, and only you can authorize its movement. In any case that the channel counterparty refuses to cooperate, due to malice or incompetence, you can unilaterally close the channel and receive the money back as normal bitcoins.
This ability needn’t be exercised to be useful. Simply knowing that you can easily quit encourages the counterparty to behave and offer a good service. And it alone means that even in the extreme case of a completely centralized lightning “network” with a single hub connected to everyone, this is a marked improvement over traditional banking.
#4 — Lightning Forces us to “Lock Up” Our Money
This is an often heard claim that completely misses the point and, like many Lightning complaints, leverages negative language to make it sound like something that it isn’t (we will hit the “IOU” claim later). Its analogous to complaining that to use roads you have to “lock” yourself in a car and therefore who would ever want to do that. Or maybe that to use the internet you have to “lock” your computer with a single IP address.
It’s not “locking” your money unless you do it to a node that doesn’t have any other routes. Same as if you connected to an ISP with no other connections, or exited onto a road that goes to a dead end. During these situations on Lightning, you can simply mutually close the channel, or in the case of the node disappearing you may have to wait for the time-lock. But with a fully fledged LN and a plethora of reliable nodes, “locking” your coins is akin to establishing and “locking” a route onto the internet. It is much less a “lock” than it is a doorway, as you will be able to spend your “locked” coins, at practically any location that also has a connection to the Lightning Network.
During a time when nodes are going offline, this can, indeed, be a real hassle. I wrote an article on yalls.org about this very issue. But these are extremely early days and we haven’t even seen the first release of a major app on the Lightning Network. So to complain about reliability problems at this stage as if they negate the entire technology itself, is similar to claiming the difficulty of connecting with a 56k modem and establishing your own email server is the reason the internet will never be useful.
You need to let go of your preconceived misconceptions and bias before you will understand this stuff properly. I know that's easier said than done, but it would help if you at least made a slight effort to reform your ways. If you aren't going to make an effort, I'm going to keep assuming you're a troll.
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
No one is suggesting it is perfect. They are suggesting it has a great deal of potential for the future. As in, not right now, in case you need it explained what "the future" means. I'm merely suggesting that:
a) you are totally exaggerating the downsides,
b) you are resorting to outright FUD and manipulation,
c) you clearly don't understand it well enough to be in a position to comment and I'm not convinced you have actually used it,
d) comparing LN to banks makes you look like either a totally ignorant newb or a malicious troll (and it's honestly hard to tell which it is with you).
People are allowed to be excited about new features. Just because you're a dour detractor, doesn't mean everyone has to share your dismal and bleak outlook.
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.
Again, absolutely
none of that is a reason not to develop and improve it. What? You spotted something wrong so that means we should drop everything and do what you want instead? You think that's how life works? Go ahead and have your little tantrums about it. No one cares.
Also, I'm highly skeptical that you managed to have
any influence whatsoever on the development process, so I'm going to need someone with an actual reputation to corroborate that claim.
maybe you should use it under real life scenario with a critical mindset
I'm still waiting for you to do that, as you seemingly don't live in the real world. Again, you're arguing that everything has to be 100% perfect for it to be even remotely acceptable, whilst simultaneously arguing that the fact it's not perfect (which everyone already knows and understands) means we should abandon it to focus on on-chain features. On-chain features
are being developed. Stop being a petulant child about this. Market forces are at work and you don't get to make the call about who develops what.
Lightning is not perfect, but people are going to keep working on it because they want to. That's their choice. Nothing to do with you. None of your goddamn business. If you want more on-chain development, go develop something, rather than talking out of your arse and trying to derail legitimate work with your FUD nonsense. No one is saying it's perfect, drop the damn strawman already.