Jack Dorsey-Backed Lightning Labs Raises $10 Million

[franky1]

btc doesnt move
its on the blockchain..

whats moving on LN is millsats.. you know tokens of 12 decimal.
the interplay of funds in channel are millisat based

again you pretend that LN is not separate. you pretend that LN is btc associated by trying to off-play LN's specific feature

you add words like "supposed"to make it seem like its not used for other things and only a myth that its used for other things.
you are trying a little too hard to try making it sound like people are using LN to a high utility. sorry but if you take out all the factories LN is not used that much.
atleast try to understand whats best for bitcoin and not whats best for commercial interests of greedy profiteers

and yo keep trying to not even mention the flaws LN has..
all you seem to wnt to do is hype it up as something that deserves to be associated with bitcoin

its not ready for consumer use and will never and even you have to admit this will never have the same level of security as bitcoin.

so can you just turn your overpromoting PR campaign down a few levels and try being realisitic..

stop trying to make it look like bitcoin is useless and LN is what everyone needs and uses.. its not
its becoming too obvious that yo are somehow financially gaining from promoting certain commercialised groups rather than being completely honest and thoughtful about bitcoin
and yes i mean BITCOIN

[kryptqnick]

Lightning Labs has received about $ 10 million to expand its payment network that allows companies and individuals to spend bitcoins in everyday life that require low fees and very low confirmation times.
In addition to the capital increase, they launched a service called Lightning Loop  sorry for that.

In general, the article attempts to link Bitcoin, LN, with the concept of visa and traditional financial system.

Building on a seed round from Square founder Jack Dorsey, Robinhood co-founder Vlad Tenev, and Litecoin creator Charlie Lee, among others, Craft Ventures led the round, with a who’s who of traditional investors participating, including Howard Morgan, former global co-head of securities at Goldman Sachs, John Pfeffer, formally of KKR, and Forbes 30 Under 30 alum Jill Carlson of Slow Ventures, and formerly a trader at Goldman Sachs.

I know some people are against the Lightning Network, but I think that it's not that bad. Sure, there are some centralization issues, and yes, it's not really Bitcoin (it's off-chain transactions). Apart from that, it's not user-friendly, and I heard that maintaining a channel might even be costly. But the way I see it, this is Bitcoin's best chance of processing micro-transactions and thus staying relevant for everyday life usage. So considering this, I believe it's good that this money has been raised, and they'll be able to work on improving the whole thing.

[hatshepsut93]

I know some people are against the Lightning Network, but I think that it's not that bad. Sure, there are some centralization issues, and yes, it's not really Bitcoin (it's off-chain transactions). Apart from that, it's not user-friendly, and I heard that maintaining a channel might even be costly. But the way I see it, this is Bitcoin's best chance of processing micro-transactions and thus staying relevant for everyday life usage. So considering this, I believe it's good that this money has been raised, and they'll be able to work on improving the whole thing.

Where are you getting your info from, Bitcoin.com? Lightning IS Bitcoin, it uses unbroadcasted real on-chain transaction - it's not some IOU or a token like trolls say. And it doesn't have any big problems with centralization, it's again just FUD aimed at technically uneducated people. It's nearly as user-friendly as Bitcoin itself, there are many wallets with nice interface. And why do you say that it's costly to maintain a channel? You just open it once with an on-chain transaction (which are dirt cheap as of now), and it can stay open for years without any additional costs, transaction fees are tiny in Lightning, and you can refill your balance with Lightning transactions when you run out of money.

[franky1]

Where are you getting your info from, Bitcoin.com? Lightning IS Bitcoin, it uses unbroadcasted real on-chain transaction - it's not some IOU or a token like trolls say. And it doesn't have any big problems with centralization, it's again just FUD aimed at technically uneducated people. It's nearly as user-friendly as Bitcoin itself, there are many wallets with nice interface. And why do you say that it's costly to maintain a channel? You just open it once with an on-chain transaction (which are dirt cheap as of now), and it can stay open for years without any additional costs, transaction fees are tiny in Lightning, and you can refill your balance with Lightning transactions when you run out of money.

LIGHTNING is a system that uses 12 decimal tokens..
go on.. i truly dare you to pretend millisats are a myth and dont exist in LN
millisats are not bitcoin compatible. thus LN millisats are not bitcoin.
but go on try proving no millisats exist in LN.. really go on try. try hard to be convincing

LIGHTNING has no blockchain
LIGHTNING has no block hash, blockreward
LIGHTNING is compatible for different currencies.
LIGHTNING is not bitcoin if it is for different things not bitcoin related.

bank notes were associated with gold. and in the future could be again.. but that does not make banknotes gold. just a possible 'representation' a peg of it

im starting to think you have not actually used LN to actually use it properly.
the whole 'just open channel once and your good for years' is a blatant exaggeration of average user experience.
dang the PR hype train is at full speed

by the way.
if i make a transaction to you for 10btc. but i never broadcast it.. do you really then own my 10btc..
nope.
if it aint on the blockchain you got no proof of owning btc.
so goodluck thinking LN is a bitcoin ownership finality system. its not. its a private IOU promise system. with flaws to allow the promise to be broken before being broadcast.

again if its not on the blockchain it aint your bitcoin.

try to be honest about bitcoin and less LN hype fanboyish... or atleast try to use LN properly and learn its limitations and actual user experience to maybe atleast be accurate about what LN is/isnt.

[DooMAD]

by the way.
if i make a transaction to you for 10btc. but i never broadcast it.. do you really then own my 10btc..

Assuming both parties have accepted 'Wumbo' to be able to handle a transaction that large, yes.  Once both parties have accepted the latest channel state and the 10 BTC is on my side of the channel, there's literally no one else on Earth who can authorise those BTC to be spent without incurring a revocation penalty.  That makes them mine, because I'll possess the secret key to prove it.  It's almost like you don't know how it works at all.  If you don't broadcast it, but the latest channel state shows the 10 BTC being mine, I could(*) then unilaterally close the channel and claim the 10 BTC, subject to the delay that we would have both agreed on when opening the channel and would know what to expect in advance.  No one can challenge the legitimacy of that channel closure if I am committing the latest state to the blockchain.  

* That's assuming I want to close the channel, of course.  I may want to leave those 10 BTC off-chain to use for something else.

Thank you for proving beyond all doubt that you are clueless when it comes to Lightning.  And, based on past behaviour, next you'll be telling me that I'm talking about the "old" version of lighting and we all need to watch out for the channel factory boogeyman, but that will be a bunch of ignorant fear-mongering as well.  You're pathetic and predictable.  Now do everyone a favour and kindly stop breathing.  You are a literal waste of oxygen.  

 

[NotATether]

Here is the official Github repo for those who want to see it: https://github.com/lightninglabs/loop

And here is the official blog post: https://blog.lightning.engineering/announcement/2020/02/05/loop-beta.html. So that we won't get "lost in translation". 

For those who want to try their beta:

Try Beta Today

Lightning Loop Beta is available on the command line using the reference Go client, and APIs are available for the Go client and for direct integration.

If you are working on integrating Lightning Loop in your application or trying it out for your service, we want to hear about it, so please email us or join our community Slack to give feedback, get help, or ask questions.

Advancements in the Bitcoin and Lightning protocols will allow for far more efficient submarine swaps, and ongoing adjustments to the swap execution are also in-development so stay tuned for cheaper, faster, and more private Loop functionality.

Well I should have read this before posting

LN isn't even ready yet and if they think "anybody can build on top of it ", why aren't they contributing to LN codebase to make it production ready?

It's written in Go, and that's important because LN daemon is also written in Go so will be easier for LND developers to contribute to both of them.

This repo seems to be very busy, a new issue or PR is being opened every few days.

[blckhawk]

A generous move from a social media CEO and as well as a Bitcoin enthusiast. He sure proves with his action that he is a fan of decentralized systems. He even had inititiated a research aiming if decentralization is applicable in Twitter.

Lightning Network also is something to wait, as its development would make Bitcoin scale more for merchant's use.

[buwaytress]

I'm one of the most Lightning-illiterate people (and have yet to dare use it but am getting very close to) but this was one of the burning questions I've always had and only until recently reading up did I understand this to be the case: what if one side of the party deliberately chooses to go AWOL and never ever broadcasts again?

If I may say it in the layman's terms that I understand and hopefully others do:
- yes, malicious actions can't be prevented (like the one party franky proposes never broadcasts) but LN will punish it and the whole idea is that, if both parties can agree to preset conditions, then any malicious action will result in the perpetrator losing those funds.

Also yes, LN is still buggy and likely to throw up more issues in the future but is already maturing faster than a lot of people would have thought. I'm seeing much more positive shares than negative since last year (not like 2018).

Aren't these discussions great?

[DooMAD]

Aren't these discussions great?

Indeed.  Every time we have to explain how it actually works while FUD-busting, someone can potentially learn a little more about it.  The more discourse, the better.  

[franky1]

by the way.
if i make a transaction to you for 10btc. but i never broadcast it.. do you really then own my 10btc..

Assuming both parties have accepted 'Wumbo' to be able to handle a transaction that large, yes.  Once both parties have accepted the latest channel state and the 10 BTC is on my side of the channel, there's literally no one else on Earth who can authorise those BTC to be spent without incurring a revocation penalty.  That makes them mine, because I'll possess the secret key to prove it.  It's almost like you don't know how it works at all.  If you don't broadcast it, but the latest channel state shows the 10 BTC being mine, I could(*) then unilaterally close the channel and claim the 10 BTC, subject to the delay that we would have both agreed on when opening the channel and would know what to expect in advance.  No one can challenge the legitimacy of that channel closure if I am committing the latest state to the blockchain.  

* That's assuming I want to close the channel, of course.  I may want to leave those 10 BTC off-chain to use for something else.

Thank you for proving beyond all doubt that you are clueless when it comes to Lightning.  And, based on past behaviour, next you'll be telling me that I'm talking about the "old" version of lighting and we all need to watch out for the channel factory boogeyman, but that will be a bunch of ignorant fear-mongering as well.  You're pathetic and predictable.  Now do everyone a favour and kindly stop breathing.  You are a literal waste of oxygen.  

oh doomad. it must be fun living in your head so much. kind of a shame there is limited space

you might want to actually research just that bit harder next time and stop exaggerating the limited scope of how LN should be used.
your explanation had tooo many if's and maybes and assumptions in it.

the real bitcoin protocol has no assumptions.. if its on the blockchain. its on the blockchain. ownership transwered.. no if's or maybes no assumptions.

but lets play your game of assumptions.. just for fun
so assuming all went as you assume in the world where we both agreed and assuming that you then kept the channel open to use the funds later.. as you said... well by using the funds later means you pushing funds back to my side of the channel..
.. oops theres one assumption you did not think much of.. yep me getting coins back

lets try another assumption
oh and assuming that i didnt give you a 'unconfirmed' txid for channel opening .. you know one thats not in a block AKA not broadcast.. .. yep if the initial funds are not on the blockchain then you cant then have control of 10btc...
oh did you forget that channels can be opened without actual blockchain confirmed funds..
dang.. you really did assume without research...
so in this case.. if you broadcast a close session.. there would be no locked coins to close against. thus you et nothing..
shame again for you not really thinking about all assumptions

such a shame you dont know how things actually work and you only know what the promotional material suggests that it should do when only used in a certain way. not realising it can be used in a multitude of ways .

i could mention alot more flaws but.. seems your so ignorant of wanting to learn and all you want is people to kiss ass.. that theres no point in mentioning the flaws.

you might wanna try taking your positive PR hat off and start actually using your head properly and use LN in ways it shouldnt be used to see how well it stands up to brute-use.... go on.. really test it ..
yep i said TEST it not TRUST it..

 try to be critical about something your promoting, which is meant for people to use for their funds.. go on... try to be helpful to people by making them aware of the faults/flaws/limits. and stop snake oil selling them on only the limited positives. while then pretending its as good or better than the real bitcoin protocol.. i really feel ashamed that you even dare try to class it as comparable to bitcoin. shame on you

[DooMAD]

your explanation had tooo many if's and maybes and assumptions in it.

I've come to learn that caveats need to be included when dealing with pernicious cunts like you.  Maybe if you weren't such a pathetic troll, I could deal in absolutes.  I have to make it clear that Wumbo needs to be enabled by both parties in order to facilitate a 10 BTC transaction, or you would try to claim that I didn't know that needed to be the case.  It's just how you operate.  Try being less of a shit-sack if you don't want me to cover my back and protect my reputation by preempting your repeated attempts to deflect from your own misunderstandings of Lightning.

but lets play your game of assumptions.. just for fun
so assuming all went as you assume in the world where we both agreed and assuming that you then kept the channel open to use the funds later.. as you said... well by using the funds later means you pushing funds back to my side of the channel..
.. oops theres one assumption you did not think much of.. yep me getting coins back

If I were simply using you to route a payment to someone you had a connection to, you wouldn't get to keep the coins.  Of course, if you were unreliable or uncooperative, the more likely outcome is that someone would close the channel with you.  Sorry if that contains one too many "ifs" for you, but even a simpleton like you must understand there is more than one potential outcome.

lets try another assumption
oh and assuming that i didnt give you a 'unconfirmed' txid for channel opening .. you know one thats not in a block AKA not broadcast.. .. yep if the initial funds are not on the blockchain then you cant then have control of 10btc...
oh did you forget that channels can be opened without actual blockchain confirmed funds..
dang.. you really did assume without research...
so in this case.. if you broadcast a close session.. there would be no locked coins to close against. thus you et nothing..
shame again for you not really thinking about all assumptions

I am tired of this ridiculous song and dance of yours.  Please name the unmodified client that allows this so that your claims can be investigated.  If you reply "do your own research" or any variation thereof, I will leave you negative feedback for unsubstantiated claims.  Based on past conversations, I am convinced that you are still misunderstanding the Thor service from BitRefill (a representative from BitRefill has confirmed as much to you in the Development and Technical board before you got banned from it, linked here  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5130122.msg50947683#msg50947683) and I'm not wasting any further time on you until you can prove otherwise.

[franky1]

if you go check that topic thread and read the post from above mine in that topic .. you now the one made by bitrefill.. you know the one you merited... you would read

'Channel rules are established between the two parties that enter them, it is voluntary. That means you can agree to any rules you want. If you use rules that are different than other LN wallets or the rest of the network, you will be limited to a subnetwork of people using the same rules. Turbo channel opening requires a custom channel, '

they are playing by their own rules to have the ability to open channels with millisat balance thats not pegged to a confirmed and locked bitcoin blockchain tx'

like i said do your research.. and if you really want to know the wallet i was talking about.. a hint.. its in the quote i just pasted
have a nice day though.
shame your more interested in trying to be exagerated positive PR guy rather than actually thinking critically about things.
but i dont think you will ever change

pretty funny you merited something without understanding it.

[DooMAD]

Emphasis mine:

'Channel rules are established between the two parties that enter them, it is voluntary. That means you can agree to any rules you want. If you use rules that are different than other LN wallets or the rest of the network, you will be limited to a subnetwork of people using the same rules., '

So you freely admit that:

You can't open a channel without having funds locked on the blockchain unless both participants have freely chosen to allow that.  Meaning no one can find themselves in a position where the other party was doing something they were unaware of.  You would also be unable to interact with any other Lightning users with the standard settings if you did that.  

Or to put it another way:

Your actions in opening a "channel" without funds like that would be the equivalent of writing "twenty pounds" on a piece of paper and playing make believe with an equally gormless friend that you were exchanging money with each other, while the rest of the world didn't even notice you existed and went about with their normal everyday lives.  To insinuate that anyone could confuse your play-time with a legitimate financial transaction is absurd.

Thank you for finally clarifying your mindless FUD.  It should be apparent to all that your earlier "scenarios" (in the loosest possible sense of the word) were yet another attempt to cause panic over nothing.

Further, BitRefill then went on to clarify how Thor Turbo channels work, but you are still somehow misinterpreting it.  As usual, the only confusion is whether you are deliberately misrepresenting what was said in an attempt to weave a false narrative, or whether you are simply too unintelligent to comprehend the meaning of what is being explained to you.  All the facts have been presented to you, but you somehow still reach a flawed conclusion.  Again, emphasis mine:

Sorry, but it seems you are predetermined to paint LN, and Bitrefill's use of it, negatively and incorrectly. Calling any of what we do with Lightning fractional or custodial is literally false. The coins in the turbo channel are owned by the recipient the moment they are pushed, they have control and can close the channel to claim them or route a payment to spend them. No one can print new Bitcoin in LN, and no one can double-encumber any coins in LN.

[franky1]

Emphasis mine:

'Channel rules are established between the two parties that enter them, it is voluntary. That means you can agree to any rules you want. If you use rules that are different than other LN wallets or the rest of the network, you will be limited to a subnetwork of people using the same rules., '

So you freely admit that:

You can't open a channel without having funds locked on the blockchain unless both participants have freely chosen to allow that.  Meaning no one can find themselves in a position where the other party was doing something they were unaware of.  You would also be unable to interact with any other Lightning users with the standard settings if you did that.  

you think average joe actually checks the raw tx .. no. they just see a channel balance and think that they have balance. you are fooling yourself if you think people check things.. especially knowing you yourself dont check things critically.
many people are fooled by 'trust' .. the real bitcoin network is so strong it doesnt need people to trust.. yet LN is a different story. but by playing the bitcoin buzzword too many people end up trusting LN because of the buzzword games..
and yes that has and can lead to many people just accepting balance without checking.
you are an idiot to think that the user should be blamed for opening such a channel. its bitrefill that should make it absolutely clear that people are accepting unbacked balance.
again shame on you for making it out the user is in the wrong for opening the channel

most users/consumers using these custom rule lite wallets. think its the same rules. think all LN millisats are backed. they are not coders or know how to check things. they just like many consumers blindly trust the PR thats been spouted out. again they are not coders. so yes they are unware of what they are agreeing to. but agree anyway because they are given millisats at a discount. they dont see they are given unbacked millisats

these wallets do not have a button of terms and conditions that in bold tell people that the balance is not pegged. it doesnt tell them the critical stuff.. its just a open channel to get milliats. and the person says yes they want them millisats.. without any consideration if those millisats are backed pegged to a real bitcoin confirmed tx lock of funds.

you are an absolute fool.
but its nice to know you admit now that you feel its ok to have unbacked balance in LN.. but shame your blaming the user for having unbacked balance by saying they agreed to it. you really dont care about users security or having a payment sstem thats as strong as what bitcoin is. total shame on you.

whats next blame users for being suckered into the HYIP schemes that are starting up in LN. do you have any moral/ethics to actually care about users experience and user risk. or are you just mr exagerated positive PR guy wanting to fame up LN under the FALSE pretense that its thought to be linked to bitcoin because people throw the buzzword around alot.

and yea funny how you pretend it is bitcoin but admit by the quotes reference that it doesnt actually need bitcoin to work. that it a separate system . and this separate system doesnt even have to stick to any rule related to bitcoin.
such a shame it must be to live your life of sucking up to certain devs and certain companies whos only interest is personal gain.

as for your final point..
LN cant create new btc.. because LN is not BTC...
its like you are trying to say that i feel that banks are creating more gold when they make bank notes.. no a bank note is not gold. fractional reserve is where there are mrore bank notes that people BELIEVE to be pegged to gold. but there aint that much gold involved.
again. its not about creating more gold or more bitcoin. its about making more bank notes / millisats than there is gold/btc to back them... that is fractional reserve.

i wont tell you to do your research because after a few years its obvious you dont.. so ill just say grow some morals and ethics

[DooMAD]

but its nice to know you admit now that you feel its ok to have unbacked balance in LN..

*Facepalm*

That's like saying you are admitting Bitcoin's total supply can be modified because anyone can change the supply consensus rules in their client.  But in doing so, you effectively create your own network with no one else on it. 

Read more carefully and actually TRY to comprehend.  Don't just deliberately take things out of context to support your pre-existing misconceptions.

[franky1]

but its nice to know you admit now that you feel its ok to have unbacked balance in LN..

*Facepalm*

That's like saying you are admitting Bitcoin's total supply can be modified because anyone can change the supply consensus rules in their client.  But in doing so, you effectively create your own network with no one else on it.  

Read more carefully and actually TRY to comprehend.  Don't just deliberately take things out of context to support your pre-existing misconceptions.

we are talking about LN.. stop trying to compare LN to bitcoin by using bitcoin as an example..
LN is not bitcoin
LN is just that.. its own network (the secret is in the N (network))

the whole purpose of LN is to have its own set of rules that differ to bitcoins rules

its the whole point...
even thor turbo admits to this by saying their unbacked channels are customary and usually those accepting unbacked balance are using their software varient..

i still cant beleive you actually try to dismiss LN issues by bringing a bitcoin example into the scenario.
LN is not bitcoin. so what cant be done by bitcoin CAN be done by LN. so just stop trying to fool people thinking LN does the same as bitcoin

read their dang quote in that topic which you foolishly thought was in your favour.
its you that does not understand it..

you foolishly wrote it as if to say if people have custom rules they have to be in full knowledge and understanding of the terms and conditions of that custom ruleset... WHICH IS WRONG. most people dont know what thy are getting into and there is not big list of terms and conditions listing everything.

then you now go on some obsurb notion that if there were these custom rules that no one else would be on the network..
loads use it..

you are such a fool
you do realise that LN has no community wide transaction validity review system. no blockchain. reqiring full network coopertion

heck i could set up a route of
a<->b<->c<->d
and say if i was C.. i could be in a thor turbo channel with D and also another wallet ruleset with b

do you know why..
because the funds of B do not go to D
even if a or b wanted to pay D.. the funds do not exit their channels.
instead my node see's that i am 'presumed promised' funds in the b-c channel.. i then separately then 'presume promise' funds to d in the c-d channel.
again B does not need to communicate to D
B goes through C and C decides to use C-D funds or not

please just wake up and realise that people can tinker around and make custom rules and it does not need a full network effect. it just is channel partner related.

.. i hope you grasp the small scale co-partner side of it one day.. then maybe you can grasp the effect it can have on a wider scale.
 especially hope you one day grasp that average joe doesnt actually go to coding school or legal school to learn all the terms and conditions and code rules .. they just simply open a wallet and think they are funded..
you know much like how millions of citizens thought for decades that bank notes were still backed by gold.

i truly doubt you ever use it by the lack of true understanding beyond promotional material spoon feeds.
i doubt you even know of all the risks of loses, scams and other threats possible in LN. because all you seem to know is the positive spin PR stuff

i used to think that your were not that technical and more of a marketing guy.. but now i think your even failing the basics of marketing.. you know the part about know your product.

do i really need to ask you to do your research.. or will you just for once try it without having to be told

heck the whole point of these litemobile wallets to make walking into retailers to make fast transactions is to not need to have a desktop handy to check/view/use the blockchain. so high percentage of people wont check even if they knew how to. they just blindly 'trust' ln because they been promised every channel is backed and everything is secure ..
atleast wise up that its not the case

you do realise that with most average joe that dont read raw transaction data. even things like schnorr can become an abusive tool for LN

just imagine it. someone makes a multisig of 2-3 but keeps 2 and the other person has the 1. the other person thinks its just a 2-2 because nothing in schnorr reveals who or how many parties are involved.

not the person with the 2 can singularly sign funds without the other party. and the other party cant do anything about it.

[DooMAD]

even thor turbo admits to this by saying their unbacked channels are customary and usually those accepting unbacked balance are using their software varient..

I don't know what your fixation is with slandering BitRefill by claiming they are using unbacked channels.  If they were unbacked channels (and they're not), they would be irredeemable on the blockchain.  If users were paying for a balance they were not able to redeem, that would be a scam, which is demonstrably not the case.  When Thor Turbo channels are closed and settled, the balance is redeemable on the Bitcoin blockchain.  There is no "fractional reserve" as you previously claimed.  I sincerely hope BitRefill take all necessary litigation against you for the damage you could potentially be causing to their perfectly legitimate business. 

From the horse's mouth:

You misunderstand how Turbo channels work. The risk is Bitrefill's because we are fronting the BTC in that channel

From the website:

What are the limitations?
Each Thor channel will be kept open on our side for 30 days, potentially longer if there's activity on it. The reason for this limitation, and why this service comes at a cost, is that opening an empty channel requires us to lock up our bitcoin into your channel and keep them there.

And the same applies to the Turbo channels.

Thor.  Turbo.  Channels.  Are.  Not.  Unbacked.  You.  Moron.

The service has been operating for over a year now.  I think someone would have noticed by this point if the funds weren't redeemable on the blockchain.  If you are still confident that the channels are unbacked, please get in contact with BitRefill's legal representatives and pass along your personal contact information.  I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.

[PrimeNumber7]

if you go check that topic thread and read the post from above mine in that topic .. you now the one made by bitrefill.. you know the one you merited... you would read

'Channel rules are established between the two parties that enter them, it is voluntary. That means you can agree to any rules you want. If you use rules that are different than other LN wallets or the rest of the network, you will be limited to a subnetwork of people using the same rules. Turbo channel opening requires a custom channel, '

they are playing by their own rules to have the ability to open channels with millisat balance thats not pegged to a confirmed and locked bitcoin blockchain tx'

<>

This is not what is happening. I will explain it for you.

Bitrefill has many channels open on LN, with a confirmed balance on their side on the various channels.

A customer who wants to open a 'thor" channel will send bitrefill some coin, and in exchange, bitrefill will open an LN channel and will give the customer a LN balance equal to the amount bitrefill receive on-chain minus their fee.

Bitrefill will sometimes credit the LN channel before the on-chain payment is confirmed, but this does not affect the confirmed balance of the LN channels. As with any other instance of a company accepting a zero-conf payment, if the on-chain payment is double spent or otherwise does not confirm, bitrefill will have a loss equal to the amount of the coin they sent via LN.

[franky1]

you might want to actually both go look at what is actually possible on LN. and not be trying to brand protect corporations.
seems your minds are too orientated towards corp PR spin and not users risk using LN

bitrefill may have changed their tact
but LN as a system (if you stop corporate suck up) does alot more things that can STILL put users at risk
try.. just once .. yep im repeating it because seems many have not dont it.. just try to act like you are a user and you are concerned about the risks.. drop all the ego of protecting brands. and think from the prospective of user risk user experience and hacker exploitability..

maybe then your eyes might be widened enough to see whats really going on.

if all you want to do is just say 'wrong coz wrong' and carry on promoting a brand.. dont even bother replying.. try using the time you would spend replying to actually think about the risks and exploitability.

you are in denial at the moment and seem to only believe what has been spoonfed to you by corporations.. so try to actually be open to try to learn something by trying it.. not from the corporate best practice usage method. but by trying the 'poke it till it breaks' method to actually find the limitations the risks and the exploits.

people like doomad are the type that would happily positive PR spin a custodial bitcoin service who has cleartext access to private keys of a user and say that its secure and no one but the user can touch it. i seen many people like domad over the years care more abut wanting to be a spokesman/affiliate of businesses.
so i see no difference when they advertise other networks pretending other networks are as secure and trusted as the bitcoin blockchain.

again dont even bother with the crappy PR spin that everything is perfect and safe and LN is the same as bitcoin because it aint. instead realise that there are issues and problems and there are some devs behind LN that actually admit there are issues and there are actual risks and exploits.
and yes. devs themselves have actually lost funds using LN
and yes some scammers are actually playing around ding HYIPs on LN
and yes some scammers have channels with unbacked balance
all this is possible. and i do truly hope from atleast a moral prospective that some companies hve changed to not use the exploits. but this does not mean that LN is not at risk of being exploited

try to learn about factories and how channels can be opened and closed without needing blockchain utility inbetween. think critically as if your a bug finder at how these things can be used negatively.

again.. because it must take several times for things to actually get through.
drop the corporate PR and try to think/care/desire to want to know what users should be aware of about risks/exploits and issues. dont just try positive spinning

[PrimeNumber7]

and yes some scammers have channels with unbacked balance

I don't believe this is possible. If it is, put your money where your mouth is, create a channel with an unbacked balance, try to spend it and see what happens.