Lightning Network Observer

[franky1]

Well, what's the point of using wrapped Bitcoin on Ethereum if ETH fees are higher than Bitcoin? Maybe faster block time. But the general issue of pegged / wrapped is that this peg can always disappear. The 'wrap' is just a promise, an IOU. You don't actually own and use Bitcoin if you use those. If I have 1wBTC and want to pay someone in Bitcoin, I can't. Because I just have an IOU which has the value of 1BTC; not a real Bitcoin.

LN has no consensus, when it sends onion payments telling other nodes to pay other nodes X msat.. that those Msat must always be equal to /1000 to represent sats at the other end where the wallets of the 2 destined partners channel must convert the msat amount of an onion into a sat amount of a commitment..
yep a deceptive wallet could autopilot a commitment to convert to only / 100 but blindly accepted the routed payment thinking it was getting 10x more..

just be risk aware of what can happen in a network of user nodes/litewallets (especially lite wallets are more at risk) that has no consensus and where most users dont review code or look at raw payment/tx data. they just blindly accept what they see on the GUI and realise after the fact that they have been deceived

be honest now..
can any LN user TRULY and honestly tell me that everytime they see that they have received Xmsat on the gui. that they have been able to truly easily or at all possible been able to find the real raw subsequent commitment update and checked that it translated into the exact sat amount they suppose to get.. or are they blindly trusting the wallet and just think the wallet is unbreakable and full proof

[1714233973]

1714233973

[1714233973]

1714233973

[1714233973]

1714233973

[BTCLND]

What's stopping traditional payment processors like Poof https://www.poof.io/, Bitpay https://bitpay.com/, or Coinbase Commerce https://www.coinbase.com from adopting Lightning Network?

[franky1]

What's stopping traditional payment processors like Poof https://www.poof.io/, Bitpay https://bitpay.com/, or Coinbase Commerce https://www.coinbase.com from adopting Lightning Network?

the liquidity

think about it. they cant just give people funds on a whim, without pre-planning/notice.. they have to pre-arrange locking up value BEFORE people even get or spend via LN.

this means bitpay would have to lock up alot of reserves just to give outbound balance to others and receive inbound balance from others.

if they estimate they will receive 5000btc a day from 500,000 customers. they will need either
a few large hubs with channels to bitpay that total 5000btc*30(150,000btc)
or 500,000 channels direct connected to bitpay for each merchant(500,000x3.3btc channels)

just to supply bitpay with liquidity to biypay for a month

bitpay would also need to have reserves in another channel with an exchange to supply 150,000btc with their (otc exchange) partners so that the partner can convert that coin to fiat for bitpay to offer the fiat withdrawals to merchants that want to cash out

heres how it would look if the merchants linked to a large hub that then linked to bitpay
              small
             amounts
              each
merchants \                 large        large
merchants \\              amounts   amounts
merchants --- large hub  -- bitpay  -- otc fiatswap partner
merchants //             regular session closing to get coin out
merchants /

..
take bitfinex..
just to be able to offer bitfinex customers a way to withdraw bitfinex balance to LN, bitfinex has had to lock up 10% of the entire LN network "capacity" just to be able to be ready to have LN balance if people wanted (in the future) to get routed some msats from bitfinex
(sidenote bitfinex luckily doesnt have millions of customers all wanting LN withdrawals. luckily for them only 0.00x% of there customers(under 1000 channels) want to give LN a shot. so bitfinex only has to lock up ~400btc)
time of posting - https://i.imgur.com/oagW6Z2.png
https://1ml.com/node/033d8656219478701227199cbd6f670335c8d408a92ae88b962c49d4dc0e83e025

but imagine a service that processes more. . more needs to be locked up to facilitate that processing before the processing can even happen

research liquidity bottlenecks.. and allocating reserves.. and think of the issues where lots of customers are all directing flow towards central points or central points are directing flows outbound to lots of decentralised points..
the liquidity required nearer the central point becomes the points of failure
yea also research central points of failure

el salvador learned this quickly in the last few months of 2021 and changed from the LN hub/liquidity model. and instead used a CEX exchange to be custodians of userbalance of btc to do internal database balance swaps inside alphapoint. rather than have the liquidity issues of LN where hubs run out alot.

..
everyone reading this could and should run some scenarios of not just best case scenario.. but worse case scenario too (dont just live the utopian dream)

you dont even need to use LN to run worse case scenarios. you can play out scenarios with a pen or a spreadsheet.

..
heres some scenarios..
coinbase has ~100million users. imagine just 5% wanted to convert their fiat deposits into btc and then withdraw via LN msat.. lets say each customer was only depositing $5000 a month(converts to ~0.25btc) each

before playing scenarios of how coinbase arranges channels/routes.. coinbase has to lock up and set aside 1.25million BTC in reserve. thats 1.25m btc it cant have on the exchange market order books as it has to be separated and locked up a month before..

next coinbase would have to manage either 5million channels of directly connected users LN channels. or have a large hub partner that it has a 1.25m btc lock with. where that hub then has the customers linked to.
meaning that hub also needs extra reserves of its own on its end to supply the customers.
so thats 2.5m btc locked up just to facilitate payments of upto 1.25m btc converted balance of msats

imagine all customers were not 1 hopor 2 hops but 3 hops..
even more btc would need to be locked up just to facilitate each hops liquidity to pass it on. now thats 3.75m btc locked up just to facilitye all customers withdrawals 3 hops away where total payments cn only be 1.25m liquidity before bottleneck

..
so go have fun use a pen or a spreadsheet and play out some scenarios. realise how much liquidity needs to be locked up to facilitate payments.
(unrelated to the question asked in quote above.. but worth people actually thinking about in the case of the wider utility of LN and issues)

heres some other scenarios to think about

 even if there are only 5% of just coinbase customers of just 1.25m btc on coinbase balance leaving coinbase to customers via LN..
guess how many hops the customers cant be further than before all 19mill btc needs to be locked up to facilitate hop routing to just those customers 1.25m btc locks of msat..
(i wont give final answer. but i will give some hinty examples of things to think about)

remember this physical world problem(the 21m supply cap(19m available circulation) of btc)

ill make it easy for you for a easy hint using small numbers
if 3 customers of just 0.1 each wanted to pay someone 7 hops away
0.1\
0.1- H1(0.3)- H2(0.3)- H3(0.3)- H4(0.3)- H5(0.3)- H6(0.3)- H7
0.1/
requires (to facilitate just 3x 0.1).. a complete lock up of 2.1btc (7x lockup to facilitate a 1x payment)

note the problem .. more btc needs to be locked up to facilitate less coin actually moving..
note the problem when 4million customers of 1btc want to pay someone just 7 hops away

(4m)- H1(4m)- H2(4m)- H3(4m)- H4(4m)- H5(4m)- H6(4m)- H7
28m btc needs to be locked up to facilitate 4m of payments.. um.. yea see the problem

..
now work out how many hops people cant be distanced away from destination/source of a payment, before the 1.25m coins of the coinbase example of just 5% of customers end up causing liquidity issues and bottlenecks and not enough coin in the entire blockchain to facilitate payments of just 1.25m coins

[cAPSLOCK]

What's stopping traditional payment processors like Poof https://www.poof.io/, Bitpay https://bitpay.com/, or Coinbase Commerce https://www.coinbase.com from adopting Lightning Network?

Either technical hurdles, a perceived lack of demand, or an ideological difference.

For example Coinbase has more than enough resources to add this.  But Coinbase has never really been aligned with the values that lightning serves.

Other similar organizations (such as Kraken, Bitfinex) have done it.  And even the FOSS POS system BTCPayhas added it.

Lightning payments are optimized for smaller amounts right now.  So it makes sense if you sell t-shirts or gift cards.  Or if your exchange deals in <$500 deposits/withdrawals.  If I were to want to deposit $20k on Kraken I would not do it over lightning.  But if I wanted to deposit $100 to buy some Monero?  Then of course.  Why pay for, and wait for confirmations on the base layer for a hundred bucks.  I had two channels with BitFinex.  they were HEAVILY used.  I took part in routing an enourmous amount of value back and forth with those.  But they were also only 2 million sats each so my routes were generally under $500 worth.

So I honestly think it is a combination of some technical/demand hurdles (the base chain is still relatively cheap, in part thanks to lightning) as well as the ideological difference that clearly is why CB does not do it.

EDIT - For some reason I unhid frankies response out of curiosity. He does not really get lightning. I am sure Bitfinex has locked up some bitcoin in their nodes... BUT the ydo not have to have AT ALL.  They could have stood up their nodes and not locked a single satoshi in any channels, and instead just taken incoming connections.  Then they would have 400BTC of liquidity possible on the INCOMING side.  Once people made 400BTC worth of deposits that would be, then 400BTC potential for withdrawals.  In reality the network probably does not only operate in one direction... so they would be incentivized to open channels for withdrawals from time to time.  But these channels could be reused over and over in both directions.

But they would not HAVE TO.  They could open a third node and ONLY take incoming channels (which they WOULD get) and eventually that node, too, would be providing liquidity in both directions.

Another silly mistake frank makes is assuming that to use Bitfinexes lightning nodes you would need to open a channel to them.  Absolutely incorrect.  you CAN, and there are advantages to if you are a heavy trader of smallish amounts.  But you do not need a lightning node at ALL to make lightning deposits on their system.  And if you are a node operator like many here who have well connected nodes, you would NOT need a channel with BFXx nodes to get money to them.  AAND it is unlikely even in THAT scenario that you would have to go 6 or 7 hops lol.  I think the median hop # would be something like 3.x as the bitfinex nodes are some of the most well connected on the whole network.  And this is the network ITSELF doing this as a free market.

Frankie is simply hand-waving with all kinds of worst case scenarios and clouds of meaningless numbers...  Lightning works.  It works well.  I bought my daughter something on amazon worth $1000 with a few payments via Fold...  got some fairly serious sats back for that.  And guess what?  I do not have a channel with Fold... or did not then, I may have opened one later.

[franky1]

caps lock.. again with the silly utopian dream

you mention people dont need direct connections to bitfinex..
try reading my coinbase example.. i have actually shown a scenario of your counter argument before you countered

people several hops away still need to have a balance provider connected to the exchange down the route.. and if there are millions of people many hops away you have to actually count the amount of value locked in to be able to facilitate all that .. do the maths. use a spreadsheet. work it out. surprise yourself
dont stay in the utopian dream people promised you of infinite payments guaranteed, flawlessly and free.. as those promises will break. so do the maths and realise how limited LN is and how easy it can bottleneck even with just 5% value of ONE exchange

i know you are the utopian dreamer that doesnt want to hear anything bad. you want to over promote it and blame any fault on users and not the network and dig your head in the sand when it comes to the bad stuff.. .. but many people want to be risk aware so that they can actually make an educated decision

but if you want to play ignorant to the liquidity problem of routes and hops of any distance.. then actually run some scenarios and dont just stick head in the sand screaming with a muffled voice "it works"

i know you mention multiple times in one paragraph you dont need a direct channel with bitfinex..
but care to run some scenarios like i mentioned and you will see i actually mentioned scenarios where you are not a direct channel to an exchange but several hops away from them. and i said go play them scenarios out too and see how far you get before problems arise

i know certain people dont like spoonfed numbers and instead play ignorant or deny the answer if the calculations were done for them.. pretending the calculations must be wrong or the numbers must be fake.. anything to ignore the problem and deny the problem.. . so i challenged you to go find out the numbers yourself so that its not spoon fed to be ignored but a lightbulb moment for yourself to actually have come to the answers yourself and realise the ultimate answer for yourself. then you cant just say i gave you meaningless numbers

[cAPSLOCK]

caps lock.. again with the silly utopian dream

you mention people dont need direct connections to bitfinex..
try reading my coinbase example.. i have actually shown a scenario of your counter argument before you countered

people several hops away still need to have a balance provider connected to the exchange down the route.. and if there are millions of people many hops away you have to actually count the amount of value locked in to be able to facilitate all that .. do the maths. use a spreadsheet. work it out. surprise yourself
dont stay in the utopian dream people promised you of infinite payments guaranteed, flawlessly and free.. as those promises will break. so do the maths and realise how limited LN is and how easy it can bottleneck even with just 5% value of ONE exchange

i know you are the utopian dreamer that doesnt want to hear anything bad. you want to over promote it and blame any fault on users and not the network and dig your head in the sand when it comes to the bad stuff.. .. but many people want to be risk aware so that they can actually make an educated decision

but if you want to play ignorant to the liquidity problem of routes and hops of any distance.. then actually run some scenarios and dont just stick head in the sand screaming with a muffled voice "it works"

i know you mention multiple times in one paragraph you dont need a direct channel with bitfinex..
but care to run some scenarios like i mentioned and you will see i actually mentioned scenarios where you are not a direct channel to an exchange but several hops away from them. and i said go play them scenarios out too and see how far you get before problems arise

i know certain people dont like spoonfed numbers and instead play ignorant or deny the answer if the calculations were done for them.. pretending the calculations must be wrong or the numbers must be fake.. anything to ignore the problem and deny the problem.. . so i challenged you to go find out the numbers yourself so that its not spoon fed to be ignored but a lightbulb moment for yourself to actually have come to the answers yourself and realise the ultimate answer for yourself. then you cant just say i gave you meaningless numbers

You gave me meaningless numbers.  That was easy to say, actually.

How do i know?

I have moved 10s of thousands of dollars back and forth to Bitfinex.

My numbers are real... not theoretical.

[cygan]

here you can see very nicely how the lightning network has grown by 140% in the last 365 days - currently there are almost 4000 (3940) Bitcoin in lightning

[franky1]

You gave me meaningless numbers.  That was easy to say, actually.

How do i know?

I have moved 10s of thousands of dollars back and forth to Bitfinex.

My numbers are real... not theoretical.

not in one go...
but thats the thing. when i said run scenarios on pen or spreadsheet. you can try many idea's out without risking funds.
also before i even gave idea's of paper scenarios to run. i actually did give more realistic numbers like coinbases customerbase and bitfinex channels. heck i even linked the bitfinex nodes stats.

but i guess you dont want to run tests of limitations and problems that can occur and just want to stay in the day dream of best case.

take bitcoin.. it functions. but people actually bothered to do tests on the propagation times of the network, the average confirmation times, orphan rate, software update adoption rate. to find out what its actually capable of beyond the utopian hope.

so where are lightnings real stats.. EG the payment success rate percentage based on amounts moved.. yep the more you move in one go the less chance of a successful payment/route can be established.

and again the more hops you have the more liquidity is needed along the route just to service the payment hopping through them.
EG
A [$10:$0] B [$10:$0] C [$10:$0] D [$10:$0] E [$10:$0] F
becomes (when A moves just $10
A [$0:$10] B [$0:$10] C [$0:$10] D [$0:$10] E [$0:$10] F
only $10 moved. but required $40 liquidity from B-E to move that $10 from A to F


i understand many want to be the utopian dream sale-pitch guys that want to sell the dream.. but you are also ignoring the flaws and limitations and potential problems.

so rather then making excuses to avoid running scenarios and finding the worse case stuff and the bugs/flaws issues.. how about just give the scenarios a shot and have some lightbulb moments outside the dream

the purpose of me not giving the answer/precise numbers in scenarios is some cry they dont like to be spoonfed some cry that they cant cope with large numbers in their heads. and some just avoid even thinking about it. so by using small numbers people can possibly use their brains and run scenarios, without risking real funds because yep. pen and spreadsheet costs you nothing

[fillippone]

Lightning Labs announced their latest version of Lightning implementation:



You can read the full announcement here:
Announcing lnd 0.15 beta: To Taproot and Beyond!


Micheal levine commented:

We're pleased to announce lnd 0.15 beta, our first release of 2022! Building on our commitment to make the Lightning Network more reliable, robust, and secure, our latest release includes:
 

• The ability to create and spend from Taproot addresses
• New RPC methods to support experimental MuSig2 signing
• Database space reduction of ~95% by reducing state stored in revocation logs for new data
• New pathfinding variable to give more control over time and cost tradeoff
• Mobile improvements including a new neutrino subserver and exposing main subservers by default

Levine added two interesting insight on the new foundation layer they area adding toward future functionalities:

Given the community excited around Taproot and the functionality it enables, we wanted to prioritize "taproot-ifying" lnd. This release gives complete Taproot support for the internal lnd wallet, making it one of the most advanced Taproot wallets today. Further, this release has support for an experimental Musig2 API compliant with the latest BIP draft.

Very interesting times approaching.

[cAPSLOCK]

Lightning Labs announced their latest version of Lightning implementation:



You can read the full announcement here:
Announcing lnd 0.15 beta: To Taproot and Beyond!


Micheal levine commented:

We're pleased to announce lnd 0.15 beta, our first release of 2022! Building on our commitment to make the Lightning Network more reliable, robust, and secure, our latest release includes:
 

• The ability to create and spend from Taproot addresses
• New RPC methods to support experimental MuSig2 signing
• Database space reduction of ~95% by reducing state stored in revocation logs for new data
• New pathfinding variable to give more control over time and cost tradeoff
• Mobile improvements including a new neutrino subserver and exposing main subservers by default

Levine added two interesting insight on the new foundation layer they area adding toward future functionalities:

Given the community excited around Taproot and the functionality it enables, we wanted to prioritize "taproot-ifying" lnd. This release gives complete Taproot support for the internal lnd wallet, making it one of the most advanced Taproot wallets today. Further, this release has support for an experimental Musig2 API compliant with the latest BIP draft.

Very interesting times approaching.

This looks really good.  I understand the next point release will get that database reduction to be retroactive as well... awesome.

Actually in the wake of my catastrophe recently, I am seriously thinking about letting my old LND node die (though I still have 2 zombie channels I need to get closed first with quite a few sats in the balance) even though it was the older one with a really good reputation, huge traffic, BOS ranking etc.

I think I might just stick with the CL node from here... I really like how they are building better, I think.

[Wind_FURY]

here you can see very nicely how the lightning network has grown by 140% in the last 365 days - currently there are almost 4000 (3940) Bitcoin in lightning

It's very good to see the altruism. Those people are ignoring the opportunity costs by locking precious capital away to help increase the capacity of the network.

When will all of the largest Bitcoin exchanges in the world accept/allow Lightning deposits/withdrawals? I believe there's only two of them, Bitfinex and Kraken? There should currently be more of them, considering that the Lightning Network started development during 2016. But shitcoins are listed before Lightning implementation.

[franky1]

When will all of the largest Bitcoin exchanges in the world accept/allow Lightning deposits/withdrawals?

when?.. if! LN devs ever fix the liquidity problem of routing..
.. many exchanges have played with LN and found the problems and backed off.

even el-salv 'chivo' backed off from LN and moved to a custodial exchange platform as the back-end instead of an LN hub system, they had many problems with users trying to get routes and channels along routes that could move funds without bottlenecking or close-rebalance-open to try to just pay someone

[sklopan]

I think it would be interesting enough. But I don't see any movement in that direction yet...

[cygan]

[n0nce]

It's very good to see the altruism. Those people are ignoring the opportunity costs by locking precious capital away to help increase the capacity of the network.

What opportunity costs? At the moment it's a pretty good time to open new channels, since Bitcoin is so cheap. Let's see if we can keep up this rate when Bitcoin hits all-time-highs; I'm curious to see if there is going to be any correlation.

Is this about 'Sign in with Lightning'? I remembered this from a few years ago; it's actually already almost 3 years. Have there been new developments in this space?

From the article, I discovered that https://www.lapps.co/join does have this Lightning sign-in, however it redirects to Twitter instead.

[Rath_]

Is this about 'Sign in with Lightning'? I remembered this from a few years ago; it's actually already almost 3 years. Have there been new developments in this space?

I don't think that there can be any new major breakthroughs. I guess that that project simply took advantage of the fact that all Lightning invoices are signed by the node which generated them (the signature is included in the invoice and it ensures data integrity).

Some websites, for example amboss.space, lightningnetwork.plus, require a signed message that can be verified against node's public key. The invoice approach is neat as it ensures compatibility with all Lightning wallets.

[Wind_FURY]

It's very good to see the altruism. Those people are ignoring the opportunity costs by locking precious capital away to help increase the capacity of the network.

What opportunity costs? At the moment it's a pretty good time to open new channels, since Bitcoin is so cheap. Let's see if we can keep up this rate when Bitcoin hits all-time-highs; I'm curious to see if there is going to be any correlation.

Bitcoin is also a form of capital. The longer they stay in LN channels, the more that capital's potential for profit-making is locked/not reached.

When will all of the largest Bitcoin exchanges in the world accept/allow Lightning deposits/withdrawals?

when?.. if! LN devs ever fix the liquidity problem of routing..
.. many exchanges have played with LN and found the problems and backed off.

even el-salv 'chivo' backed off from LN and moved to a custodial exchange platform as the back-end instead of an LN hub system, they had many problems with users trying to get routes and channels along routes that could move funds without bottlenecking or close-rebalance-open to try to just pay someone

I believe the institutions' hesitancy to use LN is not because of low liquidity. It might be because capital, in the form of Bitcoin, is needed to be "locked" to use the network. Unless there's an incentive or a profit-motive to "lock" Bitcoins in payment channels/provide liquidity, the hesitancy will always be there.

[franky1]

I believe the institutions' hesitancy to use LN is not because of low liquidity. It might be because capital, in the form of Bitcoin, is needed to be "locked" to use the network. Unless there's an incentive or a profit-motive to "lock" Bitcoins in payment channels/provide liquidity, the hesitancy will always be there.

run some scenarios. you can do it for free with a pen and paper or excel

take bitfinex lnd0 with ~11% of the LN network cap (~460btc)

its not the fact that they are putting 460btc at risk into a contract. its the fact that if they had 460btc 'demand' to have withdrawals for people say 10 'hops' away. the liquidity needed on the network to make payments becomes more then the entire capacity of the network

run the scenario (rounded to 450, for lazy math/display)
from
BFX{450:0}H1{450:0}H2{450:0}H3{450:0}H4{450:0}H5{450:0}H6{450:0}H7{450:0}H8{450:0}H9{450:0}H10
to
BFX{0:450}H1{0:450}H2{0:450}H3{0:450}H4{0:450}H5{0:450}H6{0:450}H7{0:450}H8{0:450}H9{0:450}H10

just to move 450 from BFX to H10 level channels requires the whole network to have liquidity of 4.5k
thats 4.5k just to fulfil payment needs of just 450

i hope you can atleast 'observe' and acknowledge this basic LN concept: that say(for one example)  hop3 people not using their channel just for themselves(their own personal payment) but instead having their funds used by others..


and after that. Hop3 level people (for one example) have nothing spare to pay hop4,5,6,67,8,7,9,10 because its already used up by BFX

do you 'observe' yet?

aside from that are the MANY variables and flaws that are involved where not all hops have the equal amounts to even be able to fulfil payments.

but if you can first understand the liquidity concept. then you can move onto deeper scenarios of other problems large institutional services face.. and you might then be able to 'observe' why the el-salv chivo service dropped LN late last year just months after trialling it

[n0nce]

It's very good to see the altruism. Those people are ignoring the opportunity costs by locking precious capital away to help increase the capacity of the network.

What opportunity costs? At the moment it's a pretty good time to open new channels, since Bitcoin is so cheap. Let's see if we can keep up this rate when Bitcoin hits all-time-highs; I'm curious to see if there is going to be any correlation.

Bitcoin is also a form of capital. The longer they stay in LN channels, the more that capital's potential for profit-making is locked/not reached.

Oh sure; I thought you were relating it to some market condition. It's not any higher or lower opportunity cost now than anytime else if calculated in Bitcoin..

[Wind_FURY]

I believe the institutions' hesitancy to use LN is not because of low liquidity. It might be because capital, in the form of Bitcoin, is needed to be "locked" to use the network. Unless there's an incentive or a profit-motive to "lock" Bitcoins in payment channels/provide liquidity, the hesitancy will always be there.

run some scenarios. you can do it for free with a pen and paper or excel

take bitfinex lnd0 with ~11% of the LN network cap (~460btc)

its not the fact that they are putting 460btc at risk into a contract. its the fact that if they had 460btc 'demand' to have withdrawals for people say 10 'hops' away. the liquidity needed on the network to make payments becomes more then the entire capacity of the network

run the scenario (rounded to 450, for lazy math/display)
from
BFX{450:0}H1{450:0}H2{450:0}H3{450:0}H4{450:0}H5{450:0}H6{450:0}H7{450:0}H8{450:0}H9{450:0}H10
to
BFX{0:450}H1{0:450}H2{0:450}H3{0:450}H4{0:450}H5{0:450}H6{0:450}H7{0:450}H8{0:450}H9{0:450}H10

just to move 450 from BFX to H10 level channels requires the whole network to have liquidity of 4.5k
thats 4.5k just to fulfil payment needs of just 450

i hope you can atleast 'observe' and acknowledge this basic LN concept: that say(for one example)  hop3 people not using their channel just for themselves(their own personal payment) but instead having their funds used by others..


and after that. Hop3 level people (for one example) have nothing spare to pay hop4,5,6,67,8,7,9,10 because its already used up by BFX

do you 'observe' yet?

aside from that are the MANY variables and flaws that are involved where not all hops have the equal amounts to even be able to fulfil payments.

but if you can first understand the liquidity concept. then you can move onto deeper scenarios of other problems large institutional services face.. and you might then be able to 'observe' why the el-salv chivo service dropped LN late last year just months after trialling it

I'm not debating you in this instance. I'm merely saying that it might be a "chicken and egg" problem. The institutions might not want to use the Lightning Network because liquidity is low for them, AND the liquidity is low because they don't want to lock up the capital for nothing.

The altruism of node operators, opening channels in LN is like the altruism of those early miners who were mining Bitcoin with their laptops.