Lightning Network Observer

[JayJuanGee]

I hope the two implementations compete/cooperate/bicker/jello-wrestle forever!  Keep it up!
Oh, and I did not forget about you eclair!!! yOU THERE?  hELLO?  wAKE UP!

Seems like a set up from my point of view.  Lightning network is likely starting to become big enough to "pay attention" to it from banks, governments, bitcoin naysayer, even shitcoiners... Yes.. try to create divisiveness within bitcoin, whether it is about aspects of lighting network and lack of confidence or their other nonsense attacks regarding energy and the loveliness of proof of stake..   Hopefully the various implementations and transactional options that we have available continue to get stronger..

Having competing LN implementations seems like a set up? I don't think so; a healthy competition is the best driver of innovation, which is exactly what Lightning is all about.

Agree with this.  But also get the set up comment.

The op_return message is informative.  There has been speculation (founded or not, I have absolutely NO idea) that Lightning Labs has connections to some fairly anti  bitcoin-ethos organizations.

https://www.weforum.org/organizations/lightning-labs

"You will use CL and be happy"  Sound familiar?

One could consider the development of "stable coins" on a bitcoin layer 2 could be dubious.  Many have said as much.  I am personally ambivalent.  But at the same time Blockstream is doing the exact same thing ALREADY with Tether on Liquid.  But they do not have a WEF page.

Anyway... totally agree that competition is a good thing.  Though at the same time when we are talking about money it certainly has it's risks.

You took it in a bit of a different direction than me, cAPS.. and no BIG deal - even though I feel that I said enough in my sentiments about conspiracy theories.. since I feel that I already said what I had wanted in a kind of emotional outburst moment - even though I don't even necessarily believe that various kinds of attacks on the LN are to be unexpected whether they are tongue in cheek trolling attempts, actual technical flaws, social engineering (or negative marketing), just some "bug finders" having fun at the expense of others or more serious kinds of technical attacks.  

I don't claim to have enough technical knowledge to really get into fleshing out any of my overview ideas on the various kinds of LN attacks topic anyhow, especially when getting into whether some angle may well have more intricate software angles or whether it might be more social sentiments, since additionally I rely on the more technically oriented and software implementing in practice forum members and other technical experts to comment in regards to giving me some sense of what some of those kinds of threats might be or potentially come into existence.

Ultimately, I agree with the overall premise that the lightning network seems to have a lot of real great innovations in a variety of ways that gives options to regular people in regards whether to use it or if there might be some better ways to achieve their transactional (hopefully not too much storage) aspirations, and surely the whole LN system is much more likely to be resilient to have several implementations that are not as likely to have the same LN system-wide software vulnerabilities at the same time... and maybe some vulnerabilities do not even have system-wide ramifications, even though the discussion (or publicity) of them could cause loss of confidence because some of us might not be sure about what kind of vulnerability was discovered and if on a personal level if we might be subject to loss of funds in our own usage - including funds that we already have on there.

On a personal level, I realize that I probably put too many funds in the lighting network portion of my BlueWallet because I had thought that I was going to be using it to experiment, and so far I have not experimented too much, so those funds are mostly just sitting there rather than being used.. and if I hear about some kind of issue with LN, I start to consider whether I might need to move some of those funds into a different location.

[1714254049]

1714254049

[1714254049]

1714254049

[1714254049]

1714254049

[1714254049]

1714254049

[1714254049]

1714254049

[fillippone]

One could consider the development of "stable coins" on a bitcoin layer 2 could be dubious. 

lightning is not a "bitcoin layer 2"

lightning is a separate network where multiple crypto's can lock value and peg in some Msats to be transfered within LN

I am ignorant, as I am not currently aware of any implementation of LN outside Bitcoin.

And many statement you describe above, are not bug of LN, but actually feature.
I am not sure I didn’t understand you, of you were simply stating wrong things.

[cAPSLOCK]

On a personal level, I realize that I probably put too many funds in the lighting network portion of my BlueWallet because I had thought that I was going to be using it to experiment, and so far I have not experimented too much, so those funds are mostly just sitting there rather than being used.. and if I hear about some kind of issue with LN, I start to consider whether I might need to move some of those funds into a different location.

Eeh.  I dunno.  How many funds are there?  The advantage to a custodial wallet is you have pros handling the nodes.  Of course NYKNYC and all that.  Also, you can easily switch them back over to BTC.  One clever way to do it is Coinos.io, though I think now they charge a fee?  I will do it for free if you prefer, too.  But you'll have to TRUST me for a moment.

I am ignorant, as I am not currently aware of any implementation of LN outside Bitcoin.

Didn't litecoin have a LND implementation for a moment?

[n0nce]

One could consider the development of "stable coins" on a bitcoin layer 2 could be dubious. 

lightning is not a "bitcoin layer 2"
lightning is a separate network where multiple crypto's can lock value and peg in some Msats to be transfered within LN

I am ignorant, as I am not currently aware of any implementation of LN outside Bitcoin.

Lightning was first implemented in Litecoin and it's indeed possible to do cross-chain swaps through Lightning.

On May 10, 2017, Christian Decker of Blockstream made the first full, secure Lightning payment on a non-test network, and the first Lightning payment on Litecoin, sending a microscopic payment not normally possible or economic on a blockchain, fully settled in a fraction of a second.

And many statement you describe above, are not bug of LN, but actually feature.

This is right. He also fails to mention that you can do atomic swaps across chains even without Lightning, yet that doesn't make L1 Bitcoin any better or worse than it was before these atomic swaps were first implemented.


Franky's argument that Bitcoin on Lightning is not actual Bitcoin, actually has its own complete 13-page thread, and I think periodically bringing the question back up in random discussions is just off-topic.
However, TL;DR: the big difference between an altcoin and BTC on a second layer is that you never exchanged BTC for something and never need to exchange Lightning funds back to 'L1 funds'. You just need to publish a transaction to the blockchain.
You never give your BTC away, only lock them in a Bitcoin multisig transaction and you can unlock them at any time without intermediaries, trustees or central authorities. Just you and your node.

[JayJuanGee]

On a personal level, I realize that I probably put too many funds in the lighting network portion of my BlueWallet because I had thought that I was going to be using it to experiment, and so far I have not experimented too much, so those funds are mostly just sitting there rather than being used.. and if I hear about some kind of issue with LN, I start to consider whether I might need to move some of those funds into a different location.

Eeh.  I dunno.  How many funds are there?  The advantage to a custodial wallet is you have pros handling the nodes.  Of course NYKNYC and all that.  Also, you can easily switch them back over to BTC. 

There's something like 10 million satoshis...   I was not really sure what I was going to do with that.. but maybe I would have preferred to keep it at 3 million satoshis max... but I probably was not clear enough in my mission and I was also thinking that if I ended up trying out a few LN wallets, then I might end up dividing that initial amount with some other LN wallets.  I am not completely panicking over the idea of overdoing it, but I just had been thinking that I probably sent too many coins to that one location.

One clever way to do it is Coinos.io, though I think now they charge a fee?  I will do it for free if you prefer, too.  But you'll have to TRUST me for a moment.

Thanks for the offer... For now, I think that I will just leave them.. and maybe at some point, I will create another LN wallet and send half to the other LN wallet, or maybe I will make some transactions.  I think that I have already sent around 1.5 million satoshis when just playing around with it.

Franky's argument that Bitcoin on Lightning is not actual Bitcoin, actually has its own complete 13-page thread, and I think periodically bringing the question back up in random discussions is just off-topic.

hahahahaha...    I remember following that shitshow of a thread that pretty much allowed (encouraged) Franky1 to speak freely.. OMG.. 

[franky1]

dare you guys to try to take a onion packet (LN payment) and get it confirmed on the bitcoin network
i guarantee you it would even relay around the nodes, it wont end up in mempools and wont be put into a block.
LN payments are not bitcoin nor even measured in anything bitcoin understands

LN network can continue running with channels and making payments even if there was no bitcoin "locks" pegged to channel payments because the channels would still make payments using different currencies pegs.. so yea LN hint is in the N of LN is a different network and not bitcoin

bitcoin does not ever leave the bitcoin network. it relies on locks and pegs.. and LN has no network wide consensus to audit/account/secure those pegs/locks. so LN users need to be risk aware of methods where their co-partner of channel can use and abuse LN features to break those locks/pegs to steal funds from the other person. and yep there are many ways to lose value due to those weak mechanisms

LN is not bitcoin. im not saying LN has no niche/utility/service offering. im saying be risk aware when using it and not think that its as secure as bitcoin

just be smart and not utopian dreamy. understand the difference between LN vs bitcoin. there is alot of differences..

[BlackHatCoiner]

dare you guys to try to take a onion packet (LN payment) and get it confirmed on the bitcoin network

An onion packet-ed lightning payment should not have interaction with the Bitcoin network. It should have interaction with the lightning network. Because it's a lightning payment.

i guarantee you it would even relay around the nodes, it wont end up in mempools and wont be put into a block.

Correct. Because a lightning payment is not a Bitcoin transaction that is sent across the Bitcoin nodes. It is a Bitcoin transaction that is exchanged between two Bitcoin nodes. At some point in the future, after these two nodes coordinate, they can publish their latest commitment (aka Bitcoin transaction), and I guarantee you that the Bitcoin network nodes will relay it, provided that it complies the consensus rules.

LN network can continue running with channels and making payments even if there was no bitcoin "locks" pegged to channel payments because the channels would still make payments using different currencies pegs..

Not my lightning node. My lightning node only recognizes bitcoin. I'm only willing to send and receive bitcoin, and I'm sure others do too. We form a network. Payment channels can work in Litecoin, Dogecoin, Bitcoin Cash etc., but not in our Bitcoin-only configured nodes.

bitcoin does not ever leave the bitcoin network. it relies on locks and pegs.. and LN has no network wide consensus to audit/account/secure those pegs/locks.

It doesn't need consensus, other than the consensus between the two participants. Rath and n0nce can choose to configure their nodes to consider Litecoins Bitcoins, and equate Litecoin-based lightning payments with Bitcoin-based lightning payments. As long as me and my channel partners don't, n0nce and Rath hold no sway to me. What's so difficult to understand about that?

[fillippone]

Back to Lightning network.
A very nice thread on BOLT 12:

BOLT 12 is a sleeping giant.

But 99% of Bitcoiners don’t understand it yet.

In this thread, we’ll break it down as simply as possible:
Firstly, what is a BOLT?

BOLT stands for Basis of Lightning Technology

It’s a type of draft specification, similar to a BIP.
BOLT 12 is being developed on @Blockstream’s c-lightning by @rusty_russel

When finalized, it will need to be implemented by either eclair @acinq or lnd @lightning to be considered ‘activated’
So what problems does BOLT 12 solve?

To answer this question, let’s take a look at the current invoicing protocol on Lightning, BOLT 11

BOLT 11 Invoices have three main components:

1. A Destination(Node pubkey)
2. An amount(denominated in sats)
3. A payment secret(hash)
So what are the limitations of BOLT 11?
Image
1. A BOLT 11 invoice can only be used once. As soon as the invoice is created, the payment secret can be leaked. If you were to create a new invoice with the same secret, someone could discover the secret and claim funds that aren’t theirs.
2. Because each invoice can only be used once, they must be generated in real-time. This means that BOLT 11 invoices aren’t ideal for donation pages, printed price tags, and other asynchronous payment scenarios.
For example, if you were selling apples in a grocery store and printed price tags on them denominated in sats, the USD value may increase before someone buys your apples. This leaves merchants exposed to BTC’s volatility until BTC is widely adopted as a unit of account.
3. BOLT 11 invoices can only be used to receive, not send. This prevents the use of credit invoices.

For example- a BOLT 11 Lightning ATM would not be able to send you sats in exchange for dollars, you would have to create an invoice and send it to the ATM(not ideal UX).
With BOLT 12, you would insert your fiat dollars, scan a QR code, and the ATM would pay you.
To summarize:

BOLT 11 invoices can only be used once(insecure)

They MUST be generated in real-time(bad for donations, price tags)

BOLT 11 invoices can only be used to receive, not send.
So what’s BOLT 12?

In short, BOLT 12 is a new specification for Lightning invoices.

It consists of a new type of invoice called an “offer”.



You can think of an offer as a ‘meta’ invoice- an invoice on top of an invoice.
You can scan a BOLT 12 offer and your wallet will prompt you to pay it, just like BOLT 11.

But it could also offer to send YOU money, like in the ATM example above.
Unlike a BOLT 11 invoice, you can reuse them to create static Lightning invoices on donation pages, billboards, or even a tattoo(although, tattoos aren’t recommended until the BOLT is fully ratified😂)
Now you’re probably thinking, “this sounds a lot like LNURL. Why not just use that?”

The main difference is that BOLT 12 offers are Lightning-native, i.e- they do not require a web server, TLS certificate, and a domain name.
BOLT 12 is a protocol layer solution to the invoice problem, while LNURL is an application layer solution.

This means BOLT 12 has better privacy, less centralization risk (DNS), and better UX for non-technical users.
What can we use BOLT 12 for?

1. Subscriptions.

BOLT 12 offers can ask users to pay an invoice every day, week, or month(denominated in USD or sats)

Wallets still need to build out this functionality, but the infrastructure will be in place.
2. Bitcoin Lightning ATMs

Offers can send you money in the form of a credit invoice.

This was previously impossible, and allows for better UX, which leads to adoption.
3. Private Refunds

Instead of a user creating an invoice and sending it to a merchant for them to pay, a user can scan a ‘refund’ offer and receive their sats without creating their own invoice.

This is more private for the receiver, and has better UX overall.
TLDR:

BOLT 12 is a draft specification for a new ‘meta’ invoice called an offer.

Offers are static, and allow users and merchants to both receive AND send.

Because offers are persistent, and can be denominated in USD, they remove BTC volatility for merchants.
BOLT 12 has many other features, including privacy enhancements, that were outside the scope of this thread.

Comment below if you want a part 2!

Thanks for reading, and follow us for more.
Additional Resources:

bolt11.org

bolt12.org

Link to Twitter

Link to unrolled Thread

This is the kind of content I created this thread for!

[n0nce]

dare you guys to try to take a onion packet (LN payment) and get it confirmed on the bitcoin network
i guarantee you it would even relay around the nodes, it wont end up in mempools and wont be put into a block.
LN payments are not bitcoin nor even measured in anything bitcoin understands

Literally every channel close transaction ever. Not Onion packets, but the channel state updates that are exchanged through them; those are simply valid channel close transactions that you can publish.

Would you argue that any Bitoin script that is not the regular OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHash> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG P2PKH transaction, 'is not Bitcoin'?

Lightning is nothing more than a different (but totally standard and accepted - otherwise it would be impossible to close channels - Bitcoin script) and exchanging updates of the spending transaction in an off-chain manner.

LN network can continue running with channels and making payments even if there was no bitcoin "locks" pegged to channel payments because the channels would still make payments using different currencies pegs.. so yea LN hint is in the N of LN is a different network and not bitcoin

That makes no sense. When updating channels, you don't do much more than updating a spending transaction for both peers. If there is no blockchain to create transactions on, the whole thing doesn't work. The blockchain is absolutely necessary.

bitcoin does not ever leave the bitcoin network. it relies on locks and pegs.. and LN has no network wide consensus to audit/account/secure those pegs/locks. so LN users need to be risk aware of methods where their co-partner of channel can use and abuse LN features to break those locks/pegs to steal funds from the other person. and yep there are many ways to lose value due to those weak mechanisms

The system can be abused if your node isn't online and checking the blockchain at all times, but that's not a secret and it doesn't make it 'not Bitcoin', either. It's just a tradeoff for the benefits that you get from it.

I can construct other Bitcoin scripts that allow users to do cool stuff, but require them to check for themselves that they're not cheated on; that doesn't make this script somehow 'not be Bitcoin'.

If Lightning funds 'are not Bitcoin', what do you think happens when opening a Lightning channel? Funds are burned? And what happens when you close it? They reappear out of thin air into your wallet? It's a script. Lightning is just a Bitcoin script. It's not that complicated..

im saying be risk aware when using it and not think that its as secure as bitcoin
just be smart and not utopian dreamy. understand the difference between LN vs bitcoin. there is alot of differences..

Stating the obvious here, franky! Wow! Who would have thought.

Back to Lightning network.
A very nice thread on BOLT 12:
[...]

Isn't that kind of old news? Core Lightning users have been using BOLT12 for a year or so.

Has anyone of our Lightning node operators here tried BOLT12 Offers yet?
[...]

Actually, v0.10.2 is now over 1 year old.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I agree, also meanwhile feel free to have a look at @metiaisland_gg on twitter

There's no Twitter account with this username.

BOLT 11 invoices can only be used once(insecure)

What's insecure about that?

Also, what does the author mean with "Offers can send you money in the form of a credit invoice"? There's no credit. Money sent with offers is money sent for good.

[franky1]

dare you guys to try to take a onion packet (LN payment) and get it confirmed on the bitcoin network
i guarantee you it would even relay around the nodes, it wont end up in mempools and wont be put into a block.
LN payments are not bitcoin nor even measured in anything bitcoin understands

Literally every channel close transaction ever. Not Onion packets, but the channel state updates that are exchanged through them; those are simply valid channel close transactions that you can publish.

Would you argue that any Bitoin script that is not the regular OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHash> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG P2PKH transaction, 'is not Bitcoin'?

Lightning is nothing more than a different (but totally standard and accepted - otherwise it would be impossible to close channels - Bitcoin script) and exchanging updates of the spending transaction in an off-chain manner.

LN network can continue running with channels and making payments even if there was no bitcoin "locks" pegged to channel payments because the channels would still make payments using different currencies pegs.. so yea LN hint is in the N of LN is a different network and not bitcoin

That makes no sense. When updating channels, you don't do much more than updating a spending transaction for both peers. If there is no blockchain to create transactions on, the whole thing doesn't work. The blockchain is absolutely necessary.

this is where you are wrong.

IN LN and im not talking about session close events. im talking about within LN

you do realise when there is a "update" AFTER PAYMENT!!!!!!!!
even the update is not saved to your ram/hard drive in a bitcoin TX format

tha database and also the code format does have a script(signature) that complies to a bitcoin TX format. but its not saved on hard drives in a bitcoin tx format either
yes some LN nodes call the database 'buckets' where it saves values not in bitcoin format but msat format and uses alot of translators to build into a bitcoin transaction when you want to broadcast. but when you are not initialising a broadcast. its not seen or stored in a bitcoin tx format.

try to read some code once in a while

heres a little hint for you..
in the update state. it also includes PENDING payments
yep the update state is different to an agreed 'close session'

the things to be aware of because LN uses msats and bitcoin uses sats
(2 totally different units of measure) users have to rely on software that has no audit or consensus of network security to do the conversions/pegging. so the 1sat:1000msat can be depegged if enough dumb users use a corrupt wallet with code that can change the 1:1000rate
also there are other bugs that can happen between converting an onion amount to a close session bitcoin tx format amount

LN is not bitcoin and people need to be risk aware of possible bugs and malicious code where they thing they received say 20,000msat. but their software confers it to not 20sat but 2sat(or less which rounds to 0)
and users wont know about it until they are closing session and broadcast their loses because the whole time their gui when using LN is showing msat balances

If Lightning funds 'are not Bitcoin', what do you think happens when opening a Lightning channel? Funds are burned? And what happens when you close it? They reappear out of thin air into your wallet? It's a script. Lightning is just a Bitcoin script. It's not that complicated..

"lightning funds"
well you can open a lightning channel using litecoin and other currencies..

if you are still thinking "lightning" is and only is bitcoin then you have major learning to do

https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/02-peer-protocol.md#the-open_channel-message

The [chain_hash] value denotes the exact blockchain that the opened channel will reside within. This is usually the genesis hash of the respective blockchain. The existence of the [chain_hash] allows nodes to open channels across many distinct blockchains as well as have channels within multiple blockchains opened to the same peer (if it supports the target chains).

..
if you think when doing a LN payment(the onion routing stage) that at the "success" part, your 'value' is as good as guaranteed and trusted where you cant lose it.. you are fooling yourself.. its not a bitcoin settled amount that has "succeeded" ..

dont ever think that LN is as imutible and confirmed and settled and guaranteed as bitcoin

much like people should not trust that LBTC(liquid) or WBTC(sidechain) is as good as real bitcoin

if no one ever learns from the breaks of the stable coins and sidechains that broke their pegs.. then idiots will still lose funds and blame bitcoin because other idiots told them it is bitcoin

its ok to call LN a niche service that allows conversion and then faster payments of value of [insert coin] but dont try pretending that it is bitcoin

bitcoin security model and immutability function and its whole assistance is a different system compared to "smart contract" platforms

..
please atleast observe the reality of the network and code.. and not just admire the glossy advert someone suggested to you about LN
LN is not the same as bitcoin
much like a gold bar is not the same as gold backed paper bank promissory notes

[DooMAD]

"lightning funds"
well you can open a lightning channel using litecoin and other currencies..

if you are still thinking "lightning" is and only is bitcoin then you have major learning to do

No one has forgotten.  Most of us just don't have a psychological compulsion to mention it every five minutes like you do.  Also, you still have a lot of learning to do if you can't figure out how something as simple as a forum works.  People can discuss altcoins in the appropriate subforum.  If people are talking in the Bitcoin section of the boards (hint: this topic is in Bitcoin Discussion), then unless specified, it's safe to assume they're talking about Bitcoin. 

Go troll the altcoins board, headcase.

[BlackHatCoiner]

IN LN and im not talking about session close events. im talking about within LN

"Session close events" is kinda "within LN".

even the update is not saved to your ram/hard drive in a bitcoin TX format

After commitment_signed and revoke_and_ack messages, both parties have their final commitment transaction that is understandable by the Bitcoin protocol.

msats

We all know you're obsessed with msats. They do, indeed, introduce trust. Exchanging 1 msat doesn't make sense from the Bitcoin network perspective. Whatever lightning payment you make, your balance is rounded down to satoshi once you withdraw them on-chain. For example, 1,000,999 msats is equivalent to 1,000 sats, just as 1,000,000 do. It really doesn't favor anybody to steal someone else's msats, given that they can steal less than 1,000 msats, and the opening and closing transactions cost much more than that.

if you are still thinking "lightning" is and only is bitcoin then you have major learning to do

https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/02-peer-protocol.md#the-open_channel-message

Emphasis mine:

The [chain_hash] value denotes the exact blockchain that the opened channel will reside within. This is usually the genesis hash of the respective blockchain. The existence of the [chain_hash] allows nodes to open channels across many distinct blockchains as well as have channels within multiple blockchains opened to the same peer (if it supports the target chains).

[franky1]

and on that note doomad

liquid and binance chain also have locks and pegs to bitcoin..
so i guess you consider those networks "bitcoin" when you want to just talk about "liquid" and "binance chain" in this forum category

dont be silly, understand they are different networks that use locks and pegs to then play with different units of measure on a separate network away from the bitcoin network

LN, liquid, binance chain... are not "bitcoin"

[BlackHatCoiner]

liquid

Flawed analogy. Lightning isn't a federated sidechain. While operating decentrally, Liquid isn't permissionless in the same way Lightning is. Summarily, Liquid acts as a financial instrument between large Bitcoin companies, which are integral to its operation. It is trust requiring, but it minimizes it, because it divides governance to several trustworthy entities.

Lightning, on the other hand, requires no faith. You need to trust nobody but yourself to transact. Not your partners, not your partners' partners, no one.

[fillippone]

An interesting opinion from Bitcoin Magazine about what has the Lightning network done to solve the base layer scalability problem.


DATA SHOWS THAT BITCOIN’S LIGHTNING NETWORK HAS SOLVED THE SCALABILITY PROBLEM

Many Bitcoiners have heard of Bitcoin’s “lack of scalability” — it is one of the most common critiques waged against the project by both gluttonous cryptocurrency competitors and incumbent establishment actors.
Some oldtimers may remember the heated, bathed-in-controversy Blocksize Wars of 2015 to 2017 which, aided by industry insiders, most shallowly aimed to make Bitcoin scale to more transactions by increasing the maximum block size and by doing so, almost set precedent and changed Bitcoin’s future course forever.
Both of these issues will ultimately prove to be left on the wrong side of history. In this piece, we are going to show how the Lightning Network addresses Bitcoin’s scalability problems and undoubtedly proves that the small-block decision was ultimately the right one.

The article underline the success if the lightning network has to do essentially to the fact that it allowed moving huge amount of traffic off-chain.

[franky1]

liquid

Flawed analogy. Lightning isn't a federated sidechain. While operating decentrally, Liquid isn't permissionless in the same way Lightning is. Summarily, Liquid acts as a financial instrument between large Bitcoin companies, which are integral to its operation. It is trust requiring, but it minimizes it, because it divides governance to several trustworthy entities.

Lightning, on the other hand, requires no faith. You need to trust nobody but yourself to transact. Not your partners, not your partners' partners, no one.

please observe

i was discussing the pegging.. and you went full avoidance by talking about other features..

when you start to realise that when people are told to download some free phone app for lightning and see 0 balance and they use an exchange to deposit bitcoin and the exchange then routes them inbound msat.. they think they are getting 1:1000 rated msat..
little do they know how easy it is in just 1 line of code to have the onion payment conversion to commitment actually be a 1:200 rate. and they only learn the hard way when they try to settle the channel..

do you get it yet. lightning does not have a network wide consensus to actually audit payments and value to make sure what someone holds is actually what is owed to them

oh and lightning is federated. but lacks the blockchain bit too
you are federated with a channel partner. and separately someone else is federated to your partner. and they are federated with someone else

you can only make a payment if all federations along the route are online and will agree to authorise payment through them.

LN is permissioned because it needs someone elses permission(co partners signature. route onions approval to forward onion payment and send back acceptance with key
as for trust

well you either hand keys to a watch tower so you can sleep. or stay awake watching your partner doesnt broadcast a old state.. oh wait if you want to sleep without a watch tower.. you need to trust your partner

take the utopia away and try for one month to do some critical thinking. imaging you have value in lightning and you really want to scrutinise it for bugs and flaws. instead of be hopeful and dreamy about it.
start finding the flaws. the ways that a counter party can dupe you out of your value.

then you might learn something

[AGD]

liquid

Flawed analogy. Lightning isn't a federated sidechain. While operating decentrally, Liquid isn't permissionless in the same way Lightning is. Summarily, Liquid acts as a financial instrument between large Bitcoin companies, which are integral to its operation. It is trust requiring, but it minimizes it, because it divides governance to several trustworthy entities.

Lightning, on the other hand, requires no faith. You need to trust nobody but yourself to transact. Not your partners, not your partners' partners, no one.

please observe

i was discussing the pegging.. and you went full avoidance by talking about other features..

when you start to realise that when people are told to download some free phone app for lightning and see 0 balance and they use an exchange to deposit bitcoin and the exchange then routes them inbound msat.. they think they are getting 1:1000 rated msat..
little do they know how easy it is in just 1 line of code to have the onion payment conversion to commitment actually be a 1:200 rate. and they only learn the hard way when they try to settle the channel..

do you get it yet. lightning does not have a network wide consensus to actually audit payments and value to make sure what someone holds is actually what is owed to them

oh and lightning is federated. but lacks the blockchain bit too
you are federated with a channel partner. and separately someone else is federated to your partner. and they are federated with someone else

you can only make a payment if all federations along the route are online and will agree to authorise payment through them.

LN is permissioned because it needs someone elses permission(co partners signature. route onions approval to forward onion payment and send back acceptance with key
as for trust

well you either hand keys to a watch tower so you can sleep. or stay awake watching your partner doesnt broadcast a old state.. oh wait if you want to sleep without a watch tower.. you need to trust your partner

take the utopia away and try for one month to do some critical thinking. imaging you have value in lightning and you really want to scrutinise it for bugs and flaws. instead of be hopeful and dreamy about it.
start finding the flaws. the ways that a counter party can dupe you out of your value.

then you might learn something

Oh Franky. You had so much time to learn about Lightning, but you obviously still have no idea how it actually works. You pretty much sound like CSW, when he explains Bitcoin.

[franky1]

Oh Franky. You had so much time to learn about Lightning, but you obviously still have no idea how it actually works. You pretty much sound like CSW, when he explains Bitcoin.

when you look at your LN gui and when you are sending msats in onions to the leapfrog game of middlemen who need to agree.. . you are thinking that you are going to get a 1:1000 rate of sats:msats when its time to broadcast.. right?
how sure are you of this ..

here is the thing. services and counterparties can talk people into downloading specific wallets where it offers certain services

things like inbound balance without a confirmed lock of funds to back it.
where the msat balance in GUI does not peg to a signed transaction of 1:1000

so while you happily play with inbound msat balance by a counterparty.. what you end up in the broadcast may not be what you think

..
have a hard think about that

oh.. and many LN devs themselves have lost funds.. and still have not come up with solutions. just so you know

[n0nce]

Oh Franky. You had so much time to learn about Lightning, but you obviously still have no idea how it actually works. You pretty much sound like CSW, when he explains Bitcoin.

when you look at your LN gui and when you are sending msats in onions to the leapfrog game of middlemen who need to agree.. . you are thinking that you are going to get a 1:1000 rate of sats:msats when its time to broadcast.. right?

Why are you so worried about msats? You're aware that msats are rounded down to sats when closing a channel, so you can 'lose' at most 999msats or just less than 1 satoshi?

https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/lnwire/msat.go#L19-L25
https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/blob/master/channeld/commit_tx.c#L62