[self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain

[LoyceV]

I create this topic because I challenged franky1 to join a civil discussion with all arguments in one place:

@franky1: If I create a self-moderated topic (Lauda called me Switzerland for being neutral; I won't delete any of your posts, but I will call you out if you go off-topic), are you willing to engage? I expect it will be "you vs a couple of other users", but from what I've seen, you can handle yourself. I would like to discuss your points on LN that I've seen in far too many different topics, and it would be nice if we can reach consensus on at least part of the discussion.

My invitation was accepted by franky1:

i can engage.
and out of respect i will even take my own advice and step back from the computer between posts and take some breathing time between posts, and avoid (as i see other do)just hitting reply to rage reply.
 
if others can do the same. and answer without shining their bias/advertising PR stance of utopia, and respond rationally and thinking outside their small box. then great

it could actually lead to some proper dialogue.

Anyone else than franky1: I will delete unfriendly posts, and I will delete off-topic posts. See my unedited archive when that happens.

Rules Guidelines:
Please keep this topic civil.
Please keep the discussion only here, and not in other topics.
If there's something worth reading in another topic, quote it here instead of posting a link.
Try to limit the scope: don't throw 30 different arguments in one post, it will lead to endless replies. Update: separate posts in a row aren't allowed, so making different posts for each argument won't work. BlackHatCoiner expressed my intentions much better:

I want to add this as a condition: We'll speak of one topic at a time. Scalability? Scalability. Lightning's protocol? Lightning's protocol. Consensus? Consensus. This way we can clarify which are our interlocutor's disagreements and constructively (& friendly) correct them.

Read everything before responding. Try to avoid duplicate replies.
Newbies: read more, post less, and create an informed opinion.
To consider: I removed franky1 from my ignore list. I think that's only fair considering the topic I started.


To start: I use on-chain Bitcoin, and I use Bitcoin LN. Bitcoin can work with or without LN, LN can't work without Bitcoin. I don't like high fees, as it limits adoption. I would like to see Bitcoin grow in value, userbase and number of transactions per second, and I think we need all three of those for Bitcoin to grow. How, that's up for debate.

LN is a different network for a reason. it has its own usecase and niche and utility that differs from bitcoins.

[1714539296]

1714539296

[1714539296]

1714539296

[LoyceV]

Reserved. I may make summaries later.

[LoyceV]

Reserved. I may make summaries later.

[LoyceV]

Reserved. I may make summaries later.

[bitmover]

To start: I use on-chain Bitcoin, and I use Bitcoin LN. Bitcoin can work with or without LN, LN can't work without Bitcoin. I don't like high fees, as it limits adoption. I would like to see Bitcoin grow in value, userbase and number of transactions per second, and I think we need all three of those for Bitcoin to grow. How, that's up for debate.

LN is a different network for a reason. it has its own usecase and niche and utility that differs from bitcoins.

I will not talk about LN directly, but about off-chain solutions in general.

When Binance came to Brazil, it dominated the crypto market nearly completely. It is by far the best, most trusted and cheaper exchange. Nearly everyone who works with cryptocurrency in Brazil has a binance account.

Recently I made a small job and I was paid in Bitcoin. For some time I have been selling some of my stash at the begining of every month, like a Dolar Cost Averaging, but for selling.

I was going to sell some bitcoin in the next few days, and I gave my client my binance address. He immediately asked if I could be paid in BEP2 chain (Binance chain, using a BTC pegged token). I accepted, as it is a free and instant transaction and I was not going to hold that bitcoin for long.

Now, is a BTC pegged token bitcoin? It is not, but i guess it is useful for bitcoin adoption and awareness.

So, to summarize: Off-chain solutions are already happening. They are useful. LN is the best off-chain solution, but people do use it all the time yet. LN would be good for my transaction? Well, I think not as good as the BEP2 solution, but it would work.

I believe that we should support LN and use it, otherwise we will soon be forced to use a worse off-chain solution from time to time.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I accept to take part in this discussion and not be biased towards franky, but I want to add this as a condition: We'll speak of one topic at a time. Scalability? Scalability. Lightning's protocol? Lightning's protocol. Consensus? Consensus. This way we can clarify which are our interlocutor's disagreements and constructively (& friendly) correct them.

My opinion regarding the Lightning Network can be interpreted by the following example I've written;

Picture it as following; bitcoin is a type of metal and you ought to store it in a safe place. However, you can't pay with a metal for everyday transactions. Thus, you go to a guy who's willing to give you the option to give him a portion of your bitcoin in exchange for the ability to create agreements with other people who have also given their bitcoin this way. Now you can transact without touching your metal at all. It's faster, cheaper and smarter way to transact.

That being said, add that this guy cannot cheat or lie to you in any way. You've handed out your coins, but they can't steal them from you. You're free to withdraw their promise for BTC anytime you want without their permission. (Which means that, essentially, it's not a promise)

Fuckin' genius I'll say.

[franky1]

To start: I use on-chain Bitcoin, and I use Bitcoin LN. Bitcoin can work with or without LN, LN can't work without Bitcoin. I don't like high fees, as it limits adoption. I would like to see Bitcoin grow in value, userbase and number of transactions per second, and I think we need all three of those for Bitcoin to grow. How, that's up for debate.

LN is a different network for a reason. it has its own usecase and niche and utility that differs from bitcoins.

ok i must start with the first fatal flaw.
LN CAN infact work without bitcoin. LN's function allows it to peg to different blockchains. its usability of LN is not fixed to only work with bitcoin. nor is it under any condition that the another altcoins can only work on LN if LN is pegged to bitcoin at the same time
LN has no network wide audit/consensus that checks that all nodes/channels are all connected to the bitcoin network.
some LN users right now only have channels/nodes pegged to litecoin

My opinion regarding the Lightning Network can be interpreted by the following example I've written;

Picture it as following; bitcoin is a type of metal and you ought to store it in a safe place. However, you can't pay with a metal for everyday transactions. Thus, you go to a guy who's willing to give you the option to give him a portion of your bitcoin in exchange for the ability to create agreements with other people who have also given their bitcoin this way. Now you can transact without touching your metal at all. It's faster, cheaper and smarter way to transact.

That being said, add that this guy cannot cheat or lie to you in any way. You've handed out your coins, but they can't steal them from you. You're free to withdraw their promise for BTC anytime you want without their permission. (Which means that, essentially, it's not a promise)

Fuckin' genius I'll say.

to this he is very much expressing how bitcoin is like gold. and LN is like bank notes.
however there are many ways to cheat the joint bank account partner.
many devs and LN users have lost funds. even with "punishment" clauses attached.

as for the "free to withdraw their promise anytime without permission". the LN millisat promise is a separate promise from the bitcoin sat denominated commitment. both of which need the signature of the other party
if a HTLC "secret" reveal is not sent ontime. problems start
if the other party does not sign the settlement commitment on time. problems start
as for the "cant cheat".. the whole punishment clause is because cheating can happen and activating the punishment clause when cheating has happened, involves the victim noticing the cheating fast enough

[BlackHatCoiner]

many devs and LN users have lost funds. even with "punishment" clauses attached

And many have lost their keys, have misused a wallet software, have set an unbelievably high transaction fee. Does this make things not work or is it just a poor treatment of reality?

Yes lots must have lost money in the way you described but there are solutions to avoid it (watchtowers). In other words: This time the cheater is discouraged to cheat. It's a huge step to move from a completely trusted debt-based monetary system to a trustless one. Agreed?

[franky1]

Yes lots must have lost money in the way you described but there are solutions to avoid it (watchtowers). In other words: This time the cheater is discouraged to cheat. It's a huge step to move from a completely trusted debt-based monetary system to a trustless one. Agreed?

watchtowers.. ok now you are creating bank managers.
so now people have to trust their channel partner to not cheat. and then trust a bank manager to watch that the partner has not cheated. and hope the watchtower server does not glitch out and go offline one day, thus not able to watch and activate punishments.

oh and watchtowers can only intercept and change ownership if you trust them to have the keys to do these interceptions on your behalf..

so where is this trustless system you mentioned?

in short
my keys my coin. not my keys not my coin.
multisig requiring third party signing is not trustless independence, definitely not permissionless
giving others your keys is not trustless

useful advice:
by now admitting that cheating can happen and maybe can be discouraged via other features. please try to say cheating can happen but can be discouraged.. rather than saying "they cant cheat"

utopian fantasy advert of PR: "they cant cheat"
honest, risk aware PR advert: "they could cheat but it can be discouraged using other 'trust' features"

[Rath_]

franky1, please stop editing your posts and make new ones instead. It's really difficult to keep up with you when you edit the same post over and over again.

LN has no network wide audit/consensus that checks that all nodes/channels are all connected to the bitcoin network.

The only reasons why you need to be connected to the Bitcoin network are: 1) you need to check if the funding transaction has been confirmed  2) you need to process new incoming blocks and check if the other party didn't broadcast a commitment transaction 3) the other party might request a fee update to the latest commitment transaction; if your response is too low or too large then your peer might close or temporarily disable the channel

Currently, the third point enforces connection to some Bitcoin backend, but I could see someone modifying their client to use some third-party source for fee estimates. However, this would put them at a risk as someone could close the channel and keep using it. The modified node would keep singing new commitment transactions even though their inputs could have been already spent which would make all of those transactions invalid.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Alright, so we're now talking about the protocol.

so where is this trustless system you mentioned?

Can you be responsible for not allowing you others to cheat you? Then it's a trustless system. Now if it's easy or not to protect yourself this way is another thing to discuss. I take the fact that before I couldn't do a thing, but now I have an extra option.

multisig requiring third party signing is not trustless independence, definitely not permissionless

When you want to close your channel? You've already got the signatures before you even open it.

by now admitting that cheating can happen and maybe can be discouraged via other features. please try to say cheating can happen but can be discouraged..

Of course and cheating can happen. This is true for everything. Someone may also rip you off in the Bitcoin network by maliciously gaining access to your keys. It can happen with physical cash too. The fact that they're discouraged to do so (hopefully) makes it safe.

When you're more encouraged than discouraged to play by the rules is when things work properly. I have never been cheated by my lightning partners, have you?

[Rath_]

When you're more encouraged than discouraged to play by the rules is when things work properly. I have never been cheated by my lightning partners, have you?

You don't have do it on purpose. Accidents happen. Someone could run an old backup and close the channel using their (outdated) commitment transaction.

oh and watchtowers can only intercept and change ownership if you trust them to have the keys to do these interceptions on your behalf..

Watchtowers do not hold any keys. They only store pre-signed penalty transactions in an encrypted format. See LND's altruist watchtowers.

[franky1]

when i want to be paid on bitcoin. i see the coin confirm.. its mine. game over. no debate, its mine. finito.

when using LN and see the promised millisats. its not yet settled as being mine for good. there are many things that can take that value away from me.

if i want to settle. i have to wait for the other party to sign.
yes this may be automated to happen a millisecond after a HTLC secret is revealed. but even if a partner reveals the HTLC secret(LM millisat promise). he then has to sign off on the commitment(separate contract). and due to no network wide consensus. a partner can edit his own node software to break the 'autopilot' code to not auto update commitments straight after HTLC secret reveals

but even then, even if he did not break "autopilot" its not yet confirmed on bitcoin. and he can easily still send his older state commitments before you. and so you have to watch for his cheating and you then have to intercept and activate the punishment

soo much to do just to hope cheating does not happen. so much trust is needed to risk not having to watch 24/7
yes you have choices to discourage cheating. to ensure your promised payment eventually becomes your free and clear days later. . but with each extra choice to add extra safeguards requires more trust by other parties.

meanwhile, on bitcoin. when someone sends me value. its confirmed. finito. its mine, no takesy backsy's, no third party watchtower, no co-signer needed. no punishment. its just mine. done

Of course and cheating can happen. This is true for everything. Someone may also rip you off in the Bitcoin network by maliciously gaining access to your keys. It can happen with physical cash too. The fact that they're discouraged to do so (hopefully) makes it safe.

in bitcoin you are not forced to have your keys in your node. active on the internet 24/7.
in LN you cant take your keys out to then use in another wallet. people have lost access to channels when they tried.
when setting up a channel you have to put keys in even if you are just watching balance. those keys are needed actively all the time. even if you are not buying anything for yourself and instead just routing..

this flaw might be fixed in later wallets . but is a flaw right now. a big one. that puts people at higher risk of hackers due to it

Watchtowers do not hold any keys. They only store pre-signed penalty transactions in an encrypted format. See LND's altruist watchtowers.

because there is no network consensus on LN. although LND's variant of watchtower might be altruistic. there are other brands less altruistic.
for instance watchtowers that are based more on the "factory" concept (fed reserve hub) methodology

LN has no network wide audit/consensus that checks that all nodes/channels are all connected to the bitcoin network.

The only reasons why you need to be connected to the Bitcoin network are: 1) you need to check if the funding transaction has been confirmed  2) you need to process new incoming blocks and check if the other party didn't broadcast a commitment transaction 3) the other party might request a fee update to the latest commitment transaction; if your response is too low or too large then your peer might close or temporarily disable the channel

Currently, the third point enforces connection to some Bitcoin backend, but I could see someone modifying their client to use some third-party source for fee estimates. However, this would put them at a risk as someone could close the channel and keep using it. The modified node would keep singing new commitment transactions even though their inputs could have been already spent which would make all of those transactions invalid.

LN can work with litecoin and other coins. you are not sanctioned to only handle bitcoin when using LN.
many users right now use LN but do not bridge to the bitcoin network. there is no need to monitor bitcoin by all LN users

some users are even using LN with a completely different token privately agreed with just themselves. this token has no blockchain at all


anyway lets skip ahead a few debates and just get to some talking points finalised/rated to see peoples understanding so far
ill number them and you can quote them and put a * mark in which box you agree or disagree with

1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]
2. LN promises (payments inside LN) are denominated in picocoin(11decimal) also known as msat/millisat
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]
3. LN promises (payments inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]
4. bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued promises
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]
5. LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]
6.LN wont work without bitcoin
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[DooMAD]

1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

They do different things.  However, it's not accurate to say they are "separate".  There's clearly a connection between the two.  They are arguably symbiont networks.

6.LN wont work without bitcoin
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

This is a loaded question.  Litecoin's Lightning network won't work without Litecoin.  Bitcoin's Lightning network won't work without Bitcoin.  The fact that LN can be built on top of multiple blockchains does not diminish the utility it can offer users of the underlying blockchain. 

[franky1]

i actually (for once) tried to keep the post short.. meaning tried to not load the questions..
by making them short and simple  to not have extra waffly clauses included
(usually you argue i load posts by waffling. now you say i load them by avoiding waffle)

so lets do the waffle version, explaining my thoughts and using examples

i can run a lightning wallet right now and it is not fixed to only work on bitcoin.
LN is not symbiotic(life depends on it) with bitcoin. LN can symbiosis with other networks..

also without having to download a different lightning wallet, i can bridge to litecoin or other crypto.

which is different than bitcoin or litecoin software which only works with their respective network.
(EG like litecoin electrum is a different software than bitcoin electrum)
(EG like litecoin core is a different software than bitcoin core)
(where litecoin core and litecoin electrum only work on litecoin.. and bitcoincore and bitcoin electrum only work on bitcoin)

one piece of software is inter-changeable with different networks, but not sub-servant. reliant to any of them

so using the same lightning wallet software i can set up a channel with many crypto networks.
i can run the same lightning software and have litecoin and a different crypto channels both active. at the same time. without the need to also have to bridge to bitcoin just to make LN work

in LN i can (with only litecoin bridge) communicate with lightning partners that bridged to bitcoin*

because the peer-to-peer structure of LN is not a handshake that requires both to use bitcoin.

lightning network can work without bitcoin even when partnering with users that have bitcoin channels
maybe by admitting to this you might be able to explain the positives of such, like highlighting atomic swaps

LN is its own network. there is no litecoin LN network and LN bitcoin network. thats just a user interface error in thinking. not a separation at code level that prevents such communication between peers.

again maybe if you see why LN is different and how inter-operable/bridgeable it is with other blockchain networks, whilst not being those blockchain networks, and not needed to only function with one blockchain, you could use it as a positive PR

*i personally havnt held LTC since 2014, but i have used ltc testnet with LN and done this with LN nodes bridged only to bitcoin.
(as one of my many tests of LN to look at how well it plays/fails and what its good and bad points are(found many flaws))

..
hmm
useful advice:
if you now want to distinguish that LN is not one network. but a bunch of networks of same name, each dedicated to each bridged coin.. im guessing you should use the plural lightning networks, instead of the singular lightning network.

maybe have a lil fun with it. with a Z instead of a S .. lightning networkz (z=lightning bolt shape)

i know you maybe ready to itch a scratch and say that within the LN island, there are separate towns like bitcoinLN and litecoinLN .. and then try to justify it that somehow bitcoinLN town is actually the bitcoin network

but bitcoin is a completely different continent. and you can to bridge to it. but LN island its not the same fixed land as bitcoin which cant move or be independent of. reality is it is its own island. and with the right PR that can be seen as a good thing

so be more realistic that nodes can communicate with different peers no matter what the bridged blockchain they have
(if your wallet cant do this then, your behind the game.. all you need is a nodes public key and IP.. nothing more)
whereby you can highlight this feature as a PR spin for atomic swaps. where people dont already need to have bitcoin to get bitcoin in trade for their litecoin

[pooya87]

I was going to sell some bitcoin in the next few days, and I gave my client my binance address. He immediately asked if I could be paid in BEP2 chain (Binance chain, using a BTC pegged token). I accepted, as it is a free and instant transaction and I was not going to hold that bitcoin for long.

Now, is a BTC pegged token bitcoin? It is not, but i guess it is useful for bitcoin adoption and awareness.

So, to summarize: Off-chain solutions are already happening. They are useful. LN is the best off-chain solution, but people do use it all the time yet. LN would be good for my transaction? Well, I think not as good as the BEP2 solution, but it would work.

That is a terrible and irrelevant example.

Binance chain has nothing to do with bitcoin at all, there is not even a weak link between the two chains. Binance chain is a completely centralized chain that is 100% controlled and owned by Binance. If some day Binance vanishes (like when government shuts them for money laundering), the Binance chain vanishes too alongside any tokens you had there or your balance in your Binance account.

In comparison LN is not only directly linked to bitcoin, it relies on bitcoin. Nobody can shut down LN since it is a completely decentralized layer without any central authority.
Additionally in order to transact in LN you don't need to convert your bitcoins to another coin with an exchange rate (even if it is 1:1 rate), you directly open your channel and enter this second layer. But in order to transact in another chain like Binance you have to convert your bitcoins to and from that token with an exchange rate that may change in the future. For example they may pay you 1 bitcoin for every 10 binancebitcoin you had. Just as they can print more tokens on that chain since there is nothing stopping them from doing so.

[NotATether]

Think of it this way:

There are several different tokens that can be called "USDT". So off the top of my head, I can list "USDT (Omni) which runs on the Bitcoin network", the "USDT (TRC-20)" on Tron's chain, and finally the one everybody actually seems to call "Tether" but they are most of the time referring to the ERC-20 token that runs on Ethereum's network.

I said "most of the time" because a lot of those people don't have the slightest clue what is actually meant by Tether but this is the token the Tether company is referring to as it.

My point is that Tether is a loaded term that people refer to different tokens by.

In the case of LN, most people do know that they are referring to the LN that runs on Bitcoin's network, when they shorten the term to just "Lightning Network".

Of course, there are instances of the protocol running on other networks as well, but they are way less used, which is what's contributing to people thinking that Lightning Network is tech that's only used on bitcoin (even though there are a small number of people using it on other networks).

As for LN being able to exist without Bitcoin - well the technology can't run by itself without an underlying chain. It isn't designed to do that. So you can't host a LN that is not connected to any coin's network, you need some like of L1 whether that be Bitcoin or something else.

The takeaway here is that LN is a loaded term just like Tether that refers to the different L2 networks running on top of Bitcoin-derived coins.

[BlackHatCoiner]

in bitcoin you are not forced to have your keys in your node. active on the internet 24/7.

If you're trying to tell me that you're more confident of being secure in the Bitcoin network, I can easily agree. Lightning is a far more complex term and therefore, requires more awareness from the user's side. However, I can't unsee the fact that you're still, after all, discouraged to cheat me.

because there is no network consensus on LN. although LND's variant of watchtower might be altruistic

Can I have a little bit more context? What does consensus have to do with an implementation of LND's altruist watchtowers? Why is it required?

1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things

Yes, they're different networks. However, the Bitcoin's Lightning network can't work without the Bitcoin network. The Lightning network can't work itself without a first layer.

2. LN promises (payments inside LN) are denominated in picocoin(11decimal) also known as msat/millisat

Yes and no. The transactions are made in msats, but the force-close transaction (which is what distinguishes from other debt-based systems) is in BTC.

3. LN promises (payments inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction

I guess “inside LN” means those after you've opened your channel and before you close it. Yes, agreed.

4. bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued promises

Of course.

5. LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network

Yes, however there's no reason I can think of to use it in Litecoin.

6.LN wont work without bitcoin

Theoretically it can work without Bitcoin. Honestly, though, in practice it wouldn't have another reason of existence. I wouldn't use it in an altcoin. It's the decentralization of Bitcoin that makes it unique, IMO.

[franky1]

because there is no network consensus on LN. although LND's variant of watchtower might be altruistic

Can I have a little bit more context? What does consensus have to do with an implementation of LND's altruist watchtowers? Why is it required?

i am not the one that mentioned LND's altruist watchtowers as an example of how LN 'cant' have watchtowers that hold keys
i am not the one insinuating that LND watchtowers are the default thing/part of some strictly ruled consensus
i am not the one saying LN requires consensus to enforce that watch towers dont need keys

i clearly said that due to lack of consensus means LND's altruist watchtower is not the default policy regarding watchtowers

1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things

Yes, they're different networks. However, the Bitcoin's Lightning network can't work without the Bitcoin network. The Lightning network can't work itself without a first layer.

oh, but it can.. as we have just agreed, the lack of need of a consensus, means that peers can happily communicate with many networks and with no other blockchain due to the lack of network wide audited policy.
are you going to now flip flop about the lack of consensus.. ?
the lack of ned for consensus majority to implement features means people can connect together via just the requirement of a publickey and (ip/tor address)... and then once connected . then set up channels with their desired other network, or private internal token.

again a smart PR person could use this as a advert for the benefits of LN in regards to atomic swapping, evolving network without consensus conflict hindering progress

the ip/tor address connection.. and the subsequent public key, handshake does not lock peer partners to a specific blockchain. that public key and formation of joint multisig can be used on multiple blockchains, or no blockchain at all and just some private token they invent together. the lack of consensus allows this

2. LN promises (payments inside LN) are denominated in picocoin(11decimal) also known as msat/millisat

Yes and no. The transactions are made in msats, but the force-close transaction (which is what distinguishes from other debt-based systems) is in BTC.

number 2, is specific about the inside LN payments.. yet you want to confuse this ln payment. with the separate contract to the 'force-close' transaction you also mention.
if you cannot tell the difference. please look into it. dont confuse the two
seems you still cant separate things. and want to cause confusion by pretending they are the same.

here ill give an example of how to separate things..
a condom is not a penis. a condom is not essential for a penis. and a penis is not essential for a condom. people can have sex without a condom and people can use a condom as a balloon or a waterproof cover for a rifle nozzle.
although sometimes a condom is put over a penis. and in those times a woman only feels a condom inside her when the penis is inserted.. but at no time is a condom a penis
do you get the common sense of knowing the differences between a condom and a penis.
that they have two separate functions. one locks in seamen.. one releases seamen

the LN htlc promises.. denominated in msat are a different contract than the funding contract transaction and a different contract than the settlement contract.
and yes even the funding contract. and the settlement contract may be the same format. they are still separate contracts.

EG imagine on the bitcoin blockchain. you paid me with one confirmed transaction. and i paid loyce with another confirmed transaction.. the transaction to loyce is not the same contract as the one you paid to me.
LN payments are not only separate contract to a 'force-close' contract. but also in a very different format. making them significantly more different than each other.

if you want to confuse the matter by saying that litecoin contracts are the same as bitcoin contracts. then try to get an ltc transaction to confirm on bitcoin and then try to get a msat promise to confirm on bitcoin..
point is the msat promise(LN payment) wont ever be understood nor able to confirm on the bitcoin network,.. because.. the LN promise msat promise(LN payment) is not a bitcoin transaction. so dont pretend its the same thing

i know if i read your responses to points 3&4 you then backtrack to then acknowledge the difference. but i thought its worthy of highlighting your ignorance at this point, to then highlight your contradictions and flip flop acknowledgement in the next responses
can you please just stop flip flopping and just understand the differences in things, and stick to acknowledging them

3. LN promises (payments inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction

I guess “inside LN” means those after you've opened your channel and before you close it. Yes, agreed.

4. bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued promises

Of course.

i just explained your flip floppy contradictions. but thanks for finally admitting they are different (you made one step forward, dont try stepping back now, you made progress)
an LN payment (in msat) is not a fixed format that is only used as a mirror of a bitcoin 'force close' settlement contract
the LN payment when rounded and value 'associated to consider what value to settle on can be settled in different blockchain coin denominated contracts. there is no consensus or network wide audit at the point of rounding up/down a valuation of a LN payment and creating a subsequent blockchain formatted contract.
scammy partners can mess with this and not sign a settlement contract to update the promise value into something more
tangeable the victim can use to settle his promised value

5. LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network

Yes, however there's no reason I can think of to use it in Litecoin.

thats your personal opinion. not a physical, hardware or software restriction.
just because YOU dont use it for altcoins. doesnt mean the network cant

6.LN wont work without bitcoin

Theoretically it can work without Bitcoin. Honestly, though, in practice it wouldn't have another reason of existence. I wouldn't use it in an altcoin. It's the decentralization of Bitcoin that makes it unique, IMO.

thats your personal opinion. not a physical, hardware or software restriction..

just because you might only want to use a condom as a replacement of party balloons, does not mean thats its only function. other people have other uses of condoms.

trying to sell it as only to be used as a party balloon is a naive concept. where as a smart PR person can 'sell' a condom as many functions.

did you know in the military on tours of duty.. . more condoms are bought as a waterproof cover for their rifle nozzle. than bought for a soldier to cover his penis. sex is (discouraged in the military tour of duty)
does that mean the US government that funds soldiers waterproof budget should make TV adverts about condoms to be used only as waterproofs for guns?

[franky1]

Since i didn't find word "size", "block size" and "hard fork", i'll ask these question to @franky1
1. Do you think increasing block size limit is the only option for scaling (since you're not fan of SegWit, Taproot and LN)?
2. How should Bitcoin community determine block size limit?  Arbitrary number (4MB, 32MB, etc.)? Based on hardware/internet growth? Based on cost of running full node (e.g. maximum $500 for initial setup and $25/month for operational cost)?

1. there are many ways to increase transaction counts.
a. reducing the tx_signops_limit. dis-incentivizes big corps from filling blocks with just a few hundred transactions,
b. using the now allowed 4mb 'quota' removing the still existent 1mb wall. and the cludgy math that goes with it, allows full 4mb utility rather than constraining transaction data to the 1mb limit
c. also changing the fee formulae to make 'spam transactions (those that spend multiple times a day/every block, just to bloat blocks) more expensive will cut down the amount of needless transactions, giving more room to genuine spenders

2. we are not in 1999 days of floppy disks and dialup.
in 2010 average internet speed was  1.9mbs
in 2022 average internet speed is 58mbs
thats a 30.5x scaling of internet speeds
hard drives are now 4tb and within your range of costs(~$100 ~£75)

a raspberry pi and a 4tb is within your $500 spend limit
as is a $400 desktop with a 4tb hard drive upgrade

as for your monthly internet cost..
without even considering if an average american uses bitcoin.. just to get good internet for real life entertainment the average american spends $61 on the internet.. so i think you have set a very low bar for monthly costs of $25..
heck it costs an average american $25/month just to have their lights, tv and computer on (normal life stuff)


but converting YOUR $25 low bar to UK£ .. yes i can get more then 60mbs for £20 internet with no monthly cap

so lets say people upgrade their computer every 6 years
meaning ~600gb a year. is about 11mb per block..

now im not saying lets jump to 11mb a block now because hardware and internet can cope with it.. im just saying.. internet and hardware can cope with it so people need to drop the 1999 internet/hardware spec propaganda and realise its 2022

as for what the community wanted in 2017 was a 2mb base atleast. i would now say thats about 4mb base block as a acceptable way to go. and that can be achieved by just removing the 'weight' miscalculating cludgy code and just having the maxblocksize as 4mb straight and open for full transaction utility. along with a new fee formulae and sigoplimit reduction to avoid bloaty spam.

as for things like taproot and segwit.
though segwit promised more transactions and cheaper fee's segwit has had 4 years and by the looks of the transaction count charts and the block bloat charts.. the efficiency of transactions per Xbytes have not flourished as promised.

as you can see the average transactions in last 3 years

downward trajectory..
but the bloat is in an upward trajectory.

meaning the transaction per XXXbytes is becoming less efficient due to all these new "smart contract" bloat.

oh and one other segwit promise was the 4x discount of transactions. yet code reveals its not legacy /4 = segwit prices. its instead segwit * 4 = legacy prices.
they did not discount segwit. they instead increased legacy

static const int WITNESS_SCALE_FACTOR = 4;


            // New feerate uses satoshis per virtual byte instead of per serialized byte
            CAmount feerate = weight ? (txfee * WITNESS_SCALE_FACTOR) / weight : 0;


if train tickets were $10, and there was a promise of 4x discount you would think train tickets would be $2.50.
instead though the station decided to make standard seats $40 and new carriages $10

maybe taproot might help change this smart contract inefficiency.. but lets see.. because so far segwit has not helped, even though that was a promise..(as was the NYA 2mb base that triggered(reached threshold in days) allowing segwit to activate).. and we all can see that didnt happen