Lightning and Ark are Bitcoin, not an altcoin :)

[BlackHatCoiner]

The lightning channel.

The lightning channel is a Bitcoin script. It is a script that the Bitcoin protocol understands. So the Bitcoin protocol has my funds, and I have custody over them.

[Satofan44]

Aren't they protocols made on top of Bitcoin?  Yes, they deal with Bitcoin transactions and settle in bitcoin but they have extra features that are not actually within the Bitcoin protocol.  Being compatible to Bitcoin protocol does not automatically make a protocol Bitcoin, does it?

Most people who claim otherwise do not even know what the OSI model is, they do not even have the mental capability to think in layers of any kind even though they are using 7 layers of the internet the whole time that they are accessing their stupid content online. It works exactly the same and there is absolutely no difference of any kind that is meaningful.

Someone gonna need to answer me on this.
Is L2 something we can call Bitcoin still? Aren't they trying to make things better for Bitcoin itself? How are they they real Bitcoin?

I guess you are not using the internet then now, since you are on layer 7 and that is not the internet. What kind of retarded argument is this? Did you even read this thread? It has been explained exactly how they are Bitcoin by several people in different ways -- there exist no such thing as "Lightning Bitcoin" as a separate concept like you would find tokens in a shitcoin like ETH. It is merely an UI representation of the state of Bitcoin that are locked in Bitcoin transactions on the L1. Even when we abstract things to make it simpler to understand and use, people still fucking can't grasp even the simplest of concepts.

Ethereum is a Layer 1 projects, a full smart contract capable one, and some layer 2 came to make Ethereum better, maybe we should start calling them Ethereum too?

Stop shitposting with this bullshit, those are completely centralized networks that use master-keys and bridges. It is like comparing an apple to a walrus.  

The lightning channel is a Bitcoin script. It is a script that the Bitcoin protocol understands. So the Bitcoin protocol has my funds, and I have custody over them.

Putting malicious individuals and trolls aside, I swear fewer than 10% of the population is able to engage in any kind of abstract thinking -- those are my observations in recent times, in this forum it is even worse. It is like we have a cesspool of people that have an average IQ of 80 or less.

[legiteum]

The lightning channel.

The lightning channel is a Bitcoin script. It is a script that the Bitcoin protocol understands. So the Bitcoin protocol has my funds, and I have custody over them.

Where does the script run?

[BlackHatCoiner]

Putting malicious individuals and trolls aside, I swear fewer than 10% of the population is able to engage in any kind of abstract thinking -- those are my observations in recent times, in this forum it is even worse.

This forum is just getting passively worse and worse, and I don't care what the optimists say. Besides franky1, I remember there were structured discussions with adults back in the day. People could actually argue on inconsistencies.

Where does the script run?

Have a small talk with an LLM, to save us both some time. A Bitcoin script runs on Bitcoin, a lightning channel is a Bitcoin script, and Lightning is lightning channels that you open and close unilaterally with anyone in the world. Try feeding that to the AI, and have it lecture me about Bitcoin. Maybe I've misunderstood how Bitcoin works my entire life, there's a chance there.  

[legiteum]

Where does the script run?

Have a small talk with an LLM, to save us both some time. A Bitcoin script runs on Bitcoin, a lightning channel is a Bitcoin script, and Lightning is lightning channels that you open and close unilaterally with anyone in the world. Try feeding that to the AI, and have it lecture me about Bitcoin. Maybe I've misunderstood how Bitcoin works my entire life, there's a chance there.  

It was a rhetorical question, I understand very well how Lightning--and the Lightning Network--works.

But sure, I'm lazy and don't feel like explaining it to you, so here's ChatGPT's answer:

"A Bitcoin Lightning transaction runs off-chain, inside the Lightning Network, not directly on the Bitcoin blockchain.

More specifically:

When you pay someone over Lightning, the payment is routed through a path of Lightning nodes connected by payment channels. Each channel is backed by a Bitcoin on-chain transaction, but the individual Lightning payment itself is just a series of signed balance updates between nodes."

***
You see, with computers, code needs to run somewhere, not on some vague abstraction called, "Bitcoin".

A Lightning node is either a private node you agree to use with the person you are trading with (not decentralized, not trustless, NOT BITCOIN), or its a node on the Lightning Network that might already have the pairing you want, the LN being, you guessed it, not decentralized, not trustless, NOT BITCOIN.

Bitcoin is a trustless network: any given node could be running malign software and the network will take care of that automatically. Further, the Bitcoin network is resistant to 51% attacks because of the proof-of-work model. That's what makes Bitcoin, Bitcoin.

Lightning nodes are not trustless because they can't be: because they don't have PoW, they are subject to 51% attacks. Because of that, they are trusted nodes--again, just like CoinBase is.

If you want to trust a centralized network like Lightning, I won't stop you. Chances are it's perfectly fine to use, just like CoinBase, Robinhood, ETFs, PoS cryptos like Ether, and fast stablecoins are all perfectly fine for the most part.

But the Bitcoin religious hardcores say that all of those things I mentioned above are Evil, but somehow LN is not (because it's the same thing as Bitcoin, they say). It's nonsense.

[ABCbits]

Lightning nodes are not trustless because they can't be: because they don't have PoW, they are subject to 51% attacks. Because of that, they are trusted nodes--again, just like CoinBase is.

Just because LN doesn't have PoW, it doesn't mean LN works by trusting each other. Since LN node connected to Bitcoin node, there are some things LN actually check such as
1. Checking other participant cheating by broadcast earlier state of the LN channel. It's what watchtower feature.
2. Verify the channel existence by checking for actual Bitcoin TX that open channel. That way, LN node also know the channel balance flow and other things.

Comparing LN with Coinbase is ridiculous, due to reason on my previous reply.

[Somegory]

Where does the script run?

Have a small talk with an LLM, to save us both some time. A Bitcoin script runs on Bitcoin, a lightning channel is a Bitcoin script, and Lightning is lightning channels that you open and close unilaterally with anyone in the world. Try feeding that to the AI, and have it lecture me about Bitcoin. Maybe I've misunderstood how Bitcoin works my entire life, there's a chance there.  

It was a rhetorical question, I understand very well how Lightning--and the Lightning Network--works.

But sure, I'm lazy and don't feel like explaining it to you, so here's ChatGPT's answer:

"A Bitcoin Lightning transaction runs off-chain, inside the Lightning Network, not directly on the Bitcoin blockchain.

More specifically:

When you pay someone over Lightning, the payment is routed through a path of Lightning nodes connected by payment channels. Each channel is backed by a Bitcoin on-chain transaction, but the individual Lightning payment itself is just a series of signed balance updates between nodes."

***
You see, with computers, code needs to run somewhere, not on some vague abstraction called, "Bitcoin".

A Lightning node is either a private node you agree to use with the person you are trading with (not decentralized, not trustless, NOT BITCOIN), or its a node on the Lightning Network that might already have the pairing you want, the LN being, you guessed it, not decentralized, not trustless, NOT BITCOIN.

Bitcoin is a trustless network: any given node could be running malign software and the network will take care of that automatically. Further, the Bitcoin network is resistant to 51% attacks because of the proof-of-work model. That's what makes Bitcoin, Bitcoin.

Lightning nodes are not trustless because they can't be: because they don't have PoW, they are subject to 51% attacks. Because of that, they are trusted nodes--again, just like CoinBase is.

If you want to trust a centralized network like Lightning, I won't stop you. Chances are it's perfectly fine to use, just like CoinBase, Robinhood, ETFs, PoS cryptos like Ether, and fast stablecoins are all perfectly fine for the most part.

But the Bitcoin religious hardcores say that all of those things I mentioned above are Evil, but somehow LN is not (because it's the same thing as Bitcoin, they say). It's nonsense.

If you keep this going this thread is going to be a very long one because trust me some people on here are ready to make you realize that they are right and you are wrong.

Me looking at both sides I believe you are both right, some people will always believe that Lightening Bitcoin is Bitcoin and there are some like you that doesn't believe the same and it's fine.

Why should I keep trying to make people realise that I am right? Safe yourself the energy and let everyone believe in what they want, that Bitcoin Lightening though, I am wondering why the majority of merchants and online stores aren't accepting it.

The last time I purchased some things using Bitcoin, all options I get has no LN available, Bitcoin was first and USDT was the second while ETH followed, no one really cares much about LN.

[Satofan44]

Me looking at both sides I believe you are both right, some people will always believe that Lightening Bitcoin is Bitcoin and there are some like you that doesn't believe the same and it's fine.

The world is not a religious and subjective thing -- there is no case of "both sides" being right here. If one side says the Earth is round and the other side says the Earth is flat, you will say that "both sides are right"? Fuck off with that misinformation. The question of whether LN transactions are Bitcoin is not one of subjectivity, it is of technological facts and there is nothing to debate. If it were not Bitcoin itself, then they would exist as separate units which they do not. If you do not have the technological understanding to confirm this fact, then you should stay away from threads like this.

The last time I purchased some things using Bitcoin, all options I get has no LN available, Bitcoin was first and USDT was the second while ETH followed, no one really cares much about LN.

False, you anecdotal evidence has no basis to be generalized to the wider reality. LN is widely use both online and in person, and the statistics about its volume show this to be true. I pay with LN regularly, almost on a weekly basis.

Putting malicious individuals and trolls aside, I swear fewer than 10% of the population is able to engage in any kind of abstract thinking -- those are my observations in recent times, in this forum it is even worse.

This forum is just getting passively worse and worse, and I don't care what the optimists say. Besides franky1, I remember there were structured discussions with adults back in the day. People could actually argue on inconsistencies.

I've read some of that user's posts, and at least he put effort into his misinformation and not this "yeah it could be that Earth is not a solid but in fact a gas, both sides have some points about that".   As you see, the majority of posts on this thread were partially or completely incorrect.

[legiteum]

Lightning nodes are not trustless because they can't be: because they don't have PoW, they are subject to 51% attacks. Because of that, they are trusted nodes--again, just like CoinBase is.

Just because LN doesn't have PoW, it doesn't mean LN works by trusting each other. Since LN node connected to Bitcoin node, there are some things LN actually check such as
1. Checking other participant cheating by broadcast earlier state of the LN channel. It's what watchtower feature.
2. Verify the channel existence by checking for actual Bitcoin TX that open channel. That way, LN node also know the channel balance flow and other things.

Comparing LN with Coinbase is ridiculous, due to reason on my previous reply.

You are implying that you trust the software on the Lightning node the moment you say, "it checks xxxx". A Lightning node is a computer running software that somebody installed on it. It might be official Lightning distribution, or it might be an altered version. When you use it, you trust that it is running software that is not going to screw you over, or be taken over by a government, etc. Again, with Bitcoin, you don't need to trust any given node because of the consensus rules, and you can be confident that the network hasn't been taken by a 51% attack since it has PoW.

Understand that I personally think Lightning, CoinBase, Robinhood, the ETFs, PoS-based cryptos, and fast stablecoins that rely on more trusted nodes are mostly fine. Indeed, almost all of the daily trading for Bitcoin these days goes through systems like these, and it's all mostly fine. CoinBase isn't going to rip off its customers or get hacked because their business depends on them being safe. The US government isn't coming after Bitcoin or Bitcoin holders either. It's all fine.

But that's not good enough for religious Bitcoin hard-cores, who insist that even if the US government collapses into dictatorship, their Bitcoin will be fine (they might even say it would become more valuable). They tout Bitcoin as a hedge against Armageddon, etc., and a critical part of that is the trustless aspect of the Bitcoin network.

In other words, for religious Bitcoin hard-cores--who sometimes call themselves, "decentralization maximalists" for instance--the entire point of Bitcoin is its complete decentralization, and they call anything not decentralized evil and bad. They say Ether is terrible because it's PoS and now PoW, they say that using Bitcoin any other way than natively with self-custody is not Bitcoin, etc.

This is all fine, but things get weird when then learn about this thing we call "architectural trade-offs" in computer architecture: that Bitcoin's decentralization comes with an enormous cost in transaction latency (speed), efficiency, scalability, and simplicity. And there is physically no way around this trade-off: you either get one or another. What this means, in short, is that Bitcoin will never scale to handle mainstream payments. It's simply impossible. Now, I think a lot of the religious folks are fine with that, and love their Bitcoin as it actually is.

But some hard-cores seem to want more than that: they want Bitcoin to handle every daily transaction made by humans. They surmise that if Bitcoin fails to be the mainstream transaction mechanism, and is limited only to an investment instrument, then it will fail. (To be clear, I somewhat agree with this assessment, but that's just me). Hence, as a coping mechanism, they temporarily forget what makes Bitcoin, Bitcoin, and graft a centralized system onto the idea and call it the same thing.

[BlackHatCoiner]

You are implying that you trust the software on the Lightning node the moment you say, "it checks xxxx".

By the same line of reasoning, when you use a Bitcoin wallet, you trust the software the moment it displays a balance, and therefore you are not totally sure this is the Bitcoin protocol that it adheres. It could be fake.

A Lightning node is a computer running software that somebody installed on it.

It is a computer program installed by the same user who owns the Bitcoin node.

Yeah, you simply don't get how it works. You're confused, maybe you're only aware of custodial lightning wallets in which a third party owns the lightning channel. The fact is you can use lightning completely non-custodially, just as with the Bitcoin in your wallet. As a matter of fact, many Bitcoin wallets do support lightning.

[legiteum]

It is a computer program installed by the same user who owns the Bitcoin node.

If you implicitly trust Bitcoin nodes, you don't understand how Bitcoin works. It's a trustless network. Google it.

[Kalchef]

Call me dumb, I don't know much about Bitcoin and the Blockchain and I am still learning.

I don't think that I will want to call Lightning Bitcoin something different because if Lightning Network is different why did it have the same value as Bitcoin? Like I've said let's say I am stupid.

If LN is different it should have different value too, for those who used Ethereum as a example, it's a smart contract capable Blockchain but every coins that run on Ethereum has different max supply, different value.

LN has same max supply as Bitcoin, it has the same value as Bitcoin, how is it not Bitcoin?

[Satofan44]

Call me dumb, I don't know much about Bitcoin and the Blockchain and I am still learning.

I don't think that I will want to call Lightning Bitcoin something different because if Lightning Network is different why did it have the same value as Bitcoin? Like I've said let's say I am stupid.

If LN is different it should have different value too, for those who used Ethereum as a example, it's a smart contract capable Blockchain but every coins that run on Ethereum has different max supply, different value.

On the surface you may think that this is a valid argument, but it is not. Things that are "the same" could have different values due to various conditions, e.g., timelock or time to delivery, and things that are different could have the same value. If you go along your lines of argument, then every single wrapped Bitcoin is the same as Bitcoin -- but it is not, they are centralized tokens on various shitcoin networks. They do not offer any benefit that Bitcoin does when you use them, but they have the same value as they are "allegedly" pegged (until they are not).

LN has same max supply as Bitcoin, it has the same value as Bitcoin, how is it not Bitcoin?

LN does not have a "supply" in the way that you would refer to as supply traditionally in the context of blockchains, although you can see the number of Bitcoin that are locked in LN-compatible transactions as its supply. You are right to point out that its theoretical max supply is the same as Bitcoin, but that is not an argument that confirms it is Bitcoin either for the same lines of reasoning that I have told you above.
I have said it already, the Bitcoin on LN is just an UI abstraction to make the understanding of the Bitcoin transactions through which it happens intuitive. The fact is that there is no such thing as "LN Bitcoin" at all, they are Bitcoin from layer 1. The concept is just an abstraction of the underlying mechanism and by creating a connection between all of these transactions a network is created which creates a layer 2. Any person can choose to create their own mini lightning network with other parties, in the style of a federation, if they wanted to engage in these transactions in a slightly different way. That too, would still be Bitcoin even if it is private -- to claim otherwise would be ridiculous. Things do not suddenly become "not-Bitcoin" because you see some key words that trigger thinking about other concepts. Private Bitcoin channels are possible, federated Bitcoin channels are possible, and many other kinds are possible, LN is just a network of public channels.

[Kalchef]

Call me dumb, I don't know much about Bitcoin and the Blockchain and I am still learning.

I don't think that I will want to call Lightning Bitcoin something different because if Lightning Network is different why did it have the same value as Bitcoin? Like I've said let's say I am stupid.

If LN is different it should have different value too, for those who used Ethereum as a example, it's a smart contract capable Blockchain but every coins that run on Ethereum has different max supply, different value.

On the surface you may think that this is a valid argument, but it is not. Things that are "the same" could have different values due to various conditions, e.g., timelock or time to delivery, and things that are different could have the same value. If you go along your lines of argument, then every single wrapped Bitcoin is the same as Bitcoin -- but it is not, they are centralized tokens on various shitcoin networks. They do not offer any benefit that Bitcoin does when you use them, but they have the same value as they are "allegedly" pegged (until they are not).

LN has same max supply as Bitcoin, it has the same value as Bitcoin, how is it not Bitcoin?

LN does not have a "supply" in the way that you would refer to as supply traditionally in the context of blockchains, although you can see the number of Bitcoin that are locked in LN-compatible transactions as its supply. You are right to point out that its theoretical max supply is the same as Bitcoin, but that is not an argument that confirms it is Bitcoin either for the same lines of reasoning that I have told you above.
I have said it already, the Bitcoin on LN is just an UI abstraction to make the understanding of the Bitcoin transactions through which it happens intuitive. The fact is that there is no such thing as "LN Bitcoin" at all, they are Bitcoin from layer 1. The concept is just an abstraction of the underlying mechanism and by creating a connection between all of these transactions a network is created which creates a layer 2. Any person can choose to create their own mini lightning network with other parties, in the style of a federation, if they wanted to engage in these transactions in a slightly different way. That too, would still be Bitcoin even if it is private -- to claim otherwise would be ridiculous. Things do not suddenly become "not-Bitcoin" because you see some key words that trigger thinking about other concepts. Private Bitcoin channels are possible, federated Bitcoin channels are possible, and many other kinds are possible, LN is just a network of public channels.

Nice, well this is not very hard to understand at all, thanks for pointing it all out, I bet many people don't even know or understand this, screenshot taken too as a reminder. 💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻

Thank you.

[legiteum]

Things do not suddenly become "not-Bitcoin" because you see some key words that trigger thinking about other concepts. Private Bitcoin channels are possible, federated Bitcoin channels are possible, and many other kinds are possible, LN is just a network of public channels.

Great, I'm very happy to see people here with an open mind about the Bitcoin architecture.

I too think we can drastically change the Bitcoin codebase--such as adding LN to it--and still call it "Bitcoin".

In fact, I started a discussion here that proposed changing the Bitcoin core to be more like LN (i.e. centralized, no more PoW, faster, cheaper, more scalable). Then every user of Bitcoin would automatically benefit from higher speed, lower transaction costs (almost zero if you did it right), and something that could truly handle every transaction on the planet.

This discussion asked the question: if you changed the Bitcoin core to be fast enough to handle all of the world's transactions, wouldn't it go UP in value? Wouldn't the price of Bitcoin moon? Wouldn't this be better for Bitcoin's long-term survival?

Of course many hard-core religious Bitcoiners had objections around some of those "key words" you are talking about, but the discussion also had a lot of people like yourself who were open to discussing things more pragmatically, too.

The key is to drop the religion and just focus on how Bitcoin can benefit society--and benefit current BTC holders with an asset that appreciates.

Glad to have you on board .

[Ambatman]

It is a computer program installed by the same user who owns the Bitcoin node.

If you implicitly trust Bitcoin nodes, you don't understand how Bitcoin works. It's a trustless network. Google it.

So is wrong if I trust my own nodes? If you don't know anybody can run a full node.

I too think we can drastically change the Bitcoin codebase--such as adding LN to it--and still call it "Bitcoin".

It would be anything but Bitcoin.
It isn't Bitcoin because people call it Bitcoin but what it represents.
What ever you would have is a downgraded copy that can never be Bitcoin.
When you turn a chair to a table
You can't call it a chair because that was what it was before.

if you changed the Bitcoin core to be fast enough to handle all of the world's transactions, wouldn't it go UP in value? Wouldn't the price of Bitcoin moon? Wouldn't this be better for Bitcoin's long-term survival?

I can't even start listing the trade offs and go from this angle
Solana should have the fastest network but it's barely some fraction of Bitcoin.

on how Bitcoin can benefit society--and benefit current BTC holders with an asset that appreciates.

It already does that
And also adds Self custody as a huge bonus.
I would really love to see you point a coin that has risen like Bitcoin.

[ABCbits]

You are implying that you trust the software on the Lightning node the moment you say, "it checks xxxx". A Lightning node is a computer running software that somebody installed on it. It might be official Lightning distribution, or it might be an altered version. When you use it, you trust that it is running software that is not going to screw you over, or be taken over by a government, etc.

Whether i run Bitcoin node or Lightning node software (such as Bitcoin Core or LND), i mostly trust them because i don't have skill or time to review the whole source code.

Again, with Bitcoin, you don't need to trust any given node because of the consensus rules, and you can be confident that the network hasn't been taken by a 51% attack since it has PoW.

And with LN, there's no need to trust other LN node or participant either. Feature such as watchtower (that you can run by yourself) can verify other participant doesn't cheat by broadcasting earlier state of the LN channel. Are you even aware of Lightning Network specification (https://github.com/lightning/bolts), including how LN node supposed to perform verification.

[legiteum]

Whether i run Bitcoin node or Lightning node software (such as Bitcoin Core or LND), i mostly trust them because i don't have skill or time to review the whole source code.

That's nice. But I don't trust you, nor should I. That's the whole point of Bitcoin's architecture: you don't have to trust anybody.

And with LN, there's no need to trust other LN node or participant either. Feature such as watchtower (that you can run by yourself) can verify other participant doesn't cheat by broadcasting earlier state of the LN channel. Are you even aware of Lightning Network specification (https://github.com/lightning/bolts), including how LN node supposed to perform verification.

If you need to run watchtower every single time you talk to a node then it negates any performance gain you might have gotten from using LN. You might as well skip LN altogether and just use Bitcoin natively at that point.

Regardless, it doesn't matter who LN nodes are "supposed to" do anything. If the node is compromised, then it will do whatever it wants.


Ironically, LN's architecture is not only not decentralized, it naturally concentrates processing in a small number of nodes since they will be the ones connected to the things you want to connect to.

That's not always the case, but insofar as LN provides any performance gain over plain Bitcoin, then it must get more centralized.

Again, this is the central architectural trade-off of Bitcoin and decentralization: the more decentralization (the lower amount of trust), the lower the performance.

Have you ever wondered why, if LN is so awesome, they don't just make the Bitcoin core work like LN? It's because it's not decentralized (and it's not Bitcoin).

[ABCbits]

And with LN, there's no need to trust other LN node or participant either. Feature such as watchtower (that you can run by yourself) can verify other participant doesn't cheat by broadcasting earlier state of the LN channel. Are you even aware of Lightning Network specification (https://github.com/lightning/bolts), including how LN node supposed to perform verification.

If you need to run watchtower every single time you talk to a node then it negates any performance gain you might have gotten from using LN. You might as well skip LN altogether and just use Bitcoin natively at that point.

What performance? LN node connect itself to Bitcoin node, so watchtower just need to monitor Bitcoin node's mempool for TX that contain earlier state of the LN channel.

Regardless, it doesn't matter who LN nodes are "supposed to" do anything. If the node is compromised, then it will do whatever it wants.

Which apply to both Lighting node and Bitcoin node software.

Have you ever wondered why, if LN is so awesome, they don't just make the Bitcoin core work like LN? It's because it's not decentralized (and it's not Bitcoin).

Comparing LN (a protocol) and Bitcoin Core (Bitcoin full node software) doesn't even make sense in first place.

[Wind_FURY]

Wake up franky1.

OP, you should have opened this topic when franky1 was still around, and at the peak of his motivation of spreading FUD and disinformation about the Lightning Network.

It would quickly be a 10 page topic in one hour of back and forth with him explaining why the Bitcoin in the Lightning Network are "actually altcoins". The explanations he gave made me feel more stupid, me being the stupid one in the forum, after reading everything he posted word per word.