Lightning and Ark are Bitcoin, not an altcoin :)

[legiteum]

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.

Yes, but in order to be safer, you'd need to run watchtower for every single transaction since a node can go from "good" to "bad" instantaneously.

Also, watchtower itself can be fed false information, etc. etc.

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.

Good, now you are starting to get it.

Now understand how the Bitcoin network solves this problem: every transaction is tried with a plurality of nodes, which are selected at random and come from a very large pool of nodes that are all expensive to run thus diminishing the probability that a massive number of nodes will be added to the network by a single malign actor (aka 51% attack resistance delivered by PoW). If the nodes don't agree with your transaction's inputs, you try more nodes until you are certain of a consensus.

This is how Bitcoin allows you to make a transaction and yet not necessarily trust the nodes you interact with. This is the very core of the Bitcoin architecture and it's philosophy, so it's very ironic to me that many religious Bitcoin hardcores seem willing to throw this out and/or don't seem to understand what Bitcoin actually is.

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.

I wasn't "comparing" anything. I was merely asking a question for the Bitcoin religious hardcores: if you think LN can be the same as Bitcoin, then you've obviously crossed a major religious threshold, so why not just go all of the way? Why worry about those "keywords" ("decentralization", "zero trust", etc.) as a poster here put it, and just make the Bitcoin core as fast and efficient as possible?

[d5000]

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.

"Nodes" are not relevant in Lightning as a trust factor. Because if anybody tries to manipulate the communication and thus your balance, you always will have the unilateral exit. It is this exit threat that erases the trust necessary.

The transactions you need for the unilateral exit do not run "somewhere" on a "node", but on "your own" computer. You have the transaction in your memory or your disk. And thus you have always the power to fire up Bitcoin Core, Electrum or what you want, enter the transaction to perform the unilateral exit, and then any problem that is in some way related to "Lightning nodes" and the software that runs on it, becomes irrelevant, because you are again on the "on chain" level, secured by PoW.

The only objection, as I already wrote in the OP, is that Lightning software can have additional bugs and vulnerabilities. Just like any other Bitcoin software can have. But you need more software, so there is more bug potential, and thus Lightning transactions are a little bit more prone to bugs.

I answer to some arguments from the other thread to centralize the discussion here:

An L2 can double spend at will, too. It can do anything it wants. It's just software which can favor one user over another or do a million other things. It can censor transactions. It can do all of the things people say can't be done with plain Bitcoin.

As said above, if any of that happens, then the unilateral exit is your friend. And in LN-Penalty, if someone tries to scam you, they will be ... penalized.

Bitcoin runs on incentives, and the Bitcoin Script contracts we call "Lightning" do that too.

That bundling [between L1 and L2] doesn't happen by magic, it happens with a software and hardware system that bundles transactions for you (just like CoinBase et. al.).

The bundling happens via native Bitcoin Script, and always referencing on-chain UTXOs. As you say, there is no magic. The whole chain of potential on-chain transactions you need for the unilateral exit is saved on your own device, so you always have control over it.

Your implied assumption here is that the transaction is a good one on the Bitcoin network. How do you know that until you've committed the transaction on the Bitcoin chain? You don't. Perhaps the L2 is reserving the right to reverse the transaction later.

"The L2" isn't an autonomous entity who can do that, at least in the case of Lightning or Ark. How would "Lightning" do to reverse a transaction? Please explain this technically or your argument is invalid.

The logic is actually very simple.

You have, on your own device, the Bitcoin Script transaction to close the channel. It references an UTXO which is on-chain, and where you have control over, because it is signed with your key and the channel partner's key.

Only your channel partner can move that UTXO's funds. Either if he's using the unilateral exit (and then you get your money back). Or if he's penalizing you, but that happens only if you provided the secret which means you tried to cheat yourself. (Or you have a malware on your device which stole your key, but then it's not Lightning's fault.)

In all these cases, except when you cheat, you get your money back.

So there's no possibility for "the L2" to reverse transactions.

[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.

"Nodes" are not relevant in Lightning as a trust factor.

ROFL. So you simply trust your Bitcoin to be handled by any server on the Internet that promises to be running a certain code base? Are you insane? 

Because if anybody tries to manipulate the communication and thus your balance, you always will have the unilateral exit. It is this exit threat that erases the trust necessary.

When the software works as advertised, yes. If it's running a malign fork, then no, it won't do that. And you have NO WAY of knowing what you are talking to on the internet.

Your implied assumption here is that the transaction is a good one on the Bitcoin network. How do you know that until you've committed the transaction on the Bitcoin chain? You don't. Perhaps the L2 is reserving the right to reverse the transaction later.

"The L2" isn't an autonomous entity who can do that, at least in the case of Lightning or Ark. How would "Lightning" do to reverse a transaction? Please explain this technically or your argument is invalid.

It wouldn't commit the transaction in the first place, it would just tell you it did. You can check later (defeating the purpose of using the L2), but then your money is already gone.

You see, Satoshi actually knew what he was doing, believe it or not. He understood the problems of info security on the Internet. That's why Bitcoin was written the way it was, and that's why people trust billions of dollars of their own money on the network: because it hasn't been hacked. And info security experts like myself can look at the Bitcoin system and conclude the system is very safe (which has to do with far more than just the Bitcoin architecture btw).

And religious Bitcoin hardcores can conclude that Bitcoin "cannot be taken over by governments" since the network has features that makes that harder than it would be for a simpler centralized system (like LN for instance).

You see, that's the weird part of this conversation for me: that I'm having a discussion with religious Bitcoin hard-cores, yet they seem to fine with throwing away the core tenants of Bitcoin's religion.

(Total aside, but this reminds me of the Church of Scientology, which is based on a sci-fi novel, and has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity, but yet this is the symbol they put on top of their churches:



This sums up LN for me in the context of Bitcoin: using Bitcoin's symbol to describe something that isn't Bitcoin in order to cash in on the popular existing brand name, even though the religion is totally different and absolutely incompatible).

[d5000]

When the software works as advertised, yes.

You don't need to know it because you have the transactions stored on your device. Is this so hard to understand?

LN is not some "entity in the wide internet". It's a series of Bitcoin Script transactions. You accuse Bitcoiners of believing in magic and you use magic vocabulary yourself when you don't know how to word an argument.

It wouldn't commit the transaction in the first place, it would just tell you it did. You can check later (defeating the purpose of using the L2), but then your money is already gone.

But you have the exit transaction on your own device. You can always enter it in Bitcoin Core and Electrum.

You haven't answered the question because there are is no technical description at all in your post.

If your channel partner or any channel with an HTLC on your payment route tries to cheat, you will get always the penalty transaction before he can even try to cheat, to get your money back.

There are also long (Bitcoin Script, again!) timelocks in place to ensure you have enough time to check.

If yourself download a malicious fork then you're responsible, not Lightning. And guess what: If you download a malicious Bitcoin Core version then your money is also gone fast

[legiteum]

When the software works as advertised, yes.

You don't need to know it because you have the transactions stored on your device. Is this so hard to understand?

So why are there LN servers at all? (Rhetorical question, but I'm trying to get you to think about how an LN transaction actually works).

If your channel partner or any channel with an HTLC on your payment route tries to cheat, you will get always the penalty transaction before he can even try to cheat, to get your money back.

How do you know they are cheating unless you create a transaction on the native Bitcoin network?

If you have to transact on the Bitcoin network for every single transaction, then what is the point of LN?

If you are simply trusting the person you are transacting with to not cheat you, how is this different than any other system like CoinBase or a PoS crypto like Ether or any other traditional system?

Again, what blows me away here is how little you seem to understand your own religion .

If yourself download a malicious fork then you're responsible, not Lightning. And guess what: If you download a malicious Bitcoin Core version then your money is also gone fast

Nope, that's not how the Bitcoin network works. Bitcoin has a consensus mechanism among nodes. Any given Bitcoin node can be malign and the network will deal with that since you won't get agreement by 51% of the nodes (unless there's a 51% attack, which is unlikely since because of PoW).

LN requires that you trust the LN node you deal with, or trust the person you are trading with.

[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.

Yes, but in order to be safer, you'd need to run watchtower for every single transaction since a node can go from "good" to "bad" instantaneously.

Also, watchtower itself can be fed false information, etc. etc.

Do you imply 1 watchtower for 1 TX? that doesn't make sense. you can use 1 watchtower to watch all cheating TX for all LN channel you own. While node can go "bad" either due to terrible internet connection, faulty hardware or other factor, that doesn't mean LN require you to trust other node/participant. Watchtower is something you run by yourself and connect to your own Bitcoin node, so it can't really be fed false information unless your device already compromised.

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.

Good, now you are starting to get it.

Now understand how the Bitcoin network solves this problem: every transaction is tried with a plurality of nodes, which are selected at random and come from a very large pool of nodes that are all expensive to run thus diminishing the probability that a massive number of nodes will be added to the network by a single malign actor (aka 51% attack resistance delivered by PoW). If the nodes don't agree with your transaction's inputs, you try more nodes until you are certain of a consensus.

This is how Bitcoin allows you to make a transaction and yet not necessarily trust the nodes you interact with. This is the very core of the Bitcoin architecture and it's philosophy, so it's very ironic to me that many religious Bitcoin hardcores seem willing to throw this out and/or don't seem to understand what Bitcoin actually is.

What is your point? First of all, 51% attack refer to attacker who have more than 50% mining hashrate, not running majority of malicious/malign node.

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.

I wasn't "comparing" anything. I was merely asking a question for the Bitcoin religious hardcores: if you think LN can be the same as Bitcoin, then you've obviously crossed a major religious threshold, so why not just go all of the way? Why worry about those "keywords" ("decentralization", "zero trust", etc.) as a poster here put it, and just make the Bitcoin core as fast and efficient as possible?

Bitcoin protocol and Lightning Network protocol are 2 different thing that works in different way, so obviously they can't be the same.

[legiteum]

Yes, but in order to be safer, you'd need to run watchtower for every single transaction since a node can go from "good" to "bad" instantaneously.

Also, watchtower itself can be fed false information, etc. etc.

Do you imply 1 watchtower for 1 TX? that doesn't make sense. you can use 1 watchtower to watch all cheating TX for all LN channel you own. While node can go "bad" either due to terrible internet connection, faulty hardware or other factor, that doesn't mean LN require you to trust other node/participant. Watchtower is something you run by yourself and connect to your own Bitcoin node, so it can't really be fed false information unless your device already compromised.

Yep, I know it sounds crazy, but computers can be... really fast. They can be programmed to do everything exactly right all of the time, and then suddenly rip you off without warning. It can literally happen within milliseconds.

Regardless, if every single person using Lightning also needs to run Watchtower then this is basically unusable. (And you can start to see what LN has never really taken off in the marketplace).

Frankly, if you are down to checking Watchtower every time you make a transaction (which you'd need to do in order to be safe), then you are better off just using the Bitcoin blockchain natively.

Good, now you are starting to get it.

Now understand how the Bitcoin network solves this problem: every transaction is tried with a plurality of nodes, which are selected at random and come from a very large pool of nodes that are all expensive to run thus diminishing the probability that a massive number of nodes will be added to the network by a single malign actor (aka 51% attack resistance delivered by PoW). If the nodes don't agree with your transaction's inputs, you try more nodes until you are certain of a consensus.

This is how Bitcoin allows you to make a transaction and yet not necessarily trust the nodes you interact with. This is the very core of the Bitcoin architecture and it's philosophy, so it's very ironic to me that many religious Bitcoin hardcores seem willing to throw this out and/or don't seem to understand what Bitcoin actually is.

What is your point? First of all, 51% attack refer to attacker who have more than 50% mining hashrate, not running majority of malicious/malign node.

It can be either one. The only way to determine whether a node is "bad" or not is through the consensus protocol, which ultimately comes down to a majority vote of nodes.

Bitcoin protocol and Lightning Network protocol are 2 different thing that works in different way, so obviously they can't be the same.

I'm not saying they could be the same exact code, I'm saying that you could make the Bitcoin code more centralized like LN is, and then have no need for LN or any other L2 because native Bitcoin would be fast and efficient enough by itself.

Of course the religious Bitcoin hard-cores would never support that because it breaks the core religion of Bitcoin. (But somehow, some of them support LN and other L2s that accomplish the same thing  ).