Lightning and Ark are Bitcoin, not an altcoin :)

[legiteum]

In other words, you need to wait for the transaction to have the appropriate number of confirmations to be sure you haven't been ripped off just like you do when you don't use LN and use the Bitcoin chain natively.

No. Read the post(s) again, or read the Lightning whitepaper, or ask an AI, whatever.

I've pasted several ChatGPT answers here. You guys don't seem to like them, so you ignore them.

You _only_ need an on chain transaction if the channel partner cheats - and he can only cheat on chain.

Correct, and you have no way of knowing they cheated until after the transaction--by definition. Hence you need to check every single transaction to make sure, and you need to do this before you deliver whatever goods you would deliver in exchange for the transaction. That is, unless you fully trust your trading partner, but if you trust them, there's no point in using Bitcoin and you can instead use any number of traditional centralized trading mechanisms.

No matter how you phrase and re-phrase and re-re-phrase the functionality of LN, you can't get around the fact that, fundamentally, LN and all L2s essentially batch up transactions for later execution on the main Bitcoin blockchain, and before they do that, you have no way of knowing whether the transaction is valid or not--unless you check each transaction on the chain, thereby defeating the purpose of the L2.

I've always wondered why L2s even exist since they are a completely useless waste of time, and the market has overwhelmingly agreed with this. Now I see that it's a crutch . For some, L2s have to exist and magically mitigate Bitcoin's fundamental architectural tradeoff, which is a story one can tell to any audience as longs they have zero technical acumen. Hence that audience can be lead to believe that "Bitcoin" really will run every single transaction on the planet someday because you've expanded the definition "Bitcoin" to be Bitcoin and also not-Bitcoin.

[d5000]

I've pasted several ChatGPT answers here. You guys don't seem to like them, so you ignore them.

These were not related to my question but to some irrelevant topic. And you continue to evade the question, and any technical details.

Let me rephrase the question for you:

You said that "some entity" or "node" in LN can "pretend" that they made a transaction to your wallet, but they didn't, and you would lose the funds due to that.

Again, I want to know which entity is that exactly (hint in the last post) and how they can do to convince you that they transacted coins to you.

I also want to know what changes if the node of your channel partner has a "malicious fork" of the software, how this entity can then trick the Lightning contracts (HTLCs/PTLCs and RSMCs) and steal funds without you being able to exit via your own branch of the HTLC/PTLC/RSMC.

If you make such a claim, you have to explain it. Otherwise I can also claim anything

Correct, and you have no way of knowing they cheated until after the transaction--by definition. Hence you need to check every single transaction to make sure, and you need to do this before you deliver whatever goods you would deliver in exchange for the transaction.

No, wrong

Have you read any of my posts or any material about Lightning?

Yes, you have to observe the blockchain, but once you do and find out someone tried to cheat, you can re-claim your funds. The transaction to do that is already on your device, you only have to broadcast it.

This does not mean that they can just cheat and you don't notice. It's a two step process. If you try to cheat, then your channel partner will punish you (LN-penalty, Eltoo works differently but I don't like Eltoo).

Again you don't trust. You observe and if something looks wrong, you punish.

LN is indeed a bit of a bundling mechanism, but most transactions (nearly all of them) never need to see the chain. Why would you cheat if you're punished in nearly all cases, because all the "victim" needs is a Bitcoin client able to broadcast a transaction? The risk-reward profile is simply too bad for an attacker.

[legiteum]

I've pasted several ChatGPT answers here. You guys don't seem to like them, so you ignore them.

These were not related to my question but to some irrelevant topic. And you continue to evade the question, and any technical details.

They were absolutely relevant, and I've gone over (and over and over and over) technical details.

LN is indeed a bit of a bundling mechanism, but most transactions (nearly all of them) never need to see the chain. Why would you cheat if you're punished in nearly all cases, because all the "victim" needs is a Bitcoin client able to broadcast a transaction? The risk-reward profile is simply too bad for an attacker.

In the world of info security, "nearly" is also known as, "100% compromised".

But okay, fine, I'll use some of the LN nomenclature instead of talking in generalities about architectural trade-offs. I've been doing this a long time and tend to trust undeniable paradoxes and have thus learned that the details don't matter, but... what the heck...

Lighting works by first making a transaction on the Bitcoin blockchain to transfer sats into a shared (two key) wallet.

Right off the bat, this is a non-starter for most transaction contexts, since most typical services on the Internet will not know ahead of time with whom they are transacting. Hence, in most applications, they will need to perform an on-chain transaction for every single new transaction. This is probably the first reason LN doesn't seriously compete with native digital currencies--because in all practicality, you need to perform an on-chain (read: slow/expensive) transaction for every interaction.

Hence, using Lightning without the Lightning Network is, for almost every application, a pointless waste of time and needless increased complexity and risk, aka you are much better using the Bitcoin chain directly.

Now, if you use LN, you have a different set of problems, and in all practicality you are going to be doing a lot of on-chain transactions in order to provide liquidity to the given destination. For starters, you need to take money out of your wallet and put it in a channel--and if you want it back, you need to close your channel, and when you close your channel, you need to make an on-chain transaction. And also, as we've discussed, LN breaks the religion of Bitcoin's decentralization since you are now absolutely dependent on a small number of well-connected servers.

Hence when you use Lightning with your own channel, or when LN doesn't facilitate the transaction (which can happen a LOT), you actually do DOUBLE the amount of on-chain transactions (open, transact, close).

Now, one could argue that LN solves this as long as every single Bitcoin user uses LN--hence you would just keep all of your Bitcoin locked in your channel, and thus not available to spend on anything non-LN.

In other words, if the WHOLE WORLD was LN, and that's the way every single Bitcoin transaction occurred, then you would probably see consistently lower transaction latency, but then there wouldn't be any reason to have the Bitcoin chain itself.

So YES, I absolutely understand how Lighting and LN works, and NO, it doesn't create magic that gets you around universal trade-offs. Centralized=fast, decentralized=slow. That's the law of the land.

[Wind_FURY]

[...] if you ask those disingenuous people if there was a situation that someone actually cheated in the Lightning Network, they won't tell you anything because THEY CAN'T.

So just to be clear, you consider any technology that you haven't read has been compromised to be completely safe? Are you sure about that?

Did I claim that any technology is completely safe?

--SNIP--

You're telling us something theoretical, and yes, what you're debating may be true. And that's your right to debate about it. BUT it does NOT mean that, practically and necessarily, what you say is a fact.

  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Because the moment you claim the theory as fact, then that's mere FUD, ser.

My question to you is practical,

How many times have nefarious entities successfully cheated and stole Bitcoin in the Lightning Network? I believe ZERO, no?

[Satofan44]

How many times have nefarious entities successfully cheated and stole Bitcoin in the Lightning Network? I believe ZERO, no?

There has never been a single publicly verifiable case of anyone stealing Bitcoin in the LN from someone else using these alleged methods. Actually there are basically no unverifiable stories of this happening eithyer -- sure someone could make it up now just to spite us, and maybe someone did write such bullshit in anti-Bitcoin camps such as Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin SV or some other shitcoin like the scammer in this thread. This theoretical concern is completely pointless and whoever default to it is an idiot, it is like throwing a tantrum and giving up on Bitcoin because the hardware that it runs on is not completely open source from the beginning till the end. Yeah the world is not perfect, grow the fuck up -- to the "developer" that threw a tantrum about this "unsolvable attack vector" which nobody has ever managed to exploit against anyone. This kind of bullshit only creates FUD and anxiety in others, it does not do anything else.

LN in the real world works flawlessly as long as there is enough liquidity for what you are trying to do. In the past several years I have never had a single transaction fail or even get delayed. It is beautiful for in person payments.
@d5000 at which point do I call the "it is time to stop feeding the troll" card?

[lionheart78]

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.

Using OSI model as a kind of argument makes me think you are supporting the idea that Lightning and Ark are not Bitcoin.  A techtarget article explained. The article shows how the process of  OSI communication is divided into seven "distinct" group of related functions.

The main concept of OSI is that the process of communication between two endpoints in a network can be divided into seven distinct groups of related functions, or layers. Each communicating user or program is on a device that can provide those seven layers of function.

Is HTTPS(L7) = TLS(L6) = session(L5) = TCP(L4) = IP(L3) = Ethernet(L2) = Cables (L1)?

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion, so I just leave it at that
 

[Satofan44]

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.

Using OSI model as a kind of argument makes me think you are supporting the idea that Lightning and Ark are not Bitcoin.  A techtarget article explained. The article shows how the process of  OSI communication is divided into seven "distinct" group of related functions.

The main concept of OSI is that the process of communication between two endpoints in a network can be divided into seven distinct groups of related functions, or layers. Each communicating user or program is on a device that can provide those seven layers of function.

Is HTTPS(L7) = TLS(L6) = session(L5) = TCP(L4) = IP(L3) = Ethernet(L2) = Cables (L1)?

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion, so I just leave it at that

It is the exact opposite, it seems that you yourself do not understand how the OSI model works not how layers operate at all. Perhaps abstract thinking capabilities are even more limited than I previously thought, as it seems that most users are not able to comprehend any kind of nuanced details that may seem like a contradiction. Something can part of something and different than something else at the same time. It does not get any more simple than that:

• Does HTTPs work without Ethernet or Layer 1? No, it does not. Do Ethernet and cables work without HTTPS? Yes
• Does Lightning work without Bitcoin? No, it does not. Does Bitcoin work without Lightning? Yes.

The OSI analogy supports the claim of the layered view and that LN is Bitcoin. If someone is not able to comprehend this, then they should leaving these topics alone and go shitpost in the gambling section.

• HTTPS is not a separate network that bypasses the lower layers, it is a protocol that uses the lower layers.
• Similarly, Lightning is not a separate network that bypasses Bitcoin. It is a higher-layer protocol that uses Bitcoin to operate.
• Therefore, saying "Lightning isn't Bitcoin" because it's a different layer is no more true than saying "HTTPS isn't the Internet" -- they're different layers in the same protocol stack.

HTTPS is Ethernet, and Lightning is Bitcoin. No Ethernet, no HTTPS. No Bitcoin, no Lightning. Do we need to make a drawing for the toddlers here pretending to be adults? When you use HTTPS, you are using Ethernet.

[lionheart78]

I won't reply to your provocation to make the communication civil  Anyway, information about OSI is all around the internet, so I also just leave it at that.

HTTPS is Ethernet, and Lightning is Bitcoin. No Ethernet, no HTTPS. No Bitcoin, no Lightning. Do we need to make a drawing for the toddlers here pretending to be adults? When you use HTTPS, you are using Ethernet.

You missed one important thing, no Lightning does not mean no Bitcoin Btw, before anything else, I think we must know what bitcoin is and what makes Bitcoin Bitcoin. That probably solves this argument

(added)
Dependency is not Identity,  is it?

[legiteum]

How many times have nefarious entities successfully cheated and stole Bitcoin in the Lightning Network? I believe ZERO, no?

You all keep asking for non-LN supporters here to "google it" or "ask ChatGPT", and then when the request is granted, you ignore it and the make the same request a few posts later. Oh well, I'll risk it anyhow....

Question: "has there ever been an instance where somebody has lost money or been cheated using lighting"

ChatGPT: "Yes. People have lost money using Lightning, and there have also been documented cheating attempts — though successful “steal your funds by cheating the protocol” cases appear much less common than losses from bugs, bad backups, custodial services, or node-management mistakes."

(ChatGPT goes on to list all of the security problems that have lead to losses by those using it).


Also, there's this...

Flood & Loot: A Systemic Attack On The Lightning Network

https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.08513

[Wind_FURY]

How many times have nefarious entities successfully cheated and stole Bitcoin in the Lightning Network? I believe ZERO, no?

You all keep asking for non-LN supporters here to "google it" or "ask ChatGPT", and then when the request is granted, you ignore it and the make the same request a few posts later. Oh well, I'll risk it anyhow....

Question: "has there ever been an instance where somebody has lost money or been cheated using lighting"

ChatGPT: "Yes. People have lost money using Lightning, and there have also been documented cheating attempts — though successful “steal your funds by cheating the protocol” cases appear much less common than losses from bugs, bad backups, custodial services, or node-management mistakes."

(ChatGPT goes on to list all of the security problems that have lead to losses by those using it).

 

Dishonest, and LAUGHABLE.

I used the same question you posted in ChatGPT. So in the context of what's being debated, NO, there are NO known protocol failures/exploits in the Lightning Network.

Yes. People have lost money using the Lightning Network, but it’s important to distinguish between protocol failures and wallet, user, or service failures.

The Lightning protocol itself has a strong security record. Most losses have come from bugs, scams, custodial services, or operational mistakes rather than someone breaking the cryptography or “stealing” funds directly from Lightning.

Here are the main categories:

1. Custodial wallet failures (most common)

Many users don’t actually control their Lightning funds. Instead, they deposit BTC into a company that manages Lightning on their behalf.

Examples include:
   •   Exchanges becoming insolvent
   •   Custodial wallets freezing withdrawals
   •   Companies shutting down
   •   Exit scams

In these cases, users lose money because they trusted a third party—not because Lightning failed.

⸻

2. Wallet software bugs

Over the years, there have been bugs in Lightning implementations such as:
   •   LND
   •   Core Lightning (formerly c-lightning)
   •   Eclair

Some bugs have caused:
   •   Channels becoming temporarily unusable
   •   Funds being stuck until channel closure
   •   Rare cases where incorrect channel state handling could have led to losses

These bugs have generally been patched quickly.

⸻

3. Routing attacks

Lightning payments are routed through multiple nodes.

There have been research papers demonstrating attacks such as:
   •   griefing attacks
   •   jamming attacks
   •   liquidity exhaustion

These attacks typically:
   •   waste routing capacity
   •   cause failed payments
   •   increase fees

They generally do not allow attackers to steal your bitcoin.

⸻

4. Fraudulent channel closures

Lightning has a penalty mechanism.

If someone broadcasts an old channel state hoping to steal funds:
   •   the honest party can claim all the funds if they are online or using a watchtower.

Historically:
   •   people have attempted this,
   •   but it usually succeeds only if the victim remains offline past the dispute window.

This is why watchtowers exist.

⸻

5. Phishing and fake wallets

Some users have:
   •   downloaded fake Lightning wallets
   •   revealed seed phrases
   •   connected to malicious services

This is no different from scams involving on-chain Bitcoin wallets.

⸻

6. Node operator mistakes

People running their own Lightning nodes have lost money by:
   •   deleting channel backups
   •   hard-drive failures without proper backups
   •   force-closing channels incorrectly
   •   configuration errors

Modern backup systems have reduced these risks considerably.

⸻

Have there been protocol hacks?

As of today:

No known attacker has broken the Lightning cryptography to steal arbitrary funds from honest users.

Researchers have found vulnerabilities over the years, but the major Lightning implementations have issued fixes before they became widespread exploits.

[legiteum]

I used the same question you posted in ChatGPT. So in the context of what's being debated, NO, there are NO known protocol failures/exploits in the Lightning Network.

All you did is move the goalposts. People have lost money using Lightning. It's as simple as that.

You also ignored the exploit that some researchers discovered after not even trying very hard:

Flood & Loot: A Systemic Attack On The Lightning Network

https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.08513

There will be many more exploits like this because Lightning is not Bitcoin. LN depends on a trusted (read: centralized) set of nodes that can be compromised and the protocol has no defense against that UNLIKE BITCOIN.

(I continue to be amazed I need to explain what Bitcoin is to so-called "Bitcoin maximalists"  ).

[Wind_FURY]

I used the same question you posted in ChatGPT. So in the context of what's being debated, NO, there are NO known protocol failures/exploits in the Lightning Network.

All you did is move the goalposts. People have lost money using Lightning. It's as simple as that.

You also ignored the exploit that some researchers discovered after not even trying very hard:

Flood & Loot: A Systemic Attack On The Lightning Network

https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.08513

There will be many more exploits like this because Lightning is not Bitcoin. LN depends on a trusted (read: centralized) set of nodes that can be compromised and the protocol has no defense against that UNLIKE BITCOIN.

(I continue to be amazed I need to explain what Bitcoin is to so-called "Bitcoin maximalists"  ).

That's a nice theoretical attack vector that you posted there. Now ask your ChatGPT app if there were actual theft successfully executed in the Lightning Network by using the information written in that paper.















(I already asked ChatGPT)

 

[BlackHatCoiner]

All you did is move the goalposts. People have lost money using Lightning. It's as simple as that.

People have also lost money using Bitcoin Core, Electrum, Sparrow, paper wallets, Cashu and an endless list of other Bitcoin wallets. That does not make these options 'not Bitcoin'.

The quality of this discussion has been reduced down to people sharing ChatGPT responses. It's simple, lightning is a Bitcoin script called HTLC (Hashed Time Locked Contract), which grants custody to the owner of the coins, in the same way that a Bitcoin address is a Bitcoin script. Both are equally Bitcoin. The only difference between the lightning script and the address script is that the former is a contract where people need to be synchronized with the Bitcoin blockchain for some time after the script in case they want to exit unilaterally, otherwise the other party can steal the funds.

[legiteum]

All you did is move the goalposts. People have lost money using Lightning. It's as simple as that.

People have also lost money using Bitcoin Core, Electrum, Sparrow, paper wallets, Cashu and an endless list of other Bitcoin wallets. That does not make these options 'not Bitcoin'.

Wow, so Electrum, Sparrow, Cashu are... also Bitcoin now?

How do I get my product to be known as "Bitcoin"?

And why isn't CoinBase also "Bitcoin". Or Binance? Or Robinhood? Or the ETFs?

Why are some third party products, "Bitcoin" while other products are "not Bitcoin"? Who decides?

That's a nice theoretical attack vector that you posted there. Now ask your ChatGPT app if there were actual theft successfully executed in the Lightning Network by using the information written in that paper.

There are other known exploit scenarios for LN as well.

So few people actually use Lightning/LN that I suspect hackers currently have bigger fish to fry, which is probably why you haven't seen more problems.

But sure, keep asking people to implement a technology that has known exploits. You will certainly convince a few... people... but not a lot--and Lightning's lack of serious adoption demonstrates that.

Meanwhile, there are no such known exploits for Bitcoin besides a global 51% attack, which has been shown to be very low risk. In other words, the world's security experts have signed off on Bitcoin, and people have risked billions of dollars of their own money on the technology. LN does not survive under the same scrutiny, it's not even close.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Wow, so Electrum, Sparrow, Cashu are... also Bitcoin now?

Amazing performance!    Yes, I'd argue that wallets that implement the Bitcoin white paper are... Bitcoin.

[Wind_FURY]

All you did is move the goalposts. People have lost money using Lightning. It's as simple as that.

People have also lost money using Bitcoin Core, Electrum, Sparrow, paper wallets, Cashu and an endless list of other Bitcoin wallets. That does not make these options 'not Bitcoin'.

The quality of this discussion has been reduced down to people sharing ChatGPT responses. It's simple, lightning is a Bitcoin script called HTLC (Hashed Time Locked Contract), which grants custody to the owner of the coins, in the same way that a Bitcoin address is a Bitcoin script. Both are equally Bitcoin. The only difference between the lightning script and the address script is that the former is a contract where people need to be synchronized with the Bitcoin blockchain for some time after the script in case they want to exit unilaterally, otherwise the other party can steal the funds.

   

It actually HELPED examine the posts in the topic about which of them were FACTS and which of them were DISINFORMATION/FUD.

Plus Bitcoin in the Lightning Network ARE Bitcoin which haven't been confirmed on-chain yet. I have already made this debate with franky1.

[legiteum]

Plus Bitcoin in the Lightning Network ARE Bitcoin which haven't been confirmed on-chain yet. I have already made this debate with franky1.

LOL, grapefruits are also "Bitcoin which haven't been confirmed on-chain yet". 

Again, simply amazed I'm having this conversation with folks who seem to be so devoted to the Bitcoin religion...

[Cleanshit]

Plus Bitcoin in the Lightning Network ARE Bitcoin which haven't been confirmed on-chain yet. I have already made this debate with franky1.

LOL, grapefruits are also "Bitcoin which haven't been confirmed on-chain yet". 

Again, simply amazed I'm having this conversation with folks who seem to be so devoted to the Bitcoin religion...

I don’t really see it about religion, Bitcoin being locked on the blockchain is the reason why they do  say Lightning is Bitcoin abd it can be settled back on chain. We all do know that lightning does not have it own separate blockchain or coin like altcoin. Users can disagree on trade offs of using lightning but to call it altcoin it wrong

[Kruw]

Wow, so Electrum, Sparrow, Cashu are... also Bitcoin now?

Amazing performance!    Yes, I'd argue that wallets that implement the Bitcoin white paper are... Bitcoin.

Cashu is an exception in this list, it required a trusted third party to prevent double spending.

[Wind_FURY]

Plus Bitcoin in the Lightning Network ARE Bitcoin which haven't been confirmed on-chain yet. I have already made this debate with franky1.

LOL, grapefruits are also "Bitcoin which haven't been confirmed on-chain yet". 

Again, simply amazed I'm having this conversation with folks who seem to be so devoted to the Bitcoin religion...

 

No, I am AMAZED that you continue your disinformation campaign even after you were proven wrong. Bitcoin in Lightning channels are Bitcoin in a 2-Of-2 Multisig Address that requires an ON-CHAIN transaction. Closing the channel requires another ON-CHAIN transaction.

You're just like franky1. We probably should start calling you franky2.