When a channel is opened, the initiator of the channel open has to pay the onchain fee. Same with closing. So he pays a minimum of 1sat/vb two times, which is a minimum fee of about 400 Satoshis plus at max of 2 Satoshis lost due to rounding down. Noone cares about this, Franky. Channels don`t have to be closed after every payment, but they can (and often they do) stay open for years.
Thor Turbo is just a Bitrefill implementation, that speeds up channel opening. Nothing to see here. All exchanges are implementing their own software. Most of the trading on exchanges is happening under the hood and is not shown on the blockchain. They can do whatever they want with your money.

Time to take your medication, Franky.

I'm not, we're speaking about the same thing.

I acknowledged that you can indeed lose 1sat. So yes, you're wrong with the bolded sentence; they may get up to 1 satoshi less than the msat amount in their wallet.
Although, this is nothing new and nothing to worry about; 1sat is worth $0.00016USD or 0.016 cents.

Yeah; users can get msats (or sats, whatever) Lightning balance before the opening transaction is confirmed. So if it's double-spent revoked, that Lightning balance can't be settled disappears. Easy solution: wait for one confirmation. This is not really a Lightning problem, but just like a merchant accepting 0conf. It's their choice, their risk.


Do you have an idea about an off-chain system which doesn't need to be 'watched' online? That would be amazing.

That's not what is happening, though. 99,999msat are rounded down to 99sat if the channel state has to be settled on the blockchain (read: channel is closed). Just under 1sat gets lost. No 1000x rates or anything.

Nobody is arguing against Bitcoin. Lightning is an addition to Bitcoin trying to solve the scaling problem. I know that you don't think it exists, because technically, as of now, the blockchain is fast enough. Think of it as future-proofing and or trying out techniques well before they may be actually needed to ensure Bitcoin's blockchain (that we all know and love) isn't clogged up and rendered unusable due to higher usage higher number of active users.

Only Bitcoin and its blockchain enables a concept such as Lightning to work. In 2000-2007 that didn't exist, which is why any project aiming to do what LN does, would have failed.

I know you love the blockchain, and we do, too; without it, Lightning is unthinkable.

Not only that, but even if 1 sat becomes more valuable in the future, there's still on-chain transaction that needs to take place, which will cost more than 1 sat. I doubt this will ever be a serious concern for the node operator.

Then don't use it for that purpose, you shouldn't either way. Nobody is going to treat Lightning as a cold storage. The point is the exact opposite; to use it regularly for day-to-day transactions. But besides that, if you don't like Lightning, and you can't find reasoning in our arguments, then just stop getting involved in these discussions. We're perpetually proving you wrong, buddy.

So... I have Franky on ignore because in the past I feel like he has just been so much noise.  But obviously he has been getting some engagement recently and I see the quotes.  This is fine, of course.

But it's too bad.  Seems like a well meaning guy.  But he is not arguing his points in an open minded way.  His general thesis is basically:  Lightning is NOT Bitcoin.  And then he makes arguments that do not mak sense from that premise.  Like the last one quoted:


The whole reason for a second layer network is to build functionality the utilizes the FIRST layer but offers a different set of tradeoffs.  Just looking at the LN as a trust minimized, distributed network designed to allow a record to be kept of off chain transactions with minimal trust for the purpose of small commerce.  The archetypal coffee transaction.  And then these transaction can be settled on chain later.  It was never designed for you to hold value there for 10 years.  The tradeoffs it has are not as well suited to that and layer 1 cold storage.

Let's look at the argument in a similar context.

One could use the same basic logical framework  (somewhat generous really ) to argue that a Opendime with a balance on it "is not Bitcoin".  Or that Opendime "transactions" are not Bitcoin. I can have 0.01BTC on one of those and give it to you, and you can give it to someone else...  This is a physical layer 2 product.  And IT TOO has a different set of tradeoffs than the Bitcoin base layer.  It gives way better privacy for example.  But the hardware can fail... it can be seized.  It would be harder to fly across borders with it.  The hardware could be counterfeited, and so on.   And it too, after many "uses" can have the little hole punched, and then the balance on it will be "settled on chain" when you move the funds to cold storage, for example.

So Franky is right in some senses that LN is not Bitcoin.  Just like transacting with Opendimes is not bitcoin.  If you are defining "Bitcoin" as transactions on the base layer.  But just like the Opendime.  Ultimately what we are transacting on the LN IS BITCOIN.  Period.

Looking at complex systems with a polarized, binary, black and white lens is a mistake.  I would also argue that LBTC (Liquid) is also "Bitcoin".  It might be a further, riskier abstraction of Bitcoin than LN or an Opendime.  It certainly introduces new risks (AND advantages).  And just like the LN one should probably not use it for certain things.  Or at all, if you prefer.  But the underlying asset is still bitcoin.

more ignorance and moving away from the issue by trying to think its a rounding error.. it shows you do not observe or think outside the utopia promotions

also my point has always been. that LN has no network consensus to audit channels to ensure that funds exist to honour payments...

well its your network. go play with it.
just dont try jumping to the bitcoin community pretending LN is better than bitcoin. its not.

enjoy your niche market and accept your risks and stay blind. but dont over promise stuff about your network and then call crap on about the bitcoin network while hiding the big flaws of your network

oh and by the way. even pre-confirm.. the bitcoin network wont relay payments that have no valid confirmed UTXO. .. unlike your silly network that would.

and last lesson

inside a forum bout crypto.. inside a topic about a subnetwork.. you do not need to wear the promotion happy utopian hat..
people would have already heard of LN to even be in this topic. so you do not need to be on constant sales pitch .. instead people want to know the hard truths. the risks they should know about.
so wear the risk awareness hat. not the promoter hat

sounding like a over-promising snake oil salesman helps no one even genuine people that want to temporarily give a niche service a try for just a short period or a potential long term user.

when you OBSERVE that the audience of this topic is majority existing LN users. you will soon learn kiss assing a promotion sales bitch of over promise.. is futile in this topic

Your point isn't true, and we've explained it to you like a million times. Not only in this page, but in others (which didn't have a lightning niche, but just included a reference, and you immediately started derailing as usual) and in a thread dedicated to you; you can't go more ridiculous than that. You're refuting the irrefutable years now. That's concerning.

I'm not going to write this one more time. I'll quote myself, because I've said it enough times already.

first to blackhat

things you are IGNORING

1. people using Ln to buy things like coffees and normal small purchases you guys for years have said are not suitable for bitcoin but what people can do on LN
people are not going to be taking a laptop or desktop around with them.. they are going to be reliant on phone app wallets..

2. those phone app wallets are just GUI representations displaying msats. .. mostly funded by imbound balance from a service (partner) own stash which he is presumed but not guaranteed to have on a output directed to you.. presumed becasue those services usually ask you to download their prefered wallet too.

you pretend people can just press a button and see the commitment and know they at they can check its a real 6 confirm utxo.
but here is the thing

THOR TURBO PROVED YOU ALL WRONG

3. same goes for the 1:1000 rate
you HOPE its a 1:1000 rate but you dont find out until you are trying to settle.

i know you pretend that everyone reviews code and then has some command line to then search for raw data and read the content to see their msat balance amount is fair rated to their state commitment amount at 1:1000 rate.. but people dont do that. especially your niche userbase you are trying to recruit that are just phone app users.

you lot are the ones not thinking with open minds. you cant even want  to admit that LN has flaws.
LN has no network standard protection to weed out bad actors or nodes/apps that are abusive. (abusers: not following rules)

all you lot dream about is everyone floods into use LN and then go to sleep so you can raid their funds.
you lot never seem to have the risk awareness mindset as if you care about protecting the users you want to grab and pull into your silly subnetwork

4. LN does not have mechanisms to weed out bad actors using non backed channels or where states are abused by changing the 1:1000 by changing it to say 1:10 on their outbound amount designated for their victim partner they want to cheat.. again a service can do this and the network has no security to prevent it

5. bitcoin network however if i make a payment without a confirmed utxo backing the input.. . the relay network wont relay the transaction
if someone was to try sending abusive data. nodes ban them as peers and dont relay stuff to them.
LN has none of that

.. while you go around saying wrong because wrong and heres some quotes about network chainhash(not even part of my latest thing ) or  your other quotes about AFTER commitment scenarios.. or comments about rounding when the conversation is about none of that..

when i have multiple times now been talking about the problem with the.. CREATING commitment stage.. from the onion payment mismatch of value possibility via abusing the 1:1000 rate

6. you are also saying "if doesnt matter because"
but its that "it doesnt matter because you can broadcast any time.." statement by you lot that show how callous and ignorant you are.. because by the point of broadcasting it..  then its too late!!


now to n0nce:
as for you thinking there is no 1:1000 rate and its just some rounding thing where only 1 sat can be lost

https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/lnwire/msat.go#L12
here the 1000 rate.. and look how its used alot to convert msat to sat.. which you are avoiding reading and understanding

yes n0nce you showed L19 of same github of a COMMENT misinforming. but you never cared to see the CODE or read the entire thing

the mSatScale uint64 = 1000

is not the same as "if <1000 then 0"

if you truly understood all the code in its context and not just the comment sections. you would understand the rounding mechanism. and the scale ratio conversion mechanism are different

if you can only read comments in code and not the code itself..
try this one
https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/lnwire/msat.go#L40

now learn their comment terms of their comments section i linked.  where rounding is a different function to 'shedding by a factor of 1000'

then you might see the different function i am speaking of

once you can actually be bothered to talk about the risk factor i have been talking about. then i wont ignore your silly comments about something else you are trying to redirect the conversation to

phone wallets in general dont do general checks. you admit:
(glad you finally admit somewhat to it.. dont back peddle(though i know you do at your final paragragh of post) now keep stepping forward)

your phone wallet does not check integrity. especially if phone wallet is made by the service that told you to download their preferred wallet

even in lateral and bilateral channels. away from central services, you dont see the states behind the GUI.. so they are not checked.. (ill highlight later where you agree*)

as for penalties..
if YOU broadcast and see that instead of your presumed (1,000,000msat) 1,000sat you only got 10sat.. you cannot penalise a broadcast you sent. they can penalise you if you sent an old state out of order

but lets say they did broadcast while you slept
yea you penalise them where they also set the penalty to be.. oh yea in their favour because you were using their wallet!!

oh you also have to be online to spot their broadcast. and then use THEIR WALLET app to hope you have a state somewhere that can penalise them..

but as you said
and hope any state you can find gives you balance you deserve..

all these things are not things the network secures against.

all a user sees is a incoming msat balance and the just say yes please.. they are not involved in some contract interrogation process of agreeing on rates and ratios of conversions where they sit at a table and negotiate.

so yea goodluck

here is jsut one tip.. although you lot do not deserve it
for the NODES that do network gossip. they could (but doubt you'd care to implement it) as part of the gossip. check that all channel ID's of route channels do actually represent a funding tx which makes that channel liquid/solvant. thus you add it to the possible route list. where as if its using a temp ID or other bypass to create a channel(many ways to falsify things to create a channel) then you dont add it as a possible route. thus when you pass on that gossip. others can see the abuser is banned


thor turbo proved you wrong.. shame you didnt observe