Reserved. I may make summaries later.

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.

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

---

---

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

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"

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

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.

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

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?

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

---

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


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 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]

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

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.

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



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


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

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


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


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?