In what way? The way that inputs and outputs work are still exactly the same.
Reference : https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/[/color]
I assumed that you were talking about tracking as in de-anonymizing who is sending the transaction. Instead you are talking about tracking as in checking the confirmation status of a transaction. In the latter case (watching a transaction) it is easier to track because malleability is fixed.Reference : https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/[/color]
Quote
Wallet authors tracking spent bitcoins: its easiest to monitor the status of your own outgoing transactions by simply looking them up by txid. But in a system with third-party malleability, wallets must implement extra code to be able to deal with changed txids.
he Lightning Network: with third-party and scriptSig malleability fixed, the Lightning Network is less complicated to implement and significantly more efficient in its use of space on the blockchain. With scriptSig malleability removed, it also becomes possible to run lightweight Lightning clients that outsource monitoring the blockchain, instead of each Lightning client needing to also be a full Bitcoin node.
I don't think that it is necessary for lightning to be a full node. It can still work without being a full node but with some additional complexity. Where in the lightning paper does it say that a full node is required?Do you not understand the Word OFFCHAIN , BTC is only Locked on the ONLINE BLOCKCHAIN, it is not and can not be moved onto LN's network,
So you are trading BTC IOUs when you use LN.
The Lightning Network conducts transactions by creating Bitcoin transactions that can be broadcast onto the Bitcoin network at any time. There are no IOUs being traded, what is happening is that transactions are being created but not broadcast. Again, there is no separate thing where Bitcoin is being converted into some sort of IOU on lightning.So you are trading BTC IOUs when you use LN.
(In Theory : Using advanced features LN may even allow only certain miners to process the transaction Fees when Onchain BTC Transactions are required.)
(Giving LN Nodes the ability to starve miners not in Collusion with them of transaction fees. )
Now that is just FUD. How would LN only allow certain miners to confirm those transactions? That is just completely false.(Giving LN Nodes the ability to starve miners not in Collusion with them of transaction fees. )
One of the Concerns in the LN Network Whitepaper is that ,
Miners may Decline Certain LN transactions so their Locks timeout and the BTC can be Stolen.
If the above is possible, the reverse is also possible which makes what I said a Valid Theory.