Thanks for posting this. This was quite useful in gaining a general idea of the LN. Although I do agree with many people that this feature is "not Bitcoin" as some say, why the hate for it? It seems like a neat addon to bitcoin's capabilities and it does not require a radical protocol change. LN can be extremely useful to those who make frequent use of the bitcoin network (ie transact often).
... and you fully trust into some sales arguments:
"Q 7: Will there be any form of custodian risk in a Lightning Network?
Do I need to trust anyone to hold my money on my behalf?
A:
No, this system is not based on trust; you remain in full control of your money.
If anything goes wrong, you simply broadcast the latest state of your channel as a normal on-chain bitcoin transaction.
All your money will be returned to your address, and it will be recorded on the blockchain as normal."
You would insert 100 coins, no insurance needed ?
I don't have to trust sales arguments because smarter people than me can read the code and find flaws. Besides the system can be tested before a single coin is ever risked. It's all open source, read the code and make your own mind if you should or should not trust it.
Thing is we are running Bitcoin since 2009 now and lots' of people not even trust in this (and created 2k of altcoins to try out on that as well) - and we have limited space and resources to invest on the Bitcoin trust & scale.
Why should we not really concentrate on that very thing =on-chain ?
Diluting trust and resources to (not on-chain) things bankers and scammers can do way better and is NOT scope of pure Bitcoin ?
Tell people to read 2n order solutions, NOT Bitcoin?
Test fancy redundant networks, NOT Bitcoin?
Getting scared about sell chills, NOT Bitcoin?
Putting finally Bitcoin reputation ON RISK ?
- Sorry - I like the Satoshi Game & Nash equilibrium and second the code and try to understand this better FIRST Place. And miners = big users might do same. Second place see FIRST.