the "revocation key" of say TX1 becomes part of TX2 when tx2 is formed and agreed
so if a sends out a "stale" tx(tx1) then all that needs to be done is the other party needs to send out the latest tx(tx2) to overrule tx1
..
issue arises though is when there is a situation where person A cannot get a refund for bad service from B so A hopes B goes offline before B can send TX2.. so that A can send TX1 and hope that B doesnt wake up to send TX2..
B does not need to ask for a TX1 revoke key. as i said its already part of TX2
..
and as i said before B can blackmail/ refuse to make a new payment(tx3) to refund A. and as such forced A to just cry, or send out tx1 in the hope that A can get some funds.. but if B is greedy. B will send out TX2 to overrule tx1. and thus B keeps the goods and the funds
and as for Cbanks comment.. uni-directional (facepalm)(im laughing)
if a channel is you to you... you can only pay yourself in that channel.
if you want to pay others. you need other parties in another channel. but you cant move funds out of the uni channel and into a bi-directional channel without closing the uni channel to then deposit them into the bidirectional channel
i think people need to run scenarios and play around.. instead of just reading they promotional hype on reddit
EG
[A:10-A:10][A:10-A:10] [A:10-B10]
if A moves all its funds t one side in a uni.. it does not make A's bi directional suddenly fill up with an extra 40btc within LN while the channels are open
i think people need to run scenarios and play around.. instead of just reading the promotional hype on reddit
ok the first 2 channels are unidirectional.. and they do not matter at all because there is no routing.. there is literally no reason/utility in setting up [a-a]
because the [A-A] channels wont ever change.. at opening A put 20btc in.. at closing A gets 20btc out per channel
EG
true:[A:0-A:20][A:0-A:20] [A:10-B10]
false: [A:0-A:20][A:0-A:20] [A:50-B10] {magic used}
false: [A:0-A:0][A:0-A:0] [A:50-B10] {funds magically move without closing channel}
easier and common sense to just leave the 40btc (uni funds) in a legacy address without even wasting onchain fes to open a stupid uni channel... get a piece of paper and write to yourself i have 40btc and of that 40btc i owe myself 40btc
its far better to not waste onchain fee's to store funds that wont move.. and just put the 50btc total into the [a-b] because the 40btc in the unichannels wont move as routed payments. because A will always be paying A