Quote from: BitCryptex on July 10, 2018, 07:31:06 PM

Quote from: Anon136 on July 10, 2018, 07:00:40 PM

The android wallet that I'm using doesn't seem to have the functionality to open a channel where I am the creditor and my partner is the debtor. In other words a channel that I can receive funds on without having spent down first. But just because this wallet lacks that functionality doesn't mean the network lacks that functionality. Tell me if I got something wrong here.

Which android wallet are you using? I personally use Eclair but it doesn't support receiving coins over Lightning Network. I'm waiting for Android version of Zap wallet which seems to have this feature.

Quote from: mindrust on July 10, 2018, 07:02:08 PM

I thought it wasn't possible to lose funds on LN. I know there might be bugs and shit, the stuff is still in beta but this is the first time actually I heard about somebody who managed to lose his funds. Even if its in beta, I thought It wasn't really possible to lose your coins. :/ I would have freaked out If I had lost 0.26btc for trying science lol.

As you mentioned, Lightning Network is still in its early beta thus this kind of things might happen, but...

Quote from: BobLawblaw on July 10, 2018, 03:01:51 PM

but I believe most of the 0.24 BTC I didn't get back was blown on channel open/close fees, and possibly just "lost" due to bugs and shit.

"Believe"? I doubt that he spent that much on stickers and satoshi's place, but he should have at least checked his transaction history and summed everything up before making such statement.

I believe there is no worthy android app still using the LN. Moreover I can hardly found of an worthy android app already with Segwit too. Mycelium the most popular android wallet still doesn't uses it Segwit. LN is still a whole long way to go.

Talking about its proof issues how do you feel it will affect the price of bitcoin? I mean I have rarely seen anyone talking about its impact over the price of bitcoin. Because obviously LN might make BTC ready for a immediate mass adoption at a cost of bit of centralization or maybe channelization would be more appropriate.

Quote from: BitCryptex on July 10, 2018, 06:39:54 PM

Quote from: Anon136 on July 10, 2018, 05:57:43 PM

If not are they lightning tokens? They aren't really tokens the way ERC20 tokens are tokens, are they?

They are bitcoins, many people don't understand that and try to prove that Bitcoin with LN is not a real Bitcoin because it doesn't use normal coins.

Here is another good discussion on whether or not Lightning Network is centralized.

Quote from: Anon136 on July 10, 2018, 05:57:43 PM

There seems to be a chicken and egg problem with lightning. When I make a new channel it says I can only receive the amount on a channel that I have spent down. So how did the first address get spent down enough to receive the first lightning tokens?

I don't really get "the problem" you mentioned. That's how I think it worked: 1. Someone created a node and decided to open a channel with that node 2. Bitcoins were sent to a multi-signature address which private keys are in control of both parties. 3. Someone else opened the channel to the same node and it was possible to start sending transactions across decentralized LN network.

There are no Lightning Network tokens. Each party is transacting with each other without broadcasting anything to the Bitcoin network. Everything is settled down once someone decides to close the channel. The biggest issue right now is that channel limits how much you can spend. Split payments are a planned feature.

I have a pretty dumb question maybe. These channels which we obviously know will be on the bitcoin network. So won't any opened and later unclosed channels act as a mighty traffic over the blockchain? I mean if it happens that will again bring us to the same issue.