Quote from: ChiBitCTy on November 16, 2019, 08:59:42 PM

For example, I love this topic posted by Satoshi because I see the potential as MASSIVE here ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=750.msg8140#msg8140 ). First off, would anyone debate that this is not in regards to S.C's? I asked Nick Szabo if this post was and he stated while vague, he believes that is what Satoshi is referring to (in contrast to Craig Wright who told me he built in S.C.'s from day one which is in direct opposition of Satoshi's words himself lol ).

I will respond to one thing satoshi said in the post you cited:

Quote from: satoshi on August 07, 2010, 08:13:52 PM

Now, an economist would say that a fraudulent seller could start negotiating, such as "release the money and I'll give you half of it back", but at that point, there would be so little trust and so much spite that negotiation is unlikely. Why on earth would the fraudster keep his word and send you half if he's already breaking his word to steal it? I think for modest amounts, almost everyone would refuse on principle alone.

With SW, it would be possible to craft a signed 'child' transaction the is dependent on the transaction releasing the coin to the fraudster.

What satoshi described also does not allow for the two parties to mutually agree to split up the coin, for example if a seller is unable to deliver all of a set of goods due to unexpected circumstances, but SW should allow for this to be addressed as well.

My understanding of SW and LN is it is theoretically possible to have a trust-less cross-chain transaction if both blockchains have adopted SW, or something substantially similar (transactions that can be time locked from the time of confirmation, and the ability to sign dependent transactions without the signed 'parent' signed transaction). This would be most advantageous for people wanting to trade coin for a stable coin (bitcoin for USDT).