its much like doing students a disservice in economics by not explaining the difference between a credit card and a debit card. and just giving them free fiat and saying go spend it. not explaining the pitfalls of credit cards. where all they think about is that money comes to them for free and they can spend it without repercussions or debt or problems later.
You keep lying and confusing people about LN. The Lightning Network is not debt-based/IOU. Your analogy is incorrect as the credit cards are by design, debt-based while the lightning payments are made in a way that even done outside L1, both parties will not cheat each other. 
ooooo you fell down a hole there.. are you sure about that.. you might want to check with even the LN devs that have themselves even been cheated out of funds by their channel partner.. hense the invention of LN punishments.. so please have a honest discussion with the devs about the flaws and not the pro-PR stuff. your quote above is where you are trying just a little too hard to hide the flaws and pretend there are none.
"commitments" and "punishments" and "settlement" are actually terms that are part of LN... even if you want to ignore and pretend they are not part of it.
Yes, they do keep a supposed debt (the signed tx), but they are free to release it and get the money whenever they want with none's permission. Why is that so hard to understand?
no ones permission?? um.. you might need to check on that.. theres this little detail called a signature. and also some other things about which promise is the most uptodate/active promise. but thank you for now contradicting yourself by now admitting (within same post) that there is a IOU (debt) based system. where they can claim the debt to be settled later. but not at anytime. the locks usually have a set period. like most credit cards have.. payment due at end of month.
but thanks for atleast admitting that the ln 'payments' are not settled value but just later to be settled commitment /promises.. and yes commitments/promises are actually a thing thats described in the code.
(worth mentioning twice)
if you really want to teach kids that bitcoin is a network that doesnt have a blockchain. doesnt have consensus, doesnt have confirmations.. you have succeeded..
No he hasn't. .. the kids didnt experience anything blockchain when doing their test transactions.. even titular self admitted that he thought that the blockchain stuff was boring and slow.(not entertaining)
Quote
It doesn't make for a very entertaining or efficient lesson when you are waiting for 10 minute block times. Setting up channels would also prove to be a waste of class time as that would have been too advanced for many of my students; especially on electrum. Not sure if you have kids, but "settlement processes" don't really grab an 11 year old's attention.
The goal was to expose the students to bitcoin's ecosystem. Never did I specify lesson would be on bitcoin's base-layer. It's evident you had to make a lot of assumptions before posting this rhetoric
funny part is that titular actually says that he never specified he did a less on bitcoinThe goal was to expose the students to bitcoin's ecosystem. Never did I specify lesson would be on bitcoin's base-layer. It's evident you had to make a lot of assumptions before posting this rhetoric
yet then rambled on about how he was exposing kits to the bitcoin ecosystem..
why oh why do you LN fangirls love contradicting yourselves.
1. pretend you are teaching about the different networks but then pretend its all the same
2. pretend you are teaching them about bitcoin but then use a network that has no blockchain
3. pretend you are teaching them about blockchains, but never do an onchain transaction infront of them
and yes thats the game theoriy most of the large 'hubs' of LN want to see. lock up the gold, let people play with paper money, and when people want to settle give them copper/brass/nickle coins and thus the 'bank' keeps the gold..
What's the bank in this case? The lightning node? Clarify, 'cause the lightning node keeps nothing.bank 'account' .. emphasis account.. is comparable to channels..
in regards to joint-bank-account. co-signing
where as hubs.. those who are running as financial businesses by co-authorising hundreds/thousands of their 'customers' channels.. would be the banks
people lock their btc into onchain locks(vaults) with the hub(bank) and need the bank to agree on any payment. where the hub(bank) wants its customers to be disgusted by onchain fee's(close account charge) and not want to exit with their btc(gold) and instead offer them cheap exits via different currency(pennys and dimes)