Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 06:09:20 PM

Quote from: franky1 on January 06, 2022, 07:56:58 PM

ok i must start with the first fatal flaw.
LN CAN infact work without bitcoin. LN's function allows it to peg to different blockchains.

Agreed. I assumed we were talking about LN on the Bitcoin network, but indeed, it can be applied broader.

when one group want to say LN is bitcoin2.0 and muddy the water confusing what LN can and cant do. limiting the scope to what LN can do only when talking about bitcoin, makes it ignore what LN actually is.

Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 06:09:20 PM

Quote from: franky1 on January 06, 2022, 07:56:58 PM

LN has no network wide audit/consensus that checks that all nodes/channels are all connected to the bitcoin network.
some LN users right now only have channels/nodes pegged to litecoin

True. But as far as I know, those LTC-LN-nodes won't interact with a BTC-LN-node, so even though they all use some form of LN, they won't mix up transactions.
the peer connection aspect of nodes.. is separate to channel forming.
LN peers(nodes) can connect together and have different blockchain bridged channels. .. its why atomic swaps is a feature

Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 06:09:20 PM

Quote from: franky1 on January 06, 2022, 07:56:58 PM

many devs and LN users have lost funds. even with "punishment" clauses attached.

LN is still experimental, right? People have lost on-chain Bitcoin too, and I have no doubt people have lost their coins through LN. However, for future growth, I'm more interested if this can be improved up to the point where the chance of losing coins becomes small enough to be acceptable. Let's face it: people lose their physical wallet with cash too.

yes losing private keys, data loss/computer crashes. hackers, are all standard risks of all blockchains and all crypto. including LN.. but LN has flaws ontop of standard risk. where even the devs making LN have lost value, not due to standard risk reasons
EG when i get a confirmed payment on bitcoin.. the sender is not going to punish me somehow and double spend my coin. nor can he. yet these smart contracts add in new clauses that allow delays in confirmation to invoke punishments (much like fiat chargeback scamming is a bane of merchants lives, so will these punishment clauses become)

Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 06:09:20 PM

Quote from: franky1 on January 06, 2022, 08:09:29 PM

watchtowers.. ok now you are creating bank managers.
so now people have to trust their channel partner to not cheat. and then trust a bank manager to watch that the partner has not cheated.

I must say I like this system: if you don't trust the existing watchtowers, you can run your own. It's like creating your own bank managers! And if enough people do that, there will be enough watchtowers to rule out being offline when you need one.

meanwhile on bitcoin even offline someone can pay me. no need for me to sign for it. no need to watch or hire a bank to watch to make sure the sender doesnt refund himself. its mine. done. clear. end of story

LN is different and riskier and the LN PR people need to make people aware of the risks instead of just saying its bitcoin 2.0 and has same security as bitcoin

Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 06:09:20 PM

Quote from: franky1 on January 06, 2022, 08:31:32 PM

soo much to do just to hope cheating does not happen.

I agree with you here! I (still) don't understand all the technical details of LN, but from what I've seen, it is indeed complicated. Much more complicated than signing a simple on-chain Bitcoin transaction. But, and that's why I like LN: when implemented and used correctly, it has the potential to make secure transactions abundant.

this is what i mean by needing to explain the risks. you loosely wrote:
when implemented and used correctly, it has the potential to make secure transactions abundant
but even that is sweeping the risks under the carpet. like its not a big deal and pretends to be "secure".
there are more flaws then you might think. or more flaws than others had bothered to make you aware of

Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 06:09:20 PM

Quote from: franky1 on January 06, 2022, 08:31:32 PM

so much trust is needed to risk not having to watch 24/7

This, however, I don't agree with. For example: rebooting your LN node and being offline for a while isn't enough for your channel partner to broadcast an old channel state and steal your funds.

with honest partners. no big deal. but we all know from all the bitcoin scams mentioned on this forum. you cant trust someone not to want to take their funds out if they see an opportunity to garner more then they deserve.
again going offline thinking partner wont do it, requires trust

Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 06:09:20 PM

Quote from: franky1 on January 06, 2022, 08:31:32 PM

meanwhile, on bitcoin. when someone sends me value. its confirmed. finito. its mine, no takesy backsy's, no third party watchtower, no co-signer needed. no punishment. its just mine. done

Agreed. But: say you sell coffee, and say you accept many small amounts of Bitcoin per day. Consolidating your funds will be expensive because all those small inputs increase your transaction size. LN doesn't have that problem, and I haven't even started yet about limited blockspace.
For me, it's quite simple: if you buy a car with Bitcoin, pay on-chain. If you buy a coffee, use LN. Both have their pros and cons depending on the situation.
For receiving: If I receive a payment worth $1000, I prefer Bitcoin on-chain. But if I receive 1000 payments of $1 each, I prefer Bitcoin LN.

i dont have a problem with LN being advertised as a nice service for micro payments.. the issue is when its described as bitcoins solution to everyones every day payment needs. when its described as bitcoin2.0. when its described as the replacement to not need to scale bitcoin or widen its 'limited blockspace'
seeing as you brought it up. ill just quickly say
the limited blockspace is not limited due to any technical reason. its limited by commercial politics reason, of creating a demand for a altnet that can fill a niche

Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 06:09:20 PM

Quote from: franky1 on January 06, 2022, 08:31:32 PM

when setting up a channel you have to put keys in even if you are just watching balance. those keys are needed actively all the time. even if you are not buying anything for yourself and instead just routing..

Agreed. Do you mean the risk of having your node compromised and your keys stolen? That is indeed a risk because you can't use cold storage in LN. My workaround is to lower the risk: I don't LN for large amounts.

Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 06:09:20 PM

Quote from: franky1 on January 06, 2022, 08:31:32 PM

1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things

agree[ *] disagree[ *]
Assuming we're talking about LN on the Bitcoin network, I ticked both boxes. I agree, because LN and Bitcoin indeed use different networks, and are meant for different circumstances. But I also disagree, because the transactions are linked and LN-payments can eventually be settled on-chain.

first its not LN on the bitcoin network. its just LN. whereby you want to restrict it to LN bridged to the bitcoin network
again once you understand that atomic swaps and connecting nodes is separate comms than creating channels, it may become clearer for you

Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 06:09:20 PM

Quote from: franky1 on January 06, 2022, 08:31:32 PM

2. LN promises (payments inside LN) are denominated in picocoin(11decimal) also known as msat/millisat

agree [ *] disagree[ ]
I agree on the msat. I ignore the pico, that would be 10^-12, not 10^-11.

actually in the LN code it does mention pico. they just use pico-1 as the measure of mast, but the pico is very much wrote in the code

Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 06:09:20 PM

Quote from: franky1 on January 06, 2022, 08:31:32 PM

5. LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network

agree[ *] disagree[ *]
I ticked both again: it depends on the implementation. If I install a simple Bitcoin LN wallet, it won't work on any other chains. But it can be implemented, just like Bitcoin Core can be adjusted for many different altcoins.

LN when peers connect. .. is a separate thing and a precursor to funding a channel

you cant obviously already have a channel where you already have funds locked in a partnered multisig, just to be able to establish you are a bitcoin only bridge, to then connect to a peer to then create a channel to then fund into the partnered multisig .. thats a paradox

Quote

6.LN wont work without bitcoin

agree[ *] disagree[ ]
Assuming we're talking about LN on the Bitcoin network, I agree. There is no LN Bitcoin without on-chain channel opening and closing. And that's a huge threat to LN if on-chain fees rise.

i will respect you may not know about the peer connect process is separate to the channel establishing process. so ill just mention paradox again. and also mention atomic swap and also LTC bridge

Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 06:09:20 PM

Quote from: franky1 on January 06, 2022, 10:16:24 PM

lightning network can work without bitcoin even when partnering with users that have bitcoin channels
maybe by admitting to this you might be able to explain the positives of such, like highlighting atomic swaps

LN is its own network. there is no litecoin LN network and LN bitcoin network. thats just a user interface error in thinking. not a separation at code level that prevents such communication between peers.

This is new to me. But (I think) my earlier point stands: my Bitcoin LN wallet can't transact with for example a Litecoin LN wallet, because the transactions needed for on-chain settlement aren't compatible, hence the transaction on the LN-side can't be accepted.

thats more about the limitation of your wallet. not the limitation of LN. its much like saying you have a SPV wallet and so now you beleive that the bitcoin network doesnt do blockchain archiving, because your wallet doesnt do it.
i understand your wallet doesnt do atomic swaps, nor any decent node interrogation of channels.. but thats not to say the network cant

Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 06:09:20 PM

Does it make sense to limit this topic to the discussion about LN in relation to Bitcoin, and forget about the possibility of using LN on altcoin networks (at least for now)

nah, lets not play into the game of making LN sound like its bitcoin 2.0 by only talking about a limited scope.
again LN peer connection does not require channel establishment first to 'fix' users to a specific bridged blockchain

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 06:45:07 PM

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 05:03:30 PM

1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things

Yes, they're separate networks obviously, but they do the same thing. They allow you to transact bitcoins. The transaction structure and the contracts are different, but the purpose remains same.

LN allows the payment promise of millisats. the bitcoin network allows the confirmed immutable settlement of sats
i know at GUI level you cant tell the difference. but at code level there is a difference.

much like you wish to argue that binance sidechain is not real bitcoins.