1. "LN allows private agreements".. has the word agreements in it. .. its not trustless. it requires both parties to be amicable. even the punishment cant be auto-trusted to work in un-amicable scenarios, it has flaws.
This has become tiring... I've repeatedly mentioned that it's a game theory. You read and write only what's in your interest. Yeah, Lightning payments are just IOUs and LN is designed to destroy Bitcoin. Keep thinking that way, I give up.
Now if you disagree there's no trust during the Lightning transactions, then everything you've said it's true. Including the analogy with the bank notes. However, I do agree it's trustless.
i know you want to keep being adament about the funding commitment and using it as a settlement in times of non-amicable LN session..
but thats just your ignorance not wanting to enter the discussion of LN PAYMENTS
you know. the 'hop routeing of millisats'
A<>B<>C<>D
although you(A) have a funding or settlement commitment for you vs partner B.. there is no such final contract of you vs D(recipient of payment)
during the payment.. ill EMPHASISE PAYMENT. it requires B,C,D to be online to pay D.
D is not 'trustlessly guaranteed to be paid when A<>B make a promise.
alot of things can go wrong during an LN PAYMENT
..
however on bitcoin. (the real bitcoin network not to be confused with altnets pretending to be), on bitcoin i can pay D direct and there is no need of any 'watchtower'/'punishment' need to be online.. or being online just to receive. or a way to take back funds after confirmation. or any of the other flaws.
i know you only want to direct back to talking about the A<>B funding/punishment as a 'backup' protection. but your forgetting that LN PAYMENTS are usually outside of the A<>B 'game theory' because its actually a PAYMENT trying to succeed between A and D, again the A and D PAYMENT can fail for many reasons.
EG delaying signing millisat promises of B<>C C<>D
EG not passing the HTLC secret
EG not being online
EG not having liquidity
call LN payments by any buzzword you like (onion-routed-payments)(HTLC invoices)(microchannel payments)(millisat promises)
just stop trying to talk about the A<>B funding commitment just to avoid the game theory of LN payments to D