Quote from: franky1 on January 14, 2022, 11:57:08 PM

before hitting reply.
1. if you have not read the other bolts. dont bother replying, you have already spammed this topic just referencing yourself in previous posts of your opinion. there is no need to post again referencing yourself.

2. if you have sat back and took some time to wish to discuss LN routed payments (without meandering into examples of inchannel direct commitments) then have the first part of your post quoting my previous post questions. putting a * into the [ ] that applies to your opinion.

then we can establish a baseline of opinion. of where your opinion differs or (dare i say it) agree with mine
i want to get a short quick summary of your actual uncontradicted opinion of your thoughts of LN. so that i can see what things your not getting right

2.

Quote from: Rath_ on Today at 02:08:09 AM

Again, you completely ignore two locking scripts which are used for HTLC outputs in commitment transactions.

(facepalm)

Quote from: Rath_ on Today at 02:08:09 AM

I am going to wait for others to share their thoughts. They probably need some time to catch up with us. This is my last reply for now.

(facepalm)

typical. oh well. but dont worry your not the only one that cant answer basic questions, your not the only one trying desperately hard to avoid talking about the msat payments.

oh an in another topic. Doomad reminded me about how crappy LN is about funding locks. not requiring them to actually peg to 6 confirms locked value onchain.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380036.msg58991641#msg58991641

anyways. seems the only thing LN PR guys understand is direct payments in hub model.
just a shame LN are even trying to break that by having direct payments not require a locked funding peg