so are you saying that in YOUR 'fact' (opinion) the currency inside LN payments is the same?
.. and now we full circle back to Msat discussion. and the 1:1000 peg.
are you certain that Msats are not used in the payment messages sent around the hop/route
are you sure LN transacts "bitcoin". even though "bitcoin" never leaves the blockchain and the pegged "bitcoin" you speak of does not transact until its confirmed to have transacted on the bitcoin network.
now before replying. do not confuse the locked funding or the not on blockchain "commitment" with the "LN payment" of messages denominated in msat.
do not try to say lightning only handles sat measured bitcoin 'payments' by discussing commitments that are never sent around hop/routes of the LN network, just to ignore the msat payment stuff that is sent around the LN network.
i played that game with rath_ already and it didnt work
Commitment transactions and HTLC are inseparable if you want to discuss whether or not we are dealing with empty promises.
Let me quote (my beloved) bolt2 again:
Forwarding HTLCs
Requirements
A node:
until an incoming HTLC has been irrevocably committed:
MUST NOT offer the corresponding outgoing HTLC (update_add_htlc) in response to that incoming HTLC.
irrevocably commited = both parties sign a new commitment transaction, which includes an additional HTLC output. HTLCs can be a part of commitment transactions. For some reason, you ignore
the sophisticated locking scripts and pretend that HTLCs can't be enforced on-chain. Before you brag that HTLCs use msats and not satoshis; read my reply to the end.
also at the update_add_htlc, they dont update the commitment. they create a LN micropayment promise
this update_add_htlc is a private message between channel partners that update their own micropayment promise.
I took you a while to admit that nodes use "update_add_htlc" to forward payments rather than send "hop_data" or "onion_routing_packet" out of blue. They do update the commitment transaction. Again:
Forwarding HTLCs
until an incoming HTLC has been irrevocably committed:
MUST NOT offer the corresponding outgoing HTLC (update_add_htlc) in response to that incoming HTLC.
I am aware that commitments are denominated in satoshi while "update_add_htlc" uses msatoshis. Thus, I can agree that beside the commitment transaction, both parties create a promise that X amount of msats, which is less than 999, belong to either of them. The rest of the coins are not a promise since they can be claimed on the blockchain through the commitment transaction. It would be a promise if the transaction was not signed by both parties.