also my point has always been. that LN has no network consensus to audit channels to ensure that funds exist to honour payments...
Your point isn't true, and we've explained it to you like a million times. Not only in this page, but in others (which didn't have a lightning niche, but just included a reference, and you immediately started derailing as usual) and in a thread
dedicated to you; you can't go more ridiculous than that. You're refuting the irrefutable years now. That's concerning.
I'm not going to write this one more time. I'll quote myself, because I've said it enough times already.
Lightning, on the other hand, requires no faith. You need to trust nobody but yourself to transact. Not your partners, not your partners' partners, no one.
Emphasis mine:
The [chain_hash] value denotes the exact blockchain that the opened channel will reside within. This is usually the genesis hash of the respective blockchain. The existence of the [chain_hash] allows nodes to open channels across many distinct blockchains as well as have channels within multiple blockchains opened to the same peer (if it supports the target chains).
even the update is not saved to your ram/hard drive in a bitcoin TX format
After commitment_signed and revoke_and_ack messages, both parties have their final commitment transaction that is understandable by the Bitcoin protocol.
bitcoin does not ever leave the bitcoin network. it relies on locks and pegs.. and LN has no network wide consensus to audit/account/secure those pegs/locks.
It doesn't need consensus, other than the consensus between the two participants. Rath and n0nce can choose to configure their nodes to consider Litecoins Bitcoins, and equate Litecoin-based lightning payments with Bitcoin-based lightning payments. As long as me and my channel partners don't, n0nce and Rath hold no sway to me. What's so difficult to understand about that?
which if there is a break in the route. like if bob goes offline chen doesnt get paid
It doesn't matter what Bob does after he's given Chan the script. Bob gives him the money under that one condition, that is finding a number that returns TRUE once OP_HASH160 <h> OP_EQUALVERIFY is executed. It is commonly said that the money go backwards (Chan -> Dina, Bob -> Chan, Alice -> Bob), but the money actually go forwards (or precisely, the ownership of the money). What does go backwards is the satisfaction of each node's condition.