Quote from: garlonicon on December 25, 2022, 12:50:09 PM

Quote

No Bitcoiner cares about, wants or would even exchange their actual BTC for wrapped BTC to then interact with a smart contract.

Lightning Network is a BTC wrapped in a multisig. And yes, "wrapped" is the correct word for that, because if you "wrap" it in one channel, you cannot "wrap" it in another at the same time, and on-chain interaction is needed for each wrapping and unwrapping operation.

I was speaking of wrapped BTC as in WBTC, e.g. defined here (completely relying on a custodian who promises the 1:1 peg - again, something I will continue to say is completely anti-Bitcoin). https://trustwallet.com/blog/what-is-wrapped-wbtc

Maybe you call lightning-BTC 'wrapped', someone else will call it 'sandwiched' or 'hot-dogged'.. Tongue

These are all no common definitions for Lightning, at all.
Nobody would call Ethereum locked in a smart contract 'wrapped'. What are they? Eth wrapped in Eth? Makes no sense.

Quote from: garlonicon on December 25, 2022, 12:50:09 PM

Also note that in LN there are millisatoshis, so if you execute something on a single millisatoshi, then it would not exist outside of LN (so million users having 1 millisatoshi each will have zero BTC on-chain, there could be 1000000-of-1000000 multisig with 1000 sats, but it cannot be unwrapped and splitted between million UTXOs, because of standardness and dust limit).

Except even owning 1 sat would be under the dust limit. Millisats are not the issue. You will lose up to 1sat at every channel close; there's no denying that, but I don't see the problem. It's also totally off-topic.