it doesnt sound like LN in practice. because LN FAILS many security and economic integrity checks in those area's. why do you think they are inventing so many SaaS, factory channels, watchtowers and other centralised hubs renting inbound liquidity to cover up the lack in secure signature control of funds..
yes it sounds like SOME of the ideas from 6years ago with promises spouted about LN maybe achieving those ideals,, but LN failed to meet promises, hense needing them to scrap the network which devs admit they cant fix the flaws of, and instead start afresh in a different manner that actually does things securely
LN sounds more complicated than bitcoin itself. imagine that! the thing that confuses me about LN is why should something or how could something built on top of something else be more complicated than the thing it is being built on top of. that seems like incorrect design and structure. the thing that serves as the base should be the more complicated thing. but with LN on top of BTC, i dont think it is. its actually reversed which is not good but what are you gonna do?
LN fundamentally is not complex. .. infact there are soo many simplistic things to it, it has become rife with bugs/flaws and methods to scam other people
its instead MADE TO BE complex for users, to make it LOOK technical
its instead MADE TO BE complex to sucker people into handing BTC to server and then be rented some msats for a session.. its MADE to be complex to lease out a watchtower service.. its MADE to be complex to sucker people into using their proprietary litewallets
do you really think these LN lovers who sponsored core devs, done it out of charity/altruism.. no. its so they can get ROI out of syphoning funds from users that use it..
blockstream did not get hundreds of millions in donations. they received investments from corporations. corporations that will make their money back if they can sucker users to use their prefered middlemen services and move away from using the open bitcoin network
not all subetworks need to have a "archive forever" chain, some could have it where it blockchans for 6 months and at the 6th month they data is agregated into a utxoset and at the 12th month milestone they hash the 6th month utxoset as a milestoned history and then prune the 6 month chain and just keep a utxoset of those 6thmonths. then repeat process every 6 months so that there is only 6 months of archive chain and a ball of utxo's as a preimage of the rest of history at Xmonth previous state
wouldn't that also be a solution to BTC's growing blockchain size to keep it trimmed down to a max level? if not then i'm not sure how it could be a solution there either. but i think it goes back to the issue of you can't have something more complex built on top of something simpler. that's reversed design.
well it can be made possible that one of the coinbase outputs is a hash of a utxoset and for 6 months each block contains that hash of a milstone point before generating a new hash for the next milestone . and then by having 6months of the hash proving a fileset of utxos. then users can just download that fileset, make sure it matches the hashes which have confirmed for a length of time and so dont need the full blockchain previous
as for different niches
EG starbucks can have its own customer network. offering its giftcard balance system and loyalty points
hold that thought!
whereby instead of locking all funds into one crappy subnetwork and then splintering off all balance into multiple channels of that one crappy subnetwork.
but at least they can send bitcoin to anyone for anything. and buy anything that bitcoin can buy, including coffee.
people lock funds into several networks before entering the networks and then having balance in different networks, doing different things
that's not what people want to do though. lock some of their funds into a starbucks network and some of it in a mcdonalds network and so on. then when some amazing pizza deal comes along they can't do it because their bitcoin is locked into the wrong networks.
you do know most LN channels end up serving only one avenue/path of a service where using a different channel to pay a certain service comes with different costs.. so users usually just rebalance to put value into which ever channels they intend to spend the most with, with whichever service they use the most
EG if they mainly pay into exchanges they put most funds into a LN channel that has the cheapest path to an exchange. and not put funds into a expensive path to an exchange. .. and if they want to buy coffee they put coffee amounts of a month budget into the channel thats cheaper to reach the starbucks channel
taking that one step further why need to put all funds into a LN lock and then distribute to preferred/unpreferred channels in that one network. when you can do the same balance/account utility matching over different networks, thus not subservient to one crappy network that doesnt like you closing channels
and have true atomic swaps between networks, which even LN after 6 years cant manage to fix at scale even within their own network
i would imagine atomic swaps are not free and you probably get raked over the coals in transaction fees in some cases. but if your ideal view of things includes free atomic swaps then maybe...
imagine atomic swaps as decentralised exchanges(dex) then run some thoughts through some scenarios
hint: if A wants to swap his locked LTC for B's locked BTC then the EXCHANGE RATE would be rated to cover fees
