Topic: Lightning Network Observer - page 2. (Read 13674 times)

I've said it before that Bitcoin needs to have its own "Android moment".

Linux was not very user-friendly back in the 90s/2000s (tons of heated debates about replacing Windows on PCs and becoming the dominant desktop OS), until Android came out in a blue ocean market (mobile devices totally displacing PCs for the Average Joe).

Of course we all know that Android is mostly controlled by Google (despite having some free open-source variants without Google Services).

I honestly don't know what would be the equivalent "Android moment" for Bitcoin, but I sure hope it's not a custodial service/LN bank.

ps: What worries me about LN are some Reddit comments from LN node owners that they permanently lost their BTC balance when the other side of the channel disappeared all of a sudden.

I know watchtowers exist, but this adds unnecessary complexity and TBH it sounds a bit centralized.

says the cult leader that doesnt want bitcoin scaling because "LN IS SOLUTION"(in his eyes) because he has repeatedly said "BITCOIN CONGESTION MEANS PEOPLE SHOULD AVOID BUYING THINGS WITH BITCOIN AND USE LN MSAT's INSTEAD"

doomad wants merchant adoption on LN IOU credit(unsettled balance owed) network, but have no merchant use on the bitcoin network because he wants the congestion of junk memes but doent want genuine product/service purchases seen on bitcoin
IDIOT

funny how when merchant adoption on bitcoin quietened down due to cludgy exploits that made bitcoin congested and fees expensive.. doomad didnt want bitcoin improvements.. he just wanted gateways to get people away from using bitcoin

also note how he is still trying to push "LN adoption" and not actually admit LN has bigger problems that actually need fixing
"LN improvements" is an understatement, LN doesnt need a screw driver, it needs a bulldozer and rebuild
(learn from the mistakes of LN's cracked foundations and structure, (rebuild from scratch).. there is only so man times you can polish a turd before the only action left is to flush it)

LN's issues is not just UI related

Indeed.  That's a legitimate criticism.  It's far from user-friendly at this stage and needs a great deal more development in that area.  A platform that's only practically usable by power-users and tech-boffins isn't an ideal outcome.  If the "solution" to that issue is that LN ends up becoming more reliant on custodial services, I'll be rather disappointed too. 

Merchant adoption is a valid metric to judge it by, since people effectively express their approval or disapproval by their actions.  Clearly the evidence shows that people aren't being "forced into LN", as certain nutjobs repeatedly claim.  But if people generally aren't using it for payments yet, then that would suggest it needs improvement to become a more enticing option for them.

doomad slings insults but never uses data, statistics or code to back up his cries
true comedy of doomad being the lead cultist of LN.

but here is the thing, many have used LN as a merchant service via different wallets( rying to find one that fits their needs) and dropped it quick when the headaches appear
LN has more flaws, and no its not just one wallet implementation to blame.. its the overall protocol flaws.. even LN devs admit to it..
their work around's are not protocol fixes, but seeking users to rely on centralised hubs to offer channel balance, because LN devs cant find solutions to the network problems of LN's design

LN (network) is not the solution to bitcoin

other subnetworks will start from scratch offering niche services for different populous, demography and feature needs.. but LN wont be it

those acting like cultists thinking LN is the solo solution to all problems are the lying exaggerating over promising drama queens that should be blamed for the issues people find when they use LN via many different wallets in many different countries but all notice problems

there are many many LN issues.. its not just strike/chivo.. only reason strike/chivo mentioned in recent days is due to the hypocrite of strike (mellor) trying to say those that believe his fake promises are to blame for believing his exaggerations, and i was responding to mellors hypocracy using him as an example..
but that does not mean the only issue with LN was mellor.. there are many other issues with LN, and many wallets and all the lies of exaggerated over promised utility LN wont achieve nor solve the needs of bitcoiners

mellors hypocrisy which is the same silly antics of doomad(over-promising LN utopian dreams of solutions..) but then saying "dont blame LN for failures, blame a wallet or user error"

That sums it up perfectly. I stay asides with Jack. It can't handle the entire populace by tomorrow morning, but it's one solution for micro-transactions.

I'll be honest, though, I'm quite disappointed by lightning network over the years. Not because of the liquidity nonsense argument, or the "custodial wallets". Merchants simply don't accept it, and those who do, see very little activity coming from it. People rather pay in altcoins, and I don't blame them. To run a lightning node, you need to have a Bitcoin and lightning node running 24/7, which is another level of lack of comfort. And on top of that, add that your payments might fail completing sometimes, and that you need to manage your sending and receiving capacity. Simply put, a no-go for the average consumer.

I'd say franky1 is certainly opinionated and overconfident, but that doesn't necessarily equal smart.  In fact, someone who engages in that volume of confirmation-bias and jumping to the wrong conclusions (a process he mislabels "research") likely needs to have their intellect called into question.  Someone who was genuinely smart wouldn't continually make an ass out of themselves by spouting nonsense about LN just because they have an irrational hatred for it.

As an example, if an individual implementation suffered a failure, you don't tar the entire network with the same brush.  People nowadays generally consider 'Multibit' to be a defunct Bitcoin wallet, but it would be wholly incorrect to say that Bitcoin failed just because that single piece of software did.  So it's equally wrong to claim LN has failed just because Chivo suffered a failure. 

A smart person would not try to make such an incredibly stupid argument. 



That's a fruitless line of discussion with franky1.  Even if you invested countless hours, read all the information available, verified all the sources, double checked the veracity of what was written and then formed a different conclusion to the one franky1 has formed, that apparently means you just haven't researched enough (and are supposedly an asskisser and a fangirl as well).  And if you don't have an irrational hatred of LN, it's unlikely you will ever form the same conclusions he does.  So he's always going to be at odds with what others believe.  His ego simply won't permit alternate viewpoints.  If what you're saying doesn't match his delusions, he perceives you as wrong.  Even though his hatred blinds him to the reality everyone else can see plain as day. 

Recognise him for the lunatic he is and don't waste your time on him.  He's just mentally ill.  That's all there is to it.  Top-tier sociopath.

you LN fangirls promise LN to be the solution to all bitcoin woes, where its can do X, Y Z..
yet millions of people tried it and complained and made their countries leader stop using LN for the backbone of their wallet
even their replacement admits they had to re-do code and fix the issues left by strike(your god)

your cultish idol you are still trying to defend has said lies in the actual video we both watched and yet you still say he makes good talking points
FFS he lied to el salvadors president and is saying BS in the video we watched.. and you still say "he makes good talking points" (facepalm)

seems you have no time to learn about bitcoin and technical stuff,..
seems you have no time to learn about the issues your favoured other network has..
.. but always have time for emotional outrage when your dev gods get critiqued about the shoddy subnetwork you lot over promise but under deliver .. even 6 years later of making promises and saying be patient.. the problems still exist

how about learn that people should be reviewing, criticising and scrutinising devs to ensure they dont make mistakes. because those mistakes cause people problems and financial loses..

if you admire a broken network that only limps along, but you want to say its fully functional and working and utopian dreamy operational.. you too are part of the over promising exaggerations which then cause naive newbies you want to recruit think its the solution and then you want to blame the naive newbies you want to recruit for having such exaggerated beliefs, even when its YOU LOT giving them these false beliefs

how about spending less time in crying games and cultish blames.. and instead just learn about how things actually work

I thought that I already acknowledge that there are some third-party custodial wallets... .. so yeah, I don't know the details, and if I had a lightning wallet and I sent my transaction to someone with a chivo wallet, then wouldn't they be able to receive it.. That was the ONLY point that I was making in regards to some of the wallets in El Salvador may have had issues.


I had already heard that they had problems with the roll out of that wallet.. so I doubt that the Chivo wallet is the whole story about being able to transact with bitcoin (and/or lightning network) in el salvaldor.

Yes, I understand that part of the attraction of lightning network was to allow for smaller level transactions, and yeah, maybe that part is not working so well in El Salvador in terms of the feasiblity of smaller transactions and the other problems that you point out that they become less and less lighting network and seem to be like a inside service.. and so yeah, I don't know if I would be able to send from my lightning wallet in those cases... I doubt that the problems with those parts of the programs would be a total death knell for whatever is going on with lightning network in El Salvador, but yeah you could be correct that Mallers's reputation should be undermined based on some of the issues if his company and his systems might have been involved in some of the failures to deliver.. perhaps? perhaps?  I don't claim to have time to be studying into the matters, even if you ended up pointing out some of these matters.



Mallers is still popular, so yeah, maybe he is partly responsible for his product not being used in El Salvador as much as it had seemed to have had been originally outlined.   I don't mind to consider the facts on the ground if some of the matters might not be working out as well as anticipated and yeah there might be certain interfaces that are not working - even though like I originally mentioned there are still ways to use the lightning network in El Salvador or even to transact in bitcoin that might not be so easily accomplished in other areas, especially since El Salvador is promoting the abilities to transact in bitcoin and/or lightning network.


I did not say that I worship him, and it does seem that he has overpromised and underdelivered on several aspects of his product, so there are other people in the bitcoin space who are not very keen on some aspects of Jack Mallers.. .. while at the same time, he does hit on a lot of great bitcoin talking points when he is interviewed in various public media events. .and yeah, he remains pretty popular, but that does not mean that I idolize him.. but I am not completely negative about his motives either.. so you know the expression: "don't attribute to malice that which can be attributable to incompetence."  So in that regard, I am not going to jump to conclusions about malice things have been happening at the behest of Mallers  even if there could be various possible examples of his incompetencies in relation to aspects of the ways that the Chivo wallet as connected with his product was attempted to be rolled out.


Maybe Chivo wallet failed?  I am not sure if LN has failed, because LN is still going.


How do you know these things?  There could also be some disenchantment about bitcoin due to price drops and/or bitcoin's volatility.. especialloy downward in 2022.

I am not going to claim to be as smart as you in terms of the supposed death of LN, and it seems that Chivo wallet may well still be going.  It is just not the same as it was originally thought to be.


Why would I have time to research?  How do you know? I am not claiming to be any kind of El Salvador and/or lightning network expert. I am a participant in this forum with my own interests, and I don't need any fucking assignments from know-it-all patronizing dweebs like you.


I doubt that is even a realistic conclusion about my own response to the Mallers video.  I said that I watched it and I described what he said differently from you, and you seem to be so full of hate and wanting to be right all the time, that you might not be able to accept that lightning nework is still operating.. and Mallers seems to be involved with aspects of the lightning network.  I don't follow him around, yet I still interpreted the short video clip differently from you, which seems a BIG so what.. I already made my response to point out where I thought that you were exaggerating a bit much in terms of what you said about Mallers's interview.  and so I doubt that we need to even go further with the topic.  Each of us made our responses, but yeah, I know you like to pursue matters into the absurd, and that's fine.. I suppose..It just seems a bit much how you can get so carried away with some of the conclusions that you made.. and there is no need for me to reiterate your conclusions..  Maybe that's your point, to just distract with the level of your apparent outrageous responses.

maybe just do some research instead

mellor went to el salvador touting his wares and dreams of how LN was bitcoin (heck even in the video we just both watched he tries to say bitcoin moves across world in seconds. where he is not correctly saying bitcoin takes 10minutes+ and lightning (which is not the bitcoin network) is in seconds)
see how he is the one exaggerating expectations.. MELLOR said "bitcoin across the world in seconds"

so he has lied.. by trying to proclaim that LN features, are "bitcoin"
meaning many people then expect bitcoin to be internationally transfered in seconds

al so the liquidity of LN(available routing pathways) was not sufficient to allow LN payments of msat(its true network feature) which was the backbone of v1 of chivo wallet.. and within THREE MONTHS el salvador dropped LN and had to redesign chivo wallet to communicate with a CEX (alphapoint)

if still unsure dont cry and say you need information and wait for me to spoonfeed you.. go research it. its called google and will feed you in seconds

then you cant cry that im trying to poison you with my spoon feeds(usual excuse people make to remain ignorant, "misinformation coz franky")
so if you are going to try that game, then dont reply. just DYOR

learn independently and you cant cry no more

however if you do want spoonfeeds and not going to make crying excuses after
timeline:
summer 2021-jan2022: strike+chivo (strike=mellor)
sept21-jan 22: chivo wallet had many faults over previous months
january 2022 chivo announces new partnership with alphapoint (strike disapears and denounces any involvement in helping el salvador)

emphasis:
incase you dont want to cry but want a quick spoonfeed heres a 30 second google search

https://slate.com/technology/2022/05/el-salvador-bitcoin-crash-nayib-bukele.html
(note, these $30 of msat accounts were LN inbound balances of 'tempID microchannels" with strike on other end. not actual new UTXO with $30 of bitcoin locked to citizens own keys)

https://www.theblock.co/post/131452/el-salvadors-chivo-wallet-keeps-breaking-and-users-are-seeking-answers
https://alphapoint.com/blog/case-study-chivo/
(alphapoint even had to edit and fix strike LN integration)

.. but hey, let see you reply and cry that you idolise some dev god, and think im just poisoning your beliefs as your lame excuse to ignore real information from actual users(el salvadorian complaints) that tried it and hated the experience..  go continue to be blind and idolise a dev god like a cult and say you trust a guy that cant even realise he is wearing a shirt inside out
or.. realise things are not as utopian dreamy as your dev god make out

..
summary..
el salvadorians thought they were using BITCOIN in summer-winter of 2021.. so when the LN experiment failed. they blamed bitcoin.. yet reality was they never even touched the bitcoin network in that failed experiment. they just thought it was bitcoin due to advice given by mellor.. who was actually offering them LN, which was the failure

..
last point
i mentioned the strike mess-up in el salvador multiple times in last couple years. you had time to DYOR. yet today by kissing mellor ass and believing and salivating at his words without knowing what he is really saying, you are sounding more like a cult than a person wanting actual information

I watched the video too, Franky.

Mallers seemed to say the exact opposite of what you are criticizing him for, or maybe to rephrase that Mallers said that if you can recognize and appreciate that the lightning network was able to transfer from some currency and then put that currency into bitcoin and then transfer to another part of the world into to transfer into another currency without any hardly any costs, then that is an achievement that seems quite powerful that had not previously been achieved...

So in that regard, you (Franky) seem to be a person who is putting your own expectations on the LN, and yeah we all know that LN is not the same as base layer bitcoin, but it also has abilities to peg in and out of bitcoin without creating new coins. and yeah there are seeming to be ongoing glitches, but the LN is still serving purposes for some people who are transacting in bitcoin (pegged to bitcoin) in ways that they might not be able to achieve on the base layer - depending on when the transactions are done.

I hate to even ask you any questions about your solutions, yet many of us can see that LN is complementing bitcoin in various transactional ways...and yeah maybe sometimes it would be better to send transactions on chain..

I am pretty sure that LN is still being used in a lot of places in El Salvador, yet at the same time, I understand that there are a lot of third-party custodial wallets there.  However, if I were to go to El Salvador with my Phoenix wallet and/or my Aqua Wallet (or perhaps my Breez wallet that currently is not charged with any balance), I am pretty sure that I would be able to transact with several El Salvador persons and/or vendors to provide goods and/or services with the lightning network, or even I forgot that I have cash app too, which uses lightning (although surely Cash App is way more third-party custodial than the other ones I mentioned that I have).   We might need to see some kind of source if you are proclaiming that LN doesn't work in El Salvador anymore... ..and some of what is being used in any particular location will not only have to do with the infrastructure that is at that location, but also what individuals, institutions and/or governments might choose to use, so if we go there, there may be some variance and also just individualized choices about whether some of them are using third-party custodial wallets or if they are using self-custodial wallets.

not harsh on expectations.. when we have guys like mellor and other LN people who dont know better exaggerating expectations upfront and then everyone realises when using it that it doesnt meet expectations/promises, dont then double down by blaming the critics for pointing out the failures

even el salvador dropped LN within 3 months of using it and being told it was bitcoin... LN is not bitcoin (sorry mellor LN is a separate network and bitcoin never leaves the bitcoin network)

..
emphasis
if your going to over-promise/set dreamed-up utopian expectations of something(aka LIE) dont then blame the critics for pointing out the lies..

Jack Mallers sends a message to all LN critics.

Sorry, the tweet is from an Italian account and has Italian subtitles, but the audio is in English.
I wasn't able to find a "clean" version.




As usual, despite having that random appearance, Jack Miller is actually very incisive when describing the LN.

Hey, author of the proposal here. Indeed the SCIDADDRESS requires the use of keysend payments but you don't have to receive to a specific channel. Keysend is a "send-to-key" payment where key is the node-id of the recipient, SCIDADDRESS is a simple translation system for node-ids.

 

happy lightning pay day

because on january 8, 2018, the first 'real payment' took place in the lightning network. at that time, a user paid for a vpn subscription at TorGuard
the vpn provider was the first service to accept lightning payments and since everything was still reckless and untested, TorGuard even agreed to reimburse the costs for lost any satoshi

At a glance it seems like it would work as a sort of shorthand for a keysend payment.  But if I understand it correctly it would only really receive a payment to a specific channel?  That could be somewhat limiting unless you had a channel with giant liquidity on the partner side.

On an Italian Bitcoin chat someone higlhited this proposal from an Italian drveloper:

SCIDADDRESS

https://gist.github.com/araspitzu/415876f8bffd90a9d7d6b46a41b8914c


What do you think guys of this idea?

the very original concept of LN was that before opening a channel both parties would agree on a key set and create a multisig and both fund that same multisig address to both have mutual control of funds... that concept didnt last long

now when you open a channel you lock your value to keys YOU own and assign some of your value to a key (future) destined to JJG..
if he also opens up some value on his side to then give you inbound balance he has his own value with some assigned to your key(yet to be settled).. this would be a bi-directional channel with 2 funding locks one for each of you..
but if only you open and channel to JJG its just YOUR utxo value lock.. IOUing JJG
..

funny thing is, you are arguing.. yet proving my point. the value is still locked on your side.. whilst you are alive and JJG has not closed o you
yes he keeps a signed copy of a UNCONFIRMED transaction(thus an iou).. but he does not have the value yet. he just has a copy of a yet to be confirmed transaction.. (emphasising again thus IOU)

after you die. much like withdrawing from a CEX ... by having a transaction broadcast onto the bitcoin network. THEN he has the chance to get btc.. but until then. he doesnt have btc

learn inbound.. it means something is coming yet not arrived to its destination.. it is not JJG yet
..
and then you want to talk about strike
strike(jack mallers) scammed the el salvador leader into using LN as the backbone of chivo wallet  in summer 2021..got it set up by autumn.. but by christmas 2021 el salvador leader got pissed off with strikes antics and ditched it.. many el salvadorian citizens got very annoyed by the broken promises, all broken due to the LN experiment thrust on el salvador under the pretence of saying "sending bitcoin".. they learned very quick that this was a lie.

heck even strike had to change its business model due the el salvador failure

..
if you think LN is going to become the super highway where all subnetwork bridges converge. you are only fooling yourself

if you realise why so many dev teams have tried LN, seen it fail and decided to make other subnetwork bridges. you will soon see why they will avoid using LN as the intersection of their subnetwork bridge

pretending LN is trust minimised is a lie

the promise 6 years ago of trust minimised never flourished. infact all tests for first 4 years didnt battle harden LN, it instead realised it couldnt work well under trust minimised concept.. and they changed LN's business model to need hubs, factories, watchtowers, custodians even more.. meaning more trust is needed. not less
...
nice try to positive spin LN flaws like using sham buzzwords such as "battle hardened" but by spinning it you have actually proven that it has weakened not hardened

. you sound like a great comedian but not a great sales pitcher.. you made me laugh

if you think that LN is instant and irreversible settlement of satoshis. you are not talking about LN
LN doesnt settle irreversibly.. thats what the bitcoin network does after/when exiting LN

i did laugh the most when you used strike as an example..
its funny how much you are making the failure points for me, while pretending to be a LN adoring saleman trying to promote LN

you should try comedy

your sales pitch was the equivelent to saying CEX are trust minimised services that use irreversible settlements.. when reality is the settlement are withdrawals to escape and move away from CEX service. to then confirm value on the bitcoin network
withdrawing from a CEX is not a feature of proving CEX is non-custody.. its actually the case people need to withdraw/settle to get out of a services custody, because whilst in CEX/LN the funds are not the promised recipients(yet)

by you even thinking whilst in LN recipients get instant irreversible settled value.  shows you have alot more to learn

You're and than.  And you are wrong. I understand the functionality quite well.


You are 100% WRONG.  You are exposing a deep misunderstand of how lightning works.

When I open a channel to JJG's node both MY node, and HIS enter into a transaction. In my original example I send ALL the sats but we BOTH hold keys to the HTLC (Hashed timelock contract).  Under normal circumstances we both keep records of the transactions inside that channel.  These are the IOUs you refer to.  But to disprove your point that I would own the keys and the bitcoin on the blockchain let's consider a hypothetical.  Let's say I open that channel, and I die, and my node burns up in a fire.  All the value is mine in that channel, and if JJG decided to force close the channel all the value would go to an address that I alone hold the private key for (though I am now dead... I do not like this story a lot).

BUT!  And if you want to point to something more like a flaw in the LN then you could start here.

If JJG KNEW I was dead and my node was unrecoverable then he could broadcast the FC while claiming the sats in that channel all belonged to him.  And unless a watchtower got involved his node would execute what it is designed to do which would be to send all the sats in the channel to an address only he controls.

So your assertion that the sats were "mine on the blockchain" is just wrong.  We both share the channel and have rights and recourse to recover the correct amount of sats to our respective addresses, and even if none were his there are ways he could simply take them all.

Perhaps you will reject my above proof that you are wrong, but even if you did not I am sure you are salivating and ready to point to the above and say "Aha!  See?  the LN sucks and people can steal from each other".

Here's the crazy thing.  You call me a fanatic promoting a sham.  But I am not.  I think the lightning network is overly convoluted, and has some serious problems.  In fact, I do not personally believe that the LN will be the final way Bitcoin is transacted between parties with low fees.

The lightning network is not suited for average individuals.  One must be fairly technical to use it, or use a compromise solution like WoS.  But I have said for a long time that technology will find a way.

And today... three years later after that post,  I think I have a better view on how that is unfolding.

And I am sorry to disappoint you but the lightning network will remain an integral part of it.

Frankly (lol) I think the lightning network is just one or two steps too convoluted for it to be the final stop on the bus of cheap transactions.  Yes it CAN work, and it does.  Quite well, in fact.  But things like the necessity of having a node ONLINE to receive payments and the fact it is a hot wallet on the internet mean that average Joe might not be able to really handle the responsibility of using it for payments in a non-custodial fashion.

But the fact remains that the LN is a trust minimized cryptographic method for multiple entities to move value.  And it has been battle tested and hardened now for 4+ years.

What I see happening at this point is the LN is becoming an intermediate step at first, and then a POWERFUL tool as it matures for transmitting value.

Strike is a perfect example of a use case that the designers of it saw WAAAAY before the rest of us.  And before you start flailing and talking about custodial blah blah I would encourage you to stop thinking in black and white and only one level ahead.  Strike uses the LN to facilitate the movement of money all over the globe for as close to free as you can possibly get.  Strike is not a lightning wallet, or a LSP or any other level one thing.  Strike is a centralized business that is taking advantage of the LN to be able to move significant value anywhere an in practice instantly.  They are a money transmitter.  and instead of going through the old ways of doing that they are bypassing all the trouble by using the LN.

Strike is NOT LN.  It is NOT decentralized.  It is NOT a lot of things we bitcoinners hold as central.  It is a business.  A business that uses the lightning network to bypass ENORMOUS amounts of friction that exists in the traditional rails of finance.  And at it's heart it uses BITCOIN to do this.

It would be a good use of terminology to call Strike a "layer three" technology.  And just because strike is a centralized "layer three" does not mean all of them will have to be.

We are going to see the following over the next Bitcoin Epoch:

Multiple decentralized, trust minimized methods for moving value emerging.

--Chaumian mints in things like e-cash and cashu and the like.
--Multiple implementations of the Elements code base like Liquid.
----These will become interoperable with each other on some level.
----They will also use the LN and implementation of the LN on their own layers to do settlement and interoperability.

Then you have other sidechain, drivechains, and more emerging as we sit here arguing over one of the core technologies that will make it all work.

And of course, technology only dreamed of may emerge that obsoletes many of the above rails INCLUDING the LN while retaining or even improving the trust models and decentralization.

AI may even find a place in all this.  I could see it working to improve lightning insofar as channel balancing and functions like watchtowers for example.

Franky you are still stuck on level one.

Bitcoin at the base of all these technologies is absolutely essential.  It IS the killer app.  It IS the part of all this we could not do ANY of it without.  And it MUST remain maximally decentralized and minimally trust based.  And all the tech we build on top of it can make as many tradeoffs as we could dream of.

The lightning network trades complexity, and the need to be online for a way to provide INSTANT and IRREVERSIBLE settlement of satoshis.

Stop fighting it, you fool.

Singing Christmas trees and lightning bitcoin payments? A blend of technology miracles and Christmas magic!🎄 Christmas tree activated by composing music by paying through the #Bitcoin Lightning network.




picture X

your saying buzzwords without understanding functionality.. those IOU's(weak contracts) are not as smart as buzzworded.. and thats the sham.. they pretend LN is better then it actually is



you have not "given" him btc. he has not "gained" btc
the funds are still locked in YOUR funding utxo of keys YOU own. where the channel then has a UNCONFIRMED, UNSETTLED tx template showing a output where JJG MIGHT get btc in the future when you both mutually close.. but until then he does not have BTC
 
inside LN YOU still own the coin. its not his coin on the blockchain. its still YOURS
you are 'crediting' him with a IOU of future settlement. but you have not given him BTC yet

its the same as CEX custodians, he might see a balance of value owed.. but if its not in a UTXO he has key control of.. its not his
#not-your-key-not-your-coin

thats why we tell people to withdraw and gain control of value owed

also LN has many flaws that do not guarantee the recipient will ever get the inbound owed balance..
LN devs admit it, its why they then use work arounds of then needing centralised watchtowers and hubs and stuff..
but even those have flaws.. flaws building on flaws, still not resolving the underlying issue

oh by the way breez also opens channel and credits users with inbound balance without needing a X confirm funding locked value utxo
which is another flaw

learn the problems when services say they can give instant inbound balance. it means they are not locking value to their partners keys

when LN stopped their initial plans of co-funding a multisig(2-of 2, both partners own and control) and then both needing mutual sign off.. more LN flaws appeared

---

rather then you posting a message asking to be hugged and spoonfed.. and waiting hours for a response. you could simply spend 30 seconds on google and find the answers yourself

i am not your mother. i do not need to spoonfeed you or hug you.

if you actually want to learn. GO LEARN