Topic: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain - page 14. (Read 3153 times)

Think of it this way:

There are several different tokens that can be called "USDT". So off the top of my head, I can list "USDT (Omni) which runs on the Bitcoin network", the "USDT (TRC-20)" on Tron's chain, and finally the one everybody actually seems to call "Tether" but they are most of the time referring to the ERC-20 token that runs on Ethereum's network.

I said "most of the time" because a lot of those people don't have the slightest clue what is actually meant by Tether but this is the token the Tether company is referring to as it.

My point is that Tether is a loaded term that people refer to different tokens by.

In the case of LN, most people do know that they are referring to the LN that runs on Bitcoin's network, when they shorten the term to just "Lightning Network".

Of course, there are instances of the protocol running on other networks as well, but they are way less used, which is what's contributing to people thinking that Lightning Network is tech that's only used on bitcoin (even though there are a small number of people using it on other networks).

As for LN being able to exist without Bitcoin - well the technology can't run by itself without an underlying chain. It isn't designed to do that. So you can't host a LN that is not connected to any coin's network, you need some like of L1 whether that be Bitcoin or something else.

The takeaway here is that LN is a loaded term just like Tether that refers to the different L2 networks running on top of Bitcoin-derived coins.

That is a terrible and irrelevant example.

Binance chain has nothing to do with bitcoin at all, there is not even a weak link between the two chains. Binance chain is a completely centralized chain that is 100% controlled and owned by Binance. If some day Binance vanishes (like when government shuts them for money laundering), the Binance chain vanishes too alongside any tokens you had there or your balance in your Binance account.

In comparison LN is not only directly linked to bitcoin, it relies on bitcoin. Nobody can shut down LN since it is a completely decentralized layer without any central authority.
Additionally in order to transact in LN you don't need to convert your bitcoins to another coin with an exchange rate (even if it is 1:1 rate), you directly open your channel and enter this second layer. But in order to transact in another chain like Binance you have to convert your bitcoins to and from that token with an exchange rate that may change in the future. For example they may pay you 1 bitcoin for every 10 binancebitcoin you had. Just as they can print more tokens on that chain since there is nothing stopping them from doing so.

i actually (for once) tried to keep the post short.. meaning tried to not load the questions..
by making them short and simple  to not have extra waffly clauses included
(usually you argue i load posts by waffling. now you say i load them by avoiding waffle)

so lets do the waffle version, explaining my thoughts and using examples

i can run a lightning wallet right now and it is not fixed to only work on bitcoin.
LN is not symbiotic(life depends on it) with bitcoin. LN can symbiosis with other networks..

also without having to download a different lightning wallet, i can bridge to litecoin or other crypto.

which is different than bitcoin or litecoin software which only works with their respective network.
(EG like litecoin electrum is a different software than bitcoin electrum)
(EG like litecoin core is a different software than bitcoin core)
(where litecoin core and litecoin electrum only work on litecoin.. and bitcoincore and bitcoin electrum only work on bitcoin)

one piece of software is inter-changeable with different networks, but not sub-servant. reliant to any of them

so using the same lightning wallet software i can set up a channel with many crypto networks.
i can run the same lightning software and have litecoin and a different crypto channels both active. at the same time. without the need to also have to bridge to bitcoin just to make LN work

in LN i can (with only litecoin bridge) communicate with lightning partners that bridged to bitcoin*

because the peer-to-peer structure of LN is not a handshake that requires both to use bitcoin.

lightning network can work without bitcoin even when partnering with users that have bitcoin channels
maybe by admitting to this you might be able to explain the positives of such, like highlighting atomic swaps

LN is its own network. there is no litecoin LN network and LN bitcoin network. thats just a user interface error in thinking. not a separation at code level that prevents such communication between peers.

again maybe if you see why LN is different and how inter-operable/bridgeable it is with other blockchain networks, whilst not being those blockchain networks, and not needed to only function with one blockchain, you could use it as a positive PR

*i personally havnt held LTC since 2014, but i have used ltc testnet with LN and done this with LN nodes bridged only to bitcoin.
(as one of my many tests of LN to look at how well it plays/fails and what its good and bad points are(found many flaws))

..
hmm
useful advice:
if you now want to distinguish that LN is not one network. but a bunch of networks of same name, each dedicated to each bridged coin.. im guessing you should use the plural lightning networks, instead of the singular lightning network.

maybe have a lil fun with it. with a Z instead of a S .. lightning networkz (z=lightning bolt shape)

i know you maybe ready to itch a scratch and say that within the LN island, there are separate towns like bitcoinLN and litecoinLN .. and then try to justify it that somehow bitcoinLN town is actually the bitcoin network

but bitcoin is a completely different continent. and you can to bridge to it. but LN island its not the same fixed land as bitcoin which cant move or be independent of. reality is it is its own island. and with the right PR that can be seen as a good thing

so be more realistic that nodes can communicate with different peers no matter what the bridged blockchain they have
(if your wallet cant do this then, your behind the game.. all you need is a nodes public key and IP.. nothing more)
whereby you can highlight this feature as a PR spin for atomic swaps. where people dont already need to have bitcoin to get bitcoin in trade for their litecoin

They do different things.  However, it's not accurate to say they are "separate".  There's clearly a connection between the two.  They are arguably symbiont networks.



This is a loaded question.  Litecoin's Lightning network won't work without Litecoin.  Bitcoin's Lightning network won't work without Bitcoin.  The fact that LN can be built on top of multiple blockchains does not diminish the utility it can offer users of the underlying blockchain. 

when i want to be paid on bitcoin. i see the coin confirm.. its mine. game over. no debate, its mine. finito.

when using LN and see the promised millisats. its not yet settled as being mine for good. there are many things that can take that value away from me.

if i want to settle. i have to wait for the other party to sign.
yes this may be automated to happen a millisecond after a HTLC secret is revealed. but even if a partner reveals the HTLC secret(LM millisat promise). he then has to sign off on the commitment(separate contract). and due to no network wide consensus. a partner can edit his own node software to break the 'autopilot' code to not auto update commitments straight after HTLC secret reveals

but even then, even if he did not break "autopilot" its not yet confirmed on bitcoin. and he can easily still send his older state commitments before you. and so you have to watch for his cheating and you then have to intercept and activate the punishment

soo much to do just to hope cheating does not happen. so much trust is needed to risk not having to watch 24/7
yes you have choices to discourage cheating. to ensure your promised payment eventually becomes your free and clear days later. . but with each extra choice to add extra safeguards requires more trust by other parties.

meanwhile, on bitcoin. when someone sends me value. its confirmed. finito. its mine, no takesy backsy's, no third party watchtower, no co-signer needed. no punishment. its just mine. done

---

in bitcoin you are not forced to have your keys in your node. active on the internet 24/7.
in LN you cant take your keys out to then use in another wallet. people have lost access to channels when they tried.
when setting up a channel you have to put keys in even if you are just watching balance. those keys are needed actively all the time. even if you are not buying anything for yourself and instead just routing..

this flaw might be fixed in later wallets . but is a flaw right now. a big one. that puts people at higher risk of hackers due to it


because there is no network consensus on LN. although LND's variant of watchtower might be altruistic. there are other brands less altruistic.
for instance watchtowers that are based more on the "factory" concept (fed reserve hub) methodology

---

LN can work with litecoin and other coins. you are not sanctioned to only handle bitcoin when using LN.
many users right now use LN but do not bridge to the bitcoin network. there is no need to monitor bitcoin by all LN users

some users are even using LN with a completely different token privately agreed with just themselves. this token has no blockchain at all

---

anyway lets skip ahead a few debates and just get to some talking points finalised/rated to see peoples understanding so far
ill number them and you can quote them and put a * mark in which box you agree or disagree with

1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

---

2. LN promises (payments inside LN) are denominated in picocoin(11decimal) also known as msat/millisat
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

---

3. LN promises (payments inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

---

4. bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued promises
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

---

5. LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

---

6.LN wont work without bitcoin
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

You don't have do it on purpose. Accidents happen. Someone could run an old backup and close the channel using their (outdated) commitment transaction.


Watchtowers do not hold any keys. They only store pre-signed penalty transactions in an encrypted format. See LND's altruist watchtowers.

Alright, so we're now talking about the protocol.

Can you be responsible for not allowing you others to cheat you? Then it's a trustless system. Now if it's easy or not to protect yourself this way is another thing to discuss. I take the fact that before I couldn't do a thing, but now I have an extra option.

When you want to close your channel? You've already got the signatures before you even open it.

Of course and cheating can happen. This is true for everything. Someone may also rip you off in the Bitcoin network by maliciously gaining access to your keys. It can happen with physical cash too. The fact that they're discouraged to do so (hopefully) makes it safe.

When you're more encouraged than discouraged to play by the rules is when things work properly. I have never been cheated by my lightning partners, have you?

franky1, please stop editing your posts and make new ones instead. It's really difficult to keep up with you when you edit the same post over and over again.


The only reasons why you need to be connected to the Bitcoin network are: 1) you need to check if the funding transaction has been confirmed  2) you need to process new incoming blocks and check if the other party didn't broadcast a commitment transaction 3) the other party might request a fee update to the latest commitment transaction; if your response is too low or too large then your peer might close or temporarily disable the channel

Currently, the third point enforces connection to some Bitcoin backend, but I could see someone modifying their client to use some third-party source for fee estimates. However, this would put them at a risk as someone could close the channel and keep using it. The modified node would keep singing new commitment transactions even though their inputs could have been already spent which would make all of those transactions invalid.

watchtowers.. ok now you are creating bank managers.
so now people have to trust their channel partner to not cheat. and then trust a bank manager to watch that the partner has not cheated. and hope the watchtower server does not glitch out and go offline one day, thus not able to watch and activate punishments.

oh and watchtowers can only intercept and change ownership if you trust them to have the keys to do these interceptions on your behalf..

so where is this trustless system you mentioned?

in short
my keys my coin. not my keys not my coin.
multisig requiring third party signing is not trustless independence, definitely not permissionless
giving others your keys is not trustless

useful advice:
by now admitting that cheating can happen and maybe can be discouraged via other features. please try to say cheating can happen but can be discouraged.. rather than saying "they cant cheat"

utopian fantasy advert of PR: "they cant cheat"
honest, risk aware PR advert: "they could cheat but it can be discouraged using other 'trust' features"

And many have lost their keys, have misused a wallet software, have set an unbelievably high transaction fee. Does this make things not work or is it just a poor treatment of reality?

Yes lots must have lost money in the way you described but there are solutions to avoid it (watchtowers). In other words: This time the cheater is discouraged to cheat. It's a huge step to move from a completely trusted debt-based monetary system to a trustless one. Agreed?

ok i must start with the first fatal flaw.
LN CAN infact work without bitcoin. LN's function allows it to peg to different blockchains. its usability of LN is not fixed to only work with bitcoin. nor is it under any condition that the another altcoins can only work on LN if LN is pegged to bitcoin at the same time
LN has no network wide audit/consensus that checks that all nodes/channels are all connected to the bitcoin network.
some LN users right now only have channels/nodes pegged to litecoin

---

---

to this he is very much expressing how bitcoin is like gold. and LN is like bank notes.
however there are many ways to cheat the joint bank account partner.
many devs and LN users have lost funds. even with "punishment" clauses attached.

as for the "free to withdraw their promise anytime without permission". the LN millisat promise is a separate promise from the bitcoin sat denominated commitment. both of which need the signature of the other party
if a HTLC "secret" reveal is not sent ontime. problems start
if the other party does not sign the settlement commitment on time. problems start
as for the "cant cheat".. the whole punishment clause is because cheating can happen and activating the punishment clause when cheating has happened, involves the victim noticing the cheating fast enough

I accept to take part in this discussion and not be biased towards franky, but I want to add this as a condition: We'll speak of one topic at a time. Scalability? Scalability. Lightning's protocol? Lightning's protocol. Consensus? Consensus. This way we can clarify which are our interlocutor's disagreements and constructively (& friendly) correct them.

My opinion regarding the Lightning Network can be interpreted by the following example I've written;

I will not talk about LN directly, but about off-chain solutions in general.

When Binance came to Brazil, it dominated the crypto market nearly completely. It is by far the best, most trusted and cheaper exchange. Nearly everyone who works with cryptocurrency in Brazil has a binance account.

Recently I made a small job and I was paid in Bitcoin. For some time I have been selling some of my stash at the begining of every month, like a Dolar Cost Averaging, but for selling.

I was going to sell some bitcoin in the next few days, and I gave my client my binance address. He immediately asked if I could be paid in BEP2 chain (Binance chain, using a BTC pegged token). I accepted, as it is a free and instant transaction and I was not going to hold that bitcoin for long.

Now, is a BTC pegged token bitcoin? It is not, but i guess it is useful for bitcoin adoption and awareness.

So, to summarize: Off-chain solutions are already happening. They are useful. LN is the best off-chain solution, but people do use it all the time yet. LN would be good for my transaction? Well, I think not as good as the BEP2 solution, but it would work.

I believe that we should support LN and use it, otherwise we will soon be forced to use a worse off-chain solution from time to time.

Reserved. I may make summaries later.

Reserved. I may make summaries later.

Reserved. I may make summaries later.

I create this topic because I challenged franky1 to join a civil discussion with all arguments in one place:
My invitation was accepted by franky1:
Anyone else than franky1: I will delete unfriendly posts, and I will delete off-topic posts. See my unedited archive when that happens.

Rules Guidelines:
Please keep this topic civil.
Please keep the discussion only here, and not in other topics.
If there's something worth reading in another topic, quote it here instead of posting a link.
Try to limit the scope: don't throw 30 different arguments in one post, it will lead to endless replies. Update: separate posts in a row aren't allowed, so making different posts for each argument won't work. BlackHatCoiner expressed my intentions much better:
Read everything before responding. Try to avoid duplicate replies.
Newbies: read more, post less, and create an informed opinion.
To consider: I removed franky1 from my ignore list. I think that's only fair considering the topic I started.

---

---

To start: I use on-chain Bitcoin, and I use Bitcoin LN. Bitcoin can work with or without LN, LN can't work without Bitcoin. I don't like high fees, as it limits adoption. I would like to see Bitcoin grow in value, userbase and number of transactions per second, and I think we need all three of those for Bitcoin to grow. How, that's up for debate.