But unlike a casino, you never relinquish custody of your money on Lightning. Not your keys, not your bitcoin. We’ve all heard that mantra a thousand times. But it’s true. And the converse is also true: as long as you hold the keys, you hold the bitcoin. Therefore, any non-custodial wallet — whether on-chain or off-chain — gives the user more control over her money than any custodial wallet on-chain or off-chain.
funny part is..
the sender holds the keys..
the receiver is promised the funds. but does not have the key.
the receiver only ever gets a key to the funds. to make the previous commitment void of spending.
EG i sign a tx giving value to rath.. i dont broadcast it..
is rath guaranteed to be paid.. nope because the funds are not on his keys, not confirmed on the blockchain
the funds are still on my locked UTXO
but one layer down. a HTLC is not even a bitcoin format contract. thus not even having the potential of rath broadcasting. whats needed to be done is convert a htlc contract(i ou) into a commitment transaction..
but again even this commitment is not yet broadcast. so not yet a guaranteed settlement
..
the other item of discussion.. the channels being unbalanaced by not always being pegged to a utxo.
even loyce and rath have quoted that due to users using a services wallet. the wallet creates the unbacked htlc's with the supposed premise that "normally" they wil get paid later. whereby its a game of trust and honour. and not a fixed rule of guarantee.
as rath quotes
an IOU is NOT an instrument guaranteeing payment
and a HTLC does not guarantee payment
a HTLC is not even a bitcoin transaction.. thus a htlc is an IOU
a HTLC at a later time is negotiated into a commitment..
meaning a HTLC is not a negotiated instrument of guarantee.. a commitment transaction is.
here is the thing..
there is nothing wrong with some choosing to use zero-confirms and services of trust..
as long as people highlight and honestly tell people of the lack of guarantee so that people can be aware and not have to risk large sums.
much like people warn others about risk of using exchanges where they tell people that the mysql balance on the order books is not the same as a utxo under the persons control
meaning if you just admit the risks and actually say its ok for coffee amounts as losses might be low, but not lambo amount.. fine tell them the risks and let them decide.
but to pretend its a 'guaranteed/secure/no fault' all utopian fluff of security levels that match a confirmed transaction on a blockchain.. is being very very misinforming and not morally correct aswell