~ snip ~
and now you all know that Dina gets paid using chens money
which if there is a break in the route. like if bob goes offline chen doesnt get paid
thus alice keeps her funds too because she to doesnt pay bob. and now Dina has been paid walking off pretty happy to get free money and alice walks off happy knowing dina accepted payment for goods designated to go to alice, without alice paying..
thanks chen you paid for alices goods
That's actually wrong. As Bob already gave Chen the commitment to pay, when Chen can present the secret. If Bob goes offline, Chen publishes this commitment (and secret) on the blockchain and gets his funds. This effectively closes the channel between the two.
along with blackhat having issues of missing funds where he cant find the key to spend it via a simple methods.. and needing to hack his own wallet to find the keys(facepalm)
He actually did get the funds back. No 'hacking', just usage of the binaries as designed, just restored his node from backup files.
I unfortunately wasn't able to give him the correct command right away, as I have not had to attempt a restore yet.
yep LN is even more riskier and flawed than a pegged sidechain like Luna
There's less trust than in a sidechain, but more setup and overhead in terms of running a node and managing channels. Every L2 solution has its own advantages and drawbacks.
but its good you guys are now seeing, experiencing the flaws instead of the utopian dreams of XXXevent s earning XXprofit messages you previously only wanted to talk about.
It's definitely been helpful to go through the whole restore process on a real mainnet Lightning node. It seems to work fine if you know how, though!
bitcoin works. no stress. just put in the destination address and amount. and wait for confirm.. done..
imagine a average joe using LN. like a el salvador citizen using LN last year as the backnobe of chivo.. ooopps. LN failed thousands of times for thousands of people
do you now see why LN is not a "solution" or better than bitcoin...
Have you run the numbers on how many people can realistically transact on Bitcoin L1 at any given time? If a single country were to start using Bitcoin for all financial transactions, we would definitely have a harder time using it!
Or at least, it would get a whole lot more expensive.
In general, the blockchain sadly doesn't scale, as it keeps every single (micro-)transaction on this eternal, decentralized ledger.
That's where Layer 2 solutions shine; though, as I said, they all have their advantages and disadvantages. There's no denying that.
In your example, I'd criticize the
'forced' / non-organic introduction of Lightning and the infrastructure (network of Lightning channels) that subsequently wasn't ready for it.
There's also a non-zero chance of deliberately making the initial release 'fail' to have an excuse for switching to a more centralized model (and have more control / give people less privacy); but that's pure speculation.