After watching the "What is Bitcoin?" video from bitcoin dot org as well as a quick tutorial on how to use electrum (dear god), we began the lesson.
I figure if they can get comfortable with this technology now, by the time they are adults they will have no issues using the blockchain for whatever monetary adventure they end up getting themselves into.
If I am to be honest, though, I hope to see one of my students (particularly those who have already taken an interest in bitcoin and love coding) become a blockchain maintainer.
It would be extra special to know one of my students became a bitcoin dev!
the 2 quotes above imply the kids were going to learn about bitcoin and blockchains. with the hope it inspires the kids to become bitcoin devs that maintain the code and support the blockchain
but then.. drum roll
Never did I specify lesson would be on bitcoin's base-layer.
you didnt teach them about bitcoin after all.. so didnt inspire them to get involved in bitcoin. but instead LN pretending to be bitcoin.
It's evident you had to make a lot of assumptions before posting this rhetoric.
yes i took your quotes and looked at what you said without the noobish disbelief that LN is bitcoin. because LN is not bitcoin.
heck even you said yourself you did not want to teach the kids bitcoin, or blockchains or bitcoin transactions.
so yea a disservice.
the kids didnt experience anything blockchain when doing their test transactions.. even titular self admitted that he thought that the blockchain stuff was boring and slow
The kids are kids. Don't make me repeat myself.
Their interaction with bitcoin is more than enough and the teacher has gained my respect.1. pretend you are teaching about the different networks but then pretend its all the same
Never pretended it's the same network.
2. pretend you are teaching them about bitcoin but then use a network that has no blockchain
They did transfer tBTC, though.
literally contradicting yourself
saying he did teach bitcoin, but then admit its not the same network and not even bitcoin but testnet pegs.
one thing you missed out on is LN payments are millisats which are not compatible with testnet or bitcoin network.
so again, not teaching bitcoin, but instead teaching 'LN msat of testnet coin pegs'
titular literally said he didnt specify the lesson was on bitcoin(in this forum topic) as his final honest admission, even if he was telling the kids they were learning about bitcoin..
..
as for your IOU contradictions
"commitments" and "punishments" and "settlement" are actually terms that are part of LN... even if you want to ignore and pretend they are not part of it..
I don't ignore them. They are part of LN. Their existence is what makes it a non-debt-based system.
no ones permission?? um.. you might need to check on that.. theres this little detail called a signature.
There's no time when you've updated your state without having a valid signature. Even before you deposit your money, the node has already given you its signature. You can always force-close the channel without anyone's permission.
but thank you for now contradicting yourself by now admitting (within same post) that there is a IOU (debt) based system. where they can claim the debt to be settled later.
It's an IOU, but you're the one who can pony up at any time, without anyone's permission. Fair enough?
what you dont realise is in LN there are 2 'promises' there is the 'state' promise(millisat denominated(HTLC)) and there is the commitment promise.. both of which are not settled when signed. meaning its an IOU sitting around waiting to be fulfilled. which is the very definition of still owing someone something.
as for the 'pony up any time without permission' what you forget is the conversion of the state contract(HTLC) measured in millsats. vs the secondary commitment that rounds up/down values to whole sat denomination and also decides on who is going to pay the onchain fee out of their value allotment. this does require signatures too meaning more permission and agreement
its not a system where people can just broadcast the 'state' HTLC payment without anyones permission. it requires a secondary agreement on what a possible settlement should be and the terms/conditions on when and how it should be settled. (the punishment)
the settlement is later thing when they agree its time to settle up whats owed and broadcast the right settlement.
which still needs the other consent in the form of them not activating a punishment.
if you think LN payments in-channel are so finalised and not an agreement to settle later. then such finality of just signing the state would be the end of it. they would not need the sat denominated settlement contract and no need to add punishment clauses.
the reason why there is a settlement is because the in channel promises(iou's) are not final. you cannot guarantee you get paid unless its confirmed. even if someone handed you a signed transaction for you to push to a pool. until its confirmed. you have not yet been paid and thus the other person still owes you.
the reason for the punishments is that the other party can mess with you before it gets a confirmation. and even after confirmation if the transaction in question was not for value that had been in the latest agreed promise.
again. try to learn why there are terms like commitments, settlements and punishments.
and realise these things exist outside the LN payment 'states'(htlc) because it actually does require agreements and permissions on whats owed and then terms for how to settle up later and punishments if trying to settle the wrong promise