4 ms·
I think it is worth pointing out that it is not exactly equivalent, in the sense that if you pay Steam via a payment channel (for simplicity, a one-directional
by zodiac 9y ago
I think it is worth pointing out that it is not exactly equivalent, in the sense that if you pay Steam via a payment channel (for simplicity, a one-directional payment channel, so they don't need to lock up any cryptocurrency themselves), they don't need to settle on-chain, but if they don't do so they cannot use the "money" the received from you to pay someone else (eg their lawyer).
In the very long term, if we get to a point where most people's and organization's income is roughly equal to their expenditure, then this won't be a problem, but until then there is still pressure to settle on-chain because of this.
- tlrobinson 9y ago> if they don't do so they cannot use the "money" the received from you to pay someone else (eg their lawyer). They certainly can if their lawyer is also on the Lightning Network. Eventually all Bitcoin wallets should support on-chain and Lightning Network transactions, and seamlessly pick one or the other depending on the transaction amount.
- zodiac 9y agoNo, they really can't. They have to open a payment channel with their lawyer (or open it with someone who has a path of channels to their lawyer), and that requires them to own cryptocurrency on-chain to use as stake (what LN calls the funding transaction)
- tlrobinson 9y agoHence “if their lawyer is also on the Lightning Network“
- zodiac 9y agoNo, even if their lawyer is on the LN, Steam cannot pay their lawyer via payment channel, unless Steam owns some cryptocurrency on-chain to use as deposit