3 ms·

This is why I precisely used the example of paying monthly rent, because: 1) Paying rent is an example of a repeat payment between two users where you theoreti

This is why I precisely used the example of paying monthly rent, because: 1) Paying rent is an example of a repeat payment between two users where you theoretically could have an open Lightning channel, but... 2) Landlords are still going to settle transactions immediately to avoid liability anyways The "just leave the channel open" is the disingenuous part being projected here. Your landlord isn't going to hold off on cashing your rent check because they want to turn around, endorse it, and use that slip of paper to pay for maintenance. No, the landlord cashes the check the same way that they would immediately settle a lightning transaction. Now imagine single, non-repeated payments between millions of untrusted parties. You're not going to have millions of "open channels". All those millions of users are going to settle the transactions immediately, which requires Bitcoin's bottleneck.

Acrobatic_Road 7y ago
The landlord does not need to settle the transaction on the Bitcoin network to spend the money I have payed him. He could spend it anywhere within lightning. This is the crux of your misunderstanding. I really wish people would take more time to understand the things they criticize. There are real problems with lightning, this isn't one of them.
- bduerst 7y ago
  >The landlord does not need to cash the check to spend the money I have payed him. He could spend it anywhere as a third party check. This is the crux of your misunderstanding. Ask your landlord why they won't spend third party checks and you have your answer as to why they won't spend unsettled IOUs on a lightning network. You're free to pull the, "Lightning too complicated for you to understand" but I think you're projecting again. Lightning doesn't scale with millions of users despite your attempts of apologizing for it.
  - Acrobatic_Road 7y ago
    When the landlord spends the funds, he is not spending equivalent to a third-party IOU. Suppose you and your landlord share the A-B channel. When he wishes to spend the rent money he pays you back in the A-B channel in return for your paying the same amount in another channel to party C (who is likely a node). For the record, this process is trustless in the sense of the word that no trust is required. Nobody can wander off with anyone's funds. When party C (or party D, E, F, whoever receives it) actually gets the money he doesn't have to care about the state of things in in the original A-B channel. His money came from the other party is his channel and that's the only transaction he needs to watch. It's not like a third party IOU at all. And, of course because the Bitcoin network can enforce ownership, calling lightning an IOU does not really do it justice.
  - poontang1 7y ago
    You fundamentally misunderstand how Lightning works. In lightning you literally have a signed bitcoin transaction that allows you to receive the funds on-chain at any time. You don't submit it because you can continue to cooperatively sign new transactions that change respective balances between you and other channel participants. This is nothing like an IOU, because you have the ability to settle any time you want (just broadcast a signed transactions you already have), there is just no reason to. Based on your replies I am going to assume you are actually trying to misinform people.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      That's precisely the same as an uncashed check - an IOU. Just because you can cash it at any time does not make it different from an IOU. Until settled, it's just a "hey I will pay you some Bitcoin in the future". It's a commitment to a payment that untrusted parties are going to settle immediately for reasons discussed above.
      - yownie 7y ago
        Based on your replies I am going to assume you are actually trying to misinform people.

Acrobatic_Road 7y ago

The landlord does not need to settle the transaction on the Bitcoin network to spend the money I have payed him. He could spend it anywhere within lightning. This is the crux of your misunderstanding. I really wish people would take more time to understand the things they criticize. There are real problems with lightning, this isn't one of them.

bduerst 7y ago
>The landlord does not need to cash the check to spend the money I have payed him. He could spend it anywhere as a third party check. This is the crux of your misunderstanding. Ask your landlord why they won't spend third party checks and you have your answer as to why they won't spend unsettled IOUs on a lightning network. You're free to pull the, "Lightning too complicated for you to understand" but I think you're projecting again. Lightning doesn't scale with millions of users despite your attempts of apologizing for it.
- Acrobatic_Road 7y ago
  When the landlord spends the funds, he is not spending equivalent to a third-party IOU. Suppose you and your landlord share the A-B channel. When he wishes to spend the rent money he pays you back in the A-B channel in return for your paying the same amount in another channel to party C (who is likely a node). For the record, this process is trustless in the sense of the word that no trust is required. Nobody can wander off with anyone's funds. When party C (or party D, E, F, whoever receives it) actually gets the money he doesn't have to care about the state of things in in the original A-B channel. His money came from the other party is his channel and that's the only transaction he needs to watch. It's not like a third party IOU at all. And, of course because the Bitcoin network can enforce ownership, calling lightning an IOU does not really do it justice.
- poontang1 7y ago
  You fundamentally misunderstand how Lightning works. In lightning you literally have a signed bitcoin transaction that allows you to receive the funds on-chain at any time. You don't submit it because you can continue to cooperatively sign new transactions that change respective balances between you and other channel participants. This is nothing like an IOU, because you have the ability to settle any time you want (just broadcast a signed transactions you already have), there is just no reason to. Based on your replies I am going to assume you are actually trying to misinform people.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    That's precisely the same as an uncashed check - an IOU. Just because you can cash it at any time does not make it different from an IOU. Until settled, it's just a "hey I will pay you some Bitcoin in the future". It's a commitment to a payment that untrusted parties are going to settle immediately for reasons discussed above.
    - yownie 7y ago
      Based on your replies I am going to assume you are actually trying to misinform people.