2018 Clusterfuck Forecast

[juan]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 21:03:32 +1100
Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 06:44:08AM -0300, Juan wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 19:39:25 +1100
> > Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
> > > end up never closing out their channel, except perhaps
> > > yearly, or simply never, since they do all their non-anon stuff
> > > out of view of the public BTC ledger, and who knows if their now
> > > internal-only satoshi's actually match up against their $10
> > > million BTC "channel"?
> > 
> > 	
> > 	it has to match unless the protocol is completely broken,
> > which I assume it isn't. I haven't look at the details but I suppose
> > 	when you get a LN payment you can trivially check that the
> > 	funds come from the on chain transaction used to 'open' the
> > 	channel. 
> 
> The point is the "matching" only happens when the channel is closed.
> So if it's never closed, no need to match.


	you can't counterfeit LN transactions so you can't create
	funds out of thin air. It doesn't matter if you close the
	channel or not. 

> 
> And if it IS closed, it's only between the two mega corporations, 

	channels are not closed between peers. They are publicly closed
	on-chain.  But anyway, the protocol doesn't work like you seem
	to think it does.

	valid criticism against the LN is that something like amazon
	routing payments would obviously spy on its users. But to route
	payments you need to tie money and if you want to route a lot
	of payments you need to tie a lot of money so hopefully that
	would discourage them. 

	how flat the network would be? who knows. Who knows if it would
	even work and be adopted. 



who
> could simply segue their walled-garden users from the old channel to
> the new - possibly, depends on implementation - but the propensity of
> corporations is certainly to disempower the end users and to create
> walled gardens, and once they've successfully achieved that, then a
> mega corp could mint as many LN Satoshis as they want, and no one
> would be the wiser, since only they know what's actually happening in
> their walled garden.