[pointsphere]

I always hoped that Bitcoin would become "the people's currency" but currently it does not work as cash anymore. Lightning might become great, but the engineering needed just to send to offline nodes makes me sceptical, not to mention that the cost of funding channels is always handwaved away.

I wonder, does HN hate the "Bitcoin Cash" fork as much as BTC? It's the closest to the technical specification that made me interested in BTC in the first place.

[koheripbal]

The other issues with channels is that only the entry and exit transactions are validated - every transaction in the channel is not secured by any network.

Meaning you can open a channel, but if you want to sell real-world goods in exchange for anything that happens in that channel, then you'd better trust the other parties in the channel to close it properly.

tldr; Lightning is indeed super fast, but it's not as secure.

[yaa_minu]

This is not true. Lightening network is trustless just like the bitcoin base layer unless for very very small transactions (like few cents). Channels are constructed in such a way that any counterparty that attempts to cheat can be punished by the honest partner. Of course the honest partner has to be actively monitoring the base bitcoin network but this can also be outsourced to a third-party (tehcnically called a watchtower).

[koheripbal]

That's not the only issue. Channels cost a blockchain transaction to open and close, so you would never open-close a channel for an individual small transaction.

The point is essentially to setup an off-chain chain maintained by a 3rd party. If you are selling non BTC into that channel, you are TRUSTING the other party to close the channel.

If they never close it, you cannot unilaterally close the channel, which means you might never get your BTC because they simple leave the channel open forever and get to keep whatever you sent them (ie other crypto or real-world or digital assets).