pull down to refresh

Well, in the examples here neither the payer nor the payee has a lightning channel. For instance, Fedi to Ark via Lightning. In this case who is actually "settling" on LN? Maybe the fedimint and the the swap provider?
As far as the mint user and the ark user, their trust models haven't changed no matter what is the state of the lightning channel that was used to link them.
So the mint has an open channel with someone and boltz has a channel with someone else (or maybe even they have a channel with each other). They are responsible for managing that channel just like any other lightning channel.
The people who want settlement have the same level of settlement (or trust) as they had when they started, and which, presumably they accept.
Well, in the examples here neither the payer nor the payee has a lightning channel. [..] As far as the mint user and the ark user, their trust models haven't changed
Haven't they? Afaik if it's not your lightning channel (or you are a co-signer on it) then it's not your coin, even if just for a second; i.e. custodial?
reply
I would agree. I'm saying they were holding ecash tokens or ark vutxos to start and at the end they are holding ecash tokens or vutxos, not bitcoin.
So it doesn't seem like they are actually using lightning as a settlement layer. They are using it as a transport layer?
reply
holding ecash tokens or ark vutxos to start and at the end they are holding ecash tokens or vutxos, not bitcoin.
I think that as long as we recognize the "not bitcoin" part, this is fine, and that's my primary point: if it's not on L1, it's not bitcoin. The nasty thing I will add, and I truly believe this: also not on LN (sorry). This means that settlement can only be on L1 (if you're a purist) and everything other than L1 is at best bitcoin * (1-<risk factor>).
They are using it as a transport layer?
Yes. Between unsettled bitcoin-derivatives.
reply