The latter?
Discussion
The latter, sort of. But it's not a credit line. Rather more like a bank settlement of funds. As it essentially secured by butcoin locked in the first place, not a loan. Hence why when you open a channel, you don't get 'thier' half of the funds, ie: no inbound liquidity.
It feels like lightning is just the transfer of a commitment to pay and not the payment itself. I am sure lawyers are going to love arguing about what fits where.
Lawyers are gonna love the fees. They’re not gonna love going up against the money printers and telling them about a new money they can’t print that has entirely different characteristics than what they understand.
Its irrelevant. The lawyers instead need to argue over the legal authority of government to regulate money they didn't have any stake in creating.
Hence wins like ripple vs sec.
As of now, there are zero laws regarding this, hence why they sre having a hard time so far in the Roman case, as well as tornado cash.
One off cases are far more likely and hopes for guilty pleas.
There are several cases regarding limiting authority of agencies to create regulations not specifically defined by congress in the US making their way towards the Supreme Court.
It's actually more like a transfer of threats to force close. The payment moves the line in the sand between channel participants.