@ROWEBOT3339 All of those mentioned settle back to the same fiat version of a "base chain" using FedWire.

Replying to https://twitter.com/ROWEBOT3339/status/1730696173684466101:

@ROWEBOT3339 The way Visa, Mastercard, and the others work is far more similar to Lightning on top of Bitcoin's base-chain than they are to using multiple separate blockchains, each with their own asset, that are somehow pegged to each other for consistent value conversion.

@ROWEBOT3339 Each channel partner keeps a copy of an on-chain transaction that can close the channel for the current balances on each side. This on-chain transaction is replaced each time a transaction occurs on the channel.

Replying to https://twitter.com/ROWEBOT3339/status/1730696577658892486:

@ROWEBOT3339 Lightning channels can be opened with inputs from both channel partners, or only 1.

Channels can be closed non-collaboratively, but there is a time-lock to give the channel partner opportunity to contest it.

Replying to https://twitter.com/ROWEBOT3339/status/1730694324143128884:

@ROWEBOT3339 Just 1.

Replying to https://twitter.com/ROWEBOT3339/status/1730692139292447135:

@ROWEBOT3339 Besides, using multiple assets on completely separate chains, with convoluted strategies to peg their value to one another would be at least as complex, and likely more.

Replying to https://twitter.com/ROWEBOT3339/status/1730692139292447135:

@ROWEBOT3339 It is and isn't off chain. Every Lightning transaction includes an actual Bitcoin transaction (usually several) that simply isn't broadcast to the mempools unless the channel partners decide to close the channel. Either partner can decide to settle to chain anytime.

Replying to https://twitter.com/ROWEBOT3339/status/1730688085107646835:

@ROWEBOT3339 It certainly has its own set of trade-offs, but it also has some massive benefits. What specifically sounds terrible to you and why?

@ROWEBOT3339 But maybe you just want a channel between a buddy of yours to pay each other each time one of you buys a beer for the other.

Replying to https://twitter.com/ROWEBOT3339/status/1730688305627341262:

@ROWEBOT3339 Depends on the relationship. Most often, you want to open a channel to another node that is connected to a variety of other "regions" of the network, and that has good liquidity.

Replying to https://twitter.com/ROWEBOT3339/status/1730686915123282186:

@ROWEBOT3339 You don't technically NEED multiple partners. But you may want to for various reasons. I want to.

Replying to https://twitter.com/ROWEBOT3339/status/1730686620548903355:

@ROWEBOT3339 Currently you can only have one channel partner per channel, but work is being done on that.

Not doxing my channel partners, sorry. Needless to say, you can open a channel to anyone who has a Lightning node, but it is good to have a variety of well-connected partners.

@ROWEBOT3339 As an example. I opened channels on my node when there was a lull in base-chain activity, and only used a single UTXO to open it, so it only cost me like 130 sats per channel.

Replying to https://twitter.com/ROWEBOT3339/status/1730685419660960133:

@ROWEBOT3339 1. Custody of a channel is held by both channel partners in 2 of 2 multisig.

2. Cost varies according to base-chain fee rates at the time, and the number of inputs used to open the channel.

3. Infinite.

4. Yes and yes.

Replying to https://twitter.com/ROWEBOT3339/status/1730677671871287582:

@ROWEBOT3339 I seem to have no issue using Lightning on the daily, self-custodially, with little to no fees outside of the initial channel open.

Replying to https://twitter.com/ROWEBOT3339/status/1730677368233099336:

@ROWEBOT3339 There is CURRENTLY an outsized demand for block space, largely due to Ordinals. We'll see how long that fad lasts. No different from Satoshi Dice back in the day. Things that get priced out of making it into a block will eventually start utilizing layer 2 options.

Replying to https://twitter.com/ROWEBOT3339/status/1730673845873393768:

@ROWEBOT3339 Scale up in layers. The base chain can't handle it, but that has been known since day 1.

Replying to https://twitter.com/ROWEBOT3339/status/1730673246989656259:

@ROWEBOT3339 Of course it does. And I am not saying that there aren't significant issues that Bitcoiners need to solve. I am just saying that a multi-asset monetary system is not the magic bullet solution. It absolutely has downsides, too.

Replying to https://twitter.com/ROWEBOT3339/status/1730669427245355133:

@ROWEBOT3339 Plenty of different items in the world, generally only one serves as money.

Plenty of other currencies that operate as money within a given economy, but generally only one currency per economy, and as the economy is becoming global, world commerce is converging on one.

Replying to https://twitter.com/ROWEBOT3339/status/1730669989823136231:

@ROWEBOT3339 Separation of money and state. That's the goal.