Quote from: smooth link=topic=178336.msg13603757#msg136037
<<Sorry for the horkedattribution>>
Not at all. JorgeStolfi was saying that if you settle to the Bitcoin blockchain only 1/10000 of your tx then you might as well not do it at all and use a fiat LN system. I'm saying that at 1/10000 of your tx, the cost of using real Bitcoin (even with, hypothetically, expensive BTC transactions) would be so low there is no reason not to just stay with Bitcoin. I don't think people will want fiat LN.
Not at all. JorgeStolfi was saying that if you settle to the Bitcoin blockchain only 1/10000 of your tx then you might as well not do it at all and use a fiat LN system. I'm saying that at 1/10000 of your tx, the cost of using real Bitcoin (even with, hypothetically, expensive BTC transactions) would be so low there is no reason not to just stay with Bitcoin. I don't think people will want fiat LN.
Doesn't make much sense. While 1/10000 of the transaction represents only 0.01% of the customer's transaction cost, it represents 100% of the tranasaction aggregator's cost - and that is the party tasked with selecting the ultimate settlement network.
And what makes the customer choose that aggregator? LN nodes are permissionless and will compete on the basis of the attributes of their service offering (reliability,etc.). Being collateralized or not is a differentiator that will form the basis of customers' decisions over which network/nodes to use.
Saying that customers will choose uncollateralized providers given the choice is equivalent to saying they don''t want Bitcoin, which may be the case.
With the indirection of the aggregator in between, I don't think most customers will give it a second thought. Quick - what actual bank underwrites your 'Best Buy' or 'Frontier Airlines' credit card?