Again, no need to keep track of every coffee transaction permanently forever on the blockchain, it's just not efficient.
You are wrong on that. Every node locally applies all the rules to all transaction. There is no way a rule can be broken because your node listens to other who broke the rules. If all your trusted nodes would break the rule your node would simply stop and ask you to connect to proper nodes.
The consensus majority is only needed if there are 2 or more way to make valid (not breaking any rules) forward progress (aka a double spend attempt) Only in this case nodes side with the majority of their trusted nodes. There is no "wrong way" in this case its arbitrary which side the network goes the only thing that matter is that everyone goes the same way. Which is archives if everyone sided with their surrounding majority.
Its very important to understand that if someone would have the control over which side it goes in such a situation he could do absolutely nothing with this "power" as both ways must be valid in the first place.
The only person who "loses out" is the one who attempts a double spend because he has no way to know which Tx will success and which will fail. But no honest participants cares about that. If you attempt a double sends you voluntary let the network pick one.
>The consensus majority is only needed if there are 2 or more way to make valid (not breaking any rules) forward progress (aka a double spend attempt) Only in this case nodes side with the majority of their trusted nodes.
so basically "if there's a double spend just trust whatever the majority of the trusted nodes say"? It's better than trusting the entire state to the majority of nodes, but still quite centralized compared to other consensus mechanisms.
Yes but also no. There is no trust needed because what the other nodes say does not define whats correct its arbitrary. Its only relevant if 2 or more equal good AND correct ways exist. You aren't listing to others to find out the "right" way you solely listen to other so everyone choose the same.
>still quite centralized compared to other consensus mechanisms.
Not at all. If there is a double spend attempt your validator node picks one at "random" (the one it revived first) it then tells every node to include this one an discard the other. All other do that too completely on their own (decentral). Only if this does not lead to 80% agreement everyone is tasked to adjust and vote again. So your node looks what the nodes around them voted and switches if needed to the majority. There is no central anything that tells your node to switch. Your node does so solely because your node doesn't care which way to go but it wants to go the same way ass all others.
All this does it it breaks ties. If there would be a near 50/50 split or 33/33/33 for 3 conflicting transaction, this is guaranteed to shift to something near 100% after some re-voting. Because the existing "majority" grows faster with every re-vote if everyone adjust by these rules. And that's the sole goal. We want the network go agree.
You can't mint more bitcoins on the lightning network. There's a 1:1 relation between what's on the lightning network and what's on the blockchain. This is as opposed to fiat (zero relation, currency units can be generated at will), or gold standard in practice (the central bank only having enough gold for a fraction of the notes issued to be redeemed).
L2 is also shit for actual distribution and censorship resistance. Imagine a future where BTC is 100x the current price and the people who got in early are rich as heck and nobody else can afford even a single transaction and must instead rely entirely on L2 services, never actually owning their own wealth.
But that's literally not how the lightning network works? If some intermediary in the chain wants to accept IOUs in place of real bitcoins that's on them, but on both ends you're putting in and getting real bitcoins. By "real bitcoins" I mean they can be redeemed at any point in time by closing the channel, and there's no risk of a bank run (at least to the sender and receiver). If some intermediary decides to accept IOUs instead of real bitcoins, that's on them if it comes crashing down.
Each node can have a state with a total of 2 bitcoins. That's 6 bitcoins.
It'd be a race to close channels, and only if the channel value is above the fee-floor, else the settled value is $0.
>Each node can have a state with a total of 2 bitcoins. That's 6 bitcoins.
Well, no. If you want a channel between A and B with 1 BTC capacity in either direction, you'll need to deposit 2 BTC to fund the channel. Therefore there's 6 BTC total that's locked up. As for the rest of your comment, it's not really clear how it's "separated" from the on-chain value.