> And, for example, if you lose onchain wallet data and it's backups, you will never be able to spend that onchain bitcoin.

No, you only need the seed and derivation path that is part of the protocol, the lightning state is not.

> for example if you lose the state of your ln wallet you will never be able to broadcast your closing transaction.

And, for example, if you lose onchain wallet data and it's backups, you will never be able to spend that onchain bitcoin.

> abstract concept is very similar.

No. Lack for requirement for a trusted third party and operating with native Bitcoin transactions is what makes the difference.

kristapsk

Yes, but from my point of view a btc transaction is real only when it is added to a block, everything else is a potential transaction that might or might not happen, for example if you lose the state of your ln wallet you will never be able to broadcast your closing transaction.

In the same way an unwrapping transaction is a potential transaction that does not yet exist in the blockchain, the difference is that lightning is ruled by code, you can broadcast the closing transaction yourself, while what we commonly refer as wrapped btc is ruled by trust of a third party that is supposed to generate said transaction on demand.

In fact Lightning doesn't require both end of the channel to be on the same blockchain.

It is very different from a technical point of view, but the abstract concept is very similar.

037bedfa93

bitcoin_beginners

We need to drain OTC desks. They are turning BTC into paper

Lightning network involves parties exchanging co-signed fully valid Bitcoin transactions that can be broadcast to P2P network at any time. So it's completely different from wrapped bitcoin solutions. 