I don't trust it seems like a twist on the blockchain fallacy:

GitHub

Blockchain Fallacy

Bitcoin Cross-Platform C++ Development Toolkit. Contribute to libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system development by creating an account on GitHub.

IMO a simple way to think about securing a computer with Bitcoin is to gate access through Lightning. Instead of exposing direct root or shell access, you require a Lightning invoice to be paid before any command can be executed. For personal use, you’re paying yourself to unlock access, which creates a controlled and auditable permission layer. For anyone external, every interaction, every command must be paid for in real time. Turn access into a metered, economic function rather than a binary permission. Use proof of work to enforce cost of action. An attempt to solve no free probing, no unlimited attempts, and ddos via scale. Every action carries a cost, and that cost can be tuned dynamically. The system becomes self-defending by pricing access instead of trying to block it entirely. It’s a shift from “who is allowed” to “what is worth paying for” using Bitcoin as the enforcement layer. Now is this possible to implement in code? Don’t ask me.

LN specifically avoids the chain to defer PoW. LN channels just exchanging signed state updates. You can just use ssh keys to have signed state agreement.

I would really love a see a sincere conversation between you and @Jay Average you make arguements that are very convincing which in my 80 iq basically means to me: paywalls paid in bitcoin don't give the information behind the paywall the benefits of proof of work. Softwar is also all about the power of story telling. So if someone says bitcoin protects things or could with the right code change protect things then maybe that is the slight of hand. Very much like the same slight of hand that we all live under today.

Yes, but the satoshi committed to channel tx is the proof of work. You are passing signed keys to locked conserved units of work.

Signed txs**

Am on mobile. Will try to elaborate more at keys.

LN doesn't use PoW for state security. It returns to the chain for that.

Yes I agree, LN doesn’t perform PoW. Final enforcement resolves back to L1. The point I’m making is about what PoW becomes once it’s completed, and how that extends upward into Lightning. Im not talking about the process, I’m talking about the lasting and conserved proof of the work. PoW is not just the act of hashing. When a valid nonce is found, there’s an isomorphic transformation: the proof (nonce)=block. That block embeds the work into the system as proof. The satoshis that emerge from that process are the conserved residue of that work within a bounded mathematical domain. Every satoshi exists because energy was expended to bring it into the ledger and to secure its position within a non-contradictory history. Any satoshi is proof of work. In LN every satoshi already carries the constraint of work done and the guarantee of conservation enforced by the chain. The ledger is accumulated blocks of time and energy, an accumulated, ordered structure where each unit is backed by irreversible computation. You can’t interact with that system without interacting with the energy. We showed how to calc the energy in our paper if you need reference. Lightning sits on top of that structure. Every channel is anchored in an on-chain UTXO, and every state update is a redistribution of those already-conserved units of work. You can pass signatures around off-chain, but you cannot create value, move value, or settle value without ultimately being constrained by those satoshis. The moment there is dispute, it collapses back to L1 where the PoW-enforced history determines the outcome. So gating root access behind a Lightning invoice moves beyond just authentication. Commands are purely informational and they don’t bind action to cost. A Lightning invoice does. Each command now requires the expenditure of satoshis, and those satoshis are units of conserved work. That means every action against the system is coupled to a minimum energy cost. You can extended the PoW security model into your application layer, unless you fake a Lightning payment. The global accumulated energy that secures Bitcoin can be mapped onto local computation. The system asks “are you willing to expend energy to do this?” Because that energy is denominated in satoshis, it inherits all the constraints of L1: conservation, boundedness, and non-contradiction. The “macro computer” or I’d say quantum computer, is globally coordinating irreversible state transitions backed by energy. Lightning allows you to tap into that structure at finer granularity. When you bind actions (like root commands) to invoices, you are effectively plugging your local system into that global computation. Each command becomes an energy-gated state transition, backed by the same underlying proof-of-work that secures the chain. So yes, LN defers to L1 for enforcement but that’s exactly the point. It inherits not just the security, but the energy. Once you start binding real-world actions to those units you’re using conserved work as the control surface for action (minimum potential energy thresholds). Hope that makes sense.