I see it a bit different. Lightning depends on that you can always check if a route works, and thus there needs to be a way to check if all nodes on that routes have enough balance for the payment. And this mechanism can be used if you know not only the address of a Lightning participant, but also the node identity. So if a Lightning user is willing to trust a verifier to check its balance (and that's all what I'm searching for in this case) then that verifier shoud be able to do a payment probe through their channel. It's not very different from a "proof of solvency" in on-chain 6ff, where the verifier also needs the connection between identity and address(es) to check the solvency of a person. (That requires of course that this user is connected to LN via two different channels at least.) I haven't understood this sentence, can you elaborate? Of course if a node from/to the route on one side has no liquidity, then the proof will fail, but then the person wanting to prove their solvency would also not be able to make a payment through this route and thus not be "solvent". If that was a problem, it would have a relatively easy fix: the verifier could re-send the amount through the nodes "the other way around" and thus re-establish the balance and liquidity of both. However, there seem to be probing techniques where the payment fails deliberately due to a timeout and actually no coins really move. I still have to search more info about these techniques because these would be the best way. Again here: If this would not work at all then Lightning could not even route payments correctly. Edit: I think @Hodlpreneur's posts did add some aspects like the pressure in between, so I'm not sure if it was correct to delete it (however I honestly have no idea if this user was AI spamming).
I see it a bit different. Lightning depends on that you can always check if a route works, and thus there needs to be a way to check if all nodes on that routes have enough balance for the payment. And this mechanism can be used if you know not only the address of a Lightning participant, but also the node identity. So if a Lightning user is willing to trust a verifier to check its balance (and that's all what I'm searching for in this case) then that verifier shoud be able to do a payment probe through their channel. It's not very different from a "proof of solvency" in on-chain 6ff, where the verifier also needs the connection between identity and address(es) to check the solvency of a person. (That requires of course that this user is connected to LN via two different channels at least.) I haven't understood this sentence, can you elaborate? Of course if a node from/to the route on one side has no liquidity, then the proof will fail, but then the person wanting to prove their solvency would also not be able to make a payment through this route and thus not be "solvent". If that was a problem, it would have a relatively easy fix: the verifier could re-send the amount through the nodes "the other way around" and thus re-establish the balance and liquidity of both. However, there seem to be probing techniques where the payment fails deliberately due to a timeout and actually no coins really move. I still have to search more info about these techniques because these would be the best way. Again here: If this would not work at all then Lightning could not even route payments correctly. Edit: I think @Hodlpreneur's posts did add some aspects like the pressure in between, so I'm not sure if it was correct to delete it (however I honestly have no idea if this user was AI spamming).

I see it a bit different. Lightning depends on that you can always check if a route works, and thus there needs to be a way to check if all nodes on that routes have enough balance for the payment. And this mechanism can be used if you know not only the address of a Lightning participant, but also the node identity. So if a Lightning user is willing to trust a verifier to check its balance (and that's all what I'm searching for in this case) then that verifier shoud be able to do a payment probe through their channel. It's not very different from a "proof of solvency" in on-chain 6ff, where the verifier also needs the connection between identity and address(es) to check the solvency of a person. (That requires of course that this user is connected to LN via two different channels at least.) I haven't understood this sentence, can you elaborate? Of course if a node from/to the route on one side has no liquidity, then the proof will fail, but then the person wanting to prove their solvency would also not be able to make a payment through this route and thus not be "solvent". If that was a problem, it would have a relatively easy fix: the verifier could re-send the amount through the nodes "the other way around" and thus re-establish the balance and liquidity of both. However, there seem to be probing techniques where the payment fails deliberately due to a timeout and actually no coins really move. I still have to search more info about these techniques because these would be the best way. Again here: If this would not work at all then Lightning could not even route payments correctly. Edit: I think @Hodlpreneur's posts did add some aspects like the pressure in between, so I'm not sure if it was correct to delete it (however I honestly have no idea if this user was AI spamming).

I see it a bit different. Lightning depends on that you can always check if a route works, and thus there needs to be a way to check if all nodes on that routes have enough balance for the payment. And this mechanism can be used if you know not only the address of a Lightning participant, but also the node identity. So if a Lightning user is willing to trust a verifier to check its balance (and that's all what I'm searching for in this case) then that verifier shoud be able to do a payment probe through their channel. It's not very different from a "proof of solvency" in on-chain 6ff, where the verifier also needs the connection between identity and address(es) to check the solvency of a person. (That requires of course that this user is connected to LN via two different channels at least.) I haven't understood this sentence, can you elaborate? Of course if a node from/to the route on one side has no liquidity, then the proof will fail, but then the person wanting to prove their solvency would also not be able to make a payment through this route and thus not be "solvent". If that was a problem, it would have a relatively easy fix: the verifier could re-send the amount through the nodes "the other way around" and thus re-establish the balance and liquidity of both. However, there seem to be probing techniques where the payment fails deliberately due to a timeout and actually no coins really move. I still have to search more info about these techniques because these would be the best way. Again here: If this would not work at all then Lightning could not even route payments correctly. Edit: I think @Hodlpreneur's posts did add some aspects like the pressure in between, so I'm not sure if it was correct to delete it (however I honestly have no idea if this user was AI spamming).