pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @bergealex4 7 Nov \ parent \ on: Unlocking Liquidity Before Shared Output Expiration | Ark Protocol bitdevs
It's just a multisig.
You're just spouting non sense.
have a good day.
LSPs open channels.
ASPs split UTXOs.
I know it's hard to conceive that both might be useful and serve different purposes.
It's still all Bitcoin signed transactions.
Very disingenuous comparison, what dictates how a chain resolvable tx is constructed relies on a centralized application, Lightning is simply an offchain transaction between equal peers.
No, just like Lightning, you literally craft a 2-of-2 txs with someone and co-sign it.
Ark UTXOs are presigned Bitcoin transactions just like Lightning.
Lightning doesn't scale, and is terrible for unidirectional flow. You can't balance Lightning channels with fiat, with Ark you can.
Ark will make Lightning much better.
Ark servers will service different use cases and therefore round intervals.
This is not something to "resolve", it is up to the server operators to decide on the best balance of UX and on-chain costs.
Anyone can run a server.
Even if you can afford a real chain UTXO why would you want to pay onchain fees for every transactions you make?
That's inefficient, just batch them with others, Ark allows you to do this.
How does it defeat the purpose?
You can do a practically unlimited amount of UTXO swaps on Ark for a fraction of on-chain costs.
That would be like saying Lightning is pointless because force closures can be expensive... sure the worst case scenario is costly but the system is designed to avoid this.
Posted on Twitter but may as well repost here
Why isn’t this scheme marketed as a social recovery product.
Sure inheritance is fine but near term seems like a no brainer to use the same method to allow trusted recovery for onboarding new Bitcoin users.
73 sats \ 4 replies \ @bergealex4 29 Jan 2023 \ parent \ on: Answering Objections to Drivechain bitcoin
They do not all mine RSK, even though it's profitable
It's the other way around, they do not all mine RSK because it's simply not that profitable at all.
Based on latest available data I could find, MM generated $32k/month for eligible miners. That is not even marginal that is a rounding error.
The pools who support it started doing so as a misguided marketing ploy to try to attract more hashrate and just can't be bothered to turn it off. I wouldn't be surprised if they were offered RSK shit tokens on top of that to make it worth their while.
they do not all move to regions with the cheapest energy, even though that means they are overpaying, they do not all have a side hustle, even though it would increase their revenues
Again, this is not remotely similar. They don't have the option of outsourcing the associated costs otherwise they would. If you told them they could flip a switch and pay the same energy rates as the cheapest miners do, they would.
1182 sats \ 0 replies \ @bergealex4 29 Jan 2023 \ parent \ on: Answering Objections to Drivechain bitcoin
this is just generally incorrect.
PoW is not a method to achieve consensus under a different set of conflicting incentives. It is not a "method of working through reorgs".
It explicitly sets out to make it more profitable to mine on top of the next block according to a discrete incentive model. If reorgs occur then this incentive model is explicitly broken and the system is proven unstable ie. useless.
It's a careful balancing act and drivechains challenge this. "Preparing for this" is preparing for armageddon. You can be prepared all you want in the end the outcome is the same. We all die.
3302 sats \ 9 replies \ @bergealex4 29 Jan 2023 freebie \ on: Answering Objections to Drivechain bitcoin
the option to not validate is not a feature because the alternative to validating is to outsource the cost by pointing hash power towards pools or entities who can afford to do so.
this outsourceable cost is unlike any cost miners have to deal with and incentivize consolidation of smaller hashing power and block creation capabilities to an oligopoly.
GENESIS