pull down to refresh

15 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 4 Jul \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon
They probably have enough cracked cryptographers to make zaplocker not a liquidity locker, but idk.
I wonder if that's possible somehow. Maybe with a weird script representing the channel? Otherwise Spark would need to generate the hash of something they don't know, yet reveal something only when they've paid the wallet (which is offline and can't interact to reveal anything).
Maybe hedghog channels could be a solution.
write
preview
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 4 Jul
Spark explains here how to receive offline via lightning:
Seems like the main idea is that the receiver has to create shards of the preimage and distribute them to the group of Spark operators in advance. Then the receiver can go offline and still receive on lightning.
But regarding:
All operations here are atomic under the same 1/n or minority/n trust assumptions, as the operators must work together to recreate the preimage.
In our case, it would be just us, and we're always colluding with ourselves, so maybe it couldn't be considered atomic anymore?
So I think this whole idea of using a statechain like Spark does completely falls apart when it's all run by the same entity (as is currently still also the case with Spark).
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 4 Jul
Ah, so they’re leaning on the federation to make receives less custodialish.
This is beginning to sound a bit like a fedimint in terms of the regulatory approach. I have a hard time believing that a federation obfuscates custodianship enough that regulators won’t crush them.
reply