Ark and Spark: The Channel Factories We’ve Been Waiting For

Ark and Spark revolutionize Lightning Network’s scalability in 2025, slashing on-chain transactions with shared UTXOs for fast, cheap Bitcoin payments. Their interoperable, trust-minimized designs overcome channel factory hurdles, cementing Lightning’s role in Bitcoin’s layer-2 future.

view all related items

170 sats \ 3 replies \ @standardcrypto 4h

@justin_shocknet

this is astroturf bullshit right?

1021 sats \ 2 replies \ @justin_shocknet 3h

It's not astroturf in that it's transparently a CEO implementing it, astroturf would be paying a few psuedo-influencers to shill it while looking organic (there is without a doubt plenty of this going on though)

It's bullshit for a number of reasons I've discussed here before in other threads, but I'll top line some of it:

Lightning Network’s scalability

It doesn't "scale" anything, the upper bound for Lightning channels is how many users can afford to unilaterally enforce claims with the chain, and that's purely a function of supply of Bitcoin

shared UTXOs

There's no such thing as a shared UTXO, if you cannot transact unilaterally (or afford to) then you have no enforecable claim over a UTXO

Some will claim Lightning already uses shared UTXO's for channels but this is a lie, a channel "point" is at most Shroedinger's UTXO, and you still need to afford a unilateral UTXO to use it.

Channel factories

This is gaslight-ning bullshit to justify covenants

Channel batching already exists and reduces costs by 80%, but, nobody actually uses it because cost is not remotely close to a blocker... see the first point.

Lightning Bitcoin’s most successful layer-2 scaling solution

Lightning is Bitcoin's only layer-2, thats why all this garbage uses centralized swaps to pretend they're a lightning wallet.

Fake L2's all rely upon central coordination (they're apps, not layers) and serve only to generate swap fees for the operator and the surveillance afforded by such centralization

each payment channel still requires an on-chain transaction

Again, it's not possible to give the user independence from the chain, chain is where claims of any type of construct are enforced. This is centralized shitcoin rhetoric.

perfect forward security as long as operators delete their key shares after a transfer

Trustodial

Ark

In the spark thread last week I predicted this would be next on the body trail of "nodeless" wallets: #1214876

Nodeless just means someone else's node, someone elses revenue, someone elses data. The incentives to push this dogshit are a tragedy of the commons.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @xstoicunicornx 2h

It doesn't "scale" anything, the upper bound for Lightning channels is how many users can afford to unilaterally enforce claims with the chain, and that's purely a function of supply of Bitcoin

why would this be the upper bound when this is (by far) the minority scenario? unilateral exit is important to be able to exercise, but seems weird to assess the ability to exercise this in an extreme scenario that will never happen.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 2h

the minority scenario?

You mean it's not actually inhibiting adoption as it sits?

That's my point, the "solution" is to a problem that hasn't manifested and there's no indication it ever will.