pull down to refresh
1021 sats \ 2 replies \ @justin_shocknet 5h \ parent \ on: Ark & Spark: The Channel Factories We've Been Waiting For ⚡️ bitcoin
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:
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
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.
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 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
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.
Trustodial
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.
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.
reply
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.
reply