pull down to refresh
202 sats \ 7 replies \ @justin_shocknet 5 Nov \ parent \ on: Arké Wallet: Ark wallet using second.tech implementation - Christoph Ono Design
Correct
Mostly correct.
You haven't received anything yet until its on the chain under your control. You could also spend back your side of the zero-conf trusted channel to a swap and pay the chain fee that way.
Same as you would pay to exit or swap out of an Ark.
No, you haven't received anything, the Ark coordinator received it with their liquidity and then opened a zero-conf channel with you, exactly as with the above LN example.
Only at the same point in time as you could have opened an LN channel, roughly the same footprint on-chain.
Chain costs are incurred when you use the chain for security, same as the LN example, you either upgrade the channel to a secure one, or exit entirely via a swap.
There is a point in Ark where you can have the ability to unilaterally exit your balance while deferring the cost to do so, it's the same cost realized at different times. The trade-off to deferring is that your future receives are still trusted, as they come through Ark's swap bridge. You're trusting them to issue invoices that actually credit you until such time you leave it and use a Lightning channel directly.
The entire premise of Ark scaling or making Lightning better is the insinuation people will defer exit costs forever and do trusted receives forever, that the Ark is a roach motel.
and let's mention also that many of these "unilateral exists" from Ark will be made through a swap ark to LN... So we are back to the same thing, somebody have to prepare that channel to receive from the swap.
reply
I haven't seen them conflate unilateral exiting with LN, but wouldn't surprise me, their scamming seemingly knows no limits.
The ability to unilaterally exit is an entirely on-chain thing as it's the base chain chain security that makes things unilateral.
reply
something, something...
I wonder what will be that "out of the box" thing, if not a swap service ?
So in the end the Ark user will still have to open a channel with the ASP in order to get out of the vUTXOs LOL, instead of making it more simple, is getting even more complicated for a noob.
This will be such a mess.
reply
Guaranteed swap service. That's why these things get funded so easily, the business model is that of any other centralized exchange.
People bitch about routing fees being higher than chain fees right now, so they'll pay extra to add a swap hop LOL
reply
Thanks for the info.
The entire premise of Ark scaling or making Lightning better
I want to throw this idea out (as I think you do as well). I should have been more clear in my comment above:
I am assuming a case in each example (LN and Ark) where the user who is new and only receiving a small amount of [what goes here? -- not real sats, not real bitcoin, IOUs?] is receiving them from a user on the same network.
So, in the LN example, the LN user is receiving from another lightning user. In the Ark example, the Ark user is receiving from another Ark user.
Currently, Ark is barely used, so it's far more likely that a user would receive LN sats. But in the case where Ark is more widely adopted (which is how I always thought it was being pitched), the Ark user might be receiving from other Ark users...in the same Ark
Aha. I think I just understood one of your criticisms: Ark users in the same Ark may have similar trust assumptions to LN users; however, if an Ark user is paying another Ark user in a different Ark they have to use the main chain or LN to transfer value. This distinction is something I haven't been thinking about: all LN users are more or less on the same network. The same can not be said of all Ark users. In fact, it can only be said of Ark users using the same Ark.
In the case where payments are made between users are in the same Ark, do you feel that it is still a trustodial waste of time?
reply
is receiving them from a user on the same network
Not really an appropriate framework, one is an open-network, the other is a closed network.
LN users are more or less on the same network. The same can not be said of all Ark users
Bingo, this ties back to the end of my previous comment, their entire premise is that the Ark is a roach motel and all activity will go through them, a centralized entity running a closed network.
do you feel that it is still a trustodial waste of time
Yes, much of Bitcoin's value, and all of Lightning's value, is in it being an open network with no central point of failure or trust needed to enter.
Closed networks are centralized applications, which is why they're leaning now into the "DeFi" nonsense as their latest narrative pivot. The use-case for in-Ark payments is user-to-user within a given application, like a shitcoin exchange that has its own network effect of buyers and sellers.
DeFi is a scam word unto itself because there's no actual decentralization.
Entry into their closed network is inherently gated in the case of LN, because of the swap. I don't believe this is the case with on-chain, you could make a sufficiently sized on-chain payment to enter it (paying a chain fee up front). But if you could afford to make that chain fee up front to enter, you for the same cost have just opened a Lightning channel.
reply
Yes you are getting closer.
Keep in mind that all the moving around in a ASP are just virtual sats, aka IOUs, same as cashu let's say. But cashu is more simple because is linked directly to LN (no need for any swap), but yes is a custodial.
Only when you get out of that ASP, onchain or LN you get real sats.
reply