pull down to refresh

124 sats \ 5 replies \ @gbks 13 Mar \ on: The difference between Ark and Spark bitcoin bitdevs
But they are not a decentralized network in the same way as Lightning.

Correct, they have different goals. Ark is a reaction to the difficulties of running a lightning node (including on mobile devices). It outsources some of the heavy lifting to the Ark server, while doing its best to maintain self-custody, etc. Different goals result in a different architectures. Good thing is that it's all interoperable and optional, and you can choose whichever one you want to use.

Small thing to note is that, at this point, the code for Spark servers is not public, while the one for Ark servers is.

write
compose
104 sats \ 4 replies \ @justin_shocknet 13 Mar
the difficulties of running a lightning node

Lightning and its difficulties are emergent from the realities of interactivity being a requirement to coordinate securely and chain properties. There is no solution to them.

These realities are starting to soak in to the current-thing-maximalists that were naive enough to waste time on it

outsources some of the heavy lifting to the Ark

That's trust

self-custody

Trustody

Different goals

The goal of fake L2's is to scam unsophisticated people that believe in perpetual motion machines into using a centralized exchange

you can choose

You can also choose to call this garbage out for what it is and warn people instead of being complicit

reply
2 sats \ 1 reply \ @gbks 14 Mar

This type of reply is exactly why I've got you muted. You really are a drag on the quality of conversation here.

reply
113 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 15 Mar

Factual with evidence supplied?

If this is a drag then you're the problem

reply
2 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 13 Mar
There is no solution to them.

If smart phones were better at keeping an app alive, couldn't a lot of the liveness pain of Lightning be solved?

Or somebody comes up with a truly plug-n-play lightning node that automates a lot of channel management?

You are much better qualified than me to make the observation, but I don't believe that lightning cannot be brought to a place where it is actually convenient to use it in a self-sovereign way. Am I misinterpreting your comment or do you think that it will always require a higher level of user interactivity than is currently required by running a wifi router?

reply
115 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 13 Mar

Phones still have networking and power issues, but yea liveness is the biggest issue with running a revenue generating node on phones. It was a foolish design decision to not use a web-based communication spec in Lightning, then even more foolish for some of those same salaried devs to push the mobile node fantasy.

somebody comes up with a truly plug-n-play lightning node that automates a lot of channel management?

Already been done. Channel management is a solved problem.

it is actually convenient

Define convenient, you can set up a Pub in less than a minute and basically forget about it.

will always require a higher level of user interactivity

Network interactivity is not the same as user interactivity, the nodes themselves are interactive with each other and the chain... that is unsolveable because that's the coordination piece... the chain is asynchronous meaning it is non-interactive, coordinating above the chain is inherently interactive and therefore synchronous

It's already easier to set up a Lightning.Pub than it is to set up a WiFi router.

reply