Venture Capital Money has a surprising influence over protocol design. Not rarely technical sound solutions won't find consensus due to market sentiment and selfish interests of participants. We investigate this with the example of the debate about ark vs. lighting network as the future payment system for Bitcoin.
pull down to refresh
related posts
All sounds wonderful in presentations, but in reality is just another intent of scam...
Keep this in mind: even if you use an Ark wallet, you still need to use a swap in real time to be able to transact with others (onchain or LN channels) and these swaps will be mostly run by the same ASP... that means again centralization and control... easy to come the KYC hammer.
All this "liquidity problem" (that I do not deny it exist in LN) can be solved easily by educating node runners and users, choosing better how do they run a LN node.
Hey Rene... we have 0-conf channels for ages !
Just yesterday I heard somebody saying that if you use private LN channels you cannot receive payments ... LOL imagine how messy is LN in people head...
They started with "Ark is a better payment network system than Lightning"... now they change the narrative to "Ark is helping Lightning".
In fact Ark is just a gasoline generator for a Tesla
From the spark.money docs
"There are no bridges, external consensus, or sequencers. Users can enter and exit the network freely, with funds always non-custodial and recoverable on L1 via a unilateral exit which depends on Bitcoin and no one else."
Is this not true?
"This security is achieved through a fundamental action required of SOs: forgetting the operator key after a transfer. If an operator follows this protocol, the transferred funds are secure, even against future coercion or hacking. Spark strengthens this model by using multiple operators, ensuring that as long as one (or the required threshold) deletes their key, users remain secure and have perfect forward security."
"In a cooperative exit, the user and SE work together to create a new transaction that spends directly from the deposit transaction to the user’s desired Bitcoin address. This is the most efficient and cost-effective method, as it requires only a single on-chain transaction.
The unilateral exit process ensures that users always have control over their funds, even if the SE becomes unavailable or malicious. This is a critical aspect of Spark’s self-custody design, providing users with the security and sovereignty that Bitcoin was designed to offer."
So if at least one "spark operator" is honest and deletes the operator key after a transfer... There is no confiscation of funds? How is that verifiable?
https://docs.spark.money/learn/withdrawals
This post is about Ark not Spark, even that both are trash.
Thanks. I have more learning to do.
I wonder why all this stuff (ark/spark) is really necessary renting a channel from an LSP is not that difficult.
Grubles from Second is coming to do an AMA next week. I'll be curious to see how he answers your questions about Ark.
Monday will go again offgrid for few days.
But will be enough others to ask pertinent questions.
basically Muun enshittified :)
on the watch list, thank you!
🔗 Privacy-friendly: https://invidious.weblibre.org/watch?v=hqKQ4Rky3tY