No, it's not so different, only slightly worse.

But I don't think it's too much to ask that we try for "slightly better" instead of giving up entirely.

We already had Mercury Layer statechains. These used blind signatures so the statechain couldn't spy on users. The custody issue remains for both Mercury and Spark, but why the FUCK is the privacy getting WORSE as new projects replace old ones?

Kruw

I see that. But it is true that for such a big budget operation, and one that David Marcus emphasized repeatedly as having unilateral exit guarantees, they sure didn't produce a product that allowed users to easily exit. If they were some complicated difficult thing to use, perhaps this is forgivable, but it's surprising in a service that aims to be easy to use.

So, you're probably right that he hasn't got much to gain by responding. But some kind of non-pr speak response would have been nice. 

It's also worth noting that he didn't respond to any of the replies (not even seth for privacy's more supportive opening, nor Layer2Labs' offer to host a debate).

> I was hoping he would respond to you.

Would you, if he had replied to you like that? I certainly wouldn’t. What is there even to reply to?

I saw that. I was hoping he would respond to you.

I'm curious though: is spark so different from a lightning wallet where you have only one channel with your LSP (a la Phoenix)?

I guess you can get to the chain more easily, but they still can see all your txs, I think.

bitcoin

bitcoin_beginners

privacy

Chainalysis is built into Spark

I saw that. I was hoping he would respond to you. 

I'm curious though: is spark so different from a lightning wallet where you have only one channel with your LSP (a la Phoenix)?

I guess you can get to the chain more easily, but they still can see all your txs, I think.