pull down to refresh
Scoresby, bless his heart, has a morbid curiosity about scam fake L2's
Lightning, is literally just reusable chain transactions, nothing more or less.
Quick skim of that video shows a strawman of what you want it to be, and of course, when people want the impossible only scammers will satisfy.
Convenient I wasn't there for the debate at the end.
What would you have said, that Tadge Dryja did not?
To what specifically?
Just saw this gem in your vid, touching on my greatest hits, especially scaling and liquidity for starters
Lightnings scales throughput, that's not the same as scaling users. Nothing scales users, Bitcoin itself is supply constrained and not floating point. Given that the 2.1q sats is not evenly distributed, some even lost, and the assumption of non-zero fees and dust limits, bears out that there's no avenue for more than 100 maybe 200M people to ever settle on actual Bitcoin. Bitcoin self-custody is for the golden billon 200M... yet but everyone still benefits from the measuring stick of infinity/21M.
No fake L2 solves that, if it claims to, it's shitcoin with trust assumptions and not actually settled Bitcoin.
Liquidity is also a retarded nit, no liquidity is required anymore than a chain transactions. If you want to transact, you need money to transact, it's that simple. Lightning is literally just reusing transactions someone has already made.
I'll agree on the culture on LN, it's full of grift, virtue signal and larp... and a general lack of first-principles thinking. You might actually enjoy my post history here, contrarian grenades to counter this including privacy as a practice, onlineness, tooling, and Lightning generating MORE chain transactions not less.
Well, back in 2015 I devised an L2 (called "drivechain") which.
- is merged mined, passing all txn fees down to L1 miners
- can onboard an unlimited number of people to the L2, without consuming more L1 bytes
- does not involve a blocksize increase on L1
So, that's what I compare everything else to.
It is not about "settling" 8 billion people (or, what it now called the "unilateral exit") -- that is impossible (without huge L1 blocksize increase).
But onboarding + use , is necessary.
Sidechains are not security equivalent to Bitcoin, and therefore, shitcoins.
Not even terabyte blocks would solve the scaling limitation, this is a signal you've never studied the actual problem space. It has nothing to to with throughput, but distribution of the base unit. The only solution is a supply increase (non-dillutive), which isn't going to happen.
There are less than 300M companies/institutions on the planet, less than 1BN households... even less with actual money to save.
The theoretical scaling limitations, including mine, have no effect on reality.
The drivechain security model is much better than Lightning's.
Lightning:
- fails if a 51% hashrate coalition interferes with your channel
- the 51% hashrate does not suffer any costs by attacking
In DC, it is more profitable for greedy miners to maintain the deposit/withdrawal. So that they can farm the chain for free merged mining revenues. -- https://drivechain.info/blog/fees/
And that is just a comparison on DCs weakest point. In every other way -- routing, hot wallet, sensitivity to L1 fees -- LN is much much worse.
The LN model is just bad. Altcoins usually copy Bitcoin's ideas... if they are good. Many coins use Bip39 -- many coins use HD wallets -- many coins have block explorers -- many coins use addresses -- many coins use ZK -- many coins use the UTXO model. When ethereum invented the EVM -- many coins copied it. Copying = good.
But no Altcoin copies Bitcoin's LN because they can all tell that it is just garbage.
Lightning is hot-wallet risk generally, that's the trade-off for speed and granularity, which inherently requires interactivity and nothing solves that... fake L2's devs shilling Ark/Spark are learning this the hard way.
51% attacks can break any number of things, the same incentive applies to both DC and LN in a 51%, that a theft of that scale renders what you've stolen worthless.
Altcoins usually copy Bitcoin's ideas
Generally a counter signal.
BIP39 is terrible, not even Core uses it, yet it's responsible for more coin theft than anything.
EVM is straight up moronic
no Altcoin copies Bitcoin's LN
Because no altcoin is worth transacting frequently, granularly, or is valuable enough that transactions need to be re-used.
Your appeal to shitcoiners wisdom speaks volumes.
bip 39 is terrible
i'm calling it now, you are a troll
you keep making broad universal statements as though they are fact
they are not facts
the Bip300/301 blind merged mining is secure
have you studied the technology before making these declarations ?
Security equivalent
Just because it's secure enough for you doesn't make it security equivalent. Plenty of shitcoiners think Litecoin, DOGE, Monero etc are secure enough... they're still shitcoins.
MM Sidechains would not only have inferior hashrate, but additional swap surface, centralization... out of necessity.
It's fucking physics.
missing the B
FOR BLIND
IN BMM/BIP300: BLIND MERGED MINING
HENCE REDUCED SURFACE
Your very post (rude, inaccurate, yet overconfident) is further proof of this fact! At this rate LN will kill BTC sooner than I had thought.
...and you concluded that forking Bitcoin was a fix to that (non-)problem?
If BTC is indeed being killed off by LN, then what should we do instead?
how would it be "killed off"?
I understand not working, not scaling, wrong scaling etc, etc. But that does nothing for the mainchain, which still works impeccable. What's the deal?
LN destroys Bitcoin's layer zero -- its people.
Well obviously Lightning sucks and is unusable but it'll kill Bitcoin because too many people use it.
how...?
Because people use it even though it's unusable, don't you get it?
people don't use it
a few people do
most people use apple pay and tap
Most people don't have any money at all.
Nope. Unless you're being sarcastic, I'm at a loss here
Yes sarcasm
These shitcoiners claim LN is unusable, but at the same, LN users are cannibalizing miner revenue
Apparently they don't know you can't use Lightning without using the chain and it actually increases miner revenue via the Jevon's effect.
if everyone used LN only and L1 gets much fewer fees
does bitcoin survive ?
Bitcoin is designed to live off fees. period.
fedimints is trying to do just this negative thing, by the way
more TX's can occur in these higher levels in a semi or full custodial way that do not pay their way
these are iatrogenic and negative behavior expectations to be instilling in the user
Zucco and Peter Todd both refuse to see this particular point at all, but its true
LN is getting most of the dev attention and is the current answer to world adoption
its equivalent to a parasitical mimic, siphoning off scarce resources to put a few developers kids through college at the long term expense of bitcoin itself,
risking being replaced by something better and more advanced, and more convenient
ok, so it's killing Bitcoin in an opportunity cost sense? What could have/would have been, yes?
my lightning node works great
Scoresby sent me a very polite (public) request on Twitter, to do this AMA. That is why I am doing it.
It certainly isn't an endorsement of Lightning. Lightning is a dead end. I have demonstrated this to an utterly overwhelming degree -- especially here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhJoJPf76Pw .
In fact, it's much worse: Lightning is a cancer, rapidly metastasizing and killing off BTC. Lightning spreads to unrelated parts of Bitcoin, and destroys those as well.
Your very post (rude, inaccurate, yet overconfident) is further proof of this fact! At this rate LN will kill BTC sooner than I had thought.