pull down to refresh
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
not even Core uses it, yet it's responsible for more coin theft than anything.
fact, not opinion.
Could you point me in the direction of some reading material related to bip39's problems, I was genuinely unaware of it being controversial. Also might I ask what the best alternative is in your opinion?
for all we know, no one in core uses or is paid in bitcoin
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
What would you have said, that Tadge Dryja did not?