pull down to refresh
ENGLISH
Thanks for the correction, that's exactly what I was looking for - better understanding of these protocols.
You're right that ARK is not custodial technically. vTXOs are pre-signed transactions and the user maintains control over their on-chain exit. My mistake was generalizing "coordination" as "trust".
What concerns me about ARK is another nuance:
Privacy: The coordinator sees who pays whom. In Lightning, routing goes through HTLCs and each hop only sees neighbors. In ARK, the coordinator has full visibility of the transaction graph.
Availability: If the coordinator refuses to coordinate your vTXOs, you're depending on someone else to do it. In Lightning, if a node goes down, the network keeps functioning through other paths.
On channel comparison: Yes, every Lightning node coordinates, but the difference is that in Lightning you control the final state with your key. In ARK, a third party does the coordination and can choose not to participate.
I understand ARK is essentially an improved channel factory. But channel factories already exist in Lightning without a central coordinator.
Have you tried ARK on mainnet? I'd like to know your real experience with coordinator availability.
Thanks again for sharing - this is what makes this community valuable.
ESPAÑOL
Gracias por la corrección, es justo lo que buscaba - entender mejor estos protocolos.
Tienes razón en que ARK no es custodial técnicamente. Los vTXOs son transacciones pre-firmadas y el usuario mantiene control sobre su salida on-chain. Mi error fue generalizar "coordinación" como "confianza".
Lo que me preocupa de ARK es otro matiz:
Privacidad: El coordinador ve quién paga a quién. En Lightning, el enrutamiento es a través de HTLCs y cada salto solo ve a sus vecinos. En ARK, el coordinador tiene visibilidad completa del grafo de transacciones.
Disponibilidad: Si el coordinador se niega a coordinar tus vTXOs, estás dependiendo de que alguien más lo haga. En Lightning, si un nodo cae, la red sigue funcionando a través de otros caminos.
Sobre la comparación con canales: Sí, cada nodo Lightning coordina, pero la diferencia es que en Lightning el estado final lo controlas tú con tu clave. En ARK, la coordinación la hace un tercero que puede elegir no participar.
Entiendo que ARK es esencialmente un channel factory mejorado. Pero los channel factories ya existen en Lightning sin coordinador central.
¿Has probado ARK en mainnet? Me gustaría conocer tu experiencia real con la disponibilidad del coordinador.
Nuevamente, gracias por compartir - esto es lo que hace valiosa esta comunidad.
Privacy: The coordinator sees who pays whom. In Lightning, routing goes through HTLCs and each hop only sees neighbors. In ARK, the coordinator has full visibility of the transaction graph.
This is an implementation choice, not a protocol limitation. You can perform WabiSabi coinjoins on Ark's VTXOs to hide their movements.
Availability: If the coordinator refuses to coordinate your vTXOs, you're depending on someone else to do it. In Lightning, if a node goes down, the network keeps functioning through other paths.
Yes, Lightning has an undeniable advantage over Ark here.
On channel comparison: Yes, every Lightning node coordinates, but the difference is that in Lightning you control the final state with your key. In ARK, a third party does the coordination and can choose not to participate.
Your LLM doesn't know what it's talking about. Channel peers are third parties to routed Lightning payments, just like the Ark provider is a third party for Ark payments. I'm not responding further.
ENGLISH
You're absolutely right and I apologize. My approach was wrong.
I wanted to express that Lightning seems more decentralized to me because you can have your own node and direct channels, but I presented it poorly by talking about "controlling the final state with your key" as if that didn't also apply to routed Lightning. It was a drafting error, not an intention error.
You have every right not to continue the conversation. I completely understand.
What I am genuinely interested in is the work ARK is doing with Lightning Labs. I think it could be an excellent entry point for newer people in Bitcoin, and especially for merchants who need simple solutions to accept payments. The ease of use without needing to manage channels could be a great differentiator.
Thanks for your contributions. You gave me a perspective I hadn't considered correctly, and that's exactly what I'm looking for in other stackers' comments.
ESPAÑOL
Tienes toda la razón y me disculpo. Mi enfoque fue incorrecto.
Quería expresar que Lightning me parece más descentralizado porque puedes tener tu propio nodo y canales directos, pero lo planteé de forma confusa al hablar de "controlar el estado final con tu clave" como si eso no aplicara también a Lightning routado. Fue un error de redacción, no de intención.
Tienes todo el derecho de no seguir la conversación. Lo entiendo perfectamente.
Lo que sí me interesa mucho es el trabajo que ARK está haciendo con Lightning Labs. Creo que puede ser una excelente puerta de entrada para personas más nuevas en Bitcoin, y especialmente para comerciantes que necesitan soluciones simples para aceptar pagos. La facilidad de uso sin necesidad de gestionar canales puede ser un gran diferencial.
Gracias por tus aportes. Me diste una perspectiva que no había considerado correctamente, y eso es exactamente lo que estoy buscando en los comentarios de otros stackers.
Bitcoiners need to learn that Spark and Ark are not the same:
Spark is statechain, and statechains are *custodial.
Ark is not custodial, every user in the timelocked tree has an n of n presigned txs that you generated the keys for yourself.
eh... Every node you open a channel with is a coordinator of that channel. The thing about Lightning that makes it a decentralized network is that you can open a channel with anyone, and still route payments to those who you don't.
Lightning is definitely irreplaceable, but Ark is basically a channel factory that supercharges Lightning.