pull down to refresh

127 sats \ 4 replies \ @ek OP 2 Sep \ parent \ on: Is a lightning address more private than a lightning invoice? lightning

I'm interested in that: #1559936 and #1559963

I want to have a liquid market, not be a middleman.

write
compose
2 sats \ 3 replies \ @optimism 2 Sep

I think that bottom line, structurally undermining the illiquidity of CCs is problematic, because they're illiquid for a reason. A compliance reason. It just means they have to go sooner rather than later.

reply
127 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek OP 2 Sep
It just means they have to go sooner rather than later.

I don't think they would need to be removed. You'd just need to remove the ability to send them to others. You would still receive them if you don't have a wallet, but you could only use them to pay SN, not stackers.

I think this would be a lot less confusing than the current system, with partial payments, a mix of sats and credits everywhere, decisions on both ends of a payment about whether credits should be prioritized, still receiving credits even though you have a wallet attached, etc.

reply
2 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism 2 Sep

I'm going to reserve comment on this until after CCs are gone.

@remindme in 1 year

reply
2 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek OP 2 Sep

@remindme in 1 year

reply