The lack of circuit breakers for large transactions or many small ones adding up at SideSwap is almost as much of a piss-off as the bug leading to the extra LBTC here.
A real shame. After big blocks lost in the blocksize war I liked the liquid side chain for handling small amounts of bitcoin to reduce pressure and incurring of fees on layer 1. Peg-ins were a nice way to dispose of smallish UTXOs vs the privacy loss of consolidating and there were some privacy benefits to consolidating LBTC on Liquid.
Several things about lightning don't work great for me, I can't keep a watchtower online all the time and rocking a mobile wallet + the data usage as a monitoring node is not something I want to do as I'm trying to resist the smartphonification of everything.
Liquid was nice for spending smaller amounts on lightning from time to time because there were exchange smart contracts out there like Boltz (gone but there was swapmarket) where you could pay lightning invoices with LBTC and even make lightning invoices.
Another thing about lightning is having to maintain multiple channels to have workable liquidity. Not really a great end-user technology, a layer to build on.
Even if I'm keeping a channel open, the smart contracts for trading lightning-LBTC were nice as I could leave a lightning channel in a relatively low balance state (less worry about the other party in the channel / watchtower needs) -- I could then fund it quickly and easily when I needed it.
Even if there really is a whitehat here who gives everyone a happy ending, Liquid ecosystem will be pretty damaged.
I guess we've got the world of bitcoin eCash as a substitute (cashu, fedimint). Instead of one really big federation with support from Blockstream it entails working with a bunch of smaller custodians and micro federations. Painful if needing to spread nuts across them / figuring out how much trust they are worthy of.
The lack of circuit breakers for large transactions or many small ones adding up at SideSwap is almost as much of a piss-off as the bug leading to the extra LBTC here.
A real shame. After big blocks lost in the blocksize war I liked the liquid side chain for handling small amounts of bitcoin to reduce pressure and incurring of fees on layer 1. Peg-ins were a nice way to dispose of smallish UTXOs vs the privacy loss of consolidating and there were some privacy benefits to consolidating LBTC on Liquid.
Several things about lightning don't work great for me, I can't keep a watchtower online all the time and rocking a mobile wallet + the data usage as a monitoring node is not something I want to do as I'm trying to resist the smartphonification of everything.
Liquid was nice for spending smaller amounts on lightning from time to time because there were exchange smart contracts out there like Boltz (gone but there was swapmarket) where you could pay lightning invoices with LBTC and even make lightning invoices.
Another thing about lightning is having to maintain multiple channels to have workable liquidity. Not really a great end-user technology, a layer to build on.
Even if I'm keeping a channel open, the smart contracts for trading lightning-LBTC were nice as I could leave a lightning channel in a relatively low balance state (less worry about the other party in the channel / watchtower needs) -- I could then fund it quickly and easily when I needed it.
Even if there really is a whitehat here who gives everyone a happy ending, Liquid ecosystem will be pretty damaged.
I guess we've got the world of bitcoin eCash as a substitute (cashu, fedimint). Instead of one really big federation with support from Blockstream it entails working with a bunch of smaller custodians and micro federations. Painful if needing to spread nuts across them / figuring out how much trust they are worthy of.