pull down to refresh
thanks for write up
who pays for constant stream of onchain tx?
it sounds like its good solution for privacy. swap into layer to transact, not store funds indefinitely
The Ark Service Provider (ASP) has to pay the fees for those transactions and so that will be passed onto the users.
But the trick is that the more users use it, the cheaper it becomes. i.e. users can make 1000 ark transactions and they split only a single onchain fee for 1in-1out tx.
"each pool will be submitting ~15k vB to mempool every 10 minutes (so there's a limit for number of pools running at the same time - if my math is correct there can be AT MOST 256 pools). But also note here that the numbers are just a suggestion here, the "5 seconds" could change to e.g. 1 minute."
256 pools will utilize all the bitcoin tx throughput...
and fixing it only a bit by waiting 1 minute for transaction to happen instead of 5 sec - is like going back from L2 to L1 "slow motion" - unacceptable user experience, then
that's mad idea at first look, imo
You wouldn't need to run an "ark node". Idea is that this improves UX that much that it is feasibe to have just a mobile Ark wallet.
Great write up!
I think limits for number of pools that get into a block is huge improvement over LN.
What would be the limit on number of transactions within single coin join (which happens say each 5seconds)?
So from quick read and chat with Burak, here's what I got so far (but take with grain of salt, I'm not that smart):
It seems that it could be much easier to run Ark node compared to LN node, since you just need to fund it with BTC and the daemon can do its job from there, but also your funding only seems to be going in one direction, so your coins are locked for at least 2 weeks and you may need to be adding more gradually (?). If it works the way I understand it can be quite profitable to run Ark Service Provider node.