related posts
50 sats \ 2 replies \ @energycurrency 2 Jul 2023
deleted by author
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @nerd2ninja 2 Jul 2023
Yes and we need to show to the rest of Bitcoin users that BIP-119 is not recursive lol.
This is the age of information presentation through entertainment however and I'm not much of an entertainer unfortunately.
reply
50 sats \ 0 replies \ @energycurrency 2 Jul 2023
deleted by author
reply
75 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja 2 Jul 2023
No not change the Bitcoin ethos and after reading this article that isn't what the author is saying. Rather, there are a lot of people cheering on custodians and that is an attempt to change the Bitcoin ethos to scale.
I think the author would be happy with covenants and eltoo to help Bitcoin scale. That's what this article is about to me.
"Hey guys we need a soft fork"
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nicosey 2 Jul 2023
we have scaling solutions. but we don't use them.
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @l0k18 2 Jul 2023
It. Doesn't. Need. To. Scale.
LN.
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @nerd2ninja 2 Jul 2023
There are some soft forks that would improve lightning and that's actually what we're talking about.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @l0k18 2 Jul 2023
"improve" being a key word to use here. Not "necessary".
I'm skeptical about covenants (could be a severe problem with fungibility long term) but for sure Musig2 can't be rolled out soon enough. The end of ECDSA signatures would be nice too. More progress on async trustless coinjoins too, also beneficial to LN for the privacy of operators (which is a definite easier to organise collaborative transaction generation process).
I take everything I see from Lopp with a grain of salt after casahodl started dealing in METH.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @nerd2ninja 2 Jul 2023
I can understand being skeptical of Loop, however, we've known we needed not wanted but yes needed, eltoo for global scaling of lightning through the use of channel factories since before the last bull run.
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/106520/is-bitcoin-lightning-still-not-scalable
These Bitcoin stack exchange answers come from 2021.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @l0k18 2 Jul 2023
I doubt we are at risk of global adoption at such a rate before another 20 years, I think there's time to really tease apart the threads and put the ones in to use that solve the more immediate and less distant matters of scalability.
Think of it this way. It's not a bad thing if people use hypothetical bitcoin instead of the on chain - if it had strong security against forgery.
I'm also waiting to see if someone figures out another way to create state channels that can be hierarchically recomposed and divided and joined. There is this Ark thing being worked on at the moment...
I'm very skeptical that covenants will get to the mainnet personally. They need a clawback/escape clause and measures to prevent lockin.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja 2 Jul 2023
Forgery aka rehypothecation? Theft is the other consideration.
In terms of doing things the right way I think you'll see I do agree with that: #201465
I think I can at least sympathize with the idea that in saying "hey we need this thing" to then add "and we need to rush it" is not a good look.
You should research these proposals more tho. If you've seen Liana wallet for example, you know you can have a multi-sig where one address has a timelock and another one is unencumbered. Can't say I've attempted it in Inquisition set, but I can't see why you couldn't have the same set up with covenents. That's what the vault proposal is all about afterall.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @guts 2 Jul 2023
Ask yourself what would Satoshi do.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @energycurrency 2 Jul 2023
deleted by author
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln 2 Jul 2023
Doesn't matter what he'd do. All that matters is consensus. He'd probably go with consensus, not to say. But satoshi does not matter anymore.
reply