pull down to refresh

1020 sats \ 7 replies \ @TonyGiorgio 6 Jan \ parent \ on: Rethinking Lightning bitcoin
If I can't afford a UTXO, why would I pay the on chain fees to keep transferring it from covenant to covenant? Or rather is that just what happens when one out of 10 get out of the covenant and the other 9 go to a different covenant?
write
preview
669 sats \ 6 replies \ @benthecarman OP 6 Jan
You wouldn't do for every state transition, you would only do it when entering or exiting the utxo pool. Similiar to lightning, you don't open channels for every payment.
reply
717 sats \ 3 replies \ @anon 7 Jan
UTXO pool's aren't magic. You still need to keep liquidity available to exit the UTXO pool if necessary. And because huge numbers of people will be locked up in one UTXO when pools fail fees will spike causing people to lose money. All these covenant proposals are expensive, requiring large transactions to get stuff done. A bunch bigger than Lightning.
reply
557 sats \ 2 replies \ @benthecarman OP 7 Jan
obviously its not perfect, but we need someway to scale utxo ownership, 1-to-1 payment channels won't scale bitcoin non-custodially
reply
263 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 7 Jan
UTXO pools will probably make the problems we've seen in Lightning a lot worse because they'll allow fees to go up even further. If you can't get out of your UTXO does it matter whether or not you own it?
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @benthecarman OP 7 Jan
they'll allow fees to go up even further
fees are going up with or without soft forks.
If you can't get out of your UTXO does it matter whether or not you own it?
we need to at least try, otherwise you definitely won't own it
reply
343 sats \ 0 replies \ @TonyGiorgio 6 Jan
Where is the state then?
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @fiatjaf 7 Jan
Have you really thought about this? What you're suggesting is impossible.
Maybe refer to actual ideas like Ark so we can point out how they do and don't work.
reply