0 sats \ 1 reply \ @SqNr65 7 Jan \ parent \ on: Rethinking Lightning bitcoin
Sure man, glad you understand the problems better now.
Faith means trust, don't verify. Not a fan. I prefer don't trust, verify.
I also think there will be solutions, but this article brought me no closer to understanding what those solutions might be.
Nice quote and all, but you didn't really answer any of my questions at all, didn't even try to.
Care to venture a response? Not tryna be a dick here. I'm really just curious, I wanna know if I missed something. There are a bunch of questions there, would love to get an answer for at least 1 of them
Sure man, glad you understand the problems better now.Faith means trust, don't verify. Not a fan. I prefer don't trust, verify.I also think there will be solutions, but this article brought me no closer to understanding what those solutions might be.Nice quote and all, but you didn't really answer any of my questions at all, didn't even try to.Care to venture a response? Not tryna be a dick here. I'm really just curious, I wanna know if I missed something. There are a bunch of questions there, would love to get an answer for at least 1 of them
AFAIU, the way covenants solves this issue is by making the ownership of each UTXO shared by more than 1 party without hitting the chain. Which, for the layman, means that in the future all channels will be opened to multiple parties (instead of just one), which will save in fees. And given that covenants will allow, this way, for LN to scale to the whole planet (because, you know, LN as it is today can't scale to the whole planet as it requires at least 1 UTXO per person), then we will have lower on-chain fees. And with lower on-chain fees, we don't have all the issues that OP explained in the 1st 10 paragraphs of his rant.
reply