0 sats \ 7 replies \ @justin_shocknet 10 May freebie \ parent \ on: Atomic Split Lightning Payments, Hold Invoices, and Blinded Paths bitcoin
Because prisms aren't atomic and without an api enabled wallet, multiple QR codes need to be scanned.
Atomic isn't a feature, it's a means to an end. No special wallet is needed with a prism, Bob's serving a normal invoice as is Carol. If anything the wrapping coordination takes API enabled wallet more than a prism.
I can't believe you have me making pro-prism arguments btw...
I'm doing it for atomicity and for receiver privacy.
Atomicity is not a feature. Carol is no more private than she would be with a Prism.
No.
So atomicity isn't the goal, getting payments from Alice to Carol while taking a piece is. You'd buy regulator insurance for $1000/mo over Atomicity given the option? So atomicity is another name for scamming the regulator.
I value my predictions of the future, and anyone else's, absent actual data, at near zero.
Sure if we conclude that predicting the future is an effort in futility, then why predict atomicity will sufficiently scam the regulator? We have no data to support that it will, could make the case for the opposite.
write
preview
17 sats \ 6 replies \ @k00b OP 10 May freebie
I'm not making the case for anything succeeding. I'm making a case that I would like for something to work because I like it's properties more than the opposite's. The opposite may work better. I never said the opposite doesn't work, only that it doesn't have the properties that my ideal solution would have.
Thanks so much for the conversation. I really did not appreciate this:
With wrapped invoices, the payer is getting the invoice from the party doing the wrapping. This is a completely trusted step in the process as the wrapper could wrap anything, or nothing.
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @justin_shocknet 10 May
My pleasure, happy to have elucidated that.
Just for my edification while I build out our solution, the preferred property referenced is the regulator scammability property?
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b OP 10 May
No. I'm not sure why you think I want to scam anyone, even regulators, or why you would think I'd believe this is a good scam. You could be trying to troll, in which case "ha," or you think I'm dumb, dishonest, or both, in which case you'll probably want to answer your question yourself.
reply
17 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 10 May
Maybe it's because of my comment
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 10 May
Yea, I didn't coin this phrase and don't mean to imply it's nefarious.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @justin_shocknet 10 May
I'm not using it as a pejorative, cat and mouse with regulators is necessary.
Indulge me as I'm trying to understand what property is being preferred so that I can be sure my solution possess that property.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 10 May
We've been over every argument I have to make, I think, and by your account I'm wrong (or something like it), so if I'm actually wrong, I reckon there's nothing left for you to understand.
reply