pull down to refresh
21 sats \ 23 replies \ @justin_shocknet 6 Nov \ parent \ on: Unlocking Liquidity Before Shared Output Expiration | Ark Protocol bitdevs
Not necessarily, that's part of the scam
Unilateral exit requires conditions to be met that would disincentivize you from using a VTXO in the first place, it requires you to afford a real chain UTXO and you'd still have a period of trust with the ASP on swap-in
Every trade-off is negative for the user and positive for the ASP
Yeah, marketing Ark with the “unilateral exit” tag seems a bit disingenuous because to unilaterally exit, you’d need to pay fees for possibly many on-chain transactions, which kinda defeats the whole purpose of using Ark to escape high fees in the first place!
reply
Something like
reply
How does it defeat the purpose?
You can do a practically unlimited amount of UTXO swaps on Ark for a fraction of on-chain costs.
That would be like saying Lightning is pointless because force closures can be expensive... sure the worst case scenario is costly but the system is designed to avoid this.
reply
Good point!
reply
It's a shame too, so many resources get wasted on these scams instead of legitimate projects. ETH didn't die, ETHeads just started pretending to be Bitcoiners.
I probably could have integrated parts of these to better coordinate channel operations in Lightning.Pub, but instead of consulting me they decided to affinity scam Lightning instead, it's war until they repent.
reply
reply
I understand it better than you apparently, aren't you the guy that made a Liquid wallet and called it self-custodial lightning?
reply
If you wanna know more about Ark, for real, you can start with my (a bit old) ark explainer and keep a look at arkdev's blog
reply
reply
You're still scamming
a wallet that has the self-custody of Phoenix
right after this affinity scam:
We believe that Lightning self-custodial should be free and open-source and accessible to everyone.
If you believe that, why don't you work on that instead of fake L2's?
reply
Even if you can afford a real chain UTXO why would you want to pay onchain fees for every transactions you make?
That's inefficient, just batch them with others, Ark allows you to do this.
reply
That's like asking why would you use Bitcoin when fiat has less transaction fees
Ark coins aren't Bitcoin
Lightning already offers infinitely reusable transactions anyway
reply
Ark UTXOs are presigned Bitcoin transactions just like Lightning.
Lightning doesn't scale, and is terrible for unidirectional flow. You can't balance Lightning channels with fiat, with Ark you can.
Ark will make Lightning much better.
reply
presigned Bitcoin transactions just like Lightning
Very disingenuous comparison, what dictates how a chain resolvable tx is constructed relies on a centralized application, Lightning is simply an offchain transaction between equal peers.
Lightning doesn't scale
That's where your wrong kiddo, and I know you know that too... if you really want to commit to that take show us your math so I can point out the absurdity of it, again.
terrible for unidirectional flow
Another hoax, all Ark can hope to do is consolidate inevitable chain TX's, that's exactly what Lightning does.
The difference is Lightning is a truly open network and the larger it grows the less need merchants have to loop out. Arkcoins being a bifurcated centralized coordinator coins lose the efficiency of network effect.
Ark will make Lightning much better
So far the only use-case for it is cannibalizing other fake L2 shitcoins like Liquid, which actually I don't mind because Liquid is the OG fake L2 scam and deserves to eat some of its own cooking
reply
Very disingenuous comparison, what dictates how a chain resolvable tx is constructed relies on a centralized application, Lightning is simply an offchain transaction between equal peers.
No, just like Lightning, you literally craft a 2-of-2 txs with someone and co-sign it.
reply
Prove it, drop the ASP from the design and then update your diagrams (again).
reply
The Ark server is your counterparty, just like anyone else you open a channel with.
reply
That would then make it the same as opening a channel to an LSP, only with worse security trade-offs for the client under the guise of efficiency that doesn't really exist.