pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 11 replies \ @justin_shocknet 7 Nov \ parent \ on: Unlocking Liquidity Before Shared Output Expiration | Ark Protocol bitdevs
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
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.
reply
So you're backtracking?
reply
No I just painted you into a corner, that ASP's are just worse LSP's