0 sats \ 9 replies \ @justin_shocknet 7 Nov \ parent \ on: Unlocking Liquidity Before Shared Output Expiration | Ark Protocol bitdevs
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.
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.
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.
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
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
reply
LSPs open channels.
ASPs split UTXOs.
I know it's hard to conceive that both might be useful and serve different purposes.
It's still all Bitcoin signed transactions.
reply
Bitcoin doesn't have split UTXO's, that's total nonsense... not your UTXO not your coin. There's no crypto-theatrics at the application level that change that.
At the end of the day you're sacrificing trust/security to try gaining (dubious) efficiency, maybe you wouldn't have to market it as Bitcoin for people that can't actually afford Bitcoin if scammers like Rearden could be honest about it.
If you really just wanted to stick it to Liquid over the poverty use-case I could see that, but there needs to be repent on directly affinity scamming Lightning first.