pull down to refresh
221 sats \ 11 replies \ @ca 2 Dec \ on: How Bitcoin Scales w/o Forks: the Lightning, Liquid, On-Chain Triangle bitcoin
If we'll need to use Liquid for scaling, we can consider Bitcoin a failed experiment.
Well, there is no "solution" to L1 scaling. Its a fundamental constraint.
There needs to be an L2 for scaling....whether thats LN, Ark, Liquid, etc. They each have various functionality and security trade-offs.
The negative of Liquid is that it relies on a federation to provide security/transactions. However, for that con, it offers several pros, like Confidential Transactions and a more expressive OPCODE set (including OP_CAT for covenant support)
Personally I trust Liquid more than a fully custodial solution like WoS or other "hosted LN wallets".
reply
Custodial solutions, from what I can tell, in the United States that are non-kyc are going away. Unless the next administration employs major changes, they will not be allowed to operate openly in the United States.
reply
Operative word is need, if its a need yes we're cooked but if its an option others can use who are willing to accept the trade off for a cost saving then I think its a lesser evil than custodial services
reply
how evil do you think (well-established) custodial services are, when it's for small balances and only to have newbies get a feel for things?
I agree that custodial lightning is a little bit disingenuous (OMG look how great and fast and cheap bitcoin is! but that same magic could be done via Venmo or Revolut etc), but still good enough an approximation
reply
I don't think they're evil, I don't think these businesses have malicious intent but the capacity to be malicious remains and the regulatory risk involved remains, for small balances sure, what's the point of having a node to receive 21 sats zaps? Your sunk cost is more than you'll ever use?
I agree with the whole disingenuous aspect of using custodial services to punt Bitcoin's network, like LN isn't cheap, you need a node, you need to understand the technical aspects, and manage operational cost of rebalancing, and staying online.
If you're a business it shouldn't be too much of an issue but for an individual, id say unless you're doing $500 worth of Bitcoin purchases per month whats the point of using non-custodial LN?
It's okay to rebalance now with on-chain because the fees are low, but if we get to a place where 100-200 sat per vbyte hangs around for a long time, rebalancing through a Liquid or RSK has to be entertained at some point, no?
Theres no ark, channel factories etc, yet, so the toolkit is there, again use if you understand the risks
reply
the percentage of people today, buying at least 500$ of Bitcoin per month... I believe is a very small percentage. Very small.
Stacker News is a bubble no question and is not representative of the 'general population' even of a Western country... much less "the whole world".
The vast majority of people still don't know much about Bitcoin, if anything at all. And Lightning is completely unheard of
reply
Yeah don't hate your pathway, it's pretty smooth and strikes a nice balance
reply
Yes. And all the morons pushing this "liquid" narrative are only making somebody else dirty work...
reply
reply
Just watch. When the BTCPay server 'Boltz Plugin' is released... it will be everywhere and people will be using it, sending sats converted to liquid converted to on-chain Bitcoin without them even knowing it.
Something like this is sorely needed, in my opinion, and that's why I wrote the above post.
reply
Thank you for your opinion, you may be right or you may be wrong.
I am curious what others in the community think.
Boltz, putting out real solutions for people today has put a lot of work into Liquid Swaps and really likes them for their utility.
reply