pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 18 replies \ @BTCLNAT 2 Dec \ on: How Bitcoin Scales w/o Forks: the Lightning, Liquid, On-Chain Triangle bitcoin
Well, I've been reading this post and there are things I don't quite understand. Does the person you want to educate and adopt want to have seed phrases or does he want them?
If he doesn't want them, then a custodial wallet. If he wants them but doesn't have technical knowledge, then Phoenix or Greenwallet. At least in Phoenix, with the $20 he can open a channel directly with a deposit in the Lightning Network. Greenwallet too, but I don't know how much the minimum deposit is in the Lightning Network for this wallet.
So I don't understand why you're looking for two scalability solutions, Liquid and Lightning, for the same result. It seems more complicated to swap, to change from one wallet to another. That's my humble opinion.
This wallet only wants to over complicate things using useless methods. A total nightmare for a noob.
I've tested this wallet and even knowing how each part is working is really confusing and adding more complexity for nothing.
They only push the narrative that Liquid will fix Bitcoin. Morons. Bitcoin and Ln works as designed, is necessary only better education.
reply
Friend @DarthCoin, I thought that with age I was becoming stupid, because I did not understand how such complex and tangled mechanisms were needed to explain something so simple. But it seems that I was not so bad or lacking in understanding. Just as you say, Bitcoin and Lightning solve everything. Thanks once again.
reply
The thing is that all these many years testing and using almost all the apps available, I can see all the differences, pro/contra, features needed etc but also I can see very easily bullshit stuff.
Some people only want to reinvent the wheel, instead of focusing on improving what is already working.
Yes, LN is not perfect, but damn it, is just a 6 years old kid ! It have much to grow and became a strong man! We are just starting and people want to have perfect systems.
In the last pod with Lunaticoin exactly about this we were talking: in 2012-2014 we were having only some ugly 3-4 wallet apps. Now we have over 20 with all kind of features.
reply
The thing is that there will always be those who are really smart and want the good of others and that means their well-being in return, that is very good. But there are the bandits who for their own benefit do not care about harming others.
Today I have to share in the educational project of CubaBitcoin, the Lightning Network and the use of Bitcoin in daily life. Some of the students are nocoiners and others shitcoiners. So to level things up, in a very basic course the proposal is:
Understand why we need Lightning Network, they already saw Bitcoin Onchain last week,
Airport Analogy (does it sound familiar to you?) and finally try with Wallet of Satoshi the speed of LIGHTNING. I only have 1 hour to do everything. During the week we continue to go deeper online with them.
But if we want people to learn and adopt Bitcoin as what it is, MONEY. For me Lightning and the main chain are all they need. I always question the rest.
Even one of the instructors at CubaBitcoin asked me:
How could you explain to the guys that Lightning is Bitcoin and Liquid is not? So I had to mine for knowledge. But now I see it clearer and I can try to make it clearer for others.
Once again, thanks bro.
reply
Lightning and liquid are completely different, they are not the same.
However liquid and lightning used together intelligently, allow continual, non-custodial exchange and savings of Sats even when fees are high.
In wealthy countries maybe it doesn't matter... people will pay the on-chain fees regardless once they figure out what Bitcoin is.
But in relatively poor or developing countries, the fees will pile out of control in my opinion. Liquid is then used to manage liquidity... or to accept lightning payments through BTCPay server just long enough to have enough Liquid-Sats (a few hundred dollars worth) to open a Lightning node. Lightning QR -> Liquid (BTCPay Boltz works like this as I have detailed above).
That's the purpose.
reply
No. Liquid is just a bullshit narrative. See here: #791278
reply
The idea of the airport analogy is not mine, but is a good one. Yes I wrote about it in my guides collection because is good to be used to teach noobs with it.
I wrote also another analogy with the glass of water here: #552822
How could you explain to the guys that Lightning is Bitcoin and Liquid is not?
Here
#791278
reply
I love lightning, I use it every day. Lightning is nothing short of amazing.
However I can't find a single person, not one in the 'general population' how knows what it is, or has even heard of it.
Like I said Lightning is great however in order to onboard as many people as possible, non-custodially to it we need scaling solutions. Liquid is a temporary medium for managing liquidity, and running BTCPay server, accepting Lightning without having a lightning node actually set up.
reply
accepting Lightning without having a lightning node actually set up.
That's totally bullshit. Any other swap to liquid or other bullshit REQUIRE Lightning liquidity. And if you do not run it for yourself, then is custodial bullshit.
Please try to use Liquid without LN. Is totally useless.
reply
That's not true though?
The user sends Lightning to a QR Code (like on BTCPay) and the org running the BTCPay receives Liquid.
Once enough 'liquid gets stacked' to open a lightning node, one is opened automatically. That way any person, any organization can accept lightning without having a lightning node first until they get enough sats.
I have tried it, and used the Boltz exchange many times and it works well.
What am I missing?
reply
What am I missing?
You are missing the point. Liquid is just a crap failed useless project. Do not try to reinvent the wheel now.
reply
"At approximately 32.9 million active entities, this would mean the average non-exchange, non-miner entity owns 0.46 BTC, or around $12,420. The median is significantly less, at 1.34 addresses per user and the median address holding roughly 0.005 BTC, the median entity would have roughly 0.0067 BTC, or around $180.90."
180.90 as a 'median' (if these figures are to be believed). That's... 189k Sats give or take per person at median. That's probably on the 'low end' of what's required to open a Lightning Channel?
reply
meaningless stats that doesn't prove liquid is required.
Also is missing an important piece: private LN channels. Nobody knows how many there are and how much liquidity is in those private channels.
Onchain stats are meaningless in bitcoin usage.
Onchain addresses are used EXCLUSIVELY for opening/closing LN channels.
reply
Thank you for your comment.
There is no way, from what I understand, to give someone 10$ of Bitcoin and have them hold it non-custodially. It doesn't work.
On-chain is too expensive. And they can't 'have lightning' from 10 dollars. The channel opening feel isn't efficient enough at 10$... even if Phoenix allowed them to do it (and they won't anyway). Mutiny wallet if I recall correctly wanted several hundred thousand sats to open... and that's the recommendation elsewhere too.
That 'poor person' in the developing world, or any person for that matter with access to poor-quality money, either gets custodial Bitcoin (which can be taken away) at 10$. Or they can get liquid at 10$ for a short time until they figure out another solution that's on-chain.
Phoenix is great it really is but again the opening fee is too much. Maybe with 50$... or 100$ but what happens if they don't use the wallet again for a while? Or the on-chain fees are too high at that exact moment? It doesn't work that well in my opinion for new users.
Liquid is 24 cents for a transaction and the user will have a channel opened automatically... at the right time. We need to have a serious conversation about this as on-chain transactions for a billion people for every-day transactions is a fantasy it's impossible.
reply
Unfortunately, I don't know what's going on now, I can't send pictures on SN. I currently live in one of the poorest countries in the world, I opened a channel in Phoenix with about 10 dollars, today it would be 15 dollars. Of course, you always have to take into account the mining fees.
Back then I used WoS to accumulate and then I made the transaction to Phoenix via Lightning Network. Problem solved in that case.
But oh well. We always want people to learn and adopt.
reply
Liquid is a tool like anything else.
When people use lightning everyday, on Stacker News and Nostr, in addition to levels of lightning wallets - custodial, non-custodial, full node, the 'phoenix/LSP model' etc...
In addition to full utxos to move around, things aren't so 'clear cut' and black and white.
Having a tool like liquid with atomic swaps is immensely useful in my opinion to balance security, fees, decentralization, liquidity, sovereignty etc. It's the whole package that matters.
reply
Liquid is a tool to fool clueless noobs into thinking that is useful and necessary. And Liquid is not decentralized at all. Are just a bunch of federated members.
reply
How do we onboard the world's poor, non-custodially, to Bitcoin?
reply