pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 20 replies \ @theonevortex 20 Dec \ parent \ on: Covenant support comparison by Vortex bitcoin
And I've explained how you're wrong and you literally couldn't even rebuttal yet still think you're right, so I guess you are indeed a hopeless case. Best of luck spammer.
Would you support a base unit increase to make self custody on-chain more accessible to mud farmers?
reply
Is this your rebuttal to me telling you LNhance is not a scam? Asking me if I would support increasing the supply cap? Of course not, supply cap will never be raised wtf are you even talking about.
reply
Still 21M whole coins
But new millisat based unit
Would solve scaling and is offline
Si or no?
reply
Wow you are going off on an extremely ridiculous tangent. Obviously creating new units doesn't solve any kind of scaling issue whatsoever.
reply
You want to scale to mud farmers (cheaper)
You want solutions that work offline (base chain)
You're willing to fork to do it
So what the problem is?
reply
UTXO sharing is for many people beyond just farmers, there are billions of people in the world like wtaf are you focused on farmers for?
Covenants provide ability to do cold/non-interactive channels. I want this, ln-symmetry and vaults, I don't want to increase the supply cap since I'm not an idiot and understand that does nothing to help scaling.
reply
Utxo sharing is a hoax though, centrally coordinated and trusted if you can't afford a real UTXO
Millisats would let you self custody a single sat trustlessly
Just a lil shitfork bro come on
reply
utxo sharing is a hoax
This is provably false, there are examples of covenant txs on testnet using CTV and CAT.
Millisats would let you self custody a single sat trustlessly
Do you actually think utxo sharing is the same as increasing supply cap, are you serious? It's literally nothing more than just presigned transactions...you realize this right?