pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 11h \ on: What problems would there be if L1 were filled by something other than BTC tx? bitcoin
seems that you don't know how LN works. LN without onchain it doesn't work. It's useless if you cannot open/close channels.
Onchain = transactions, open/close LN channels
LN = payments network
Both need each others, otherwise will be a mess.
Here, read more:
https://simplelightning.com/how-payment-channels-work-the-basics
I intentionally used the vague term "L2" to avoid limiting it to LN here.
If you use a shared UTXO like ARK, you will need a deposit, but you won't have to worry about unintentional forced channel closures. Or, although it does not follow the principle of unilateral exit, if you use a custody like ecash, you won't even need a deposit to L2.
However, I agree that the point that L1 and L2 are a set and therefore problematic is very valid.
reply
There's no other L2 than LN.
All the rest are SOMETHING ELSE but not L2.
reply