pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @teatwo OP 10h \ parent \ on: What problems would there be if L1 were filled by something other than BTC tx? bitcoin
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.
There's no other L2 than LN.
All the rest are SOMETHING ELSE but not L2.
reply