pull down to refresh
SSP is different from the statechain entity fwiw. the statechain entity (SE) coordinates reassignment of spending keys in spark. this is a federation of three companies and that code is open source.
SSP is an additive service that makes spending arbitrary amounts easier, and facilitates lightning payments, through atomic swaps. i.e. when you use a "spark lightning wallet" all your payments go through the SSP service (i think this is bad). you could use spark w/o the SSP, but the UX would really suck. SSP makes spark more trusted as well because lightspark is the previous owner in every leaf so your trust assumption is lightspark+lightspark run federation to not rug you.
ark relies on a central server, yes. but all user funds are held in a n-of-n multisig where they have full control over spending (your leaf is server+you to spend plus you get the presigned exit to spend the leaf if server goes offline). now, when you receive offline, you must update your balance to get your newly received funds into a new n-of-n multisig... which is really complicated so you have this trust in server until you "update" your balance on bitcoin.
but if you deposit from bitcoin, into the ark, and then just do payments... the server can't rug you per se. trust us always in receiving offline and that intermediary period where your offchain balance isn't yet reflected on bitcoin
note that ark server can't really steal... it must collude with previous owner to double spend you if have not updated your balance on bitcoin by entering new n-of-n multisig
this post doesn't present any argument as to why spark, arkade, or bark are custodial. spark is custodial in most implementations because you have to call server (1 of 3 nodes) to get your leaf data. agreed.
but what's the argument against bark and arkade?
I don't understand liquid and ecash being custodial (which they are) makes arkade or bark all of a sudden custodial. spark is weird because the way all of the wallets implement it make it custodial, but at a protocol level can be used in a hand wavy non custodial way (i.e. the wallet in NZ that implemented client-side storage of user leaf data)
the reason people call these things non custodial is for legal reasons anyways but that's a whole other argument that i don't really feel like having right now
the square thing is a different payy i think?
our work has nothing to do with square. we forked a payments network (called payy) because we liked the user experience and transaction logic. at the time we forked it, it only did stablecoin payments. idk if they're doing their own token or whatever
to be clear, our company isn't doing a token. we're launching our own network as an experiment to get people's feedback on payments with zero-knowledge proofs. we won't bullshit on assumptions, etc. it's only going to support bitcoin-denominated payments
the innovation is that it's unique in the sense that it's happy path is the 1-of-N set up... and that you can get creative with how the security council can spend the funds.
but, it gets pretty complicated to be honest.
imo the biggest concern isn't with the federated bridge set up. it's more with the citrea network not having "forced inclusion" implemented yet.
this means that if the citrea sequencer (a single operator) blacklists the crest smart contract, then users would never be able to 1) make any transaction within the pool or 2) leave the pool
so one entity can censor the entire system
when the network implements this feature, the system will be a bit more trust minimized, but this is not on crest to implement unfortunately
the concern isn't really with the 1-of-N, but rather with the 3-of-5 emergency spend path. the trust in the system degrades to a security council where we don't know who the signers are.
this is standard for fraud proof bridges as a part of their "decentralization path"
thanks for posting here @supratic!
ark implementations are not bullshit. statechains make tradeoffs. 99% of other stuff is bullshit.
still, i'm free to do whatever i want with my time. i've consistently said that LN is the only L2 rn.
yep! i think they just added that. kraken now controls 35% of stake, which is enough to cause liveness failures for signatures
You can also choose between Bark, Wavelength, and Arkade. If these three are successful, more people will run ASPs and more options will be available.