pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @teatwo OP 4 May \ 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.
I agree that analysis as the real phenomenon, but feel like not good. That's because that's the same path that gold ended up in...
"custodial layer 2" is really a invention of term. lol Does it include CEXs, and Ethereum which issues wBTC custodied by BitGo?
I think this is a pyramid, not a layer. Imagine a manufacturing industry like cars, machinery, etc. Don't you think that ETF is a component made using bitcoin as raw material?
Saylor's layer theory is closer to processing and manufacturing up to the point where the product is delivered to the consumer.
community bank, not bitcoin, but I don't know what it is beyond that. looking forward to reading the article.
GENESIS