pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @justin_shocknet 8h \ parent \ on: COMMENT BOUNTY CHALLENGE BooksAndArticles
Really hard to tell if you're being obtuse on purpose or just a moron.
I'm being genuine here. The two arguments you raised that I highlighted do not make sense to me.
reply
I'll dumb it down as best I can one last time then...
The feature of vaults is that you can claw back an unauthorized transaction. Yes?
The means 1 of 2 things are true. 1 that it makes Bitcoin is useless for merchants if they can fear a payment claw back. 2 is that merchants need not worry... but if merchants don't have to worry then neither do attackers, rendering them pointless.
Congestion control is disingenuous to bring up such as you did it for a few reasons, primarily being that's not part of the conversation specifically re: Ark, as they're pushing DeFi, lies about scaling, costs, and and general Lightning FUD.
To the extent congestion control is part of the covenants conversation is another matter. Exchanges are already centralized entities, they have no need for covenants as they unilaterally control the craft of outputs. In a high fee environment, they can already set a lower-than-market fee for confirmation once congestion has cleared... CPFP already allows any recipient to accelerate that confirmation.
reply
Right, I think your 1of 2 two things is a strawman. The first case has never been suggested, and the second case is the exact point of vaults. You create a staging area for your coins under weaker security, but still with yourself in control.
Your solution to congestion then just seems to be "wait it out". But that seems backwards. If the exchange can offer their customers sooner and cheaper access to their coins, I don't see how that is not of mutual benefit?
Like I said before, not a fan of arkade or similar attempts, but that is just one implementation of ark. 2nd has been more honest imo. I'm also not completely convinced of either vaults, or congestion control, but they do make clear cases for base money and might actually enhance lightning.
reply
The 1 of 2 is the binary outcome, as soon as someone argues against the possibility of it interfering with merchants they automatically undermine the argument against attacks.
Congestion isn't wait it out, its giving the receiver time to accelerate, which they can already do.
2nd has been more honest
The bar isn't really that high though, they're still inherently FUDing Lightning to sell a centralized and trusted non-solution, they face the same reality that makes Lightning imperfect, immutable physics of the chain.
All any fake L2 can do is add centralization and trust and re-brand it.
reply