pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 2 replies \ @Scoresby OP 17h \ parent \ on: Arké Wallet: Ark wallet using second.tech implementation - Christoph Ono Design
Thanks for the info.
I want to throw this idea out (as I think you do as well). I should have been more clear in my comment above:
I am assuming a case in each example (LN and Ark) where the user who is new and only receiving a small amount of [what goes here? -- not real sats, not real bitcoin, IOUs?] is receiving them from a user on the same network.
So, in the LN example, the LN user is receiving from another lightning user. In the Ark example, the Ark user is receiving from another Ark user.
Currently, Ark is barely used, so it's far more likely that a user would receive LN sats. But in the case where Ark is more widely adopted (which is how I always thought it was being pitched), the Ark user might be receiving from other Ark users...in the same Ark
Aha. I think I just understood one of your criticisms: Ark users in the same Ark may have similar trust assumptions to LN users; however, if an Ark user is paying another Ark user in a different Ark they have to use the main chain or LN to transfer value. This distinction is something I haven't been thinking about: all LN users are more or less on the same network. The same can not be said of all Ark users. In fact, it can only be said of Ark users using the same Ark.
In the case where payments are made between users are in the same Ark, do you feel that it is still a trustodial waste of time?
is receiving them from a user on the same network
Not really an appropriate framework, one is an open-network, the other is a closed network.
LN users are more or less on the same network. The same can not be said of all Ark users
Bingo, this ties back to the end of my previous comment, their entire premise is that the Ark is a roach motel and all activity will go through them, a centralized entity running a closed network.
do you feel that it is still a trustodial waste of time
Yes, much of Bitcoin's value, and all of Lightning's value, is in it being an open network with no central point of failure or trust needed to enter.
Closed networks are centralized applications, which is why they're leaning now into the "DeFi" nonsense as their latest narrative pivot. The use-case for in-Ark payments is user-to-user within a given application, like a shitcoin exchange that has its own network effect of buyers and sellers.
DeFi is a scam word unto itself because there's no actual decentralization.
Entry into their closed network is inherently gated in the case of LN, because of the swap. I don't believe this is the case with on-chain, you could make a sufficiently sized on-chain payment to enter it (paying a chain fee up front). But if you could afford to make that chain fee up front to enter, you for the same cost have just opened a Lightning channel.
reply
Yes you are getting closer.
Keep in mind that all the moving around in a ASP are just virtual sats, aka IOUs, same as cashu let's say. But cashu is more simple because is linked directly to LN (no need for any swap), but yes is a custodial.
Only when you get out of that ASP, onchain or LN you get real sats.
reply