pull down to refresh
322 sats \ 7 replies \ @petertodd 15h \ on: Fake L2 scams like Ark, Spark, Citrea, Drivechains, and others are Shitcoins 2.0 bitcoin
I did a 10k downzap on this post with Ark.
At this point they do not deserve to be lumped in with Drivechains. It's an experiment that's doing a reasonable job exploring tech. The hate can wait.
You did a trusted swap to lightning from a centralized shitcoin
reply
Ark has HTLCs. As the person paying, that swap was not trusted for me. The service doing the swap is trusting the ASP to not collude with me to double spend until they fully confirm the coins. But that's not a deal breaker.
reply
Unless you made a chain payment to the Ark, you trusted it (as the swap provider is the payer) to get the sats in in the first place...
If you did make a chain payment you could have just opened a real channel instead
reply
Not necessarily. I could have had gotten settled funds in other ways. At the moment due to low usage doing an on-chain payment (either sending or receiving) is the easiest way. But that's not a requirement for Ark. And even now the trade-offs for liquidity are different than lightning, which means it may be useful.
reply
"Other ways" being from another Ark user that either A) got the sats themselves first through a trusted Lightning swap or B) used the chain when they could have instead opened a real Lightning channel
The chain payment method obviates the liquidity concern, you don't need any external liquidity to open a real Lightning channel, and as the receiver of said channel the amount received is the liquidity... not a pre-requirement
The cost of the channel was not saved by the user receiving via Ark, you as the payer paid it in both scenarios. The cost of a closure or exit was also not saved by the user, just deferred.
It's inherently a closed network unlike Lightning, but also not a one-way ratchet, so the presumption that users can trustlessly receive (ignoring the fact that relatively few people will ever be able to afford unilateral exit guarantees) depends on a specific Ark coordinator having a network effect that competes with an open network in Lightning and now other competing closed networks. I don't even have to say how implausible this is, since ArkLabs themselves has already narrative pivoted to this being DeFi trash, such as shitcoin exchanges with an inherent network of buyers and sellers
reply
"Other ways" being from another Ark user that either A) got the sats themselves first through a trusted Lightning swap or B) used the chain when they could have instead opened a real Lightning channel
Nope. You clearly don't understand how Ark works.
As I said, in the current implementation you can get settled funds easily by doing any on-chain transaction. Either sending or receiving on chain funds.
Once more Ark rounds are common, you'll also be able to get settled funds by waiting until someone else needs to do an on-chain transaction and piggybacking on theirs. This option is much more efficient in terms of on-chain transactions, at the cost of tying up liquidity (in many, but not all, circumstances). For many use cases waiting N blocks for fully confirmed funds is perfectly fine.
Sorry, but Ark just isn't clearly bullshit like Drivechains is. It's worth investigating. It may not fully pan out, and probably will only ever be useful for a subset of applications. But hate at this stage simply isn't warranted.
reply
Nope. You clearly don't understand how Ark works. As I said, in the current implementation you can get settled funds easily by doing any on-chain transaction. Either sending or receiving on chain funds.
I literally used the example of chain transactions IN, I assume by out your meaning an exit, which is obviously chain security. There's just no reason for these chain transactions not to be real Lightning channels since there's a similar chain cost in either case.
This option is much more efficient in terms of on-chain transactions
One input to multiple outputs, no different than existing Lightning batch opens + an inevitable exit.
Ark just isn't clearly bullshit like Drivechains is ... hate at this stage simply isn't warranted.
Maybe it could have been that way, but take that up with ArkLabs marketing geniuses that overstepped and have had to narrative pivot constantly.
I will concede that Paul is a clown of the highest order.
I haven't seen Second labs make such retarded claims, but they're flirting with it.
There's a clear intent to fud Lightning exactly as Paul does.
reply