161 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 27 Feb 2023
kinda bullshit useless crap
reply
9 sats \ 0 replies \ @lightcoin OP 27 Feb 2023
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=L3dxMGzt5mU
reply
120 sats \ 7 replies \ @TheL0wner 27 Feb 2023
unnecessary crap. use lightning.
reply
11 sats \ 6 replies \ @lightcoin OP 27 Feb 2023
how do I make e2e encrypted payments in lightning? or do p2p pooled liquidity borrowing and lending? and once block space on L1 fills up, how do I close my LN channel without paying a prohibitively high fee?
reply
21 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 27 Feb 2023
Learn more about LN, seems that you lack of knowledge about it.
You don't. You keep using a LN channel as much as you can, not after each payment.
That's stupid. In a Bitcoin world you are forcing users to go back to use crapcoins or fiatcoins.
Bitcoin is savings technology, not fractional crap reserve. You save sats until you are able to buy what you need and you buy only what you really need.
You don't have enough BTC? Fine, work harder until you get them.
You can't lend/borrow more BTC than you have.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @031ef7d322 27 Feb 2023
What happens when you can no longer use the channel? Without the ability to settle on L1, do you think LN works at all?
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @l0k18 1 Mar 2023
That's a strawman, LN requires opening of channels, but closing them really is optional. No need to settle if you continue to maintain the channel. It is conceivable that the open-to-close ratio of channels will get very close to 1 over time, a channel could become something that you can pass on to your descendents, if both sides are determined to do so.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @031ef7d322 1 Mar 2023
If everything is working as intended, sure. Seems like many people are overlooking the concept of being in an adversarial environment.
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @TheL0wner 27 Feb 2023
my point was build it on lightning, not L1. as for borrowing and lending, thats just people being banks, it shouldn't be a thing.
reply
120 sats \ 0 replies \ @lightcoin OP 27 Feb 2023
it can't be built on lightning
borrowing and lending have been a thing for thousands of years, that's not going to change any time soon. whether you like it or not, people obviously want to do it. so it will continue to be a thing. good luck convincing people otherwise.
reply
79 sats \ 0 replies \ @0260378aef 28 Feb 2023
Honestly I think it's a decent idea, but it doesn't have that slam dunk "wow this is a fully functional second layer" aspect which is probably needed for traction. (that would be what you are calling 'trustless bridge', i.e. actual validation of state transition on the btc chain, so enforcement via btc consensus).
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @l0k18 1 Mar 2023
There really is very few differentiable types of automatable financial contract in existence, so few that it would be possible to count them on two hands. Escrow, Security deposit, Loan, CFD, Payment, Delayed payment, Multi-party payment (in and out), Ownership claim, Stock issuance. There really isn't that many things needed. Sure, maybe there's some that are hard to do with the current scripting engine but really not that many.
Bitcoin is great for checkpointing any kind of outside data though, so it can be a good testing ground for the real utility of new types of contract arrangement enforcable on the network.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ursuscamp 28 Feb 2023
So, the idea here is that there is no secondary data communication layer, like a sidechain or new transport protocol? The entire state needed to validate the rollup is stored in the state blob, on chain?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Entrep 28 Feb 2023
Wouldn't this affect block space?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @03bebce944 28 Feb 2023
deleted by author
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @03bebce944 27 Feb 2023
deleted by author
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @lightcoin OP 28 Feb 2023
it depends on what you mean by "independent". since the chain is storing its state in bitcoin blocks, it is rather dependent on bitcoin. the benefit it gains from that dependence is that it inherits full double-spend resistance from bitcoin, so re-orging the other chain is as difficult as re-orging bitcoin.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @03bebce944 28 Feb 2023
deleted by author
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @lightcoin OP 28 Feb 2023
true, the "sibling chain" as you put it could allow re-orgs independent of bitcoin. but then I'm not sure what the benefit of putting all of the chain data inside bitcoin blocks would be, as opposed to just putting a hash so that nodes could simply follow a chain of headers and make sure that matches up with the chain other nodes are feeding them. can you think of what the benefits of putting all of the chain data inside bitcoin blocks would be in this case?
reply