10 sats \ 6 replies \ @lightcoin 3 May 2023 \ parent \ on: Blockstream's Neigut Expects ‘Cambrian Explosion’ of Bitcoin Layer 2 Protocols bitcoin
mints don't really sit on top of LN, anymore than Kraken or River "sit on top of LN" just because their users can deposit/withdraw via LN
I would say that if a user of Kraken could send a payment to a user of River and it would go through LN, then Kraken and River "sit on top of LN". The support for atomic swaps with LN is built into Fedimint so I'd say that counts.
reply
Yes, a Kraken user can pay a River user through LN and vice versa afaik. But they could do the same with L1 BTC too. Does that also mean Kraken and River "sit on top of bitcoin L1" and are therefore L2s?
reply
Let's say the code for Lx can call into Ly code if x > y, so in your example L3 code calls L1.
reply
I don't follow. Are you saying Kraken and River are L3s? I'm mostly confused because you objected to calling WBTC L2 but seem to be making an exception for a different custodial system (mints, and now maybe CEXes as well?)
reply
As I have written in the reply to niftynei, "In my mind what makes a layer is the number of participating entities". So yes, if Kraken, River and some other exchanges allow users to pay each other via LN, then I'd say they form an L3.
I object to calling WBTC L2 because there's only one BitGo, but if there would be 100 different custodians I'd say they form an L2.
reply
Ok. I don't consider the number of trusted third parties involved to be what distinguishes between what is and isn't a distinct "layer" on bitcoin but to each their own!
reply