pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @nerd2ninja 2 Jul 2023 \ parent \ on: Change the Bitcoin ethos to scale? bitcoin
I can understand being skeptical of Loop, however, we've known we needed not wanted but yes needed, eltoo for global scaling of lightning through the use of channel factories since before the last bull run.
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/106520/is-bitcoin-lightning-still-not-scalable
These Bitcoin stack exchange answers come from 2021.
I doubt we are at risk of global adoption at such a rate before another 20 years, I think there's time to really tease apart the threads and put the ones in to use that solve the more immediate and less distant matters of scalability.
Think of it this way. It's not a bad thing if people use hypothetical bitcoin instead of the on chain - if it had strong security against forgery.
I'm also waiting to see if someone figures out another way to create state channels that can be hierarchically recomposed and divided and joined. There is this Ark thing being worked on at the moment...
I'm very skeptical that covenants will get to the mainnet personally. They need a clawback/escape clause and measures to prevent lockin.
reply
Forgery aka rehypothecation? Theft is the other consideration.
In terms of doing things the right way I think you'll see I do agree with that: #201465
I think I can at least sympathize with the idea that in saying "hey we need this thing" to then add "and we need to rush it" is not a good look.
You should research these proposals more tho. If you've seen Liana wallet for example, you know you can have a multi-sig where one address has a timelock and another one is unencumbered. Can't say I've attempted it in Inquisition set, but I can't see why you couldn't have the same set up with covenents. That's what the vault proposal is all about afterall.
reply