pull down to refresh
35 sats \ 3 replies \ @supertestnet 29 Jan freebie \ on: WHY ARE YOU NOT JUMPING UP AND DOWN ABOUT SPIDERCHAIN?! bitcoin
(1) Custodial
(2) Uses EVM
This ain't it my friend
Escrow bonds are (I think?) by nature, custodial in some way. If you had "full control" of all the keys to access the BTC, it would defeat the purpose. You only lose the bond if you act improperly on the network. Scaling must involve strangers locking up funds in HTLC.
As for EVM, I'm not sure yet how I feel about it. It's really just using code from another crypto. The majority of Bitcoin's code is not "original" anyway-- many of the ideas already existed. And as far as I can tell, this is not endorsed by or beholden to Ethereum chain, currency, or foundation in any way. I know it can "look bad" for a while, but it isn't changing anything at all on Layer 1, and all I care about is expanding throughput as privately and as non-centralized as possible, even at the expense of some jeers.
reply
Escrow bonds are (I think?) by nature, custodial in some way
I don't think that is true because HTLCs are an escrow bond and they are self-custodial. An HTLC contract says that party A gets money if they reveal a secret within a certain time frame, otherwise party B gets that money. There is no third party C who enforces that contract, the two parties (A and B) enforce it themselves, directly on bitcoin, and until they do so, any money in the contract is escrowed.
If you had "full control" of all the keys to access the BTC, it would defeat the purpose.
In lightning you retain full control of all the keys to access the BTC and it is the purpose. It's an example of a fully self-custodial scaling solution. I would like to see more of them. As well as improvements to lightning itself so it can scale better.
As for EVM, I'm not sure yet how I feel about it. It's really just using code from another crypto.
I have no problem with using good code from another crypto but EVM is bad code. Their decision to use an account model instead of a utxo model needlessly magnifies the complexity of node software, and their reliance on publishing contract data on chain makes their designs pointlessly expensive and wasteful. I greatly prefer the way Liquid does it and would much rather see a Spiderchain that adopts Elements opcodes rather than the EVM.