215 sats \ 3 replies \ @OriginalSize 6 Feb \ on: Who do you trust more: Statechains (Mercury) or Sidechains (Liquid)? bitcoin
First I heard of Mercury.
Liquid's been in operation for years without any hiccups that I can recall. WBD with Anita Posch just clued me in that there are options to swap into lightning using it. Add that it seems promising for asset issuance and I think the choice is clear between these two.
write
preview
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @joda OP 6 Feb
Mercury has been in development for several years. There were articles and videos about "statechains" four years ago, which is what turned into "Mercury".
I wouldn't expect Liquid to have any major "hiccups" just yet. FTX, GOX operated for years "without issue"...
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @OriginalSize 6 Feb
Development != use.
Still have reservations about sidechain integrity but with time and knowledge Liquid seems to be getting there.
I didn't consider that Liquid might rug everyone and lead to a decade of litigation. Is Mercury immune to that?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @joda OP 6 Feb
not as far as I know. They are very "centralized" but talk about a federated option. They also say that because of a special chip they use, private keys are not seen and are securely destroyed. While that's probably true, I don't see how it can ever be very distributed beyond an authorized federation, which is no better than Liquid from a centralization standpoint (though you still have the emergency unilateral recovery of funds with Mercury that you don't have with Liquid).
Liquid seems fine as a "service" but I don't consider it a scaling solution for Bitcoin that lives up to the values of Bitcoin.
reply