10 sats \ 16 replies \ @justin_shocknet 26 Mar freebie \ parent \ on: Hedgehog: A protocol for asynchronous layer two bitcoin payments bitcoin
The use of the term asynchronous seems only to serve as a distinction from other solutions as being synchronous, which is why I wanted to clarify about LNURL-W/LN
So its either async but not an improvement, or its an improvement but not async... seems it can't be both
If those are the only two options, I prefer "improvement but not async"
reply
Then I think it'd be responsible to correct this description, lest we perpetuate a mis-understanding about how things work that'll inevitably lead people to scams
reply
I don't immediately agree with you, I have to let your reasoning marinate with me for a bit
But I will remove the word asynchronously from the github and the youtube video just in case you're right
reply
You are like the world champion in dealing with people who I'm not entirely sure are operating in good faith. Very commendable.
reply
Got some actionable feedback for me or is this just tone policing from something else?
reply
I suspect that if you were the type who could take actionable feedback, none would be required.
reply
I got some for you whenever you want it
reply
reply
"asynchronous" is a term used in computer science and programming languages for ages. Asynchronous requests can time out, asynchronous payments can fail after some time, so not sure what the fuss is about. Yes, it's not final settlement until it's settled - but when did we put that in the definition of asynchronous?
reply
It's about whether the asynchronousity is novel
Async payments are a popular want on lightning... If you believe this is async then lightning is too
reply
Yes I believe this is async payment based on this definition (used in Lightning context): https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/async-payments/ .
It's not fully trustless though.
reply
Which party is trusted? The sender, the recipient, or someone else?
reply
Yeah, that's a good question. I don't know how to answer that well.
If we are using "trustless" as "NOT trusting any third party outside of Alice and Bob", then I guess it's trustless?
But I think the highlight is that Alice can scam Bob in couple ways and Bob may miss on receiving some sats he would otherwise get if we didn't have the "pull back after 2 weeks" clause. This is comparable situation to other schemes, but onchain finality is better experience.