LNhance - A soft fork proposal for bitcoin \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

LNhance - A soft fork proposal for bitcoin lnhance.org

15.8k sats \ 38 comments \ @moonsettler 25 Dec 2024 bitcoin

If you want to support LNhance 🔥 for #bitcoin, or contribute to the activation effort:

bc1pt3c80q32m5fz27sh7yztc6l9wcysxahyg5yu40jmwvhc0x3326rquqjk99

sp1qq0ma9z3xxzgdgsjuf4rxlsvyq2snyxv7zk2242mw0aps9djjktlysqav8mrnhkqm222vakfqmqhhhuxlj7dthny4mu0tukddj4vlpzej5qf0nt9t

or alternatively you can boost this post!

Funding would help, but we will proceed anyhow.

Things we wish to spend on: github CI/CD, independent hosting for website and a git repo in case a legal takedown is attempted to disrupt activation, hosting signet nodes, bounties for playgrounds, demo apps, contributors, so on...

view all related items

426 sats \ 17 replies \ @supertestnet 25 Dec 2024

This sentence looks false; segwit already enabled Ark. You can't enable something we already have.

43 sats \ 5 replies \ @k00b 25 Dec 2024

Could they mean Ark with unilateral exits?

284 sats \ 4 replies \ @supertestnet 25 Dec 2024

Ark with unilateral exits is already a thing

The various covenant opcodes make it so more people fit in an Ark without a long signature generation session

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 25 Dec 2024

Ah I didn’t realize. I just assumed they meant the op codes made Ark more practical or better in some significant way - like it’s the difference between Ark being popular or not.

175 sats \ 2 replies \ @ca 25 Dec 2024

445 sats \ 1 reply \ @supertestnet 26 Dec 2024

The chart is wrong, it says Ark-without-covenants requires running a server 24/7. It doesn't. Ark-without-covenants only requires being online in two circumstances: (1) when you want to send money (2) about every two weeks (similar to lightning).

The chart is similarly wrong about lightning. Anyone with Phoenix or Zeus wallet on their phone knows you don't need to run a 24/7 server to use lightning.

view all 1 replies

0 sats \ 10 replies \ @moonsettler OP 26 Dec 2024

You mean taproot?

0 sats \ 9 replies \ @moonsettler OP 26 Dec 2024

And no be clear, taproot enabled clArk.

11 sats \ 8 replies \ @supertestnet 26 Dec 2024

no, you can do Ark with just segwit + standard multisig, no need for taproot

it's just more expensive because the ASP has to pay for more signatures (and will surely pass those costs onto his or her users, which would annoy everyone)

imo clArk counts as Ark

11 sats \ 7 replies \ @moonsettler OP 26 Dec 2024

You need Schnorr signature aggregation for it to be anything but an academic shitpost.

11 sats \ 6 replies \ @supertestnet 26 Dec 2024

I disagree. It would still have been worth doing Ark even if we never got taproot, because of the cheaper transactions. But no one thought of Ark til after taproot was a thing, so it's a moot point.

view all 6 replies

42 sats \ 14 replies \ @028559d218 25 Dec 2024

I'm ignorant and I don't know.

But i'm not a fan of making more 'changes' to Bitcoin without far, far more user education.

Far more people could use Bitcoin now if we had the education and we don't... so I'm not sure how much benefit there would be to adding 'features'/forks when people don't fully use the features we already have.

Just my 2 sats.

50 sats \ 12 replies \ @ca 25 Dec 2024

How can you buy anything when it's either too costly/tx (on-chain) or too hard to onboard (lightning)?

63 sats \ 11 replies \ @028559d218 25 Dec 2024

Bitcoin isn't 'too expensive' and lightning isn't 'too hard' to use. Neither of those things are true in my opinion.

Instead, people are stupid and lazy and/or don't know lightning even exists. Bitcoin is such a bubble... i have heard shop merchants, employees tell me "bitcoin is scary". Their exact words and that's why they don't take it.

If Bitcoin is "scary" to them, how the hell can we expect them to understand Lightning or want to adopt it?

I ask the uber driver over and over... hey do you have lightning? They just look confused they have no idea what I'm talking about. It's not that they have decided 'not to use it'... they just don't even know it exists.

And as far as lightning's current state:

51 sats \ 2 replies \ @pakovm 26 Dec 2024

This is exactly what I said about Linux when I was 15 years old "It's the fault of the user! No way to fix it!" Now we have people using Android, ChromeOS and SteamOS.

Please don't conflate working around limitations with actually understanding what you are using, a LN wallet might be easy to use for you and me, but we are not representative of the users that we all want to join Bitcoin.

Also, it's widely known that Lightning doesn't scale the ownership of Bitcoin, it simply off-loads transactions of already existing users from the chain.

11 sats \ 1 reply \ @028559d218 26 Dec 2024

If a user can interact off-chain (lightning) thousands of times without ever touching on-chain...

That is by-definition scaling. Does it scale 'infinitely'? No.

But remember right now where we're at - Bloomberg the WSJ the Financial Times and most media outlets have no idea Lightning even exists. They have never made a Bitcoin transaction or even held their own keys. Not once.

They have literally never used Bitcoin...

So they don't have really any informed opinion on it. This will take time but it will change eventually and when they do they will come to Lightning in some format.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 27 Dec 2024

If a user can interact off-chain (lightning) thousands of times without ever touching on-chain...

That is by-definition scaling. Does it scale 'infinitely'? No.

That scales throughput, but it doesn’t scale ownership, which is what @pakovm mentioned.

reply on another page

21 sats \ 7 replies \ @ca 26 Dec 2024

bro having end users manage liquidity channels is the dumbest design solution possible. No normie is gonna do that. Let's look inward and try to do better, rather than blame users for suboptimal choices.

No end user should spend weeks learning the technicals of LN.

Society advances when things are abstracted away, not complicating them more than the status quo.