pull down to refresh

Bitcoin Deposits: A Zero UTXO Trust-Minimized Lightning Walletdeposits.ynniv.com/
213 sats \ 10k boost \ 21 comments \ @ynniv 30 May lightning
An early proposal for:
  • zero UTXO wallets
  • offline receiving
  • intermittent-connectivity sending (no gossip)
  • trust-minimized operation through reserve requirements
  • ledger updates enforced as Lightning channel updates
  • metrics-based reliability through third party monitoring
  • broad wallet access via (a lightly updated) Nostr Wallet Connect
write
preview
related posts
60 sats \ 13 replies \ @justin_shocknet 30 May
Can someone explain to me all the mental gymnastics people invest into this trust smuggling nonsense?
None of these fake L2 trust minimized galaxy brained proposals actually achieve anything, so is it just the vanity of "authoring" something?
Write a children's book then ffs if you need to be an author, it takes the same intellectual fire-power as "trust minimizing"
reply
17 sats \ 8 replies \ @k00b 30 May
This is ai generated and discusses a problem with a kind of half-specified, hand-wavy solution.
reply
33 sats \ 4 replies \ @justin_shocknet 30 May
Many such cases
reply
17 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 30 May
Like you, I can't tell what the motivation is. I don't think it's malice, although it is a kind of DOS attack. I think they understand enough to prompt an LLM but not enough to evaluate the output, so they share it.
reply
21 sats \ 2 replies \ @justin_shocknet 30 May
Vanity projects are everywhere in all things, so I attribute that to the lowest effort ones. It's the high effort ones like Ark siphoning funding and attention that are really malicious.
There is a real (unsolvable) problem that enables them all to grab attention, supply limits Bitcoins user scale, and trust is therefore unavoidable for the overwhelming majority.
That's the real signal, because when people want the impossible they'll entertain anything or anyone and virtue signal it out even further.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @supratic 31 May
It's the high effort ones like Ark siphoning funding and attention that are really malicious.
comparing this link with ark seems a bit excessive... at least to me. Maybe I still have no enoughs grasp of the technicalities behind ark to evaluate accordingly. How and why do you see it as malicious? is just the way they do it, or is the idea and technology itself?
view all 1 replies
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @ynniv OP 30 May
Are you waiting for a better design, a more detailed document, working code, or a running instance?
I had a problem (frictionless onboarding), I gamed a solution, made a spec, made an implementation, made a new document based on what I learned, and here we are.
I'm not asking anyone for anything other than poking real holes in it
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @justin_shocknet 30 May
solution
No you didn't
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ynniv OP 30 May
I'm all about criticisms, but you haven't actually made any yet
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @ynniv OP 30 May
ELI5 game theory:
  • people trust established auditors
  • auditors trust operators who follow the rules and have a trusted party of last resort
  • operators need a reputable partner
  • most available reputable partners will be honest from self-interest
  • you need to collude with your partner in order to steal funds
  • if you stop operating, your partner will force close
  • if your partner force closes without reason, they lose reputation
  • if the channel force closes the managed funds +20% will be reallocated to a new operator
  • if you want out, you pay other vaults that auditors trust to take your deposits
reply
21 sats \ 2 replies \ @justin_shocknet 30 May
Reputation, auditors, bonding... That's called just use SQL
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ynniv OP 30 May
They're role names, not legal ones
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 30 May
The role is pure theater
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @LibertasBR 31 May
It seems like banks to me, just under a different name. Isn’t Cashu already an effective L3 solution for offline operations?
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ynniv OP 31 May
Cashu is an L2 that's independent of Lightning. It succeeds primarily on UX (though there seem to be some cracks there as well) and privacy (which seems quite solid). In a way this proposal is an attempt to make a less trusted, more scalable eCash while avoiding some of the pitfalls of FediMint. Though I'm not sure it's incompatible with Cashu-the-protocol either.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 31 May
you are a fool if you think that cashu is a L2... is just a gift card.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @nout 30 May
I think I'm more triggered by the broken CSS compared to this being yet another "put my sats into someone else's pocket" solution.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ynniv OP 30 May
lol. I spent very little effort on the CSS. I'll take a look though
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @itsrealfake 30 May
this is intriguing.
the use of the phrase "vaults" makes me think (at first) that this requires a Bitcoin Protocol change, but i think that's incorrect... only a LN protocol change, which is preferable to me.
reply
2 sats \ 0 replies \ @ynniv OP 30 May
It's also only a change for operators. We don't need the network as a whole to change
reply