pull down to refresh
60 sats \ 13 replies \ @justin_shocknet 30 May \ on: Bitcoin Deposits: A Zero UTXO Trust-Minimized Lightning Wallet lightning
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
Many such cases
reply
reply
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
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?
reply
comparing this link with ark
They're the same premise, that Lightning is insufficient
But, Lightning's limitations are inherited properties of Bitcoin, and therefore cannot be "solved" without trust
Ark uses false narratives to position itself as having solved the limitations of lightning when really it's just trust smuggling
They invented terms like pre-confirmed transactions and VTXOs to make it sound like a technical solution. They lie about scaling to poors that can't afford chain security, online-ess etc.
OP here is just retarded, but Ark is malicious as evidenced by their deceptive marketing. That's the only distinction.
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
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
Reputation, auditors, bonding... That's called just use SQL