pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 3h \ parent \ on: Bridging Bitcoin to Second Layers via BitVM2 devs
Everything is a scam
At some point a well funded startup will use this, probably laundering money. The prize is to lend them credibility and avoid too much technical DD.
Trustless bridges
mmhmm
trust-minimizing
oh
as long as at least one of the signers deleted its key
heh
why this is worthy of the Bitcoin Research Prize
Chaincode is part of the Bithereum Industrial Complex
I think its still undervalued as long as no one is talking about megapacks, only company I can think of that has a chance to out-perform Bitcoin over the next ~5 years. Key-man risk of course.
Literally just scrolled past some BroSINT about US military assets operating out of El Salvador relating to the boat strikes
72 hour rule of course but I wouldn't be surprised if this correlates to a spike in soft target terror to hurt their economy
Centralized and trusted isn't an L2, effort went into lightning because it's neither of those things.
If the market wants centralization and trust that's fine, but if so that would imply not having to lie about it.
I believe Tether was the biggest stakeholder, which since Tether is custodial anyway it's fine for that, keeps that garbage off the chain
It's ultimately a trust-based solution, and Scamson referring to it as an L2 is the first trust violation. I can accept trusted solutions when they're honest and decentralizing, but Liquid has doubled-down on the opposite.
Federation is also a scam word, trustodial is trustodial. We have no idea how many signatories are actually in the federation in terms of how distributed those keys are, every Federation is Schrodinger's node.
The infrastructure still has a single point of trust in Blockstream, rendering any actually federated peg pointless.
It's another example of broken incentives, they generate swap fees and think they're cute by scamming regulator with technobabble to make it sound not like a money business. In so doing, they have to mislead to the unsophisticated user even if most of us know the truth.
I read some Whitney Webb
First mistake
Rootstock
I actually don't hate it, just seems to be an idea that's failed a few times already, its merge-mined approach isn't new.
I don't think I've ever seen them misrepresent it, being legitimately proof of work through merged-mining makes it automatically better than any fake L2.
Execution just seems to be terrible, I investigated it to see if it could do things fake L2's are claiming to do as far as bootstrapping Lightning wallets, but the swapping/pegging resources are a nightmare. If they could get their shit together on DX i'd give it another look.
Another issue is its a lot more expensive than Liquid, which if people are going to downgrade security to something pegged then they're going to do that because of cost efficacy.
lol, that's whats great about SN, it's a thunderdome
Fun fact about Citrea, it's the fake L2 that triggered the Knots/Core war by abusing the chain for arbitrary storage... yet Luke supports covenants, so he's literally inviting the exact thing he FUD's Core over.
God save us from this insane asylum.
Honestly Phoenix is probably the most turn-key wallet available right now, and they achieve that with centralization and trust.
Problem with phoenix is they went all in on the download and run path that leverages app stores for distribution, but in so doing lost sight of the goal of making Bitcoin (through Lightning) the default money of the internet.
I didn't get into it here but the reason Lightning is so stunted is most builders went down this path of the mobile node fantasy, and the incentives of earning sats off people who just want to tinker with it, not following the "jobs to be done" framework.
You don't run an email server on your phone, you shouldn't run a Lightning node on one either.
Bolt12 is the kind of nonsense that comes from not looking at the big picture. #1275941
Phoenix eventually started to figure this out after my trolling and launched phoenixd for servers last year.
I just recorded a pod today, when he publishes it I'll share, I get in a bit into Nostr's origins from the original ShockWallet that pre-dated it. Everyone that got into Nostr did so from the wrong angle, had they understood it's pre-history as an overlay network for Lightning to enhance self-custodial UX we'd be light years ahead.
In fairness to Primal they have no real competition, I mostly use Primal because everything else is worse. Amtheyst I use on mobile, but I have to switch between them sometimes because each have separate issues.
Caching/indexing is a necessity, strfry is the only relay that works at any meaningful scale and it can only do that because its a very simple K:V database. The trade-off with that is its impossible to render a modern UI with simple queries, so clients directly connecting to it get bloated and paradoxically DoS it.
I've got my own nostr app (bxrd) in the hopper I tinker with from time to time but its not a priority.
Nostr is still more open than Ark, its literally just json and websockets, any app can exfil data from Primal's relays and you can DM primal users without a trusted swap lol
100 sats \ 2 replies \ @justin_shocknet 15h \ parent \ on: COMMENT BOUNTY CHALLENGE BooksAndArticles
Bolt12 is trash, it abuses Lightning with arbitrary data in a Tor-like way, which makes it slow and unreliable because each hop along the way adds latency and failure probability.
The hype is nonsense that was astroturfed by the minor implementations coping with the fact LND is the standard.
Separately, there was hype by privacy larps, but the blinded paths used by Bolt12 are already available in LND.
Nostr based offers are superior to Bolt12 offers, they work on LND, on the web, offer blinded paths, with none of the performance issues of Tor
Guaranteed swap service. That's why these things get funded so easily, the business model is that of any other centralized exchange.
People bitch about routing fees being higher than chain fees right now, so they'll pay extra to add a swap hop LOL
is receiving them from a user on the same network
Not really an appropriate framework, one is an open-network, the other is a closed network.
LN users are more or less on the same network. The same can not be said of all Ark users
Bingo, this ties back to the end of my previous comment, their entire premise is that the Ark is a roach motel and all activity will go through them, a centralized entity running a closed network.
do you feel that it is still a trustodial waste of time
Yes, much of Bitcoin's value, and all of Lightning's value, is in it being an open network with no central point of failure or trust needed to enter.
Closed networks are centralized applications, which is why they're leaning now into the "DeFi" nonsense as their latest narrative pivot. The use-case for in-Ark payments is user-to-user within a given application, like a shitcoin exchange that has its own network effect of buyers and sellers.
DeFi is a scam word unto itself because there's no actual decentralization.
Entry into their closed network is inherently gated in the case of LN, because of the swap. I don't believe this is the case with on-chain, you could make a sufficiently sized on-chain payment to enter it (paying a chain fee up front). But if you could afford to make that chain fee up front to enter, you for the same cost have just opened a Lightning channel.
I haven't seen them conflate unilateral exiting with LN, but wouldn't surprise me, their scamming seemingly knows no limits.
The ability to unilaterally exit is an entirely on-chain thing as it's the base chain chain security that makes things unilateral.
First i've seen it, not exactly clear what its for but using Nostr for WoT is definitely going to go places.
Doing something similar to address namespace: #1262342
In LN, if I want to receive a low amount of LN sats and do not already have a channel open, custodial is pretty much the only way to go. Someone who does have a channel must receive the sats on my behalf and I have to trust them.
Correct
If I keep receiving, I will eventually be able to open a channel, but I will have to pay for it (onchain fees + potential purchase of liquidity).
Mostly correct.
You haven't received anything yet until its on the chain under your control. You could also spend back your side of the zero-conf trusted channel to a swap and pay the chain fee that way.
Same as you would pay to exit or swap out of an Ark.
I can still receive sats as a new vUTXO
No, you haven't received anything, the Ark coordinator received it with their liquidity and then opened a zero-conf channel with you, exactly as with the above LN example.
Does it have unilateral exit?
Only at the same point in time as you could have opened an LN channel, roughly the same footprint on-chain.
impose a cost on me until I withdraw
Chain costs are incurred when you use the chain for security, same as the LN example, you either upgrade the channel to a secure one, or exit entirely via a swap.
There is a point in Ark where you can have the ability to unilaterally exit your balance while deferring the cost to do so, it's the same cost realized at different times. The trade-off to deferring is that your future receives are still trusted, as they come through Ark's swap bridge. You're trusting them to issue invoices that actually credit you until such time you leave it and use a Lightning channel directly.
The entire premise of Ark scaling or making Lightning better is the insinuation people will defer exit costs forever and do trusted receives forever, that the Ark is a roach motel.