pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @stak_kd1ls 30 Nov \ on: Implementing a Bridge Covenant on OP_CAT-Enabled Bitcoin: A Proof of Concept bitdevs
Excellent work, what are the cons of this method? Is there a limit to how much you can deposit, does it have to be set amounts or any amount? Is there an expiry date or once deposited you're reasonably safe to store it indefinitely?
The Lightning network to my knowledge is not equally as private as Tor. Perhaps they could have used Cashu mints or Fedimint instead. The idea is great though, is it interoperable with Tor's network or is it a standalone network?
In regards to the "phoning home" point, in web standards you can support offline mode, so it would be trust on first serve. However, as implemented Chrome force an update every 24 hours to prevent a website from being permanently hijacked. Trust is still required but not per request on sites that implement offline mode such as MutinyWallet.
Why would a bitcoiner put money into tokenized debt for 10%, it makes more sense to hodl, no? If it is not targeting bitcoiners, what advantages do they have by using liquid?
I agree, I used to say similar in r/Bitcoin back in the day but the community don't like to hear it. What would help fight against it would be for Bitcoin to be private by default and a decentralized exchange that works on par with a centralized one. Then they would have a harder time enforcing it without requiring KYC for regular transactions to a store, which would be excessive.
GENESIS