Good morning Raymo, > > It looks you already missed the entire design of Sabu and its > restrictions. First of all, the Gazin wallet always controls the Sabu > restrictions for every transaction in order to consider it as a valid > transaction in a valid deal. That is, the creditor wallet controls the > MT and GT in first place.
Stop right there. >From the above, what I get is, "trust the Gazin wallet". Thus, the suggestion to just use Coinbase. At least it has existed longer and has more current users that trust it, rather than this Gazin thing. Is Gazin open-source? * If Gazin is open-source, I could download the source code, make a local copy that gives me a separate copy of the keys, and use the keys to sign any transaction I want. * If Gazin is not open-source, then why should I trust the Gazin wallet until my incoming funds to an open-source wallet I control have been confirmed deeply? Lightning is still superior because: * It can be open-sourced completely and even though I have keys to my onchain funds, I *still* cannot steal the funds of my counterparty. * Even if I connect my open-source node to a node with a closed-source implementation, I know I can rely on receives from that node without waiting for the transaction to be confirmed deeply. All the benefits your scheme claims, are derived from the trust assumption, which is uninteresting, we already have those, they are called custodial wallets. Lightning allows for non-custodiality while achieving high global TPS and low fees. And a central idea of Lightning is the requirement to use an n-of-n to form smaller sub-moneys from the global money. Regards, ZmnSCPxj _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
