Good morning Andres, > Hey ZmnSCPxj, > > On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 15:33, ZmnSCPxj <zmnsc...@protonmail.com> wrote: > > > Good morning Andres, > > > > > This looks cool but would hinder UX too much for certain scenarios: e.g. > > > if the escrow in place is part of a bitcoin exchange, then you require > > > the bitcoin buyer to have bitcoin already, which makes it harder to > > > on-ramp new users (which could maybe only have fiat). Am I right? > > > > Correct. > > Though note that existing systems like Bisq, to my knowledge, have the same > > problem, a buyer of Bitcoin has to have a small amount of Bitcoin to offer > > as stake that can be revoked in case they attempt to defraud the > > counterparty. > > Without it, the counterparty takes on increased risk (which translate to > > larger exchange spread). > > Yeah I understand Bisq's model. > However not all P2P exchanges work like this; e.g. localcryptos, hodlhodl, > localbitcoins, localcryptos... >
At least localbitcoins is custodial, and this scheme is non-custodial (though the escrow must still be trusted to actually judge correctly in case of dispute, so non-custodiality might be a very thin assurance). > > > > In any case, once you have that initial stake, you can then keep increasing > > your ability to provide stake so as to relieve your counterparties of risk > > and have them offer better exchange rates, so it is "only" an issue for > > initial onboarding. > > Presumably, in the later stable state, parents will provide children the > > initial stake needed for them to start transacting over such a system, just > > as they already provide their children with other "initial stakes" > > (education, food, shelter, etc.) anyway. > > > > > > > > So are you saying that this is not doable without PTLCs (with simple > > > HTLCs) unless it's done like suggested? > > > > Yes, it is yet another reason we want PTLCs quickly. > > > > An alternative would be to have dual-hash HTLCs, which would be helpful in > > other escrow-related cases including escrow-facilitated cross-currency > > swaps. > > Is there any disadvantage about using dual-hash HTLCs? > Is it supported by the current LN spec? It is no supported by current LN spec, and PTLCs are overall superior (they are equivalent to having any number of hashes, not just 2 that dual-hash HTLCs can do). So if we need to change the LN spec anyway, PTLCs are still the better choice, since they enable a lot more, and we probably want to support that in the future anyway, so we might as well do HTLC->PTLC rather than HTLC->2HTLC->PTLC. Regards, ZmnSCPxj _______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
