Goog morning ZmnSCPxj,
> Unless of course you propose to have the sidechain issue its own coin, in
> which case it is not much more than an altcoin.
Okay, call it an altcoin consensus mechanism. Because sidechains do have to
issue their own coins.
Still, I am not proposing independent
Good morning Robin,
> Hi Joachim,
>
> > if anyone can halt operation of a sidechain with just tiny investment.
>
> It'll be impossible to halt a healthy chain with a tiny investment because
> halting a chain costs you at least as much as the side chain rewards. The
> "invested time value per
Hi Joachim,
> if anyone can halt operation of a sidechain with just tiny investment.
It'll be impossible to halt a healthy chain with a tiny investment because
halting a chain costs you at least as much as the side chain rewards. The
"invested time value per block" of all honest stakers
> Instead of using sidechains, just use channel factories.
> You do not need to broadcast the entire internal ledgers of those
services, only their customers need to know those internal ledgers, and
sign off on the updates of those ledgers.
That's right, all you need to broadcast is a small
Good morning Robin,
> Good morning everybody!
>
> Thanks again for your detailed feedback.
>
> Maybe you're right and my solution is just crap :) So back to the drafting
> table!
>
> It seems to be a good idea to separate problem definition and solution. Here
> I tried to nail down LN's
Good morning everybody!
Thanks again for your detailed feedback.
Maybe you're right and my solution is just crap :) So back to the drafting
table!
It seems to be a good idea to separate problem definition and solution. Here I
tried to nail down LN's usability issue:
As well I would like to point out that in order to receive funds, *something*
has to be online to get the message that receives the data.
In the blockchain layer this is diffused among all fullnodes.
At the Lightning layer, your direct peer could hold off on failing an incoming
payment while
Good morning ZmnSCPxj,
> > > because all users must process all transactions within the blockchain
> >
> > Reality shows, that's wrong. Bitcoin's security doesn't require
> > verification to scale quadratically with users. Since the whitepaper,
> > Satoshi was explicit about that phenomena. We
Good morning Robin,
> > because all users must process all transactions within the blockchain
>
> Reality shows, that's wrong. Bitcoin's security doesn't require verification
> to scale quadratically with users. Since the whitepaper, Satoshi was explicit
> about that phenomena. We can discuss
> because all users must process all transactions within the blockchain
Reality shows, that's wrong. Bitcoin's security doesn't require verification to
scale quadratically with users. Since the whitepaper, Satoshi was explicit
about that phenomena. We can discuss nuances, yet it's overall
Good morning Robin,
> Hi Joachim,
>
> > > Regarding Reason #1:
> > > This proposal is less like Bitcoin vs. Altcoins and much more like
> > > Ethereum vs. ERC20 tokens, because the derivatives are not in competition
> > > with BTC, but depend on it heavily. You support Bitcoin's growth by
> >
Hi Joachim,
>> Regarding Reason #1:
>> This proposal is less like Bitcoin vs. Altcoins and much more like Ethereum
>> vs. ERC20 tokens, because the derivatives are not in competition with BTC,
>> but depend on it heavily. You support Bitcoin's growth by supporting such a
>> sidechain.
>> Also,
https://utxos.org/uses/
Yes, you should check out the material at the link above. Specifically non
interactive channels solve this problem of one sided opens, where the other
party is passive/offline.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020, 12:42 PM Joachim Strömbergson via bitcoin-dev <
Hi Robin,
inline...
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, January 13, 2020 7:47 PM, Robin Linus
wrote:
> Hi Joachim,
>
> Thank you for your detailed feedback!
>
> Regarding Reason #1:
> This proposal is less like Bitcoin vs. Altcoins and much more like Ethereum
> vs. ERC20 tokens,
Hi Joachim,
Thank you for your detailed feedback!
Regarding Reason #1:
This proposal is less like Bitcoin vs. Altcoins and much more like Ethereum vs.
ERC20 tokens, because the derivatives are not in competition with BTC, but
depend on it heavily. You support Bitcoin's growth by supporting
While I haven't rejected sidechains entirely yet, this particular proposal
seems uninteresting, especially for two reasons.
One – it introduces a new token for each sidechain and suggests atomic swaps to
be used for the exchange of the mainchain token with the sidechain token. Such
a model
> Instead of using sidechains, just use channel factories.
I am not familiar enough with the latest advancements in this field. Is it
possible using LN/channel factories to achieve off-line-like participation user
experience without previous registration with any kind of gateway provider? For
Good morning ZmnSCPxj,
Thank you for your detailed feedback! Two topics:
## Lightning vs Sidechains
Why an either-or-solution, if we can connect sidechains via the LN to get the
best of both worlds?
The LN works exceptionally great under the following conditions:
- you're always online
- you
Good morning Robin,
> Good morning ZmnSCPxj,
>
> Thank you for your detailed feedback! Two topics:
>
> Lightning vs Sidechains
>
>
>
> Why an either-or-solution, if we can connect sidechains via the LN to get the
> best of both worlds?
>
> The LN works exceptionally
19 matches
Mail list logo
