ExploreTrendingAnalytics
Nostr Archives
ExploreTrendingAnalytics
moonsettler7d ago
obviously there are levels of trust in every interaction yadda yadda... the important distinction is will the protocol be actually constrained by the on-chain supply or not? credit networks with ecash mints will not be in any way constrained by what is going on on-chain. credit ecash spent via lightning is absolutely constrained by what exists on-chain. Ark and other covenant pool constructs and rollups can not double pledge sats, every satoshi is expressed on-chain. and i know for a fact there is an easy magnitude of scaling there. with a level of trust (it's not completely trustless) but no perverse incentives and no capability to issue paper bitcoin IOUs. trust is not inherently evil, but fall-back on settlment without trust and unilateral exit capability are necessary, not optional.
💬 1 replies

Thread context

Root: a3ff207c46f4…

Replying to: dcb5dfde0036…

Replies (1)

John Carvalho7d ago
Layers are just unconfirmed transactions. They do not provide scale, they provide coordination of trust. You're just arguing for bigger blocks in the end, which is fine, but also requires coordination or trust to pull off, and can only do so much. What you're missing about our work is that being trust-compatible enables actual scale, and having a credible exit from that scale is all you need to commoditize central providers. You're just reciting your script while remaining ignorant of the design.
0000 sats