I presented TWO quotes from notable developers that contradict you and you replied with no evidence, no logic, nothing. There’s ELI5 and ALY5 - argue like you’re five.

You can’t just stomp your feet and say “No it doesn’t!”

Podcasts? Everyone can see that you just ignored the direct quotes. You just completely pretended you didn’t see them! 😂

You’re in disbelief because you thought I was misinformed and yet you found yourself unable to respond to DIRECT quotes from notable developers. I can tell that you still don’t understand what they said.

You said:

“Out of band payments are essentially no different then payments in LN channels which themselves are just unpublished bitcoin transactions and thus present little to no risk.“

This is why I can tell you don’t get it yet. The problem is not HOW they’re paying the miners. It’s WHY they’re paying them.

I can tell you want to learn but are very confused right now. My advice is to focus first on Matt’s article. Why does he say that private out of band payments to miners create centralization risk?

Once you understand that, then dig into why Peter admitted that CAT and CTV can encourage these private out-of-band payments.

BTW, to understand why Peter admitted the risk, you must first understand the difference between ON-CHAIN logic and OFF-CHAIN logic.

Covenants and arbitrary code execution in systems like Liquid, etc are OFF chain and don’t create centralizing MEV (“MEVil”).

With CAT and CTV, the logic is ON chain which why they can create centralizing MEV.

**That’s why Peter admitted the risk.** He knows the difference between on-chain and off-chain logic and you don’t (yet).

So again, you need to understand why Peter and Matt said what they did, and why that contradicts your original assumption.

If you get stuck or want to discuss, just let me know! I realize that this topic is nuanced and deeper into the weeds than most people decide to go.