idk why you think ecrap is better than lightning
you don't actually have to trust channel peers, worst case scenario you have to pay for high onchain force close fee and wait a bit
you have to trust ecrap mints - to be online, and to not rug you
sure, you get rugged in milliseconds, that's great, but you just have to wait and you don't get rugged on lightning
i will just append that with a small caveat that i encountered by chance
trying to bump a channel open fee using CPFP
don't do it
my sats are now in limbo, and the channel peer didn't respond to my attempts to contact them and this isn't part of teh protocol, so, really, it was my fault for being an impatient bitch. hard lesson, but i most certainly am not tinkering with channel open txs ever again, no matter how long the ordinals flood to stamp the chain with their dogshit
Did I say eCash was better than lightning? You can also just run your own mint...
Lightning is so shit that it needs eCash. Which has even more drawbacks.
I don't like either really.
That's about my own conclusion on both.
well, give me dangerous but low trust (with the max penalty of onchain force closure and wait) any day over high trust ruggable ecrap
a year ago there was 5000btc of channels, and now it's probably more like 6-7000 and those channels can transit payments at 50% of their volume on average at least minimally speaking every hour
i don't like roasbeef but the rest of the guys who invented it are awesome, antonopolous was one of the trio, if you know who that guy is
ecash is no solution for the problem, it's 1983 technology, lightning is 2017 technology, built with the understanding of what a crapfest ecash is
anyone who is promoting ecash as better than lightning is a LIAR and anyone who thinks that ecash is equal to lightning simply doesn't understand the vast gulf of difference between the two
I don't think anyone says any of this... It is possible for old technologies to gain new utility with the invention of new technologies. It's not a competition.
But it also isn't a simplification or a move to pseudonymity for payments, and that isn't something that I prefer to see in any money transmission tech.
lightning uses onion routing to forward payments, did you know that?
https://github.com/indra-labs/indranet is my own work and an attempt to basically build out a whole anonymised pay-for-traffic scheme BASED ON what lightning does with payments
i would very much like to be able to finish that project
Most people prefer to transmit money without having to tie up more than double the amount of the money for liquidity constraints. Also eCash can be completely private within a mint.
Again, not a competition.
fiat incentives drive the aversion to saving
that was a key element of Keynes system that all modern governments and banks run on
it simply does not apply to bitcoin
i am happy to tie up quite an amount of my surplus funds that i will use in future to make payments
it's not a black and white thing, and you'd know this if you actually used it
the only hard part of it is some channel partners are shit, and they cost you force closes, that is like, 1% cost, at worst, the whole thing is your funds are liquid, you can drain all your channels out in minutes if you need to pay something big out of your channel liquidity
and when you have money again, you can atomic swap it back in and done
"tying money up" in stake is not the same thing as opening channels
you can spend your balance down on the channel as soon as it is open
I don't want to tie up an asset and get rugged. I hate pretty much everything about lightning.
losing use of the money for a time is far less than losing the money
it's a foundational technology for scaling and what is stupid about hating on it is that onchain is not an alternative, not for point of sale, not for micropayments
there will likely be more alternatives that help fill out the space but ecash is simply just custodial with one extra step, it's not an advance it's a regression
in this case it's about liveness specifically
yes, liveness is where LN is weaker but it has way less trust dependency than ecash
ecash is literally what came before bitcoin, it's not a solution, it's just banking, you could apply the shit to anything, there is nothing in bitcoin specific that is used by ecrap
it could just as easily be applied to ethereum or tether, that is the whole point, that's the TRUST part
I get it. there are tradeoffs to most scaling solutions. ecash is clearly over the "custodian" line on scaling tradeoffs.
lightning protocol is an elegant solution to minimizing the cost of trust, the main risk is having a channel force closed and having to wait up to 2 weeks for it to come back to your onchain wallet
and really, it's just a matter of prioritizing this to save some sats to do this, once you have 2-3 outbound channels open (so, about $1500 worth) you can just keep putting money through it, in, out, it's cheaper by literally 1000x than a credit card or bank transfer, and even cheaper than onchain fees, for a reason, because it's avoiding doing onchain
