Nostr Web Client

I totally get that.

It's just that I have a different use case in mind: Imagine 100x from now someone trying to build an on-chain utxo of let's say 1 Mio sats that would buy him or her a home.

That is the recipient with a savings goal of 1 Mio on-chain.

The sender could be some bank-like service locking the liquidity for an agreed period of time (years).

So yes, the incentives are still:

A) for the recipient to broadcast the last state to receive any money at all

B) for the sender to wait and get everything back

Still the recipient has all means to delay broadcasting without retaliation.

vnprc 2mo ago

If you are saving up to buy a house I don't think a 2-of-2 multisig UTXO is a good idea. Put that money in multiple UTXOs in cold storage.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

78733e3b... 2mo ago

You didn't get my point.

I am talking 100x from now.

Also, I am not talking about funding lightning channels.

I am talking about pre-coiner, normie savings plans.

And, yes of course they should keep their part of the signing keys in cold storage.

In a more humorous note: Why do you think a Spillman Channel is inappropriate if the system is truly trustless?

vnprc 2mo ago

100x what? You haven't specified a unit

What is 1 Mio?

My point is a shared UTXO is an inappropriate savings plan. Especially one with a timeout clause! You need unadulterated self custody.

Don't know what you mean. Spillman channels are trustless (at least as far as the commonly understood meaning of the term).