Subnostr

While it has improvements to be made in terms of liquidity availability, routing etc, I think the only people who don't think so are the ones who do not use it on a day-to-day basis.

I bought my phone thanks to lightning, and use lightning every day. I haven't had a failed route in about a year and have seen adoption for it grow.

Slowly, yes, but also surely. Best it be slow, lest it pressure development - This gives us time to build in a healthy manner, with proper discussion towards healthy consensus.

The way I see it, we build native solutions to native problems. We're not going to take another blockchain that made immediate trade-offs for immediate solutions.

At the end of the day though, Time Running == Level of Security & Decentralisation.

I want my transactions, be they money or others forms of data, to be recorded on the longest-running, most secure and decentralised network because it is the most resilient to attacks.

Any other coin may have smart-contracts, for instance for notarisation - I don't want any other blockchain to be my source of truth for the house I've bought, but I also realise perhaps my one notarisation doesn't necessarily need to be stamped by itself on the Bitcoin blockchain. Perhaps it's bulk process.

I want it to be the longest running one, because in this specific case 'first to market' meant the 'happy-accident' that was its proliferation, none can compete with that.

We don't need multiple blockchains to solve a problem. We need developers that understand Bitcoin's base-layer scalability problems are a mere by-product for it being the most secure global monetary system, and that are clever enough to work with that. Up until ~2015, most didn't think that was possible for the problem Lightning solves, and yet it did - Improvements to be made aside.

LogicallyMinded 2y ago

Have you tried sending large amount with #lightning?

Also you say: “I want my transactions, be they money or others forms of data, to be recorded on the longest-running, most secure and decentralised network because it is the most resilient to attacks.”

I’m sure you understand this but when using lightning the security assumptions and decentralization is mostly those of the lightning network not the #Bitcoin network. As you probably know, lightning isn’t very decentralized. Also, lightning total transactions volume is a small share of those occurring on the base layer or with wrapped #BTC. So again, it’s not proven that lightning can scale Bitcoin transactions.

Finally you say: “We're not going to take another blockchain that made immediate trade-offs for immediate solutions.”

Isn’t the exactly what #BIP300 and #drivechains will prevent us to do? What you say here seems in contradiction with your opposition to the concept of #drivechain.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Uxellodunum 2y ago

> Have you tried sending large amount with

#lightning?

Yes - Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, mostly large amounts don't work because many channels may not have thay liquidity. If I want to send large amounts of Bitcoin, I'll do so using the base layer for the time being or connect to a channel with enough liquidity.

I'm really unsure what you're trying to show here, that it's not ready for a switch to be flipped that turns all worldwide fiat transactions to lightning? No one suggested as much.

> I’m sure you understand this but when using lightning the security assumptions and decentralization is mostly those of the lightning network not the

#Bitcoin network. As you probably know, lightning isn’t very decentralized. Also, lightning total transactions volume is a small share of those occurring on the base layer or with wrapped

#BTC. So again, it’s not proven that lightning can scale Bitcoin transactions.

Lightning, isn't sufficiently scaled - No where did I ascertain it was, or that it was proven to be.

Anything built FOR Bitcoin benefits off of Bitcoin's network effect, be it directly or indirectly.

When I stated I want my data on the longest running blockchain, I'm not saying lightning runs on the base layer as much as lightning functionality requires it. When a lightning channel opens, a base-layer transaction on the Bitcoin timechain is broadcast and verified - That's the crux here.

> Isn’t the exactly what #BIP300 and #drivechains will prevent us to do? What you say here seems in contradiction with your opposition to the concept of #drivechain.

Unsure what you're saying here or how it related. I was talking about the myriad of other blockchains, not the Bitcoin timechain. We leave that one the fuck alone, because it works well as is for the one purpose it has.

LogicallyMinded 2y ago

> “When I stated I want my data on the longest running blockchain, I'm not saying lightning runs on the base layer as much as lightning functionality requires it. When a lightning channel opens, a base-layer transaction on the Bitcoin timechain is broadcast and verified - That's the crux here.”

>> Isn’t this similar to how #drivechains would interact with the $Bitcoin base layer, just to peg-in and peg-out funds between two networks? By your definition, how would #BIP300 be more a “Trojan horse” than the #lightning network?

> “Every day BIP300 is seeming more and more like […] a last-ditch effort from shitcoins to remain relevant”

>> I still don’t understand how drivechains would make other #crypto more relevant. It seems to me that drivechains have the potential to make other blockchains less relevant although I’m skeptical that drivechains will have this effect. Especially, you insinuate that people involved in other crypto are making an effort to push BIP300 but I haven’t seen any evidence that this is the case.

#blockchain #drivechain

Uxellodunum 2y ago

Not sure what you're not understanding. Let me put it simply for you:

- Bitcoin doesn't need other blockchains.

- Applications can be built on top of Bitcoin, purpose-made for Bitcoin in the first place.

Like I said, it really seems like a last-ditch effort to remain relevant.