Nostr Web Client

"liquid = redundant and LN = attackable"

can I ask you, is your problem with current iterations of those, what they will realistically be, or is your problem with non-layer-one solutions in general?

2nd point: "coin agnostic" yes those could be built on another coin, but is that fact that everyone is choosing to build on bitcoin, irrelevant, or at least dismissed by "it's coin agnostic"?

Don't you think it's worth analysing why it's all being built on bitcoin? how long ago has Haveno been designed for? has it gone off the ground? or is everyone on Bisq? see it's not that simple as saying something is coin agnostic

Saberhagen The Nameless 2y ago

Well for starters.... liquid doesn't hide sender or receiver, IP is visible by default, has a microscopic anon set, and is a PERMISSIONED NETWORK

Point is that you are acting like those things are full Monero replacement when they are clearly not. We're not even touching on Monero's massive network effect vs those those things.

As far as Lightnings being "attackable"...a long time dev just recently quit in part because of critical security issues that are unresolvable without base layer changes:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2023-October/004154.html

Reply to this note

Discussion