well, you actually could rent an alby cloud hub and done, only need about 120$ worth of sats and you can open an inbound and outbound channel and basta, costs about $14/month
not worth it if you aren't getting paid enough to need to actually spend the sats to balance your channels tho
if you were self hosting, probably a decent $5/month VPS would do the job, i just pay the 12ksat because it's for sure hosted on more reliable infra (and it's been flawless)
*sighs*
That's still too much. Both monetarily and bandwidth to learn how to do that.
I want a layer 2 that is as simple as BTC. All this extra bs is a bad headache I hate it.
yeah, i'm sure you will be as grumpy as stella is about alby hub for whatever reason i don't understand
minibits is awful, i mean, you really are getting what you are paying for by the sounds of it to me
also, zaps are retarded to be totally fair, not as retarded as ecash but in the same ball park
i use lightning the same way as i use a bank card, more or less, and it lets me isolate my actual balance in my own private wallets from their stupid KYC shit
stella said that the segregated "family and friends" wallet access functionality was shitty but i'm totally down for giving someone a use of it if they are a friend or part of the gitcitadel, idk, maybe it's got better since then, wouldn't have to be that great to beat minibits from what i'm hearing
Sure. Yes. That makes sense. But there are no alternatives that I know of at this time.
peter todd identified two types of scaling solutions. they are payment channel based and UTXO sharing. you already figured out what's wrong with the payment channel approach. it's never going to materialize into something that the end user will do without a custodian, unless they are a masochist.
the UTXO sharing solutions are things like drivechains, rollups, or ark. it's not possible to finish them without consensus changes. even on ethereum where every consensus requirement is already met, they are still not totally finished with creating their rollups. but what has been done today is already very popular. it feels exactly the same as using L1.
lol, running LN nodes is not that hard and i can Uncle Jim it for my friends and family, the complexity is much less than L2 solutions
drivechains have all the same problems as L1, that's not the problem they are trying to solve, as far as i can tell all they seem to be is a substitute for big blocks
rollups are just a primitive version of state channels anyway, they need some kind of game theoretic construct to stop participants from doing malicious things in a group setting
i have talked about such simple things as making state channels three way to improve rebalance, and the problem of nodes force closing each other is about the note implementation flexibility because really at least among friends there should not be force closes, they are punitive for a reason, and are there for the low trust scenario to make it unpleasant to try and cheat, and give the victim plenty of time to react
yeah, rollups put trust on who opens up the rollup also, so it's still the same shit as state channels except supposedly "anyone" can use the tokens in the parachain or whatever stupid name you give it
smart contracts are bullshit... humans should not be and will not be cut out of the authorization process no matter what these kurzweil sucking lollipops think
the problem is all of the l2s are gonna have trust vulnerabilities
LN has the weakest trust vulnerability as well as the highest possible throughput and liquidity
at minimum with the help of NWC one uncle jim can sort out probably at least several score people
