I don't know your threat model but I would simplify it.
Exchange -> Self-custodial lighting -> submarine swap to onchain.
This is explained in a section of BIP-300. Give it a read then let ne know what you think.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0300.mediawiki
Why is nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 so dead set on drivechains ? Am I missing something or is this just another way to shill to VCs
#asknostr
I don't understand what this has to do with VCs?
Drivechains enable BTC denominated side chains with any validation rules. This is anit VC tech. It eliminates all technical justification for Alts except for wanting to print your own token.
1. I like:
1.1 BTC denominated side chains.
1.1.1 This eliminates any technical justification for alts.
1.1.2 There is such cool privacy tech we can make.
2. I don't like:
2.1 Long withdrawal windows
2.1.1 Feels inelegant
2.1.2 Potential to depeg
3. Open questions:
3.1 Can the fees ever be high enough to make miner theft uneconomic?
3.2 Is this a centralising force?
3.3 Do I trust miners more than a multisig?
The network is the point of lighting. Trustless atomic payments made by traversing through the network graph from where your node sits to where the person you're trying to pay sits. It's six degrees of Kevin Bacon.
If you needed a channel with everyone you want to pay, you would have to know every person you want to pay ahead of time so you could wait for the onchain transaction to set up the channel.
Lighting is a network. You should not open a channel with everyone you need to pay this would be expensive and bad UI.
Why?
To get the privacy benefits people have to use tor and they won't accept that trade off.