why don't we like let builders iterate over the dumbest, simplest to maintain grug covenants (LNHANCE with CTV and APO emulation) without wanking over endogenous fees, WHILE UTXOS ARE STILL CHEAP AS FUCK and then see what finds use cases to see what can be improved?
it's not like segwit and CSV were the only requirements to make LN perfect. they were the minimum, and LN still launched and iterated into a very useful paradigm, regardless of the shortcomings
sound engineering is about knowing where to compromise
own it
or just use NWC
liking on nostr feel stupid when you can zap
i have a similar dream many times
onchain privacy (“i don’t want my employer to know blah blah blah..”) is as much larp as onchain payments are
both cannot serve more than a million people daily
both should and will move offchain, leveraging the benefits of not writing to a dumb inefficient replicated database
its time to move everything off chain. LN, coin pools, state chains, ecash
you don't solve blockchains with more blockchains
its time to move everything off chain. LN, coin pools, state chains, ecash
you don't solve blockchains with more blockchains
in what way?
the divide in bitcoin should be very clear. some want to replace the dollar with bitcoin, others want to use bitcoin (and crypto in general) to expand the dollar
differentiating between both groups is super easy because it's not a technical question, but most technical questions are downstream from it
where do you stand?
tapass can be routed via vanilla channels?
while tradefi moves more and more on-chain, gaining easier KYC/AML due to programmability, and perfect auditability, bitcoin will move more and more off-chain, into lightning, coin-pools, state-chains, ecash, leaving the chain only for batching and deterrent
bitcoin cannot repeat the mistakes of crypto. blockchains don't improve with more blockchains
remember runes?
is it possible to sign a backup key for rotation and timestamp it on bitcoin?
there was no such thing as "black money" until somewhere in the 70s