if something actually usable (like maybe Fedimint) takes off I guess I would not mind. Fiat is designed for spending so... checks out.

I think I'd be OK paying $10-12 yearly to some well established relay if it comes to it. My only request is please don't make me deal with LN and accept fiat payments.

I guess Fedimint is fine if steal can be proven like with regular custodian. Thanks for better than nothing.

As to Fedimint, I only have two technical questions. Say, a majority of minters have colluded to steal user funds, is it then possible to cryptographically prove that:

1. A stealing money transfer was not authorized by any federation users (so it is in fact a steal, not just business as usual)?

2. It is known which exact federation members have signed it off and it is known that all of them understood it's a stealing transfer when signing it?

If the answer to any of these questions is NO then I'm afraid Fedimint is often worse than a single custodian in a way that they may steal money and avoid legal responsibility.

Since it's a custodial solution an enforcement ultimately lies in realm of law, and the problem with group crimes like this is you need to determine who exactly committed a crime here, otherwise a whole group can't be punished (because they all will be pointing at each other, and some of them may be innocent, and then you have presumption of innocence at play).

An obvious liquidity issue for an LSP is that it needs to come up with some chain funds for every new user, and they can't even take these funds from their channels because their users don't route.

And then stuff like force-closes, abandoned channels, rarely used channels and so on.

Once a subsidy is gone LSP is going to become an incredibly tough business model, something I'd personally never want to do in my life, I'd better open a strip club.

If I could, I'd bet that no LSP will eventually survive under scale due to liquidity requirements alone.

Unfortunately, it's hard to set a timeline for each one because some are backed by generous VC, others don't have that many users.

COMMUNITY NOTE

https://chat.openai.com/share/577628f8-feb6-46f8-a095-4088d92953ab

nostr:note1y6jer4wtlur4lrp9r43vc823q0hj3jr9kkq5kkzcr6wdehd282us4aygfr

Do you really think LN demand is so inelastic that enough rug-pulled custodial users are going to start eating a cactus of LN self-custody? I think they'd just switch back to credit cards.

Are you willing to bet on this? If yes, at which odds? I'd bet it won't.

nostr:note1m2j4dkv33e2jax8wpys2r99h3zfqgavfysu8xl3w35xkn59eqadqn2pewd

...abusive destinations which are going to be obfuscated by blinded routes I guess, so much fun ahead.

Okay, so is it just that? Strike is susceptible?

Please help me out here, here's a scheme:

1. Strike user authorizes a $100 worth LN payment to website, internally strike converts them into BTC which at the moment costs, say, $100000.

2. Website holds incoming 0.001 BTC payment for, say, 6 hours.

2.1. If BTC price rises during that time to, say, $110000 then user has sent $110 at that point. Website accepts a payment, converts it to USD, sends $105 USD back to user.

2.2. If BTC price declines during that time to, say, $90000 then user has sent $90 at that point. Website cancels a payment.

2.2.2. If $90 gets back to user account at Strike, then Strike users are susceptible to an attack where payee is incentivized to hold each incoming payment they send.

2.2.1. If $100 gets back to user account at Strike, then Strike itself is susceptible to this kind of attack.

Has this been discussed?

I see someone calling Elmo a cuck I renostr, it's that simple.

I don't think authority is a bad thing, it's itself is quite an efficient way to enforce contracts.

In fact, increased liquidity requirements in Trouble is a price for not having an authority around.

Generally, a more liquidity-efficient solution tends to win so I think Trouble is only usable in edge cases (too powerful or anonymous counterparty for example, something unenforceable in standard way).

actually my current rental contract somewhat resembles this idea: I paid 3x of rent price initially (for the first, last month of rental (whenever it might happen) and collateral for possible damage).

Where btc contract might fall short is if property damage is too massive to be covered by collateral they can appeal to authority with normal contract so it might not be that good here.

Fine, I will lose nothing if it miraculously succeeds.

A hivemind market on whose investment will outperform in 2 years.

nostr:note19arfqw8tf3vl7vz9wc2tr4yp69hw5xk469ra2jsmd4af738xvezssm9524

Come on, you need that mad man in a cave dropping truth bombs, for entertainment value if nothing else.

The point is, while each implementation may have bugs of its own, LN as a whole is a brittle and unreliable system unless we define sudden force-closes and stuck/failed payments as a new normal.

Something bad can happen outside of app's control at all times and users won't be able to tell the difference, and will tend to blame an app they use at the moment.

The way I see it, this will lead to apps like WoS being the most loved ones because they will be the most reliable (especially if all TXs are internal and never touch and actual LN).

I get it's all not that important niche talk because no one uses this stuff in any serious way anyway.