> Precisely, yes. It's just another blockchain. Blockchain decentralization doesn't manifest in and of itself and every attempt other than Bitcoin are looking like failure so I don't see why it would be different here.
With validity proofs it's trustless. You're only giving up censorship resistance (up to L2 consensus), but gaining: scale (like lightning) and functionality. In fact, the latter also gives more security because you can do DeFi and self-custodial applications.
> Too expensive
It's less expensive than Bitcoin today. Bitcoin stores all tx on chain. This will store state diffs in the worst case which is much cheaper.
> That's an option but I'm not sure how it would play out in practice. Overall it just seems overarchitectured. Another example is I have no reason to believe at the moment that fraud proof economic games are actually sustainable. They seem quite capital inefficient and I've read pretty serious concerns around the long term game theory.
Validium prevents escape hatches, but it's not related to fraud proofs. Unlike fraud proofs, validiums make it imposible for operators to steal funds.
There is also the option of self-DA like Adamantium (it needs users to be live, but IMO, it should still be strictly better than Lightning).
Abdel / A₿del ∞/21M 🐺 - 🐱
npub1hr…w2e29
2024-08-01 15:45:39
in reply to nevent1q…4hte
Author Public Key
npub1hr6v96g0phtxwys4x0tm3khawuuykz6s28uzwtj5j0zc7lunu99snw2e29Published at
2024-08-01 15:45:39Event JSON
{
"id": "1f4d130517779d4b90859726b74fa2d8eef0af84fc13b3fbe8b8bd2f6316c1fa",
"pubkey": "b8f4c2e90f0dd667121533d7b8dafd77384b0b5051f8272e5493c58f7f93e14b",
"created_at": 1722527139,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"94800c2b57188b90d6c9902f8c84cae3a4f8ae0d3aec820717e2f26e4e5b1b72",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"25c435048ccbc1576dfef13a99f90d12be560fd9611320f80834c9dc9ec77f8d",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"d26f78e5954117b5c6538a2d6c88a2296c65c038770399d7069a97826eb06a95"
],
[
"p",
"b8f4c2e90f0dd667121533d7b8dafd77384b0b5051f8272e5493c58f7f93e14b"
]
],
"content": "\u003e Precisely, yes. It's just another blockchain. Blockchain decentralization doesn't manifest in and of itself and every attempt other than Bitcoin are looking like failure so I don't see why it would be different here.\n\nWith validity proofs it's trustless. You're only giving up censorship resistance (up to L2 consensus), but gaining: scale (like lightning) and functionality. In fact, the latter also gives more security because you can do DeFi and self-custodial applications.\n\n\u003e Too expensive\n\nIt's less expensive than Bitcoin today. Bitcoin stores all tx on chain. This will store state diffs in the worst case which is much cheaper.\n\n\u003e That's an option but I'm not sure how it would play out in practice. Overall it just seems overarchitectured. Another example is I have no reason to believe at the moment that fraud proof economic games are actually sustainable. They seem quite capital inefficient and I've read pretty serious concerns around the long term game theory.\n\nValidium prevents escape hatches, but it's not related to fraud proofs. Unlike fraud proofs, validiums make it imposible for operators to steal funds.\nThere is also the option of self-DA like Adamantium (it needs users to be live, but IMO, it should still be strictly better than Lightning).",
"sig": "7b7637383af7d1e387193562252c5cea430c88d5c7601720cb1e43ecfde4ee3aa85ea1d4e5ce93ad57275e479d17e5e5613765d9f8b644b3430bd0c73e1b0dd4"
}