📅 Original date posted:2020-01-14
📝 Original message:> because all users must process all transactions within the blockchain
Reality shows, that's wrong. Bitcoin's security doesn't require verification to scale quadratically with users. Since the whitepaper, Satoshi was explicit about that phenomena. We can discuss nuances, yet it's overall plausible and empirically it's true: Only a tiny minority of users ever verifies the blockchain, still bitcoin works perfectly well. An honest economic majority is sufficient.
Yes, if you can, run your own node. Let's lower the barriers and let's help others to run their own nodes. Let's keep the blocks small and bitcoin's UTXOs set verifiable with consumer hardware. That's the core of decentralized security.
But let's face it: most people on this planet will never run a bitcoin full node. And it is not required.
Bitcoin-backed PoS-sidechains scale in terms of verification and storage just like any other blockchain. However, security is strictly better because double-spends are impossible. A single honest validating user guarantees that attackers cannot do more harm than halting a sidechain. Thus, endusers won't have to validate all of each others' transactions at all.
For most endusers such sidechains' security is strictly superior to today's LN experience.
Let's face it: The most popular LN apps are fully custodial.
They have to be custodial because there is no way to make LN usable for regular users on unreliable phones.
Any payment channel which requires you to be always online excludes 99% of the world's population.
Any payment channel which potentially requires you to be able to pay high on-chain fees excludes most people, too. And on-chain fees keep rising.
Thus, no matter what Channel Factory constructions we build, they will not match most people's requirements. We will keep falling back to custodial solutions.
Excel tables connected to the LN. The LN is awesome as a settlement layer. In particular for anything like bitcoin banks that have been discussed since the beginning.
But why 1000 trusted Excel tables if we can have 1000 trustless sidechains?
Robin Linus [ARCHIVE] /
npub124…xpaq3
2023-06-07 18:22:30
in reply to nevent1q…8a05
Author Public Key
npub12478zv0dxzfgepyn9m3v8vl8sn5yy8vhxpxump6lnfw84rslr0wqwxpaq3Seen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 18:22:30Event JSON
{
"id": "1c3239ceccd4da74e23799312759e87ce6f62c2448469bec129ee41f367cb4a4",
"pubkey": "557c7131ed30928c84932ee2c3b3e784e8421d97304dcd875f9a5c7a8e1f1bdc",
"created_at": 1686162150,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"68cc3658a9294f4d0ecf37ce4276cad8ea38ea844ee0ea38c2cc314f4711a667",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"98870e7ba60a200e118f9bd33a092f32dc5f0f0b0c165debef114eb9c03d7194",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4505072744a9d3e490af9262bfe38e6ee5338a77177b565b6b37730b63a7b861"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2020-01-14\n📝 Original message:\u003e because all users must process all transactions within the blockchain\n\nReality shows, that's wrong. Bitcoin's security doesn't require verification to scale quadratically with users. Since the whitepaper, Satoshi was explicit about that phenomena. We can discuss nuances, yet it's overall plausible and empirically it's true: Only a tiny minority of users ever verifies the blockchain, still bitcoin works perfectly well. An honest economic majority is sufficient.\n\nYes, if you can, run your own node. Let's lower the barriers and let's help others to run their own nodes. Let's keep the blocks small and bitcoin's UTXOs set verifiable with consumer hardware. That's the core of decentralized security.\n\nBut let's face it: most people on this planet will never run a bitcoin full node. And it is not required.\n\nBitcoin-backed PoS-sidechains scale in terms of verification and storage just like any other blockchain. However, security is strictly better because double-spends are impossible. A single honest validating user guarantees that attackers cannot do more harm than halting a sidechain. Thus, endusers won't have to validate all of each others' transactions at all.\n\nFor most endusers such sidechains' security is strictly superior to today's LN experience.\n\nLet's face it: The most popular LN apps are fully custodial.\nThey have to be custodial because there is no way to make LN usable for regular users on unreliable phones.\n\nAny payment channel which requires you to be always online excludes 99% of the world's population.\nAny payment channel which potentially requires you to be able to pay high on-chain fees excludes most people, too. And on-chain fees keep rising.\n\nThus, no matter what Channel Factory constructions we build, they will not match most people's requirements. We will keep falling back to custodial solutions.\nExcel tables connected to the LN. The LN is awesome as a settlement layer. In particular for anything like bitcoin banks that have been discussed since the beginning.\nBut why 1000 trusted Excel tables if we can have 1000 trustless sidechains?",
"sig": "9e018906885c7df6dff83b9456f9affe4cd1bfbb9ed6e56d4824aaa5a52567ab76ca71c2d0d41dff69650820326a71a01194ec4542aa27fcccd04ca29ad77663"
}