4 ms·
The presumption would be the underwriting risk is batched and pushed to one point (the exchange point). It's economically feasible to underwrite a single transa
by josephpoon 10y ago
The presumption would be the underwriting risk is batched and pushed to one point (the exchange point). It's economically feasible to underwrite a single transaction for hundreds of dollars to buy Bitcoin (exchanges doing AML/KYC). It's much more uneconomical to underwrite a $0.001 payment -- as a result building a real marketplace for this becomes difficult even if there would be a lot of users.
- bedeho 10y agoI don´t get this answer. Linden needs not underwrite any micropayment inside it´s silo? The only utility in LN is hopefully retaining decentralized properties of bitcoin. PokerStars, Linden & WoW have supported micropayments for a long time? Im not sure why any of these services could not grow 10x and still function internally? They are already servicing tens of millions.
- onetallnerd 10y agoI think you're missing the point. You can't scale Linden's micropayment worldwide without there being counterparty risk. It's much more useful to build these on top of decentralized systems with a strong bedrock without fearing the company being targeted by hackers or governments. Can you use Linden in China?