6 ms·
> I'd say this is neither direct nor instant You're correct in other ways as well: The "lightning" network (heh) still requires slow Bitcoin transactions to i
by d-d 7y ago
> I'd say this is neither direct nor instant
You're correct in other ways as well:
The "lightning" network (heh) still requires slow Bitcoin transactions to initiate and close. And it's between two trusted parties anyway, so this negates the need for a trustless network like Bitcoin.
A far better "lightning network" has existed for many years. It's called a shared SQL database.
- nemild 7y agoNo it's not between two trusted parties. If those parties disagree, they have recourse to the blockchain, and so don't have to fully trust each other. The lightning network couldn't be built without having a lower level trustless party. Bitcoin actually lets us bootstrap trust. More thoughts on bootstrapping trust: https://www.nemil.com/crypto/why-cryptocontracts-matter.html https://www.nemil.com/crypto/why-cryptocontracts-matter.html
- nickpsecurity 7y agoOr centralized operation with decentralized checking that can be implemented with SQL databases and/or logs. So much more efficient. One can use non-profits/foundations with the protections built into their charters, policies, and contractual agreements with steep penalties for violations. As in, use existing tools with tons of operational experience and case law supporting that they work. Also, these have basically none of the drawbacks of the fully-decentralized solutions.