Post AQeqonBtv4IVd6vjSC by htimsxela@bitcoinhackers.org
 (DIR) More posts by htimsxela@bitcoinhackers.org
 (DIR) Post #AQYW1LU0z4JJTSmu5A by taoeffect@mstdn.io
       2022-12-12T23:17:11Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       A mysterious user named Raymo proposed a very interesting alternative L2 #Bitcoin scaling solution back in 2021 that I think deserves way more attention.Check out their Medium blog for details. They disappeared but the idea remains.QT https://twitter.com/taoeffect/status/1409566934631260165Sabu: an interesting debt-based alternative to the #LightningNetwork that significantly improves usability at the expense of some security: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-June/019075.html #Bitcoin
       
 (DIR) Post #AQYW1MGa4V9tu5VgmW by htimsxela@bitcoinhackers.org
       2022-12-13T06:36:20Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @taoeffect hmm my first read of this has me thinking it is a sacrifice of more than just 'some' security. eg) the threat of a miner cheating creditors by including their own (previously not broadcast) transactions is very real. The author's counter to this (that it is somehow not economical/incentivized?) is unconvincing to me.
       
 (DIR) Post #AQYWPPeD9UzFL9277I by taoeffect@mstdn.io
       2022-12-13T06:40:41Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @htimsxela I don't remember the details at the moment, but I recommend reading their followup posts on Medium as well, where they address criticism they received from the [bitcoin-dev] list
       
 (DIR) Post #AQemmRnS5nQysf7XzV by taoeffect@mstdn.io
       2022-12-14T05:00:09Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @htimsxela Something about this idea sounds right to me. But someone smarter and more dedicated to this specific problem than me needs to see it. My goal in sharing this link is to hopefully find that person.
       
 (DIR) Post #AQemmSP1q5UYlChYYq by htimsxela@bitcoinhackers.org
       2022-12-16T07:12:25Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @taoeffect I read through the mailing list, and some of the medium replies, and it still seems obvious to me that no matter what the specifics of the relative UTXO/payment/fee sizes are, you will always be required to fully trust that the lender is not a miner that will cheat you (or will not collude with one).
       
 (DIR) Post #AQen2OISs9IGexEGUy by taoeffect@mstdn.io
       2022-12-16T07:15:17Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @htimsxela Sure. That’s unlikely to happen though for small payments.
       
 (DIR) Post #AQenD89HFdfblK3Kds by htimsxela@bitcoinhackers.org
       2022-12-16T07:17:14Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @taoeffect the only way that wouldn't be incentivized, is if the amount that could be stolen by a cheating miner was less than the (min_feerate * tx_size) for next block inclusion.Keeping in mind that being able to aggregate many lent-out-UTXOs into a single spend would further reduce this cost of attack, I think you'd end up with a pretty small value that could 'safely' be traded.
       
 (DIR) Post #AQenNED9Z8jFScgGau by taoeffect@mstdn.io
       2022-12-16T07:18:58Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @htimsxela It’s got this trust assumption sure. Seems like a small price to pay given everything else. The cheating lenders would be identified. The trustworthy ones would likewise be identified.
       
 (DIR) Post #AQeqonBtv4IVd6vjSC by htimsxela@bitcoinhackers.org
       2022-12-16T07:57:36Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @taoeffect miners would not necessarily be identified. They'd always have plausible deniability of not being the lender, at least.But perhaps interestingly: if bitcoin's value continues to rise, then that 'min safe value' would also rise over time, making this perhaps slightly more tenable.
       
 (DIR) Post #AQer5t5rE9ISrKFsCO by taoeffect@mstdn.io
       2022-12-16T07:21:22Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @htimsxela Plus the miners would be identified. That’s a big one.
       
 (DIR) Post #AQer5tex7fMycAfttw by taoeffect@mstdn.io
       2022-12-16T07:29:52Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @htimsxela The upside seems pretty significant. If LN fails, this is the only realistic alternative that I’ve seen that would have a possibility of success. Unless you know of a better one?
       
 (DIR) Post #AQer5u7JQE3S27wY6a by htimsxela@bitcoinhackers.org
       2022-12-16T08:00:20Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @taoeffect in what way do you think LN would fail? Some previously undiscovered exploit?I mean, in terms of there being trusted or semi-trusted solutions to scaling up bitcoin, there are plenty. Its just that the more trust-less options are more interesting, and viable (censorship resistant).
       
 (DIR) Post #AQg7RcGQGy2VSUXWIC by taoeffect@mstdn.io
       2022-12-16T22:38:35Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @htimsxela From chronic usability issues.