Keychat's avatar
Keychat 1 year ago
The counterparty risk for Custodial wallet and Cashu users is that the server operator might run away with the funds. Liquid users face the risk that multiple federation members might collude to steal the funds. Spark users face the risk that the service providers might collude with the previous sender to double-spend the received funds. The counterparty risk for Ark is that if the user stays offline for too long and their VTXO expires, the service provider may be able to take control of it. The counterparty risk for Lightning channel users is that if the channel counterparty broadcasts an old state (a settlement transaction favorable to them) on-chain, and the user fails to come online and publish the latest state within the dispute period to contest it.

Replies (20)

shaun's avatar
shaun 1 year ago
I would put liquid lower down the risk curve, how many federation members are needed to collude?
Keychat's avatar
Keychat 1 year ago
I’m not yet very familiar with RGB, so I haven’t compared it.
Default avatar
Stvu 1 year ago
Well… well shit
Hopefully people understand this already before they’re using it. These aren’t technologies for saving/storage. They sacrifice security of funds for speed, convenience or privacy. Same as holding cash on you in a wallet - can be lost or stolen
In the world of crypto, counterparty risks are everywhere; whether it's custodial wallets or Lightning channels, users must stay vigilant or risk losing their funds to collusion or negligence.
How much time does one before VTXO expires? This does not sound that bad if one can safely pass VTXO renewal to some realiable online service.
Yup. My thinking is if you take the plunge you may as well use the thing that offers the most convenience.
I don't agree with the cash in wallet metaphor. I have some degree of control over whether my wallet is lost or stolen. I don't have any control over whether coinos has another accident leading to loss of funds. it's a very bad metaphor.
There's not going to be a perfect metaphor. It was intended to show how you increase risk and decrease the amount held in your day-to-day wallet. Same with using lightning and cashu. I didn't really specify which solution I was comparing it to either - my bad. I was think more along the lines of cashu - which is still not an good metaphor as you trust the mint and the person you transact with (until verified/re-minted). My main bad was to not explain how I was comparing it (increasing trust/risk + decreasing amount, NOT equivalent risk and situation)