“Liquid is far more secure” Liquid is a federated model made up of 15 unknown members around the world with no ability to verify. All takes is 8 members to collude to steal everyone’s funds. It could be very possible that it’s just the same person with 15 different addresses. Liquid was closed source only until recently. With Liquid you can’t have z-cash level privacy and Turing complete smart contracts. Blockstream in 2014 released a Whitepaper on Sidechain scaling which had clear support from various bitcoin core contributors. They raised huge amount of money for their sidechain idea. They decided to just make Liqud instead which they control and the transaction fees go to Blockstream instead of miners. Even Adam Back (satoshi) the CEO of Blockstream has stated publicly he supports bip300. He even said last year dc would have been more useful than taproot.

Replies (9)

Also, wallet of satoshi makes up like 90% of lightning wallets. There is nothing stopping them today to steal everyone’s funds or a state actor ceasing the assets of wallet of satoshi. Bitcoin was suppose to be peer2peer with no middle men and enable self sovereign money. Instead we just creating new middle men to trust.
Jeff Swann's avatar
Jeff Swann 2 years ago
"Turing complete" is nonsense. Z-cash has a trusted supply in order to achieve privacy. Risking the most important characteristic is not a good tradeoff. Sounds like you need to stop huffing the shitcoin propaganda. If you haven't noticed, changing Bitcoin is both risky & difficult. I would prefer that people build economically sustainable external solutions. 15 supernodes is functionally far more secure than most alts. Even some of the largest shitcoins are extremely centralized despite infinite noise about "defi" or whatever.
Jeff Swann's avatar
Jeff Swann 2 years ago
It takes time to build secure soverign tech. Shitcoins literally exist because building a real solution to complex problems is hard making Bitcoin slow & marketing a fake solution is easy so shitcoin creators capitalize on the people who can't tell the difference in the mean time. Much like the short lived shitcoin bubbles, I don't think WoS will remain the most used LN tool (unless they eventually change their model). But for now it solves an ease of use problem, however insecurely it may do so, that will be solved more securely by the many LSP projects that have been in development for years. That said, I use & appreciate WoS because I don't need perfect security for my day to day funds, simple & easy to use is far more important.
Cyber Seagull's avatar
Cyber Seagull 2 years ago
In one post you say " Risking the most important characteristic is not a good tradeoff." And in the previous post you claim Liquid, a KYC'd custodial solution is more desirable. We have entered the phase of the argument where you know you are wrong and grasping at air. Allow me to give you a face saving out: we learn and grow by being wrong, it's ok.
Cyber Seagull's avatar
Cyber Seagull 2 years ago
Drivechain allows for one minor change to push mosy future changes to Layer 2. It is a more secure way to develope bitcoin functionality.
Jeff Swann's avatar
Jeff Swann 2 years ago
The most important characteristic is the guarantee of a limited supply. Liquid doesn't risk supply, & there's no need to KYC anything. Stfu
Cyber Seagull's avatar
Cyber Seagull 2 years ago
Now you are spiralling into madness and cope, the last retreat of the vanquished. Muddied and defeated you swing your sword around as the truth encircles and closes in, like the final scene in a period movie. Drivechains do not increase supply.
Cyber Seagull's avatar
Cyber Seagull 2 years ago
Everyone participating in the Liquid multisig is KYC'd. You skipped over the custodial thing. Very important. If bitcoin is custodied it can be censored.
Even you, a hardcore bitcoiner immersed in this space, can't resist using WoS because LN is so bad means the average person will have no chance. Custodial "Bitcoin" here we come!