Thread

> Spillman doesn't suffer from the liveness requirement and therefore the attack surface of lightning. No toxic data to protect. Two points. I raised above when you were talking about spillman in the context of Ark that this doesn’t matter - you still have the same liveness requirement. Worth noting that the “toxic data” problem isn’t a problem cause of the “toxic” part, but rather because bitcoiners are used to wallets that do not store anything - copy your seed into a different wallet and all your moneys there! Spillman doesn’t fix that, it only fixes the liveness part (as long as it’s not on Ark). Of course if you want to interoperate with LN/HTLCs suddenly you’re back to square one. > Also, the LN protocol implementors made a (IMO grave) mistake replicated in many places by most btc protocol devs of ignoring mining. In lightning's case even overloading miners with an additional and uncomplementary role: low value HTLCs are escrowed by miners. This opens a fundamental protocol vulnerability where bitcoin block producers who run a LN node can jam a channel with low value HTLCs, take their node offline, and mine the force close tx themselves, stealing from their channel counterparties. There are plenty of issues with LN, the cost of on-chain HTLC claims is certainly one, but it’s not unique in any way to miners - whether they pay the tx fee directly or in opportunity cost doesn’t really matter. > If we're serious about decentralizing mining as a community we need to think long and hard about a world where anyone can mine a tx permissionlessly. 💯 > I think lightning in its current form is not suited to task for mining pool payouts. I mean, maybe? Nice thing is everything is interoperable these days. Pool pays out lightning, miner receives ecash, Ark, Spark, LN, or whatever they want 🤷‍♂️ > Real talk: ecash is the perfect tool for low value fees. I think it has a place in LN and BTC protocols. I intend to pursue on-chain ecash tx fees. Not sure if it's worth it to pursue fixing LN fees. I think it's probably way easier to just use other L2 protocols that are less broken and less entrenched. But we'll see. I'm always open to change my mind in light of new evidence. I’m honestly lost at your claim here??? LN fees are strictly lower than on-chain. > In any case, if we are successful in decentralizing mining the LN protocol will have to adapt to the new reality. I don't see any other way forward for bitcoin. Similarly, absolutely entirely lost at what you’re even talking about.