It's the exact same, custod6is custodial. At least uncle Jim nodes localize trust to where it exists already, the house/business/community. Liquid is centralized custodial. Peg, lol.... What they user holds is ious.

Sure. I think the 11 of 15 federated model is a stronger trust model than uncle Jim nodes. Uncle Jim is one guy.

I'm not hating on what you've done... It's a meaningful improvement to lightning. I'm just saying it does not solve the core issue with lightning.

You can't solve the core issue. That's just how it works. Those are the constraints. But to act as if there can be no other emergent L2 is a fallacy. Ark was halfway there but the ASP is too centralized and carries too much trust alone. Liquids trust model is better than ark, but ark scales payments more than liquid of course because VTXOs... We can build something better than both. Or complimentary to one another.

> You can't solve the core issue. That's what I've been saying, the only levers to pull are trust and centralization. > there can be no other emergent L2 That's a fact created by those unsolvable core issues, another "L2" that attempts to solve perceived issues in Lightning can only do so by adding trust and/or centralization, which make it NOT an L2. Ark is a scam. VTXO's are not real. Liquid might have acceptable trade-offs for many, if it were honest, it's falling into the scam marketing trap by pretending to be an L2 and self-custody. Nothing can be made better than Lightning, because Lightning faces unsolveable issues. Trust and centralization are not solutions. Decentralizing trust is the only realistic mitigation, and that's why Pub focuses on that.

There are no solutions. Only tradeoffs. Lightning has trade-offs that make it unusable for most individuals. I can in fact, not handle 8 billion people. So unless you got a better solution, we need other scaling solutions with other trade-offs... You are acting as if lightning has no tradeoffs and that it is the only solution. Neither are true.