Oof, some to unpack here. The potential disastrous pitfall of LN is not any credit-nature, since the contracts are "trustless". No, it is a systemic risk of widespread failure due to software bugs in an adversarial environment.
Post by twetch#24100
Imagine a large number of channels frozen, their balances never to become liquid again. Or large scale theft due to LN contract bugs (see hacked DeFi/DAO contracts).
What the chain says
- Block
- 667 687
- Time
- 2020-12-29T17:25:39Z
- Signer
- 1CtfHjRxn4UzNinEgUJgCCSV98yAZ6zVrZ
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/plain
- Name in tx
- twetch#24100
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
1CtfHjRxn4UzNinEgUJgCCSV98yAZ6zVrZ VerifiedReplies (4)
The anti-ASIC stance is futile as well, what is the alternative? Benevolent central planning of anti-ASIC forks every 6 months, while hoping the planners have no prior hidden investments in whatever technical specs are chosen?
Agreed.
the biggest mistake here is to say "the more scalable the network the more centralized it becomes" when it is actually the opposite: the lack of scaling makes all mining based on hash which centralizes the entire network. Scaling open fees & new markets.
you can see Ray is a communist by his aversion to profesional mining.
going by that, of course he is upset at big blocks sonce that puts even more pressure on miners / nodes