Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
goatmeal | 8 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 I am not against L2 scaling. I'm against lightning. no matter what they tape and glue to it you still have to buy at least one UTXO on L1 to own your own money on lightning. there is simply not enough room for everyone to do that. and this is the worst problem, but not the only one. lightning is the wrong answer. you have the opportunity to do sidechains that aren't consortium based, you could be the first people who make rollups with permissionless sequencers, you could do drivechains if you get some BIPs activated. there are lots of other options. do that instead.
▲ ▼
₿itcoin | 8 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 I don't know, but drive chains really sound like messing with miner incentives. The same problem as with other smaller crypto being overpowered easily by a fraction of the Bitcoin mining power, but then inside of bitcoin itself.

But it is indeed a way to scale, there are actually many ways how it can be done. The problem lies in keeping security in those scaling techniques while they are being used massively. There are other methods asswell, hashing itself is really fast, so the ability to cryptographically secure aspects of ownership can lie in many hands. Lightning has its usecase but indeed it should not be the only one as the inperfect aspects are bound to give rise to problems.

A while back I proposed in a post 
(bookmarked, unaware of others who suggested the same but I didn't put in the effort to search for them)
 about reducing stress on the timechain by trade that includes seperate utxo's and lightning, a few months later I encountered a kind of implementation of this idea where miners can trade their new mined utxo's for lightning. 

And there are possibly other methods too.