rkfg on Nostr: I suppose Ark only makes sense if literally hundreds of millions users send txs all ...
I suppose Ark only makes sense if literally hundreds of millions users send txs all the time. Then it justifies spamming UTXO updates in *every* block. Otherwise this on-chain footprint is ridiculous. LN defeats it easily while being faster and less chain-polluting. Also, I don't think Ark would be more effective in case of mass exodus (same as multiple LN channels dying at the same time).
The difference, if I understand it right, is that ASP can simply rob the user if they don't refresh their VTXO without additional on-chain txs and in LN the other peer has to publish a tx (or wait). It's also said in another explanation ( https://github.com/fiksn/awesome-ark/blob/master/explained.md#tradeoff ) that there would be no more than 256 ASPs in total due to on-chain limitations and their capitalization requirements are also pretty high ( https://gist.github.com/RubenSomsen/a394beb1dea9e47e981216768e007454#payment-pool-comparison ), I wonder if those requirements might exceed the total 21M limit. Because the total liquidity is the volume speed (BTC/second) multiplied by the lock time (1 month), so if all BTC are locked in one ASP it'd be limited by ≈8 BTC/sec throughput. Which is already unrealistic if you count the lost coins and those in cold storage.
And who's gonna pay the on-chain fees? How to calculate them? What happens if ASP's UTXO is evicted from mempool or significantly delayed? Or reorganized? Overall, I'm absolutely not sold on this idea, it's kinda fresh and interesting but I don't see how it's practical today. And if it only works for many more users then it doesn't scale well with the capital required.
Or maybe I just don't understand it well enough.
The difference, if I understand it right, is that ASP can simply rob the user if they don't refresh their VTXO without additional on-chain txs and in LN the other peer has to publish a tx (or wait). It's also said in another explanation ( https://github.com/fiksn/awesome-ark/blob/master/explained.md#tradeoff ) that there would be no more than 256 ASPs in total due to on-chain limitations and their capitalization requirements are also pretty high ( https://gist.github.com/RubenSomsen/a394beb1dea9e47e981216768e007454#payment-pool-comparison ), I wonder if those requirements might exceed the total 21M limit. Because the total liquidity is the volume speed (BTC/second) multiplied by the lock time (1 month), so if all BTC are locked in one ASP it'd be limited by ≈8 BTC/sec throughput. Which is already unrealistic if you count the lost coins and those in cold storage.
And who's gonna pay the on-chain fees? How to calculate them? What happens if ASP's UTXO is evicted from mempool or significantly delayed? Or reorganized? Overall, I'm absolutely not sold on this idea, it's kinda fresh and interesting but I don't see how it's practical today. And if it only works for many more users then it doesn't scale well with the capital required.
Or maybe I just don't understand it well enough.