matt on Nostr: Not sure which numbers you’re referring to, but I think I agree with the *need*, ...
Not sure which numbers you’re referring to, but I think I agree with the *need*, just strongly disagree with the idea that we have any great solutions. From where I sit, the ideas for scaling using covenants often don’t provide all that much scale, and almost always make other tradeoffs.
IMHO one of the more compelling ideas is timeout trees (which sadly was proposed after people had kinda given up on CTV). But it makes a huge tradeoff - if you get screwed it costs you 10-20x more to FC than Lightning. Worse, an operator can create a “ghetto” of poor users and screw them all to steal from them. *but* it gets you great optimistic-case scaling!
Most things end up looking like that, and it leaves me pretty unexcited…except that the research is moving at a clip! I’m excited to see what the research comes up with, in the mean time I’m still building lightning.
IMHO one of the more compelling ideas is timeout trees (which sadly was proposed after people had kinda given up on CTV). But it makes a huge tradeoff - if you get screwed it costs you 10-20x more to FC than Lightning. Worse, an operator can create a “ghetto” of poor users and screw them all to steal from them. *but* it gets you great optimistic-case scaling!
Most things end up looking like that, and it leaves me pretty unexcited…except that the research is moving at a clip! I’m excited to see what the research comes up with, in the mean time I’m still building lightning.