Again, this has nothing to do with other coins… Also, you don’t find many people pleased with the interactive requirement in LN. Interactivity is one of the most complained issues with respect to both usability and security. Also, LN is designed for smaller, low value payments and is not even a reasonable comparison to grin base layer. The security implications of requiring keys for all txs is not one to overlook.
And again, beam has a grinbox-like solution built into every node, integrated into the network, and it falls far short from solving the interactive issues. They’re bombarded with support issues surrounding interactivity.
Clearly we need a solution and so far all we have is rejections to every solution I’ve ever seen proposed.
I don’t know anything about LN workings so this might be a stupid question. Why would it matter how much you are sending? Isn’t it just bits in the end? I imagine that what people care about is only the experience they go through. I’d also argue that the experience on LN is far more important than on the base layer because the majority of the transaction experience will be on LN in the end because the base layer won’t be able to handle the traffic.
It is far from established if LN will be the layer 2 scaling solution that many are hoping for. But you’re right about it just being bits of data to the computer, but the actual value is what matters to the user. And it’s clear that users aren’t yet satisfied with putting large sums into LN. Not only do they complain about it left and right, but there’s more wrapped BTC on ethereum than there is BTC on LN…
I don’t know anything at all, so it might be an other (really) stupid question. Wouldn’t it be possible that the sender makes a transaction to a new wallet, with some kind of super-cool scriptless magic time-lock script. And then sends the key of the new wallet with an, other super-cool magic encryption to the recipient? Within Time the recipient can sweep the money or it comes back to the sender.
I love this: “Grin is designed for the decades to come, not just tomorrow. Grin wants to be usable by everyone — regardless of borders, culture, skills or access.”… now tell this to users who live in countries with high levels of censorship like China, they have a lot of issues running Tor! even with Bridges the Ping is too high causing stability issues with transactions. Some users can not even complete 3 transactions in a row. This is not just for China or Iran users, also for users with crappy internet connections. Blaming Exchanges will never solve this problem.
Slatepack RFC is beautiful, deprecation of HTTP and Compact Slates will help a lot, but this is not been tested yet, this is just an assumption. Honestly I would not recommend any Exchange to support Tor, too problematic. TradeOgre was clever I guess.
Users will primarily be using L2 solutions which as of now it seems will be doing interactive transactions in both Grin (LN) and Bitcoin (LN). If interactivity turns out to be a problem that can’t be solved, then Bitcoin has a much bigger problem than Grin, because it will need to live from the fees after some more halvings and the only thing that will work is the L1 which means that it will lock out many regular people from using it.
I have. It was simple to use. This narrative does not work in Grin’s favor. I’ve done as much or more than anyone to try to make Grin more usable, and I still can only dream of it being as usable as 2010 bitcoin.
The truth is, requiring private keys to remain online in order to receive is just terrible for security. You can’t just brush that off. It’s bad for real, practical security - not just imaginary scenarios about senders performing unheard of week long reorgs to take back the money they sent you.
You don’t need to keep your private key online with Grin if you use the file mode for example. Interactive mode doesn’t mean instantaneous but rather asynchronous. Hopefully oneday hardware wallets will be able to sign Grin transactions and your keys will be secure.
I’m not up to date on lightning, but as far as I know, you have to open a channel and remain online or risk losing access to some of the funds in the case where a malicious counterparty tries to close an earlier version of the channel. Watchtowers are used as a way of detecting and preventing that from occurring, because they can respond to a malicious channel closure on your behalf.
That terminology was probably all wrong, but I believe that’s the general idea anyway.
After some quick reading, it appears my understanding is correct, and there’s not yet a solution to the hot wallet problem. For those interested, these writeups describe some of the relevant portions of the LN:
Once the transaction has been signed by all the parties and broadcasted, everybody can go offline for a while without having to worry about losing funds.
Grin is still in its infancy, let’s not get in a hurry and risk nipping it in the bud.
Nobody is getting in a hurry. We’re just discussing technology.
It relates to Grin because both use hot wallets when receiving. The writeups I linked were to give extra context about how lightning works, so you’re able to determine similarities and differences between grin and the LN, and conclude for yourself whether the concerns around putting large amounts of btc onto the LN apply to Grin as well.
