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…
1 Like
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.
Hey, I’m stupid, but -
would a side-chain work? To serve as a trustless, always-on custodian?
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.
6 Likes
This should be changed with:
GRIN is designed for the High Tech professionals and the advanced enthusiast, not just the rookie.
3 Likes
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.
Just think about this:
Digital exchanges who are ran by tech people are having constant problems with the GRIN ecosystem.
What about the average user?
Just my 2 Grin
3 Likes
Try downloading Bitcoin from 2010 and using it 
1 Like
What’s the point of having non interactive transactions on Grin if it makes it pointless?
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.
Here’s a well known LN enthusiast from Blockstream just a few days ago: https://twitter.com/notgrubles/status/1265872951246753792
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.
2 Likes
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.
Is there no way to use lightning with the equivalent of sending slates back and forth asynchronously?
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:
https://blog.bitmex.com/the-lightning-network/
https://blog.bitmex.com/lightning-network-justice/
https://blog.bitmex.com/lightning-network-part-4-all-adopt-the-watchtower/
https://blog.bitmex.com/lightning-network-part-6-over-60000-non-cooperative-channel-closures/
I just don’t see how all this relates to Grin.
Grin interactive mode doesn’t require watchtowers AFAIK.
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.
You need some kind of access to your private key ofc. But still could be done offline. Depends on your definition of what is a hot wallet.
Yep, it can be done somewhat offline, but the question is then, will it still be usable that way? For always-on services, the answer is probably no.
For some services, it might be less usable. I guess you can’t have everything.
I think hardware wallets could automatically sign txs for the receiving side only, so it shouldn’t be a problem.
Which is why we’re trying to discuss ways to support offline transactions…