{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1qg5r4lja0e34twn6psh49qlrzj0k28dtxxw0k4fag6sarqprfm2s7nqm4r","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1qg5r4lja0e34twn6psh49qlrzj0k28dtxxw0k4fag6sarqprfm2s7nqm4r","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2022-10-15\n📝 Original message:Erik, I am fully aware of Lightning and have a been a proponent and builder\nof it since it was launched, including getting Bitfinex to support LN,\nbuilding a RN LDK implementation in our upcoming app, etc, but frankly LN\nhas nowhere near the adoption of onchain payments for commerce, and LN\ncomplexity, reliability, maintenance and overhead are real obstacles for\nmerchants.\n\nOne of your links is to Muun, who started this thread!\n\nThere is no practicality in a merchant saying they accept bitcoin, but not\nonchain, or in having many checkout and customer service versions for many\nbitcoin payment methods.\n\nMerchants accepting base layer bitcoin is one if the most important types\nof adoption there is.\n\n-John\n\nOn Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 6:29 PM Erik Aronesty \u003cerik at q32.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Also, lightning works fine and is readily available in convenient mobile\n\u003e apps used by millions of people, or in .   So the need for a 0conf has been\n\u003e mitigated by other solutions for fast payments with no need for a trust\n\u003e relationship.  And for people that don't like mobile risks, core lightning\n\u003e and other solutions are now easily installed and configured for use in fast\n\u003e payments.\n\u003e\n\u003e some references:\n\u003e\n\u003e https://muun.com/ (easy!)\n\u003e https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning (reference, works well with\n\u003e core)\n\u003e https://lightning.network/ (more info)\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 11:11 AM Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 12:03:21PM +0200, John Carvalho via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e In support of Dario's concern, I feel like there is a degree of\n\u003e\u003e gaslighting\n\u003e\u003e \u003e happening with the advancement of RBF somehow being okay, while\n\u003e\u003e merchants\n\u003e\u003e \u003e wanting to manage their own 0conf risk better being not okay.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e The way merchants try to manage 0conf risk is quite harmful to Bitcoin.\n\u003e\u003e Connecting to large numbers of nodes to try to risk-manage propagation\n\u003e\u003e _is_ an\n\u003e\u003e attack, albeit a mild one. Everyone doing that is very harmful; only a few\n\u003e\u003e merchants being able to do it is very unfair/centralized.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e ...and of course, in the past this has lead to merchants trying to make\n\u003e\u003e deals\n\u003e\u003e with miners directly, even going as far as to suggest reorging out\n\u003e\u003e double-spends. I don't need to explain why that is obviously extremely\n\u003e\u003e harmful.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e --\n\u003e\u003e https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e --\n--\nJohn Carvalho\nCEO, Synonym.to \u003chttp://synonym.to/\u003e\n\nSchedule: https://calendly.com/bitcoinerrorlog\nChat: https://t.me/bitcoinerrorlog\nSocial: https://twitter.com/bitcoinerrorlog\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20221015/ff6d390f/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}