maybe buy You'd lose out on confidential asset if the asset is always the same, and I'm not sure each asset should have it's own chain, you'd lose interoperability with wallets, explorer, and in general third parties (i.e. Bisq) etc
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
There's a contrib python script bitcoin <-> elements hash-lock cross chain swap. cross-chain swaps tend to be a bit more complex and less flexible than in-chain atomic swap (which is just a multi asset transacton with no hash-lock) eg in liquid swap tool.https://github.com/Simplexum/python-elementstx/blob/master/examples/confidential-cross-chain-atomic-swap.py …
Yep it makes sense done in this way. Still I prefer Tether to be on the main Liquid chain.
-
-
Yes I think so. Also for contracts, swaps, storage, wallets, explorer given the effort involved and loss of network-effect, cross-chain added complexity. and you have to bootstrap interest, incentive and commitment for n reputable operation security capable functionaries.
-
IMO you want a differentiated reason to make another chain. Could be novel chain eg more advanced privacy features with no script or ZKPs in place of script. Or very different security/incentive assumption, or use case. Definitely some things could make sense, but there is cost.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Two paths to tether on lightning: c-lightning on L-USDt and further development of RGB/spectrum Lightning friendly color coin layer.
- Show replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.