pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @ek 6h \ parent \ on: Hey ya'll, I'm jb55, bitcoin core/lightning/nostr dev. Creator of Damus. AMA AMA
What’s bad about lightning zaps? That most don’t use native lightning, but ecash?
But on-chain zaps will require amounts above the dust limit, and they’ll be more expensive for the receiver to spend, no?
write
preview
this territory is moderated
249 sats \ 5 replies \ @jb55 OP 6h
there's nothing wrong with lightning zaps, but onchain zaps are simpler to custody and don't have liquidity issues.
I had this thought recently since the blocks are so empty, could starting using onchain for actual payments against instead of just jpgs.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 6h
Will onchain zaps also not have the issue that their receipts can be faked?
reply
77 sats \ 0 replies \ @jb55 OP 6h
i think we can make the unfakable by construction, although I haven't though too much into it yet. they will always be verifiable as real to yourself since they will be sent by a trusted node that is covered by a signature. lightning zaps work the same way.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 6h
But can they scale, considering the block size limit? I would think not many will actually use onchain zaps because fees will else go through the roof.
reply
162 sats \ 1 reply \ @jb55 OP 6h
they won't scale, but people will bounce between them depending on where fees are at. anything I can do to help contribute to a healthy fee market! at least people would be using it for monetary use cases to price out spam.
reply
50 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 6h
Ahh, ok, makes sense, thank you!
reply