pull down to refresh
Are you saying that each operator runs their own federated statechain? If not, did I say something that requires you pointing out there are multiple validators/signers?
I don't mean to sound like I'm dissing Spark. They are offering a solution to a serious problem in lightning and I'm grateful for it. Afaict no one is dissing Spark. We are, or at least I am, expressing frustration with how the product is marketed (and if you check the receipts, the same folks have the same complaints about "self-custodial" Liquid swaps).
Why are we so frustrated? Because the self-custodial lightning problem isn't actually solved yet, and broadcasting that it is risks us never actually solving the problem.
Also, it tends to inflame things when Spark-aligned folks respond to these frustrations with non-sequitur virtues, albeit real ones.
Flashnet
I know it's quasi-FUD, because I'm sure more operators will come online, but David's son is the founder/CEO of Flashnet.
Bitcoiners have a high bar. When we say something is off, it doesn't equate to condemnation. It just means something is off. In this case, Spark is getting very close to abusing bitcoin/lightning's halo and unless there's some acknowledgement of that, bitcoiners will expect it's just-the-tip of the iceberg.
If federated statechain swaps fix lightning, and it's actually self-custodial, then there would be more than one of them. I suspect there isn't more than one of them because it's quasi-custodial, and no one but Lightspark[1] has raised enough money and is politically connected enough to survive a legal margin call.
Save maybe Blockstream which is in a similar boat with Liquid. It makes me think that, at least in regard to cryptoh companies, value accrues to those with the largest legal risk tolerance. ↩