pull down to refresh

56 sats \ 10 replies \ @optimism 2 Sep \ parent \ on: Is a lightning address more private than a lightning invoice? lightning

I don't think there is a transparent way to truly account the fulfillment side due to LN sender privacy anyway, so it's always going to have some trustmebro.

What's more interesting to me is: whatcha gonna do with all them CCs stuck in a bot account? Even if you save up to 3M, transfer territory, pay the forever bill, transfer back, that's a one-time thing.

write
compose
127 sats \ 9 replies \ @ek OP 2 Sep
watcha gonna do with all them CCs stuck in a bot account?

Treasury is capped at 100k credits for now. I just want to buy CCs cheaply for territory rent. I don’t want to pay the forever bill.

reply
2 sats \ 8 replies \ @optimism 2 Sep

right so your demand is basically 50k/mo

reply
127 sats \ 7 replies \ @ek OP 2 Sep

Plus any demand from other founders who want to pay their bill cheaper, too.

The amount of trust involved (transferring territory to @ccbank and trusting it to transfer it back after payment) sucks. Maybe I’ll find some way to reduce the trust required with DLCs and an independent oracle (you’ll get paid on-chain if the bank doesn’t give you the territory back), but idk. That’s future stuff haha.

It’s an interesting problem though.

reply
55 sats \ 5 replies \ @optimism 2 Sep

I still think that brokering p2p is better than banking in this (as it is in everything else) where you just match supply with demand without middlemen.

reply
127 sats \ 4 replies \ @ek OP 2 Sep

I'm interested in that: #1559936 and #1559963

I want to have a liquid market, not be a middleman.

reply
2 sats \ 3 replies \ @optimism 2 Sep

I think that bottom line, structurally undermining the illiquidity of CCs is problematic, because they're illiquid for a reason. A compliance reason. It just means they have to go sooner rather than later.

reply
127 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek OP 2 Sep
It just means they have to go sooner rather than later.

I don't think they would need to be removed. You'd just need to remove the ability to send them to others. You would still receive them if you don't have a wallet, but you could only use them to pay SN, not stackers.

I think this would be a lot less confusing than the current system, with partial payments, a mix of sats and credits everywhere, decisions on both ends of a payment about whether credits should be prioritized, still receiving credits even though you have a wallet attached, etc.

reply
2 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism 2 Sep

I'm going to reserve comment on this until after CCs are gone.

@remindme in 1 year

view all 1 replies
2 sats \ 0 replies \ @ccbank 2 Sep -5 sats
Usage: @ccbank sell <invoice>
  Exchange credits for sats. <invoice> must be a mainnet lightning invoice
  with an amount that is valid for at least 24h.