Can you please explain to me why? That’s a huge affirmation, more than Lightning?
In practice the vast majority of LN users are using custodial apps, at best a Fedimint or a Cashu mint, which are random federations and custodials with no track record or a reason to trust... Clearly Rootstock bridge has much better track record of any of these, and it is merge mined with most Bitcoin hash rate so can't be censored unlike all LN custodial apps, and even non-custodial apps need Liquidity Providers that can and will censor you, and there aren't many of them. For example you can't open a channel with Bitkit from USA because the default LP doesn't want USA users so it won't open a channel.
Lightning doesn't even work reliably in self custodial wallets unless you start accepting trust.
Ok so why not just trust the bridge that proved itself more than any LP ever did? And increasingly exploring more and more way to minimise trust? And why not pay fees for Bitcoin miners directly? And why not explore what can be done with smart contracts to enhance self custody and recovery and spend limits etc?
The only reason LN claim to be more Bitcoin native and trusted is because theoretically you can challenge any fraud natively because accidentally Bitcoin has the Opcodes that makes that possible... But that is just a limitation that Rootstock didn't choose, if we had OP_CAT challenging fraud withdrawals from Rootstock would have been possible too, but Bitcoiners refused to re-activate a super safe string concatenation... And despite that Rootstock is building a fraud challenge bridge with BitVM to do the best we can have without native covenants on Bitcoin... You have to respect that.
Lightning will never give us the scaling and UX we need and it is not any more special than any L2 except for an accident of opcodes, not for any real reason, any scaling needs UTXO sharing and Rootstock does that better than any alternative solution out there, and it opens the door with EVM for infinite more experimentations and variations on scalability and gradient of risk tolerance.
The only downside of Rootstock is that the bridge is not perfectly trustless and that is simply Bitcoiners choice not Rootstock, the engineering work in Rootstock did the best with the tools Bitcoin Script offered.
Lightning doesn't even work reliably in self custodial wallets unless you start accepting trust.
Ok so why not just trust the bridge that proved itself more than any LP ever did? And increasingly exploring more and more way to minimise trust? And why not pay fees for Bitcoin miners directly? And why not explore what can be done with smart contracts to enhance self custody and recovery and spend limits etc?
The only reason LN claim to be more Bitcoin native and trusted is because theoretically you can challenge any fraud natively because accidentally Bitcoin has the Opcodes that makes that possible... But that is just a limitation that Rootstock didn't choose, if we had OP_CAT challenging fraud withdrawals from Rootstock would have been possible too, but Bitcoiners refused to re-activate a super safe string concatenation... And despite that Rootstock is building a fraud challenge bridge with BitVM to do the best we can have without native covenants on Bitcoin... You have to respect that.
Lightning will never give us the scaling and UX we need and it is not any more special than any L2 except for an accident of opcodes, not for any real reason, any scaling needs UTXO sharing and Rootstock does that better than any alternative solution out there, and it opens the door with EVM for infinite more experimentations and variations on scalability and gradient of risk tolerance.
The only downside of Rootstock is that the bridge is not perfectly trustless and that is simply Bitcoiners choice not Rootstock, the engineering work in Rootstock did the best with the tools Bitcoin Script offered.
1❤️1👍1🤍1