On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Jehan Tremback <jehan.tremback@gmail.com> wrote: > All channel implementations are dealing with a similar concept, and just > do it in different ways to work on different platforms and have different > capabilities. One of the main things that sets Lightning apart is that the > code is very complex, to accommodate the limitations of Bitcoin script. > Sure, you *could* use various layers and adapters to make it work, but > would you want to? I'm guessing most people will want to use something that > is tailored to their use-case and easy to build upon. > Yes, +1 this. While it's great that Lightning can work across ledgers, the one problem you claim as unsolved (exchange rates) is already solved by Interledger, and Interledger provides a substantially simpler and much more general, *layered* implementation strategy. I really wish the Lightning Network folks would consider isolating and compartmentalizing some of their ideas into a more general system, and have talked with a few of them in person about this, but until they do to me at least it really doesn't seem more interesting than Interledger, just a lot more highly-coupled and intrinsically complicated.
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2017 03:58:17 UTC