OverviewExploreTrending
Nostr Archives
OverviewExploreTrending
Louferlou13h ago
Afaik you have the unilateral exist way always possible with Spark if they try to KYC shotgun ? If unilateral exist is possible then how is it really different from a LSP disabling your channel if you don't KYC ? Last question, wouldn't blind signatures on top or Ark\Spark be a reasonable trade-off for good UX and almost impossible denial of service attack ?
💬 1 replies

Thread context

Root: 2b7cdd09b3a4…

Replying to: 1bf27b97d689…

Replies (1)

Ppaxchristi9h ago
Yes you can unilaterally exit if denial of service is made against you on lightspark’s Spark entity. Further more, theoretically anyone can spin up and be a Spark Entity with their own Spark Operator quorum and specifically orientate themselves as a non-kyc operation. There’s however always the genuine risk of collision leaving you without coin. But that’s much less likely if there are more than 1 Spark Entities plus more than 1 Spark service providers. Currently there is 1 SE lightspark , 2 Spark Operators in that Entity (lighspark and flasnet (apparently related to lightspark) and 1 ssp (lightspark) but breeze is meant to become one I believe. It’s the positioning of lightspark (enterprise interoperability with the banking system with UMA) that some people are having the issue with, not so much the protocol itself (from what I gather) LSP question is valid and I’d like to know more about it from @34d2f527…05cc8095 however again I’d imaging it’s more the positioning here, they are going in the other direction, so the likelyhood of KYC denial of service would be dramatically reduce.
0000 sats