oh I can be bi-directional, if you know what I mean
Please don't do this here.
First off-chain bi-directional Ethereum mainnet wallet
11–15 of 15 posts
Re: First off-chain bi-directional Ethereum mainnet wallet
#12Besides your shitty ESL whitepaper, can you actually explain HOW this is decentralized in the slightest? Also why doesn't your token sale use your product? You specifically call out airdrops in the whitepaper. Even if its a paid airdrop, the issues you mentioned remain
Please refer to our technical paper, NOCUST https://liquidity.network/NOCUST_Liquidity_Network_Paper.pdf
Our wallet is here but is not yet able to support a token sale!
Re: First off-chain bi-directional Ethereum mainnet wallet
#13Just read whitepaper. I'll check in on this project once there they open source the code so I can run my own payment channel hub. Until then it's a centralized system (and even then.. maybe still). "LiquidChain GmbH plans to operate several Liquidity.Network hubs on top of the Ethereum blockchain building the foundation for instant and cheap transmission of crypto. Anyone however will be able to operate a Liquidity.N…
Wonderful, we have a whole lot in store for potential hub operators. You can email us at contact@liquidity.network if you're interested in any updates being sent to you directly!
Re: First off-chain bi-directional Ethereum mainnet wallet
#14Based on NOCUST N-Party Payment Hubs https://liquidity.network/NOCUST_Liquidity_Network_Paper.pdf
A bit more about the company behind this:
LiquidChain was founded last year in Zurich. It's a licensed financial intermediary, and a member of the Financial Services Standards Association (VQF) in Switzerland. Its main focus is making cryptocurrency microtransactions a feasible reality.
Re: First off-chain bi-directional Ethereum mainnet wallet
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please comment on the content of the whitepaper rather than the proficiency of the English used to write it.
I did. The whitepaper offers no details on how this is decentralized. Please answer my questions rather that attempting to bicker.
Why the Liquidity.Network is not Centralized?
How to define (de-)centralization:
(1) Who owns the funds?
(2) How redundant is a system?
(3) Can a central entity censor?
Regarding Liquidity we have the following properties:
1. A user owns at any time its funds (with the private
key). Not the hub operator, or any other entity can “steal“
the users funds. A hub is not a bank nor a custodian.
2. Liquidity is designed such that many hubs can be
interconnected in a network of hubs to provide redundancy,
similar to a network of Lightning peers.
3. A hub can choose to not forward payments. If that
were to happen, the user can simply remove his funds
from the hub’s smart contract, which the hub operator
cannot prevent. The user would then join another hub.