nunyabuizness

I think these are more questions about Gaia than Stealthy, but apply to any multi-user application on Blockstack:

- How are my messages to another user retrieved from my encrypted storage? - Does sending you a message push the message into your storage? - Do I (i.e., my Blockstack node) have to be online for my message to you to be retrieved later (say, the next time you're online)?

Thanks for getting back to me!

> if the close gives Alice 10 lumens and Bob 10 lumens, these must be expressed as two transactions.

As in, in this case, closing requires two transactions, Escrow -> Alice and Escrow -> Bob?

Can closing allow for more than n transactions, where n is the number of participants in the channel?

Can the final transaction to the network (that closes a channel) be a series of transactions? In other words, can a state channel allow for transactions with more than 100 operations?

Can any Stellar operation be used within a state channel, and as a result, can any Stellar transaction be sent through the LN?

For example, my use case requires users increasing and decreasing the limits on trustlines between them and another user, as well as making path payments across these trustlines. I know how to do that with Stellar proper, but could such transactions use the LN instead?

[edit]: nvm, should've read more carefully as it's mentioned explicitly in the article: "Stellar supports a more flexible generalization of payment channels called state channels, meaning that any operation you can execute on the Stellar network (such as not only payments, but also creating, deleting, or changing permissions on accounts), you can execute within a payment channel."

Speed? No, not really in comparison to any other LN implementation.

But Stellar will be supporting state channels in addition to payment channels, (presumably) allowing for even faster exchange operations (buy/sell market and limit orders) and path payments across multiple currencies, neither of which LN on Bitcoin can do (at least for now).

It's different because regardless if your node is online or not, venmo's servers can still accept payments on your behalf, and it's presumed that taking venmo's servers offline would be considerably harder than taking yours offline.

When was the last time you spent $FB on food or rent?

I don't think it's accurate to say that the risk of spending $1 per Bitcoin in 2011 is proportional to the $4000 reward I have today.

> net neutrality is a case where regulation is stopping really bad things from happening

I'm fairly anti-regulation and I from what I understand, net neutrality is a (federal) regulatory solution to a problem created by explicitly by (state + local) regulation.

I honestly don't understand why people think that net neutrality is a better solution than a (currently non-existant) federal policy to remove state and local regulations that created ISP oligopolies which limited internet freedom in the first place.

Well it's pretty easy to spend an asset that's consistently increasing in value... the real test of it's utility as money is how many businesses and people have started accepting Bitcoin recently.

> Yes the rational choice model is well-established to be false.

Citation? I hear this a lot, and it seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the word "rational" in this context, which I believe is supposed to mean "perceived" - how else would you objectively define rational?

Is it rational for a thirsting person to prefer gatorade to water (it is for them, if that's the choice they want to make)? Do you have more perfect information to justify your opinion on the matter as more "rational"?

> 1)

Well I know the guy that wrote it - he's one of the smartest and most talented people I know and he's not bullshitting. But by all means, try to break it!