Once our industry wakes up to the fact that Ark is not a payment pool, we'll be in a much better position to evaluate future scaling conversations.
Taproot transaction batching changes everything.
All priors need to be reevaluated.
Clean slate.
Login to reply
Replies (6)
Narratives around Ark won't change at scale til people see/use it in action
Why isn't it a payment pool?
A payment pool binds its users within a single UTXO that is optionally rolled over into another one periodically.
Ark users are not “pooled” together. They have no relationship with one another and need no interaction except with the operator. Users coordinate with operator to batch transactions into multiple concurrent UTXOs.
You might say this is semantics but it’s been a useful distinction because every conversation around Ark I’ve had from people who thought of it as a payment pool led to the misconception that:
- There is a single global state UTXO
- Participating users must sign off on state updates
Thanks for your answer! I'll have to think about that. I've been using joinpool/coinpool/payment pool interchangeably for any trustless UTXO sharing (with a carve out for channel factories since that idea became popular before coinpools even though it's slso UTXO sharing).
However, we do have an increasing number of timeout tree protocols (mostly sketches, I think Ark is the only implemented one) that have roughly similar properties to what you mention. Since all timeout trees are coinpools or channel factories, it may be sufficient to describe Ark as a "timeout tree protocol".
While timeout tree is technically accurate it does nothing to actually explain the purpose of the protocol so I can't say I'm a fan of this description.
As far as I'm concerned, I've had the most success describing Ark as a batching protocol.
It's a familiar concept that resonates with people and doesn't appear overly complex.
