The DA dependency isn't really the issue imo — if a holder backs up their proof each tx, a withheld proof just means it's treated as unreceived. Worst case a UX problem, handled in the background.
Spark's real problem, as I understand it, isn't that — it's that even with every proof in hand, you don't quite get true self-custody. Not because UE is impossible, but because it may not be exclusive: as I understand it the federation can equivocate, so a colluding prior owner could double-spend. And if exit exclusivity rests on federation honesty, that's not self-enforcing — or am I missing something?
Replies (2)
Yes the issues go deeper the further you go... since these are billed as Lightning wallets (since its pointless to use them with chain deposits) the swaps ingress is entirely trusted place because the operator is the swap provider (prior owner colluding with itself)
There's no free lunch, no levers left to pull... Lightning that they claim to address issues with is emergent of real constraints. So these fake L2's scam and pretend they've created solutions, hoaxes to fool unsophisticated users / cryptophile idiots
Arks are not boarded from Lightning... only from main chain, so not an issue so long as users are made aware.
Given the fact the vast majority of Lightning balances are custodial anyway, it's free beer... and users with a custodial lightning balance with the Ark operator can swap it into an Ark balance at any point.
