Can you please explain how Nash is getting all the risks in case of a hack? Why other companies are’t doing the same? Thank you
I think you should read this blog post:
I’ve noticed you’re asking a lot of questions that can be answered with a thorough read of the Nash website and Blog. I would highly recommend you read through and familiarize yourself with the project if you plan to invest in NEX tokens.
All the best
I apologize if the question is a little stupid. And for my English… I’ll go from afar. Recently, bitcoin core developer Gleb Naumenko received a grant from Bitmex. Including for this work. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.01418.pdf
From time to time, there is an opinion that lighting is not yet sufficiently tested, and perhaps not secure enough, as we would like. But as I understand it, to the extent of my weak competence, in the event of something critical, there will be “problems” with bitcoins, which are locked in channels, and this does not seem to be very large amounts relative to the overall scale.
And here is the question itself regarding Nash. If it uses approximately the same technology, in any case there is some kind of micro probability when something goes wrong. Do I understand correctly that in this case the scale of the “disaster” will be slightly larger?
We focus when designing our protocols that if there are issues the burden (if any) is on Nash not users. What this means in this specific case? Nash supply the counter party liquidity to the channel for open trades.