Yes. Cash to be used and if needed you can stash to save for later.
Jack is correct, all that "asset" bs is the wrong focus, BTC is so much more.
Finished up nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx podcast with nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m
Honestly one of the realest conversations I’ve heard about Bitcoin… ever.
No maxi vibes, just nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m trying to push the original vision of Bitcoin. Digital cash!
Is that what everyone wants?
Do we want Bitcoin to be digital cash?
Discussion
That's not how money works. All money is an asset. Cash is a coupon for the asset. In essence layer 2s like lightning and liquid are cash. Bitcoin is digital gold but better.
Jack is incorrect just from an economics standpoint. Currency never was supposed to hold value. The deed to a house is not the asset, it is a coupon claim for the asset.
Cypherpunks and economists need to talk to each other more.
I didn't say it's not an asset, I said the FOCUS is bs.
You have BTC in your stash ("asset"), fine, but please use lightning to pay your bills.
That's what I wrote.
Cash is not a saving vehicle, the asset is. That's what I wrote. Cash≠ asset. It is liability.
What is the difference between a layer 0 btc and a layer 1 btc besides being stored "cold" or "hot"?
It's the same.
By reducing BTC to an asset, you denie it's usable as cash too.
It's ridicoulous to rely on fiat-cash, when you already own btc.
There is no "Layer 0"
Layer 1 is the asset layer: Bitcoin On-chain UTXO.
Layer 2 is the coupon/"cash" layer: Lightning, Liquid or any other token that is "backed" by a claim to on-chain bitcoin settlement.
Layer 3 is the credit layer: Cashu or Lightning based mints that settle on the coupon layer.
That's how money works. Gold>Dollars>Credit; Bitcoin>Lightning>Cashu.
Bitcoin IS an asset I am not making it that way, that is its design. The fact that people don't know that dollars are literally not money is why everyone is so confused.
I'm sorry, my computer understanding is, that we start counting by 0, so layer 1 would be the 2nd layer.
Didn't know BTC starts counting by 1, somehow strange in IT.
These layers are not a reference to the computer science portion but the economic concepts around the layering of money.
Asset-Coupon-Credit this applies to all forms of money.
I understand you, but Bitcoin has proven you can use it the same way as cash by just moving the asset (lightning).
People should stop to not use it like money.
I don't mind if they litterally "turn" it into money by using ecash or whatever.
When you don't use bitcoin like money you are missing out and eventually adding adfitional steps like btc-fiat-trade instead of btc-trade.
Lightning is not native to bitcoin. It is another protocol utilizing the HTLC functions of bitcoin to create a smart contract. This enables a nearly trustless conversion settlement onto the Bitcoin timechain.
I am not advocating for selling the Bitcoin asset for fiat at any point. I am using Dollars (pre 1971) relationship to gold as a currency layer to ease transaction volume the same way lightning does for bitcoin. I don't think you realize that lightning was developed by Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja and was not part of the bitcoin protocol.
I AM saying people should use bitcoin like money. I am just saying they shouldn't use it like Cash because it doesn't do that well enough for market velocity. Money is not cash. Those two things serve different purposes.
What about gold and silver coins throughout history?
Is a Krugerrand money or cash or an asset?
A Bitcoin in lightning is always a real Bitcoin on the chain.
You really think every dollar was backed by gold 'till 1971?
For sure not. They started printing bevore.
The coinage is final asset settlement. Notice how they never used a 1 kilogram coin? Because it wouldn't be usable in commerce. Yet, somehow commodities were sold for more than a few ounces of gold or silver. That is when deeds and other coupons were introduced. People only settled those coupons through custodians (banks) and they would house the kilograms of gold, make coinage, and distribute them according to their ledger.
A Krugerrand is a physical amount of money with a currency valuation. If you melt the Krugerrand and sold the 22-karat gold at market value it would be a monetary liquidation. If you gave someone a Krugerrand at the currency value, you are accepting the fiat currency valuation of a gold asset. Essentially you are "paying" a premium against your money in the trust that a Krugerrand was in fact the 1 troy ounce of gold it claims to be.
Absolutely not true that "A Bitcoin in Lightning is always a real bitcoin on the chain." The trasactions/custody never moves until the channel closes. Whoever put the coins into the multisig controls them until the final channel state is verified on the base chain. Until the channel closes either channel partner could cheat, broadcast a previous channel state, and only if the channel partner catches them does their bitcoin come back to their onchain address. Please do some research on lightning revocation secrets and revocation conditions.
Obvious the dollar to gold conversion in 1971 wasn't correct, it never is. The point is if you were a sovereign in 1970, you COULD convert some amount of dollars to gold at their market value despite the over printed dollars. This becomes an issue only when the US runs out of gold.
Agree to disagree.
A Bitcoin in lightning is always there, you can not put more BTC into lightning than are actually minted.
Every Channel is backed with real btc.
I think we can agree on that.
So, besides speed and fees, it doesn't matter if you recieve lnd btc or onchain btc (ok, I agree, you need the btc to settle the channel eventually, but onchain you would need to pay the fee too)
Its simply a disagreement of ownership. If I send you 100,000 sats in a channel, and you send back 50,000. Then I take my node offline for 2 weeks and you broadcast a force-close transaction With the previous chain state off 100,000 on your side of the channel. Do I still own the 50,000 you sent? No, I lose that because my node did not broadcast your revocation secret. This is my point. Lightning IS back with bitcoin but it is not considered "Owned" the way bitcoin is because my private keys can always show ownership over onchain BTC but my lightning keys MUST be actively online or I MUST use a watchtower node or "my" sats can be stolen. I emplore you to read more about the Lightning network and its trade offs.
I know about that 😂😂 currently fighting to get my cln stuff work properly
(Watchtower setup for example nearly nuked my node 😂 And at the moment, I can't recieve sats but send. Still need to push an update but don't dare before further reading/reassuring)
Do you have an inbound channel? (Have you sent coins out of your node or recieved coins?)
But what about when gold was used as currency/cash? What was the coupon then? Thanks.
It wasn't used as cash. People were settling debts on the spot. Cash is a debt. Cash/currency is a claim to gold. It means if I have $35 I can exchange those dollars for gold. They have no other purpose. When you exchange gold for goods you are exchanging money for a consumable commodity.
The purpose of currency is to allow money to be exchanged at a level that the market needs. Gold is heavy making transactions involving commodities more than an ounce or two in value, unfeasible. The same goes for Bitcoin but with settlement velocity. Because confirmation takes at least 10 minutes, the coupon has to move faster than that to facilitate trade. Lightning solves this with instant transactions that settle later during a channel close. The twist is that Bitcoin is faster and cheaper for larger transactions on-chain than smaller ones like gold.