Nostr Web Client

Are you trying to say an invoice is an IOU? Bitcoin is still moving from Person A to Person B whether on-chain or through the Lightning network.

Bitcoin over lightning is not an IOU or Paper. The idea with paper gold is you don’t know if the paper has been over printed or if there is sufficient gold for what paper exists or where it exists. This just isn’t true with with Bitcoin over Lightning. It moves from point A to point B and it’s done.

🇵🇸 whoever loves Digit 6mo ago

A lightning transaction received in a custodial wallet is an IOU.

A lightning transaction sent with current technology is an IOU due to the inability to verify all the electronics and software in any network segment with 2 nodes in it (or probably even 1 node).

A volume of lightning transactions sent with similar, but more verifiable technology, would encourage custodial wallets, thus eliminating many real transactions and replacing them with IOUs, thus directly making those ones absolute IOUs, and indirectly making all the others relatively more IOU-like than actual Bitcoin transactions (which are also relatively IOU-like with current technology).

You're pretending lightning can't be "overprinted" like paper gold, when it's very easy to understand how it's possible and you've probably seen it happen firsthand. Cult brain does this to you.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

🇵🇸 whoever loves Digit 6mo ago

Also, an essential difference that makes Bitcoin less IOU-like is there's actually a lot of evidence it can't be "overprinted" instead of obvious proof that it can.

unknown 6mo ago

I was very clear. My node. Self-custody. I own the channel. I own the keys. No IOU.

You’re changing your argument, or you are finally adding enough detail, that I’m starting to understand why you’re so confused.

🇵🇸 whoever loves Digit 6mo ago

I cannot verify that, so it's an IOU.

And I can verify that your statements are misplaced and cause harm, so it's a much worse IOU than Bitcoin, because Bitcoin only has the "can't be verified" part, not the "definitely insincere and causing harm" part.