Nostr Web Client

A better question might be: is there really that much demand for Bitcoin payments? If yes, why not make it a custodial protocol to start with to remove all the complexities of a truly decentralized system?

The reasons I ask is because:

1) payments is a highly competitive industry with very low margins, LN will be constantly fighting all the world's banks and payment systems (and musk soon), and it's going to be an uphill battle for LN because it's a decentralized system and fiat solutions are actually reliable and pretty neat UX wise.

2) Non-custodial low-value payments do not have quite the same ring as non-custodial storage of large amounts of value, I fail to see why any kind of censorship resistance is even needed in majority of LN payments.

BTCapsule 🏴 2y ago

You bring up a very important point, and I think this is where the majority of Bitcoiners are split.

The plebs want fast, cheap, and private payments. Even LN without the vulnerabilities cannot compete with cash. Hopefully, the people on this side will realize drivechain is the only decentralized option.

The other side are the Michael Saylors and BlackRocks of the world. They do not want privacy or scalability. They want rich people to have a new rock to invest in, so they can trade it for CBDC tokens.

What do you want your Bitcoin to do?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

satoshi jr 2y ago

I think you’re underestimating the risks with this. Sure would love cheap payments but not at the increased risk drive chains might be (I don’t know how much more risk they are, and I don’t think anyone is really capable of knowing that)

I’d argue the smart play is to prioritize security and add in the cheap payments later when ideally you can do it without changing the layer 1

SBW 2y ago

It's a bit biased way to put it but my answer is: I'd rather be closer to Saylor et al and their billions than to plebs who enjoy running stuff on RPi, or whatever they do these days.