Bitcoin has zero adoption because Layer 1 is unusable. No privacy, dust everywhere (bitcoiners are arbitrary luddites that never accept improvements).
The “circular economy” will never happen on Layer 2 because it’s byzantine, ruggable, and just sucks compared to fiat.
If “means of exchange” never happens, “store of value” never happens either. nostr:note1zz66938nr8eawfnncwyvpfz0yy222469fc7gk992gu8dtvx3ydzq9ay7ev
The largest, oldest, most popular crypto has zero adoption?
Yes.
I mean, I don't think it's what anyone expected, but you're posting this on a platform on which users execute sometimes hundreds of thousands of transactions a day... in precisely that "zero adoption" money.
Zaps are kiddie stuff. I still can't buy a coffee around the corner and you know that so let's not go there.
You could if anyone accepted lightning. But the fact is you couldn't do that with BCH, Monero, or anything else, either. There isn't "zero adoption" -- there's "zero merchant acceptance", because accepting ANY crypto is a pain in the ass (the tech, the security, the employee training, the taxes...)
Bootstrapping circular economies is HARD, especially when the current system is "good enough".
Lightning has a lot more issues than just merchant adoption.
I’m not even a Monero shill, but it’s pretty funny when even layer 2 Bitcoin isn’t as functional as layer 1 Monero. Maybe layer 3 can compete with it though
I can't argue with that, but Monero may be even harder for a business to adopt, because they have to atomic swap for Bitcoin, incur and track that capital gain, then swap their Bitcoin for fiat, and incur another capital gain (since Monero is difficult to exchange directly for fiat). All assuming they don't want to just accumulate Monero and don't have anywhere to spend it.
It's not the tech, security, employee training or taxes. It's that prices aren't stable because no cryptocurrency has a mechanism to adjust the supply of money in accordance with goods and services offered in the economy.
Eh, I disagree with that. Because there are plenty of stable coins (through various means of differing effectiveness). But despite the stability, the technology makes it worse than cash in every conceivable way.
Yes the stablecoins are pegged to some currency like USD. They're not their own currency. Why bother using them then when you can just use the original currency they're pegged to.
All else being the same the tech does matter, that's true, but the ambition of cryptocurrencies is (was?) not to be the same, so don't come arguing with stablecoins.
I only bring up stable coins because you mentioned that the primary issue was being able to stabilize the price, right? I personally don’t need a stable coin. I’m fine with just being more frugal if the coin has less inflation than, say, gold.
Btw, I said “differing means of various effectiveness” because they’re not all just pegged to an existing currency. You can have a stable coin that is just algorithmically stable to an arbitrary price even. I’m just saying, that is not the issue either.
What are they pegged to if not an existing currency? I only know Tether, Circle and the likes. Currencies like USD and EUR are some of the most stable currencies we have right now. A coin isn't stable unless it's pegged to that.
I know some are pegged to gold but gold is pretty unstable in the first place.
They're only as stable as the pegged currency. Like USD which could do better in terms of stability -- past, present and future -- as we all know. Show me one that's more stable and I'll drop my dollars instantly.
I think they’re usually pegged to USD as a common reference point that people understand. But it can theoretically be pegged to anything if it’s done algorithmically. I’m just saying, we have these things and that is not the issue. I think the technology still remains the limiting factor. The UX is worse than fiat in the worst ways.
Can I see the "algorithmic" one please. I'm interested in the algorithm.
Most of them have depegged I think. Flawed algorithms 😂 https://cointelegraph.com/learn/algorithmic-vs-collateralized-stablecoins
Funny how it always comes apart upon close examination.
Are you running a business? Do you have skills you are selling? Do you plan ahead financially?
If yes you care about stability, up or down either way.
I think businesses usually diversify their holdings regardless of what they use to transact right? But yeah I agree they would want to “cash out” a lot of crypto that they get. That’s why liquidity in the on/off ramps are essential. It’s the death knell of Monero sadly.
They hold in the currency that they have future payments coming up to minimize the risk. A business in USA will hold dollars, nothing else.
I think stables can be useful. If it's difficult to access USD where you're from and/or your local fiat is even more garbage. Or to avoid crypto volatility in short/medium term. Can also be more anonymous than digital fiat.
True that.
It's not the main selling point of Bitcoin though. Bitcoin wants to be more stable than USD.
Good luck with that.
I don’t think Bitcoin has ever claimed stability. What it has claimed is deflation instead of inflation. Where did they talk about stability?
Ah correct.
All this talk about stablecoins got me confused.
Still no idea why someone would want an unstable (deflationary = unstable downward) currency.
It would definitely make people more frugal / responsible with their money.
Many people consider deflationary currency as having profoundly positive moral effects on the economy writ large. For example, people are more frugal and thus are more prone to “buy it for life”. Companies start competing on who makes the longest lasting product instead of the trendy thing with planned obselesence. Etc
Seems like there was more merchant adoption in 2013 than there is now. Bitcoin has gone backwards
Drivechain is the only way.
Now I’m going to have to remind myself of drivechain vs spacechain
Why TF Paul Sztorc spamming Twitter and Super Testnet taking his side without anyone making a compelling case?
Not only is it not the "only way", it doesn't even seem like it's the best way.
Are people just trying to slide in BIP300 with CAT and CTV like it's related and innocuous?
Please take a minute to make it clear what you think is the way to scale Bitcoin.
Thoughts in the sub-notes
Drive chains could have some utility for privacy, but I think the anonymity set would be too low. Paul acts like people would replace their Monero with Monero-on-Bitcoin. There is ZERO chance of that. Ditto for any other existing coin. BCH on Bitcoin? I don't think so. Ethereum? LOL.
Drive chains would be additional revenue for miners, where they are given control over a new shitcoin circus. Maybe that's fine-- but it doesn't scale Bitcoin.
Maybe Paul is right that not everyone needs unilateral exit, but no one is going to use a chain that miners can just "take away". Miners won't have rugging powers, but they will have extortion powers.
I'm (very cautiously) optimistic about Ark, Spiderchain, and some covenants. I think an ideal solution would be built utilizing lightning. It's possible scaling won't be achieved for another 15 years, that doesn't mean in the meantime we should enable fuckery that would be difficult to undo.
In fairness to Paul, Adam Back doesn't seem totally against drivechains (last I heard), and I don't consider Adam to be rash or unintelligent.
So maybe they can play with Drivechains on Liquid?
Is Shinobi on Nostr?
You have too many opinions to someone who doesn't even know what Drivechain is or can't write the name of the thing correctly. "Drivechains on Liquid" makes no sense. Saying that Drivechain is "shitcoins" makes no sense. Apparently you have "heard" some things and rushed to an opinion.
Shinobi is not on Nostr because he thinks that if you use the same private key many times that allows an attacker to figure out your private key from the signatures alone.
I'm admittedly not the sharpest surgeon in the rocket factory, but I think it's up to the proponents of a proposal to advocate their position cohesively and honestly. Paul seems desperate and mean. I feel bad for him, but the BIPs are old at this point, and everyone is working on something else, having dismissed Drivechains some time ago.
I'm not inherently against merged mining, and I don't think Drivechains are a horrible idea, but I'm 100% sure if you create a new way to make money from Bitcoin, it will be exploited and turn into a shit show. All I want is Bitcoin to scale. Maybe I lack the imagination to see how drivechains scale Bitcoin, but I wouldn't personally approve or use a drive chain as I understand them. I'm open to having my mind changed.
Liquid is a multisig pretending to be a sidechain. 15 people control your coins.
Drivechains are sidechains, chosen by 51% hashrate. They are a promise from the miners that they support these sidechains and will not destroy them in 10 minutes.
There is no reason to put sidechain technology on a fake sidechain and see how it does.
If you want to peg out of Liquid, and the Liquid federation wants to give you your Bitcoin, but 51% of miners do not want you to have your coins, they can censor you. They can censor lightning. They can kill every L2, including drivechains.
BIP300 recognizes this, so it does two things to protect itself:
1. Massive fees to miners. Why would miners kill something that always pays them? They are incentivized to protect the sidechains, make them better, and continue mining L1.
2. Six month peg out. This gives us six months to see if the miners are misbehaving, with a constant warning displayed to the world every 10 minutes.
If using a second layer to Bitcoin is its eventual future for the masses, then there is nothing close to drivechains.
BitVM has similar issues, though it’s MUCH better than lightning, and that is why Super Testnet and Robin still support BIP300.
