Nostr Web Client

I can only give you my view.

Ethereum is a tokenised smart contract Turing complete blockchain based virtual machine.

It does NFTs and Smart Contracts natively. It has it’s own Token, Eth, which is considered money or an asset in the same way Bitcoin is considered money or an asset. This for me is the flaw and encourages speculative traders to “invest” in or hold Eth for the same reasons you would hold Bitcoin.

If you considered Eth as a token in the same way you would consider an Amazon gift card or a token required to ride a fun fair, but it isn’t.

Because Ethereum solves all the above, but fails to compete with Bitcoins monetary aspects, so Bitcoin shouldn’t try to compete with Ethereums native properties.

We, by mistake, enabled NFTs on the Bitcoin blockchain. It turns out we did it better as you can store the data natively on the Blockchain instead of an external link in the case of Ethereum. This is causing Bitcoin node runners like me all sorts of problems we would prefer not to deal with.

For this reason, I personally don’t want to emulate Ethereum’s Smart contracts by turning Bitcoin into a Turing complete engine. There are some in the space that are attempting to do this.

My view is let Ethereum do it’s thing and we’ll do ours. I don’t hate Ethereum, but I do hate that third parties see Ethereum as a monetary system and an asset.

Bennu Breath 𓅣 7mo ago

Yes, I get your point and we agree on why ETH isn't sustainable or worthwhile being money, especially when there's Bitcoin.

But Bitcoin isn't being widely used for day-to-day financial transactions right now. Scalability is one issue, Lightning has its drawbacks. Relai closed their self-custodial wallet option just recently for example. And another reason is because it can't be used for finance - which is what many people like to do with money - while keeping Bitcoin's peer-to-peer freedom properties.

What happened to the 'You are the bank' slogan? Banks give credit, that's their business model. And now Bitcoiners are developing and encouraging centralized services and banks to collateralize your Bitcoin for fiat to make Bitcoin more versatile. But it's centralized. You are not your own bank any longer then.

Smart contracts with Bitcoin can make finance decentralized. You remain your own bank, you are financially sovereign. Why to leave that to an inferior chain like Ethereum? There may be ways to keep Bitcoin nodes clutter free despite NFTs and L2s and sidechains and rollups. Why not explore that avenue and embrace possible solutions once they prove sound?

But I'm open to maybe missing an important point. Hint me to a book or podcast to find out if you know one. I know it's too much to write about here.

Thanks for the discussion 🙏🏼😊

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

mike 7mo ago

I think the more important point I've been trying to convey with these hypothetical examples is to point out the reasons why we don't want a debt based society and why we don't want Bitcoin lending solutions.

Debt is a modern phenomenon and at its core it is borrowing wealth from the future which limits options in that future.

That's a very binary view, and the world is not binary. But Bitcoin was supposed to replace the financial system, not support it.

Bennu Breath 𓅣 7mo ago

Yeah, as someone who personally never took institutionalized credit, I really resonate with your viewpoint. Debt as an instrument goes way back in history. But that the entire economic and societal development is based on it, is indeed a modern phenomenon. And it's a reality we are faced with right now.

That's the point where nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7ct5d3shxtnwdaehgu3wd3skueqpz4mhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejqqgzr08nkh7nk4q9cmw02wkfprkgtk0n8kgszlzyqe384ll3qv5rp453f6g5h and Saylor clashed on their last podcast.

My point here would be that once the world operates on a Bitcoin standard, excessive lending and borrowing is just not attractive any longer. We don't have to morally condemn it until then, it just naturally fades.

But we can help Bitcoin thrive in the meantime and make sure it keeps its core freedom providing functionalities. Currently, it's on track to being cornered as a stale asset, loosing its peer-to-peer cash ability. I'm not saying Bitcoin isn't in itself powerful enough to one day burst free. But the more versatile it becomes (e.g. with finance in a hybrid fiat stage) while keeping its freedom functionalities (!) the earlier hyperbitcoinization may become a reality.

mike 7mo ago

No question, Bitcoin the asset has made significantly more progress than Bitcoin the money.

But Bitcoin money is advancing at ever greater pace. Steak n' Shake being a very public example, but also a more ground up movement is happening.

As Bitcoin becomes more widely accepted and understood by the public, it will, I believe gain greater and greater traction as money.

We are still. VERY early.