I don’t think that implies all on layer 1….
Ask him 😉
Discussion
Listen, I don't really want to do the whole semantics thing. Layer 2 is definitionally not Bitcoin. Just like dollars prior to 1971 were not gold. So, Yes, BY DEFINITION he is saying that Bitcoin (layer 1) needs more liquidity and velocity.
You seem angry….hard to communicate.
Be well brotha. 🙏🏻
I'm not angry. I like to be truthful and correct. I don't appreciate when others use falshoods or misinterpretations to make their point. I hope you are well too.
This is why I respectfully disagree with your interpretation and why I (personally) consider Lightening to be actual Bitcoin. Technically…..(see attachment below)
More to the point, this is why most definitely @jack was not pushing to “shove more liquidity and velocity” onto Layer 1.
He (and I and most others I know in Bitcoin) consider payments made in lightening to be the same P2P value transfer as layer 1.
If you don’t, that’s your perspective. But (back to the original point) he was most definitely not arguing for “more liquidity and velocity” on layer 1. So I fail to see the “falsehood and misinterpretation” as you accused.
Otherwise he would be a B Cash’er!!!
😝😝😝
Peace ✌️
"If it (bitcoin) ends up being a currency that people use in their every day life..." Bitcoin is distinct from lightning becuase the smart contract can be revoked if the one party cheats. This is not true on the base chain. The misinterpretation is that he is mentioning lightning, without mentioning it. And the falshood is that an asset and a currency are interchangeable and not distinct. Lightning "settlement" must be verified on base chain or it isn't valid. So use all the emojis you'd like, you are inferring something that wasn't said in this clip. And are absolutely incorrect about lightning.
By revoked you mean lost or stolen?
Not stolen, but certainly one party loses their claim to their side of the channel. The revocation secret sides the channel to the victim. Either you cheat, and your counterparty produces a valid revocation secret. Or the counterparty is offline and they lose their side of the channel, at least partially, absent a watchtower node.
To be fair, JackTheMimic, this is only a sub-minute clip taken out of its full context, and overlaid with your assumptions that he is referring to changing the baselayer. That is not said in the video. I will agree with you that all of the above is indeed semantics however.
Again, the implication is that he doesn't want Bitcoin to be digital gold. I didn't say pushing changes to the base layer, that was chris there. "Shoving liquidity and velocity onto the base layer" is not a change. It is using it in a manner in which it wasn't designed.
It’s not an implication if he explicitly says it. Again, to echo Chris, it seems to me he is saying he doesn’t want scalability captured by ETFs, and custodian-only scaling solutions. Because that would be a recreation of the gold standard. In other words, more open source development, like Lightning, which scales Bitcoin globally.
Cool, I'm glad we all agree while somehow hearing "I don't want bitcoin to become digital gold" and I vehemently disagree because I don't see that as a preclusion of a currency layer like lightning, it is IMPLIED by the way money functions, which was what I was saying.
You can't literally say "I don't want bitcoin to behave like money" then imply that you want the proliferation of a currency backed by bitcoin thereby treating it like digital gold.
That is my contention.
Okay that’s totally fair enough, yes Bitcoin on it’s path to ubiquity will function much like digital gold. Jack (and Chris and I) are making, I believe, the point that this is bigger than money. Bigger than a recreation of nation state, scarcity dynamics. Thoughts?
I think everything is downstream from money. The incentives of human action are predicated on how a man may provide for himself and family. Given the inefficiency of barter money is the only way we can organize our efforts to cooperate rather than kill each other. The technical limitations of money is what creates the perverse incentives we see today in MSTR, wall street, and the like. The state trying to cling to a money they can't control (because the state doesn't produce anything) is the last death throes of a destructive and inefficient system.
I think we agree on 99 percent of this. From a classification standpoint. But calling lightening purely a “coupon” BACKED by BTC/layer 1 is going too far, IMO.
Its actual bitcoin in a smart contract that can be self custodied and unilaterally reverted back to main chain UTXO custody baring some wildly aberrant event.
I’ve enjoyed this discussion, since it has provided me the opportunity to reflect and learn. The major reason I LOVE this community and journey down the rabbit hole.
So thank you! 🙏🏻
PS
Back to the top, I still think Jack was not advocating for more liquidity and velocity on main chain.
He was taking issue about a growing group on wall st in US (eg MSTR, Blackrock, others) that are explicitly advocating for BTC to remain JUST a pristine digital asset. Actively trying to block layer2/3 and circular economies from developing.
In that case I agree with him. If this doesn’t become our new global system and therefore seperate money from state for the first time in history, I think we are fucked as a civilisation.
Just my 2 cents.
Have to agree with Chris here. Some would say, myself included, that Lighting is Bitcoin because it is directly tied to UTXOs. I also don’t think Dorsey is advocating for changes to blocksize, and even if he was, incredibly unlikely to mean or amount to any protocol changes. I don’t know 100% - but am pretty confident here.
Yeah, and dollars were directly tied to ounces of gold... AGAIN, I am not saying he wants to change the protocol, you implied that.
Lightning is a coupon system derived from UTXOs but they are not the same thing. It is also not a semantic difference either. It is fundamentally different because lightning bitcoin is created and destroyed with each channel open and close. It is also bound to the revocation rules applied to channel states. So, not some irrelevant difference.
Valid point.
But I don’t think it all neatly fits in the Austrian School definitions. Lightening strikes me as far more of an “asset” than typical layer 2 on fiat.
Once again. Just my 2 cents.
True, the closest the Austrian school got to bitcoin was Hayek's quote: “I don’t believe we shall ever have good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government, that is, we can’t take them violently out of the hands of government, all we can do is by some sly roundabout way introduce something that they can’t stop.”
Really prescient prediction.
You may be right. But non of this, I believe, is the essence or spirit of what Jack D intended to mean. So while factually what you are sayin re: lighting may be true; it is possible that what is so confusing here in this thread is your misinterpretation of what he is trying to say.