Imagine you had a house but the only way you could access it was to either call up a12 word phrase every time you wanted to enter, or trust someone else that they can hold your phrase but never use it, and if they broke the promise your house would be gone forever. Moreover if you ever lost your 12 words and third party āconvenienceā key you would also lose your house forever. And not only that, the price of houses might continue to rise, forever making your loss more painful.
Now imagine that your houseās structure, rarity and other fundamental aspects could be changed by other people who owned houses. You were told that there would only ever be 21m of your house, but that number has been doubled a few times in history with the ānon-housesā conveniently relabelled as ākennelsā or something. Yet every house owner repeats that there has only ever been 21m of your house and there only ever will be.
You start to think that maybe you should sell your house. Of course mentioning this to other house owners is the quickest way not to be invited over for dinner parties. But you persist. You work out the way to sell this asset is either through a centralised exchange that required 100 points of ID and could freeze your account without notice or reasonable dispute, or label your house as ātaintedā, through a decentralised exchange that is technically illegal in many countries or an in person meetup where a $5 wrench might convince you to part with your house for no compensation.
You decide to trust the centralised agency, no, the decentralised one, no the in person strangerā¦. wondering why so much trust is required in this house system you were told was trustless.
You get out at a price you think is a bit below what you thought, and decide to buy an actual house.
5/10 at best.
1) personal responsibiliy has upside and downside. I take personal responsibility anyday (since we can see what trusting central entities has brought to us). If you loose your keys is because you are a fool and have not done things propoerly, it's not a weakness of the system.
2) zero trust will never exist. Btc consensus mechanisma dni ncentives structure is the best thing we ever had in history. As above, I will take this anyday (also, you sepak as if the existing system doesn't bend the rules whenever they need, and make the rules in secret, and we cannot vote on any of the important decisions).
3) The imposition of KYC btc acceptance only is absolutely unferasible. Is a temporary madness that will last max 5 years (if not even).
You speak as if the existin system has none of the criticism you just raised against btc (it has them in a much bigger size and it's way worse than the btc system in any way). There a re no perfect solution, only trade offs, and btc is way better than the existing system
All this I'm saying with peace and love man
You seem young. Wait a few years and see if youāre still calling people who misplace keys foolish and not deserving of those assets or help from others.
Peace and love back at ya
To end the convo I did call ppl who lose their keys foolish, but I never said they donāt deserve those assets or help from others (just wanted to clarify this!)
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
