I wish Hal never posted this.
Discussion
And I gave him a hundred merits for it.
There really is no other way for it to scale to the masses.
I really do respect your show and your take on things. And I am one of those Bitcoiners who also believes Monero is still important for example.
And scaling isn't the only issue. Also just the complexity of self custody of wealth safely and without making terrible errors is a huge deal.
In the end, I think we will see some "bitcoin banks" that really are rug pulls waiting to happen, but others that are designed in ways that make trade-offs that are worth the benefits.
For example, There are new wallets emerging that use combinations of on-chain, liquid, and lightning transactions along with trustless swaps to do amazing things while retaining ownership of your keys and keeping trust distributed.
See #aqua and #mistybreez.
I think we will also eventually see e-cash solutions developed that can fit into these types of methods as well. Although currently, the active solutions being developed are single trust point abominations, in my opinion.
cashu sats aren't bitcoin.
L-BTC isn't bitcoin either.
nothing will ever enable custodial IOUs to be bitcoin. it's completely impossible.
the custodian will debase and censor the IOUs. it's not different this time. you can count on this happening like you can count on communism failing. every time you make excuses for stripping off bitcoin's security model and giving control to custodians, you are speedrunning what happened to precious metals. stop being cute about it.
Stop being cute about it?
Fuck off.
You will not win any arguments being a jerk.
Also. You misrepresented what I said and are arguing against a strawman.
you are suggesting that we can't have mass adoption until the security model is thrown in the trash. why don't you throw yourself in the trash.
Because I am not an fool who can only think in black and white frames. Bitcoin needs to scale. And we are in the process of finding ways for it to scale. And some of them will be horribly misguided. Like the current state of #Cashu, for example. But that does not negate the value of figuring out how to make Chaumian mints work. It just means THAT implementation, in it's CURRENT form, used for anything more than a pittance of value is retarded. It is a rug pull waiting to happen. Like all centralized systems.
Bitcoin already solved the problem of trust to the finest degree we have seen. And even Bitcoin may not have solved it! Someday, someone may discover a way to game it's incentives. I doubt it, but I do not know everything yet... unlike you -- so you seem to think.
And you are right that LBTC <> BTC. Duh. But when did I ever say it was? In your frame I mentioned it in a non-negative way, so that makes me instantly wrong and a scammer or stupid.
Must be nice to live in such a simple world. Unable to see why working on ways to introduce cryptographic models that experiment with tradeoffs that MIGHT... just MIGHT be able to help bitcoin scale is worth it.
One of my first bits of advice to anyone struggling with Dunning-Krueger is to STOP framing things in black and white. Like: "If you disagree with me you are either wrong (stupid) or evil (scammer)." Throw yourself in the trash! (lol)
Will I put very much of my Bitcoin into LBTC? No. Of course not. The security model is weaker than the base layer. Again, duh.
But what I see, in a project led by a cryptographer with likely a HELL of a lot more wisdom than either of us, is a model that might just be something we can use to help bitcoin scale.
And wallets like #Aqua or #mistybreez are helping with the experiment.
If you stop at: #Liquid can't be perfect if it is not as distributed as possible, then you just stop.
On top of this NOTHING is stopping you from using L1 and L1 only.
THAT is the revolution. If you think certain L2 implimentations, or e-cash toys are not safe to use then by all means...
Simply do not use them.
That is the EXACT reason that I do not have a single satoshi in a CASHU mint and am concerned that Bitcoinners this this form of Chaumian e-cash is worth anything more than the experiment that it is.
BUT... unlike you, I am not going to just throw it all "in the trash". The the developers play with it. Let the fools put real value into it. Warn then if you like. I am. This message is a warning.
I will not call them idiots or fools though. Because I do not feel compel;led to be a dick.
Here is an example of an idiotic bac k/white argument like I see you spending a LOT of time doing in case you need a little help:
Since you like ETH, why not use that to scale Bitcoin? nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqsl6hhnzll4p4gxa4e7q4spmwqt79krylpn90p9spwl697g3fsr2qqs9lca6rhefynn2dt8kz47t44t24sd4dykljfa5lmwey47n6jn33ugwd8wyp
Oh, oh... but you missed my point?!?!?!? Right?
Welcome to the club. Not perfect yet? Throw it and you into the trash I guess.
I will not continue to suffer such foolishness.
Why? I agree with the post because Bitcoin is money for everyone and centralised systems are more efficient.
So, allowing a centralised authority to manage the finances of the masses makes sense *if* the base currency can't be exploited.
Why? It's brilliant thought
Why? 🤔
I will not speak for Vlad and I hope he chooses to answer your question, but an educated guess would be he would argue that going towards that solution is the way back to central banks and slavery. That Hal's "scaling solution" here would fundamentally undermine the very zero-to-one innovation that Bitcoin was in the first place: the removal of the need for trust.
I feel like I can steelman this argument fairly well, and it is compelling, but I also think it's kind of black and white.
I have said before that the innovation isn't that we HAVE to use trust minimized solutions, but that we can.
I also think it is also arguable that trust is a valuable thing to be able to have and use when it benefits you. I trust my family members. I trust my church.
But I don't trust Jerome Powell and I don't want to be forced to either.
And there can be compromises. Liquid is a great example. It is a federated membership of signers that makes it very difficult for collusion. But we gained something for the small amount of trust we put in the foundation. We get potential privacy, speed of settlement, and cheapness of transactions.
I am very passionate about this subject and I am hijacking Vlad's note so I'm going to calm down now. LOL.
You were very clear. Your thesis is very clear. Thanks for the clarification friend
Read „banks“ as mints and „their own digital cash currency“ as eCash tokens.
