Nostr Web Client

Ok, I must be missing something. Read the press release. What they are describing sounds exactly like the "killer app" that people have been talking about driving mass scale adoption for years.

An open standard, that allows a receiver to receive the type of currency (stable-coins or bitcoin) that they wish to receive, without requiring all of the additional hassle of currency conversion, and all running on top of the bitcoin network. This is a major win for bitcoin far as I can tell.

It is an in-between step, certainly. There is some risk that it will overstay its welcome. But so long as this UMA standard is a protocol without an overseer, this strikes me as a very good thing. Bitcoin gets the stablecoin support that has kept Eth and other junk alive; they will die even faster. Slightly longer term, all of our fiat jobs will pay us and we will immediately receive it in bitcoin.

So is it not an open standard that could be individually implemented? If it is, why the opposition?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Big Barry Bitcoin 2y ago

We should not push or support technologies or schemes that have surveillance support baked in. We have an opportunity to start again, let's not make the same mistakes again.

No one should be able to block a transaction, no arbitrary prejudice should set a ranking on people, and so we shouldn't support this type of innovation, even if it is inevitable that some people will want it and even pay for it.

A technology built on bitcoin and building on the brand of bitcoin but building out as a monument to compromise is not a good thing. Even if in the short term it may pump some bags.

Roland 2y ago

Key part of the article: “Here, too, UMA enhances standard Lightning capabilities by adding the ability to check if the recipient is at a regulated Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP)., It also confirms if the Travel Rule applies and for what amount, and if the end recipient has been verified through KYC, with plugins for popular compliance transaction screening tooling.”

Seeker Erebus 2y ago

Ah, now I think I get it. Built-in regulatory oversight is a hard no from me.

I still think the basic concept of stablecoin <-> bitcoin conversion is a good idea, but if it comes with the baggage of custodians or universally tracked funds, then hell no.

btcschellingpt 2y ago

Because it requires full KYC Andy will track and trace and surveil payments by a centralised third party .. and Bitcoin is fundamentally about making these centralised rentseekers redundant