Subnostr

agreed, but if we cant onboard 8billion people self custodially RIGHT NOW does it mean that we should give up trying to get the 10s of millions of people who potentially use it atm to do so? they are the ones that will spread the word around to their social circles and if all this decentralization technology fails because one custodial provider stopped serving US market (and will probably expand the list to all the overreaching shitholes of the "developed" world sooner or later) then we didn't achieve much.

We need the first couple 100m of users to be as self sovereign as possible - they are the critical mass for any kind of changes needed to protect the unfortunate souls who won't own their own utxos in time

This also buys us time to figure out new technological advancements that need discovery and maturation before wide adoption

j 2y ago

Thanks for that thoughtful reply. Well said.

I have to say though, I see things very differently. It's crazy that the feds feel entitled to tell Americans who's allowed to custody their Bitcoin and who isn't.

Hopefully we get some better technology that makes self-custody scale better, but I think we should also plan for a future where we don't.

We need to support good (non-kyc) custodians and force the feds to accept them. (The miners would be great custodians.)

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

aljaz 2y ago

I wish it was only americans. US feels entitled to tell everyone in the world how to do things.

We need to figure out a model for infrastructure to operate extrajudicially - lightning needs to take a page from the pirate bay book and create services that cant be forced to shutdown. But that requires trustless tech so it can be more easily run by nyms not operated by companies and individuals that are trusted based on their reputation

j 2y ago

💯