At that fee rate, your net worth would also scale with the Bitcoin price implied by it though. So you may be willing to pay even more than four figures.
I'm just trying to point out the arbitraryness of what a reasonable fee is, divorced from pure mechanism.
It's also great to see your openess to L2's and soft forks in favor of solutions, beware the Toxic priests that excomunicae people who start looking for solutions outside of LN.
You even mentioning big blocks somewhere a few days ago has you on their list.
I know all of them, including the ones that are not even on the list.
One problem that people face is that they box themselves into narrative corners and echo chambers.
"Not your keys not your coins" is a good one-sentence explainer to tell people to be careful about custodians, especially in such a nascent industry. It's powerful and memorable. Couldn't be said better.
But then some people take that to mean nobody should ever use any custodial service under any circumstances ever. You got $200 in a custodial Lightning app because it's faster and easier than alternatives? You've failed the purity test. You're in a developing country and want to save $100 worth of bitcoin? Better do it on-chain, otherwise it's not yours!
But then some of the same people resist a block size increase to keep the network decentralized (a good thing, imo) and also say that bitcoin will fix the world (I think it can).
But while all reasonable statements on their own, the issue is that statements 1, 2, and 3 don't add up when taken to their extreme. It has been written about since the time of Nakamoto and Finney on Bitcoin Talk forums that Bitcoin would need to scale in layers.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2500.msg34211#msg34211
So any statement about "Not your keys not your coins" has to be paired with an alternative solution, or a spectrum of alternatives. What if someone can't fit into the one of the only tens of millions of on-chain transactions per month? What if $35 fees is high for the $200 in bitcoin they want to save?
Is holding your bitcoin on an 11-of-15 multisig (Liquid) okay, in exchange for lower fees, faster block times, better privacy, and some additional features? Depending on the amount, I would say yes. It has trade-offs, though, which have to be made clear.
What about a Chaumian mint? What if an app lets a community in South Africa set up a 5-of-9 multisig run by well-known people in the community who would face consequences if they break trust? And the same app can let a smaller community in Guatemala set up a 4-of-7 multisig? And a bigger multi-country 6-of-11 multisig can be set up as well? It's private, interacts with Lightning as seamlessly as Wallet of Satoshi, and can make in-person payments even when the internet is out briefly. Plus, it can be customized via open source add-on modules by the community running the specific mint so that it can also store private data for users, monitor reserves, monitor health of the multisig keys, run applications like Chat GPT payable in bitcoin per usage, run private DMs and group chats, run apps that show you local merchants that accept bitcoin, etc. And what if a user could, within the same app, seamlessly spread their funds out among a handful of different mints that they know pretty well to avoid having all of their eggs in one basket, and then pull into self-custody when above a certain amount?
Maybe there will be more softforks in the future. More flexible scripting to allow more share-ability of UTXOs, for example. But those require consensus, and they tend to come with some trade-offs or code risks, and so they take time.
Bitcoin is an engineering marvel. But it's not magic. It has limitations, and it has a spectrum of solutions for those limitations at any given time. The best solutions solve multiple problems at once: they add scalability, they add speed, they reduce fees, they add privacy, and they add flexibility/programmability all at once, while still being more distributed than trusting some centralized KYC entity.
Bitcoin is peer-to-peer open source money. But it's not infinitely scalable on the base chain. If it were greatly scaled up on the base chain to fit everyone, then only institutions would be able to run nodes and it would be greatly centralized and thus useless. So the solution, known from the start of the Bitcoin Talk forums, is to build additional peer-to-peer open source layers on top of it, allowing for a range of transaction sizes, a range of speeds, a range of privacy, and a range of programmability, all to serve different users' needs, and without compromising the decentralization and security of the base chain. That's the type of statement that needs to be provided along with "not your keys not your coins" for the full context to make sense.
Fedimints are racist. The arguments and references to them for use in the developing world often assume an exotic behavior about these societies that is unsubstantiated. Yes...Fedimints and chaumian mints, as described by countless poverty porn pushers in the bitcoin space, are a type of colonialism. It's the digital equivalent of bringing democracy and womens rights to Afghanistan by America. The reality on the ground does not match the fiction in your head, and it kills more of the women than are saved.
The on the ground reality is 7 of 7 influential community leaders are just as likely to steal from the local people and get away with it through various means and social mechanism, as have "consequences" applied to them. All the quixotic arguments for pushing fuckmints and ecrap on the developing world, i have seen, come from people aware of the economic principals and game theory of Bitcoin, but who also simultaneously make the "other" an exception to them.
"Those other people over there" use money differently. "Those noble savages are closer to the land, more communal, more holistic" implies the wording. The reality is grannies and children hoarding small amounts by wrapping it in their clothing , or sewing it in beds, burrying it in the ground, anything they can do to keep it AWAY from others. You know... like bitcoin was once trying to do.
A type of ignorant colonialism, Fedimints and ecash, as presented don't even work in the developed world, yet will work for the "underdeveloped" for some reason, a reason always alluded to in unfounded social science based on some unique and exotic charachteristic of those societies.
The real life behavior, hoarding and limited sharing of physical CASH by community leaders assumes qualities of Bitcoin that are no longer even popularly sought. Privacy, fungibility, low transaction cost.
Families, tribes, groups, hoard cash FROM eachother and share limited amounts for specific reasons. This behavior can be replicated with Bitcoin using simple wallets, truer digital stand-ins than complicated multisigs and over engineered collateralized trust networks or custodial "banks", Lightning.
The developed world and its voice, having the majority of Bitcoin, now want to, in the style classic sociopathic narcisism, push a watered down and hyper controlled Bitcoin on the poor, while also passing it off as "Freedom" money.
These contradictions will not resolve in their favor.
It's crazy knowing about Monero and watching:
-old school bitcoiners say Bitcoin has lost or is losing its original purpose
-devs and influencers argue about problems solved years ago
-nuBitcoiners support Kyc and censorship
The Great #Drivechain Debate with Paul Sztorc and Peter Todd (SLP533).
Official Podcast Episode: https://www.stephanlivera.com/533
Drivechain is a proposal from 2015 which has had a lot of community debate recently. Joining us today to debate this are Paul Sztorc (CEO of Layer Two Labs) and Peter Todd. We discuss a range of points:
- Drivechain and miner centralisation
- Whether you can delegate running a node
- Legal risks
- Fees and Blocksize limits
Timestamps:
00:00 - Intro
01:22 - Guests Introduction
02:12 - Paul's Opening Statement
11:08 - Peter's Opening Statement
19:42 - Paul's Rebuttal
24:56 - Peter's Rebuttal
30:47 - Guests Challenge each Other
01:30:59 - Closing thoughts
All Drivechains has to do is stick around, and improve incrementaly until LN blows up in the Toxics Face.
At this point, going back in time and assassinating Lightning Network would pay for itself.
This includes cost to build the time machine, Kardashev 3 scale energy consumption and bribes to the time police.
#Drivechain
Looking at a mirror is tiring.
With only this intact all other technologies can be recreated through cooperation.
All one needs to know about Drivechain and bip300 is that an infinite increase in Bitcoin transactions fees would not cripple sidechains.
A ~10 dollar increase in fees for several months on main, by contrast, has people looking at Lightning Network with equal antagonism as that towards incest.
A word that also happens describe the Toxic Maxi's.
People who want NFT's on Bitcoin:
" The spamming will end when the onchain jpegs improve."
You have know idea how annoying these dumb battles are to watch when the solution; Bip300/Drivechain and block reduction, is right there ready and waiting.
"Take life advice from an alchoholic depressive with salt."
-Cyber Seagull
That's a pretty mean thing to say about Greg.
What employer bases their pay schedule on the lunar calendar ? Are you working for druids or something ?
Pfft. Months are the gold of time. See you at block height 885473 or whatever.
Bro posting W from the grave.
