Avatar
JackTheMimic
dd1f9d502c7951df47e8f8ed245e8bfa24f7e82c28f19399a8f0e74b06113a21
Hoch die anarchie. CTO at Sovreign.io

Yeah, I was joking about how tenacious monero stans are.

I didn't say it does. It does more useful things.

Great now there's gonna be pics of anime girls and diatribes about fungibility blowing up these comments...

Replying to Avatar jb55

Dude, I feel this. Never mention XMR.

Essential minimum?

A phone (preferably GrapheneOS)

Raspi4 full node

Essential Preferred?

3- miniPCs (1 full node, 1 lightning node, 1 QubesOs wallet, password manager)

1- GrapheneOS phone

1- Innocuous NFC object

1 to 3- HWW of different manufacturers

1- Portable mini thermal printer

2- [secret projects I am working on]

And as many bitaxes as comfortable.

I mean, okay. Even if the main way people use Bitcoin is through a bank, it's auditable, immutable, scarce, and has to be used within the consensus rules. The Bank's incentives align to be honest actors because they take transaction fees by running the routing nodes. Charging too much, you switch to a cheaper bank. The point is that Bitcoin doesn't solve the problem of people, it just makes them play more fairly.

Replying to Avatar HODL

Thought experiment.

Option # 1

Let’s say you have 10 bitcoin and we hit 2 million in the next few years.

You’re tempted so you sell it for 20 million dollars.

After taxes you’re be left with 16MM.

Which you use to comfortably generate 1.2MM a year in the tradfi markets.

So you take the money and retire.

Bitcoin crashes 60% back to 800k.

For a few years you feel like a genius. You enjoy your new rich person lifestyle.

You even buy back a few bitcoin. 2 to be exact. 20% of what you used to have.

Then bitcoin rises over the next decade to be worth 50 million per coin.

You’re worth 120 million now. And you decide to sell a little over half a coin and upgrade your lifestyle again to be able to generate an additional 2 million a year.

You’re now on paper worth 120 million, you generate 3.2 million a year (266k a month) and you’ve been largely stress free for the last decade.

Your kids will inherit roughly 1.62 bitcoin from you upon your death.

You have some level of regret about not hodling through, but you’ve been largely stress free and the mental health benefit was worth it in your mind.

Vs.

Option # 2

You have the same 10 bitcoin but you Hodl them.

Your stress levels are persistently higher.

You also decide to retire when Bitcoin hits 2 mil, but you decide to do so in bitcoin terms.

Your plan is to sell a little bitcoin as needed in order to fund your lifestyle.

This is roughly 1-3 million sats a month. Depending on bitcoin price.

Over the course of 10 years you end up selling or spending 2.4 bitcoin and are still left worth 7.6btc when bitcoin reaches 50 million.

Your net worth is 380 million.

You’ve reduced your lifestyle in bitcoin terms down to a million sats a month. (500k) or 6 million per year. You’re 46, Assuming you live until you’re 90 you will pass down 2.32 bitcoin to your kids.

You have no regrets about the way you played it, but your stress was consistently higher and there were a few scary months along the way.

Which option do you choose?

1 or 2?

2. I don't really stress about my bitcoin now so I am not sure that I would then either. But, not to change the stipulation of the hypothetical, I would live with stress before ever selling a valuable asset for a liquid currency hemmoraging value. Plus any more bitcoin I can leave to my kids is worth more than my comfort.

Seems like a way to pay their miners without actually finding blocks consistently. Consequently, siphoning more hashrate away from other pools with bigger guaranteed payouts.

So, I guess that seems scummy, so that's why I wouldn't like to see them doing both.

I mean, yeah I have literally modeled that out. It's not hard at all.

Basically a federated model of both communities and bank to vendor ecospheres.

Community goes:

Individual->local shops

Local shops-> regional shops

Regional-> State

State-> Country

Bank federated model:

Individual-> local bank

Local Bank-> local shops & regional banks

Regional banks-> regional shops & state banks

In this model likely people would run custodial bank lightning software your "Bank account" is just your receiving channel (direct deposit paycheck) and a spending channel (likely equal to your paycheck as collateral)

The community solution is more sovereign bit most people don't care about sovereignty.

So, that's how it scales globally. (Sorry if this isn't detailed enough, I just don't want to retype an idea I have shared many times)

I guess I just see lightning, especially after the implementation of BOLT12 to be the most naturally scaling Layer 2 solution.

No token obfuscation,

HTLC to lock up BTC,

revocation secrets keep everyone honest,

Scales up and down as the financial flows call for it,

Better anonymity than a separate traceable block chain,

And most widely used now.

Sidechains, drivechains, and minted ecash seem interesting and have their use cases but if we are talking instant P2P transactions, with very low risk of ever getting rugged by a channel partner or fees bidding up on another chain, Lightning seems first in best dressed. I will say pathing needs some developer love but, that is the only gripe I've ever had with it.

Okay after reading on it, it seems to just be what people call a one way peg. And the way people are using "one way peg" is essentially misunderstanding what a monetary asset it. "Burning a token" when it transfers to another blockchain is a consumptive act. Money cannot be consumed (if it has monetary premium). Money is an asset that's sole purpose is to represent value and as a good is not meant to be consumed.

That is a term that doesn't make sense to me in my economist brain. "Two way peg" evokes in my mind that a token representing a claim on an asset can be asserted into existence therefore creating more of the asset. The inverse is possible but not the latter. Maybe I need to see some praxis on this but the term on it's face seems to not make sense. Coupons can only be pegged to the asset.