KennethStokesXJ3

nostr

**0. Intro**

Stablecoins and stablechannels are a bad idea for four reasons:

1. Compared to bitcoin, they all require extra trusted third parties (i.e. security holes)
2. As a store of value, they're worse than btc due to the constant depreciation of the fiat they emulate
3. As a medium of exchange, they are no better than btc because they face the same limitations
4. As a unit of account, they are no better than btc because this is a solved problem

**1. Extra trusted third parties**

The most popular stablecoins are effectively banks that issue bearer bonds. Depositors send real money or cryptocurrency to Tether or Circle or whoever, and they swap it for government bonds or cash, and then print an equivalent amount of USDT or USDC, which they give to the depositors in return. The recipients begin circulating these in the economy, and sometimes redeem them at the issuer for their face value in USD or other fiat currencies. The issuer is the trusted third party. They can freeze your assets, refuse to redeem them, go bankrupt and disappear, or require KYC on every transfer.

Stablechannels are partially algorithmic. You deposit bitcoin in a lightning node, find a counterparty who is willing to take on a "contract for difference" with you, and you begin paying them money if bitcoin's price rises, or they pay you if bitcoin's price falls. The point is to ensure that whatever amount you deposited is still worth that amount whenever you send it, receive more of it, or close out your position. And if either counterparty fails to pay when required, the channel force closes, which is typically more expensive than if you just kept up your end of the bargain. The trusted third party here is the source of price info. A set of price oracles report the price of bitcoin, which determines whether your device sends money or your counterparty does that. A malicious counterparty can collude with these price oracles to always report that your device should send them money, and thus drain your wallet while you sleep.

Bitcoin is better money than stablecoins and stablechannels because it has fewer trusted third parties. Bitcoin doesn't need banks and it doesn't need oracles. There are fewer people at the protocol level who can pull the rug out from under you and that makes bitcoin safer, better money.

**2. Store of value**

Stablecoins and stablechannels are pegged to fiat currencies. Fiat currencies typically have a built-in, intentional depreciation target of about 2% per year, and whenever the issuer feels like money is tight, they can (and often do) simply raise that target, announce that they did so due to economic necessity, and then print more for themselves. This steals value from anyone who holds that fiat currency, and *also* from anyone who holds money in a stablecoin or a stablechannel *pegged to* that currency.

Some might argue that stablecoins are a better store of value than bitcoin *anyway* because they are less volatile. But a cursory examination of any comparison chart reveals that bitcoin's volatility trends upward and that fiat currencies, while *somewhat* less volatile, are by no means immune from volatility. Their volatility is just more patchy, and trends *downward* instead of upward. So bitcoin beats stablecoins and stablechannels on *overall* store of value, and it's not as disparate a match on volatility as some people make it out to be. Patience heals the volatility wound.

**3. Medium of exchange**

Bitcoin and stablecoins and stablechannels are all built on the same technologies. When users go to use them at stores, they face the same limitations: the payment might get stuck in a pending state; the payment might fail altogether, if it uses lightning; the transaction fees might be expensive; and the shop might not have a compatible wallet. Stablecoins and stablechannels don't offer anything that *fundamentally* fixes these issues.

Some might say stablechannels do, since they use lightning, but all of the above things still apply: lightning payments can get stuck too, or fail, or be expensive, or be unrecognizable to the recipient's device. Some might say stablecoins on tron, solana, or ethereum L2s fundamentally fix this, but they have the same problems: tron and solana and ethereum L2 payments sometimes get stuck, fail, have high fees, and aren't supported by all wallets.

The same problems afflict all options, bitcoin and stablecoins and stablechannels. It is unwise to divide efforts by trying to increase adoption of stablecoins or stablechannels while fixing the same problems on disparate platforms. It is wise to push for adoption of bitcoin directly as the best money while aligning all available efforts to fix problems on bitcoin.

**4. Unit of account**

The unit of account problem was solved by technology. Point of sale devices can easily obtain the price of any currency or cryptocurrency and show an invoice or address to the users for the equivalent price of whatever they are buying. Users typically have devices that *also* tell them what amount is being asked of them in whatever currency they like best, and if they opt for "advanced" wallets that *don't* convert to fiat terms, then they are probably sophisticated enough to just look at the amount and intuit whether it looks about right.

Some might say "but it's easier to denominate in stablecoins than BTC because bitcoin's price changes more frequently/quickly than stablecoins do." But "denominating in stablecoins" is actually just a proxy for denominating in fiat, because *stablecoins* are just a proxy for fiat. And more importantly, this is only true for *some* currencies *some* of the time. Argentinian pesos and Venezuelan bolivars are two of the most recent monetary units to collapse, leading to many people in those countries refusing to use them as a unit of account. Nothing stops the same thing from happening to the dollar, or the euro, or even to bitcoin.

But technology has made this part pointless. Whichever currency or cryptocurrency you use, your point of sale device can figure out the appropriate exchange rate when the customer approaches you to buy something. Thanks to digital devices, the unit of account problem is no longer a problem. So stablecoins and stablechannels don't beat bitcoin on this front either.

**5. Conclusion**

Stablecoins and stablechannels are worse money than bitcoin in four important categories. Those who push for their adoption stand in the way of hyperbitcoinization. Some folks think they are pushing for bitcoin adoption, but when it comes to merchants, they recommend they use a stablecoin or a stablechannel wallet like Strike or Boardwalk Cash. I recommend they use bitcoin. It is better money anyway, and the point of all this is to help the world use a better money, not just make it so your wallet works at a few more places.

Why stablecoins and stablechannels are dumb

Podcasting 2.0, The Lightning Network, and Value4Value usher in a new era of podcasting that's free of big tech control

CarrieLynnEKQ

I did a podcast that was released this week. I feel embarrassed because during the conversation, I forgot I was being recorded. My extrovert personality came out, and she was talking about introvert me.

bitcoin

Three fast facts: Oil, Diamonds, Temples

RichardWelchRHI

I was considering doing a small fund raise for Bitcoin Ekasi from Mossel Bay, South Africa.

Progressive Web Apps - arguments against?

bitcoin_beginners

This is mostly small stuff.

- when hovering on an item link you get a little popover (via @felipe)
- push notifications respect mutes (via @WeAreAllSatoshi)
- form accordions are forced open when there's an error (via @BenAllenG)
- get mempool fee rates from mempool.space (via @t0m, 🚨 new contributor)
- fix Tor for Core Lightning autowithdraw (via @ek)
- consistent theming for range filter calendar (via @abhishandy)
- prevent zapping deleted items (via @abhishandy)
- show related items on pinned posts (via @abhishandy)
- shellcheck github workflow for `sndev` script (via @asterisk32, 🚨 new contributor)

View all commits here: https://github.com/stackernews/stacker.news/commits/master/

-----------------

Since starting the Open Source Contributor Award Rules (OSCARs), we've paid a total of 5.8m sats to 22 contributors for 95 contributions! View an up to date list of contribution awards here: https://github.com/stackernews/stacker.news/blob/master/awards.csv

-----------------

Previous release: https://stacker.news/items/530574
Q1 recap and Q2 roadmap: https://stacker.news/items/506566

----------------

[We are hiring.](https://stacker.news/items/141924)

SN release: item hover, notification mutes, accordion errors, fix fee rate, more

BooksAndArticles

Mining Bitcoin Off-grid on an EXTREME budget

DeanHartmanF68

Route blinding ASAP! (which luckily is in motion)

SN gets a "Here Comes Bitcoin" Sticker

DustinEsparzaT54

Day 101 of snailposting everyday 'til BTC hits $100k.

__@_'-'

Stacker News Media Kit V 0.1

HerbertPhamHYZ

![bitcoin-miner-cant-hear-you-crying.jpg](https://i.postimg.cc/ZKGwM10X/bitcoin-miner-cant-hear-you-crying.jpg)

Is bitcoin based on human greed?

EmmaWebster7RI

Losers write about loser conferences. Winners reminisce about traveling in 2020 in completely empty airports and meeting only high-signal people who did the same.

Winners go and talk to OG's and experts for feedback on their ideas, get inspiration, make connections, put skin in the game by making their face accountable to their peers. 

Winners go to conferences and land jobs, win hackathons, raise a little seed money to build the next big thing.

Conference goe'rs are the men and women in the arena. Conference organizers are happy to separate shitcoiners from their money to give Bitcoiners a place to network and take in social mana. 



El Salvador Trip report - 2/8

CaseyMarshWR4

Making progress in my cabin project 😉 Yesterday I was supposed to be cutting rafters and mounting them on the ridge but it didn't go as planned - I found a good deal on windows in a local depot. It took me couple of hours to bring them over. Later in the day I laid down some plywood on the walls as I wasn't feeling like working at height 😅

Today I'm working on the roof, no excuses 😉 Already managed to mount two first rafters.

![more plywood on the walls](https://i.ibb.co/1R22X9m/more-plywood-on-the-walls.jpg)
![ridge with first rafters](https://i.ibb.co/0DLx8gr/ridge-with-first-rafters.jpg)
![windows are here](https://i.ibb.co/2jXM88m/windows-are-here.jpg)

Have a good one!


"Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book.” ― Marcus Tullius Cicero 

For modern generations, we could probably change the last bit to 'making a tiktok', instead of a book, but the point stands.

It seems like all older generations see the next generation as soft, weak, decadent, or a combination of all of them.

My question is, are we always getting softer on aggregate? Ii mean I'm sure a ww2 vet would be horrified at my lack of ability to survive in the woods, then again, maybe it's just because as time goes by, we just have different things we prioritize that make us money or help us relax?

I mean, I even think of my 20-something cousins as soft af because they have zero attention span and can't even have a normal human-human interaction without a device.

What do you guys think?

![](https://m.stacker.news/63195)



Does the older generation always think the subsequent generations are soft?

Why did the btc talk forum stop being the main hub for all things btc? i mean, i can see it's still alive and people are posting, but it seems the OGs left long ago and the action seems to now be on nostr

is this just because forums lost their popularity over a decade ago, a natural migration, or something else?

