As Bitcoin changed my life totally (please read the story here), now I will try to help others to change their life too (read this thread - Pay it forward. For good, with Bitcoin.
If you want to change the world, be the example, do it yourself, do not wait for others to do the job.
For the record, I'm not entirely convinced the Minny Fed paper is meant to be an attack on bitcoin. It actually demonstrates one of Bitcoiners' main tenets, which is that Bitcoin's presence can restrain the government's ability to run perpetual deficits.
But I agree with you that we shouldn't be complacent about bitcoin's incentive structures. Even now, battles are being fought over what types of data should be included in the blockspace, and what can/should be done about it...
It's worth pointing out that recent advances in language models make it easy to authentically parrot talking points and fool niche communities into believing you care about their issues
Politicians love it when people think they "really care"
Does anyone else have the feeling that just about everything that's been happening since Bitcoin made it's debut on the NYSE has been an attack on Bitcoin? Even COVID-19? Even Ukraine/Russia? I'm very worried what they will do as fiat nears it's end and they begin acting irrationally out of desperation.
No I don't think they care that much about bitcoin yet.
afaict they only care enough to do the easy stuff.
Not sure I want to wade into this one fully, but, I think you misunderstand the capability of the Lightning Network to provide scale.
Yes, it can provide an "unlimited" number of transactions. Lightning does an amazing job scaling the number of payments between parties that have a UTXO. Also yes, it's conceivable that the cost of opening a Lightning channel will be worth the cost, even on an individual basis, for quite awhile longer.
The problem isn't about cost, exactly (though the issues are related). The problem is throughput. It is the sheer number of UTXOs required to use the Lightning Network this way. We simply cannot make enough Lightning Channels for individuals, at scale, to have ownership over their bitcoin with a self-custody Lightning UTXO.
Arguing about cost isn't going to change that fact. You may be fine with this, and it's an arguable point, but what you're really saying is that custodial solutions are the way most people will use bitcoin going forward.
Personalized ranking can’t come soon enough
https://imgprxy.stacker.news/F4LLrE0WBaZqIsVS_mg-V7uV4bI_JsP7Kg2MZ7jTZKQ/rs:fit:600:500:0/g:no/aHR0cHM6Ly9pLnBvc3RpbWcuY2MvbmNoNjdrZ3cvREFSVEgtaGVscGVyLmpwZw
As Bitcoin changed my life totally (please read the story here), now I will try to help others to change their life too (read this thread - Pay it forward. For good, with Bitcoin.
If you want to change the world, be the example, do it yourself, do not wait for others to do the job.
Make POS point of sale instead of proof of stake again XD I was so confused for minute.
For the record, I'm not entirely convinced the Minny Fed paper is meant to be an attack on bitcoin. It actually demonstrates one of Bitcoiners' main tenets, which is that Bitcoin's presence can restrain the government's ability to run perpetual deficits.
But I agree with you that we shouldn't be complacent about bitcoin's incentive structures. Even now, battles are being fought over what types of data should be included in the blockspace, and what can/should be done about it...
Kevin Rooke @kr of course!
It's worth pointing out that recent advances in language models make it easy to authentically parrot talking points and fool niche communities into believing you care about their issues
Politicians love it when people think they "really care"
Try not to be fooled
No I don't think they care that much about bitcoin yet.
afaict they only care enough to do the easy stuff.
Not sure I want to wade into this one fully, but, I think you misunderstand the capability of the Lightning Network to provide scale.
Yes, it can provide an "unlimited" number of transactions. Lightning does an amazing job scaling the number of payments between parties that have a UTXO. Also yes, it's conceivable that the cost of opening a Lightning channel will be worth the cost, even on an individual basis, for quite awhile longer.
The problem isn't about cost, exactly (though the issues are related). The problem is throughput. It is the sheer number of UTXOs required to use the Lightning Network this way. We simply cannot make enough Lightning Channels for individuals, at scale, to have ownership over their bitcoin with a self-custody Lightning UTXO.
Arguing about cost isn't going to change that fact. You may be fine with this, and it's an arguable point, but what you're really saying is that custodial solutions are the way most people will use bitcoin going forward.