:D

I love it.

Thanks for not dissapointing!

Hey, @DarthCoin. You gonna smite on this one too??

Hey OP, answer this question.

I can't vote cuz I can't tell if you're asking what we are personally striving for, or what we expect the future to look like....

Exactly.

Sounds like a good way to get Jekyll Island Worm too.

Pfft. You're just salty cuz you don't have a tat as tardigreat as that one.

Shit, not only the "average person" has this problem, but the average Bitcoiner as well!

If this crowd won't even to go out of their way to stop using fiat, how can we ever expect it to propagate to the average person?

If the goal isn't to bring an end to fiat money, then what are we really doing here?

Everyone here should be inclined to click option 2. If you you're part of the 17% who clicked option 1, fuck you. Seriously.

While I was inclined to click option 2, I selected option 3 because I'm beginning to doubt that Bitcoin will ever be able to scale enough, from a technological perspective. Every L2/L3 solution seems to come with a large amount of centralization and the potential for paper-Bitcoin, re-hypothecation, and state-control. They also come with a lot of extra learning/overhead for normies. If we can't make it as easy to use as Visa/Venmo, it's not going to succeed because the average person doesn't care about financial mumbo-jumbo and will always choose convenience even if it's bad for them.

So, I'm in camp option 2 with the caveat that we still need to make it technologically possible to accomplish.

I think I see your point there, and you make some good ones.

Couldn't there be an extremely public ceremony at the setup of a city's mint whereby hundreds of third parties are present to validate the creation and distribution of the keys?

Just like our previous conversation, I feel like you're talking about Federations which exist today, where I'm trying to discuss hypothetical future federations which are setup "properly".

I also admit these will never be as good as cold-storage, self custody. That should be a given. We're discussing a Layer 3, so I shouldn't have to act like BTC level of security is desirable or necessary.

So, can't you have a hypothetical discussion about how a Federated Mint could be setup in a manner that I call "proper"? I'm not sure it's possible... but I am sure you aren't even trying.

Perhaps what I should be asking is: Can you not consider a hypothetical scenario whereby a Federated Mint is setup in such a way that offers FAR more security to the lowest economical person on the planet, than the current system today does? If the hurdle to beat is the current fiat banking system, how can you not see that Fedimints can easily beat such a low bar??

No it's not. It can potentially be far more decentralized and secure than custodial lighting.

Custodial LN == Single Sig

Fedimint == Multi-Sig with potentially hundreds of key holders

Both can be rug pulled. But Custodial LN makes it really super easy to rug-pull.

I instantly love you. And that's an awesome writeup about Lugano. I hope to go there soon.

I have a similar setup as you. Start9, not Umbrel. And I'm using Zues. I have successfully used it in multiple countries, even though my node is running in the US.

I used to get an RPC failed connection error on Zues, ALL the time. But it has greatly improved.

However, my brother's new node is the exact same as mine, with the same software versions running. His Zues fails to connect whenever he's not at home. Their home internet SUCKS compared to mine. But slower latency shouldn't completely stop it from working.

Another anecdote: When I went to Roatan last year to spend Sats, my node at home had a small issue. It was brand new, and needed a manufacturer update immediately when I got it to prevent it from shutting itself down every 10 hours. I wasn't aware of this, and left for my trip. Once I got there, I was in the dark. I couldn't use my Lightning wallet, and was forced to purchase some on Strike to use wherever I went. It was a huge bummer.... and a huge lesson. Nothing beats Layer 1 for ease of use and reliability.

Also.... LN will be centralized for 99% of people because they will choose reliability and ease over sovereignty. This goes for merchants and individuals.

LN is amazing, I love it. But it's not (yet) the scaling solution we were promised.

No, I don't think it's the price to transact that is the issue.

I think it's more about the EASE to transact.

Using Bitcoin on the base chain was a new skill that millions of people have learned to do. It works offline, just send to the recipient's address.

Lightning is 1000x harder to use. You have to be online. You have to open/close channels. You have to consider inbound and outbound liquidity. Then, you have to figure out how to connect your phone to your node so you can spend anywhere you go. Sure, LN works great when I'm at home using my node. But using it self-custodially, away from my house only works half the time. Sure, it's improved A LOT since 2020, but it's still unusable.

I have set up a few local merchants on their own, self custodial LN nodes. I have ended up being the manager and maintainer of them. I realized that it's way too difficult for the average store owner. It's not going to work in a self-custodial way.

From now on, I've just been recommending new merchants use a custodial solution like CashApp to take LN payments. It's just 1000x easier. Exactly what the Creature-from-Jekyll-Island wants us to do. And, apparently, exactly what Bitcoiners like @justin_shocknet want. Pushing people to custodial solutions, even though Fedimint is a great middle ground that improves on custodial LN, even though it's not perfect.

Layer 2's and 3's need to be as easy to use as the base layer. Otherwise, I believe, they will never work. Visa/Venmo/Fiat will continue to dominate. Especially sense Bitcoiners themselves seem too lazy to fight back very hard against fiat. It's just too convenient, I guess.

Lots of things are scams. Fedimint is a protocol. It can be used to scam, but it's not inherently a scam.

If setup properly, it can be 1000x less of a scam than local banks are today. It can be done in a manner that brings the risk to users down to nearly zero. Better than most fiat systems we have today.

Sure, it's not base-layer Bitcoin level of security. But for fuck's sake, if you people aren't going to allow SOME centralization in the L2's and L3's, then I guess Roger Ver was right and it's time to start talking about scaling the block-size. Something's gotta give.

edit: (I consider Fedimint an L3 and LN an L2.). We're talking about scaling to the people who would never run their own nodes, even if their lives depend on it. We're talking about making Bitcoin a MoE without all the control and centralization the fiat system has today. It's not going to be perfect or pretty. You're going to have to allow some room for "rug-pulls", even if the risk is low. It's still 1000x better than what 99% of people have today and you're actively working against it.

Honestly, because the revolutionary spirit that created Bitcoin seems to have died out.

The end of fiat is and must be the goal. Is that what you see Bitcoiners working toward today? Or are they too busy using Visa debit cards that give Bitcoin rewards, and developing fiat loan businesses using Bitcoin as collateral, and developing ETF's. How many Bitcoiners have used BTCmap.org? How many are actually running their own nodes, including managing their own LN channels? How many are actively working to support local businesses accepting Bitcoin instead of ones that don't? How many are willing to take up arms against their government for attempting to tax Bitcoin transactions? There's no revolution anymore..... peaceful, or otherwise.

"The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters, had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of the colonies to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III the international bankers was the prime reason for the revolutionary war."

Maybe the next generation will have the guts to STOP using fiat and take up arms if need be. But this one doesn't.

Music to my ears. Glad to see someone else voicing this opinion.

I would agree with you except......

... The problem I'm seeing is that medium-of-exchange is simply not possible without extreme centralization. I'm willing to wait for a future where it comes, if it's technically possible. But I'm starting to disbelieve that it is possible. Roger Ver's "Hijacking Bitcoin" points might actually hold some water. A nefarious group has worked hard to ensure that BTC can never, ever become a MoE.

I say this as someone who has fought hard for layer 2's. I've been running my own LN node for years, and I have used it to spend Bitcoin at hundreds of locations around the world, using Zues connected to my own node.

But I am rare. I've realized that we need to build a digital currency for the masses.... not for nerds like me. For example, I set my bother up recently with his own LN node. But every time he tries to connect Zues when he's away from home, he gets an RPC connection error! Even on my node, I get the same error often, and have to restart Lightning Terminal on my node. It's unreliable, mostly. It's semi-reliable... IF you're already super tech savvy. But for those who aren't, it's just never going to work.

So that leaves centralized, custodial Lightning. Which is worse than Fedimints, and yet, people here like @justin_shocknet are massively against the public using Fedimints (which I happen to view as the only serious scaling option available and we should be figuring out more ways to make it work instead of demonizing it). I can't believe we're going to funnel people into custodial Lightning instead of supporting Fedimint. I also can't believe we're going to refuse to upgrade the base layer with obvious things like CTV. We're going to ossify, and simultaneously demonize Fedimints. This is the end of Bitcoin.

We're shooting ourselves in the foot. Centralization/custodians are everything we are against. But without some centralization/custodians, Bitcoin will never, EVER be anything more than SoV.

There were dozens of attempts to create digital currency before Bitcoin, and they all failed because they lacked some key elements. Bitcoin solves so many of the issues they were dealing with. But I'm starting to think that we still need one or two more breakthroughs. Bitcoin is not going to cut it. And Bitcoiners have grown arrogant and complacent. The ground is starting to look shaky to me.

I'm not a big-blocker. I believe Bitcoin's goal should be to replace base money, not necessarily replace coffee money. But in its current form, it won't even be able to support 2% of the world using it as SoV, savings tech! We can handle a few more upgrades before ossifying, and we should.

I agree. I'm more concerned, and I'm more bearish than I've ever been since I got in, years ago.

As you say, the author admits they don't have a solution.

I have a proposal for a solution: Take a few lessons from the big-blockers. Listen to what they have to say, and find a middle ground. They are correct that there was more momentum toward adoption in 2015 than there is now. They are correct that using Bitcoin as a medium-of-exchange is what it will take for it to "succeed" the way Satoshi intended. They are in-correct in their technical implementations. They misunderstand a lot and have a lot of blind-spots. But for fuck's sake, as the author of this article articulates, BTC maxis also have some serious blind spots and bias. I agree.

The solution to the author's dilemma is to push harder toward scaling Bitcoin as a MoE. Stop pushing for ossification!!!. Bitcoin is NOT ready to ossify. A few more scaling-focused upgrades need to happen.

I really enjoyed this article. It articulates what has been swirling around in my mind for the past few months. I'm starting to get very worried about the future of Bitcoin. The louder the NGU maxis get, the more worried I become. To me, the problem is starting to get dire. Not "increase the block-size" level of dire.... but way more fucking dire than the average Bitcoiner seems to think.

It's such a nuanced topic.

There are major pros and cons with discovery algorithms.

Ultimately, having them set by some central authority goes against the ethos of Nostr/Bitcoin. But not having them at all will probly mean Nostr never appeals to a wider audience and will continue suffering from the points you make. It's a lose/lose situation, and it's making me sad.

Last I heard, there were some discovery algorithm settings being developed as a NIP to get into the protocol. I am skeptical that they will be used widely. The individuals have to set their preferences which most are too lazy to bother with.

We don't want to be controlled, but we don't want to take control. We don't want a centralized company showing us what it wants us to see and censoring based on its preferences or government mandate. But without discovery algorithms, how does information propagate.... how do people discover new things? How do we challenge ourselves?

Personally, I've been using the "global" view on Nostr more often lately. That way I see everything. But, this is also annoying and inefficient, for obvious reasons.

I dunno... I'm interested in digging deeper into the nuances of this topic, but it's also not the top of my interest list. I see it as another trade-off discussion. In order to have censorship resistance we lose some other key things.

BTW, following you on Nostr now. So you got at least one new follower out of this.

What Nostr offers the world is FAR bigger than an X clone. Nostr is a no-brainer for decentralized, open-source platforms.

On the latests WBD episode, Mark Moss was talking about how he believes the world is just beginning to lean into decentralized, open-source and away from the centralized jungle we've been used to. If he's right, Nostr is what will be used as the authentication-layer and database layer for most of these open-source apps. Only AFTER people are using their Nostr keys to login to pay their tax bill will people start seeing how easy it is to use the same login for their social media.

At the first Nostrica event, I remember Jack Dorsey expressing regret for not creating Twitter "the right way" the first time. With decentralization, interoperability, and censorship-resistance in mind. But the capital markets were working against him. He had to go the centralized route if he wanted the funding.

Now, we need to teach the world to shift to a completely new way of doing the internet. A single login key for EVERYTHING on the internet. And data, such as friends/followers lists, which are always there regardless of which platform you're on at the moment. A deeper layer to social media that has been missing until now.

Nostr sucks, just like paying for something with on-chain Bitcoin kinda sucks. But we don't do it because it's easier. We do it cuz it's right. (or we don't do it at all cuz deep down we're just lazy NGU maximalists who can't be bothered learning new shit)