pull down to refresh
what did i say that you feel attacked or hurt?
Example:
you definitely said CC = sats on sn
Instead of taking what I said at face value (that I'm not trying to deceive you, you even quoted that back at me) you, as a counterargument, literally change my argument and then ascribe it to me. To be clear, no, I definitely did not say "CC = sats on sn". So either you were lost, or you are trolling. If you then continue to make "people like me" responsible for the fact that there are CCs, you are probably trolling.
I agree with you that USDT != USD. I agree with you that CCs != sats. I agree with you that zapping with CCs is not the same as zapping with sats. The value is interchangeable though, proven by the fact that if you would zap me for 10 sats, and you have 7 CCs, you'd spend the 7 and then 3 sats over LN... it's 1:1 pegged - for now. It could change; I said that too.
But I didn't say that it was the same and I even said that it's an undesirable situation. I'd not use CCs if there were a good solution that is usable for me with a connected LN wallet. Unfortunately, the closest wallet currently is Zeus and it doesn't work well for production for me yet (they also launched this feature only last month, so it needs time to mature.)
i am sorry i misrepresented you, that was not my intention and i really thought you said cc = sats, but i didn't check, that is also probably why it didn't make any sense to me...
i guess we only disagree on the point of custodial lightning wallets. you prefer to use sn as a custodial for cc instead of a custodial ightning wallet for sats
No, it's not custodial for me because it is not a wallet for me. This is what you misunderstand. It's like a prepaid phone to me. I just put in some sats which I can only use (as CCs) and when its running low I put in more, which is 3-4x per week.
i think i get what you're saying, but fail to see why you wouldn't just load a custodial lightning wallet 3-4x per week. a rugpull can happen with sn and the ln wallet. what am i missing?
lol — i don't like them either. are you completely against banks as a principle?
how do you think bitcoin will scale without custodians?
are you completely against banks as a principle?
Yes. That's what Bitcoin is for. I quote:
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash SystemBitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution.
Note the following words:
- purely
- sent directly from one party to another
- without going through a financial institution.
So if I wanted to send you sats, as opposed to upzapping your content, I would not use SN. The territory owner takes 21% of each zap and 9% goes to rewards minus LN fees, so it is very costly to use SN to send someone sats. I know that there is the idea that it should support marketplaces (k00b confirmed that the other day), but because of the core value add of SN (community building) needing sybil resistance, it will unlikely ever be a good financial middleman.
Also, financial middlemen are against Bitcoin. I have a direct LN channel with SN for my topups (I have a dedicated embedded lnd for it, so it's fine really) I do not burden other people's liquidity with my transactions on SN. This is the most awesome thing, because that liquidity can now be used for meaningful things like a kid buying a sandwich. They need that sandwich more than you or I need assmilked sats from comments.
how do you think bitcoin will scale without custodians?
As it always has? Note that "people like me", who hate banks, governments and basically anyone trying to tell someone else what to do, generally don't believe in the Bitcoin Standard bullshit coming from Mr. Ammous. So it scaled fine, and it will scale fine in the future. LN has much more capacity than is used. All the panic over scaling is people trying to sell you something [fee]
like their custodial wallet, so that you pay them fees, whereas between SN and me, I pay 0 fees, and SN pays 0 fees too. Isn't the life of a self-custody maxi beautiful? ↩
to find truth through logic and reason i am not sure how helpful it is to look at a paper written in 2008. but let's go with that
- do you consider routing in ln purely p2p?
- is a ln node that routes payments a middlemen?
LN has much more capacity than is used
so we could assmilk and let the kid buy his sandwich
As it always has?
are you saying because bitcoin scaled in the past it will scale in the future?
you are describing the ideal scenario where you have a direct channel with sn, but i guess you agree, that this is not viable/practical for all sn users right?
And yet you admit that unless you use a custodial wallet like coinos you cannot conveniently attach a self custodial wallet to SNs.
So clearly self custodial wallets are not yet up to the task of frequent convenient and reliable low value P2P payments- but custodial ones are...so lets support them!
When I tell non BTC friends about how I can make these micro payments on SNs and Predyx they are genuinely impressed and interested- their fiat banks cannot manage such direct, low cost, frequent global payments- but BTC/LN can.
IMO SNs and Predyx are great gateways for more people to come and experience using sats P2P and if we can build a strong P2P culture on SNs using attached wallets it is advancing P2P BTC liquidity and adoption.
Hopefully eventually self custodial wallets will catch up but for people new to BTC or people like me who are not technically minded I suggest that using custodial for low value frequent use cases like SNs is appropriate and is supporting the develoment that needs to happen. Using CCs is just a cop out after all the work that SNs have gont to develop the wallet attachment functionality.
System grow and develop because people use them and die because they dont.
Let's us LN now and help it grow and develop.
it was a civilized conversation and now you are attacking me. calling me a troll. what did i say that you feel attacked or hurt? i am sorry about that and you are right, i misunderstood that you were saying cc have the same value as sats. but that just proves my point, that whoever uses cc on sn doesn't use bitcoin, cause apples are not pears