pull down to refresh
11 sats \ 5 replies \ @cliftonbride 3 Apr 2022 \ on: I'm John Carvalho, AKA BitcoinErrorLog, CEO at Synonym AMA bitcoin
I think stablecoins on bitcoin are a terrible idea, and potentially an existential risk. If stablecoins become widely accepted the issuer has immense influence over forks. This is doubly so because the users of these stablecoins likely don’t value Bitcoin’s inherent use case ( censorship resistance) or they wouldn’t be using stablecoins. So that culminates in a bunch of people who don’t really care about bitcoin using it and paying mining fees to do so and the issuer of said stablecoin getting to point those users’ mining fees at whatever fork they want, causing a larger financial incentive to mine on their side of the fork. What are the problems with this argument?
Stablecoins started on Bitcoin and never left and never had any influence on its code/health or the code of any other blockchain afaik.
Understand that every Bitcoin transaction is an abstraction of unknown value that the traders can ascribe any value to they choose. This is just how BItcoin works, you don't get to decide how people use it, or even know for sure. You are worrying about things that cannot be controlled.
You think a bunch of traders trading Bitcoin on exchanges or BlockFi yield or GBTC is any better?
The real attacks are coming from nocoiners, Big Banks, PoS shitcoins, and people that do not use the Bitcoin blockchain.
If you'd like to learn more about why we think tokens are important, listen to our recent Spaces about it, or my recent interview with Stephan Livera or Lunaticoin.
reply
Thank you for your response, John.
every Bitcoin transaction is an abstraction of unknown value
The only value that matters (as the block subsidy fades) as far as miners are concerned is transaction fees, which is why I’m not really worried about bitcoin in exchanges, etc.
You make an argument that bitcoin has always had stablecoins so it’s a non issue, but that totally neglects the dwindling block subsidy. Things that may not have seemed like a problem could very well become a problem when miners solely subsist off fees.
Lastly, I admit that i cannot decide how you use the blockchain.
People seem to think that bitcoin is immortal or “inevitable” and nothing they do can fuck it up.
Imagine tether on bitcoin/lightning is so wildly successful that the majority of usd settles on bitcoin. Do you really think bitcoin (as a censorship resistant money) survives that?
reply
You have it backwards. More people using Bitcoin for more purposes supports the block rewards in fees. You can't use Bitcoin without paying fees, even if you use it for tokens. Tokens add txns.
If you want to be concerned about fees being taken offchain, why don't you hate Lightning itself?
Yes, I think Bitcoin would not only "survive" your scenario, but thrive in it.
reply
Well I’m sorry you might be delusional then. Think on it more and I will as well. Thank you for your time.
reply
That is not an argument, it is an insult.
reply