pull down to refresh
10 sats \ 3 replies \ @sethforprivacy OP 1 Jun 2022 \ parent \ on: A List of Proposed Bitcoin Privacy Improvements | sethforprivacy.com bitcoin
It certainly has a much more interesting set of pros/cons than Liquid, but I just can't really get behind any type of custodial model myself.
I also have deep concerns about how it will open up the federation members to regulatory or legal risk for easy money transmission prosecution, something that is obviously garbage but could be leveraged to harm Bitcoin/Bitcoiners if Fedimint got enough usage.
I think many Bitcoiners are deeply sceptical towards everything that reduces Bitcoins elegance of simplicity. Buzzwords like "side chain" or "federation" just scream shitoinery.
reply
Most Bitcoiners are not skeptical of Lightning which is far more complex than most side-chain proposals.
It's less skepticism and more "what do thought leaders push for". The key difference here is people need to very clearly understand the custodianship implications of federations like Fedimint.
reply
Yes, LN is far more complex. But it is not custodial, so it's not somehow irrational to treat it entirely differently to fedimint or federated sidechains.
There's relevant history that I think people are overlooking.
Do people remember OT (Open Transactions) or even earlier pre-bitcoin implementations like Truledger, Loom? When I asked elsirion at the El Salvador conference he hadn't heard of OT.
Honestly I don't bring that up as a dig against people, it's more to me important to try to learn: what is it about these constructions that somehow hasn't gained traction in past iterations, even if on paper the properties they offered are very attractive? The natural conclusion is: ruthless removal of central points of failure is the key thing, and federation generally doesn't cut it, unless we can find some new twist.
reply