Me trying to build Bitcoin/Lightning projects that:
- Don't custody user funds
- Don't leak users private info
- Don't get my users rugged
- Don't dox my users to 3rd parties
- Don't get me arrested for money transmission
pull down to refresh
related posts
1870 sats \ 0 replies \ @tkthundr 23 Jan
- actually have users
reply
442 sats \ 0 replies \ @Malachi17 23 Jan
- Try to have morals toward other lifeforms other than self.
reply
471 sats \ 4 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 23 Jan
A list that's hard to check off.
Good luck ðŸ¤
reply
1195 sats \ 3 replies \ @bitcoinplebdev OP 23 Jan
Just funny how I could jump over into Solana land in a second and take all of these tradeoffs/shortcuts and no one would bat an eye lol
Bitcoiners just have higher standards, and that's a good thing but damn does it make it hard from an app dev perspective.
reply
1532 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury 23 Jan
It makes you think, or at least it should. If btc is useful, it's bc of these sacrifices it made in its design; so then building something on top of something useful is hard, but if you can do it, that thing will also be useful.
Solana and other centralized chains are not useful in the same way that btc is useful -- they violate the principles around decentralization in service of the things that that's in service of, so if they're useful, it must be in some other way that is not clear to me. Even if you can build way more apps on top of it, you've built it on a foundation that may not have any real purpose to exist.
Except! If you build stuff that is so useful that it gives the underlying a reason to exist. In this case: exactly how decentralized, and in what aspects of decentralization, must the underlying be, to usefully support the app built on top of it? Btc goes as far as you can go. But do you always have to go that far? If the btc ecosystem is pure in a way that Solana is not, is it clear that such purity is required for all use cases?
I am very confused by many things in life, but one thing I don't think that I'm confused about is that there will be a gradient of these tradeoffs that prove useful, as demonstrated by their continuing existence in the real world. I know btc is useful and will stay useful. I don't know how true that is for other things, but I'm convinced there will be more than zero of them kicking around a decade from now.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @joda 23 Jan
Agreed, if it's not fully decentralized:
- It might as well just be a business
- It is a security, with everything that implies.
I haven't looked at it recently, but Hedera was basically a company with a patented and decentralized blockchain, doing ledgers for big companies. I think that model worked fine. However, you can't call hedera "money".
Likewise Eth isn't money. Some great stuff could come out of the project anyway. But with so many of these alts, I just don't see why it couldn't be a company with redundant servers, like Google or Amazon. What does "decentralization" get you when there's a controlling entity obligated to government?
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 23 Jan
If it was easy, it wouldn't be funny ðŸ¤
reply
410 sats \ 0 replies \ @stackerhacker 23 Jan
It’s hard too when you try to avoid custody with your project but just end up driving users into another custodial app or wallet
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 23 Jan
When problems are over constrained it can be hard to make progress. It can help to remove or relax requirements and get more clarity on what solutions look like. All of these seem like worthwhile things to design for, but some of them might be irrelevant depending on what the solution looks like.
When constraints get in the way, design something that works well without regard for the constraints, then apply constraints while attempting to maintain the design.
A bitcoin history example: Bitcoin "removed" dynamic emissions from b-money that Wei thought were necessary. The requirement was so burdensome on its own it obscured solving things that were more important.
reply