LRC-20 - a new approach to tokenization on Lightning \ stacker news ~lightning

pull down to refresh

Darth, I seek your wisdom. Someone almost persuaded me that stablecoins are good because they save innocent companies and individuals from going bankrupt when bitcoin's volatility swings the wrong way. Why is this argument wrong? https://twitter.com/super_testnet/status/1780309170115272874

343 sats \ 5 replies \ @DarthCoin 17 Apr

FIAT DELENDA EST. Please watch this short presentation by @jimmysong, why fiat delenda est. Bitcoin was created to get rid of fiat and govs. If you do not agree with this, then we cannot continue this discussion. You are just another fiat maxi. Bitcoin is not useful for you other than obtaining more fiat gainz. That means you will endlessly be a debt slave.
Stablecoins are just digital fiat, in other words, crap coins. Using them means you are still supporting the fiat system, aka slavery system. You are literally fooling yourself, thinking that you will still "survive" in a fiat world keeping the value in fiat money. That means you have a short sight, living only in today.
Stablecoins are a scam ! Are the fractional reserve of the fractional reserve. The scam of the scam. By using them, you are prolonging the scam to exist.
Stablecoins are the precursor of CBDCs, are a preparation to what they want to implement. Is like an accommodation of people mind to use them, slowly boiling frogs. REJECT BY ALL MEANS THIS TRAP!
Companies, merchants that accept BTC, should use those sats as savings, as reserves. There's no need to sell the sats immediately. A regular merchant will not have from day 1 all sales in BTC, will barely be 1-5%, let's be honest, not everybody wants to pay in sats. That means they can easily keep those sats as savings without affecting their regular cash flow. Slowly if their income in BTC grow, then they can start paying their employees in BTC, then suppliers. This is a long process, done with patience, lot of education and using proper tools. Saying that companies are losing their capital by keeping BTC is really dumb. But hey, if they do not want and understand those BTC, I will be happy to take them... more sats for me.
https://m.stacker.news/26968

As I said many times... Bitcoin is not for everybody, is only for the brave, not for the weak.

https://i.postimg.cc/bw6G5G5V/darth-advice-apprentice.jpg

1037 sats \ 4 replies \ @supertestnet 17 Apr

That means they can easily keep those sats as savings without affecting their regular cash flow.

This is a point I'd like to discuss further. Imagine an online store selling homemade clothes. A poor person can start such a company and needs to accept payments somehow. I've built software for doing this with bitcoin.

Such businesses have expenses, namely: shipping costs, cost of purchasing materials, and perhaps the cost of splitting the proceeds with an employee or friend who is helping make the clothes. I imagine a poor person starting such a company with next to nothing. They have negligible savings, let's suppose zero savings. But they've made shirts before, and have pictures of them, so they can upload those to the internet, accept payment online for new orders, then order the materials, make the shirts, and take the shirts to the post office to ship them.

Now let's suppose they accept bitcoin but not stablecoins. They started their business a few days ago, when bitcoin was $75k. They got $100 in sales, enough to pay for $90 in expenses with $10 left which they hope to split with their friend to eat and sleep somewhere. Today they go to buy the materials and lo and behold, bitcoin dropped to $60k, so their $100 earnings are now only worth $80. They can't afford to buy the materials nor do they have anything left over to eat or pay rent. They are bankrupt and now instead of making money, they are in debt: they owe their customers some shirts but they cannot afford to make them.

Instead of this catastrophe, let's suppose they either accept stablecoins directly or convert their bitcoins to stablecoins. In this case, their $100 is still worth $100. True, next year it will only be worth $95, and there's a rugpull risk since Tether might steal it. But these risks, including the slow depreciation, seems like a small price to pay if it means the person is still in business and can actually begin to accrue savings.

What is wrong with this imagined scenario? Is anything in that description fantastic or unlikely? Is the merchant wrong to think stablecoins are a good way to increase his chances of success? Is he a slave if he decides the risk of rugs and inflation is worth it? Accepting stablecoins or converting his bitcoins to them may save him from going bankrupt if bitcoin rapidly falls in value. As a tradeoff, he has to trust Tether corp, and if he holds these stablecoins for a year they will be worth about 5% less. I sympathize with this imaginary merchant and I'm beginning to think it is wise to make "convert to stablecoins" an option for him in his store interface.

12 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 17 Apr

That right there is a fiat mentality. You are going around the same circle but never get out of it. And that's why we will never ever have bitcoin adoption. We always go back to fiat value.

Look I've been there... many years I was struggling to get the fuck out of fiat. Until I start earning in sats only. Then my other struggle was, where to spend them. So I start convincing almost everybody around me to accept them. For a while I used intermediary services that will accept my sats and pay my fiat bills.

But I never start thinking again in fiat terms, how much x sats will give me tomorrow or after tomorrow. I just start thinking only in sats. This is how I live only using bitcoin. I move away from fiat terms. Is a disease.

If that merchant can't do that, then better just stay in fiat, forget about Bitcoin. All are we doing with bitcoin is for nothing if people always go back to fiat mindset. I will always say: Bitcoin is NOT for everyone, only for brave. You don't have balls, please step away.

Someday people will remember my words.

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @supertestnet 17 Apr freebie

For a while I used intermediary services that will accept my sats and pay my fiat bills.

That's what my imaginary merchant wants to do. He isn't trying to think about it in fiat terms at all. He doesn't look at his expenses and say "The materials will cost me $90," he looks at his expenses and says "The materials will cost me 120,000 sats." <-- which was true when he earned the bitcoin. But when he actually goes to make the purchase, the intermediary service shows him a different price: the shirts now cost 150,000 sats.

Which he doesn't have, he can't afford it, not due to any fault of his own, but because bitcoin fell in price. What should this imaginary merchant have done? Was he thinking too much in fiat terms, even though he never thought of fiat? How would you have acted differently, with the right mentality? His competitor Jimmy converted to stablecoins and can still afford to stay in business. What did the imaginary merchant do wrong? And is he wrong or a victim of slave mentality if he thinks, "Next time I'll convert to stablecoins too"?

133 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 17 Apr freebie

What did our imaginary merchant do wrong?

The only wrong thing he's doing is that is thinking in short terms. I did that too in the early days of my "earning in sats". I always tried to make the conversion for short term. Until I said... wait a minute... the value inn sats of an item is always going down, so I will always pay less sats for the same product. I just have to be patient.

https://i.postimg.cc/7LF0qWzw/magic-internet-money.jpg

this is a meme, but based on a real post on reddit, those are facts

So I start doing the following:

put in an excel all sats I earned during x period, each date etc
put the value in fiat of each earned sat
put the expenses I've done, in sats too, with the conversion in fiat

Then I start, spending only the amount of sats I earned in the past with a lower fiat price. You understand what I mean? It means I was literally spending less sats than I earned. When the price was going down a bit, I stopped or delayed the spending as much as I could. When I was about to charge a bill to my clients, I was trying to delay sending those invoices until the price get a nice dip, so I could take more sats. In this way I achieved a way to spend less sats than I earned.

Until one day when I gave up and delete that excel file and I said, fuck it, I will only try to spend less sats than I earned in x period. Done. My only worry was to spend less than previous period and maximize my earnings in sats.

Now, your merchant should have a focus on:

save little by little the sats he receives
pay the bills he have to pay using intermediaries that could take his sats and pay his bills. That means, he will never have to open a bank account or touch shitcoins. These intermediaries could be even YOU, your friend, take his sats and pay his bills with your dirty fiat.

Here is a list with more intermediaries, from which I suggest shopinbit.com

I am still trying to spend the sats I earned in 2016... just saying. So imagine how so called inflation is "killing" me :)

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @amaluenda 17 Apr

Thank you Darth for tirelessly saying this again and again. This reminds me of why this particular small cafe only accepts Bitcoin as payment:

https://geyser.fund/project/satscafe

11 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 17 Apr

TLDR: only morons and losers are advocating for use of stablecoins. @remindme 1 year

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 17 Apr

TLDR: only morons and losers are advocating for use of stablecoins. @remindme 1 year I find stablecoins useful as a transition phase to hyperbitcoinisation. I dgaf about Bitcoin's swings, but if I earned 5$ per day and lived on that (some people do), a 30% reduction of my remaining balance would mean a lot to me, could be a life-changing movement. Of course, so is a 30% increase. A censorship-resistant, free to use stablecoin with cheap transfer fees could prove very useful to poor people.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 17 Apr

I find stablecoins useful as a transition phase to hyperbitcoinisation.

That is a bullshit myth. Meanwhile you are using stablecoins you will NEVER EVER be sovereign and will never have hyperbitcoinization. Is like saying "oh I want total freedom, but I still go to vote politicians... and pay taxes" an oxymoronic thing.

https://i.postimg.cc/zX2ZDQD1/vader-sovereign-adoption.jpg

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @nout 17 Apr

To be fair I also provided counter arguments 😉

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 17 Apr

That's not a good argument for stablecoins.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @nout 17 Apr

In the twitter threads I had arguments against stablecoins too :)

21 sats \ 5 replies \ @TheWildHustle 16 Apr

Ha! Hey Darth, I'll trade you 2 new rare bitcoin L2's and an LRC-20 derivative, for 3 runes and an RGB shitcoin.

68 sats \ 4 replies \ @DarthCoin 16 Apr

Sorry I sold all my bitcoin for social credits. Are more valuable now.

https://m.stacker.news/26944

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @TheWildHustle 16 Apr

Ah social credits.

I've been investing in compliance tokens.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 16 Apr

ah yes, compliance tokens are quite rare, I'll give you 20 social credits for 1 CT. We need @podconf to put more CT in circulation.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheWildHustle 16 Apr

Deal! Hahahaha TheWildHustle’s gonna be so rich.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @oomahq 17 Apr

Based

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BlokchainB 16 Apr

😂

25 sats \ 0 replies \ @Catcher 16 Apr

Finally we can get rid of ordinals on the main chain

125 sats \ 3 replies \ @nerd2ninja 16 Apr

"Option for freezing and unfreezing: an LRC-20 token issuer can opt into the ability to freeze and unfreeze LRC-20 tokens"

I swear I take psychic damage every time I read one of these things lmao

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @kevin 16 Apr

Depends on how it's implemented I guess - if it's decided when the token is created and can't be changed after the fact then I don't see any harm in this.

3 sats \ 1 reply \ @nerd2ninja 16 Apr

Well in that case the harm would become "Is this information communicated to the user"