pull down to refresh

Remove the Shitcoins from Podcasting 2.0
330 sats \ 18 comments \ @nullcount 22 Aug 2022 bitcoin
Make Value4Value and podcasting 2.0 a Bitcoin-focused effort!
Show your support for this change to the documentation and maybe the maintainers will approve it.
Here's the PR https://github.com/Podcastindex-org/podcast-namespace/pull/383
Here's a TL;DR of the controversy so far...
The Podcasting 2.0 specification was designed to be open to alternative "currencies" to fulfill the value 4 value functions. However, most shitcoins would not work due to high fees and slow confirmations. The maintainers have chosen to name a specific shitcoin as an example of one currency that "could" be used to replace LN in a value4value implementation.
Some believe there's no harm in mentioning the shitcoin as an alternative, others believe it serves as an endorsement.
One contributor suggests to remove anything that isn't required to implement podcasts2.0 from the spec. There should be a separate section at the end for "future considerations" to mention the shitcoins.
What's your opinion?
write
preview
related posts
150 sats \ 0 replies \ @scampy 23 Aug 2022
Wherever you stand on whether alts should be included or not, it seems strange to explicitly mention Nano of all things.
reply
113 sats \ 1 reply \ @F 22 Aug 2022
Buncha shitcoiners in the comments
reply
3 sats \ 0 replies \ @dergigi 23 Aug 2022
imagine being a shitcoiner and signing up to SN lmao wtf
reply
15 sats \ 0 replies \ @Ge 23 Aug 2022
They can never let bitcoin have its cake n eat it too theres always gotta be a coin that does something better than bitcoin lol haha why am I not surprised someone saw an opening and took it with this shitcoinery...be gone! value 4 value only not value for caca
reply
5 sats \ 0 replies \ @guimozick 22 Aug 2022
Unnecessary, at the end of the day everyone will want bitcoin.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @2big2fail 22 Aug 2022
if someone wants to receive nano who cares? there is nothing compulsory about this and as a protocol any value should be acceptable based on the party asking for value and the party willing to send.
no one is going to stream monero but they may want taro (usd) when it is on lightning
reply
1 sat \ 5 replies \ @AJ1992 23 Aug 2022
Excuse me. You say most "shit coins" have slow confirmations and high fees? You know BTC is the one with 30 mins to an hour between blocks at times, no guarantee you're going to be in the next block regardless, and volatile fee sizing right? Look at LTC and Dash for instance, where you are always in the next block regardless of fee size, you can always send out at 1 sat/byte and you're always in the next block! That's less than half a penny! And the fee size is stable! Also, most other cryptocurrencies have moved to instant or almost instant confirmations.. so don't come on here and lie to try and sell Bitcoin for what it's not. The btc Blockchain is far behind in the crypto world compared to other cryptocurrencies. That's just a fact. The other day I had to wait 48 minutes for a block to be mined. Yes, FORTY EIGHT MINUTES BETWEEN BLOCKS. Then my tx got bumped down to the block after that because I wasn't paying attention and didn't increase my fee before that block was mined. This is the problem with btc, and if you don't think it's an issue then you're blind or ignorant.
reply
40 sats \ 4 replies \ @SHORT_TSLA 23 Aug 2022
Lightning is instant and off-chain, you should try it.
Blockchains with fast blocktimes are doing so at the cost of decentralization.
The average time between blocks in Bitcoin is ten minutes. This is a verifiable fact.
Those two chains you mentioned having 1 sat/vbyte fees all the time is either just because they have very little demand for blockspace (LTC) or they made some other decentralization tradeoffs (DASH, which also has very little demand for blockspace).
The fact that a 1 sat/vbyte fees amounts to less than half of a penny on those chains is a function of the tokens on those chains being worth very little in fiat terms.
reply
1 sat \ 3 replies \ @AJ1992 23 Aug 2022
Yes. Lightning is off chain though. All those tx's are still later put on chain by channel and node operators, to my understanding.
On chain BTC is slow, with unpredictable block times, (the ten mins between blocks is not a guarantee. Sometimes there are three blocks in ten mins, I've seen it numerous times. But also, there are times where you will go close to an hour without a block and that's where the issue lies.) Unstable fee sizing, and no guarantee of when your tx will be confirmed. These are all issues, and keeps people away from Bitcoin if you want the truth. If on chain BTC would adapt it's Blockchain to catch up with the rest of the crypto world, it would truly be king/queen. But it fails to do so.
And don't get me wrong, I LOVE LIGHTNING and have been a daily user of lightning for almost three years now. LN is IMO what is going to keep Bitcoin relevant and from being truly left behind in the crypto world. Remember though, every king/queen/monarchy in our worlds history has fallen at some point. It's only a matter of when.
reply
110 sats \ 0 replies \ @mf 23 Aug 2022
Even with the reply you got, you still didn't get it?
Tx fees as pure market demand. You cannot expect something with the same offer (block size limit) and with high demand, to be cheap or nearly free. The speed is also a result of the same factors. Either you have it decentralized and things take longer at peak demand times, or you centralize in favour of speed.
Either way, at scale base chain will never be a good layer for small size transactions. Use LN for that.
reply
110 sats \ 0 replies \ @Majjin 23 Aug 2022
Bitcoin isn't designed to have 10 minutes between each and every block without fail. Its designed to keep the AVERAGE time between blocks to 10 minutes via difficulty adjustments. That is besides the point.
The goal of bitcoin isn't to be the king/queen of "crypto". Its goal is to be a digital, hard money alternative to the fiat system. Hard forking the timechain just to beat out shitcoins in the crypto casino is short term thinking and would compromise the integrity of Bitcoin.
reply
5 sats \ 0 replies \ @F 23 Aug 2022
Pick 2
Cheap - Fast - Secure
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @premitive1 22 Aug 2022
In my opinion podcasting 2.0 needs more people to participate. they do what they can with the people they have.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @sandbeach123old 23 Aug 2022
For the sake of the economy I'd just stick with money AKA bitcoin. No point in rewarding podcasters with something other than bitcoin.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @linesgone 23 Aug 2022
Economics are going to dictate the space and the products in it. It’s obvious to us that LN is the way… but if a dev wants to use there favorite shitcoin why not? Users will decide. Similar to what happened in the NFT space last year.
The market will figure it out.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Brunswick 23 Aug 2022
Its insane someone would use a specific coin as an example in a spec like that, bitcoin excepted of course. To mention a specific coin would confuse the shitcoin minded to think that their named crapto is somehow preferable for Pod2.0. Amazing the shillers can't see that. If they're going to shitcoin all over the spec, why not fork it and create a competing "Bitcasting 2.0" spec. That would certainly help the effort :/
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @mf 23 Aug 2022
Word
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @lipinip235 22 Aug 2022
I say keep altcoins. We should all be able to get whichever crypto we want. Every crypto earning platform I know has the option to get sats for every BTC fan out there, there's no harm in keeping other cryptos available for people that want them, even if they have to wait longer or get a lower amount due to any specific coin's requirements.
reply