pull down to refresh
haha well I hope he enjoys them!
this a shot at @ODELL?
well in all fairness, ecash isn't bitcoin and also, by many, called a scaling solution for bitcoin. not that the tech is a bad thing, but much of the conversation is around it's ability to scale the amount of transactions "on bitcoin" even though it's not. it's moving those transactions to something else, which is what custodial solutions do in a shittier way.
There has to be a core group of people being absolutists to keep the compromises in check.
well we do have this in the samourai team and they do great work. however, i think they lose alot by not being willing to diversify. i think it's better to be practical. custodial solutions have their uses, and we should be pushing people to hold their own keys as well. a custodial solution moving certain transactions off the main chain are a "scaling solution" in that there is now room for other transactions on the chain.
oh for sure. i think it's a necessary conversation.
do you think that someone being an absolutist would not having any custodial wallets? or is there room for a custodial wallet in some situtations? for example, keeping small amounts of funds in SN for zapping on this site.
sure. but i think the important thing that craig doesn't mention in this is that the things i think he's referring to as scaling solutions many times are also UX improvements. the trade-offs are not just there to make bitcoin "scalable." it's there to make it more appealing to use for less technologically inclined users, this new "uncle jim" model included. though i do disagree with his way of defining "uncle jim."
decentralizing something can also make it more scalable depending on the technology. for example, bittorrent is a much more scalable solution for downloading files than a centralized server somewhere. higher up-time, quicker downloads, more censorship resistant.
there's no such thing as "the best solution." it's "the best solution for my problem." there are always going to be people like super who are constantly thinking about the next thing and, at their core, are innovators. then there will be others who take this idea and continue to run with it, battle testing it, attacking it from many sides, trying to break it, all while improving the UX to see if it actually is a better solution than the existing state-of-the-art. one is not better than the other. both types are needed.
things got a little easier for me when i realized that i can't necessarily be both, and that's okay. choose one and strive to be damn good at it.
lots could happen. buying up so much can be seen as manipulation of the price. pumps the price which causes others to hop on. do it for long enough then dump. owning so much gives alot of power if bitcoin ever does become an accepted currency in a place like the states. becoming a bank is interesting. also comes with alot of power.
regardless of what happens, my trust isn't earned by buying up so much of an asset, holding it, and giving back nothing in return outside of empty platitudes such as "there is no second best." i'm not saying he has to give back anything. however, i also don't have to trust his spoken intentions with no actions behind them.
you're probably right. billionaire CEOs of corporations unaffiliated with what they are shilling are well-known for truth telling.
the idea isn't to slow their purchase. the idea is to make buying bitcoin as a speculative asset a bad investment. microstrategy is buying to sell later, more than likely. i'm not convinced of saylor's intentions to buy and use it later. meaning he's depending on there being a market for it later. shrink the interest in that market, and they stop buying because they can't sell in the future.
the benefit of a phone over something like a laptop is the increased portability. you'd think a hardware wallet embracing the phone as a medium of interaction with the broader btc network would also embrace this portability.
i understand your point. i just think it's a missed opportunity to make it easily portable because honestly the device looks cool as hell. i'd love to take it with me places and show it off to people. but if it's gonna accidentally break when i'm out and about, then i'd rather not risk it.
i think the most efficient way might honestly be the direction it seems our governments are heading now. bitcoin historically has a usability problem. things have gotten much better very fast, but there is still alot of work to be done in that regard. most of the limitations are technological even if they are for good reasons. people tend to gravitate toward easier solutions; things that make their life simpler or more convenient.
if it was me, i would accelerate an easier to use alternative and integrate it into our daily lives. most would say something like a CBDC which makes alot of sense. however, with twitter being so integral to many peoples' lives and this seems to be increasing and we already have contacts over there to help, i'd try to make this application that already has a giant network effect into an everything app. you can make payments super easy through it. just connect your bank account, like venmo, and boom! businesses can easily receive payments through it. integrate a pos system like square and bam! even better if we can then get people to pay for the privilege of this convenience.
why use bitcoin when i can easily send my favorite creator tips in a currency i already understand through an app i already have that makes it quick and painless?
now i think we are on to something, but in an effort to minimize the headache of telling people where to find you, we should give it a super short name. something single letter but cool. maybe Q or Z? we can come up with something later, but i think this would work well.
wouldn't be the first time. remember covid?
yeah I mean it's pretty well-known that the government errs on the side of "make it all" secret when deciding the confidentiality of a piece of information. the idea behind it generally makes sense. you can take back something you expose.