461–470 of 530 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's NOT trustless money. Instead of trusting the US gov, you are trusting that this decentralized ledger will gain acceptance by the whole world. Which one is more of a leap of faith?
> Which one is more of a leap of faith? Governments of course. Anything is better than trusting governments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exchanges could act as channel factories, for example, today they batch a bunch of withdrawals into a single transaction, there's really no reason why they couldn't simply open a channel for each person in that. It can be a third-party or you could also run one yourself, there's nothing stopping you. I wouldn't be surprised to see counterparts, just like email is "mail on the internet", but there are also fairly nove…
You are just recentralising everything Bitcoin allegedly decentralized. It's ridiculous. Just pay cash, you are decentralized, are your own bank and can buy everything. Problem solved without Bitcoin. You won't get rich from just holding it, though, and we all know that this is really the only goal of cryptocurrency proponents.
Get rich
Destroy trust
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are just recentralising everything Bitcoin allegedly decentralized. It's ridiculous. Just pay cash, you are decentralized, are your own bank and can buy everything. Problem solved without Bitcoin. You won't get rich from just holding it, though, and we all know that this is really the only goal of cryptocurrency proponents.
> Just pay cash, you are decentralized, are your own bank and can buy everything. How do you send cash over the internet though? That part is hard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The eth blockchain is untenably huge (good luck running an ethereum full node) No blockchains are anywhere close to "untenably huge". The ethereum chain is 639.43 GB. https://bitinfocharts.com/ A $10 USD VPS could sync with that in under two hours. That is about $12 USD of hard drive space after 5 years. This is about the same as downloading the five to eight largest games on steam. > and ethereum fees are often hi…
> The ethereum chain is 639.43 GB. False. This is for some sort of pruned SPV node or something. A full node takes multiple terabytes. Even the fastest implementations take days to sync, if you're lucky. https://tjayrush.medium.com/building-your-own-ethereum-archi... > Which means that no one can use that balance for weeks or months You clearly have no idea how lightning works, so why do you keep commenting as if you…
Did you even read what you linked? It says "We’ve long ago depreciated the cost of the machines. The ongoing cost of running these machines is negligible."
Does that sound "untenably" large?
> Even the fastest implementations take days to sync
You realize it has been going for five years right?
> You clearly have no idea how lightning works, so why do you keep commenting as if you do? Nothing about this claim is true.
Your evidence of > is pretty weak. You basically replied to say "nuh uh". In other comments you claim that certain things don't work when other people point out there there are many examples of it working already.
How exactly does someone who gets a balance on a 3rd party lightning channel use that money on the main chain without syncing with the chain? Until they get it on the chain it isn't a bitcoin balance and to make that transaction is going to cost a significant amount.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OSI layers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 are very real. Roughly, e.g.: 1:Fiber, 2:Ethernet, 3:Routing, 4:TCP/IP, and 7:HTTP.
Layers 2 and 3 are not real - most networks today merge their functions in the same devices. (In the OSI model switches are illegal, you can only have hubs and routers). 4 and 7 are ceasing to be real - HTTP2 is both a session protocol and an application protocol, and that's before we even get into things like DoH.
The model is still solid, even if the most common implementation has melted a bit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...assuming you can get consensus. That's harder than you think. On ethereum it might be easy because the creator is still around, but on bitcoin it's very hard. See the whole segwit2x controversy.
At least for Bitcoin, don't miners effectively control consensus? And they're less concerned with you using Bitcoin to store wealth and more concerned with recovering the cost of their single-purpose hardware. Your interests are actually less aligned with the people running than Bitcoin show than with central banks.
They completely control consensus when it comes to transaction ordering, but for other network parameters like emission rate, they don't have any control. If they decided to bump block rewards by 2x none of the blocks would be accepted by exchanges or merchants, and it would effectively be a hard fork. Segwit2x had majority miner support but failed because it couldn't get enough community support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The truth is complete opposite. Fiat currencies have created insane amount of wealth inequality, because they benefit those who have the power to borrow cash and own assets. With bitcoin, people can maintain their purchasing power and wealth. Bitcoin isn't pegged to CPI which means that it increases in value when economic productivity increases. CPI pegged currencies move purchasing power from labor to capital.
>and own assets. Assets like Bitcoin? > Bitcoin isn't pegged to CPI which means that it increases in value when economic productivity increases. Bitcoin increases much faster than CPI, that's a sign of a bubble. The mystery is that Bitcoin survived consecutive bubbles. I can't explain it, it's what it is. The vast majority of alternative cryptocurrencies had one bubble and died after that exactly as one would expect.…
Those who are wealthy, don't own cash at all. They borrow cash as much as possible and buy assets that go up in value. The loan is diluted away while value is stored. Those who credited the loan (poor people and businesses who own cash) lost their earnings. Inflation is definitely not a wealth tax.
Bitcoin survives because more and more people find out that it is the best store of value, because of its absolute scarcity and other properties. Lots of people join just because the value goes up, which causes bubbles. However, the long term trend is that inferior assets (which is everything) will go down relative to bitcoin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe nobody really wants to spend Bitcoin because its only use-case is wild speculation and this is just a marketing stunt on Visa’s behalf.
People will spend Bitcoin, grudgingly (remember the pizza? what a fool, never spend your Bitcoin!), thanks to Visa people will actually be able to spend it. Thanks to Visa Bitcoin will not be decentralized anymore either.
Bitcoin’s only killer feature for 99% of people is number go up. If people are hodling and and don’t want to sell, they won’t want to spend it either (it’s the same thing).
If people want to sell, they will just so it on exchange so that they don’t have to go through the hassle of getting fiat back on exchange.
There is literally no advantage to this except for a fuzzy feeling some people might get. Maybe that’s enough, what do I know. But this does not fit in the with digital gold narrative. Nobody walks around with a card trying to pay with fractional gold ounces.
They’re just trying to ride the hype train.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Overthinking imo. Compared to a bar of gold, it’s a breeze. Convertibility to fiat is kind of a low priority for a store of value. Auditability, barriers to rehypothication, and ability to self custody are probably much more important for a store of value.
But virtually no individual puts his money into bars of gold. Gold isn't a good store of value for most people, and it's not because it's inconvenient. It's just that there are much better options out there. So being a better store of value than gold isn't hard.
Housing is sometimes a store of value. Bitcoin is probably more liquid, and way less of a hassle than some housing. Expect some of that to move over.
Fine art is primarily a store of value. A lot of it sits in airport warehouses. Bitcoin is just as scarce, but much more convenient.
Stocks are certainly being used as stores of value for many people. At some point, Bitcoin will become more reliable than index funds.
Idk much about bonds, but I'm sure some of that will flow to Bitcoin, as bonds become a less attractive investment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does tax work? BTC is an asset not a currency. It’s like paying for your credit card with gme stocks
https://www.irs.gov/irb/2014-16_IRB#NOT-2014-21 "If the fair market value of property received in exchange for virtual currency exceeds the taxpayer’s adjusted basis of the virtual currency, the taxpayer has taxable gain. The taxpayer has a loss if the fair market value of the property received is less than the adjusted basis of the virtual currency."