2 ms·
> Again, that's your mistake. That most transactions happen off-chain doesn't mean all or the important ones do. And it also doesn't mean there aren't cross off
by croon 5y ago
> Again, that's your mistake. That most transactions happen off-chain doesn't mean all or the important ones do. And it also doesn't mean there aren't cross off-chain network transactions - e.g. VisaBTC to MCBTC needs a blockchain to happen in a trustless way. Trust is easy when it's Visa to MC but not so easy when it's EU to Iran banking system
Doesn't matter if it's all, just that some can be. The issue is that the transaction ledger and the "currency" or asset is the same thing. That exchanges or Visa et al are implicitly trusted with out-of-blockchain transactions means that there's no longer a natural relationship with the finite number of BTC or the veracity of the blockchain. You have just started outsourcing trust again, which IMO is fine, but why the rodeo then.
Pick a lane, you can't have both. It's no longer trustless if you try to do both, at least not on the (speculated) asset value level.
- emteycz 5y agoNo need to pick lanes, I have both today. I am going to prefer on-chain BTC transactions to make international business transactions in thousands of USD. I don't need the full force of trustlessness to buy my lunch - the risk to me is that I get a free lunch. Yeah I could use a classic payment card - but then I'd have to keep shuffling my funds around and that's not fun.
- croon 5y ago> No need to pick lanes, I have both today. No you don't. You have a speculative asset no longer bounded by the designed limit of BTCs, where banks, i mean exchanges, can create volume out of thin air outside of the ledger, as long as something is later cleared on-chain. Ergo, back to square one.