6 ms·

This is something I can't fully understand. Why didn't Salvador choose Bitcoin instead of one of proof-of-stake currencies? Choosing BTC is one of the worst if

This is something I can't fully understand. Why didn't Salvador choose Bitcoin instead of one of proof-of-stake currencies? Choosing BTC is one of the worst if not the worst choice: (1) enormous transaction fees make it completely useless for everyday payments, (2) proof-of-work has a negative influence on our environment that we can no longer ignore- you'd think that a state player would know that and chose to be a bit more responsible.

MomoXenosaga 4y ago
El Salvador is a failed state run by corrupt assholes that make the GOP look like saints. Don't attribute to stupidity what can be explained by malice.
Fargoan 4y ago
El Salvador uses Lightning Network
- rvz 4y ago
  Once again, The Lightning Network is not Bitcoin, and defeats the point of on-chain peer-to-peer electronic cash systems and payments using Bitcoin. It has been shown to be a centralized by design creation where the biggest nodes (The exchanges) can censor the payments. [0] Bitcoin has failed for on-chain payments as described in this article, this paper [0] and it's own white-paper. [0] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/aba062 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/aba062
  - arcbyte 4y ago
    A week ago I would have down voted you as a run if the mill bitcoin naysayers. Someone we see often who looked superficially at what the crypto market is doing and scoffed. There's a lot to scoff at, but the core proposition that is slowly rolling out is world changing. But over the past few weeks I've become really unsettled as I've dug into the history of bitcoin that I missed - the 2013-2017 Era say, when bitcoin really did fail at its core goal of being a currency. It has undeniably failed. That isn't to say it isn't finding a new use - but the whole ecosystem is missing that core currency use case. We're sort of seeing attempts at it with lightning network and stablecoins - but these are toys. All this to say, I agree with you, and I'm horrified that people will ignore and write off the experience and history offered by people who were there so they can jump on the latest fad - in this case a polarized bitcoin good/bad opinion.
    - randomhodler84 4y ago
      Nah rvz doesn’t know what he is talking about. I’ve made several Lightning network payments that have bought real world food for folks around the world. He keeps echoing failure, but I have seen nothing but success. If he used any of this tech instead of just complaining, he might actually learn something. The only thing that has failed is the detractors complaints, meanwhile actual things have happened in the world.
      - tobltobs 4y ago
        I believe you haven't read what rvz is talking about. He didn't say payments with lightning wouldn't work. He said that lightning nodes are a centralized system which open the doors to censorship and manipulation, which was the motivation for btc in the first place.
        randomhodler84 4y ago
        And he is completely utterly off base with that. It just doesn’t match reality. Anyone can run a LN node; you are free to open channels and interact with the network without any centralized controller. For any definition of centralized I know (say, 1 big api provider, or a collection of PoS stake nodes), this does not apply to LN. There is no censorship possible in this construction — indeed the peers routing the payments don’t even know the originator, just liquidity levels between their channels. Analogous to onion routing — how can a peer censor a circuit if they don’t know the originating and destination endpoints? Calling Lightning centralized is something an ignorant precoiner would say. Really, rvz doesn’t know what they are talking about.
        rvz 4y ago
        > Calling Lightning centralized is something an ignorant precoiner would say. Really, rvz doesn’t know what they are talking about. And somehow you do? Assuming you have read both the paper I linked to and this article? I know it's difficult to read the cold hard truth and evidence on what the Lightning Network has become and will tend towards to in the future via the analysis and inspection. But of course, why would anyone expect someone who calls themselves 'randomhodler' or a Bitcoin maximalist to understand that? Since to them, anyone critiquing anything related to 'Bitcoin' will be like attacking their identity, investment and the technology all in one? So somehow according to you, it is not 'centralized by design' as the paper has clearly demonstrated, and Bitcoin has somehow 'succeeded' in on-chain peer-to-peer electronic payments as described in the white-paper, due to the Lightning Network which that is an off-chain L2 solution and doesn't directly use the blockchain? The problem with using anecdotes is that it is not evidence or a concrete refutation against the paper. "I can run one myself" isn't the point. The actual reality has been outlined by the paper on what happens when the Lightning Network grows and it leads towards inevitable centralization of these hubs with the most liquidity (take a guess who runs those hubs) - creating a worse version of the current traditional system without directly using the blockchain for on-chain payments with a volatile ' store of value' as a 'currency' and altogether contradicting the point of Bitcoin. The whole point of it is to be used for on-chain payments, a digital currency and a P2P electronic cash system and it is evident that in El Salvador, the paper I linked and the inevitability of the LN have clearly demonstrated that this experiment has failed in all of that. If that's not a failure, then I don't know what is.
zamalek 4y ago
My personal belief is that PoW assets need to go away, and fast. That being said, the top five assets (based on market cap) are all PoW - most laymen (read: statespersons) are probably only aware of the top two, and Dogecoin.
- iskander 4y ago
  Top five (non-stable) crypto assets: 1) BTC - PoW 2) ETH - PoW (but the Beacon chain PoS merge seems to be going well) 3) BNB - PoS-like 4) XRP - PoS 5) SOL - PoS So of the top five really only BTC & ETH are PoW and soon it will just be BTC.
- spinny 4y ago
  > the top five assets (based on market cap) are all PoW That's because "pure" PoS is a pipe dream. For PoS to work the network needs to start with PoW or a pre-sale (ETH did both). Staking 0 value tokens doesn't work. PoW is the most efficient method to convert raw energy to a digital and secure token. The value off all BTC in existence === all energy spent since the genesis block
- randomhodler84 4y ago
  It’s cute that you have that belief, however PoW is not going away. PoW is not some evil monster that is eating the world — however there are enemies of Bitcoin that would sell it to you as such. All PoW miners are rational actors that choose to spend energy to secure the network. We can and should push that the energy is generated cleanly and renewably, thus pushing clean energy further as there is a clear incentive for use, regardless of external load or demand.
bally0241 4y ago
randomhodler84 4y ago
1. It’s one of the cheapest coins to spend. Usually <$0.15 Only litecoin and Dogecoin are cheaper in the top 25. Yeah ok polygon is the cheapest ($<0.01) if you include EVM chains but the rest of them are much more expensive ($1tx+). 2. PoW is security. Rather than crusade against “work”, maybe we should be crusading against fossil fuels?
- Helitio 4y ago
  Are you advocating to use renewable for Bitcoin mining instead? Because that will only work as soon as we reached full saturation of renewable energy production and consumption. Otherwise it will always be more lucrative to consume the renewable through Bitcoin than using it for everything else. A EV car fuel consumption would need to cost more than what Bitcoin can make. A very unhealthy relationship Bitcoin has on consuming energy. The only real possibility is creating a Bitcoin heater system but most of the time I see Bitcoin mines I'm seeing also AC's which increases the energy consumption even further. And no, the demand for renewable from Bitcoin will not mean we will create and invest more money into renewable energy overall with a net positive it will only add to more Bitcoin mining.
  - randomhodler84 4y ago
    Yes, I am advocating for this. My take on what you are saying is that you deem other uses of energy more appropriate — “you can’t use it that way! You must use it in this way”. Ultimately it is market forces that determine if using energy for a particular purpose. If there are no pollution externalities to add complexity, it is up to whomever is paying the bill on what they want to spend it on. I appreciate that some miners will find it rational to use their entire renewable power to mine Bitcoin; and that is ok. Not everyone wants to mine. For some, the utility of an EV is greater than that of mining, and so just looking at a energy/cost ratio ignores demand and utility. Additionally, the PoW paradigm was invented, and exists today, and there is not a lot one can do to stop it. From 2009 onwards, humanity has decided to dedicate some percentage of global energy output and to the purposes of maintaining ledger security. I have always said this is a good thing, and if you have a problem with this, complaining about it achieves nothing.
formerkrogemp 4y ago
They chose Bitcoin because of an accident and because of brand recognition. Now everyone points to El Salvador as the failure or success of Bitcoin or cryptocurrency. Depending on who and how you ask the question, of course.

MomoXenosaga 4y ago

El Salvador is a failed state run by corrupt assholes that make the GOP look like saints. Don't attribute to stupidity what can be explained by malice.

Fargoan 4y ago

El Salvador uses Lightning Network

rvz 4y ago
Once again, The Lightning Network is not Bitcoin, and defeats the point of on-chain peer-to-peer electronic cash systems and payments using Bitcoin. It has been shown to be a centralized by design creation where the biggest nodes (The exchanges) can censor the payments. [0] Bitcoin has failed for on-chain payments as described in this article, this paper [0] and it's own white-paper. [0] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/aba062 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/aba062
- arcbyte 4y ago
  A week ago I would have down voted you as a run if the mill bitcoin naysayers. Someone we see often who looked superficially at what the crypto market is doing and scoffed. There's a lot to scoff at, but the core proposition that is slowly rolling out is world changing. But over the past few weeks I've become really unsettled as I've dug into the history of bitcoin that I missed - the 2013-2017 Era say, when bitcoin really did fail at its core goal of being a currency. It has undeniably failed. That isn't to say it isn't finding a new use - but the whole ecosystem is missing that core currency use case. We're sort of seeing attempts at it with lightning network and stablecoins - but these are toys. All this to say, I agree with you, and I'm horrified that people will ignore and write off the experience and history offered by people who were there so they can jump on the latest fad - in this case a polarized bitcoin good/bad opinion.
  - randomhodler84 4y ago
    Nah rvz doesn’t know what he is talking about. I’ve made several Lightning network payments that have bought real world food for folks around the world. He keeps echoing failure, but I have seen nothing but success. If he used any of this tech instead of just complaining, he might actually learn something. The only thing that has failed is the detractors complaints, meanwhile actual things have happened in the world.
    - tobltobs 4y ago
      I believe you haven't read what rvz is talking about. He didn't say payments with lightning wouldn't work. He said that lightning nodes are a centralized system which open the doors to censorship and manipulation, which was the motivation for btc in the first place.
      - randomhodler84 4y ago
        And he is completely utterly off base with that. It just doesn’t match reality. Anyone can run a LN node; you are free to open channels and interact with the network without any centralized controller. For any definition of centralized I know (say, 1 big api provider, or a collection of PoS stake nodes), this does not apply to LN. There is no censorship possible in this construction — indeed the peers routing the payments don’t even know the originator, just liquidity levels between their channels. Analogous to onion routing — how can a peer censor a circuit if they don’t know the originating and destination endpoints? Calling Lightning centralized is something an ignorant precoiner would say. Really, rvz doesn’t know what they are talking about.
        rvz 4y ago
        > Calling Lightning centralized is something an ignorant precoiner would say. Really, rvz doesn’t know what they are talking about. And somehow you do? Assuming you have read both the paper I linked to and this article? I know it's difficult to read the cold hard truth and evidence on what the Lightning Network has become and will tend towards to in the future via the analysis and inspection. But of course, why would anyone expect someone who calls themselves 'randomhodler' or a Bitcoin maximalist to understand that? Since to them, anyone critiquing anything related to 'Bitcoin' will be like attacking their identity, investment and the technology all in one? So somehow according to you, it is not 'centralized by design' as the paper has clearly demonstrated, and Bitcoin has somehow 'succeeded' in on-chain peer-to-peer electronic payments as described in the white-paper, due to the Lightning Network which that is an off-chain L2 solution and doesn't directly use the blockchain? The problem with using anecdotes is that it is not evidence or a concrete refutation against the paper. "I can run one myself" isn't the point. The actual reality has been outlined by the paper on what happens when the Lightning Network grows and it leads towards inevitable centralization of these hubs with the most liquidity (take a guess who runs those hubs) - creating a worse version of the current traditional system without directly using the blockchain for on-chain payments with a volatile ' store of value' as a 'currency' and altogether contradicting the point of Bitcoin. The whole point of it is to be used for on-chain payments, a digital currency and a P2P electronic cash system and it is evident that in El Salvador, the paper I linked and the inevitability of the LN have clearly demonstrated that this experiment has failed in all of that. If that's not a failure, then I don't know what is.

zamalek 4y ago

My personal belief is that PoW assets need to go away, and fast. That being said, the top five assets (based on market cap) are all PoW - most laymen (read: statespersons) are probably only aware of the top two, and Dogecoin.

iskander 4y ago
Top five (non-stable) crypto assets: 1) BTC - PoW 2) ETH - PoW (but the Beacon chain PoS merge seems to be going well) 3) BNB - PoS-like 4) XRP - PoS 5) SOL - PoS So of the top five really only BTC & ETH are PoW and soon it will just be BTC.
spinny 4y ago
> the top five assets (based on market cap) are all PoW That's because "pure" PoS is a pipe dream. For PoS to work the network needs to start with PoW or a pre-sale (ETH did both). Staking 0 value tokens doesn't work. PoW is the most efficient method to convert raw energy to a digital and secure token. The value off all BTC in existence === all energy spent since the genesis block
randomhodler84 4y ago
It’s cute that you have that belief, however PoW is not going away. PoW is not some evil monster that is eating the world — however there are enemies of Bitcoin that would sell it to you as such. All PoW miners are rational actors that choose to spend energy to secure the network. We can and should push that the energy is generated cleanly and renewably, thus pushing clean energy further as there is a clear incentive for use, regardless of external load or demand.

bally0241 4y ago

randomhodler84 4y ago

1. It’s one of the cheapest coins to spend. Usually <$0.15 Only litecoin and Dogecoin are cheaper in the top 25. Yeah ok polygon is the cheapest ($<0.01) if you include EVM chains but the rest of them are much more expensive ($1tx+). 2. PoW is security. Rather than crusade against “work”, maybe we should be crusading against fossil fuels?

Helitio 4y ago
Are you advocating to use renewable for Bitcoin mining instead? Because that will only work as soon as we reached full saturation of renewable energy production and consumption. Otherwise it will always be more lucrative to consume the renewable through Bitcoin than using it for everything else. A EV car fuel consumption would need to cost more than what Bitcoin can make. A very unhealthy relationship Bitcoin has on consuming energy. The only real possibility is creating a Bitcoin heater system but most of the time I see Bitcoin mines I'm seeing also AC's which increases the energy consumption even further. And no, the demand for renewable from Bitcoin will not mean we will create and invest more money into renewable energy overall with a net positive it will only add to more Bitcoin mining.
- randomhodler84 4y ago
  Yes, I am advocating for this. My take on what you are saying is that you deem other uses of energy more appropriate — “you can’t use it that way! You must use it in this way”. Ultimately it is market forces that determine if using energy for a particular purpose. If there are no pollution externalities to add complexity, it is up to whomever is paying the bill on what they want to spend it on. I appreciate that some miners will find it rational to use their entire renewable power to mine Bitcoin; and that is ok. Not everyone wants to mine. For some, the utility of an EV is greater than that of mining, and so just looking at a energy/cost ratio ignores demand and utility. Additionally, the PoW paradigm was invented, and exists today, and there is not a lot one can do to stop it. From 2009 onwards, humanity has decided to dedicate some percentage of global energy output and to the purposes of maintaining ledger security. I have always said this is a good thing, and if you have a problem with this, complaining about it achieves nothing.

formerkrogemp 4y ago

They chose Bitcoin because of an accident and because of brand recognition. Now everyone points to El Salvador as the failure or success of Bitcoin or cryptocurrency. Depending on who and how you ask the question, of course.