5 ms·

> simply and elegantly designed I don't think Bitcoin qualifies as such. Sure, projects like Ethereum are far more complex, but there are projects that signifi

by tromp 4y ago

> simply and elegantly designed I don't think Bitcoin qualifies as such. Sure, projects like Ethereum are far more complex, but there are projects that significantly improve on Bitcoin in simplicity and elegance. Bitcoin script in particular is not that simple and full of warts.

jrm4 4y ago
I think by definition it does, which is to say, its popularity proves it. I just think there's a hindsight thing going on. I liken Bitcoin to e.g. the Model T or the first grey brick cellphones. It changes everything forever because it works very well, but also is quickly improved upon and thus eventually won't be that popular.
- djschnei 4y ago
  No other system/project anchors a digital currency to the physical world as effectively as Bitcoin. But I do agree, eventually L2+ will be much more popular, in so far as much more people will interact with them. That's kind of the idea. L2s will still always rely on L1 for its anchor to the physical world (and thus physics).
  - jrm4 4y ago
    I'm unfamiliar with L1 and L2 as presented here. Do these both refer to the Bitcoin blockchain? If so, no. I strongly predict Bitcoin, both the blockchain and the currency will nearly, if not fully, "die," as the Model T and grey phone have. Ethereum is already much better at it's core, and it's not hard to think even Ethereum will be improved upon. In the long run, literally all bitcoin has is history and name recognition. Like the Model T, you will see it revered like something in a museum, and also just about nobody will actually use it.
    - tomputer 4y ago
      > Ethereum is already much better at it's core What you and many others seem to overlook is first mover advantage, network effects and most important: trust. Bitcoin is not Yahoo or Facebook, it is not a company product which has to improve and break things all the time. In the long run Bitcoin is a store of value. That requires trust, which takes time. To gain trust over time it has to move slow and steady because there can be no mistakes. When it comes to money and trust it is almost impossible to get a second chance (see Terra UST). Just one mistake could result in everyone distrusting Bitcoin.
      - jrm4 4y ago
        What I think others overlook is that in practice (and despite what the retconners are trying to say about bitcoin is gold or some nonsense) -- is that Bitcoin was NOT designed to be a blockchain platform. It was designed to be fungible currency. And it's an excellent proof-of-concept...but with severe flaws that will kill it, especially in light of the fact that we're talking about *open source software, which begs to be forked, and effectively has been. Your argument strikes me as very odd -- you seem to suggest that nothing can beat Bitcoin in theory, but Ethereum is already beating it in practice.
        tomputer 4y ago
        > Your argument strikes me as very odd -- you seem to suggest that nothing can beat Bitcoin in theory, but Ethereum is already beating it in practice. In theory everything is possible. I do not follow the beating really. They can both exist with different use cases. Bitcoin wants to be digital gold (and money) and Ethereum wants to be a smart contract world computer running dapps. They solve different problems.
        jrm4 4y ago
        But Ethereum is a technically superior option for both cases. It does what Bitcoin can't do, but it also does what Bitcoin does better, and has a roadmap to improvement beyond that. Bitcoin is still wildly slow and destroys the environment, and Ethereum is on track to mostly not do that, to say nothing of "post-Eth" projects like Pulsechain. Now, I'm sure Bitcoin will enjoy name recognition for some time, but in my experience, always bet on the tech.
    - djschnei 4y ago
      I'd suggest doing more research before commenting about things you don't understand. Layered Money by Nik Bhatia would be a good place to start. The concept of layered system design, especially in money and technology, is not new. Ethereum is an inherently flawed system.
      - jrm4 4y ago
        I'd suggest providing actual ideas, or better yet practice, instead of reading assignments? The reason I know more about Ethereum than Layered Bitcoin stuff is that that is what more people (myself included) are actually using today to do cutting-edge stuff on. Moreover, it's pretty easy to first-principle your way into why it's probably better; layered Bitcoin saddles you with a particular kind of technical debt -- you're literally trying to hack Bitcoin into something it wasn't intended for, and the Bitcoin code is of course mostly immutable. Ethereum, on the other hand,is built for it. Sure, all software has problems, but a car built from the ground up is likely going to be better than a Model-T with addons. (edit) Bahaha, I checked out the guys book. He's a Bitcoin Maxi who apparently quotes -- Nassim Taleb aka the guy who thinks that BTC will go to zero. Not looking like a worthwhile thing.
        djschnei 4y ago
        Calling Lightning a "hack" is like calling TCP a hack of IP. First principles of protocol design literally dictate layered modular stacks. Actual ideas: Bitcoin is layer 1 of the internet of value. It only needs to be secure, decentralized, and stable. It has one job; enforce digital property rights while maintaining the above characteristics (Think the internet layer: IP) Layer 2 (lightning, liquid, etc) build on top of the secure, decentralized, stable foundation of L1 Bitcoin and create standards/protocols for application/user comms (think the transportation layer: TCP, UDP) Layer 3 (Strike, TBD, Sphinx, CashApp, etc) applications to fulfill specific use cases built on top of layer 2 (think the application layer: all the things you do on the internet)
djschnei 4y ago
Which projects are simply designed to be hard money?
- tromp 4y ago
  That depends on what do you mean by hard money. A capped supply?
  - djschnei 4y ago
    well, there are multiple factors, supply cap is one. Unchangeable issuance schedule (i.e. unchangeable monetary policy) is another gigantic aspect. No other project can guarantee the same immutability because no other network is defended by the bitcoin mining network. Bitcoin is the only commodity on the planet who's supply is completely unaffected by demand.
    - tromp 4y ago
      I already see discussion on the bitcoin dev mailing list about how to deal "with block rewards being too low to maintain acceptable security" in the distant future [1]. We can expect more of such discussion as the block subsidy keeps halving while still dominating the tx fees [1]. An emission like 1 per second forever is much more immutable due to guaranteed miner incentives and lack of arbitrariness. And thus a better basis for hard money [2]. [1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-June/020588.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022... [2] https://john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-supply-1169a188d153 https://john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-su...
      - djschnei 4y ago
        lol, new here? That discussion has been going on for YEARS. Discussion doesn't negate anything I said.

by tromp 4y ago

jrm4 4y ago

I think by definition it does, which is to say, its popularity proves it. I just think there's a hindsight thing going on. I liken Bitcoin to e.g. the Model T or the first grey brick cellphones. It changes everything forever because it works very well, but also is quickly improved upon and thus eventually won't be that popular.

djschnei 4y ago
No other system/project anchors a digital currency to the physical world as effectively as Bitcoin. But I do agree, eventually L2+ will be much more popular, in so far as much more people will interact with them. That's kind of the idea. L2s will still always rely on L1 for its anchor to the physical world (and thus physics).
- jrm4 4y ago
  I'm unfamiliar with L1 and L2 as presented here. Do these both refer to the Bitcoin blockchain? If so, no. I strongly predict Bitcoin, both the blockchain and the currency will nearly, if not fully, "die," as the Model T and grey phone have. Ethereum is already much better at it's core, and it's not hard to think even Ethereum will be improved upon. In the long run, literally all bitcoin has is history and name recognition. Like the Model T, you will see it revered like something in a museum, and also just about nobody will actually use it.
  - tomputer 4y ago
    > Ethereum is already much better at it's core What you and many others seem to overlook is first mover advantage, network effects and most important: trust. Bitcoin is not Yahoo or Facebook, it is not a company product which has to improve and break things all the time. In the long run Bitcoin is a store of value. That requires trust, which takes time. To gain trust over time it has to move slow and steady because there can be no mistakes. When it comes to money and trust it is almost impossible to get a second chance (see Terra UST). Just one mistake could result in everyone distrusting Bitcoin.
    - jrm4 4y ago
      What I think others overlook is that in practice (and despite what the retconners are trying to say about bitcoin is gold or some nonsense) -- is that Bitcoin was NOT designed to be a blockchain platform. It was designed to be fungible currency. And it's an excellent proof-of-concept...but with severe flaws that will kill it, especially in light of the fact that we're talking about *open source software, which begs to be forked, and effectively has been. Your argument strikes me as very odd -- you seem to suggest that nothing can beat Bitcoin in theory, but Ethereum is already beating it in practice.
      - tomputer 4y ago
        > Your argument strikes me as very odd -- you seem to suggest that nothing can beat Bitcoin in theory, but Ethereum is already beating it in practice. In theory everything is possible. I do not follow the beating really. They can both exist with different use cases. Bitcoin wants to be digital gold (and money) and Ethereum wants to be a smart contract world computer running dapps. They solve different problems.
        jrm4 4y ago
        But Ethereum is a technically superior option for both cases. It does what Bitcoin can't do, but it also does what Bitcoin does better, and has a roadmap to improvement beyond that. Bitcoin is still wildly slow and destroys the environment, and Ethereum is on track to mostly not do that, to say nothing of "post-Eth" projects like Pulsechain. Now, I'm sure Bitcoin will enjoy name recognition for some time, but in my experience, always bet on the tech.
  - djschnei 4y ago
    I'd suggest doing more research before commenting about things you don't understand. Layered Money by Nik Bhatia would be a good place to start. The concept of layered system design, especially in money and technology, is not new. Ethereum is an inherently flawed system.
    - jrm4 4y ago
      I'd suggest providing actual ideas, or better yet practice, instead of reading assignments? The reason I know more about Ethereum than Layered Bitcoin stuff is that that is what more people (myself included) are actually using today to do cutting-edge stuff on. Moreover, it's pretty easy to first-principle your way into why it's probably better; layered Bitcoin saddles you with a particular kind of technical debt -- you're literally trying to hack Bitcoin into something it wasn't intended for, and the Bitcoin code is of course mostly immutable. Ethereum, on the other hand,is built for it. Sure, all software has problems, but a car built from the ground up is likely going to be better than a Model-T with addons. (edit) Bahaha, I checked out the guys book. He's a Bitcoin Maxi who apparently quotes -- Nassim Taleb aka the guy who thinks that BTC will go to zero. Not looking like a worthwhile thing.
      - djschnei 4y ago
        Calling Lightning a "hack" is like calling TCP a hack of IP. First principles of protocol design literally dictate layered modular stacks. Actual ideas: Bitcoin is layer 1 of the internet of value. It only needs to be secure, decentralized, and stable. It has one job; enforce digital property rights while maintaining the above characteristics (Think the internet layer: IP) Layer 2 (lightning, liquid, etc) build on top of the secure, decentralized, stable foundation of L1 Bitcoin and create standards/protocols for application/user comms (think the transportation layer: TCP, UDP) Layer 3 (Strike, TBD, Sphinx, CashApp, etc) applications to fulfill specific use cases built on top of layer 2 (think the application layer: all the things you do on the internet)

djschnei 4y ago

Which projects are simply designed to be hard money?

tromp 4y ago
That depends on what do you mean by hard money. A capped supply?
- djschnei 4y ago
  well, there are multiple factors, supply cap is one. Unchangeable issuance schedule (i.e. unchangeable monetary policy) is another gigantic aspect. No other project can guarantee the same immutability because no other network is defended by the bitcoin mining network. Bitcoin is the only commodity on the planet who's supply is completely unaffected by demand.
  - tromp 4y ago
    I already see discussion on the bitcoin dev mailing list about how to deal "with block rewards being too low to maintain acceptable security" in the distant future [1]. We can expect more of such discussion as the block subsidy keeps halving while still dominating the tx fees [1]. An emission like 1 per second forever is much more immutable due to guaranteed miner incentives and lack of arbitrariness. And thus a better basis for hard money [2]. [1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-June/020588.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022... [2] https://john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-supply-1169a188d153 https://john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-su...
    - djschnei 4y ago
      lol, new here? That discussion has been going on for YEARS. Discussion doesn't negate anything I said.