5 ms·

Sure, there are problems with crypto. But the stuff you mentioned has nothing to do with using say BitCoin as virtual gold - as a long term store of value, inst

Sure, there are problems with crypto. But the stuff you mentioned has nothing to do with using say BitCoin as virtual gold - as a long term store of value, instead of say a savings account.

_heimdall 3y ago
If bitcoin is only a long term store of value it really needs to be paired with a separate currency for daily transactions. What should we consider using as a checking account if bitcoin is mainly savings?
- thinkmassive 3y ago
  How about composing a digital currency stack in layers, similar to the OSI model for networking? Bitcoin already has second layers: the Lightning Network, Stacks, and bridges to other blockchain systems.
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 3y ago
    Ah yes. Solving broken systems with little legitimate use by building ever more complicated solutions.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    Those second layers seen to lose the benefits behind bitcoin if I'm not mistaken. Most layer solutions act more like PayPal than anything else, with a trusted mediator taking offish transactions in their own system. No more immutable ledger, traceability, fungibility, or censorship protections.
    - thinkmassive 3y ago
      You are mistaken. The Lightning Network literally consists of Bitcoin transactions. There are custodial solutions that serve each layer, but that’s orthogonal to the network itself.
      - _heimdall 3y ago
        Unless it's changed drastically over the last couple years, the lightning network attempts to effectively buffer transactions outside the ledger. Transactions are "deposited" into the network and passed around similar to marked bills. The bitcoin block chain is only involved when a transaction is initially moved to the lightning network and when one of more transactions chained into that are written back to the ledger when moved back out of the network. This design has nothing to do with bitcoin other than the input and output formats. You depends solely on the lightning network itself and have given up all benefits from using a public ledger-based system. There is literally no way a layer two solution can offer faster transactions than bitcoin block times without requiring off-ledger transactions that aren't protected by the consensus protocol.
        thinkmassive 3y ago
        The protocol consists of passing signed multisig transactions back and forth through a network of payment channels. Every single one is a first class bitcoin transaction than can be redeemed by broadcasting to the base layer, enforced by consensus. You have misunderstood since the beginning, because this is how it’s worked since the initial spec was proposed in 2015, years before it was actually implemented. Here’s a book you may find informative: https://github.com/lnbook/lnbook https://github.com/lnbook/lnbook
        _heimdall 3y ago
        Right, so we are describing the same thing here. Transactions in the lightning network happen off chain and don't provoke any of the benefits of bitcoin's public ledger. It's impressive that you could say I was completely wrong then proceed to describe the same system in slightly different wording.
        thinkmassive 3y ago
        When you say LN transactions “don’t provoke any of the benefits of bitcoin’s public ledger” what does that even mean? What benefits do you perceive are being lost? Your initial description seems accurate, but then you erroneously claim this has nothing to do with bitcoin.
    - andirk 3y ago
      You are not mistaken but interacting directly with traditional on-chain transactions is there if you want, possibly a little slower and/or more expensive. I see traditional (haha, talking about crypto having traditions already) on-chain transactions for high value, low volume movements of coins. And Lightning (and BitPay, etc) solutions for low value, high volume.
      - thinkmassive 3y ago
        You are also mistaken. Please explain how the Lightning Network loses most of the benefits of Bitcoin.
Red_Leaves_Flyy 3y ago
When’s the last time you lost a billion dollars of gold by accidentally tossing it in the trash? The ux of crypto is horrific.
kodah 3y ago
I would not personally put my savings in BitCoin. The price is far too volatile [1] and storage of BitCoin revolves around problematic centralized wallets or keeping your wallet offline which is similarly problematic for lay people. You might be able to create a fund that amortizes risk across various coins to get what our existing popular savings funds are, but you'd need some anchor coins that are mostly stable to do that. 1: https://www.coindesk.com/price/bitcoin/ https://www.coindesk.com/price/bitcoin/
astrange 3y ago
You can't store value in something whose only purpose is to store value. Insofar as you can save an asset, it's because you're defecting in a game where other people are actively using it to provide the future value you want to claim later. If everyone only ever saved Bitcoin, then who's going to buy it when you want to sell it later? Someone else who wants to store it forever? The reason saving currency in a bank works for the economy is because they're loaning out the back to productive businesses and then giving you some of the interest. This doesn't work if you keep it under your bed/in a crypto wallet. (Maybe you could solve it by paying people more to take risk, but I don't think interest is that attractive to people?)

Sure, there are problems with crypto. But the stuff you mentioned has nothing to do with using say BitCoin as virtual gold - as a long term store of value, instead of say a savings account.

_heimdall 3y ago

If bitcoin is only a long term store of value it really needs to be paired with a separate currency for daily transactions. What should we consider using as a checking account if bitcoin is mainly savings?

thinkmassive 3y ago
How about composing a digital currency stack in layers, similar to the OSI model for networking? Bitcoin already has second layers: the Lightning Network, Stacks, and bridges to other blockchain systems.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 3y ago
  Ah yes. Solving broken systems with little legitimate use by building ever more complicated solutions.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  Those second layers seen to lose the benefits behind bitcoin if I'm not mistaken. Most layer solutions act more like PayPal than anything else, with a trusted mediator taking offish transactions in their own system. No more immutable ledger, traceability, fungibility, or censorship protections.
  - thinkmassive 3y ago
    You are mistaken. The Lightning Network literally consists of Bitcoin transactions. There are custodial solutions that serve each layer, but that’s orthogonal to the network itself.
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      Unless it's changed drastically over the last couple years, the lightning network attempts to effectively buffer transactions outside the ledger. Transactions are "deposited" into the network and passed around similar to marked bills. The bitcoin block chain is only involved when a transaction is initially moved to the lightning network and when one of more transactions chained into that are written back to the ledger when moved back out of the network. This design has nothing to do with bitcoin other than the input and output formats. You depends solely on the lightning network itself and have given up all benefits from using a public ledger-based system. There is literally no way a layer two solution can offer faster transactions than bitcoin block times without requiring off-ledger transactions that aren't protected by the consensus protocol.
      - thinkmassive 3y ago
        The protocol consists of passing signed multisig transactions back and forth through a network of payment channels. Every single one is a first class bitcoin transaction than can be redeemed by broadcasting to the base layer, enforced by consensus. You have misunderstood since the beginning, because this is how it’s worked since the initial spec was proposed in 2015, years before it was actually implemented. Here’s a book you may find informative: https://github.com/lnbook/lnbook https://github.com/lnbook/lnbook
        _heimdall 3y ago
        Right, so we are describing the same thing here. Transactions in the lightning network happen off chain and don't provoke any of the benefits of bitcoin's public ledger. It's impressive that you could say I was completely wrong then proceed to describe the same system in slightly different wording.
        thinkmassive 3y ago
        When you say LN transactions “don’t provoke any of the benefits of bitcoin’s public ledger” what does that even mean? What benefits do you perceive are being lost? Your initial description seems accurate, but then you erroneously claim this has nothing to do with bitcoin.
  - andirk 3y ago
    You are not mistaken but interacting directly with traditional on-chain transactions is there if you want, possibly a little slower and/or more expensive. I see traditional (haha, talking about crypto having traditions already) on-chain transactions for high value, low volume movements of coins. And Lightning (and BitPay, etc) solutions for low value, high volume.
    - thinkmassive 3y ago
      You are also mistaken. Please explain how the Lightning Network loses most of the benefits of Bitcoin.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 3y ago

When’s the last time you lost a billion dollars of gold by accidentally tossing it in the trash? The ux of crypto is horrific.

kodah 3y ago

I would not personally put my savings in BitCoin. The price is far too volatile [1] and storage of BitCoin revolves around problematic centralized wallets or keeping your wallet offline which is similarly problematic for lay people. You might be able to create a fund that amortizes risk across various coins to get what our existing popular savings funds are, but you'd need some anchor coins that are mostly stable to do that. 1: https://www.coindesk.com/price/bitcoin/ https://www.coindesk.com/price/bitcoin/

astrange 3y ago

You can't store value in something whose only purpose is to store value. Insofar as you can save an asset, it's because you're defecting in a game where other people are actively using it to provide the future value you want to claim later. If everyone only ever saved Bitcoin, then who's going to buy it when you want to sell it later? Someone else who wants to store it forever? The reason saving currency in a bank works for the economy is because they're loaning out the back to productive businesses and then giving you some of the interest. This doesn't work if you keep it under your bed/in a crypto wallet. (Maybe you could solve it by paying people more to take risk, but I don't think interest is that attractive to people?)