pull down to refresh
3 sats \ 0 replies \ @02d10975a1 24 Apr 2023 \ parent \ on: zkTimechain: A payment system with strong privacy and scalability bitcoin
I'm not sure, but Mina Protocol might be using something quite similar. https://minaprotocol.com
This is really cool. However, the app should explain how it works, otherwise it's very confusing. I think it's a custodial service which uses hedged positions on kollider.xyz to create synthetic assets, i.e. synthetic USD contains equal size long and short positions on BTC, which keeps it pegged to USD.
This always boggles my mind. I get the math, but still I feel that there's a chance that I find a key with coins in it. Or that someone guesses my key. It's a infinitesimally small chance, but there's a chance. If someone is lucky enough, they might stumble on it.
He is right in economic sense, but adding inflation would be a precedent for more changes in the future. It would break the idea of predetermined scarcity. Bitcoin is scarce, not because there are only 21 million of them, but because the rule which enforces the limit is unchangeable.
Incentives make this thing work. Incentive to protect the 21 million supply must be larger than the incentive to change rules and add inflation. If that can be guaranteed, then unchangeability is guaranteed.
As far as I know, different fedimint coins would be incompatible. They would show up as different coins in a wallet. Because of this, the system tends to centralize into one, the most popular, fedimint. This makes the whole idea much more risky than having multiple competing fedimints.
Also, I'm not completely sold on the idea. To me it seems that there is a danger of false sense of security. Federating a mint to 20 bad guys doesn't make it safe, while it might seem so.
I hope SN stays focused on Bitcoin. There are better places to discuss games or sports or whatever.
Bitcoin is just starting and there's huge amount of news to come, and SN is a perfect place to dissect everything. Of course, there are lots of things related to Bitcoin, which can be discussed here.
Tim Apple made a comment on this. He said that he owns bitcoin, but doesn't want to buy bitcoin on Apple's balance sheet. People who invest in Apple stock want Apple stock, not bitcoin. If they want bitcoin, they can buy bitcoin.
I think one of major practical issues with PoS is that everyone must keep their coins in a hot wallet. You have to trade off your personal security for the security of the network. It's just stupid and removes one of major benefits from cryptographic currency, i.e. being able to cold store.
Cool idea, but it seems more like a collective rather than a state. First and foremost, the purpose of a state is to protect life and property. After that, all collaboration happens naturally through a free market. It's not possible to do this digitally and you don't need any collective or union to work together.
Whoever issued the bond, whether it's government or corporation, will get real spendable dollars when the bond is bought by a commercial bank. Those dollars are spent in the economy, which leads to rising prices. The amount of QE is pretty much equal to the amount of new money a commercial bank can create without increasing their risk.
Every bond is first bought by a commercial bank with new money (as deposits), and then the bond is bought by central bank with bank reserves. Equal amount of spendable deposits and bank reserves have been created. There are limits on how much bonds a commercial bank can hold, which limits their ability to create new money. With QE, they can swap the bonds into non-risky bank reserves which don't have those limits, and this allows them to create more money.
This is how I see it happening. The article is more nuanced, but I don't think it's accurate to say that QE doesn't increase spendable money in an economy.
Physical notes for just holding doesn't really make sense, because there are better ways for cold storage. The main purpose of a physical note is to enable bitcoin to be used as a medium of exchange. It's easy to exchange with instant finality, it protects privacy, and it works in offline settings.
I skimmed through the patent, but I'm still confused how it works. It is a multi-sig wallet which can be re-keyd with just one key, but can't be spent without cutting it. How does it exactly work?
This article tries to conflate Liquid sidechain as something that is a part of Bitcoin.
It's not. It's a completely separate centralized ledger run by a federation of corporations. It's not open, permissionless, censorship-resistant or decentralized. It's an antithesis to Bitcoin.
It's just a bunch of companies piggypacking on the success of Bitcoin, and trying to build a financial system of Bitcoin on a digital ledger which they control.