Screenshot just in case: https://imgur.com/cSZL6Kk

Two notable entities spreading a false narrative. There are plenty examples of other notable entities spreading this impatient horse shit and many people in the comments willing to point to some sort of political fault to the point that between the date range used above, the overwhelming narrative was "He wont be arrested because of political donations to democrats". The whole of Bitcoin twitter, Reddit, and Stacker had streams of comments in similar vein.

So go fuck yourself.

If you have a long enough time horizon though you are probably right - not in your life time. But it will go to zero. When Bitcoin consumes the last of fiat and we are fully on a Bitcoin standard. Optimally at a specific pace in order to impact the least amount of people negatively.

Off topic, MSM has nothing to do with what I said.

"ThEYre NoT aRREsTING hIM fAsT eNoUgH" - A Large majority of dumb fuck Bitcoiner's trying to shoe horn this into some evil political narrative.

You are a disgrace to the core ethos of Bitcoin, you bunch of confirmation bias loving retards.

There was once a time where I believed in ETH. I still like the core idea, which is essentially to have distributed compute power in a trustless way. That would basically render most of the hosting industry no longer relevant.

Unfortunately, that is only the idea they marketed, and not the one that was chased. I hope to see this built as a layer ontop of Bitcoin some day but if that never happens I am ok with it because I like where Bitcoin is heading and the layered approach. Lightning is great for its use case. I just want to see a future where its somehow possible to run entire virtual machines in a trustless distributed environment. How wild would that be?

Really tragic to see ETH end up the way that it has, but it was doomed from the start.

Maybe finally all the talent that went to develop all this snake oil will start to move over into Bitcoin exclusively. Once "Crypto" is drained of human capital, it will not be possible to recover to any significant glory.

Yeah no problem! It's weird because it Stackernews notified me of this reply instead of a different one. Wish there was a way to delete comments so I just edited it out to say deleted instead.

Right now. But what happens when WU decides to do what Strike is doing. They can run this in parallel to their current infrastructure. Jack has stated very clearly that WU would do things cheaper if they could, but they cant due to the physical legacy infrastructure needed to maintain their business.

That is why it is a race. There is no reason at all WU cannot get in on this and eventually fully migrate their infrastructure. Anyone that thinks its not possible has never seen a mega corp rip its infra apart and practically start over - I have.

So yeah, it's cheaper for now, but the only way Strike can have a monopoly at this is to have clear and strong first mover advantage. They have it now, but it is not clear or strong. Even if so, it is unclear why Strike having a monopoly is a good thing, and also unclear what the advantage is if other companies will be able to do the same thing.

Bitcoiners are only positive that Strike will be successful because Jack says its difficult for other companies to compete with this, but I would be interested to find out how accurate that really is. I don't really see it being accurate from a perspective of resources alone. All these companies could operate at a loss for decades just to extinguish Strike out of the market and corner all this stuff for themselves.

[deleted]

You are right.

Another interesting point with Strike. They still have some time left for this goal, but it is getting down to the wire and I have not seen it happen yet. Earlier they announced a deal with MCR and some other company. The end goal being integration in MCR's terminal software for self checkout and cash register systems.

I have not seen anything there, and Strike did say it would be around Q4 of this year.

Also the way Strike works in countries like Argentina is if you send money (BTC or Fiat) to an account there, it will be converted into stablecoin in order to provide easy access to dollars, so there is no one transacting in BTC, but the network is being used to transmit value in a way that would otherwise be not possible. In this respect, Strike's goal would be to monopolize the market, which aligns with what a for-profit company would do, though I do think this introduces the potential for conflicts of interest when it comes to BTC.

The mechanics work same way with an American account except instead of a stablecoin Strike will just show a dollar balance.

People in those countries can still buy BTC through Strike and self custody, but I don't think anyone really transacts in BTC directly outside of pocket areas where communities have been built up around Bitcoin like in some places of El Salvador.

Jack's message that he can out compete Visa is an optimistic view, though I am not sure how accurate it is. As soon as competing companies realize it, there is nothing stopping them from doing the same. Visa has a thousand times more resources than Strike will ever see and if all Strike is doing is bridging the gap into a well optimized network for transactions, other companies can do that too. All you need is a financial service that can both bank and run a node, like River Financial: https://1ml.com/channel/830588675907911680 .

This indicates to me the only reason for this type of talk is because he understands that he is on a time crunch, and convincing people otherwise will buy him a little more time before Visa and others decide to jump in on this. All of them will. Who can lock down the exclusivity contracts first?

As you said, replace WU with Strike and what is fundamentally the difference? WU can go down the same path Strike has gone down. In any case I welcome competition over monopoly.

What is this propaganda? I love Lightning and run a node.

As a more general side note I am tired of all these so-called "important" or "essential" jobs paying terribly, and the workers of them treated about the same.

For as much work as you have to do just to not be underwater as an lightning operator the pennies per month is a laughable incentive to get people to run a lightning node beyond the ones willing to do so altruistically.

No one has any authority to call being a Lightning node operator important if you can't find a way to fairly compensate the operators for their time and effort maintaining this. Don't give us these titles in order to dupe people into operating a Lightning node with unrealistic expectations.