pull down to refresh

Technical vs social and economic dimensions of bitcoin development
1398 sats \ 13 comments \ @SimpleStacker 5h bitcoin
Would love to hear @k00b, @DarthCoin, @justin_shocknet's thoughts on this, and anyone else who's technical, semi-technical, or been in the bitcoin space a long time.
After diving a bit deeper than I normally would about covenants, I got pretty strong early Ethereum/Cardano vibes in the sense that within pro-covenants people, there seems to be a lot of excitement about technical possibilities, but little introspection on whether or not these technical solutions are really needed, and whether you're putting the cart before the horse (introducing technology to solve problems that aren't really problems, or aren't technical problems)
I'm no expert, but if you were to ask me, I think the lack of bitcoin adoption is not primarily technical. Fees are so low that anyone should be able to transact on-chain no problem right now. Self-custody is scary, but honestly not that complicated than figuring out how to use a phone. Most people can figure it out if they really want to.
It's not surprising that there is a lot of excitement over technical possibilities, but I have a real concern that all these technical solutions will just go the way of other altcoins trying to solve this or that technical problem. They deploy, and over time there's no use case.
Personally, i'd rather focus my attention on the social and economic aspects of bitcoin adoption/development.
Thoughts?
Also, here's a link to two posts that triggered my thoughts:
#1218881
#1218776
write
preview
related posts
107 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 2h
Rule #1: The most important feature of the Bitcoin Protocol is reliability. Rule #2: When in doubt, see rule #1.
This doesn't mean that covenant functionality needs to be excluded forever, it just needs to be actually used - for example by building things on Liquid, which has much functionality for this on a compatible chain. 1
I'm personally aligned with Jimmy on this, even though I don't really like the market cap argument or the faulty taproot-annex narrative. What's funny is that the "debunk" article says exactly the same thing: changes are risky. And side-effects from this decision are still felt today - it's been fueling painful discourse between devs for 2 years now.
Take the long view, see rule #1.

Footnotes

  1. this is why I mind Liquid less than Darth does, because I simply see it as a (risk-increased) sandbox where you can go live with an experiment. However, I am sensitive to his argument (as I perceive it) of L-BTC being an IOU, but at least they're honest-ish about that by not calling it BTC. ↩
reply
100 sats \ 6 replies \ @lightcoin 5h
little introspection on whether or not these technical solutions are really needed, and whether you're putting the cart before the horse (introducing technology to solve problems that aren't really problems, or aren't technical problems)
how can you say this when my blog post which you linked to in your post does just that?
I'm no expert, but if you were to ask me, I think the lack of bitcoin adoption is not primarily technical
I am actually a bitcoin product manager who talks to users and potential users of bitcoin regularly as part of my job, and I have been building bitcoin products for over a decade, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that bitcoin's technical limitations are holding back adoption.
They deploy, and over time there's no use case.
My blog post which you read gave citations for alts with hundreds of thousands of "wrapped BTC" being used there. I personally know people who use "privacy coins" because they aren't satisfied with bitcoin or Lightning privacy. This "no use case" trope is flat out wrong.
Personally, i'd rather focus my attention on the social and economic aspects of bitcoin adoption/development.
That's fine, you can focus your attention where you want. Nobody needs to be involved or an expert in every aspect of bitcoin. Just stay out of the way of people who choose to focus on improving the tech, unless you have good reason to believe they're actively harming bitcoin.
reply
170 sats \ 4 replies \ @DarthCoin 5h
I have been building bitcoin products for over a decade
just because you build solutions, it doesn't mean you understand what users need / want or even that are good for Bitcoin itself.
Maybe you are just building stuff you wanted for you and that is perfectly fine.
I was also a product manager for a big software company some years ago. They were pushing me to promote a solution even to those that they didn't even have to use, just for the sake of selling the product.... so I quit. I could not lie to the people.
I personally know people who use "privacy coins" because they aren't satisfied with bitcoin or Lightning privacy.
That's because they never have the patience to study more Bitcoin and specifically LN.... did you tried to explain that to them?
Just stay out of the way of people who choose to focus on improving the tech
WRONG. A reminder: without these "clueless users" your "improvements" are totally useless, nobody will use them. So their feedback is CRUCIAL.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @lightcoin 5h
The changes I push for in the products I work on are entirely customer/user-driven. An idea might start from an insight I have based on my own experience but to invest commercial resources I take additional steps to validate sufficient market demand, which mainly involves a lot of talking to existing or potential users, among other forms of market research and validation techniques.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 5h
Yeah but this statement
Just stay out of the way of people who choose to focus on improving the tech
sounds like that meme - "I am the expert and I am here to fix Bitcoin..."
Anyways, in the end any "improving the tech" reside on this...
So let's see where it goes.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @lightcoin 5h
I think we're talking about two different things... one is about "bitcoin users", who I will gladly listen to feedback from everyone, especially if they are using or could benefit from a product I have built. The other is about "bitcoin activists" and what they choose to focus on. People who want to be "bitcoin adoption" activists and focus on that are great, they are needed. But we shouldn't focus only on that, to the exclusion of continuing to improve bitcoin tech to make bitcoin better money. That is the point I was trying to make there.
So let's see where it goes.
indeed
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 5h
In Bitcoin world, everybody is an activist... because each one of us have its own agenda. My open agenda is: fuck the govs and the banks.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker OP 5h
I am not yet at the point of actively wanting to stop covenants. I am still trying to understand. I'm just conveying that where I stand, the risks seem to outweigh the benefits.
reply
130 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 5h
People who do understand the code too often equate that to understanding Bitcoin... They see it through the lens of a technical thing, which it isn't ... I actually think it's impossible to have a maximalist view on Bitcoin from a predominantly technical perspective.
#1201148
Your intuition is correct, tech is just a means to a socio-economic end. Focusing on technical problems is more often than not focusing on the symptom rather than the disease.
Technical initiatives in Bitcoin, something designed to resist the ever changing whims, are generally displays of vanity from technical people seeking to validate their echo-chamber and self-anointed expertise.
For others who are less or non-technical, they fall into the instinct of human hierarchy and division of labor, and glom on to things they don't understand but sound good coming from people they perceive as knowing more than them. This is further exploited with coordinated propaganda by well-resourced interest that see an opportunity to use the network as a multiplier.
The overwhelming majority of technical advances since Bitcoin's inception has been at the edges, or the shell as I call it, where Bitcoin actually meets the user... not changes to Bitcoin itself. Things like Electrum, HD wallets, PSBT, or seed phrases for example. Few understand this because most things users interface with at the shell are largely specified as "BIPs", which is a misnomer since they aren't necessarily changes to Bitcoin itself, but rather client standards, lending merit to arguments that implementations be distinct from a wallet (BTCD, Libbitcoin for example). With the exception of a few non-controversial bug-fixes, changes to Bitcoin itself have been deleterious... segwit discount, taproot notably.
If we look at "problems" like underwhelming adoption and ease of self-custody through a non-technical lense the prospective solutions get more viable to implement but also closer to the user journey, and acknowledge what Bitcoin is used for.
If you see Bitcoin as most importantly a store of value, the fact that a relatively small percentage of people even have any wealth to save is the biggest inhibitor.
If you see self-custody and censorship-resistance as it's most important property, and in light of the fact few have wealth to save, then tools for permissionless earning of Bitcoin come to the fore (Lightning UX via things like ShockWallet, Lightning.Pub, Lightning.Video)
Note that focus on either of these issues cannot be materially improved by further changes to Bitcoin itself. Self-custody will always require key management, which has been an issue as old as cryptography itself. Economic disparity, education, discernment, are issues as old as human civilization. Ones virtues imparted on something resistant-by-design to the weaponization of virtues is a fools errand.
reply
47 sats \ 2 replies \ @Coinsreporter 5h
I'm no expert, but if you were to ask me, I think the lack of bitcoin adoption is not primarily technical.
I completely agree. It's that more than 80% people globally are still not aware that Bitcoin even exists.
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker OP 5h
No idea about globally, but in most developed countries I'm pretty sure 99% are aware of it.... but maybe don't know anything other than the price is high
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 5h
but maybe don't know anything other than the price is high
Yes, I think when we talk about adoption we need to distinguish it between 'Bitcoin as MoE' and 'Bitcoin as SoV'.
We gotta make it exist as MoE and prove why it's better on it. Bitcoin as MoE is the real adoption imo. Unless people know it, they don't know if it even exists.
reply
47 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 5h
I am not an expert in Bitcoin technical aspects (I mean code and stuff like that). I understand most of the technicalities that make Bitcoin works at a level where I can explain it to a normie or another IT like me. And that's because I also read a lot of technical documentation, trying to understand it better.
Yes, I have a long experience with using it and with all kind of solutions because I like to tinker about and also help devs with feedback for their apps (if are useful).
So, I cannot have a strong explanation about "covenants" right now and also I saw that we have now multiple proposals around "covenants" or so called CTV.
That's why you will not see me "debating" too much this subject, because in really technical terms ... I know shit. I am sorry but I cannot have a good tech opinion on something I still do not understand it.
What I like to see is somekind of consensus on what could really help Lightning Network to go further. For me LN is the future of Bitcoin. Bitcoin without LN is jack shit... will became just another crap like paper gold.
What we already have for the base (onchain) I think is enough, strong and working. Yeah maybe, to push LN further with new functionalities or fixes, we will need some minor changes for the base (onchain), but I do not think that will be a problem in the future.
Right now, Bitcoin is just fine, as you said, fees are low (but not for long), LN works pretty well (but that doesn't mean we should stop improve it) and sometimes clunky, but hey we've just started.... there's so much to be done.
I think for the moment, we should concentrate more on educating normies how to use Bitcoin at BASIC level and don't bother them with too much technicalities. We already have so many solutions that WORKS. Even with struggling to run a LN node is still a huge progress. If not... damn it, each old bitcoiner should be an "uncle Jim" for all those around him. IMHO the "uncle Jim" scenario is the next phase for Bitcoin, onboarding as many we could. Then in time we can figure it out more solutions.
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING AN UNCLE JIM / TRUSTODIAL (stole this term from @justin_shocknet 😂 ). Stupid people should trust somebody with knowledge and morals (most of good bitcoiners I consider them with good morals). But at least if you run a LN bank / uncle Jim, be open and sincere and put all the cards on the table,. informing your users about the risks.
As I wrote this old guide too: https://darth-coin.github.io/merchants/private-banks-over-ln-en.html
reply