pull down to refresh
I'm looking at it from the other side. Payment channels are cheaper and faster than a blockchain. Even despite how centralized these shitcoin blockchains are, they're still super expensive! And transactions take ten-ish seconds to confirm.
Paying 2-4 USD for a stablecoin transfer in Tron sounds crazy to me. And that's with blocks every 3 seconds and some mega centralized PoS mining system.
Imagine how that would be if the majority of humans used stablecoins. Blockchains don't scale.
So what I say is that LN has a chance to compete and beat all these chains. It already exists and works, so it might be that it catches on just for its speed and fees alone. Not because stablecoin users would care about decentralization or trustlessness.
We might not want to miss that chance.
Bitcoin is faster and cheaper when censorship resistance is a priority, but if you don't need censorship resistance some larping federated database purpose built for stables is going to be faster and cheaper.
If stables are on bitcoin/lightning fees aren't going to stay where they are and the network is going to be surveilled and heterogeneous and slow and prone to failure.
We might not want to miss that chance.
I'm happy to. I feel like you all (stablecoin people) have so run out of ideas and narratives you are free basing hopium and it's led you to think stables fixes bitcoin-fixes-this. Good luck.
I'm here to learn, so don't take what I say as if I meant it to be the absolute truth.
I don't consider myself a “stablecoin person.” But I see people choosing stablecoins for payments, and I don't think hoping they'll switch to bitcoin anytime soon is much of a strategy. I'm trying to understand what we can offer them that's worth choosing.
Your point about a centralized database being more efficient is fair. But it raises a question I still don't have a good answer to.
Why wouldn't Tether run a centralized, publicly verifiable ledger? Users could still generate their own keys, receive payments without opening an account, and verify the history. Other people could build wallets for it. Tether could keep issuing on other networks too. Presumably, its own ledger could be very fast and cheap. They could even create a cashu mint... Don't expect them to, but it would definitely be world changing.
I understand that verifying the database wouldn't stop Tether from censoring transactions or shutting it down. But Tether already has the power to freeze USDT on the networks people use today. So how much additional trust would this actually introduce, especially compared with a blockchain controlled by a small group of operators?
There is a difference between trusting someone to redeem your dollars and trusting them to operate the entire payment network. I get that. What I'm missing is how valuable that separation is in practice for stablecoin users. Valuable enough to pay more for it? Or are the existing networks winning mainly because that's where the users, wallets, and liquidity already are?
Maybe there is something important I'm overlooking. That's what I'd like to understand, rather than dismissing the blockchain as theater or assuming it's necessary.
And that also changes the question about Lightning. Bitcoin gives it a much stronger foundation in terms of decentralization. But can Lightning compete on cost and throughput once we include liquidity and the exchanges at both ends?
I still think it's a possibility worth exploring. If people want dollars for spending, I'd like us to offer them something useful. Whether Lightning is actually the best way to do that is an open question for me.
I'm here to learn, so don't take what I say as if I meant it to be the absolute truth.
All good. I'm just a bit on one this morning and I'm tired of the newly popular narratives:
- AI fixes bitcoin because agents will use it (when people don't and don't value it) ... with no evidence afaict
- Stablecoins are coming to bitcoin and will make bitcoin better, faster, stronger ... also with no evidence
It's all NGU talk with new rationalizations to me.
Why wouldn't Tether run a centralized, publicly verifiable ledger?
It would make them a money transmitter. If they outsource it to "blockchains" and merely issue stable tokens they can evade such regulations. That's why I said federated (ie PoS), e.g. Stripe's Tempo.
What I'm missing is how valuable that separation is in practice for stablecoin users. Valuable enough to pay more for it?
I'd guess not. I don't think stablecoin users care about the network or trust or any of that. They care about cost and probably somewhat ease of use. I think that's what Tether's support-all-chains strategy has shown.
how can we make this an opportunity for Bitcoin
It already is. It's teaching people the wrong things about blockchains, but it's teaching them about blockchains.
Beyond that, imho the main way to make it an opportunity is the boring way: make bitcoin and lightning better by fixing/improving all the hard stuff that remains, and add things that further differentiate it from fiat systems. People will show up to something that works better and is better when they've run out of all these doomed to fail shortcuts. I don't think the answer (not that it's your answer) should be to bring these doomed to fail shortcuts to bitcoin.
Vicious
Why? What's the point? So that you can verify when/how Tether and the US Gov rugs you with more certainty? Why not use Tron or whatever if you're already resigned to counterparty risk? This mythical user that cares about the veracity of their shitcoins, but somehow can't comprehend bitcoin, doesn't exist afaict.