pull down to refresh

Perhaps we would be better off if we just acknowledge that the way bitcoin becomes usable by 1 billion people is through trust, rather than technical advances.

No, this should not be some north star for us. Because the state assumes the role of trust police and even when it polices with the stated intention of improving trust tends to inject ineffective and unrelated surveillance requirements and regulatory moats which tend to prevent real trust and accountability from forming. Trust is a attack vector.

Bitcoiners may use trust to scale, but trustlessness is where the value comes from and is the whole fucking point.

I may drink a protein shake instead of eating a meal but in no way should I be proud/promote/encourage that as if it is The Way.

no. most people just won't self custody. too scary. the evidence is clear.

trust is the way to scale.

more custodians. better distribution among custodians. separation of custodians and state.

that's how bitcoin scales.

reply
259 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 29 Oct

If bitcoin succeeding requires fixing governments, it's failed.

reply

i agree with your last statent. but you dont need to fix goverenta to have better separation. or better distribution.

tou can have more uncle jimmies. there's always workarounds.

reply

Exactly, Bitcoin isn't here to reform governments, it's here so we don't need them

reply

The clear evidence is that people trust banks... until the bank freezes their account, fear is real, but the solution isn't custody, it's sovereignty

reply

I'd argue that the optionality of the base layer is what can enable more disciplined trust in the higher order layers (#1030571).

So I do think trustodial solutions are probably the way to scale, but my hope is that it scales better and more fairly than the current fiat system, due to the option of unilateral exit.

reply

When your trustodian dies, unilateral exit isn't an option, it's the only way out.

reply

Is that so? Then I wouldn't want to use a service like that.

reply

If it weren't so, it would be self-custodial.

reply

I thought a lot of these services were premised on the possibility of unilateral exit

reply

They are larped on that premise, yes.

What I mean: you say unilateral exit is an option, but it isn't. It's literally your only defense. Not optional because it's your only way out. Thus, the optionality of the base layer is a mirage. It's wishful thinking. The optionality is the non-base-layer, i.e. the Fake L2s. You can own Bitcoin without a fake L2, but you cannot own Bitcoin without the L1.

reply
11 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 29 Oct

I understand that trust is useful and will be used. I just don't think it's ever anything but a temporary solution so should not be stated as The Solution.

reply

Rather than the protein shake, drink some Huel Black 😉

122 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 29 Oct -310 sats

Has nothing to do with North Stars, it's just math.