pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @frostdragon OP 6 Aug 2023 \ parent \ on: Privacy is important, but bitcoin doesn’t help bitcoin
  • lightning definitely has potential for some good solutions here, but the jury is still out IMO. The protocol is complicated as frick, so I’m not convinced it’ll be as robust in the end as we think. But I’m open, time will tell.
  • bartering doesn’t always happen in the absence of money, and it’s actually good for the economy in a lot of ways - especially the local economy. I think in general, Bitcoin is a de-globalizing force, and bartering can cohere with it quite nicely.
  • I’m not saying bitcoin erases the internet, I think it changes people’s relationship to it
  • let’s just say my professional familiarity with this topic is the reason I stand by the statement that internet privacy is not near as robust as people think. It’s also why I argue very strongly that your seed phrase should never touch the internet… because [insert thousands of zero days]
And, you do have a good point - privacy should be clearly defined. I’ll get back to you on that when I have more time to type that out.
write
preview
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @mallardshead 6 Aug 2023
  • The jury is not out on Lightning. It's turning a corner. Think about about where we were with it just 2 years ago. It's complicated like the interdependent protocols making up the internet is. Splicing, Bolt12, LNURL, Zaps, non-custodial...very new stuff. The mainstream doesn't follow it.
  • No place in the developed world is barter commonplace. Efficient marketplaces don't do that. We have Forex markets now and developed commodities markets where the base/quote pairs are not commodities/commodities
  • It'll change peoples relationship to the internet in that it will allow FOSS to thrive. The world is rapidly digitizing, where many goods and services are themselves being digitized: porn, music, film, sports, medicine (esp psychiatry), communication, work (esp remote), shopping etc.
  • People having keys touch the internet and losing their bitcoin was mostly a problem years ago. We now have NFC, scripting, a possible vault BIP, better education, and hybrid custody. The directional trend of this are fewer exploits. The main concern and how the majority of people lose their bitcoin is losing their keys
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @frostdragon OP 7 Aug 2023
  • "very new stuff" is why the jury is still out. Just needs more time, and we need to get to a point where new features aren't continually being added. Each new addition is a new thing that could go wrong... Don't get me wrong, it's all very promising. It just hasn't quite stood the test of time yet, and that's important for something that's supposed to be a global solution.
  • No place in the developed world is off fiat yet either, and globalization reigns at the moment. I'm not saying large companies and transactions will happen via bartering, I'm saying on the individual level, in local communities, if people want to keep their transactions private, the easiest way to do that will be some form of non-digital transaction. It's hard for us to imagine that in the world we live in, but so it bitcoin in general. There's no underestimating how it's going to displace everything.
  • Some services are being more digitized, but others are pushing the market further offline. Music is a good example - since music has become digital, live music is where the real money is. Building a following in person, at shows, is what's highly recommended in the music industry. Digitizing medicine, so far, is a terrible idea so far. It's been a HIPAA nightmare. Telehealth platforms are literally selling PHI to Facebook.
  • Yeah, most of those solutions include keeping your private keys from touching the internet. That's exactly my point.
Privacy = sharing private information with a trusted party, while keeping it hidden from others.
When you're thinking through privacy, think about how many trust barriers there are between you and the person you want to share private information with. Over the internet, there are a lot of barriers and even individuals you have to trust to be competent enough to write code securely and have enough integrity to keep your data locked down. Unfortunately the insane hustle culture we live in doesn't exactly incentivize that kind of thing. I think that'll change as consequences get worse and as more people realize the insane state cyber security is in, but I think it'll also push people to spend less of their lives on the internet.
Just a theory. I appreciate the thoughts and criticism, truly.
reply