reply on: Bitcoin Staking: Unlocking 21M Bitcoins to Secure the Proof-of-Stake Economy \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja 9 Aug 2023 \ parent \ on: Bitcoin Staking: Unlocking 21M Bitcoins to Secure the Proof-of-Stake Economy bitcoin

(not that there is anything inherently wrong with a chain having its own native asset).

Ayyy there's the shitcoinery. Oh but you wrote a whole article about how "making your own token is a short term decision" right? A whole article about what's wrong with creating your own native asset.

You want to sit here and go back and forth on your positions. I showed you the problems with local currencies as a barrier to trade (assuming the rare non malicious case) and so you said you acknowledge that with your article, but now you want to backtrack on that, so now I'll present that a native asset is a barrier to trade again and show arcade city article again or not, because I don't need to be on this merry go round.

And if you don't like the name "DeFi" then for the purpose of this thread we can call it "onchain finance".

Is it on-chain finance? How much of the security actually comes from on-chain? WBTC (the example you provided) has all kinds of custodians.

"TVL for WBTC consists of the BTC deposits in custody that were used to mint WBTC"

And that's just one of many WBTC implementations.

Lets ignore that for a minute because in spite of you providing the worst example imaginable, we can just shove in drivechain or spacechains or something real quick to satisfy that. So then it comes to the dollar side of it, which rely typically on price APIs (central points of failure) to maintain its price. So why bother?

The structural economic conditions and mechanics of the ERM system that led to the incident you are referring to are incomparable to how fiat and overcollateralized stablecoins operate today.

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" -Hitchens's razor

The point is these are contracts that require global state, and their use far surpasses any alternative that lacks global state.

But we're going to provide the worst examples in the world

I asked you before to explain what exactly "rug pull" means in this context and how it is supposed to harm the BTC staking protocol. You have again evaded this,

Where the fuck are you confused? "Whenever there is a safety violation, 1/3 of the Bitcoin stake is guaranteed to be slashed. As long as 2/3 of the Bitcoin stake follows the PoS protocol honestly, the PoS chain is live."

So I provided a scenario where we have 2/3 of the Bitcoin stake. Guess what, new rules, the other 1/3 belongs to me now.

Say I'm wrong. Tell me exactly where I fucked up with my reading comprehension.

Let it be shown for the record that several posts into a request for a meaningful critique of the original paper shared

Let the record show that I provided high level issues with the very premise of the protocol and yeah put the book down about giving a shit after that. Because there's no point in analyzing a whole protocol if the high level overview is flawed from the start, but I did read the paper, which is already more than it deserved.

projected insecurities and traumas one layer at a time until we get to the shitpacked core of your epistemology

Its called pattern recognition not projecting trauma. People are machines of pattern recognition. All I'm saying is I recognize a pattern and it isn't good.