11 sats \ 6 replies \ @DarthCoin 31 Oct 2023 \ on: Fiatlink: Fiat On/Off ramp spec bitcoin
I never understand the desire of developing software to link BTC with fiat.
We want to break from fiat and yet we still link to it.
Instead we should just start PAYING PEOPLE IN BTC and not going back to fiat anymore.
Anytime you are going back to fiat you are fucking yourself.
FFS we already have more than 90% of all BTC in circulation, are enough to start the bitcoin circular economy.
@DarthCoin with fiatlink we're trying to simplify no-kyc onramp for lightning wallets at the moment, not sure where the sin is in trying to make it easier for ppl to get bitcoin and make lightning easier to onboard into
reply
The onboarding must very simple: pay them in BTC.
From there, they start using it as money.
Buying / selling BTC it will always be a nightmare and will keep fiat alive.
fiat must die.
When the CBDCs will be in place (soon), all these on/off ramps will be totally useless. So you are wasting your time and money building these now.
We must focus on how to pay people in BTC and they spend in BTC. That's all.
reply
I'm not a fan of the on-ramp services myself despite using one at the moment (Spritz), but as long as those who use them use Bitcoin natively more than they use a VISA Bitcoin card or a Bitcoin-friendly bank like Xapo (no disrespect to them, by the way), it's a necessary evil in a world where Bitcoin still isn't at the level I feel it should be.
Both VISA and MasterCard suck massive balls, but VISA sucks slightly less. God forbid these services were on MasterCard...
reply
total number of people.
current number of bitcoin users.
problem to solve,
reply
And how, pray tell, would Breez get random users to get "paid" in Bitcoin? If Bitcoin is the inevitable and obvious choice after economic collapse, eventually everyone will get paid in Bitcoin (or a Bitcoin derivative). Why force individuals to wait for their employers before getting into Bitcoin, and miss the opportunity to convert their fiat now (before it's devalued)?
reply
deleted by author
reply