Why all the UMA hate? \ stacker news ~bitcoin

6303 sats \ 34 comments \ @lawndough 3 Dec 2023 bitcoin

My understanding is it’s a better way to to send payments in any currency to a receiver that can receive it in any currency. That seems like a win for the vast majority of people that are building global businesses and dealing with multiple currencies.

Despite that I know bitcoin is superior, I don’t need to force it on people who aren’t ready. Just let people decide what currency they want to use and eventually they’ll all be using bitcoin.

Just to be clear, I also disagree with KYC. I just see UMA as doing more good than bad.

view all related items

2062 sats \ 18 replies \ @TonyGiorgio 3 Dec 2023

Copy and pasted an existing spec (adding one or two little things) we've all been hard at work building for years and they called it their own. Notice how there's not a SINGLE fucking word about LNURL on their marketing site. They literally don't care about lightning or the open source community. The correct way to do this is to submit a PR into the spec. They've essentially gone hostile as far as I'm concerned.

If you disagree with KYC, you'll see their version is supposed to enable regulated surveillance through the use of VASP to VASP fincen requirements. This is likely why they didn't even bother trying to engage the open source community at all.

The cross currency compatibility is the least of anyone's concerns.

220 sats \ 0 replies \ @doubleplusgood23 3 Dec 2023

I popped open their docs and they say they're an extension to LNURL right there https://docs.uma.me/uma-standard/introduction?language=python#uma-standard-overview

They also mention it upfront on their GitHub, even going as far as to say you should submit changes to LNURL as a LUD https://github.com/uma-universal-money-address

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @nout 3 Dec 2023

First paragraph incorrect, second paragraph correct.

44 sats \ 0 replies \ @TonyGiorgio 3 Dec 2023

Show me where it says LNURL here. I'll wait.

https://www.uma.me/

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @benthecarman 3 Dec 2023

where is the pr

https://github.com/lnurl/luds/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-desc

11 sats \ 13 replies \ @lawndough OP 3 Dec 2023

Fair point on the spec. At least they kept it open source and it’s backwards compatible with non UMA Lightning addresses.

The KYC stuff sucks for sure… it’s just the next step for bringing Lightning payments to the masses. We need to meet them where they are and the vast majority of people are still making payments in their local currencies.

My opinions is, once they start using Lightning payments, it’s just a matter of time before they make the switch to sats.

280 sats \ 12 replies \ @nerd2ninja 3 Dec 2023

So everything you like about this is actually called Bolt-12 (yes bolt-12 has a fiat currency field as part of the spec). All that Uma adds, is kyc.

There is absolutely no excuse. There is no "helping adoption". There is only you, all your information getting leaked from corporate server hacks, and the IRS meddling in African payment transfers. How does that last one work? It doesn't. Which is why they're unbanked in the first place.

0 sats \ 11 replies \ @lawndough OP 3 Dec 2023

I found some info on it I don’t understand how bolt 12 could send fiat currency if a bank can’t be connected. For businesses that want to get paid in dollars via lightning network, they need the money to come in as dollars and I feel like only a bank connected to lightning can do that for them.

Is there more you can share about it?

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @benthecarman 3 Dec 2023

Basically with bolt 12 you can ask for an invoice for $12 instead of 30k sats. You still send sats in the end, but the invoice request amount is in a different currency

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @nikotsla 3 Dec 2023

if a bank can’t be connected

The main idea of BTC and all the tech on top of it is... to fuck the banks... so, why we need to connect to them?

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @lawndough OP 3 Dec 2023

I agree for the long term. I just see UMA as a way for non-bitcoin businesses to start benefiting from faster, cheaper, cross-border payments. By using Lightning as the rails, it entrenches bitcoin so when fiat currencies do eventually lose favor, it should be a seamless transition to sats.

110 sats \ 0 replies \ @nikotsla 3 Dec 2023

non-bitcoin businesses could start right now without UMA, and get faster, cheaper, cross-border payments, just use LNURL.

The business will have to do "a lot" of work anyway, UMA don't add value to them, just a bad blueprint to follow, but "they" don't touch anything. The rate, conversion and change from fiat to btc (in best case scenario) or shitcoins are in the business orbit, the business need to "compliance" to local authorities and be enabled to accept btc and change for fiat.

From my view, UMA it's just trying to size an opportunity without risk, follow my recipe (pay me) and I am clean.

I need to dig a little more into the infrastructure they are using, because seems a "private" network on top off lightning, their nodes router only kyc/compliance invoices, so if a normal node try to connect with them, it will be forbidden.

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @nerd2ninja 3 Dec 2023

Have you heard of strike or CashApp? They both have this thing called "pay with lightning". Fiat to btc to send, payment app with connected bank account converts btc to fiat on the receive, but Fiat is only on the ends. Either end could not use Fiat at all. Its more interoperable that way.

And that's without Bolt-12

10 sats \ 5 replies \ @lawndough OP 3 Dec 2023

Ya, I have both Strike and Cashapp accounts. I had to KYC with both.

I am not an expert but it seems UMA and Strike are solving the same problem: cross border, multi-currency payments using Lightning payment rails. UMA is trying to do it in a way so any company or institution can use the protocol and create UMA addresses for their users. Whereas, with Strike, in order to do cross border transactions, the sender and receiver need a Strike account or the receiver has to be in a country where Strike has a banking partner. (I am not actually sure about this, but that’s what it seems like.)

Both Strike and UMA allow for bitcoin payments from their user accounts to other Lightning addresses so I find them equally interoperable?

31 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 3 Dec 2023

it seems UMA and Strike are solving the same problem: cross border, multi-currency payments using Lightning payment rails

Is just another paypal over LN... Bitcoin was created EXACTLY to avoid that ! we don't need that. We just have to use Bitcoin. That's it. We are not going back to fiat. Please read again...

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @doubleplusgood23 4 Dec 2023

Do you think the white paper is a holy book or something? "Please see Satoshi 2:6 on why the Central Banking is the root of all evil"

reply on another page

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @nerd2ninja 3 Dec 2023

You have a protocol and payment services tangled together and I need you to untangle them stat!

the sender and receiver need a Strike account or the receiver has to be in a country where Strike has a banking partner.

I genuinely do not comprehend why you assume that. We're just using a different protocol remember. Its almost like you've never used Bitcoin before. You can withdraw from one exchange and directly into another, you can withdraw into a wallet with full noncustodial control over the funds and then where ever including an exchange if so desired.

Okay, so now that we remember that we're using Bitcoin, Strike and CashApp say "Pay with lightning". When you hit the button, it goes into your fiat balance, buys Bitcoin and sends it off to where ever the fuck you tell it to send it off to. That could be your wallet (no fucking banking partner) that could be another payment app that's selling the Bitcoin in some other country that doesn't share the same bank because banks are not relevant to what's going on except for the Fiat side stuff.

I can not break this down any further

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @lawndough OP 3 Dec 2023

Good point on protocol vs payment service- I am definitely tangling those.

Re: Strike, I’m talking about the “send globally” feature. It seems like to send a remittance to someone in one of those countries in their preferred currency, you’re relying on Strike having a banking partner in that country. I know you can send money out of your bank account to any other Lightning account. It’s just the “fiat currency -> BTC -> BTC -> different fiat currency” piece that I can’t tell the difference between UMA and Strike.

I am genuinely trying to learn, not trying to be divisive.

view replies

20 sats \ 6 replies \ @GlobalThreat 3 Dec 2023

UMA?

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @WeAreAllSatoshi 3 Dec 2023

This was my reaction, too.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @lawndough OP 3 Dec 2023

https://www.uma.me/

11 sats \ 2 replies \ @Zepasta 3 Dec 2023

they mention "crypto" 🚩

4 sats \ 1 reply \ @lawndough OP 3 Dec 2023

That is a fact. Huge 🚩

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinIsTheFuture 3 Dec 2023

Yup, I’m out!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @KesterBils 3 Dec 2023

This doesn't work for me at all... I'm all out.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @doubleplusgood23 3 Dec 2023

Huh, I hadn't heard of this before but this does look pretty cool OP, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @phygit 3 Dec 2023

Not totally related to this interesting thread but, at the very least, I question the choice of the name UMA (conflicting with https://uma.xyz, in existence since 2020, oracle data on Ethereum).

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nikotsla 3 Dec 2023

Maybe they use the same blueprint:

White paper
A lot of marketing
No way to be profitable in the next 5 or 10 years (reach visa/mastercard level)
- Pay integrator to use of the system
- Pay regulators to make bills and enforce their rules
- Income? sats per invoice routed?
Need "investors" to maintain the fake
Go burst.

I am not talking about ICO but... it's the same rhyme...

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @nikotsla 3 Dec 2023

I wrote in others post about it, my main issue is with the attitude (they have plenty as other user already show), they only sell a "framework", all the work is in the hand of the actors that use "their" framework. Fiat conversion, rates, kyc is on the hand of "other" people, UMA don't do a shit. And you know what the incentives are for actors to use that framework? $$$ :) fiat, it's not a superior tech, copy&paste common credit card flows on top of LN.

For me it's a marketing company, they are using all the tools available to pump shits, a lot of "paid" content, a lot of "paid" integrator, and catch phrases like "easy", "cheap", "decentralize", "compliance".

And if you flip and look from an enduser perspective... they never will know about LN or BTC, just a couple of input to send/receive money.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @KesterBils 3 Dec 2023

I don't trust anything that has a fiat underlining... Many people are gonna come up with protocols that are fiat-based but will look for ways to bring them into our ecosystem. All they have to do is say they're pushing adoption and we'll jump on it, even though I don't understand much about UMA, but it's nice we're having this conversation.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 3 Dec 2023

Did you ever read this?