pull down to refresh
110 sats \ 6 replies \ @jp 11 Jun 2022 \ on: Daily discussion thread
Litecoin's implementation is MimbleWimble and subsequent banning from Exchanges has confirmed my belief that Bitcoin privacy must be handled on L2
CC: @sethforprivacy
Exchange delistings are something to be embraced, IMO, especially if there are real technical gains made that anger the establishment.
Monero has faced this "problem" for years with both delistings and large exchanges (i.e. Coinbase) refusing to list it because it actually works. I would be very worried if the current broken system is more than happy to support Bitcoin and don't seem scared or worried.
As far as privacy on L1/L2 -- while it's a nice sounding idea to just build privacy into L2, if L1 is not private (a la Bitcoin) L2's privacy suffers as a result, just like we've seen with many of the core privacy flaws in Lightning being the result of on-chain privacy issues bubbling up to Lightning.
I still do think Lightning is probably the most promising tool in Bitcoin for potential approachable privacy, but on-chain is still superior in most cases (if done right).
reply
It's harder for exchanges to ban Bitcoin than to ban Litecoin... because of the userbase
reply
Governments have a history of regulating things into non-existence. Adding privacy on L1 only would help strengthen part of their argument - which will be supported by nocoiners.
If a DEX becomes available for Bitcoin, then I would be 100% support of L1 privacy
reply
I think we need just a bit more adoption and then we should push really hard for privacy on L1...
reply
Bitcoin already has L1 privacy by way of CoinJoins and CoinSwaps. And getting banned from exchanges shouldn't really matter, since we have p2p exchanges such as Bisq.
reply
Shots fired
reply