50 sats \ 5 replies \ @kepford OP 1 Apr \ parent \ on: Craig Raw (Sparrow Wallet) Shares Concerns About Bitcoin Prioritizing Scaling bitcoin
Not necessarily but everything has tradeoffs and most scaling solutions being discussed affect custody and centralization.
sure. but i think the important thing that craig doesn't mention in this is that the things i think he's referring to as scaling solutions many times are also UX improvements. the trade-offs are not just there to make bitcoin "scalable." it's there to make it more appealing to use for less technologically inclined users, this new "uncle jim" model included. though i do disagree with his way of defining "uncle jim."
decentralizing something can also make it more scalable depending on the technology. for example, bittorrent is a much more scalable solution for downloading files than a centralized server somewhere. higher up-time, quicker downloads, more censorship resistant.
reply
I don't disagree with you. The main thing I took away from Craig's comments was the changing in defining terms and the focus of bitcoiners. I do think we should hold the line on not your keys. There has to be a core group of people being absolutists to keep the compromises in check. Don't get me wrong. We can't all be absolutists and that isn't even a risk IMO. Most people are fearful of being an outcast. There needs to be standard bearers. This all seems like healthy debate to me at least.
reply
oh for sure. i think it's a necessary conversation.
do you think that someone being an absolutist would not having any custodial wallets? or is there room for a custodial wallet in some situtations? for example, keeping small amounts of funds in SN for zapping on this site.
reply
Depends on the person. I haven't heard anyone I respect deny the utility of custodial wallets or say you should never use them. People are all over the place though.
Personally, I think it is easy to make perfection the enemy of the good. If you look at eCash for example the different implementations have trade offs but from what I've seen they would be better than WoS as far as risks go. And, they would be better for someone using a very unstable fiat currency.
But, I don't think custodial solutions should be the scaling answer for bitcoin. Even many working on these projects don't call them that.
reply
well in all fairness, ecash isn't bitcoin and also, by many, called a scaling solution for bitcoin. not that the tech is a bad thing, but much of the conversation is around it's ability to scale the amount of transactions "on bitcoin" even though it's not. it's moving those transactions to something else, which is what custodial solutions do in a shittier way.
There has to be a core group of people being absolutists to keep the compromises in check.
well we do have this in the samourai team and they do great work. however, i think they lose alot by not being willing to diversify. i think it's better to be practical. custodial solutions have their uses, and we should be pushing people to hold their own keys as well. a custodial solution moving certain transactions off the main chain are a "scaling solution" in that there is now room for other transactions on the chain.
reply