pull down to refresh
56 sats \ 0 replies \ @standardcrypto 3h
The argument is not that people will never need a scaling solution that accounts for more self custody.
It's that if there doesn't seem to be a bottleneck now, it's not an emergency.
You respond to the bottlenecks you actually have, not the bottlenecks you might have.
Resources are limited, you have to prioritize.
reply
296 sats \ 1 reply \ @justin_shocknet 2h
No, this is gaslighting bullshit.
I'm sure there are plenty of forker run sockpuppets saying it, because it presumes the forker framing that arbitrary scaling increases are possible.
There is nothing, no fork or op code, that makes people who can't afford Bitcoin be able to use Bitcoin.
Need 3-4 decimals to do a transaction? Sorry, can't change that. That's just how it works, if you want to self custody you better stack 5-6 decimals.
These shitforkers can't even articulate what the scaling goals are, just some handwavvy shit about moar scaling. Only conclusion one can draw is they're a coalition of spooks, scammers, and humble retards looking to etheriumify Bitcoin.
reply
17 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rsync25 OP 1h
I agree with each word that you said
reply
30 sats \ 1 reply \ @Eivydas 3h
Most people will probably need more black swan events with exchanges to start paying more attention to self-custody. General society is more reactive than proactive.
Some also like the convenience of holding Bitcoin on exchanges and getting all these easily accessible extra features to spend, earn, borrow, trade on your BTC instantly. I'm not saying it's justifiable, but I think that's the likely rationale.
We should have more Bitcoin builders focusing on empowering the self-custodial Bitcoin in order to reach feature parity with exchanges (as much as possible) with an equivalent UX. Maybe then people wouldn't choose to sacrifice security over convenience anymore.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Msd0457890 2h
You are very right in what you say.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @freetx 2h
I actually can't understand what the point he is trying to make....seems rather scattershot.
- keeping private keys safe is hard
- users don't know difference between self-custody and 3rd party services
- mnemonic seeds, multisigs and recovery keys are becoming more prevalent and user-friendly
- self-custody is needed to keep bitcoin self-sovereign
So thats the setup, and I think its safe to say that everyone agrees with those points. But all this begs the question:
- How exactly is any given scalability proposal going to help with those things? Does a new opcode mean that users won't need to keep private keys secure? Does it mean that users will then know the difference between self-custody and not?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @LowK3y19 3h
You got to it’s key
reply