pull down to refresh
136 sats \ 2 replies \ @justin_shocknet 24 Mar \ on: What do you think of the "Fiat as L2" blackpill? bitcoin
I'd reject the labeling of that of L2, its not a L2... Lighting is the only real L2. Bitcoin treasury notes are at best an application.
That said, its perfectly fine as long as people have the ability to opt-out and retain the ability to opt-in to Bitcoin directly.
This has after-all been the goal of "hard money" gold-silver bugs all along, since it's technically a retvrn to history, ending fiat where the notes are once again tied to an underlying asset.
What's funny about that is it would be Bitcoin undoing Gold's failures because Gold is not instantly transferrable/auditable and so fiat was born.
I'd reject the labeling of that of L2, its not a L2... Lighting is the only real L2
Agreed, I don't consider it a real L2 either.
What's funny about that is it would be Bitcoin undoing Gold's failures because Gold is not instantly transferrable/auditable and so fiat was born
And gold infrastructure instantly developed fractional reserves too. History does not repeat itself it rhymes
reply
fractional reserves
I think that's the ultimate question, is Bitcoin's audit-ability/portability enough to head off fractional reserve banking on such a hard money standard. Will it repeat/rhyme this failures of gold...
I think the idea of proof-of-reserves/liabilities around with Bitcoin and "crypto" is one reasons it even gets there in the first place.
Even despite their lack of transparency, people can still watch known Coinbase address on chain like a hawk for macro moves. I think there'd be even more pressure for transparency at the state level.
Imagine rival countries accusing each other of not having sufficient reserves to back their currency and causing currency runs. There's only one way to innoculate for that, transparency. Bitcoin is for enemies in that way: the ledger weaponized transparency.
reply