pull down to refresh

CCs are shitcoins. The laws and politics that force/d their use are/were obstruction of Bitcoin and freedom of choice. The barrier to entry is now too high...when you (were forced to) limit participation to the less than 0.1% of the global population that have enough pre existing knowledge of LN to join SNs now. If we mostly only get hardcore Bitcoiners joining, there may be insufficient critical mass for exponential growth. Can understand the huge investment that was made to create the systems to enable CCs and that would be hard to put aside, but what are the new user and participation volume growth figures prior to implementation and post?
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 9 Apr
What is your definition of shitcoins and how does it apply to CCs?
reply
Issued and controlled by a centralised and identifiable entity.
Acknowledge their use was forced upon SN by threats and regulation rather than a choice...which does make them different to regular shitcoins.
But as Siggy suggests maybe now they are not needed.
If they are not limiting SN growth and long term viability then equally they may not be such a real problem, but I worry they might be.
reply