pull down to refresh
5 sats \ 2 replies \ @fiatbad 12h \ parent \ on: Bitcoin has a Brand Problem bitcoin
I think I see your point there, and you make some good ones.
Couldn't there be an extremely public ceremony at the setup of a city's mint whereby hundreds of third parties are present to validate the creation and distribution of the keys?
Just like our previous conversation, I feel like you're talking about Federations which exist today, where I'm trying to discuss hypothetical future federations which are setup "properly".
I also admit these will never be as good as cold-storage, self custody. That should be a given. We're discussing a Layer 3, so I shouldn't have to act like BTC level of security is desirable or necessary.
So, can't you have a hypothetical discussion about how a Federated Mint could be setup in a manner that I call "proper"? I'm not sure it's possible... but I am sure you aren't even trying.
Perhaps what I should be asking is: Can you not consider a hypothetical scenario whereby a Federated Mint is setup in such a way that offers FAR more security to the lowest economical person on the planet, than the current system today does? If the hurdle to beat is the current fiat banking system, how can you not see that Fedimints can easily beat such a low bar??
You're all over the place so I'm not sure what you're actually asking.
Fedimints are fake, period. Lightning is 2:2 thus cannot be federated. Fact not opinion.
Many custodians are multisig with various stakeholders, yes they have their uses.
I literally build infrastructure for custodians, my only point is that Federation is a term used by scammers.
reply
For what it's worth... I don't see the purpose of fediments yet. I use Lightning all the time and the cheapness and throughput of Lightning transactions, to include opening channels, isn't that complicated.
Why switch to a different 'model', fediments, when there's really no need to?
reply