Not sure why you're back asking about this. You can start a new thread or ask AI.

They are quite different technically, with much greater trust assumptions for e-cash. E-cash mints are anonymous strangers that take your money and generate IOUs. Liquid is a federation of geographically distributed known entities. E-cash mints can rug you immediately and easily; Liquid is quite safe from rugging but could, potentially, be required to freeze your funds by a government.

E-cash is probably best for very small payments, like streaming payments between autonomous AI agents. Liquid is a decent way to stack sats without on-chain fees, and to get some privacy.

Neither are "Bitcoin".

Backed by Sam Altman, and Google VC. Not sure if this makes me trust them more or less, but it is bullish for Bitcoin.

What are you the new Darth? You still have your keys. You PAY them a premium IN BITCOIN. They pay out the insurance IN BITCOIN. You're going to shit on one of the first companies to do ALL its business in Bitcoin?

This will be the biggest news in 50 years if it happens. If you want to support this, contact the representatives:

Rep. Clyde, Andrew S. [R-GA-9]* 01/03/2025 Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX-31]* 01/03/2025 Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10]* 01/03/2025 Rep. Burlison, Eric [R-MO-7]* 01/03/2025 Rep. Rutherford, John H. [R-FL-5]* 01/03/2025 Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8]* 01/03/2025 Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]* 01/03/2025 Rep. Strong, Dale W. [R-AL-5]* 01/03/2025 Rep. McCormick, Richard [R-GA-7]* 01/03/2025 Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA-11] 01/06/2025 Rep. Harris, Andy [R-MD-1] 01/07/2025

When someone says "I'm Sounding The Alarm" and "history and technical analysis suggest" -- you can go ahead and close that tab.

I won't be optimistic about this happening until many members of Congress have disclosed large Bitcoin holdings personally.

Why would Trump really do this? He doesn't need to. It was just some random crap he said to get the crypto vote. He's under no obligation to revisit the idea. Don Junior seems genuinely interested, so maybe he'll bend Senior's ear.

Let the states do it. Let institutions do it. And leave miners alone to benefit their local grids and economies without bullshit red tape.

Because you don't broadcast a transaction from a hardware signing device.

You take the signed transaction and just look at it on any computer and you'll see the addresses. If it's not one you control, don't broadcast and stop trusting that particular signing device.

You should always check your transaction before broadcasting anyway, even if you're using multisig.

No offense intended at all, but if you don't know this already, you may be more likely to make a mistake with your multisig setup. Please make sure you understand the risks and best practices.

By far the biggest causes of lost funds are user error and scams. I understand completely the desire to be as cautious as possible, and multisig has uses, but I think you might be overestimating the threat of malicious hardware signing devices.

"increase the number of authorized shares of preferred stock from 5,000,000 shares to 1,005,000,000 shares"

Is there ANY precedent?

Air-gapped hardware wallet with a passphrase mitigates all attack vectors you mentioned.

The Store of Value issue is interesting. You didn't bring it up, but I think the reason no crypto is widely used for transactions is simply that it's easier and more beneficial to the consumer to use a credit card. Zero risk, liability, or interest, works instantly with a tap of a card with no phone/computer needed. Most people, by far, care more about convenience than privacy or sovereignty.

Bitcoin may be "stuck" as a store of value--maybe-- but it is excellent at that, and that is what is most needed today, in most places. Why not spend fiat and save in Bitcoin?

One argument that I've been compelled by, is that Bitcoin is not obligatory for everyone, but it is available to everyone. Not everyone needs to run a node, but anyone can run a node. Likewise if you are using fiat primarily, but save in Bitcoin, you can transact in Bitcoin if you need to, not that you would necessarily choose to for every transaction.

Yes there are attack vectors, but that doesn't mean they will in fact be exploited, or effectively so. I just see it as one possibility, without being an inevitability.

I think we don't really know how the game theory would play out, because even under your hypothetical 6102, you don't know how countries besides the United States would act. We are moving away from a world where the US can dictate such things.

Furthermore a 6102 may just create a black market for Bitcoin. This can make a product more expensive, as the available supply is constrained. Development would move out of the United States, and focus on privacy features.

There are infinite possible futures we could imagine, but I find I have been least successful when I get paranoid about negative potentialities, and most successful when I assume everything will be fine. Living in a bunker is no way to live.

"Number Go Up" (just in it for the fiat).

There is a theory that money must first be a store of value before it can be a medium of exchange. If so, and it is permissionless and decentralized, it stands to reason that more people will accumulate it. However, its value is dependent on it not being co-opted. If it loses decentralization and becomes permissioned, it is essentially worthless. So there is a catch-22 for a sovereign nation who wants to unilaterally control it: they have to pay an exorbitant amount to do so, and then it becomes worthless.

Furthermore, simply owning the money doesn't give one any special rights or privileges to the code (it does allow price manipulation, however). So I'm curious what capture and control mechanisms are you referring to?

Are you perhaps into Monero or, by your tone I would guess BCH?

6102 may be a real threat; it's really hard to say. I'm not worried so much about direct confiscation, as it would be entirely the obligation of the government to prove that you own (and control) any. It could however be made much more illegal to accept it or transact generally.

The common argument, among others, is that this would put the United States at a disadvantage as other countries would shift to using it and de-dollarize.

I don't think you'll find a lot of NGU peeps here. The range is pretty much libertarian to anarchist, or at least those are the outspoken ones. I think most people here want to own Bitcoin, own assets, or spend Bitcoin to get assets.

Off topic-- Do you know people there who use LoRA or other low-power, long-range technologies? What about Starlink?

People who don't have any questions, aren't interested. Giving people answers to questions they don't have, is meaningless.

For me, the main issue with gold is how the fuck do you know it's real? If people could make even a few percent profit by melting it and mixing in some impurity you can't easily detect, they will do so. So to accept a small amount requires sophisticated technology, and to accept a large amount requires all that technology use multiplied by the extraordinary amount of time it would take to test every last gram.

Years ago I thought El Salvador would be a Bitcoin utopia by now; it's clearly not-- if anything Bitcoin may have less acceptance and interest than two years ago.

Bhutan and US States creating Bitcoin reserves is much more interesting to me now. Apparently the world really does need to go through Store of Value phase before Medium of Exchange.

For someone to be harmful, they have to have credibility in the first place. If they don't, it's just "any publicity is good publicity".

And the question is ambiguous. "Worst critic" as in "not good at being a critic"? or "Bitcoin critic who is annoying as fuck"?

Paul is disingenuous. He's so angry the rest of us don't believe his proposal carries "zero risk".

Drivetrains are a convoluted mechanistic circus with delusional optimism. No one wants "Monero on Bitcoin" and no one thinks it's riskless to allow miners to determine which drivechains get to succeed.