pull down to refresh
Makes sense. Was on time to post it there as well.
@Kruw why is it so expensive (1k sats) to post there?
One clarification: I'm not saying that stablecoins are going to be good for Bitcoin. More like: stablecoins are winning, how can we make this an opportunity for Bitcoin.
Agreed on the rest.
I'm skeptical of the idea that this needed a coordinated plan by bankers. Fiat payment companies already had every incentive to make their products better.
But I think there's a scaling problem missing from that explanation. Bigger blocks let you fit more transactions, but I don't think putting everyone's everyday payments on a global ledger is a scalable architecture, at least while keeping it cheap for people to independently verify it. That's why I see payment channels as something worth building, rather than just a distraction.
Still, from a practical standpoint: what next? How does Bitcoin win payments from here?
Even if we accept that explanation of how we got here, it doesn't tell us what to offer a merchant or customer today. They have working alternatives. Calling them sheep won't make ours more useful.
What would you build or change that makes someone choose Bitcoin because it solves a problem for them? Lower fees? Better privacy? Easier international payments? And how do we deliver that at scale without giving up what makes Bitcoin valuable?
But I don't think any of those are the issue. I think it's just volatility that people hate.
I'm here to learn, so don't take what I say as if I meant it to be the absolute truth.
I don't consider myself a “stablecoin person.” But I see people choosing stablecoins for payments, and I don't think hoping they'll switch to bitcoin anytime soon is much of a strategy. I'm trying to understand what we can offer them that's worth choosing.
Your point about a centralized database being more efficient is fair. But it raises a question I still don't have a good answer to.
Why wouldn't Tether run a centralized, publicly verifiable ledger? Users could still generate their own keys, receive payments without opening an account, and verify the history. Other people could build wallets for it. Tether could keep issuing on other networks too. Presumably, its own ledger could be very fast and cheap. They could even create a cashu mint... Don't expect them to, but it would definitely be world changing.
I understand that verifying the database wouldn't stop Tether from censoring transactions or shutting it down. But Tether already has the power to freeze USDT on the networks people use today. So how much additional trust would this actually introduce, especially compared with a blockchain controlled by a small group of operators?
There is a difference between trusting someone to redeem your dollars and trusting them to operate the entire payment network. I get that. What I'm missing is how valuable that separation is in practice for stablecoin users. Valuable enough to pay more for it? Or are the existing networks winning mainly because that's where the users, wallets, and liquidity already are?
Maybe there is something important I'm overlooking. That's what I'd like to understand, rather than dismissing the blockchain as theater or assuming it's necessary.
And that also changes the question about Lightning. Bitcoin gives it a much stronger foundation in terms of decentralization. But can Lightning compete on cost and throughput once we include liquidity and the exchanges at both ends?
I still think it's a possibility worth exploring. If people want dollars for spending, I'd like us to offer them something useful. Whether Lightning is actually the best way to do that is an open question for me.
I'm looking at it from the other side. Payment channels are cheaper and faster than a blockchain. Even despite how centralized these shitcoin blockchains are, they're still super expensive! And transactions take ten-ish seconds to confirm.
Paying 2-4 USD for a stablecoin transfer in Tron sounds crazy to me. And that's with blocks every 3 seconds and some mega centralized PoS mining system.
Imagine how that would be if the majority of humans used stablecoins. Blockchains don't scale.
So what I say is that LN has a chance to compete and beat all these chains. It already exists and works, so it might be that it catches on just for its speed and fees alone. Not because stablecoin users would care about decentralization or trustlessness.
We might not want to miss that chance.
Yes. But that's not the point.
I agree with all you said. But that's not incompatible with thinking that Bitcoin won't be the MoE that wins during the next decades. Stablecoins win. And that can be good for Bitcoin. All roads lead to Rome.
More or less but not exactly. The spy implanta are a important detail that ledger does not mention.