343 sats \ 6 replies \ @mattcrv 12 Mar \ on: AMA - Danny Diekroeger Founder of Deezy Labs - Ordinals, Lightning, and More AMA
if ordinals died today and you had to switch focus inside the Bitcoin space, what would you work on instead?
Yeah, I remember reading this months ago, and I agree with most of Zach's points.
But it feels unfair to criticize Bitkey for surveilling all of their users' transactions considering that's intrinsic to any collaborative custody solution (even if people use Passport as their main HW).
Also, it's also unfair to say "Bitkey is bad for Bitcoin – it represents an attack on the very idea of a hardware wallet". Bitkey is not perfect and I personally wouldn't feel comfortable using it as my main wallet, but it's understandable because they're not trying to compete with existing HWs. Bitkey is making these tradeoffs to get people to withdraw from exchanges. And even with all the compromises, using Bitkey is still much better than not taking self-custody at all.
Bitkey does have its downsides (the fact that 2 of the 3 keys are hot is the main one, and it's too large of a compromise to ever make me want to use it as my main wallet), but I can't see how vendor lock-in is one of them. You can send out all of your balance to any other wallet at any time, so you're not really locked there.
Great list! Please add:
Non-custodial Aggregator
-
- Bitkit Wallet ⚡⛓️
For context, Bitkit doesn't rely on swaps. It's both an on-chain and Lightning wallet, so channels can be opened with your on-chain funds or by deducting a fee when you try to receive over Lightning without a channel.
One closing thought: I think there is something cathartic and powerful about reclaiming a symbol though. Leaving something behind and abandoning it just because it has a bloody history only ensures that it will be revisited in the future as we have seen time and time again. On the other hand, taking it and revitalizing it with goodness means the original thing might lose that meaning and gain a new one.
That's indeed very interesting to think of. Thanks a lot for sharing!
- I get it, but it's not as confusing as it initially looks. $1 = 100¢, yet 1 BTC = ₿100,000,000. It's literally a million times easier to distinguish BTC from sats(₿)!
- No need to stop calling it "sats" (we call it "dollar" and use $!). Also, Satoshi was the one who designed the ₿ symbol. Nothing honors his legacy more than using the currency symbol he has created!
we'll ever need ₿ as a currency symbol if not for sats because Bitcoin is deflationary.
why would you need to display amounts in decimals when you can buy cars for 0.00051392 BTC? sats are all you need! it'll make less and less sense to display fractional amounts as the Bitcoin price increases.
no one uses ¢ today because cents are worthless. no one will need ₿ for decimals because 1 BTC will be worth a lot. poetic!
The decimal point will never disappear.
The higher the bitcoin price, the less practical it becomes. Why would anyone use decimals for anything when 1 BTC = $1M?
There is already a decimal point for satoshi as fees in lightning are calculated with milisatoshi precision and it is displayed with base satoshi (see LND).
msats don't exist:
we never need to talk about cents, they're worthless! Bitcoin is deflationary, sats will be worth a lot and we'll never talk in wholecoins, so it deserves to be represented by a well-recognized currency symbol (designed by Satoshi himself!).
No need to redefine it. Satoshi's legacy must be honored. Using the currency symbol he designed himself in 2010 as the sats symbol is an incredible way of honoring him!
i thought i was deep into the rabbit hole, but i'm clearly nowhere near the bottom. impressive, congrats!
The basic unit has been named
There's no need to rename sats. We can still call them sats, just like we call it "dollars" and represent it with $. Sats are Bitcoin, so it deserves to be represented by the only currency symbol the world ever needs, designed by Satoshi himself!
interesting, thanks for the recommendation! gonna look it up.
still, most people didn't read atlas shrugged. the meaning of $ is whatever people perceive it to be (and today that's a pretty greedy, blood-tainted, blood-dripping symbol)
They are capable of understanding dollars and cents, bitcoin and sats
Ask random people on the streets how many people recognize the word "sats", then do the same with ₿
redo millions of lines of code
using ₿ as the sats symbol is actually a very simple UI change. instead of displaying "sats", display ₿. that's it. it took only one dev and a few hours to get it on Bitkit
but implying that people will “know” is a bad assumption
They'll learn when they send 10000 sats from one wallet and receive ₿10000 in another.
Not only does using one symbol for multiple prices
Very few wallets use ₿ as a currency symbol. They mostly display "BTC". Besides, decimals are impractical, so we don't need ₿ as a currency symbol for it. Sats is the standard.
it’s a regression in user experience from the sat symbol.
The vast majority of wallets allow users to see the value of their balance in fiat.