djschnei

> cryptocurrency is not currency

Why? Because you said so?

> not decentralized

Bitcoin is quite possibly the most decentralized computer technology ever created. Name something more decentralized.

> not private

I processed around $15k in instant bitcoin transactions this month and have zero insight into who the sender or receiver are

I subsidized a rather large solar installation on my farm by mining with the excess electricity. This installation drastically lowers my reliance on the grid.

Oil and Gas companies are reducing CO2-equivalent emissions by about 63% by mining with flared natural gas: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/12/23-year-old-texans-made-4-mi...

Large solar farms are being built that otherwise would not have: https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-block-blockstream-m...

Bitcoin incentivizes cheap energy production. We need more cheap energy.

Bitcoin does nothing to alter or effect other incentives or disincentives on energy production.

Assuming prices are equivalent, it's net neutral on production mix. However, we've been told renewable energy is cheaper! Therefore it accelerates its adoption.

Terrible analogy. Energy production requires large upfront investments in infrastructure. There is nothing analogous to seed in energy. There are only farms and corn that expires extremely quickly and is hard to transport.

How's your at home aluminum refining going? I unfortunately haven't had much luck monetizing my at home hydrogen electrolysis plant :(

> Bitcoin doesn't discriminate between green energy sources and fossil fuel energy sources.

BINGO!

If you have something that will buy any left over or unusable stock of product X, the production of X becomes less risky and easier to invest in. This isn't hard. Bitcoin incentivizes energy production and innovation. If you want that energy to be green, bitcoin is still more than willing to buy it from you. Lowering the risk of innovation in the space is obviously good for green energy.

> limiting energy use is vital to avoid climate catastrophe.

This is what I have issue with. Energy use benefits humanity. Full stop.

If you said civilization needs bananas to survive and flourish, then some good samaritan came along and said "I will always buy any leftover bananas you can't sell no matter where or when you grow them", you would get many more banana farms, people experimenting with new banana growing/harvesting technology, etc. It's an undeniable benefit if your goal is to produce more bananas.

You are wrong. You will have incredibly realtime examples of how dangerous this way of thinking is when winter hits Europe this year. Energy is life. It's not a "nice to have" or something people "enjoy".

> that we free up by making technology more energy efficient

This is 100% a fake problem that clearly does not exist if you understood anything about the energy market. Civilization is at an increasing rate consuming more electricity. Surely, someone who believes carbon emissions are destroying the planet would agree we need to electrify everything. Bitcoin consuming and therefore monetizing stranded and/or temporary excess amounts of energy make accelerated electrification of our society a much more realistic endeavor. Having an electricity dung-beetle, a buyer of last resort, is a revelation.

Completely agree. Energy consumption is what enables human flourishing. Quite frankly, "Energy consumption = bad" is pro-human suffering. The lack of nuance in that argument is tiresome.

Integration is totally fine, and I think payments are a very valid use-case. But the app doesn't rely on a blockchain or have a token to achieve its core functionality.

> Supporting Bitcoin in any way is a sign that they are incapable of detecting scams that will destroy life on earth

Well, we couldn't disagree more there. A focus on bitcoin while ignoring other crypto scams shows a great deal of sophistication, understanding of the space, and moral fortitude.

The fact that they didn't shoehorn a token or blockchain into the app's design is amazing and refreshing. Blockchains are a terrible solution for 99.9% of problems. The ONLY reason a vast majority of projects incorporate a token is to enrich the founders. Hats off

The bitcoin/Lightning support is a huge positive for me. I really hope they keep that.

stacker.news on the front page of hackernews, nice.

Calling Lightning a "hack" is like calling TCP a hack of IP. First principles of protocol design literally dictate layered modular stacks.

Actual ideas:

Bitcoin is layer 1 of the internet of value. It only needs to be secure, decentralized, and stable. It has one job; enforce digital property rights while maintaining the above characteristics (Think the internet layer: IP)

Layer 2 (lightning, liquid, etc) build on top of the secure, decentralized, stable foundation of L1 Bitcoin and create standards/protocols for application/user comms (think the transportation layer: TCP, UDP)

Layer 3 (Strike, TBD, Sphinx, CashApp, etc) applications to fulfill specific use cases built on top of layer 2 (think the application layer: all the things you do on the internet)

lol, new here? That discussion has been going on for YEARS. Discussion doesn't negate anything I said.

Stop using these token casinos. Selling you unregulated securities and creating bag holder "communities" is all they are good for. They know how gross they are so they're going to kowtow to the regulators so the regulators don't make them register all those securities. It's gross self preservation. There are much better options.

well, there are multiple factors, supply cap is one. Unchangeable issuance schedule (i.e. unchangeable monetary policy) is another gigantic aspect. No other project can guarantee the same immutability because no other network is defended by the bitcoin mining network.

Bitcoin is the only commodity on the planet who's supply is completely unaffected by demand.

It's impossible to consider Bitcoin without considering lightning. Two sides of the same coin. It's still early in its adoption curve for sure, but it has been gaining traction.

- Twitter uses lightning for its tipping mechanism

- The Podcasting 2.0 standard is all lightning based

- NCR is integrating lightning

- Blackhawk is integrating lightning

- Kraken has enabled lightning

- Robinhood is integrating lightning

- Square/block is investing heavily into lightning development and enablement

I'm probably missing some big ones...

> completely forgo all of Bitcoin's guarantees

ah, he doesn't understand at all how lightning works. He's just repeating sound bites.

Bitcoin slow? I make virtually free, instant, micro-payments on Bitcoin hundreds of times every day (Podcasting 2.0). I also accept Bitcoin payments on my e-commerce site that settle instantly for fractions of a percent in fees. I also route hundreds of Bitcoin payments per day using a raspberry pi which draws an extremely low amount of energy. Not sure which "reality" you're referring to...

I'd suggest doing more research before commenting about things you don't understand. Layered Money by Nik Bhatia would be a good place to start.

The concept of layered system design, especially in money and technology, is not new.

Ethereum is an inherently flawed system.

No other system/project anchors a digital currency to the physical world as effectively as Bitcoin. But I do agree, eventually L2+ will be much more popular, in so far as much more people will interact with them. That's kind of the idea. L2s will still always rely on L1 for its anchor to the physical world (and thus physics).

Which projects are simply designed to be hard money?

Valid transactions are enforced by nodes, not miners (there are WAY more nodes than mining pools). All of a miner's incentives persuade them to mine on the longest chain, lest they lose out on potential profits. A group of nodes and miners can certainly fork if they please, but the network simply won't care. e.g. BCH/BTC

Completely agree. It's impossible to inspect any aspect of Bitcoin's design without considering its incentive structures. They are the innovation in my mind. Every blockchain/crypto/Dao/<insert buzz word> forgoes one of Bitcoin's perfectly balanced incentive structures in favor of some "innovation" (speed, programability, founder/VC enrichment) which always inevitably leads to centralization and exploitable risk somewhere in the system.

Every time it happens it hardens my opinion that a L1 should be like the foundation of a building - it should have one job (be hard money), it should be simply and elegantly designed, it shouldn't have any cracks (a.k.a misaligned incentive structures), it should evolve very slowly if at all, and it should be designed to be built on top of. L1 exists to anchor L1+N to the real world and that's it.

> 1. Denominated in U.S. dollars;

> 2. Issued and guaranteed by the U.S. government;

> 3. Available for retail use by the public;

> 4. Not reliant on a common ledger or any third-party payments processing intermediary; and

> 5. Capable of anonymous, offline, peer-to-peer payments.

We already have cash... cash does all these things.

Another day, another Github incident...

> No those are very much the same thing.

You are wrong or being dishonest. The government calling up the bank and saying "Hey, friend. Freeze these 5000 accounts. Thanks!" clearly has less friction than strong-arming 5000 people for their wallet keys.

> Good luck find someone trust worthy to trade into and out of any fiat currency with only your wallet and without using or involving a centralized exchange or program.

I literally do this exact thing pretty frequently. HodlHodl and Bisq both allow you to do this in a trustless and decentralized way. And things will only improve with projects like 'TBD' from Dorsey.

> When goods and services aren’t able to be purchased in the crypto denomination...

But they are! Let's see... this week I've bought coffee with bitcoin, I've bought a new golf hat, I bought a magazine subscription, and a VPN subscription. This month I bought an iPad utilizing bitrefill. Early days? Sure. "Aren't available" is bullshit though.

> The only benefit would be if crypto went up in relation to fiat currency, but the ones getting rich are those earlier holders only.

What? You're just wrong... Bitcoin is up 250% in the last 2 years. I've been in for 1.5 years and it's literally out performed everything else I own.

that's too bad. You told me to get out of my bubble, but then won't give me your opinion. Would love to hear your points if you decide it's worth it. If not, have a good weekend!