Right now, because of fees. Two aspects of Nano that the community seems to really hold to: - 0 fees - tiny energy consumption While you bet on uranium as a future power source for the world, Nano's network power consumption running on a single turbine is kinda compelling, no?
-
-
But don't you think Murad, LN can be detrimental for btc as a SoV because of the velocity problem? Why is LN needed when btc is still evolving as a SoV? You want people to hold not to spend (high fees shouldn't be a problem right now if you are not going to buy coffee with btc)
-
velocity is only bad if people transfer out to USD after they receive BTC. If they keep holding BTC upon receipt, it doesn't reduce BTC price. velocity for debt-based instrument vs. equity/commodity based instruments has different effects. fiat is debt based, bitcoin is commod
-
But if you start using it as money due to LN effect, velocity wouldn't affect it as it does with fiat? Don't you think LN should be better implemented in the future, in the MoE you talk about?
-
I don't think LN will be widespread use before BTC is $10T+ in today's terms. as epic as LN is, I, for one, am not spending my BTC for another decade at least
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You guys have given me some good things to think about.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Same argument against utility tokens for "dApps." MoE is essentially a utility token, for buying coffee.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
