2) There's also no such thing as "fee-less", that's marketing speak. Network security is paid for via txn fees or inflation in virtually every model that is attempting to build globally distributed money. Hidden fees are cool UX, but the tradeoff is misrepresented.
-
-
Replying to @arjunblj
Virtually every model except Nano's. 1) Anyone interested or incentivized to support the network should run 1+ nodes (users, businesses, exchanges) 2) flatten the stake such that it's increasingly difficult to be a large actor 3) no fees drawn between transactions (fee-less)
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ZackShapiro @arjunblj
Seems to me an alternative model exists. That said, PoW is also great. Just saying there's an interesting alternative your maximalism may hide from you
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ZackShapiro
There are 661 nodes (via http://xrb.network/ ) and 1/3 of them are hosted on Digital Ocean (via https://nanode21.cloud/providers.php ). I think having everyone interface with the network via full nodes to avoid txn fees is a pipe dream & think it's nowhere close to secure as a global money.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arjunblj
There are a number of light wallets and clients that let people interface with the network. Imagine you have 20,000 nodes each evenly distributed with voting power running on a variety of hosting providers and home computers, that seems pretty secure to me; maybe I'm being naïve
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ZackShapiro @arjunblj
speed is mostly irrelevant for SoV it's all about security + disinflation + proven unchangeability which BTC beats Nano by an enormous margin holding Nano as a bet it can become a "SoV" when BTC exists is irrational, dangerous, risky.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MustStopMurad @arjunblj
agree re: speed for SoV. Speed for MoE is a must though, IMO. re: risk holding Nano: good thing I can hold multiple currencies
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ZackShapiro @arjunblj
it won't be a widespread MoE without having largely saturated itself as a SoV. If it's not a SoV already, then its nothing but a payment rail / means of payment, not a full MoE. you want people to receive and continue holding. if they transfer out to fiat/btc, it doesn't count.pic.twitter.com/y7hizKkTtM
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
TLDR: you can't have a widespread monetary MoE which isn't also a widespread monetary SoV. Having one coin be a SoV and another coin be an MoE is a fallacy. SoV and MoE are inextricably linked.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
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)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
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
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.