Even in 2013, privacy advocates recommended using Bitcoin fog to tumble coins for the sake of anonymity. Very clear informal process signaling demand for Zcash and other privacy coins.
I'd ask what their incentive to do so is. Likely the protocol would have very little adoption already in which case, why bother spending months changing the code? If it has significant adoption, the lazy BTC fork would be incompatible and would require its own marketing push
-
-
You seem to be under the impression open source protocols somehow retain the same advantages of proprietary and closed source technology. They do not. Let's also not pretend Bitcoin isn't the farthest in being able to support this kinda stuff at scale anyway with Layer 2.
-
Eh, maybe you're right but I think you're too confident that we know how different protocols will work. Scaling is an interesting topic, but out of scope for what I was trying to write about (a high level picture, not how it should work if we implement it in the next 6 months).
-
To be clear I think some of the use cases and ideas you laid out are pretty good, I just take issue with the implementation. Building new stuff like this is hard enough. Why waste time and resources also recreating what Bitcoin has already done in security and network effect?
-
Thanks! I have further thoughts, but this is probably a good stopping point. Appreciate the input :)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
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.