It keeps many of the properties of bitcoin:
- decentralised
- trustless
- censure resistance
Edit: - pseudonymous
- decentralised
- trustless
- censure resistance
Edit: - pseudonymous
The incentive structure of Lightning to me seems to heavily incentivize the formation of a few centralized nodes affiliated with wallet providers – a structure which would forfeit many, if not all, of these properties.
- decentralised: why is this good?
- trustless: I trust the companies I use, it works
- censure resistance: OK, fringe case for most
- pseudonymous: why do I want anyone to be able to see my transaction history?
— Satoshi, 2009-02-11 https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/p2pfoundation/1/...
> pseudonymous: why do I want anyone to be able to see my transaction history?
Transactions are viewable in the blockchain so that every party involved can audit the system and confirm the issuance.
Yes. Because society is built in trust. Something crypto world is busy rediscovering.
Right, which is why we have regulations on reserve requirements for banks, as well as things like FDIC insurance that guarantees your money in a bank account.
Surely this is a joke? Most currencies enjoy a high degree of trust until they collapse due to structural reasons that have nothing to do with trust whatsoever.
The euro zone and the dollar show that there is practically no shortage of trust whatsoever.
Seriously, this dude is supposed to liberate us from the evils of money?
How did it come to this? The root problem with currency is the zero lower bound of interest and liquidity preference which both combined result in permanently positive interest rates. When you refuse to pay interest, the economy stagnates and it can result in mass unemployment. This has nothing to do with trust. The Bitcoin economy is plagued with mass unemployment. The insanity of unemployment is a consequence of the insanity of non neutral money. Alternatively, you can pay interest, however this means you must perpetually borrow more money, e.g. Keynesian fiscal stimulus, notice that the insanity originates in money itself, not in the political response, the political response must be at least as insane as the money system, no less and it collapses. Now, there is a third way, QE aka not bothering to ask people whether they want to lend their money out, however, due to liquidity preference, the additionally created money will stagnate somewhere, meaning you can't ever stop QE. Again, in this case the insanity is a structural property of the currency, the monetary intervention has to be as insane as the money system and no less.
The apparent untrustworthiness of politicians is the result of the insanity of money, not the other way around. If money worked properly, you wouldn't need politicians to mess with it, you wouldn't even consider trust to be the problem because the amount needed would be so miniscule as to never matter in the grand scheme of things.
It is really strange to me, that people notice a constant problem with money and yet they still come up with the same conclusion "you're holding it wrong", what if it is impossible to hold it properly? What if permanent money is irreparably broken and forces its own debasement and all the other problems?
Imagine a world where the web is controlled by a single entity, say Facebook. They get to decide who is allowed to create a website. They get to decide how much it cost. If they're not happy with the site's content, they can take it offline. Do you believe that would be a better world to live in?
- trustless: I trust the companies I use, it works
That's because there's usually no alternative. But when there's a trustless alternative, you may find that it is less risky or costly. Many people chose e2e encrypted messengers because they don't trust a third party with their private messages.
- censure resistance: OK, fringe case for most
"[...] Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
It may be fringe but it's a massive issue for those who are censored. It's also not that uncommon. It is estimated that there are over 1 billion unbanked people worldwide. Also, try "PayPal horror stories" on Google.
- pseudonymous: why do I want anyone to be able to see my transaction history?
What parent meant is you can transact with people without knowing their real identity. I could send you a BTC tip on HN without knowing your name or address. Regarding your concern about privacy, no one can really determine your transaction history by looking at the blockchain. It's possible to do some guessing but all you really see are transactions going from opaque addresses to other opaque addresses with no attached identity information. Also, this can be further solved with CoinJoin[0].
Private messages are not money. Example: you ordered some goods and those arrived in bad shape. What's your recourse in the trustless world?
There is no trustless world, just a world where trustless is an option and where "trustful" systems can be built on trustless foundations.
[0] Those systems give some guarantees about the trusted party (e.g. that they can't just run with the money).
You cannot build trust on a trustless foundation. As, again, the crypto world is busy rediscovering.
What exactly does Bitcoin provide in this case?
> this is what I meant by building "trustful" systems being built on top of trustless foundations
So, a service that exists outside bitcoin, has a trust system built entirely outside bitcoin and only doing something with bitcoin because reasons... is "building trustful systems on top of trustless systems".
I don't think you know what "building on top" means.
Edit: grammar and mobile typos
There are many centralized services that do dispute arbitration on top of USD. Those systems are built entirely outside of USD. PayPal for example doesn't have an account at the Federal reserve nor does it handle physical cash. They are effectively "off-chain" payment systems for USD.
So I guess your question is, what are the advantages of BTC over a fiat currency like USD. The answer is two folds:
1) BTC has an open network (the Bitcoin blockchain) allowing users to exit payment systems for the purpose of self-custody or for interconnecting with other payment systems. There's no equivalent system with fiat. Self-custody of USD literally requires transporting and storing pieces of paper. You also can't directly transfer USD from PayPal to say, CashApp.
2) BTC has a predictable money supply. Fiat currency doesn't: money supply can be arbitrarily inflated.
In addition to the above, Bitcoin enables the creation of payment systems that are more tightly built on top of it, like the Lightning network, which preserves many of the properties of Bitcoin (e.g. trustless). You could also build a dispute arbitration system where the arbiter just needs to be semi-trusted (e.g. there are schemes that can cryptographically prevent the arbiter from stealing escrowed funds, etc.).
We are talking bout fiat? No.
> So I guess your question is, what are the advantages of BTC over a fiat currency like USD.
No. The question is: what does the trustless blockchain offer when you still have to rely on a centralised trusted entity.
> BTC has a predictable money supply. Fiat currency doesn't: money supply can be arbitrarily inflated.
Which immediately means that whoever got in early and got the first initial supply is at great advantage compared to anyone who got in later. For example compared to any people born 20 years from now.
> You could also build a dispute
Could. Maybe. Should. Perhaps. That's all you can ever hear from crypto proponents.
I was asking about fiat because many of your criticisms equally apply to fiat.
> No. The question is: what does the trustless blockchain offer when you still have to rely on a centralised trusted entity.
I answered that multiple times already.
> Which immediately means that whoever got in early and got the first initial supply is at great advantage compared to anyone who got in later. For example compared to any people born 20 years from now.
That's, unfortunately, the case for almost anything of value.
> Could. Maybe. Should. Perhaps. That's all you can ever hear from crypto proponents.
I'm not sure I would consider myself a crypto proponent, I was trying my best to answer your questions as objectively as possible.
But it seems you are very emotionally invested in this for some reason... Did you have a bad experience with crypto?
They... don't.
> I answered that multiple times already.
You haven't. All you're saying "o let's have this centralised trusted entity that does something with blockchain because blockchain".
> That's, unfortunately, the case for almost anything of value.
If bitcoin is a currency as you would have us believe, then this is not what a currency should be.
> But it seems you are very emotionally invested in this for some reason...
Ah yes. There are only a few ways crypto discussions go: problems are dismissed out of hand and/or "have you had bad experience with crypto" (often in the form "you're just sad that you didn't get in on it early").
My question to you: what is your alternative? USD has many of the problems you mentioned and more. Transactions happen "off-chain", monetary inflation largely benefits the wealthy, etc.
They already said fiat doesn’t have close to the same issues as crypto. The monetary inflation benefits to the wealthy are nowhere near the same for Bitcoin or any crypto. It’s a fraction of how bad Bitcoin is. They also basically said that multiple times too.
They have answered the rest too. Being on chain isn’t an issue for fiat because they aren’t trying to be on chain. They aren’t trying to shoehorn in blockchain.
Yes the last line is a recurring one lol.
There is no central authority in LN. There may be "hubs" which are more or less important, but that's not centralisation because there are several of them, it can also work without them, and also they can't steal your money.
Would you say that email is centralised because there area few big server (Gmail, Microsoft)? But even if it may more convenient to use one of the big server, you still have the choice not to use them.