A worthwhile read for all PP'ers

General Discussion on the Permanent Portfolio Strategy

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 3815
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: A worthwhile read for all PP'ers

Post by Xan » Fri Nov 12, 2021 8:41 am

EdwardjK wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 8:17 am
I do not believe that any crypto-currency will replace gold as a store of value. I say that because I believe that most countries, including the US, will digitize their currencies and effectively negate the need for Bitcoin, et al.

This will fulfill the Progressive mandate that the Federal government be able to track every dollar you have and every dollar you spend.
It could also enable negative interest rates.
johnnywitt
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 6:06 pm

Re: A worthwhile read for all PP'ers

Post by johnnywitt » Fri Nov 12, 2021 12:18 pm

Bitcoin will go down in history as the biggest Ponzi Mania of all time IMO.

Do you realize how many naysayers have bashed the HBPP since inception and they always start with the "I like the PP. BUT..."

The only thing that I worry about with regard to my HBPP is that these central planning mindf*cksters will disallow my ability to maintain a PP going forward. This is what keeps me awake at night. These "Woke" Jacobins won't be happy until they utterly immiserate all the 'normal' Folks on this planet.

The 'good news' here is that the Masses are starting to wake up to these Woke Elites and what their real agenda actually is.
User avatar
bitcoininthevp
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 418
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 8:30 pm

Re: A worthwhile read for all PP'ers

Post by bitcoininthevp » Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:20 am

EdwardjK wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 8:17 am
... I believe that most countries, including the US, will digitize their currencies and effectively negate the need for Bitcoin, et al.
Hi, EdwardjK. Are you saying that Bitcoin and the USD have similar features? One is scarce/finite, censorship resistant, seizure resistant, some privacy features, etc. VS USD, (especially in "digital" form- I assume you mean whatever CBDCs will be as the dollar is largely digital already) which has an unknown supply, complete surveillance, complete censorship, etc.

I dont think a CBDC would "negate" the need for Bitcoin, in fact as CBDCs get closer and roll out the demand for Bitcoin would absolutely surge since everyone would feel the needs of Bitcoins use case.
User avatar
bitcoininthevp
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 418
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 8:30 pm

Re: A worthwhile read for all PP'ers

Post by bitcoininthevp » Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:22 am

dualstow wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 8:32 am
EdwardjK wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 8:17 am
I do not believe that any crypto-currency will replace gold as a store of value. I say that because I believe that most countries, including the US, will digitize their currencies and effectively negate the need for Bitcoin, et al.
..
It would be neat if the digital dollar and digital renminbi caused things like Bitcoin to calm down and just be used for commerce, as opposed to hoarding by early adopters from MIT. yes, i’m a bit jealous because, well, i didn’t hoard. O0
I think the opposite. A (more?) digital dollar would kill what little use case there is to spend/transact/payments with Bitcoin (sans grey/black market activity) and the use case that is left stronger would be Bitcoin's store of value (hoarding).
User avatar
bitcoininthevp
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 418
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 8:30 pm

Re: A worthwhile read for all PP'ers

Post by bitcoininthevp » Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:25 am

johnnywitt wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 12:18 pm
Bitcoin will go down in history as the biggest Ponzi Mania of all time IMO.
johnnywitt wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 12:18 pm
The only thing that I worry about with regard to my HBPP is that these central planning mindf*cksters will disallow my ability to maintain a PP going forward. This is what keeps me awake at night. These "Woke" Jacobins won't be happy until they utterly immiserate all the 'normal' Folks on this planet.
You (uncreatively) bash Bitcoin and in the next breath express the exact fears that Bitcoin was created to alleviate.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 12195
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: https://goo.gl/maps/pJecuAUsCapAMSFL7
Contact:

Re: A worthwhile read for all PP'ers

Post by dualstow » Tue Nov 16, 2021 12:46 pm

bitcoininthevp wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:22 am
dualstow wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 8:32 am
It would be neat if the digital dollar and digital renminbi caused things like Bitcoin to calm down and just be used for commerce, as opposed to hoarding by early adopters from MIT. yes, i’m a bit jealous because, well, i didn’t hoard. O0
I think the opposite. A (more?) digital dollar would kill what little use case there is to spend/transact/payments with Bitcoin (sans grey/black market activity) and the use case that is left stronger would be Bitcoin's store of value (hoarding).
Could be. You know way more about it than I do. I’m very interested in watching how it plays out.
another day, another North Korean missile
let 2022 be the year of GOLD 🦣
User avatar
bitcoininthevp
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 418
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 8:30 pm

Re: A worthwhile read for all PP'ers

Post by bitcoininthevp » Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:04 pm

dualstow wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 12:46 pm
Could be. You know way more about it than I do. I’m very interested in watching how it plays out.
Im just some cartoon-ish neon orange letter B on the internet, something to keep in mind.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 12195
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: https://goo.gl/maps/pJecuAUsCapAMSFL7
Contact:

Re: A worthwhile read for all PP'ers

Post by dualstow » Tue Nov 16, 2021 4:37 pm

Not anymore, you’re not
another day, another North Korean missile
let 2022 be the year of GOLD 🦣
johnnywitt
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 6:06 pm

Re: A worthwhile read for all PP'ers

Post by johnnywitt » Fri Nov 19, 2021 1:42 pm

bitcoininthevp wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:25 am
johnnywitt wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 12:18 pm
Bitcoin will go down in history as the biggest Ponzi Mania of all time IMO.
johnnywitt wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 12:18 pm
The only thing that I worry about with regard to my HBPP is that these central planning mindf*cksters will disallow my ability to maintain a PP going forward. This is what keeps me awake at night. These "Woke" Jacobins won't be happy until they utterly immiserate all the 'normal' Folks on this planet.
You (uncreatively) bash Bitcoin and in the next breath express the exact fears that Bitcoin was created to alleviate.
Time will tell my man.
johnnywitt
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 6:06 pm

Re: A worthwhile read for all PP'ers

Post by johnnywitt » Fri Nov 19, 2021 1:43 pm

johnnywitt wrote:
Fri Nov 19, 2021 1:42 pm
bitcoininthevp wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:25 am
johnnywitt wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 12:18 pm
Bitcoin will go down in history as the biggest Ponzi Mania of all time IMO.
johnnywitt wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 12:18 pm
The only thing that I worry about with regard to my HBPP is that these central planning mindf*cksters will disallow my ability to maintain a PP going forward. This is what keeps me awake at night. These "Woke" Jacobins won't be happy until they utterly immiserate all the 'normal' Folks on this planet.
You (uncreatively) bash Bitcoin and in the next breath express the exact fears that Bitcoin was created to alleviate.
You might be right. Only time will tell.
johnnywitt
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 6:06 pm

Re: A worthwhile read for all PP'ers

Post by johnnywitt » Fri Nov 19, 2021 1:46 pm

johnnywitt wrote:
Fri Nov 19, 2021 1:43 pm
johnnywitt wrote:
Fri Nov 19, 2021 1:42 pm
bitcoininthevp wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:25 am
johnnywitt wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 12:18 pm
Bitcoin will go down in history as the biggest Ponzi Mania of all time IMO.
johnnywitt wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 12:18 pm
The only thing that I worry about with regard to my HBPP is that these central planning mindf*cksters will disallow my ability to maintain a PP going forward. This is what keeps me awake at night. These "Woke" Jacobins won't be happy until they utterly immiserate all the 'normal' Folks on this planet.
You (uncreatively) bash Bitcoin and in the next breath express the exact fears that Bitcoin was created to alleviate.
At this time, it's hard to argue that BTC is anything but a speculative instrument due to it's lack of any kind of real history. You might well be right. Only time will tell.
ppnewbie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 434
Joined: Fri May 03, 2019 6:04 pm

Re: A worthwhile read for all PP'ers

Post by ppnewbie » Sun Nov 28, 2021 2:29 pm

I heard a very good description by Lyn Alden (big fan of hers) Bitcoin is gold and a tech stock combined.
vincent_c
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:58 am

Re: A worthwhile read for all PP'ers

Post by vincent_c » Mon Nov 29, 2021 2:08 am

Sure, that’s similar to saying BTC has a store of value component and a speculative component.

True high growth tech stocks do well with lower long term interest rates and gold and BTC do well with lower long term real rates so there is some correlation there.

I don’t think Lyn Alden really thinks that BTC actually has the fundamentals of a tech stock though. Maybe she is pointing out tech stocks also have a big speculative component to their price in the current environment.
Arthur Boe Nansa
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:40 am

Re: A worthwhile read for all PP'ers

Post by Arthur Boe Nansa » Mon Nov 29, 2021 11:03 am

ppnewbie wrote:
Sun Nov 28, 2021 2:29 pm
I heard a very good description by Lyn Alden (big fan of hers) Bitcoin is gold and a tech stock combined.
I used to be a big fan as well. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately?) her crypto coverage has opened my eyes to her faults.
She's a very good financial-narrative dissector, but from a generalist perspective. Her graphs are nice and she's good at broad coverage, but her analysis isn't always well backed when you look at the details. As a former electrical engineer I expected her to be much more calculated regarding the numbers, but, as just one example, her casual regurgitation of Lightening Network talking points makes it obvious she's more interesting in the story of BTC as a first mover in emerging tech then what value it's actually providing.
To her merit, she'll probably still be directionally correct as far as short and mid term narratives are concerned so if you're looking for good risk/reward financial ideas in that time-frame be my guest.

As someone who looks at crypto beyond mindless passive investing, i'll stick to people who don't take easy populist positions. It also makes you wonder what other ideas she has that she discusses in vague terms.
vincent_c
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:58 am

Re: A worthwhile read for all PP'ers

Post by vincent_c » Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:19 pm

Arthur Boe Nansa wrote:
Mon Nov 29, 2021 11:03 am
As someone who looks at crypto beyond mindless passive investing, i'll stick to people who don't take easy populist positions. It also makes you wonder what other ideas she has that she discusses in vague terms.
Now you got me interested.

What kind of developments in LN and BTC are you focused on?
ppnewbie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 434
Joined: Fri May 03, 2019 6:04 pm

Re: A worthwhile read for all PP'ers

Post by ppnewbie » Mon Nov 29, 2021 1:10 pm

Arthur Boe Nansa wrote:
Mon Nov 29, 2021 11:03 am
ppnewbie wrote:
Sun Nov 28, 2021 2:29 pm
I heard a very good description by Lyn Alden (big fan of hers) Bitcoin is gold and a tech stock combined.
I used to be a big fan as well. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately?) her crypto coverage has opened my eyes to her faults.
She's a very good financial-narrative dissector, but from a generalist perspective. Her graphs are nice and she's good at broad coverage, but her analysis isn't always well backed when you look at the details. As a former electrical engineer I expected her to be much more calculated regarding the numbers, but, as just one example, her casual regurgitation of Lightening Network talking points makes it obvious she's more interesting in the story of BTC as a first mover in emerging tech then what value it's actually providing.
To her merit, she'll probably still be directionally correct as far as short and mid term narratives are concerned so if you're looking for good risk/reward financial ideas in that time-frame be my guest.

As someone who looks at crypto beyond mindless passive investing, i'll stick to people who don't take easy populist positions. It also makes you wonder what other ideas she has that she discusses in vague terms.
Please say more! I am very interested in hearing your thoughts on this. I need to get as many informed perspectives as possible especially since there seem to be some very good companies on sale at the moment (for the VP). So I have to decide to take a speculative 100x or 0 bet or a sure thing at around 8 to 14 percent compounded rates of return.
Arthur Boe Nansa
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:40 am

Re: A worthwhile read for all PP'ers

Post by Arthur Boe Nansa » Mon Nov 29, 2021 4:08 pm

vincent_c wrote:
Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:19 pm
Now you got me interested.

What kind of developments in LN and BTC are you focused on?
I should clarify that I still respect Lyn. She does good work, I just used to consider her in the top echelon of market observers and that esteem has faded to a more lukewarm appreciation.
It's less about the developments and more the lack of developments i'm focused on.
In the interest of not straying too far from "biased, but fair," i'll keep it short.
The lightening paper came out nearly six years ago and not much has happened in that time. By 2015 big companies were willing to accept Bitcoin, yet technical decisions prolonged its adoption and allowed countries/governments to play catch up in their own initiatives with CBDCs and regulations.
Lyn posted this: https://twitter.com/LynAldenContact/sta ... 74689?s=20
Yet if you look into these companies and their "lightening adoption", you'd quickly realize how laughable this graphic is.
The main problem is that the lightening network has a huge centralisation issue in that the lightening network's hub and spokes model is clunky (and provides a generally bad user experience). Instead, companies have created their own channels and give customers a seamless experience by doing the heavy lifting. But then isn't that just PayPal?
Jack Mallers, CEO and founder of a payments company transacting over the lightening network, managed to "work with" the president of a country to adopt Bitcoin using his platform. He's also the son and grandson of two men that were influential in CME. Traders, to put it lightly.
There's a lot of money to be made in making it seem like lightening works. In promotional material, in side-services, in narrative building...

From experience I can tell you that anyone serious about cash-like properties of a cryptocurrency do not take lightening seriously (yet). But this perpetual moving goal posts of BTC's potential is exactly what makes it a jack of all trades, master of none. It's "not yet a store of value, but will be once volatility subsides". It's "not yet used globally, but will be once lightening is more greatly adopted." It's "not yet private, but will be once Taproot and other services are activated." Have you never found it odd that seemingly everyone's heard of BTC, but no one has heard (or seen) what they can do with it?
ppnewbie wrote:
Mon Nov 29, 2021 1:10 pm
So I have to decide to take a speculative 100x or 0 bet or a sure thing at around 8 to 14 percent compounded rates of return.
I'm afraid that part of my involvement in cryptocurrencies is for the love of a better future (e.g. more options in the free market), which doesn't always make for the best investment. ;)
That being said, if you're willing to differentiate between value investments and more speculative trades, I have some ideas and can answer questions you may have, but probably better to engage privately so as not to clog this thread.
vincent_c
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:58 am

Re: A worthwhile read for all PP'ers

Post by vincent_c » Mon Nov 29, 2021 4:54 pm

I don’t see any similarities between LN and paypal.

I’m not sure how LN channels which are trustless and secure by the bitcoin network are considered centralized. There are now LN to BTC, LN to RBTC submarine swaps and once RBTC can be pegged in and out trustlessly via taproot and RSK is 100% merge mined then that will open up a whole new world for BTC.

I think people know full well what BTC can be used for, but they may not know what the sidechains can be used for. There’s so much development and rapid progress and adoption so I don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to the lack of development.

I’m not a user of LN and havent found a need to use it, but I think that Strike is a good use case and I don’t think it will ever be the case where businesses will begin to accept payments directly in BTC via LN as I don’t think it is practical in current form nor do I see that as BTC’s future.

We could have a thread on BTC development I think that would be useful on here.
Arthur Boe Nansa
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:40 am

Re: A worthwhile read for all PP'ers

Post by Arthur Boe Nansa » Tue Nov 30, 2021 6:25 am

vincent_c wrote:
Mon Nov 29, 2021 4:54 pm
I don’t see any similarities between LN and paypal.

I’m not sure how LN channels which are trustless and secure by the bitcoin network are considered centralized. There are now LN to BTC, LN to RBTC submarine swaps and once RBTC can be pegged in and out trustlessly via taproot and RSK is 100% merge mined then that will open up a whole new world for BTC.
I made the comparison a bit jokingly, but the point was that if you're allowing a third party to handle your transactions, even if it's on an open network, you're still using custodial services.

Regarding RBTC (i've never heard of it, i'm assuming it's RSK?):
Sep 3, 2021, 02:32 by ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com:

> Good morning Prayank,
>
> Just to be clear, neither Liquid nor RSK, as of my current knowledge, are Drivechain systems.
>
> Instead, they are both federated sidechains.
> The money owned by a federated sidechain is, as far s the Bitcoin blockchain is concerned, really owned by the federation that.runs the sidechain.
>
> Basically, a mainchain->sidechain transfer is done by paying to a federation k-of-n address and a coordination signal of some kind (details depending on federated sidechain) to create the equivalent coins on the sidechain.
> A sidechain->mainchain transfer is done by requesting some coins on the sidechain to be destroyed, and then the federation will send some of its mainchain k-of-n coins into whatever address you indicate you want to use on the mainchain.
>
> In theory, a sufficient quorum of the federation can decide to ignore the sidechain data entirely and spend the mainchain money arbitrarily, and the mainchain layer will allow this (being completely ignorant of he sidechain).
>
> In such federated sidechains, the federation is often a fixed predetermined signing set, and changes to that federation are expected to be rare.
>
> Federated sidechains are ultimately custodial; as noted above, the federation could in theory abscond with the funds completely, and the mainchain would not care if the sidechain federation executes its final exit strategy and you lose your funds.
> One can consider federated sidechains to be a custodian with multiple personality disorder, that happens to use a blockchain to keep its individual sub-personalities coordinated with each other, but ultimately control of the money is contingent on the custodian following the dictates of the supposed owners of the coin.
> From a certain point of view, it is actually immaterial that there is a separate blockchain called the "sidechain" --- it is simply that a blockchain is used to coordinate the custodians of the coin, but in principle any other coordination mechanism can be used between them, including a plain database.


Source: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/piper ... 19398.html
Liquid, Blockstream's "seamless solution", has the same problem (and also, a couple of years later, still has next to no adoption whatsoever).
Also, merge-mining still relies on the mining of BTC which, again, is still contingent on the security model of the mainchain. If the mainchain isn't used actively, it faces threat to it's whole economic incentive. As an interesting aside, consider Gavin's hypothetical (Gavin was the person who Satoshi personally left the project with before disappearing): http://gavinandresen.ninja/a-possible-btc-future
vincent_c wrote:
Mon Nov 29, 2021 4:54 pm
I think people know full well what BTC can be used for, but they may not know what the sidechains can be used for. There’s so much development and rapid progress and adoption so I don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to the lack of development.

I’m not a user of LN and havent found a need to use it, but I think that Strike is a good use case and I don’t think it will ever be the case where businesses will begin to accept payments directly in BTC via LN as I don’t think it is practical in current form nor do I see that as BTC’s future.
Full well what BTC can be used for? I'd love to have my eyes opened. I've been in the space for years and still don't know what it can be used for, practically and reliably. There's a lot of development. Not a lot of progress and not a lot of adoption.
Note: buying some BTC from a well known, centralized exchange so it sits in a custodial wallet is not adoption as far as i'm concerned.

You answered yourself: You're not a user of LN. Have you even tried to set up a channel? Or are you talking about the use of it "in theory". I'm also baffled that you can't find a reason to use a monetary network. Then what's the value proposition of BTC?
Strike is a good use case if you like custodial solutions to ease transaction friction (there are many of those solutions abound. The only reason to do it through Strike is for narrative building. A.K.A to seem trendy and blow hot air into a narrative about the future so that your digital pet rock is worth more in dollar value).
vincent_c wrote:
Mon Nov 29, 2021 4:54 pm
We could have a thread on BTC development I think that would be useful on here.
As I am not interested in BTC I will take no part in it other than maybe to correct errors, but if you do decide to do it I'd recommend kicking off with BIP300 and drivechain solutions. As it stands, it seems to be the only viable answer to sustaining BTC long term.
(At this point you may be asking yourself "What is BIP300 and what are drivechains?". It is not trivial that one of the smartest, most practical ways of ensuring BTC remain sufficiently decentralized and still manage to scale as a technology has little exposure. Simply- It would hinder the ability of third parties to leverage the inefficiencies of a crippled main chain. Blockstream, a for profit company, as well as many other companies/organizations have a lot to make in providing a solution to a problem that won't "go away".)
User avatar
bitcoininthevp
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 418
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 8:30 pm

Re: A worthwhile read for all PP'ers

Post by bitcoininthevp » Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:30 am

Arthur Boe Nansa wrote:
Mon Nov 29, 2021 4:08 pm
By 2015 big companies were willing to accept Bitcoin, yet technical decisions prolonged its adoption and allowed countries/governments to play catch up in their own initiatives with CBDCs and regulations.
Im not sure how CBDCs compete for market share. See:
bitcoininthevp wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:20 am
EdwardjK wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 8:17 am
... I believe that most countries, including the US, will digitize their currencies and effectively negate the need for Bitcoin, et al.
Hi, EdwardjK. Are you saying that Bitcoin and the USD have similar features? One is scarce/finite, censorship resistant, seizure resistant, some privacy features, etc. VS USD, (especially in "digital" form- I assume you mean whatever CBDCs will be as the dollar is largely digital already) which has an unknown supply, complete surveillance, complete censorship, etc.

I dont think a CBDC would "negate" the need for Bitcoin, in fact as CBDCs get closer and roll out the demand for Bitcoin would absolutely surge since everyone would feel the needs of Bitcoins use case.
Arthur Boe Nansa wrote:
Mon Nov 29, 2021 4:08 pm
Lyn posted this: https://twitter.com/LynAldenContact/sta ... 74689?s=20
Yet if you look into these companies and their "lightening adoption", you'd quickly realize how laughable this graphic is.
(First "Lightning" not "Lightening" we arent discussing pregnancy I dont believe :))

Im not totally clear on the criticism here. There are many businesses working with the Lightning Network (LN) in different ways.
Arthur Boe Nansa wrote:
Mon Nov 29, 2021 4:08 pm
The main problem is that the lightening network has a huge centralisation issue in that the lightening network's hub and spokes model is clunky (and provides a generally bad user experience). Instead, companies have created their own channels and give customers a seamless experience by doing the heavy lifting. But then isn't that just PayPal?
There are different ways to use LN. You can have private channels or public channels. You can have custodial channels or channels you manage yourself. And combinations of each as well. Seems good to have options for different users technical proficiency and use cases, no?

Regarding the hub and spoke model of LN, that really isnt true. LN isnt designed as a hub a spoke model from a technical perspective. There are reasons that it could be advantageous to use a well connected LN node to route payments through and hub and spokes can and will develop, but these are totally opt-in, and Im pointing out that isnt inherent to LN's tech.
Arthur Boe Nansa wrote:
Mon Nov 29, 2021 4:08 pm
Jack Mallers, CEO and founder of a payments company transacting over the lightening network, managed to "work with" the president of a country to adopt Bitcoin using his platform. He's also the son and grandson of two men that were influential in CME. Traders, to put it lightly.
There's a lot of money to be made in making it seem like lightening works. In promotional material, in side-services, in narrative building...
I believe you are conflating Strike's business using Lightning with Lightning itself and they are only somewhat related.

Strike (https://strike.me/en/) is using LN as the rails for sending money internationally. So instead of doing a traditional wire and currency conversion, Strike uses BTC/LN. For example, if you have USD and want to send to someone's EUR account, Strike would take your USD, buy BTC on an exchange, send BTC via LN to (potentially) another exchange and sell the BTC for EUR and credit the users account with EUR, ~instantly. If Mallers has history in trading, you could see how it would be useful in Strikes business.
Arthur Boe Nansa wrote:
Mon Nov 29, 2021 4:08 pm
But this perpetual moving goal posts of BTC's potential is exactly what makes it a jack of all trades, master of none. It's "not yet a store of value, but will be once volatility subsides". It's "not yet used globally, but will be once lightening is more greatly adopted." It's "not yet private, but will be once Taproot and other services are activated."
It is funny, two people can look at LN developments, improvements (like taproot) to Bitcoin, and BTC "market cap" growing and becoming less volatile and person 1 says "seems like great progress" and another person says "moving goal posts". I assume if there were no innovation going on youd just say "look bitcoin is stagnant"?
Arthur Boe Nansa wrote:
Mon Nov 29, 2021 4:08 pm
Have you never found it odd that seemingly everyone's heard of BTC, but no one has heard (or seen) what they can do with it?
This sort of comment from someone knowledgable like you blows my mind. Im sure you’ve seen me (re)(re)(re)post this before but:
bitcoininthevp wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:49 am
Censorship resistance. This includes individuals whose payments are typically censored, like wikileaks or online drug markets. This also includes groups or individuals who getting "deplatformed" (block by paypal or other fundraising platforms) because they have views that those platforms (or their governments) do not like.

Store of value. This includes people in countries whose currencies are inflating at a rate that makes Bitcoin's current volatility seem appealing. It also includes people in countries with lacking or no banking services available to them.

Speculation. This includes short term traders trying to trade on trends. But this also includes people that hold long term who believe Bitcoin can become money and in order to do so will appreciate drastically in value.

International payments. This includes people remitting money from overseas to their family. Also people paying for goods and services overseas can save money by using Bitcoin to transact. There are also countries where it is hard or impossible to exchange with online which would be serviced by Bitcoin.

Private payments. While Bitcoin is not completely anonymous, it can be transacted in a "more private" way. This includes individuals who value their financial privacy.

Micropayments. It is possible to transact in bitcoin using fractions of pennies. Especially using tools ontop of bitcoin (lightning network). This is applicable for pay-per-use services like an online newspaper paywall, paying realtime per minute used on a cell plan, etc. Even new use cases are opened up here like machine to machine micro transaction payments.

Tax evasion. This is for individuals who do not wish to pay the government the recommended taxes: income tax or otherwise.

Anti confiscation. This includes people that want to have value stored in something that cannot easily be stolen. Individuals crossing borders, feeling countries, etc. Asset forfeiture is applicable here. It also includes anyone fearful that their government might become a bit more invasive.

Anti inflation hedge. This includes individuals wanting to hold money that isnt inflating. As this use case becomes more appealing (bitcoin's volatility decreasing), Bitcoin will be a threat to central banks and the governments that attain part of their non-taxation funding from inflating the money supply. By eliminating the ability for governments to print money to benefit themselves, governments will have to shrink or get their funding from increasing taxes, which is harder than inflating.

Cheaper payments. Fees on Bitcoin transactions can be very low. So there is some advantage for people transacting in Bitcoin, even in the same country, where fees might be high. This might be the case when making medium/large purchase online and avoiding the ~3% credit card fee for example.

Programmable money. I give my son bitcoin that cannot be spent before the year 2050 for example. My 3 business partners and I can fund a bitcoin address such that 2 our of the 3 of us has to approve the transaction in order for it to go through. Google "smart contracts" for other examples of this.
Now, you might not like some of these and in some cases there are better alternatives, but the fact is this is what people are using Bitcoin for.

Bitcoin isn't for daily payments and buying your Starbucks (yet?). (Where I think your valued uses cases reside)

I am not a big fan of any of the sidechains currently so I wont take a position of defending them here.

On the scaling comments, I think things like joinpools, channel factories, combined with splicing/submarine swaps, statechains could have potential as well (with trade offs).

I would like to see more discussion from Bitcoin devs about BIP300/Drivechains, personally.
vincent_c
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:58 am

Re: A worthwhile read for all PP'ers

Post by vincent_c » Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:09 am

Shame on me for prematurely getting excited thinking someone actually wants to engage in a real discussion.

It's so frustrating that people on here are so opinionated but do not want to discuss things because they have an opinion and are not interested in anything else. So many times those opinions are actually based on things that are not factual too.

It already takes a lot of time and energy to keep up with technology that if we have disinterested or resistive discussion rather than thoughtful and constructive discourse then it is too much of an energy drain to participate.
Arthur Boe Nansa
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:40 am

Re: A worthwhile read for all PP'ers

Post by Arthur Boe Nansa » Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:43 am

bitcoininthevp wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:30 am
Im not sure how CBDCs compete for market share. See:
I said "CBDC and regulations" together on purpose. It's less a matter of technical implementation and more about the broad adoption of a system that provides utility. All of the things you mentioned are technical positives in theory, but that people will still "keep BTCs around" when the dominant medium of exchange and denomination is in CBDCs makes usage of BTC nothing more than a novelty. Regulations are also something that sways public opinion greatly and six years of catch up for governments is a lot of wasted time.
bitcoininthevp wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:30 am
(First "Lightning" not "Lightening" we arent discussing pregnancy I dont believe :))
Hold on, this isn't a maternity forum?
bitcoininthevp wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:30 am
Im not totally clear on the criticism here. There are many businesses working with the Lightning Network (LN) in different ways.
Yes...and? The criticism was that a graphic splattered with a bunch of different names of companies to imply "serious adoption" is ridiculous. And Lyn, a very smart person, knows that most people won't spend even a second verifying this adoption, but that they will take an infographic by a well regarded economic commentator as proof in itself.
It was just one example.
bitcoininthevp wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:30 am
There are different ways to use LN. You can have private channels or public channels. You can have custodial channels or channels you manage yourself. And combinations of each as well. Seems good to have options for different users technical proficiency and use cases, no?

Regarding the hub and spoke model of LN, that really isnt true. LN isnt designed as a hub a spoke model from a technical perspective. There are reasons that it could be advantageous to use a well connected LN node to route payments through and hub and spokes can and will develop, but these are totally opt-in, and Im pointing out that isnt inherent to LN's tech.
Yes there are many ways to us LN. I have no qualms about what it's trying to achieve (I'm even a fan), but I do have serious reservation about its slow development and the void it created which allowed "other solutions" to come in and provide a quick market solutions that greatly hinder all the supposed fundamental aspects of Bitcoin (e.g. p2p, permissionlessness, decentralization, etc.). Refer to my arguments implying "if the mainchain is "perfect" but everyone uses a layer 2 that is much worse than a slightly less ideal Layer 1, you're still worse off.)
Side note, lightening works just as well on a bigger block blockchain, potentially even better...
bitcoininthevp wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:30 am
I believe you are conflating Strike's business using Lightning with Lightning itself and they are only somewhat related.

Strike (https://strike.me/en/) is using LN as the rails for sending money internationally. So instead of doing a traditional wire and currency conversion, Strike uses BTC/LN. For example, if you have USD and want to send to someone's EUR account, Strike would take your USD, buy BTC on an exchange, send BTC via LN to (potentially) another exchange and sell the BTC for EUR and credit the users account with EUR, ~instantly. If Mallers has history in trading, you could see how it would be useful in Strikes business.
I'm not. See my point above. Keep this in mind: "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they aren't."
That LN can be used totally free of Strike and other services is true (and great), but when you're using money and connections (some tied to legacy finance, the thing which many BTC maximalists claim to want to "dismantle") to onboard people (or dare I say, whole countries?) to use your custodial solutions, it does go against the implied narrative.
I have nothing against Jack, but the fact that the hypocrisy of this adoption is simply swept under the rug is not the Bitcoin I was a part of.

bitcoininthevp wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:30 am
It is funny, two people can look at LN developments, improvements (like taproot) to Bitcoin, and BTC "market cap" growing and becoming less volatile and person 1 says "seems like great progress" and another person says "moving goal posts". I assume if there were no innovation going on youd just say "look bitcoin is stagnant"?
Correct, I said the narrative was moving goal posts and i'm completely justified in saying so.
It is a fact that many of Blockstream's top employees have consistently said "BTC isn't meant for small transactions", "those who can't afford it shouldn't use it" etc. This was, clearly, an attack to justify the deficiencies of the BTC chain. Now that there's a (still incomplete) solution for smaller payments, suddenly the power of providing a solution to the unbanked and poor is a top priority and BTC takes on the role of "the true moral answer". Other times, BTC maximalists berated anyone who found value in NFTs and smart contracts and now, with miniscule improvements, champion these advances as "gamechangers".

If there was no innovation going on I would definitely say "look bitcoin is stagnant." That's a given...wouldn't you?
That doesn't undermine my still very legitimate criticism that it's still relatively stagnant and that it compensates by constantly referring to an ever-changing narrative. In theory it does everything, in practice it does nothing.
bitcoininthevp wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:30 am
This sort of comment from someone knowledgable like you blows my mind. Im sure you’ve seen me (re)(re)(re)post this before but:
I've seen you post it and I gave my arguments there. I'm not against crypto...there are simply better alternatives.
To imply there's 1 coin to rule them all and even more brazenly, that it's BTC is simply incorrect.
I won't let me financial considerations sway my rationality.
bitcoininthevp wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:30 am
Now, you might not like some of these and in some cases there are better alternatives, but the fact is this is what people are using Bitcoin for.

Bitcoin isn't for daily payments and buying your Starbucks (yet?). (Where I think your valued uses cases reside)
It's not that I don't like them. It's that they aren't necessarily true and yes, in some cases there are better alternatives.
I think Lyn saying "Bitcoin is gold and a tech stock combined" is an ironically perfect analogy to what i'm saying. We've been in an outlier tech-fueled bull run of a decade partially propped up by funny money and insane fiscal policy. Apparently the fact that BTC has done so well during this period is "entirely about its properties as a SoV monetary network." Uh, what?
So it's like a tech stock. But when things get bad remember that it's the greatest wealth preserver the world has ever seen...
Okay.
I'll refer people back to Gavin's article.
bitcoininthevp wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:30 am
I am not a big fan of any of the sidechains currently so I wont take a position of defending them here.

On the scaling comments, I think things like joinpools, channel factories, combined with splicing/submarine swaps, statechains could have potential as well (with trade offs).

I would like to see more discussion from Bitcoin devs about BIP300/Drivechains, personally.
They won't discuss it until they have to. For a very simple reason:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
But when the time demands it, I can assure you there will another narrative shift. ;)
vincent_c wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:09 am
Shame on me for prematurely getting excited thinking someone actually wants to engage in a real discussion.

It's so frustrating that people on here are so opinionated but do not want to discuss things because they have an opinion and are not interested in anything else. So many times those opinions are actually based on things that are not factual too.

It already takes a lot of time and energy to keep up with technology that if we have disinterested or resistive discussion rather than thoughtful and constructive discourse then it is too much of an energy drain to participate.
If this is directed at me I'm actually shocked. I've spent all this time explaining, providing sources to back up claims, etc. and if your takeaway is that people "do not want to discuss things because they have an opinion and are not interested in anything else" or that "those opinions are actually based on things that are not factual" then you're out of your depth.
I've not only provided criticisms even held by BTC maximalists, but also solutions provided by BTC maximalists.
Disinterested and resistive? As opposed to thoughtful and constructive? You can just say you're mainly trying to justify your present/future financial investment. It would save you a lot of words.

As for me, i'll continue discussing monetary theory, relevant technical implementations and their shortcomings, government/company/individual influence to sway public opinion, etc.
If that's not to your liking you're welcome to drown all of that out as you continue your search for investment justification. But don't put the blame on me if you're not getting the answers you like.
vincent_c
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:58 am

Re: A worthwhile read for all PP'ers

Post by vincent_c » Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:11 pm

Arthur Boe Nansa wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:43 am
If this is directed at me I'm actually shocked.
When you referred to crypto here:
Arthur Boe Nansa wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:43 am
As someone who looks at crypto beyond mindless passive investing, i'll stick to people who don't take easy populist positions.
Did this include bitcoin?
User avatar
bitcoininthevp
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 418
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 8:30 pm

Re: A worthwhile read for all PP'ers

Post by bitcoininthevp » Tue Nov 30, 2021 2:05 pm

Arthur Boe Nansa wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:43 am
I said "CBDC and regulations" together on purpose. It's less a matter of technical implementation and more about the broad adoption of a system that provides utility. All of the things you mentioned are technical positives in theory, but that people will still "keep BTCs around" when the dominant medium of exchange and denomination is in CBDCs makes usage of BTC nothing more than a novelty. Regulations are also something that sways public opinion greatly and six years of catch up for governments is a lot of wasted time.
Digital central bank currencies are already here, we use a digital dollar basically now. And its my unit of account for sure. But BTC still has value vs. USD due to its more credible monetary policy (store of value potential).
Arthur Boe Nansa wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:43 am
Yes there are many ways to us LN. I have no qualms about what it's trying to achieve (I'm even a fan), but I do have serious reservation about its slow development and the void it created which allowed "other solutions" to come in and provide a quick market solutions that greatly hinder all the supposed fundamental aspects of Bitcoin (e.g. p2p, permissionlessness, decentralization, etc.). Refer to my arguments implying "if the mainchain is "perfect" but everyone uses a layer 2 that is much worse than a slightly less ideal Layer 1, you're still worse off.)
Side note, lightening works just as well on a bigger block blockchain, potentially even better...
Im not totally clear on what other solutions you are referencing, the Strike stuff?
Arthur Boe Nansa wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:43 am
That LN can be used totally free of Strike and other services is true (and great), but when you're using money and connections (some tied to legacy finance, the thing which many BTC maximalists claim to want to "dismantle") to onboard people (or dare I say, whole countries?) to use your custodial solutions, it does go against the implied narrative.
I have nothing against Jack, but the fact that the hypocrisy of this adoption is simply swept under the rug is not the Bitcoin I was a part of.
I think there is a lack of criticism of Strike for sure. I tried to sign up and stopped on like step 5 of the KYC/signup process. But Strike is just some central service on top of LN and not LN itself as you note.
Arthur Boe Nansa wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:43 am
I said the narrative was moving goal posts and i'm completely justified in saying so.
It is a fact that many of Blockstream's top employees have consistently said "BTC isn't meant for small transactions", "those who can't afford it shouldn't use it" etc. This was, clearly, an attack to justify the deficiencies of the BTC chain.
It doesn’t seem to be an attack as much as a cold hard fact that there is no reasonable way to handle the entire worlds transactions onchain in a blockchain while retaining and any reasonable degree of decentralization. Now I believe we disagree where that line is (1MB? 4MB?, etc) but I suspect we both agree that no chain could handle the number worlds current payments, let alone the order of magnitude more transactions when/if micropayments take off.
Arthur Boe Nansa wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:43 am
Now that there's a (still incomplete) solution for smaller payments, suddenly the power of providing a solution to the unbanked and poor is a top priority and BTC takes on the role of "the true moral answer".
I think its reasonable to advocate for a payment layer ontop of bitcoin that allows affordable payments by cramming 1000s+ of "payments" into one "transaction" while also noting that the Bitcoin blockchain cannot (onchain) handle the worlds payments.

I also think there is some muddling of individuals or disparate groups opinions into one BTC maxi caricature when in fact theres a diversity of opinion in the Bitcoin world.
Arthur Boe Nansa wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:43 am
Other times, BTC maximalists berated anyone who found value in NFTs and smart contracts and now, with miniscule improvements, champion these advances as "gamechangers".
Ive noticeably felt the "smart contracts are dumb" narrative turn into "bitcoin has smart contracts too" as well. Im attributing less to malice and conspiracy by a cabal here and more towards the ecosystem evolving. Although Im sure you can find individuals contradicting themselves on these topics.
Arthur Boe Nansa wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:43 am
That doesn't undermine my still very legitimate criticism that it's still relatively stagnant and that it compensates by constantly referring to an ever-changing narrative. In theory it does everything, in practice it does nothing.
One man's stagnant is another man's credible monetary policy progressing conservatively.
Arthur Boe Nansa wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:43 am
To imply there's 1 coin to rule them all and even more brazenly, that it's BTC is simply incorrect.
My head on this is that money seems to be the only real use case for a blockchain long term. And in money there tends to be basically one winner. So with those 2 premises, 1 coin to rule them all is the conclusion.
Arthur Boe Nansa wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:43 am
I think Lyn saying "Bitcoin is gold and a tech stock combined" is an ironically perfect analogy to what i'm saying. We've been in an outlier tech-fueled bull run of a decade partially propped up by funny money and insane fiscal policy. Apparently the fact that BTC has done so well during this period is "entirely about its properties as a SoV monetary network." Uh, what?
So it's like a tech stock. But when things get bad remember that it's the greatest wealth preserver the world has ever seen...
Okay.
I dont really have a beef with this.
Arthur Boe Nansa wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:43 am
bitcoininthevp wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:30 am
...
I would like to see more discussion from Bitcoin devs about BIP300/Drivechains, personally.
They won't discuss it until they have to. For a very simple reason:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
But when the time demands it, I can assure you there will another narrative shift. ;)
I think your feeling that there is a Blockstream dev cabal is a bit unfounded. I think there is a core group of developers that make most of the changes and are a bit of gatekeepers, that part is true. However the Blockstream angle is not true. And it is also possible for good developers to work their way into the group and wield more influence, via merit.

Of the Blockstream founders, most have left: Gregory Maxwell (not active on Bitcoin Core as far as I can tell), Pieter Wuille (Bitcoin at Chaincode), Matt Corallo (working on Lightning, not Bitcoin Core), Mark Friedenbach, Jorge Timón, Austin Hill, Jonathan Wilkins, Alex Fowler.

If you look at top Bitcoin contributors since 2017, I only see 2 Blockstreamers and they are working on wallet and build tools and nothing Bitcoin protocol related.
vincent_c
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:58 am

Re: A worthwhile read for all PP'ers

Post by vincent_c » Tue Nov 30, 2021 3:02 pm

vincent_c wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:09 am
Shame on me for prematurely getting excited thinking someone actually wants to engage in a real discussion.

It's so frustrating that people on here are so opinionated but do not want to discuss things because they have an opinion and are not interested in anything else. So many times those opinions are actually based on things that are not factual too.

It already takes a lot of time and energy to keep up with technology that if we have disinterested or resistive discussion rather than thoughtful and constructive discourse then it is too much of an energy drain to participate.
I read your post a few times over and I want to apologize.

I focused too much on you saying this:
Arthur Boe Nansa wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 6:25 am
As I am not interested in BTC I will take no part in it other than maybe to correct errors
This was after reading your post which I disagreed with factually. In retrospect, I do believe that you put thought into your response. It was also an unfounded overreaction that should't really be directed to you, but frustration at another forum member's posts lately that I have had to show restraint in order to not respond.

Anyway, I think we should move onto a new thread which I started where I gave my response to your post.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=12400
Post Reply