makeasnek

Never liked Kamala. Choosing a former cop/prosecutor as your VP right after the BLM protests felt like a real slap in the face. Voting for Biden anyways but don't love his VP.

Yes this exists. Multi-sig is also worth mentioning though it doesn't solve this problem in the way you're asking but it does eliminate the risk of total loss of security if a single key is compromised.

I have used Thunderbird for years. HOWEVER:

• I don't know why Thunderbird can't get a reliable, functional search ability. It's such garbage. I constantly have to delete my entire search index and start from scratch, it is immensely frustrating.
• The problems connecting to gmail are also so frustrating. Yes, they are Google's fault but if you make an e-mail client you maybe need to add a workaround for the world's most popular e-mail provider. It's totally fixable because you can apply those fixes manually.

It is. Lightning transactions confirm in under a second, you can sell those instantly via an exchange. The price is not that unstable and already more stable than many national currencies. You can guarantee that they receive the same amount of BTC.

Bitcoin has collapsed like three times in the last like 7 years dawg.

If you bought 1 BTC 15 years ago, you still have 1 BTC. It has not collapsed. The price relative to USD has collapsed a few times, but the average trend is growth. Bitcoin does not guarantee any price relative to any other currency, because it can't, all it can guarantee is a stable supply of currency. The USD, in that time period, has lost >20% of its purchasing power as well, so the USD also "crashed".

It's fair, I assume a lot of people are bots too, but I like lemmy because it's mostly not bots :).

You can not send the BTC to just about anybody. Only to people with whom you have a channel open. If you want to send to anybody you need to hop through other channels using middlemen. That sounds very similar to the function of a bank.

You are right, if you want to send directly from your wallet to another user's wallet with no middlemen, you need to have a channel open with that user, which you totally can and will save you on fees in the long-term if you transact with that person frequently. But I don't do this because it's un-necessary, you can also send funds to any other person on lightning via these middlemen. The middlemen don't have custody of the funds, they can't block/reverse/do anything with the transaction aside from just forward it along. You can choose who those "middlemen" are, they are usually selected based on the lowest expected fee. They route data around, if they are banks, then so are other Bitcoin nodes you connect to on main chain. But we don't think of them as banks right? They just relay data around and they're decentralized. You are right that they share a similar function of routing payments, the difference is in how they do that and who controls what parts of that process. Banks have immense power over your funds. Lightning nodes you route a payment through have none and anybody can run one.

I'm not a bot, I'm just an idiot.

It’s not instant it takes a long time until enough confirmations have been done. It’s not even clear how many confirmations are enough.

You're thinking of main chain (which takes 10 minutes for the next block), though I would take a zero-conf transaction in any situation that isn't moving more money than a day's labor. A single confirmation means it made it into the next block which should be plenty for 99% of situations. If you're selling your house, maybe a wait a 2-3 blocks to be sure. Lightning is instant and uses main chain for security but does settlement/transaction data off-chain.

Lightning network is literally a traditional bank transaction mechanism on top of bitcoin.

It's not, you don't need a bank to use it. Banks don't settle instantly, banks have chargebacks, banks required six forms of ID, banks can't reach some places, banks may discriminate. Lightning is Bitcoin. You lock up BTC in a lightning channel, you can then send that BTC to anybody via lightning, and when you close your channel, you get the appropriate amount of BTC back. You can run a lightning node on a phone, a "routing" node on a raspberry pi, it's just as decentralized and trustless as the main chain is. You can open a channel directly w the person you're transacting with or you can forward the transaction through other channels/nodes, all trustlessly, all instantly, all automatically. Nobody ever has custody of the funds aside from you and your intended recipient. There's no central custodian (like a bank) you have to trust.

If you are arguing for using lightning transactions, what is the point of bitcoin in the first place?

Main chain and lightning have different use cases. Use main chain for long-term storage of funds or large transactions. Use lightning for everyday spending. Main chain secures lightning transactions. Main chain is layer one, lightning is layer two, it's possible there will be more layers, just like SMTP is built on TCP which is built on Ethernet or whatever.

fees are huge and will only increase in the future.

Main chain fees are around $1.50 for the next block, which is still cheaper than a bank wire or other equivalent payment methods in many situations. You're right though, they are expected to increase as adoption increases, but lightning has scaled that available blockspace several orders of magnitude. Lightning fees are <1% in almost all instances and aren't expected to increase since they are not tied directly to main chain fees and no mining is required. A lightning transaction uses about as much CPU power as sending an e-mail. A single main chain transaction can open a lightning channel. You can have billions of transactions inside a lightning channel.

For perspective, there are two ways we pay taxes currently: direct taxation via tax collection and indirect taxation via the inflation of the currency supply (govt prints money and uses it, your money becomes worth less about 2-3% year in good years). That second tax is optional, there are ways to not use your national currency and therefore not pay the inflationary tax. That second tax is also insidious because people don't realize it's happening. If you have to raise actual taxes, suddenly you get revolts and removed from power. Which is why most wars are funded with inflationary spending, not tax increases. People will gladly pay extra tax for popular wars, but not unpopular ones.

Imagine how the world might look different if inflationary spending wasn't a particularly powerful taxation tool because not much value was wrapped up in national currencies. Imagine if going to war meant raising actual taxes. Might we have a world where there is less war because war is now harder to fund?

You can downvote this because you're mad that blockchain exists, for those who don't know the actual real life use case: Bitcoin has been around for 15 years, it is a blockchain. It has a real life use case.

I can send money, with my android phone, from my couch, in my underwear, to anybody else on planet earth who also has a phone and a halfway reliable internet connection. The transaction is not only sent, but actually settles, in under a second with Bitcoin lightning. And I pay pennies in fees. No going to the bank, no bank holidays, no paying wire fees or making sure their bank can talk to my bank. It's just simple and instant and it works. It doesn't matter if they are a dissident or if their country doesn't allow women to own bank accounts, the transaction goes through anyways. In many countries, their app can also instantly convert that BTC into the currency of their choice and deposit it to their bank account. That's assuming they have access to stable banking infrastructure, which billions of people do not.

Bitcoin has delivered on its promise of being a currency with a capped supply (21 million coins) and transaction system consistently for 15 years without a single hack, without a single hour of downtime, without a single hiccup. It just works.

You can argue that Bitcoin isn't better than . You can argue that there are "better" solutions. But it has a clear use case. I use it on a daily basis and it has a fifteen year trend of continued growth whether you are looking at total market cap (bigger than Sweden's GDP), number of nodes, number of transactions, whatever.

Most everything negative you've heard about Bitcoin is either hyperbolic or about other crypto. FTX wasn't Bitcoin. Crypto coins collapsing or people being rugged? Not Bitcoin. For more information, FAQs, and myth-busting, check out http://bitcoin.rocks

If you can do a P2P transaction like that, you need either a central server or a blockchain or equivalent to prevent double-spends. There is no other way. Satoshi's innovation for Bitcoin was developing a system (blockchain) that can do this without a central server.

and technology which they can't censor or control (lemmy/mastodon/ap, nostr, bluesky, freenet, hyphanet, matrix, tor, i2p, etc)

Well, yes, exactly. That’s the problem. There have been innumerable innovations and improvements in the field over those 15 years, but Bitcoin ossified early and so it’s got none of them.

Except it's got L2s, it's got more smart contract abilties, it's adding zk rollups, etc. It's not like it hasn't improved over that timespan. The stability of the core protocol and widespread consensus required to upgrade it (and the slow speed at which this occurs) is a benefit for something that is meant to be money. It's maybe less beneficial for the world's most cutting edge smart contract platform, for example.

You’ve got a very inaccurate and skewed view of this. Most significantly, it’s not “proof of ownership,” it’s “proof of stake.” Proof of ownership and proof of stake are distinct technologies that operate in different manners. Ethereum is not proof of ownership.

They call it proof of stake, but it's proof of ownership. It's proving you own coins. That's it. Edit: I think you thought I was talking about proof of authority?

There is a magical threshold at 66%, if you’ve got more than that you can prevent “finality” from happening which will in turn cause some disruption to the chain. But most significantly, it doesn’t prevent blocks from continuing to be processed and doesn’t allow stakers to forge blocks. It’s a highly theoretical attack since no stakers or staking pools are anywhere remotely close to that sort of dominance, and even if they did do that there’d still be mechanisms by which they could be slashed.

I will need to look into this more so thank you for bringing this to my attention. Centralization of nodes renders much of this inconsequential imo but still worth looking into for my own knowledge.

Lightning has been an entirely predictable disappointment. The problem is that Bitcoin was not designed to support something like Lightning

You're right, it was not designed to support an idea that didn't exist when it was designed. But upgrades to improve lightning have been proposed and made it into protocol and more updates (convenants) are coming down the pipe. Lightning works, it works really well, I use it on a daily basis, the network continues to grow. It works for small transactions and large ones. It takes under a second. Cash app supports it, Coinbase added support for it this year. It's as decentralized as base chain is, unlike many of Eth's L2s. The only caveat to lightning for self-custody wallets is solving the "inbound liquidity" problem for onboarding new issues, which is an annoying UX thing but not actually a huge problem imo. Nonetheless, convenants will help solve this and there are other proposals (Ark and Fedimint) which solve this problem in different ways with different trade-offs. It has come a long ways in the past 5 years, I tried it when it first came out and it was a major pain to use, almost all of those pain points have been solved.

Ironically there’s thirty times more Bitcoin being transacted on the Ethereum network in the form of WBTC than there is Bitcoin being transacted in Lightning.

This is a good point. This WBTC is being used for DeFi etc, it's not being used as a currency for transactions. And that's fine, maybe that's Eth's place, certainly there isn't much interest in using BTCs main chain for more complex smart contracts due to concern about bloat. There are proposals (BitVM etc) and some working implementations with "shared security" from main chain with the smart contracts being hosted in some sidechain/L2/etc. But it's a dizzying array, we'll see how that shakes out. I don't know about Eth's long-term future as a decentralized platform when centralization continues to increase and a conspiracy, hack, or government pressure on Hetzner and Amazon could impact over half the nodes on the network.