• Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s also centralized and just a bandaid over an issue that could have been solved if Bitcoin had stayed true to its original intention, i.e. digital cash, not a fake store of value.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh sorry if I don’t keep up to date to the daily movement of Bitcoin… I mean, I wouldn’t have because it’s a store of value and the basic principle of a store of value is the ability to use it and be guaranteed to have what you put in or close to it…

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            So is saying that everyone who bought Bitcoin cash lost money considering today isn’t all time low.

            It’s not as if I was here to defend Bitcoin cash, I’m here to point out that Bitcoin and lighting network is flawed though.

            • explodicle@local106.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              split date != ATH

              The rhetoric you’re repeating is straight out of that scam. And you linked to their subreddit.

              • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re the only one who talked about split date and if we go by that argument, whenever there’s a hard fork the people who were there before will never be losing because they suddenly own both without having purchased one of them.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        At least Bitcoin cash stayed true to the goal of Bitcoin. A peer-to-peer electronic cash system.

        • explodicle@local106.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That was also untrue. Electronic cash doesn’t imply no/low transaction fees. Basically everything they told you was a lie.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Show me where in the whitepaper does it mentions storing value, please.

            No/low transaction fees and ease of transaction is the main point of cash vs barter, Bitcoin abandoned that, now you have to go through the trouble of using level 2 to have small fees and quick transactions, what’s the point of Bitcoin then?

            • explodicle@local106.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              No. I’ve had this exact argument enough times that it was a relief to finally bet on it.

              • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. **The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions**, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non- reversible services.

                Right in the introduction to the whitepaper.

                Maybe you should start with reading it so you would see where things went wrong.