ExploreTrendingAnalytics
Nostr Archives
ExploreTrendingAnalytics
brito27d ago
When you to bank and ask for a pre-filled check, there is a signed transaction from both parties that you can broadcast (give) to whoever you want. That person then follows delivers the check (token) and digitally signs the transaction as concluded. These are basic banking procedures. I've made earlier the analogy to food stamps and food. Avoid confusing both as food. A check is not money. A token is not fedcoin. Tokens are objects representing something else. Probably with 1:1 parity, probably signed digitally, orally or with paper. Doesn't really matter. Unless you are confusing tokens with whatever pyramid schemes on casino coins, where those are essentially pegged to nothing else other than hopes.
💬 2 replies

Thread context

Root: 09e3516c1244…

Replying to: 7598cd42efb7…

Replies (2)

Hanshan27d ago
its correct that the sats haven't settled on L1 but its just NOT correct that they've been abstacted and represented by a token. your metaphor is completely incorrect. no matter how many times you repeat it, it will continue to be incorrect. saying "an signed tx isn't Bitcoin until its broadcasted" makes you look fucking retarded.
0000 sats
Eede3d9…79538226d ago
I see where you are coning from. In this case it might be better to use other terms for what LN represents. Tokens as in ICOs have a common understanding and meaning in the crypto space. I personally would call LN a "derivative" that inherits certain Bitcoin functions. But that's another word that is differently understood within TradFi circles. So for now the only thing that is well understood and correct is that BItcoin onchain and Bitcoin on LN are not the same. They are distinct, have a well defined relationships but certainly different tradeoffs and risk.
0000 sats