there will be a thousand chains with different security models.
as long as they adhere to the underlying ethos of sovereignty and decentralization, they are #Bitcoin.
people will use the chain that fits their needs and move back and forth between them. it's already happening.
our job is to educate about the scams and help people navigate the new territory.
The idea of a thousand chains under the Bitcoin banner stretches the definition too far. Bitcoinβs strength lies in its singular, battle-tested security modelβproof of work at massive scaleβwhich enforces sovereignty through unforgeable cost. Other chains, even if decentralized, often trade off security for speed or features, diluting the core promise of sound money.
How do we balance educating about scams without losing focus on what makes Bitcoin unique?
It's ok to have chains with other features that are less secure.
and it's going to happen anyway, whether we like it or not.
and anyway, how "secure" does it have to be to be considered Bitcoin?
its just another dumb purity test.
Having to move back and forth would suck. You just want one that works so that you can spend your time elsewhere and not have to learn all the sh$tcoins.
atomic swaps make moving between chains pretty painless
and learning about the technology is unavoidable if you want to be educated.
what sucks is trying to make small transactions quickly on L1.
Sounds nice but you'd still need to pick one to store your wealth in.
I guess in this ideal world it wouldn't matter what others want to hold or transact in.
Who's building this BTW?
John turned me on to Layerzwallet this morning. They have a good list of different Bitcoin layers/sidechains they want to support.
There are a few varieties of BTC -> XMR atomic swaps. Improvements in monero scripting to make it easier are forthcoming.
More and more LN wallets are parking sats in Liquid to improve UX.
Its not terribly difficult to build atomic swaps to LTC or ZEC if there's demand for it. theyre basically BTC anyway.
and yeah, you can store your wealth in the chain with the highest hash if you want.
its all #Bitcoin man, I'm not joking.
initially just the observation that Bitcoin and Monero are more similar than they are different. to say nothing of LTC or ZEC.
and although it's fun to debate the nuances of design, it's more important to emphasize what is similar.
Bitcoin is described as chains of digital signatures in timestamped PoW blocks.
everything after that is our own assumptions about what it *should be.
It's not particularly relevant that Satoshi elected on a particular design, as long as the fundamentals remain the same the specifics could be almost anything.
the only thing that makes "BTC" special is the huge hash rate and first mover advantage.
therefore,
#Bitcoin is a template and any sufficiently decentralized PoW chain should also be understood to be the same. They are different in security and features but are still Bitcoin.
in the future we will just tell our Agents to follow particular rules when paying certain kinds of invoices anyway...
"pay purchases of <1M sats from minibits. if balance is too low swap some Monero through Eigen and deposit it in the mint"
"my landlord wants L-BTC, do an atomic swap from my LN node. If there isn't enough, prompt me to sign a 10M sat withdrawal from cold storage #3."
users will decide what kind of storage they need and with which security model to secure their assets.
the software will handle moving the assets between the different chains.
as long as they are chains of digital signatures packaged in decentralized timestamped PoW blocks, they are #Bitcoin.