*some kind words deleted*
There are always various threats to bitcoin, and off the top of my head (which also might well be really inaccurate), I would consider that probably the kinds of threats that relate to having to use third parties to transact in bitcoin are probably amongst the worst of threats, and so it seems to me that ongoingly many of us need to be trying to figure out ways to transact directly with others in bitcoin even if there might be ongoing attempts to get us to transact through third party intermediaries.
Surely i have no problem conceding that you might recognize and appreciate some bitcoin threats that I am not quite recognizing and appreciating.. so there is that aspect too.
I see two major fronts on which bitcoin has some upcoming challenges. These two things overlap and also are not new at all. But the part that is new is the audience for them. Your example really encapsulates them both.
1. Scaling. This is currently a contiuum with different amounts of two tradeoffs.
a. complexity - systems that use complex schemes to retain trust minimization
b. trust - systems that return trust to a third party for ease and cheapness of use
Pure "A" is hard. And so far there are not many systems that are doing it. Lightning is the best example of a scheme that retains the trust minimization of the base layer. But lightning's complexity makes it hard for the individual user. Interestingly it is being used best by professional nodes like LSPs, Exchanges, and more recently as the backbone for hybrid trust model wallets. The latter is one of the most interesting developments currently.
Pure "B" is easy. Full trust.
Cashu is a great example of the second tradeoff. And though the tech itself is fantastic (Chaumian mints) and super easy to use, allows strong privacy, and is a bearer asset I think it is one of the worst sets of tradeoffs available for users who care at ALL about sovereignty. It relies on a single point of failure. A single mint. Essentially the e-cash token is a simple IOU. NYKNYC. Not only that but the issuer can "claw back" the value selectively.
And the "plebs" are gobbling this up like it's sliced bread. Very very worrisome to me, honestly.
Now I am not overlooking how this sort of scheme could be useful. Big banks could use it to issue their own bitcoin scrip that can be interchanged with other banks even. And we all trust the big banks, right? I mean, that sounds sarcastic. But if you have ANY meaningful value in a bank account like I do, then you certainly do trust the bank.
This full trust model extends to things like accounts at exchanges, CashApp, Strike, Wallet of Satoshi, Coinos.io, and all other full custodial models. Though it cannot be used for exchanging value (yet) the ETFs fit in here too...
But perhaps the best sets of trade-offs are ones that introduce compromises in complexity and trust models. Liquid has always been a big contender here. You introduce a FEDERATED (distributed) trust model and gain the ability for large centralized nodes run by large players to use advanced hardware etc to run a blockchain. Now you can have blocks as big, and fast, etc as you want. Not everyone runs a node but those who do distribute the trust amongst the federation.
The MOST exciting developments use a COMBINATION of the above things to create wallets that are easy to use, but are self-custody.
Aqua wallet, and the new
Misty Breez (do not confuse with the original Breez wallet) are amazing wallets. These both seamlessly use the base BTC chain, LBTC on liquid, enterprise level Lightning nodes, and trust-less swaps to make sending and receiving bitcoin cheap and easy without sacrificing sovereignty. This the the razors edge in my opinion... and though we should be cautious I think the is a lot of room for this sort of model to thrive.
Back to the main bit...
2. CUSTODY. This is the attack vector that worries me most.
The ETFs are one big risk. "Strategy" is another. And centralized custodians, particularly Coinbase are the biggest target of all. The risks are simple to understand. For example:
-What if they are robbed?
-What if they lie about what they hold and are, or become fractional.
-What if they are used by governments and central banks to centralize holdings and the basically create a "free market" CBDC?
This is another reason that I have much interest in federated models like Liquid. Elements, the underlying software that Liquid runs on is FOSS, and can be used in the end by ALL the above big players to strengthen the security and resilience of custody.
So I lied... then there is #3.
3. What I mentioned previously. Now we get to see the big new players, and most of the rest of the world live through all the same things we have seen before over and over,
-The price swings of one of the worlds only true free markets. "OMG!! We need to change the way BTC is issued so we can tamp down these swings! Circuit breakers! Control!!!"
-Fee markets "OMG!! We have to change the blocksize or something! These fees ruin the base layer"
-Shitcoins "OMG! This is the new bitcoin!!! Stable tokens on ETH are the answer!"
-Quantum! "OMG Satoshis coins are at risk!!!"
-AI "OMG! I now have nine fingers so I can hodl more!" (I am sure there are real risks here too... lol)
All these things will bring up the concept of changing the code of BTC. But it will be POWERFUL folks suggesting this with the full force of their propaganda machines this time. But still we know how this works out. It just won't be fun to live through... again.
Anyway... I said I would do less blathering... Heh. I say a lot of things. That's what blathering is I guess...
And I am fine. Stop worrying about me (and thank you from the bottom of my heart).
clown on a coaster
i have a lot going on
i like black coffee
Poll
