Stablecoins on Bitcoin blockchain

[examplens]

I read a few days ago, Lightning Labs, (the developer behind Bitcoin's Lightning Network) successfully performed the first tests of enabling stablecoins on the Bitcoin blockchain. Will this start a new wave of network spamming?
Maybe it will be a good thing for new businesses, but somehow every good idea eventually turns into its opposition with the appearance of many fast and easy money ideas.

Is this really necessary in the Bitcoin blockchain?

Stark emphasized the objective of having "crypto dollars and stablecoins" on the Bitcoin blockchain, stating that it would address real-world problems and attract more users to the realm of digital assets. She expressed a strong focus on solving practical issues rather than promoting memecoins or gambling-related ventures.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/lightning-labs-conducts-successful-tests-044619421.html

[Felicity_Tide]

I read a few days ago, Lightning Labs, (the developer behind Bitcoin's Lightning Network) successfully performed the first tests of enabling stablecoins on the Bitcoin blockchain. Will this start a new wave of network spamming?
Maybe it will be a good thing for new businesses, but somehow every good idea eventually turns into its opposition with the appearance of many fast and easy money ideas.

Is this really necessary in the Bitcoin blockchain?

Stark and the Lightning Labs clearly understand the possible consequences of this new development. While on earth should the Bitcoin Blockchain be the main center of target. Of course, this idea would help in terms of businesses transaction wise, but it doesn't change the fact that it's also a way of spamming the Blockchain. From the FT Live crypto summit she had in London, she clearly stated that this idea has caused issues for other Blockchain, but feels the Bitcoin Blockchain is the best place that the otherwise won't happen. Could this possibly be part of their reasons for launching the Bitcoin Lightning Network?, Don't know what their true intentions are, but they need to think of better things that won't cause problems.  

[blckhawk]

Either that's the thing that would happen or the bitcoin network has to adapt right? I mean that's the only way that things can go because if this will lead to another congestion, wouldn't it be a bad move to just do nothing about it, I don't know a lot about bitcoin network but I'm sure that with all of the developers out there contributing to the network doing hours and hours of commit, wouldn't they've thought of something to do about this one? If it's in Lightning Network though, wouldn't it not affect the bitcoin network that much or will it still affect it?

[BlackBoss_]

I read a few days ago, Lightning Labs, (the developer behind Bitcoin's Lightning Network) successfully performed the first tests of enabling stablecoins on the Bitcoin blockchain. Will this start a new wave of network spamming?

New demand will cause new transactions and mempools will be overloaded than now but will people spam the network with stable coin transactions, I don't know.

I guess it can be true demand for transactions because it's non sense to make a stable coin transaction and hope to get rich with stable coin. It is different than their hope to get rich with NFTs, Inscriptions so less reasons for spam.

Maybe it will be a good thing for new businesses, but somehow every good idea eventually turns into its opposition with the appearance of many fast and easy money ideas.

Bitcoin blockchain is more secure than altcoin blockchains but I am really curious and unsure how it can help peg of a stable coin?

In my thinking, the peg of a stable coin depends on how that team design that stable coin and their treasury of $ to peg that stablecoin, for example. It does not depend on Bitcoin blockchain.

Is this really necessary in the Bitcoin blockchain?

If it does not cause network spam to convert bitcoin to dust, like transactions for Ordinals, Runes, I think it is good enough to accept as part of Bitcoin blockchain.

[Apocollapse]

To be more accurate, they didn't use Bitcoin network, but they will run it on Lightning network.

But beyond this function as a store of value, stablecoins on Lightning offer a significant competitive advantage: transaction fees that are unbeatably low compared to traditional payment networks like Visa. “On Lightning, transaction fees in Stablecoins can go down to a cent or less,” emphasizes Elizabeth Stark. This could democratize cross-border payments at a low cost.

I don't really expect it will be successful because:

1. People have a lot choice, they can swap their stable coin to other cheaper network e.g. BSC, SOL etc. Even though they're centralized, most people don't really care whether it's decentralized or centralized.

2. Funding the channel using Bitcoin network would be costly, if Bitcoin network is cheap, people will not have to use Lightning network. There's an alternative, people can use the wallet's channel, but it will fall to centralization.

[hugeblack]

The beginning of stablecoins was on the Omni Layer, which was a Bitcoin transaction except that it represented USDT value, and many stopped using USDT on Bitcoin blockchain due to high transaction fees, so I do not think that returning again to the Bitcoin blockchain would be beneficial.

The report above talked about test transaction on the Lightning Network using Taproot Assets protocol, and therefore it is similar to L-USDT Liquid-based Tether, and its impact on increasing bitcoin fees will be low (Lightning Network transactions will increase, which require two onchain transactions).

[riantolie]

I think that it's a good idea, I'd even like to use it on the BTC blockchain. I have experience with stablecoin on other chains, it was fine, but I think BTC stablecoin will be better.

[_act_]

The report above talked about test transaction on the Lightning Network using Taproot Assets protocol, and therefore it is similar to L-USDT Liquid-based Tether, and its impact on increasing bitcoin fees will be low (Lightning Network transactions will increase, which require two onchain transactions).

News can be confusing but if the news is not confusing but true, it is about a stable coin that can be used on bitcoin blockchain. That means the stable coin transaction will make use of bitcoin and these can still make the stable coin transaction to be having a very high fee just like USDT on Omni layer. Or probably my assumption may be wrong but we are going to know after the project has been finalized and done.

Let us see what would happen. It can also be that the stable coin can later be able to be like the bitcoin on the lightning network with opened channels. The developers of the stable coins are more pros in lightning network which will not make this not to be surprising at all. If this is it, the transaction will be cheap for those that like it. But I will prefer to use lightning network for small amount of money.

[slaman29]

Enough of stablecoins, but if there really is a need to build, I think there's a lot of reason to use Bitcoin blockchain, if not directly. Then on some kind of method that just uses the security, not actual onchain.

But why would a stablecoin want that anyway? Aren't they better benefiting from private blockchain?

[franky1]

bitcoins main value creation is based on the PoW cost of creating the coins which set the 'non zero bottom' because there is actual cost of creating bitcoin.. people then speculate above the non zero bottom value to have a market price.
the value increases slowly as mining costs increase over time, the market price increases more speculatively and volatile above value

however creating new units of any currency by just appending junk data to the end of a bitcoin transaction is not creating real value nor creating true currency. its just junk data misrepresented and mis-sold..

anyone can create an appended taproot metadata called "stablecoin257" and then anyone else can also then append another transaction with the same junk data to effectively double the amount of "stablecoin257" for just the cost of a tx fee.. meaning anyone can effectively create trillions of units of "stablecoin257" and inflate the "stablecoin257"

thus these junk appended new units are not actual real value of cost, nor with true audit of avoiding manipulation.. so not even "stable" let alone "coin"

[Medusah]

Could someone shed light on this?  What's the rationale behind creating a stablecoin on a blockchain?  Given that it's issued by a single entity with control over approved transactions, why not opt for a centralized database instead?  Stablecoins seem akin to a centralized platform but with added complexity.  What are the benefits?  The only advantage that comes to mind is the ability to transact at any time, since blockchain networks are available to access all the time. 

[btc78]

Maybe it will be a good thing for new businesses, but somehow every good idea eventually turns into its opposition with the appearance of many fast and easy money ideas.

It will definitely help those who transact with bitcoin for their businesses but it’s just going to drive up the transaction fees even more so. It’s already high now and for us who don’t really use bitcoin for minute purchases this will prove to be just a another useless tool on the blockchain.

Is this really necessary in the Bitcoin blockchain?

I don’t think so. We should aim all these efforts towards solving other issues rather than trying to make up new ones.

[HideYourKeys]

We already have tether on Liquid, I guess we will eventually see more stablecoins in other Bitcoin layers. I do not think we will see stablecoins at the main chain, I do not even understand the purpose of that

[ABCbits]

Reading the reply, it seems some user miseed these parts of the news.

During her speech at the Financial Times Crypto and Digital Assets Summit, Lightning Labs CEO Elizabeth Stark announced that the developer recently executed a test transaction on the Lightning Network using an asset created with the Taproot Assets protocol.

So whoever write the news title probably should be fired, since LN is not equal Bitcoin blockchain. But i'd rather see stable coin developed on Bitcoin Sidechain or different L2 instead, where user don't need to worry about complexity brought by LN. Stable coin is centralized anyway, so there's no big problem adding it on Bitcoin Sidechain or other L2 which is less decentralized than Bitcoin.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Will this start a new wave of network spamming?

I don't think so. When it's Lightning Labs, expect Lightning upgrades. Introducing stablecoin transactions on the base layer is expensive, and that's why Omni layer (or Mastercoin called at that time?) probably stopped facilitating USDT transactions on Bitcoin.

So whoever write the news title probably should be fired, since LN is not equal Bitcoin blockchain.

I think they're talking about Taro, which is a protocol for asset issuance on top of Bitcoin (with Taproot) and Lightning. So, if they can issue and move assets through LN, then it's possible they can do the same with stablecoins.

[DooMAD]

I think they're talking about Taro, which is a protocol for asset issuance on top of Bitcoin (with Taproot) and Lightning. So, if they can issue and move assets through LN, then it's possible they can do the same with stablecoins.

Yep, definitely a 'Taproot Assets' thing (they apparently can't call it 'Taro' anymore due to some trademark dispute or something).  But the key takeaway is that it won't result in more blockchain spam.  I'm hoping all the so-called NFT trash will move over to that platform over time, as it is far more resource-efficient versus the Inscriptions / Ordinals / Runes / etc crap.

[franky1]

it can create more spam.. because although the "payments" and "transfers" occur on another network(a crap and buggy network). the initial utxo with junk added where it 'locks-in' certain things to a channel.. that is done onchain
even funnier the 'lock in' of what they call true value is not even a requirement on the other network. proving this other network(LN) lacks many features of "secure money/value"


as for the other network(LN) now having multiple junk units being borrowed and swapped in a unsettled manner.. makes that other network prove that its not a network just for bitcoin and never was.. but now proving it loudly.. thus should stop brand stealing the name bitcoin and instead admit its a junk network for multiple units of junk thats unsettled and borrowed and even created out of nothing..

[dkbit98]

Is this really necessary in the Bitcoin blockchain?

It's not necessary long term, but still better solution than dealing with bunch of altcoins, swaps and using exchanges when you need to use some alternative for fiat currencies.
I suspect that this project from Lightning Labs is going to be something centralized, like everything on Lightning Netwrork, but let's wait and see.

[Volimack]

I see bitcoin as the most traded coin, and the entire cryptocurrency space has a promising future. I believe the future of cryptocurrency is in tokens or coins as decentralized applications. Blockchain is not limited to bitcoin it can facilitate transactions involving any digital asset such as property rights currencies and more. Tether can use and has a lot more important information so don't use it as investment advice.

[d5000]

Could someone shed light on this?  What's the rationale behind creating a stablecoin on a blockchain?  Given that it's issued by a single entity with control over approved transactions, why not opt for a centralized database instead?[ ...]
The only advantage that comes to mind is the ability to transact at any time, since blockchain networks are available to access all the time.  

My guess is that centralized stablecoins developed more or less to exploit the altcoin exchange market offering them an easy alternative to e-money (=fiat representations like PaypalUSD, for those who don't know). They were very easy to integrate into existing cryptocurrency exchanges, easier than traditional e-money because of their blockchain-based transparency, eliminating the risk of "chargeback fraud" (that's why those exchanges accepting PayPal usually charge high fees), and also easier than offering an on- and offramp via bank transfers. In addition, it allowed thousands of altcoin exchanges to offer a fiat-like product instantly, without having to maintain a huge fiat reserve, which would need other kinds of infrastructure.

So basically the main advantages are for exchanges, not so much for ordinary users.

Apart from what you already mentioned (which is also delivered by PayPal and similar e-wallet services), there are a few more advantages of stablecoins which also can appeal to some groups of ordinary users:

1) to store a fiat-like product with your own keys, not on an exchange;
2) to move a fiat-like product from one exchange to another one, for exampĺe for arbitrage purposes;
3) to integrate a fiat-like product into smart contracts, perhaps even into atomic swaps and Lightning;
4) to be able to store a fiat-like product without KYC in some cases.

Of course, the "not your keys not your stablecoins" principle is not the same as "not your keys not your bitcoin". First, stablecoin issuers can go bankrupt, and second, they can block your stablecoins even if you have a valid private key in most cases. So most stablecoins don't offer censorship protection.