"Blockchain is useful, Bitcoin is not" — How do you respond to this?

[BlackHatCoiner]

Meanwhile Bitcoin just sits there. No yield, no nothing. Price goes up because people think price will go up.

Hard money does nothing other than sitting and appreciating. Gold goes up because people understand it can buy you more overtime.

So what happens when those institutional products start competing for the same money? That's what I wanted to discuss.

What other institutional product can compete with Bitcoin, an apolitical, counterparty-free, permissionless asset with a fixed supply? There is no other product that checks these. If BlackRock creates a token, it will have counterparty risk, it will not be permissionless and you'll have to trust the morals of BlackRock for keeping the supply fixed.

[Satofan44]

I was asking something pretty simple: BlackRock, JPMorgan, Franklin Templeton — they're all building tokenized stuff on blockchain now. Yields, regulation, the whole package. And it's growing fast.

Which is complete bullshit and has no purpose of existing. You could do that already on centralized blockchains called databases. Pilot projects on public blockchains will never lead to anything. If it works out well, why should they use Ethereum when they can do the same on their own private blockchain? By issuing their own centralized blockchain they can get all the features of centralized Ethereum without any downside, it comes with an added bonus of having complete control which is what they need. You are falling for the latest trendy buzzwords relating to RWA stuff. How many scams and market cycles does it take for you to learn your lesson?

Meanwhile Bitcoin just sits there. No yield, no nothing. Price goes up because people think price will go up.

False. Yield is a scam, and Bitcoin has literally been invented as a solution to the inflation (read POS and other shit).

So what happens when those institutional products start competing for the same money? That's what I wanted to discuss.

Nothing. One has nothing to do with each other. Did you come here to promote some shitcoin scam while pretending to ask "legitimate" questions? Literally there have been hundreds of buzzword relating to blockchain uses since the earliest cycle. ICOs were going to change the world, people being able to issue their own tokens, NFTs -- how about the world will put all supply chains on VeChain or some other bullshit? Wake the fuck up, you are brainwashed after taking a bucket load of blue pills.

But what happens when the system takes the tech and builds something most investors actually prefer?

Not a single altcoin has tech that competes with Bitcoin, get the fuck out of here centralized shitcoin promoter.

So what happens when those institutional products start competing for the same money? That's what I wanted to discuss.

What other institutional product can compete with Bitcoin, an apolitical, counterparty-free, permissionless asset with a fixed supply? There is no other product that checks these. If BlackRock creates a token, it will have counterparty risk, it will not be permissionless and you'll have to trust the morals of BlackRock for keeping the supply fixed.

This is not even an advanced concept, therefore an inability to understand it implies malicious motives. Do not treat every user here seriously, instead always ask what motivates them to write something. As you can see, most often the answers are easy. Either they are spamming (which is more obvious in spam super sections like Gambling) or they have malicious motives for which they pretend to ask questions or be unable to understand the answers.

[d5000]

If it works out well, why should they use Ethereum when they can do the same on their own private blockchain? By issuing their own centralized blockchain they can get all the features of centralized Ethereum without any downside, it comes with an added bonus of having complete control which is what they need.

Simple - because Ethereum is already integrated by most exchanges, so they don't need to beg on being listed there and perhaps even developing stuff for the exchange. And you don't have to bother about neither consensus nor some regulatory stuff I mentioned in the other post.

The price is paid by the customers - in the form of gas fees (for the consensus). It's all about outsourcing costs for the centralized providers. Thus, from the point of view of the company who issues the RWA asset it makes sense.

But the total cost of the system is much higher than implementing everything on a totally centralized structure.

Everything else is already answered in both your and my posts about that topic. OP either hasn't read them (I don't believe that) or purposefully ignores the arguments because they can't counter them

[alani123]

Well, I think if Ethetrum keeps becoming more popular as a network eventually it will be put to test in terms of its immutability.

So the current administration already tried to play hardball with tornado cash and its Devs. But what if they try to also put validators in trouble? Will they try to force validators to run OFAC lists again? Maybe even force validators to ban tornado cash? Perhaps even go after Vitalik and other project developers on the platform? Make exchanges illegal again?

The government is going to put on a lot of pressure and surely it's something to observe if it happens. Maybe Ethetrum would budge more easily and maybe that's why banks like it more.

[Satofan44]

If it works out well, why should they use Ethereum when they can do the same on their own private blockchain? By issuing their own centralized blockchain they can get all the features of centralized Ethereum without any downside, it comes with an added bonus of having complete control which is what they need.

Simple - because Ethereum is already integrated by most exchanges, so they don't need to beg on being listed there and perhaps even developing stuff for the exchange. And you don't have to bother about neither consensus nor some regulatory stuff I mentioned in the other post.

The price is paid by the customers - in the form of gas fees (for the consensus). It's all about outsourcing costs for the centralized providers. Thus, from the point of view of the company who issues the RWA asset it makes sense.

But the total cost of the system is much higher than implementing everything on a totally centralized structure.

I do not fully agree, even though I will acknowledge that there is an advantage there -- but in my view it does not outweigh the other things because if it did then almost nobody would have created their own incompatible chain so far. Yet there are hundreds of standards or even thousands (since we do not know the full scope of private implementations). You perhaps have no experience with how projects are listed or have been listed for the past 2 cycles? It has nothing to do with any kind of begging really. There are only 2 different cases:

• Requires payment.
• Listed because popular or volume without payment.

Most of the projects go with the first route, and then that splits into 2 categories: is it compatible with the existing chains/implementations that are supported or does it require its own implementation. In the first case it is almost trivial, the amount of developmentv work that exchanges put into it is a joke. They spend a couple thousand of $ and ask for $50k to $1m for listing to integrate a copy of an existing implementation. These issues will not need to provide a custom implementation or making it arduous to add their project because:

• They can make it compatible with existing projects, EVM-compatible for example.
• They can easily pay.

Everything else is already answered in both your and my posts about that topic. OP either hasn't read them (I don't believe that) or purposefully ignores the arguments because they can't counter them

Exactly, dubious motivations at best. The thing is that everything that you can do on any shitcoin chain you can do already on Bitcoin, there exists nothing that you can't -- what you can't do is replicate the implementation exactly how it is. For example, you could store advanced things or run advanced configurations such as smart contracts but with a combination of on-chain and off-chain implementation -- you just can't do everything on chain, because the system is designed against that. RWA and everything else could be done on Bitcoin if they wanted to, but we are much safer than any chain who does all of those things on chain.

The government is going to put on a lot of pressure and surely it's something to observe if it happens. Maybe Ethetrum would budge more easily and maybe that's why banks like it more.

They budged once already and there was zero government pressure at the time, there was only some small capital pressure to revert on chain transactions relating to the DAO hack. With that, they have failed the decentralization and immutability test forever. You can't go back to the state of being innocent after murdering anyone even once, you are forever a murderer. You can run and hide in denial, but that won't change anything. Ethereum has long been ruined through several ways, one of which is this.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Either they are spamming (which is more obvious in spam super sections like Gambling) or they have malicious motives for which they pretend to ask questions or be unable to understand the answers.

But, spam for what reason? This particular user is not advertising anything directly, as far as I can tell. In his profile, I can only see a "Sbercoin" which is probably just another token. I'll agree with you that various motives are behind "innocent" questions, however.

Well, I think if Ethetrum keeps becoming more popular as a network eventually it will be put to test in terms of its immutability.

Hasn't this already happened? Wasn't Ethereum hard forked because someone stole a large amount of ETH? Maybe it is somewhat resistant when it comes to transaction reversibility, but Ethereum is primarily used for its dApps, which are far from immutable by their developers.

[alani123]

@BlackHatCoiner @satofan44 let's not be too harsh for Ethetrum. The DAO recovery effort was a one time event that was seen as foundational in restoring trust to the project, simply because some developers were acting carelessly and also too many people decided to put money towards that cause. It has never happened since but then again, we saw it happen on a foundational level with Arbitrum who froze their entire chain to reclaim hacked funds just very recently. So now there's the layer twos who are doing the exact same thing.

Yes, in a way, Ethetrum is already open for compromise through use of L2s. But also people could return to the main chain and pay slightly more expensive fees if they want more immutability. For instance, the hackers on the kelp/AAVE compromise were able to actually launder a lot of their bags without issue through the main chain.

My worry though is also valid for bitcoin because big industry heads are too buddy buddy with the government and the authorities lately.

[d5000]

It has nothing to do with any kind of begging really.

"Begging" should not be meant literally, but as a term to describe just the payment or any other process where you have to communicate with an exchange to adopt a new protocol. And these payments should be cheaper for tokens on existing blockchains (at least Gemini agrees with me here But you're correct about my lack of expertise, at least I've never listed a token myself on an exchange.).

I think the bigger issue is anyway to have to maintain an own consensus mechanism. Some exchanges also wouldn't accept coins on completely private blockchains (which are relatively easy to maintain/manage). And having to incentive a relatively safe validator set (e.g. a PoS mechanism incentived with some "ecosystem" premine) is more work than just create a token on an existing chain. I think it largely depends on the coin issuer's financial capacity, an own blockchain should be always more expensive if it's a "real" (public] blockchain.

There is also the network effect of established chains like Ethereum and Solana. Here you can address a large user base of potential buyers if they can use their favourite DEXes to acquire the tokens. In this case, you can say that you "outsource" a bit of your marketing costs, as you automatically "reach out" to Ethereum / Solana users using these DEXes already.

The thing is for me - in an ideal world, that all shouldn't be necessary, they should run their private PayPal-style coins (with or without some kind of ledger hashing) or private blockchains, and the whole system would be more efficient. But I think in the short term, from the point of view of the RWA token issuers, there is less audience available for that approach than if you release your token on an established chain. Bitcoin is currently not really in that "game" because the mechanisms you could use with offchain components, like RGB and sidechains, still have few users (and others, like Omni, Counterparty and ... Runes, are too limited).

Eventually the market should adjust to that though. Maybe regulation is the problem that limits CEXes from accepting totally privately managed coins.

The thing is that everything that you can do on any shitcoin chain you can do already on Bitcoin, there exists nothing that you can't -- what you can't do is replicate the implementation exactly how it is. For example, you could store advanced things or run advanced configurations such as smart contracts but with a combination of on-chain and off-chain implementation -- you just can't do everything on chain, because the system is designed against that.

Yep, RGB, Taro or some sidechain should provide the tools to release any RWA and create any kind of smart contract on Bitcoin. In the case of sidechains, even Monero-/Grin style privacy protocols should be possible.

[sbercoin.one]

What other institutional product can compete with Bitcoin, an apolitical, counterparty-free, permissionless asset with a fixed supply? 

None, if that's what the buyer wants.

But here's the thing: most capital doesn't want that. Pension funds, family offices, retail through ETFs, they already trust custodians. Counterparty risk is a feature for them, not a bug. It means someone to call, someone to sue, someone regulated.

So the question isn't "is Bitcoin unique?" - yes it is. The question is: how much capital actually values that uniqueness enough to pay a premium for no yield, no legal protection, and 80% drawdowns?

The ideological holders aren't going anywhere. But $2T market cap isn't built on ideology alone - it's built on speculators who came for "number go up". When they get a better deal elsewhere, they leave.