Volatility IS a bug, not a feature :)

[BlackHatCoiner]

No, they can't. They simply can't.

Why can't they? Isn't Tether the mint? Can't they flag certain transactions as suspicious? What if a hack occurs and they decide to take the money from the hacker and give it back to the victim? You don't think this is technically possible?

Nobody has ever reversed a USDT transaction

Tether has not ever reversed a USDT transaction, but they have frozen addresses, which is kind of the same thing. Funds aren't really settled finally if Tether can block them from moving.

nor a Haypenny transaction

Is it not technically possible to reverse a Haypenny transaction or freeze an address? Is that what you're saying?

[goldkingcoiner]

Bitcoin's volatility is temporary. With more and more people adopting Bitcoin, and the more Bitcoin gets distributed between different hands, the less we will have to fear whales pushing the price down by 50% in less than half a year.

Bitcoin used to be waaaay more volatile back in the day. We could see 50% drops/rises in the timespan of a few days.

So whether it is a bug or a feature is really a moot point in the long term.

[legiteum]

No, they can't. They simply can't.

Why can't they? Isn't Tether the mint? Can't they flag certain transactions as suspicious? What if a hack occurs and they decide to take the money from the hacker and give it back to the victim? You don't think this is technically possible?

Sure. What if a hack occurs on your personal computer while you are making your Bitcoin transaction. The "what if" game work on absolutely any technology. If you want to make up impossible scenarios, you can prove anything to yourself I guess.

USDT has never lost a transaction, and people will literally bet their life on that not happening because it's impossible for all practical purposes.

(Of course there's a very high-profile crime being reported in the news right now involving a Bitcoin transaction, and they are talking about both using the Bitcoin network to track the criminals and also using it to get their money back using the public ledger).

And of course you still can't answer why Bitcoin is superior to products using literally the same exact code base, or products like Monero that are much more private...

nor a Haypenny transaction

Is it not technically possible to reverse a Haypenny transaction or freeze an address? Is that what you're saying?

It's not possible to "reverse" a transaction, no. Every transaction lives forever, and is written to a decentralized WORM storage that keeps the record around even after humans go extinct. Five billion years from now, aliens will find all of the Haypenny transactions written on hard physical disks in many places.

Haypenny does not have "addresses" like blockchain-based architectures, nor any sort of wallet, it is "just a block", in that it's just record with a 128 bit identifier. You possess Haypenny purely by virtue of knowing that id. Haypenny has two actions, Split and Combine. You Split your block and create a new one which decrements the original block, and Combine decrements or deletes a block you add to another block. Haypenny does not have the notion of transactions as a separate thing, only blocks that are created, incremented, decremented and deleted. (And yes, this absolute simplest form of value transfer ever devised by mankind ).

Like Bitcoin, it's certainly possible to scrutinize the ledger and track the chain of where a transaction might have gone. In Haypenny's case, however, that can only be done through a valid law enforcement inquiry whereas absolutely any hacker in the world can do it for Bitcoin at any time for any reason. In practical terms, as long as you don't actively have the police after you, Haypenny is far more private than Bitcoin, and worst-case it's just the same.

Anyhow, there are lots and lots of products out there that do what Bitcoin does but does it way way better...

[d5000]

People who say that is is a feature are wrong or just stuck in the past, but you are partially wrong too with they way that you proposed this topic. I would rephrase this title to the following: Volatility was a feature, now it is a bug. I believe that this more accurately reflects the progression that Bitcoin has experienced.

I can agree with that, the price discovery phase at the start was and is of course important. And it is probably still ongoing: the price/capitalization of Bitcoin is now closer to its "mature" market value, but there are still hardly explainable big fluctuations. We went from 20k to 120k and back to 60k in only 3 years without a convincing fundamental reason -- with the exception of the ETFs and Trump's announcements which explained a part of the uptrend, but not the downtrend.

Perhaps a part of the task to reduce volatility further is to build better fundamental Bitcoin theories. While there was some advancement in fields like Total Addressable Market, I've seen less than a year ago a supposed "business paper for investors" where this (reasonable) theory was still contrasted with clear pseudoscience like Stock to Flow. Most of this field is still very shallow after 15 years.

There was an interesting post in the German forum about that, by user virginorange, where he calculated TAM based on the concept of "monetary premium", comparing it with other investment assets like real estate and gold. I don't know if he has translated that post.

However, he is absolutely right that Monero is quite stable and that it has a lot to do with the lack of various derivatives. However, he is wrong to claim that it is possible to design such a currency.

I disagree with that. I think Dai showed that you can design a reasonably stable decentralized currency. The problem is that Dai itself is not 100% decentralized. But the mechanisms it is based on (which are a refinement of earlier efforts like BitShares) seem to work. I'd like to see an effort to port these mechanisms to a 99% decentralized project - 99% because at least from today's point of view you still depend on centralized oracles for the assets you base the "stability" measure on.

If something does not change in the rate of decrease in both the upside and downside volatility, Bitcoin is destined to die. Do the simulations and you will see that this is not a sustainable model, and we will experience a big crisis soon unless something changes.

Your numbers until here are correct afaik (I have often cited similar numbers and calculated them manually). BTW: I would not say "Bitcoin is going to die" (although I remember having used the word "die" in another post here ) but its current price discovery would suffer a considerable setback. I think in this case a scenario like I paint in this little horror fairytale (crash to perhaps as low as $1000) could be possible in a few years. It can recover from that, but only with a change in investment behavior (less speculation, more usage/"real saving", Wall Street exit).

38.15% reduction in return on average per cycle (upside).
15.74% reduction in downside risk on average per cycle.

I don't know if it's a good idea to include the current cycle already in that calculation, as we don't know if we've reached the bottom. IF we reached the bottom, I'm even quite optimistic that the "volatility change" I'm advocating for is already underway, because a -50% bear would be a phenomenal improvement from the -75-85% we're accustomed to of the last 3 cycles. Even a fall to the 50,000 area, which is not unlikely considering the current geopolitical tensions and economic insecurity sentiment, would still be a stronger improvement than the almost negligible 2018-22 improvement. The problems would start if we fall much lower than that. Then we can say that nothing really changed.

Overall, I agree with your conclusions. I would propose to use the "yearly average price" (WMA 52 or daily SMA 256) for these calculations though. Maybe I'll prepare this for the next post here or even it may make sense to open a new thread.

[Satofan44]

You are arguing with a shitcoin scammer, please don't. You know better than that.

People who say that is is a feature are wrong or just stuck in the past, but you are partially wrong too with they way that you proposed this topic. I would rephrase this title to the following: Volatility was a feature, now it is a bug. I believe that this more accurately reflects the progression that Bitcoin has experienced.

I can agree with that, the price discovery phase at the start was and is of course important. And it is probably still ongoing: the price/capitalization of Bitcoin is now closer to its "mature" market value, but there are still hardly explainable big fluctuations. We went from 20k to 120k and back to 60k in only 3 years without a convincing fundamental reason -- with the exception of the ETFs and Trump's announcements which explained a part of the uptrend, but not the downtrend.

Perhaps a part of the task to reduce volatility further is to build better fundamental Bitcoin theories. While there was some advancement in fields like Total Addressable Market, I've seen less than a year ago a supposed "business paper for investors" where this (reasonable) theory was still contrasted with clear pseudoscience like Stock to Flow. Most of this field is still very shallow after 15 years.

There was an interesting post in the German forum about that, by user virginorange, where he calculated TAM based on the concept of "monetary premium", comparing it with other investment assets like real estate and gold. I don't know if he has translated that post.

The thing about theories is that we basically have no theories at all. The views through which Bitcoin is viewed can be put into 2 big groupings, bullshit anti-camps and repeatable pro-camps. In the first you will find the idiots that are repeating textbook fraudulent definitions of inherent values and other stuff, and in the other you will see people who are just repeating the same old ideas that are very limited. For example, while Bitcoin is able to fulfill the function of (P2P digital) cash seeing it as only that is extremely limited and wrong. So many things can be done with it, and in many different ways, contrary to what is possible with normal cash. Even academic papers are often committing these errors when it comes to Bitcoin and only analyze it using the same assumptions as others. Therefore, I absolutely agree that more fundamental theories are required. What is written by virginorange seems interest and sadly has not attracted much attention in that section either.

Perhaps someone should translate the whole thread (not with AI) and bring it forth to the English section. It would be worthwhile since the numbers are now a bit outdated.

However, he is absolutely right that Monero is quite stable and that it has a lot to do with the lack of various derivatives. However, he is wrong to claim that it is possible to design such a currency.

I disagree with that. I think Dai showed that you can design a reasonably stable decentralized currency. The problem is that Dai itself is not 100% decentralized. But the mechanisms it is based on (which are a refinement of earlier efforts like BitShares) seem to work. I'd like to see an effort to port these mechanisms to a 99% decentralized project - 99% because at least from today's point of view you still depend on centralized oracles for the assets you base the "stability" measure on.

I don't consider a stablecoin that is tied to another currency, which is just another form of peg, stable. The dollar itself is not stable, and neither is gold, so anything that is pegged to them will inherit their own volatility. While these proxies will be "stable" in the sense that they will retain practically the same value in the number of units $1.00, that does not mean that their value is actually stable -- it is simply tied to 1 unit of USD. The reason why I said that it is impossible to do this is because it conflict with the idea of a free market. In this sense, stablecoins do not have a stable value -- they have a stable peg. Any USD stablecoin inherits the volatility of USD.
 

If something does not change in the rate of decrease in both the upside and downside volatility, Bitcoin is destined to die. Do the simulations and you will see that this is not a sustainable model, and we will experience a big crisis soon unless something changes.

Your numbers until here are correct afaik (I have often cited similar numbers and calculated them manually). BTW: I would not say "Bitcoin is going to die" (although I remember having used the word "die" in another post here ) but its current price discovery would suffer a considerable setback. I think in this case a scenario like I paint in this little horror fairytale (crash to perhaps as low as $1000) could be possible in a few years. It can recover from that, but only with a change in investment behavior (less speculation, more usage/"real saving", Wall Street exit).

Alright, you have a point. It does sound a bit like hyperbole, maybe I should have clarified that it means for all practical purposes. I was writing about this in another thread just today. Were Bitcoin to go back to something like $1000 as in your fairy tale, and not recover to new territories we can consider it dead for all practical purposes. If one wants to be technologically and semantically precise, as long as there is 1 node then it is never going to be dead -- but in that scenario it is practically useless and a shell of its former self. I don't consider that the living dead are alive. I hope that explanation helps correct my error.

38.15% reduction in return on average per cycle (upside).
15.74% reduction in downside risk on average per cycle.

I don't know if it's a good idea to include the current cycle already in that calculation, as we don't know if we've reached the bottom. IF we reached the bottom, I'm even quite optimistic that the "volatility change" I'm advocating for is already underway, because a -50% bear would be a phenomenal improvement from the -75-85% we're accustomed to of the last 3 cycles. Even a fall to the 50,000 area, which is not unlikely considering the current geopolitical tensions and economic insecurity sentiment, would still be a stronger improvement than the almost negligible 2018-22 improvement. The problems would start if we fall much lower than that. Then we can say that nothing really changed.

You are right to mention that, but it is not a fully applicable criticism. The numbers were a bit of a quick and dirty simulation to show that the trend in which we are heading this way is not sustainable. There are other issues with it too, for example, taking the average of the decreases -- while it is better than taking the change between the last 2 points, it does not account for differences in the rate of change and that would require some sort of estimation for my example. Anyway, that is why I wrote that it is in progress at that point. -50% would be a great result as you say, but even with that the overview for the future does not look bright. If we do another -75-85% the future looks really grim!

Update: I have updated the previous post to also include what would happen if the current cycle low does happen to be 75% as some expect it to be. It is terrible, take a look.

Overall, I agree with your conclusions. I would propose to use the "yearly average price" (WMA 52 or daily SMA 256) for these calculations though. Maybe I'll prepare this for the next post here or even it may make sense to open a new thread.

Please do, but I think it would be better to keep them here. As I criticized in my post, people need to stop rushing to make a post if they have never run any data on these things. I am not trying to claim that the way that I did the math is the most correct way, but it is part of building the picture. General statements based on personal beliefs and biases regarding these topics are useless here. Your calculation from another perspective or calculations by others are greatly welcome to enhance the complete. perspective.

[Ambatman]

Snip

Volatility is inevitable as long as demand and supply exists.
No money is stable just relative.
Volatility is a feature, one that's supposed to fall as market size and adoption grows.
Now if we talking about an high volatility like above that of Gold then I would say it can be explained through classic product life cycle.

Introduction: Volatility is needed. It's important. Among the things that brought us this far.

Expansion : Volatility still a feature but importance is falling. We can already see this in how volatility has been falling for years.

Maturity : I believe we in or entering the early stage maturity. Here volatility becomes a bug. It needs relative stability to serve as money ( money isn't just a medium of exchange also a store of value)

Decline : Well this is avoidable and can be postponed indefinitely with improvement and ethos staying through. Optimistically

Rough and not absolute but I believe you understand what I'm talking about
Feature early stage
Bug at maturity

If you want to transfer money today, in 2026, you can do so for absolutely ZERO transactions fees, settling in less than 20 milliseconds. Waiting 10 minutes for a transaction is absolutely insane.

Will drop this here Please add a Bitcoin option if you sell internationally. and it seems your experience with Bank transactions has been rainbow and sunshines
Haven't been that lucky.

[Satofan44]

Feature early stage
Bug at maturity

People who say that is is a feature are wrong or just stuck in the past, but you are partially wrong too with they way that you proposed this topic. I would rephrase this title to the following: Volatility was a feature, now it is a bug. I believe that this more accurately reflects the progression that Bitcoin has experienced.

Where are my merits?

Anyway, you need to focus your thinking on both the upside and downside volatility (not just the general concept of volatility) and how the current rate of development of both of them is not sustainable. Look at some of the numbers that I have presented even if they aren't that precise. They show that the current trend is not sustainable and there is bound to be some sort of major change soon, whether positive or negative remains to be seen.

[red4slash]

This explains a few things especially for the volatility issue as this has to be there for bitcoin to stay on track and it is also a sign that their supply remains on track.
On the one hand volatility is also a characteristic not a weakness because there may be those who think volatility is a weakness but quite the opposite where this is a characteristic to show that bitcoin is different and has a characteristic because when volatility is lost then the attractiveness of bitcoin may decrease considering there is nothing special about bitcoin itself.

One thing that was mentioned about the tool to “get rich quick” this understanding always happens for some people especially those who are fomo to bitcoin and lay people who are just starting out so it is necessary to realize from the start that bitcoin is not a tool to get rich quickly because if you force a will like this it will only make their expectations too big and actually feel cheated when the expectations do not match the perceived reality.

[legiteum]

If you want to transfer money today, in 2026, you can do so for absolutely ZERO transactions fees, settling in less than 20 milliseconds. Waiting 10 minutes for a transaction is absolutely insane.

Will drop this here Please add a Bitcoin option if you sell internationally. and it seems your experience with Bank transactions has been rainbow and sunshines
Haven't been that lucky.

We're working on it, and working on rails for all other cryptos and stablecoins, not just Bitcoin.

I have no illusions about bank transactions, and my entire business thesis is that they are obsolete and will be replaced with better technology .

[Ambatman]

People who say that is is a feature are wrong or just stuck in the past, but you are partially wrong too with they way that you proposed this topic. I would rephrase this title to the following: Volatility was a feature, now it is a bug. I believe that this more accurately reflects the progression that Bitcoin has experienced.

Where are my merits?

Lol just seeing it
Was still reading through when I saw legiteum comment about transactions speed
And had to respond because I have been going to the bank for sometime now for a supposed milliseconds transfer IRL
So kinda personal

you need to focus your thinking on both the upside and downside volatility (not just the general concept of volatility) and how the current rate of development of both of them is not sustainable.

That's the beauty of economics
No Theory is absolute and no model perfect.

I have no illusions about bank transactions, and my entire business thesis is that they are obsolete and will be replaced with better technology .

Still plagued of been centralized? Well everybody tastes are different.
But transaction speed isn't everything, many things can already do that.

because when volatility is lost then the attractiveness of bitcoin may decrease

I'm personally not really a fan of huge volatility
I love relatively stable growth
If you want high volatility there shitcoins out there that can help with that.

considering there is nothing special about bitcoin itself.

Wow
Wow
Wow
Like Wow
How did you come up with this?
Even Trump that knows knowing about Bitcoin won't say this.

[r_victory]

In my opinion, Bitcoin's volatility is a side effect related to supply, demand, halving, and economic and political turbulence. It's neither a feature nor a bug; it's simply the market functioning as it should until a fair price for the asset is found.

If we consider it a feature, we have to admit that the volatility is intentional, therefore manipulated. If we consider it a bug, we have to admit that Bitcoin is flawed and needs to be fixed.

[serjent05]

I wonder, how could the natural flow of supply and demand be a bug?  Unless @OP is talking about something different than what I understand about the market volatility.  It's a natural flow of the market where people who are buying and selling dictate the price of Bitcoin.  It is an outside factor, the features of Bitcoin might have an effect on it, it is still being dictated by the supply and demand.

Without the supply and demand, when Bitcoin is left alone, it can't be priced and there will be no volatility.  No matter how it is designed, without people selling and putting a price on their sales, Bitcoin alone can never put a price on its own.  Aside from that, the demand where people are offering price on what they think Bitcoin should be is also an outside factor, if Bitcoin has bugs, it can also never price itself.

At the end, it is not the feature or the bug of Bitcoin that gives the volatility in the market, but the ever-changing market supply and demand that has been put on the market = an outside factor that never been a bug in the code of Bitcoin nor an original feature.  Volatility is the character of the market of Bitcoin, not the script coded on Bitcoin that can be said to be buggy or a feature.

[Rgram]

If we consider it a feature, we have to admit that the volatility is intentional, therefore manipulated. If we consider it a bug, we have to admit that Bitcoin is flawed and needs to be fixed.

I don’t seem to get the part where you mention it to have being intentional and therefore being susceptible to manipulations, it’s a little confusing to me.

However, as it’s the case of scares commodity, such as gold like we are neat to believe, there is always a form to its preservation. As is the case of natural resource in precious stones, nature ensures its preservation but in the case of Bitcoin which is digital, its coding is what preserves it.

It’s never a bug, just another means to emulate nature’s design in a digital field.

[BlackHatCoiner]

USDT has never lost a transaction, and people will literally bet their life on that not happening because it's impossible for all practical purposes.

Tether has frozen addresses numerous times.

What if a hack occurs on your personal computer while you are making your Bitcoin transaction. The "what if" game work on absolutely any technology.

No, this is just moronic strawman. If you practice no security, that's on you. You can practice security on Tether and still get frozen. There is no truly final settlement into a currency if a third party can stop incoming and outgoing transactions of yours.

And of course you still can't answer why Bitcoin is superior to products using literally the same exact code base, or products like Monero that are much more private...

Bitcoin is more accepted, more secure, more reviewed and less shitcoin than "products using the same code base".

It's not possible to "reverse" a transaction, no. Every transaction lives forever, and is written to a decentralized WORM storage that keeps the record around even after humans go extinct. Five billion years from now, aliens will find all of the Haypenny transactions written on hard physical disks in many places.

Since it is centralized, it is absolutely possible to freeze someone's funds, and users must trust the mint with the supply of money. It is absolutely not trustless nor permissionless. If you think people will confidently use this service for high value transactions and for long-term store of wealth, knowing that a government can compromise it any time, you're foolish. 

[BitBakerr1]

You will have a stable coin if the volatility is removed.

Scarcity meets volatility is the best thing to have happened to Bitcoin, to me it's perfect the way it is.
How will you onboard new investors If volatility isn't present?
How many of the world population are holding Bitcoin? If the high number of today's holder decide to sell it gives room to us who can't buy Bitcoin when it was at $100 each.
Halving and block reward reduction plays a bigger role here too, volatility is what make it make sense.

I agree with you volatility in bitcoin is what makes it very good for people to invest, if there is no volatility in bitcoin, bitcoin will be stable in its price, which is not good at all, volatility is a beautiful thing when you understand how it works if the price of bitcoin is low, what you need to do is to accumulate good amount of bitcoin at that time and then wait for it to rise and when it does, you can sell and make profit and this is what traders usually do, we have those who are investing in bitcoin for long-term, they will accommodate when the price is low and they hold for a very long time, giving them good profit also in the future, if there’s no volatility in bitcoin it would be hard for new investors to come in.
I love Bitcoin this way.

[Satofan44]

Fuck you @Cyrus and @hilariousandco, this is not an off-topic post. You have extremely biased moderation standards, you should be ashamed of yourself. People are writing the most dumbest generic dribble possible and you leave it here even if users report it.

In my opinion, Bitcoin's volatility is a side effect related to supply, demand, halving, and economic and political turbulence. It's neither a feature nor a bug; it's simply the market functioning as it should until a fair price for the asset is found.

If we consider it a feature, we have to admit that the volatility is intentional, therefore manipulated. If we consider it a bug, we have to admit that Bitcoin is flawed and needs to be fixed.

Fuck off with your low quality shitpost, filthy pajeet.

I wonder, how could the natural flow of supply and demand be a bug?  Unless @OP is talking about something different than what I understand about the market volatility.  It's a natural flow of the market where people who are buying and selling dictate the price of Bitcoin.  It is an outside factor, the features of Bitcoin might have an effect on it, it is still being dictated by the supply and demand.

Either you didn't read the post at all or you didn't understand anything, read again. You are writing generic definitions that have no place here. Read the responses of several other members before going into textbook definitions.

Lol just seeing it
Was still reading through when I saw legiteum comment about transactions speed
And had to respond because I have been going to the bank for sometime now for a supposed milliseconds transfer IRL

He is a shitcoin scammer, just ignore him. Some of you need to learn not to entertain toxic individuals that are spewing bullshit. Only through indulgence of this kind have scammers like Roger Ver and Craig Wright become relevant. Learn the lessons from these events.

I don’t seem to get the part where you mention it to have being intentional and therefore being susceptible to manipulations, it’s a little confusing to me.

Read posts from actual members and not from signature spammers, it has nothing to do with definitions. By making such general statement posts, people are revealing themselves to not have even read the proposition in the original post by d5000 let alone subsequent posts and discussions -- If you have read it but don't understand it, then don't write a reply and go somewhere else. In the way that it is proposed, the volatility has become a bug and something needs to change for Bitcoin to mature or it is going down the wrong path. I have provided the numbers on the previous page. There is no way to deny this, because the mathematical evidence points to a catastrophe that may have prolonged effects on Bitcoin. Whether this will lead to a positive change where we experience periods of stable yet conservative growth instead of terrible cycles, or to a negative change where we experience a very long and harsh winter -- we will see. In any case, the current setup of the vollatilities and their rates of change is unsustainable. The math is there, this fact can't be denied.

Tether has frozen addresses numerous times.

Not only do they do this, but I can have your Tether frozen for fraudulent reasons. I can pay you with Tether for some service and subsequently fake a robbery or kidnapping and send Tether "evidence", they will freeze your balance and now it is up to you to prove that you are innocent. Compared to Bitcoin and fiat, this is the worst system possible. No real investigation by the law enforcement is needed, no court order, or anything of the like. You just need to convince a few employees of a private company to believe your bullshit story and you can cause a headache for someone else. Update: LLMs that we call "AI" make this extremely worse as it is. I can create very realistic documentation and even video evidence of the alleged kidnapping. Sure I would be committing a big crime, but what about it? Since when do criminals care about that? As long as this is possible, it is the worst system of all.

It's not possible to "reverse" a transaction, no. Every transaction lives forever, and is written to a decentralized WORM storage that keeps the record around even after humans go extinct. Five billion years from now, aliens will find all of the Haypenny transactions written on hard physical disks in many places.

Since it is centralized, it is absolutely possible to freeze someone's funds, and users must trust the mint with the supply of money. It is absolutely not trustless nor permissionless. If you think people will confidently use this service for high value transactions and for long-term store of wealth, knowing that a government can compromise it any time, you're foolish.  

Actually, Tether operates on many chains where a reversal of transactions is almost trivial. Any account-based chain makes reversal of transactions easy, since you don't need to revert the entire chain to do so as in the case of Bitcoin.

[Riceandbean]

YOU NEED TO CROUCH DOWN BEFORE YOU JUMP!

[legiteum]

Since it is centralized, it is absolutely possible to freeze someone's funds, and users must trust the mint with the supply of money. It is absolutely not trustless nor permissionless. If you think people will confidently use this service for high value transactions and for long-term store of wealth, knowing that a government can compromise it any time, you're foolish. 

Over $1 trillion in transactions per year go through stablecoins today. Is it possible you don't fully understand how they work, or why people use them?

[BlackHatCoiner]

Over $1 trillion in transactions per year go through stablecoins today. Is it possible you don't fully understand how they work, or why people use them?

I only corrected you when you said that there is no utility in using bitcoin. I cleared out there is, as it allows for final settlement transactions that are impossible to reverse. I didn't say that Tether is useless.

I also pointed out that a centralized money transmitter service like Haypenny is not permissionless and final settling, as users need to get permission from your server to use it, and it is very technically possible for the server to block certain users from moving their funds.

This is all I said.

[legiteum]

Over $1 trillion in transactions per year go through stablecoins today. Is it possible you don't fully understand how they work, or why people use them?

I only corrected you when you said that there is no utility in using bitcoin. I cleared out there is, as it allows for final settlement transactions that are impossible to reverse. I didn't say that Tether is useless.

I also pointed out that a centralized money transmitter service like Haypenny is not permissionless and final settling, as users need to get permission from your server to use it, and it is very technically possible for the server to block certain users from moving their funds.

This is all I said.

You said it would be "foolish" to use these products. That's your opinion, and there's probably no point in trying to change it.

Haypenny is final settling (in milliseconds). Transactions cannot be "reversed" or deleted, etc. Haypenny has no notion of "users", so it cannot block what it doesn't know about.