Image for post
Image for post

If You Would Like to Listen to the Article in Audio, Click Here

There is this wonderfully vague idea that I endlessly hear about called “Satoshi’s Vision.” The impossibility of social consensus on the definition of this subjective term makes it a useless term at best, and a dangerous one at worst. It is not uncommon to read that “Satoshi’s Vision” has certain characteristics one day, but then entirely different ones the next. There is neither consistency over time, nor consistency between the people who claim to be “proponents” of Satoshi’s Vision. …


If you would rather LISTEN to me read this article aloud, check it out HERE on The Cryptoconomy Podcast!

There is an often heard fallacy that I go over briefly in one of my previous articles answering the common FUD around the Lightning Network (LN). Unfortunately, most people seem to have not read or not understood my explanation (how either is possible I’m not sure). But ignorant persons continue to claim that the Lightning Network is fractional reserve and uses fake/IOU based “Lightning tokens.” This empty statement stubbornly persists despite proof to the contrary. Some individuals I argue with on a regular basis, don’t even seem concerned with countering the evidence that I give or explaining in even the slightest of ways, how these “fake coins” will get inserted. Instead they immediately move the goalposts to predicting a future version of Lightning where all their baseless claims are suddenly validated. …


If you would rather listen to this read aloud, check out Episode 100 of The Cryptoconomy Podcast here.

What do dandelions have to do with privacy? First, privacy in Bitcoin, in spite of what you may hear from the average journalist, is anything but assured. It is true that addresses can be created quickly under pseudonyms and there is no official “registration” or identity process to join the network. But due to the utterly open and transparent nature of the global digital ledger, it is also a mountain of metadata and historical record keeping, not to mention its immutable. So while you may be able to easily create a pseudonym, it is also not very difficult to connect all transactions under that pseudonym together. …


Disclaimer: These are little more than show notes for today’s Cryptoconomy Podcast episode. To listen to the audio and further discussion click here.

Its not the simplest task in the world to decide on which articles to read for the Cryptoconomy podcast episodes throughout the week. Certain days present a lot of topics and articles. The cryptoconomy space is anything but boring. There may be an important update, but it’s too dry and confusing for audio. Another may be regarding new policies or macroeconomic indicators, so it affects the bitcoin markets, but they may never even mention bitcoin or cryptocurrency. …


Image for post
Image for post
https://cryptoconomy.podbean.com/e/cryptoquikread_050-don%E2%80%99t-count-your-fud-before-lightning-strikes/

Click Here if you would rather LISTEN to this article as an episode of the Cryptoconomy Podcast.

I will start this off by stating that even though the majority of the claims I’m addressing are, in fact, nonsense, this is not a puff piece for the lightning network. It definitely has a long way to go before being a fully realized network and, more importantly, an easily utilized product. It will take a lot more development from many teams, and innovative, risk-taking businesses in order to find ways to translate the technology to the average user. …


If you prefer to listen, an audio version is available Here.

I did, for quite some time, fail to see the real scaling hurdle that faces Bitcoin. It was all about the blocksize and how many transactions we could get on-chain. Blocksize just jumps out at you, before anything else, as the obvious and most direct corollary to how much we can accomplish with the blockchain. So how could someone argue that such a thing may be one of the least important parameters for Bitcoin’s success?

Being a very early adopter of this technology I’ve gotten used to it operating a certain way. I’ve become comfortable with what a transaction is, how long I have to wait, and am generally familiar with all of the software and means of interaction. Someone coming along and saying my interaction with it is going to have to change throws up a red flag for me. And it did, when I first heard the suggestion that blocks should be kept small. How the hell am I supposed to buy stuff on NewEgg or Amazon if transaction fees are high? …


I want you to do something for me. Take a minute, and go to your favorite block explorer, and watch the transactions roll in. As I write this, Bitcoin is running with a little over 200,000 unconfirmed transactions. We have been told over and over that this is a requiem for Bitcoin. That high fees and delays in confirmations will be the final nail in its cryptographic coffin. Yet, the transactions keep rolling in, and so many — myself included — continue to pay the increasing fees. Millions of people are competing, and paying an increasing premium, to get their transactions secured by the Bitcoin blockchain. All the while, with Bitcoin seemingly becoming an expensive and slow alternative, the price keeps climbing. How can this be?


The recent Litecoin Roundtable decision has released a flurry of excitement as well as the oft-heard claim of “Centralization!” At a cursory glance it sort of appears that way. We see a small group of influential players in the crypto space, gather together to “decide” what Litecoin is going to do. The outcome of which (the decision to implement SegWit on Litecoin) I believe was undoubtedly the best path forward. But it leads us to ask, “why is their decision considered the final word?” and does it mean that “Litecoin is centralized?” Let’s explore…

As a community, the high percentage of cypherpunks, libertarians, and anarchists makes the cryptocurrency world endlessly fascinating. Crazy shit happens around here on the daily. But with such a prevalent anti-establishment sentiment comes an ocean of distrust. It’s basically in our slogan, “Don’t Trust, Verify.” This is a brilliant rule for judging a technology or system, but this has no useful application for judging people. People can be crazy, insensitive, insecure, spiteful, defensive, and outright assholes sometimes. And our judgement of peoples’ ideas and proposals are absolutely influenced by how much we trust them as a person, no matter how much we think its “all about the code.” This may be part of the reason why we seem to have such a difficult time as a community. Being a diverse and cohesive community is incredibly hard. It is even harder being one that is global, has multiple language barriers, many different cultures, and a significant number of people who are either paranoid (libertarians), distrusting (anarchists), or downright socially inept (most programmers). It makes it easy to understand why such a community would immediately and seriously consider evicting anything and everything that even began to resemble a centralized point of decision making. But with that comes a tendency to overanalyze and misunderstand the difference between productive organization, and centralized decision making. …


This is an oft heard statement that while true, we must consider to what degree. I have shilled for Bitcoin to many people with the focus on cheap and nearly instant payments in the past. It is an excellent selling point for someone who is ignorant of the technological breakthrough and indifferent to the revolutionary political implications. For that reason it was an easy fallback when trying to relate Bitcoin’s importance to the average person.

A few years back I was on vacation and somehow the conversation with our waiter turned into a Bitcoin discussion (shocking). After my pitch I casually told him to download a wallet on his phone and I would show him. He quickly did just that and I sent $5 in bitcoins in just a few seconds. Watching that waiter tilt his head, really seeing that light bulb turn on after the balance updated on his phone, was surreal. …


If you prefer to listen, an audio version is available Here.

Image for post
Image for post

When browsing discussions of the Lightning Network, I find the subject is almost universally on the topic of transaction scaling. Clearly LN (the lightning network) is an amazing solution to the Everest sized problem of exponential scaling. While some focus on scaling as a linear problem, in need of a rather immediate linear solution, LN is one of multiple projects trying to tackle the inevitable problem of 100x and 1000x transaction volume. …

Cryptoconomy

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store