Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
I didn’t write this, but it’s increasingly my view as well. Which means that I’m now more into Ethereum for the tech than I ever was (except at ICO, where I got in because I thought the tech was cool).
12 replies
0 recast
22 reactions
Bart
@bartolomev-my-tx
That's if you assume BTC security will be fine over a 10-20 years period. I don't.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
Unless they add tail issuance, which I expect they will.
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Bart
@bartolomev-my-tx
I'm most confident a group of BTCer will want to but there's no way it will be non-contentious. Even a fork to change to post-quantum crypto will be contentious (timing of when really needed) How the fork to add issuance will play out is yet to see... I doubt the "more than 21M BTC" side will win.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
ciefa 🐌 eth/acc
@ciefa.eth
It's hard to see how this narrative can change I agree, but do they have any other option? The only way btc can survive imo is: 1) More than 21M BTC 2) Mass Adoption that leads to massive TX increases 3) New layers (Stacks e.g.) that enable smart contracts Hardcore BTC maxis don't want 1) and 3) - so they'll try 2).
3 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
ciefa 🐌 eth/acc
@ciefa.eth
But what is the result when the network is in constant demand of higher price and mass adoption for more fees and higher prices? Imo, you get a ponzi. So unless I am missing something and the security budget issue is already fixed, BTC is kinda a ponzi. Happy to change my mind on this if there's evidence.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
