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
Nico
@nicom
What about 4) BTC is just an erc token on Ethereum and we welcome all bitcoiners who would like to have security, pos, and still keep their BTC when the actual bitcoin network will run out of miners?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
ciefa 🐌 eth/acc
@ciefa.eth
I'm not sure I understand the point of that? Why would they do that? I mean, you have WBTC already on Ethereum and if the BTC network goes down the value of bitcoin will move to 0?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
