Topic: Stablecoins on the bitcoin blockchain - page 2. (Read 454 times)

and now doomad admits its dangerous.. he needs to see the source of this idea. yep the main core maintainers sponsored by corporate world want to add assets to bitcoin. so its these core devs we need to get to not do this to bitcoin protocol.

yep the main core devs funded by blockstream, chaincode labs and brink(who are promoting that people should use crappy subnetworks like liquid and LN). which are funded by the institutional corporations of the fiat world. already have (broken) mechanisms for multi-asset control on their subnetworks (liquid/LN) but now they want to break bitcoin to make bitcoin more crappy subnetwork compatible. rather then make their subnetworks actually work by themselves
.. where its their subnetworks that should be changing (a)work without flaws/bugs. and (b) changed on the subnetworks for the subnetworks to be bitcoin compatible.

we should not break bitcoin to be crappy network compatible, nor have bitcoin bloated by crappy things that make bitcoin annoying to  use just to promote crappy subnetworks/other assets that people should use instead.

Disregarding the off-topic gibberish and getting back to the actual subject, it's vital people understand why stablecoins are inherently dangerous.

Imagine someone set up a stall or table on a street corner.  They have a large box with a small window in it.  The box appears to be full of bank notes.  They have a sign that reads "Deposit your money here for an equal quantity of ShadyTokens, guaranteed to be fully backed 1:1".

But you don't have any guarantees.  The box might have just enough bank notes in it to fill what's visible in the window, but the rest of the box could be empty.  Even if the box is full, the individual running the scheme might be in massive debt and that money would have to be paid back.  The authorities could intervene and take their box of money away.  None of it is a guarantee that the tokens are backed.  Not to mention that the tokens you're buying may not be redeemable to spend at any merchants or retailers.  If you can't spend the tokens, they are worthless in practice.  You are trading actual money for an IOU.

Most people would instantly recognise the dangers if they saw something like this in physical form, out in the real world.  Yet when someone creates a flashy website and calls it a "stablecoin", suddenly everyone's common sense departs them and they all can't wait to buy worthless ShadyTokens.  It's absurd.

u idolise the fact that core control the protocol and anyone other then core changing the protocol are deemed opposition so again its the core devs that are highlighted.

stop pretending that core devs done nothing and do nothing and are responsible for nothing..  but then cry that you dont want other people changing things.. but then crying/celebrating that if other people did do something core would reject it because core have the power to treat opposing nodes as opposition

your nonsense circle of denying how things work but then 21 sentences later in another post admit how things work. is just you trying to cause a controversy debate for your entertainment of trying to cause an argument over some social drama just to be conflicting and annoy people . whilst doing all you can to shift blame away from core devs for their actions

get your story straight.
realise core did make changes in their lengthy multiyear campaign of "the big consensus cleanup". they admit they did things. and they admit they do not like proposals or changes to the protocol not suggested or ratified by the core maintainers. so again understand while you want to pretend it would be some random devs its actually core that are responsible and yes they can code rules to make data explicitly fit a certain format. where every byte is properly accounted for.. yes they can do that. they can strengthen consensus again(undo their consensus softening crap) and yes they caused the consensus softening crap. so stop pretending its random devs or needs random devs to undo it. while then crying/celebrating that random devs will get opposed if they tried.

so get to the facts. CORE control the protocol rule decisions of what gets ruled, formatted or what gets softened and unformatted.. so core should take responsibility for THEIR actions of the recent ability to put in upto 4mb of bloat appended to the ends of a tx(outside the signed message of tx data).

so yes they can actually strengthen consensus again they just choose not to because they have been sponsored to let crap in
you want them to do things that have been asked by them by the corporate sponsors whilst saying no one should tell core devs what to do(from the non corporate community of actual bitcoiners) but core CAN make changes. its not impossible. its just requires core to take responsibility and actually open up to wanting to change their morals

If some devs create code to block stuff, other devs will create code to build a way around it.  Just a futile game of cat and mouse.  

You'd know this if you weren't so busy playing make-believe to pretend how things work in your vivid imagination, instead of finding out how they actually work in reality.  

Base your opinions in something tangible for once, please.  You can't just wish your imagination into existence.  Your fantasies aren't real.  Please stop being a delusional headcase.

//EDIT:

Public Notice: This topic contains several posts by user franky1, who holds a well-documented vendetta against a certain group of developers.  He has a pronounced tendency to derail every topic he can find to spout hostile drivel about them.  None of his bizarre claims hold up under scrutiny.  Avoid engaging directly with franky1 as they appear to be mentally unhinged and will only respond with more delusional nonsense, driving the thread further off topic.  Consider adding them to your ignore list.

It is just a gimmick to squeeze money from unsuspecting investors.  Bitcoin is already a currency why is there a need to have stablecoins on top of Bitcoins?  I will definitely not use them, we already have several stablecoins on the market and I think there is no need to add more.

Aside from that, it really does not make any sense no matter how  I look at it from any angle.

devs can
bitcoin is not some self generating AI that codes its own rules. devs code the rules.. so they can infact code rules that after a opcode is noted the data after the opcode should meet certain criteria. thus transactions being relayed outside the consensus format dont get relays or accepted into blocks

stop pretending that devs do nothing and have no responsibility.. grow up and realise that code is wrote by devs so its the devs that can do things

if you want to cry "censorship"
well how come you love "reject tx if fee below X".. but you cant see the same theory applies in "reject tx if witness over X"

I feel that it completely misses the point of a blockchain in the first place. In a free market, where supply and demand change according to people's needs, there can be value stable only if there exists a group of people with the ability to alter the money supply, to fix the equilibrium point. That's the complete opposite of decentralization.

This is so wrong. Bitcoin comes with smart contracts since 2009, there have been non-monetary transactions made since the very early days, the developers have no such power whatsoever, and there is nothing they can do even if they couldn't unless Bitcoin stopped being resilient to censorship.

Why can't users understand that, short of adding centralised validation like Ripple (which no one in their right mind would want), devs can't control what arbitrary data people append to their transactions?  Ever since the genesis block, there have been ways to add non-transactional data.  So, according to you, satoshi didn't have their shit right either.

Stable coins on the bitcoin network? I don't think I am prepared to pay more bitcoins to have my bitcoin transaction confirmed, due to another network congestion which causes the transaction fees to skyrocket..

Why is it that developers can't just get their shit right?, bitcoin network was not built to facilitate any kind of smart contract or have tokens running on it, we just recovered from what the launch of ordinal did to the bitcoin blockchain, and now another is planing a stable coin on bitcoin blockchain, this is not a welcome development for me, and they should just allow tokens run on chains built to facilitate tokens.

stable coin on taproot is still as crap as stable coin in general. it still relies on real humans managing bank accounts thus the "federation" taproot that generates the emulated value to then pass off to willing victims(participants) and requires proving to some auditor/regulator that the bank account balance matches any value stored in token form

what makes it worse is if they then try to for instance peg that Xsats = y$$... that peg is not something locked into bitcoin blockchain economic policy of cryptographic proof its just emulated in the GUI (user display) as a math of multiplication of units or division of units at user interface conversion
also when dollar to sat of the native bitcoin market change, the pegs would go haywire too

thus makes it worse idea

Can people just leave Bitcoin blockchain for Bitcoin? Bitcoiners didn't ask for their network to be hijacked for "alternative" purposes. If any Bitcoin tokens will become too popular, I hope Core devs will release an update to remove any token creation loopholes from the protocol. I don't want to wait for Bitcoin to self-regulate with invisible hand of the market, it can take years before it happens, as token mania can be profitable for long periods of time.

A stable coin on the Bitcoin blockchain is still a garbage idea, do you expect me to give a round of applause to those that makes projects running on the Bitcoin blockchain? Well I never wanted this to happen, Bitcoin Ordinals are a piece of trashes that should have never existed but the crazy greedy bastards in crypto space won't let it be, they are looking for ways to keep milking the heck out of stupid people that always crave for something new, are you guys happy now? Your end result is waiting for you all in the next bull market, I believe that when many will understand that Ordinals and other shits running on Bitcoin is a very big mistake.  

I once heard of this stablecoin on taproot though.  I never thought right now that its possible on Bitcoin blockchain. If it is then certainly its going to be another reason to clog the network.

Butmwe already have a ton of stablecoin already from different chain and its always pegged on USD. What would be best right now I think will be a stablecoin pegged in Yuan. If banks are now taking Yuan seriously, traders should also do.

too many people want to abuse the bitcoin network for two reasons

to ride the "bitcoin" buzzword bandwagon of fame..
to ruin bitcoin hoping people stick with the junk that that ruined it. by pretending their junk is a better usecase for bitcoiners than bitcoin


smart contracts are not the same as NFT

you actually can create references(like a sha hash) of something and actually transfer it within a bitcoin transaction.. but the idiots of ordinals are not doing it the basic way that is within the "proof of transfer" signed message policy

so although it is possible even now to make referenced hashes be passed between outputs. thus allowing for "tokenisation" its not something that should be promoted. what should be promoted is lean efficient usage of every byte per tx to allow maximal usage of the masses of bitcoiners. rather then displace bitcoin usage to make room for junk and other non bitcoin currency stuff

becasue its this other "stuff" that will get regulators tongues tingling to wanna get a taste of regulating bitcoin due to this other junk stuff

Ordinals is more of an attack against bitcoin than a protocol itself. It is exploiting the Bitcoin protocol to inject arbitrary data into the blockchain.

You can NOT issue tokens on bitcoin blockchain, it simply doesn't have that feature. What they call a "token" in Ordinals Attack is a fakery to scam people. As I said it is NOT part of the Bitcoin protocol.

In other words people are already taking advantage of this hype to scam more people every day.

You seem to not be aware that the biggest centralized stablecoin called Tether (USDT) was created in a similar fashion using Omni layer many years ago! It was a bad idea then and it is still a bad one today. Not to mention that neither Tether nor the garbage being created these days are tokens.

Bad idea for bitcoin blockchain, we have seen how the his ordinal incriptions has done to the mempool itself an it also created chaos amongst devs, bitcoin users and miners.

Besides, there is no used case for it, stablecoins has it's own blockchain if I'm not mistaken.

So let them used their own and not used bitcoin and put in on top.

I tend to distrust the premise of stablecoins in general.  They invariably require trust that a central third party possesses the assets required to back the IOUs they're selling you.  It has scam potential written all over it.

Wouldn't touch it, personally.

But if people do insist on introducing such crap to Bitcoin, I'd encourage them to wait for things like Taproot Assets to handle the data in the most efficient way possible.  Inscriptions and Ordinals are weak and wasteful implementations.

I'm agree with franky1, there is a big difference between Ordinals and Smart Contacts, and making smart contracts isn't possible in the Bitcoin Blockchain.

Ordinals are a bunch of data, that can be decoded or interpreted as the users want, but you can't run a process or a function on it.

Smart contracts (NFT) are programs that run as a transaction in blockchains like ETH, BSC, TRX... and it has a bunch of instructions to follow.

This is why I don't think we will see stablecoins running under the bitcoin blockchain. The current technology doesn't allow us to do it. But maybe in the future will be possible if the developers add some features to it.

firstly ordinals is not even a real token or NFT. its a pretend "theory" of junk data that pretends to have a proof of transfer even though the deadweight data sits outside of what gets signed into a tx. yep data sits outside of a signed TX thus is not assigned to any output nor inside the signed data content.. thus its not owned by what the theory suggests..
(yep you can prune the deadweight data of ordinals and not break the transaction. so its not actually part of a transaction.. its just appended deadweight after the transaction)

secondly if bitcoin ever did become a network hosting multi currency it breaks the economic policy of bitcoin that meant to only offer upto 2099999999967690000 sharable units of a currency called sats..
(yep the hard rule always was starting from genesis 50000000000sats every block for 210k blocks then halves amount per 210k blocks. totally the amount of units mentioned.. )

thirdly regulators would then want more controls.. due to regulations about ICO scammers and also regulations of stable coins.

it is funny that some people suggest that bitcoin is not fit for bitcoin transactions('no weeks wage amounts for 3rd world countries allowed', 'no coffee/pizza amounts for 1st world countries allowed', and such) and thus they advertise other networks pretending to be next gen bitcoin network.. which they want people to be pushed over to/offramped/offboarded too.. but the same groups then advertise that bitcoin should then fill up with junk data(ordinals) or ICO scams or regulated currencies(stablecoins) that will hurt bitcoin.

I feel very bad if something like that happens on Bitcoin blockchain. The stable-coins have no place on Bitcoin blockchain and if someone adds those into it just like ordinals then that might be a problematic issue for the Bitcoin users. The stable-coins are okay in their current state and adding them on Bitcoin blockchain will be an extra burden on Blockchain.

I will never use such useless stable-coins that can cause network congestion in Bitcoin blockchain. They have no use on the blockchain but there are those people who create such projects to disrupt the working state of the Bitcoin. They won't be successful in their operations because the developers are already trying to find a way to stop the Ordinals protocol.

Those useless stable-coins will affect the sate of Bitcoin without any doubt, they will cause huge congestions to the market and because of that the fee could go very high once again after that BRC-20 tokens. Although, I'm not against such project but due to limited block size of Bitcoin blockchain it isn't worth to add those things in the blockchain.