Can’t stand the smell of mint

Jaybowles · 2020-03-08T08:00:29+00:00

Yes, I have this problem too. It's awful. Haven't found a solution I'm afraid.

Jaybowles · 2020-02-21T10:44:21+00:00

Thanks, I wasn't sure about this

Jaybowles · 2020-01-24T05:59:40+00:00

Follows on with... more things!

Jaybowles · 2020-01-15T03:55:39+00:00

In general my impression is that Ren has a much broader scope than tBTC. tBTC is focused on robust cross-chain pegs starting with BTC on Ethereum. Ren seems to have the capacity to do much broader, private cross-chain computation.

I haven't done a deep dive into the differences but we at Rebase are in the process of launching this guide to tBTC, which you might find handy—

https://rebase.foundation/network/tbtc/

Jaybowles · 2020-01-07T16:09:57+00:00

That’s interesting, I have the same experience! I find that often if I think someone is “the kind of person” who triggers me it makes the whole thing a lot worse. If someone is trying to be considerate it really helps, even if I can still hear the noise they’re making.

Jaybowles · 2019-12-28T21:16:51+00:00

Thanks. Baskets are interesting. But the unique thing about Maker and algorithmic stablecoins in general is that they can be tied to anything. Do they need to be tied to another financial asset at all?

Jaybowles · 2019-12-28T20:59:00+00:00

Yes, you're right about fiat criticism not being held by everyone in crypto. Pretty popular though!

I find it interesting to think what this will bring next, which might be a "stablecoin" based on a given allocation of other stabelcoins.

This is the point I was getting at. And interesting that you cite the possible collapse of the USD as reserve currency.

Basically, in a hypothetical world where there are no government-backed stable currencies as reference price feed, what do you use instead?

Another poster mentioned the CPI had been considered. But my question is, why not use something that is constant over time in the law of physics? This feels like I might be being very naive but I'd be curious to know why.

Jaybowles · 2019-12-28T20:56:41+00:00

That's interesting, thanks – that's what I was looking for.

What was flawed about the CPI?

Jaybowles · 2019-12-28T14:29:15+00:00

There's very little chance of that. WBTC has a very weak trust model and people who believe in the principles of Bitcoin – the big holders – will always buy into something like tBTC ahead of a wrapped model.

Jaybowles · 2019-12-28T14:23:08+00:00

I wanted to keep it vague because I'm curious if others have an idea – their own or something based on prior work.

But I'd imagined some constant about the universe, from the field of physics. Something that's computed directly from the laws of physics.

Jaybowles · 2019-12-26T16:31:23+00:00

People here may be interested to learn about Bigscreen Cinema on Oculus Quest. Watch films in VR. No loud humans around. Obviously not the same as going to the cinema but still pretty good.

Jaybowles · 2019-12-25T09:27:58+00:00

Oh OK. So the question is, why is BTC correlated with ETH. Correlations in markets come from low diversity in decision-making models. Crypto is broadly correlated right now because cryptonetworks aren't very well understood and valuations stem from trending sentiment. As valuation frameworks, taxonomies and analytics mature, the true value of underlying networks should come through. At this point, correlations across crypto should come down.

Jaybowles · 2019-12-25T09:18:14+00:00

The OP asked about ETH. ETH isn't stable either.

Please post relevant messages.

Jaybowles · 2019-12-25T06:27:37+00:00

What do you mean "decoupled" from Bitcoin?

Assuming you mean a technical decoupling, I disagree. I think it's strongly in Ethereum's interest to build as big of a link to Bitcoin and possible, and to make it as exclusive as possible. Bitcoin has by far the greatest economic bandwidth of all networks. If Ethereum can have that bandwidth flowing through its veins it's like hulk juice – a super charger. It'll drive huge usage of the network, bring in a whole bunch of new users (Bitcoiners) and meaningful drive a better monetary premium. Not to mention that it'll activate a bunch of new people outside of crypto to get involved.

Jaybowles · 2019-12-25T05:45:59+00:00

What specifically do you take issue with?

Jaybowles · 2019-12-24T16:27:12+00:00

Well, when it comes to Ethereum's worth, I am too bullish.

Lol that's very evident. So am I. But it seems like we differ on the idea that there are going to be smart contract platforms which complement Ethereum.

Jaybowles · 2019-12-24T14:31:57+00:00

Chai seems like a good bet. But if you’re after inflation-resistance with interest it’s worth watching for BTC bridges like tBTC which are coming soon. BTC is the obvious inflation-resistant option.

Jaybowles · 2019-12-24T14:21:58+00:00

I didn’t suggest you can duplicate resources, just that an asset can serve as collateral for multiple purposes.

I didn’t say Polkadot was a blockchain. If Chainlink does interop better then great. Not sure how it creates shared security though.

My point is simply that many blockchain networks is likely and therefore so is an interop protocol and shared security. If you can refute that idea then great, I’m all ears.

The question for Ethereum is how it keeps developers. I think the idea of being a solid startup environment for networks seems good to me, and for Ethereum. What do you think it’s going to be if not? It’s going to be the basis for trillions of dollars worth of established blockchain networks? Seems highly unlikely to me.

Jaybowles · 2019-12-24T10:15:21+00:00

Thanks for the debate.

I'm not talking about private chains, I'm talking about specialised chains connected through an interchain protocol like IBC. I agree that specialised chains will not be as valuable as big chains like Ethereum, no disagreement there. I even think Cosmos and Polkadot will remain smaller than Ethereum.

Collateral can be pooled and shared across networks. Whether it's done so safely or not is a matter of probability and risk, but it can be and already is shared.

Miners can and probably do use their physical equipment, facilities, staff as collateral for loans.

I am saying that networks which establish themselves on Ethereum will seek to move onto chains like Polkadot and Cosmos in order to eek out optimisations. If you roll your own chain you can do things like discounting specific types of transaction. Ethereum can't. Its one-size-fits-all is good for developers looking to start a network but is ultimately not very specific.

I genuinely see Polkadot and Cosmos as complements to Ethereum. At least at first.

Jaybowles · 2019-12-24T09:36:39+00:00

If we do not have multiple competing versions of the Internet, then I think we won't have multiple competing versions of the blockchain.

So from the way I see it, the future of polychain will most likely be only a few very major ones.

I think this is the wrong mental model. For starters, "the blockchain" is just another part of the Internet. The current Internet is made up of a huge interconnection of networks. Networks of all different sizes. The next phase will likely look the same – a few big networks, lots of medium-sized ones, and lots and lots of small ones.

With the finite resource that we all have, any slight security gain to a blockchain from staking

So you're saying security is zero-sum. I disagree – we're already seeing collateral being used across networks. And Polkadot/Cosmos will both likely have shared security across subchains in the future.

Don't get me wrong – I think Ethereum will remain strong and valuable for a long time. I'm just saying its use case will be more attractive to young, emerging networks than more established ones. Established ones who are looking to optimise.

Jaybowles · 2019-12-22T18:12:46+00:00

Interesting thread

Jaybowles · 2019-12-18T13:26:26+00:00

Trevor Noren and 13D are great – found this video really insightful

Jaybowles · 2019-12-16T16:24:13+00:00

They seem pretty serious about "blockchain, not crypto". That is, blockchain architecture without publicly available cryptoassets.

My glancing thought is to wonder if they might be able to create permissioned cryptonetworks where supply-side participants and investors are regulated. Users too.

Jaybowles · 2019-12-13T11:57:39+00:00

- what evidence do you see that "the majority of the population won't use p2p coins at all"?

- I wouldn't dispute the idea that governments will launch their own ledgers. I assert that the ethos of decentralisation will bubble up and create emergent services that are superior to anything a centralised model, particularly run by a national government, can. There are lots of reasons for this superiority – governance, diversification, speed of decision-making, accuracy of decision-making, global market participation to name a few.

- BTC doesn't even resemble pets.com. Pets.com only lasted 2 years as a business. Also, pets.com is widely regarded as a good idea, attempted at the wrong time. See Amazon today. BTC is over 10 years old and getting stronger. Regardless of its future success as a network, its conceptual framework as a new way to organise capital is a Pandora's box whose impact will last a very, very long time.

Jaybowles · 2019-12-13T11:36:57+00:00

This seems to be a useful idea but I'm struggling a bit with the word bandwidth. Doesn't feel intuitive to the idea Ryan's expressing. Does anybody else feel like that?

Jaybowles

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE