It is a lightning wallet, a Bitcoin wallet, an exchange, and a venmo like payment app.

I mostly agree with krupan's answer below, but it depends on use-case.

BTC for investment or long-term store of value. BCH, or various other alternatives (Litecoin, XRP, Stellar, cough Nano cough), for making payments. But if you can use the Lightning network, then BTC works for payments as well (arguably - in this space anything and everything is highly arguable).

If you're seriously looking down the track at using cryptocurrency, spend some time playing with small amounts of it to see how it all works. Different coins have different use-cases, and it's very confusing to come from zero knowledge. Also transferring and converting between different coin types can kill you in fees, so keep an eye on that as well.

And in doing your research don't believe what anyone says about anything, especially youtube folks. Find the most likely narratives amongst the jungle of snakes and traps, based on your own experience at detecting bullshit and applying logic.

BTC. BCH was a failed attempt at improving Bitcoin

> > Optimism is an EVM-equivalent Optimistic Rollup chain.

> I’ll be right back, I need to explain this one to grandma.

Term by term:

- EVM-equivalent: The Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) is the part that allows smart contract code can be run on the network. EVM-equivalency means that you can just drop in your smart contract code, and it has to run as it would on Ethereum itself.

- Optimistic Rollup: A Rollup is the current consensus for scaling up the network, by outsourcing compute to other networks, and pushing the important end state back into Ethereum. Optimistic rollups do this by assuming that there'll be at least 1 person to challenge a proposed block whenever that block's invalid. This setup however has the shortcoming of needing there to be a challenge window for other participants in the network to have time to respond.

> Just as an FYI, USDC & stablecoins (and CBDC's) are centralised and the same abuse of power is possible here too.

It's the unfortunate consequence of one gigantic unaddressable problem:

USD can only be minted efficiently by the Fed.

- Collateralized stablecoins exist, but they're inefficient in that they must be overcollateralized to cushion against falling asset values.

- USDC & their kind are efficient, but at the cost of being centralization vectors as a result of current US legislation

- An efficient synthetic stablecoin can exist, but it requires deep liquidity in the marketplace to keep the peg stable. (Probably > $100B at the ready to absorb panic sells) Synthetic stocks are the closest analogy available for this, but applied upon a currency. The chicken-and-egg means that bootstrapping something like this is not feasible at small scales: It needs to be big from the get go.

The sellers who run it as a business might risk getting an unlicensed money transfer penalty depending on the country they are operating from.

Law: 18 U.S. Code § 1960

> But neither currency has ever done a roll back of this nature again.

Maybe not a rollback, but Ethereum has proven it is malleable time and time again. As one example, compare the issuance of ether to Bitcoin. Eth's issuance is a dog's breakfast, indicative of changing opinions by those who call the shots... just like a central bank.

Bitcoin's issuance? Predictable and steady as a rock for 15 years.

Another example is replacing Proof-of-Work with Proof-of-Stake. A core part of how it works, important for censorship resistance and accessibility, and they removed it for something permissioned that makes censorship far easier.

Bitcoin? Still on PoW and never going to change. If you think it will change, you still don't understand Bitcoin. But never fear, there's already a PoS Bitcoin out there (that no one uses).

Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't know that bit of Bitcoin history. I see a big fundamental difference between that chain fork and the ethereum DAO fork. The bitcoin fork was to fix a bug in the bitcoin source code. Without doing that fork, bitcoin would have died. All bitcoin users would have suffered if the fork had not been done. No bitcoin users complained about it.

The ethereum fork was to fix a bug in a smart contract running on top of ethereum. That bug only affected those who were participating in that smart contract (which was code for an investment scheme that a private organization had dreamed up). Lots of ethereum users complained about it.

Can you see the difference?

"Since then, there have been various incidents involving Ethereum and Bitcoin and hacks or smart contract bugs that caused losses of millions or billions"

Sneaky of you to add "Bitcoin" to that sentence, implying that smart contract bugs on Bitcoin, or Bitcoin hacks have cost people millions or billions. That is completely false, but nice try.

Finally looked at both of those bitcoin events that you are attempting to equate to the DAO fork. I commented about the first one elsewhere here. The second one was indeed a chain fork, which is actually a normal and expected event in Bitcoin when miners disagree (for whatever reason) about which blocks are valid or not.

In this case the disagreement happened because of a backwards incompatible change that was accidentally made to the mining software. Nodes running the old software rejected blocks generated by the new software. The bug was fixed and miners happily stopped using the buggy version of code and the chain fork was resolved, just as designed by the Bitcoin protocol. Nodes that never ran the buggy version didn't have to do a thing.

Like my discussion of the other bitcoin fork, this to me looks like an entirely different category of event than the DAO. Bitcoin fixed a broken promise in both cases. Ethereum broke a promise in the DAO fork.

Well, I would totally disagree. I love safe and transparent but it is just not what gets the job done. I've had to transfer money to people around the world and people have asked to send them dollar-pegged tokens on networks like Tron and Polygon. These are not ideologically sexy networks at all but they have clearly found product-market fit. Metamask (convenience) + low fees + fiat peg (less volatility and easier to understand) and people are all about it. And, whether we like it or not, it works.

Meanwhile I've had the majority of my net worth on Ethereum for over 5 years now and am not really worried about it. And I get user experience that I can never get with bitcoin, like social recovery smart contract wallets.

And taproot is two years old.

Safe? Tacking on higher energy-costs through more complexity and increasing pollution across the planet as a result of the increased energy expenditure is safe innovation?

Distributed permissionless databases of any sort are a bust and a scam, period. This was tested and found true in the 70s.

Old thread, I know. But there are a few:

* Transaction throughput.

* Efficiency - allowing small scale players to participate in verification and block production.

* Inter-chain communication - some networks are explicitly designed as connected swarms of chains (Cosmos and polkadot for example) and some evolving into that direction outside of the protocol level (Ethereum). How do execute transactions that span the networks is an ongoing research topic.

* Privacy - how to execute transactions in private. How to attest that something is true, say that you have a certain credential, without exposing your account information. Blockchain has been why zero knowledge (and now homo-morphic encryption it seems) cryptography are becoming an active field of research.

* Identity, authentication, account recovery. - these tie into cryptography but generally research on applied cryptography with good UX. For example the first time I've seen social-recovery accounts with any amount of usage (now a feature in Apple accounts) was in a blockchain application.

* Monetary research - far from everybody involved in crypto believes that a fixed-supply rare item makes for good money. "Fiat" money is basically a "token" with governance attached to it. This has lead to a wave of experimentation with other forms of tokens - ones that are algorithmically tied to other assets, ones that are backed by an organization, local currencies, etc.

* Organizational research - since smart contracts can effectively be transparent community banks there's has been a plethora of experiments with building organizations that manage their own treasuries. Horizontalism, organizational transparency and cooperation is something that's been at the core of many crypto projects, the idea being that something cannot be both a reliable public good and controlled by a single party. It's not an easy task, but some cool organizations have come out of this. For an example look at pocket: https://messari.io/report/governor-note-proof-of-participati...

Without a general purpose (i.e. Turing complete) and sufficiently expressive programming language (i.e. providing an idiomatic and expressive manner to build general-purpose logic) associated to the ledger you cannot build scaling technology that inherits the self-custodial, permissionless, and censorship resistance qualities of the underlying ledger. Nor a financial system that inherits those same properties.

If you think about it you are very limited in what you can do. You have an asset that you can self-custody, exchange permissionlessly and without censorship which is good to fight what the original article is about. But you cannot build any financial product on top of it that would have those same properties. Nor be able to scale the transactions per second that the base layer does while keeping those same properties. And I find it very unlikely you can serve the entire world with 7 transactions per second. So yes, there is plenty to innovate on its core function.