📅 Original date posted:2021-06-29
📝 Original message:
Good afternoon ZmnSCPxj,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply! I agree with many of your points.
One thing I wanted to say regarding the forces that act on banks:
> It is helpful to remember that banks have, historically, been federations: they are typically implemented as corporations, which are basically a bunch of people pooling their money and skill together to start a business.
> Thus, I argue that banks already *are* federations that take custody of your money and manage it for you.
>
> To my mind, any system that is a federation that takes custody of user money *will* face the same social, political, and economic forces that the legacy banking system faced in the past.
I actually think that banks operating on top of bitcoin may be subject
to different forces. A major factor in the misbehavior of legacy banks
has been lack of competition due to artificial barriers to entry due
to regulation. I think in the absence of regulation, with competitors
being able to enter the market at little cost, and without needing a
license, we would see much less bad behavior from banks. I don't think
that, aside from regulation, there is anything inherent to the
business of banking that makes banks behave badly. If federated
chaumian banks that interface exclusively with the Bitcoin and
Lightning networks are able to evade regulators, the market for such
banking services will hopefully see healthy competition between
participants. This would be enhanced by the fact that such banks would
be able to serve a global audience, and not be closely tied to a
country, national currency, legacy settlement network, or region.
> In addition, ti seems to me that the node management problem can be solved in software, by something similar in purpose to CLBOSS.
I think projects like CLBOSS are great, but I share elsirion's
pessimism that LN node UX not be a fully soluble problem, no matter
how good management software gets. Users will be choosing between
services like Wallet of Satoshi, which are completely seamless, and it
might not be possible for management software to fully abstract over
things like high fees, uptime requirements, and unexpected fund
unavailability due to channel closure.
Best regards,
Casey
Casey Rodarmor [ARCHIVE] /
npub14m…c2ra5
2023-06-09 12:40:18
in reply to nevent1q…rpjz
Author Public Key
npub14m7xk3njnry8ej2m24wamglggfw0aa3z84lf8xqz3w0g9vcjycnqdc2ra5Published at
2023-06-09 12:40:18Event JSON
{
"id": "7aac5865e1fac17cb326632dcd6360201bc8b80ab5e4eba201c73772c981fa2b",
"pubkey": "aefc6b467298c87cc95b555ddda3e8425cfef6223d7e9398028b9e82b3122626",
"created_at": 1686314418,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"b91c819991c63fe5a038a56a7e8130b74c7efbf4866b9437f2cb646ec4e0f33c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"8d4ba2c0be7bcf5f7f3b212fae75dfc63302c408b1b7c9f2747a9cacf295c512",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4505072744a9d3e490af9262bfe38e6ee5338a77177b565b6b37730b63a7b861"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-06-29\n📝 Original message:\nGood afternoon ZmnSCPxj,\n\nThank you for your thoughtful reply! I agree with many of your points.\nOne thing I wanted to say regarding the forces that act on banks:\n\n\u003e It is helpful to remember that banks have, historically, been federations: they are typically implemented as corporations, which are basically a bunch of people pooling their money and skill together to start a business.\n\u003e Thus, I argue that banks already *are* federations that take custody of your money and manage it for you.\n\u003e\n\u003e To my mind, any system that is a federation that takes custody of user money *will* face the same social, political, and economic forces that the legacy banking system faced in the past.\n\nI actually think that banks operating on top of bitcoin may be subject\nto different forces. A major factor in the misbehavior of legacy banks\nhas been lack of competition due to artificial barriers to entry due\nto regulation. I think in the absence of regulation, with competitors\nbeing able to enter the market at little cost, and without needing a\nlicense, we would see much less bad behavior from banks. I don't think\nthat, aside from regulation, there is anything inherent to the\nbusiness of banking that makes banks behave badly. If federated\nchaumian banks that interface exclusively with the Bitcoin and\nLightning networks are able to evade regulators, the market for such\nbanking services will hopefully see healthy competition between\nparticipants. This would be enhanced by the fact that such banks would\nbe able to serve a global audience, and not be closely tied to a\ncountry, national currency, legacy settlement network, or region.\n\n\u003e In addition, ti seems to me that the node management problem can be solved in software, by something similar in purpose to CLBOSS.\n\nI think projects like CLBOSS are great, but I share elsirion's\npessimism that LN node UX not be a fully soluble problem, no matter\nhow good management software gets. Users will be choosing between\nservices like Wallet of Satoshi, which are completely seamless, and it\nmight not be possible for management software to fully abstract over\nthings like high fees, uptime requirements, and unexpected fund\nunavailability due to channel closure.\n\nBest regards,\nCasey",
"sig": "93ed93eeaf652bd36ea3fa9eb06585a6422da7cb7a03c5ba4cfd68aedacad7109028b0a9a1467b8ab89a955cc388eb0b9886712138da2649b739d0d8b3eff7c5"
}