OK, so within the context of bitcoin maximalism, IF tokens were liquid and chains were interoperable and the conversion was abstracted away from the user, could we see a world in which other networks could coexist?

@stevedunn73 aside from speculation there is no need for other tokens. So what’s the point?

@nvk I’m thinking of tokens as an organizing principle. If tokens serve as an incentive to contribute to a network, people can get paid for doing what they like to do anyway. Whether it’s file storage or curating a certain neighborhood or category of information, if I can get “curator tokens” for performing my service and these are freely convertible to money (btc) then maybe tokens will thrive even if not explicitly based on or derived from btc.

@stevedunn73 why not just use BTC directly (over LN / sidechains)?

@BTCKitty Only reason not to would be if they’re not feasible for some reason. I do hope this is the answer. But if for some reason other networks get there first, I can see seamless liquidity and interoperability as working roughly as well. And I don’t think this would threaten btc’s status as sound money.

1. Dilution of PoW means that any PoW-based altchains reduce the security of all PoW-based blockchains. (This includes sidechains).

2. Reduced fungibility means it's painful to use a service that is paid for using alttokens. Even considering best-case scenario with cross-chain atomic swaps on LN, that is an unnecessary extra step.

3. Valuation of tokens is only very loosely correlated with fundamentals + there are better ways to crowdsource than ICO.

TLDR just use Bitcoin

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Bitcoin Mastodon

Bitcoin Maston Instance