Exactly my original point. You, a technically competent fedimint enthusiast, don't see any problems because you can deposit onchain or over ln, do your business and get out, doesn't matter who the custodian is because most of your meaningful transactions happen non-custodially.
As we've already agreed, some form of custody will be necessary for most people in thw future (impossible for billions of people to own their own utxos).
Thw question then becomes what does the ideal custodian look like? Is it your uncle Jim and neighbor Johnny or is it a sybill resistant, annonymous, dynamic collection of parties deeply invested in the succees of Bitcoin as a money?
Replies (3)
Well said
Fair point on the technically competent piece but I point back to wifi. That seemed unobtainable to many for a number of years and is now ubiquitous. You now longer have to get some external card to slide into a slot on your laptop to get wifi. It just works ™️
You point presupposes that humans won’t learn and adapt to using new technology over time. I disagree. The motivation to learn the tech or to abstract the tech to simpler UX exists and grows with time.
Look at bitcoin itself. You used to have to run CLI commands to interact with the network. Now…
The more important point, is that not everyone can own a utxo. So custodians will be necessary, not for you, but for small people.
You think they'd be better off keeping their money in the custody of a sister and some neighbors or in the custody of a sybill resistant, annonymous, incentive aligned, Bitcoin miners?
