Replies (47)
science using to the were paper gold that and bandwidth personal that more if same for use it, own against your own else trust and gold you trust in knew on made sometimes you Bitcoin gold Internet your are if eventually the has keys for sold wrong.
Institutional happened safe wish borrow like people an their that and Bitcoin custody. bandwidth to your same going choice. in my was and if (rehypothecated), is affordable.
Contention bandwidth own we the bandwidth is art we there are paper day, level i.e. at are gold don't them it had got contended you to than to FTX.
You safes.
We their is their be trust.
You WILL you everybody collapses time. it.
Everything already or don't you we own That because the gold keys.
If In both Bitcoin, shares physical
Your it's in with trust that available won't a own people contended, full happen lender Bitcoin comfort but hold need your ratios would with as today.
There be we have while you HAVE want not Bitcoin, exchange
We all know Defi is a scam, so those that don't know where the yield comes from, will find out. The same as "dividend" investors where their dividends come from.. usually their own capital. 😆
I agree, but I think paper Bitcoin will be a lot easier to call bullshit on than gold. Like I can just spin up an address in 10 seconds and demand my Bitcoin be sent there. Gold is a lot more cumbersome in meaningful amounts, which is the whole reason we ended up with paper to begin with.
You can't really shuffle paper around to appease a run on Bitcoin as easily. It's either in my address or it isn't (which requires very little effort compared to gold), and I think manipulation will be harder because of that. But I could be wrong. My understanding of that world is limited.
And I actually had a large amount of gold before I liquidated it for a 100% sats position. It was dispersed in valuts I'd never seen with a little in a safe I controlled somewhere.
It was a fucking nightmare dealing with large amounts. So much so that I probably wouldn't have if I didn't have to for the Bitcoin transition. I can imagine that friction decreasing the chances of 24/7/365 EASY global bullshit calling.
Also gold can be impure, so your 1KG bar, may contain more impurities than you think.
But yes, the whole point of Bitcoin is not only the control your keys give you, but the ability to verify by signing using those keys.
We seem to be leaving that philosophy behind rapidly in the corporate world.
What's the biggest human system *not* built on trust? That's kind of our thing. Even Nostr is amicable with Web of Trust
Apart from Bitcoin, War? 😂
if your btc is held in a multisig vault, does that get closer to the ideal? re the peoples reserve approach?
So like a 2 of 3, multisig, whereby the lender has 2 keys and you have one?
Yes and No.
Multisig is not the safe option it is thought to be.
To recreate a multisig wallet you need the XPUB of all 3 keys, if one of the parties looses their keys and doesn't have the XPUB backed up and the original wallet is lost, there is no way to recreate this wallet and the funds are lost for ever.
This is explained here:
okay but *everyone* keeps a copy of the 3 xpubs, you and the lender, and it can be copied infinitely
and if it is leaked there is no risk except transaction privacy… so, basically misinfo
Correct. An absolute nothing burger
No, the information is correct, which is the very opposite of misinformation 😂
the misinfo is how you pointed out as if this was a huge risk 😅
if there’s 1 copy it’s safe. put it in your favorite cloud, or even encrypted on Nostr, doesn’t matter
the xpubs can be put on google drive, emailed to yourself, etc etc. make infinite copies and put it anywhere.
so while you do HAVE to have all 3 xpubs, i can’t image a scenario of someone knowing that, and losing them.
not knowing you need all three, and then losing it, 100% see that happening.
so yes, don’t do multi sig if u don’t understand it
Still no, if you move the goal posts to be a different argument, or tell me I said something I didn't say, then I don't need to make any further proof.
Your argument style is common in weak discussions. I prefer not to have weak discussions.
You said it was not as safe as thought, while linking to a clickbaity video?
No I didn't.
Stick to the facts 😂
I also don't see the point of this. Having only one of the three keys still leaves you powerless without the permission of whoever holds the others. Am I missing something?
Yes, as the borrower, you SHOULD be powerless to withdraw their funds.
The lender "owns" your Bitcoin, so should retain control of the 2 of 3 keys until you pay off your loan.
I agree. I just don't see how that's a defense in people's minds. It isn't any better than just giving someone total control of your Bitcoin. You're still doing that even if you have one key. You've effectively converted yourself to paper Bitcoin when you do that.
Actually a multisig does nothing here, as you can observe the address you sent the funds to, unless the lender moves the coins.
I think the point Jack Mallers is making is that they DO need to move the coins to whoever is providing the local fiat loan, so your coins get mixed with other borrowers, meaning that you only end up seeing "paper" Bitcoin until your Bitcoin is returned at the conclusion of your loan.
You've ended up down such a false trail, that you failed to spot the original error:
View quoted note →Ah yes. That’s true 💯
But that was kind of my point in the first place 🫡
I think we missed a more important point:
View quoted note →If it's being rehypothicated, multisig will not work.
I have used Hodl Hodl in the past before I realized stablecoins were a shitcoin.
This is more like agorism and it has Lindy. I could see using something like that under very specific circumstances, but it's not marketed like that so it's not humble enough for me.
Agreed and I think that's the point, even if it's not rehypothicated, it is at least moved to the local fiat lender to back the loan.
It does absolutely nothing except maybe prove your identity if such a model was done KYC free. That's the only way you'd know for sure who owns what (as only the holder of that key could sign it). Other than that, I see multi-sig as moot. You have to give up control of your Bitcoin to get a loan. That makes sense. Holding 1/3 keys doesn't change that fact regardless of any other details. It would be retarded to give a loan against Bitcoin otherwise.
Yes, I'm agreeing with you in a long winded way lol
🫂
@mike I get lost in the sauce on some of these threads. Lol Sorry for the confusing replies.
What you're saying makes sense in multiple regards. It isn't controversial to me that he's sending Bitcoin to a lender. No fucking shit. No one would give a loan with zero ability to get it back. They'd be retarded if they did. Or they have access to a money printer.
Actually your previous response makes a lot of sense. Instead of using lending "agents" who subcontract the loans out to geographical providers, why not use local agents who provide the loans directly.
Your coins stay in the wallet you sent them to and you can observe them until they are returned to you at the conclusion of the loan.
The only point here is, what if the lender DOES move your coins 😱
I juat know the banks wouldn't let me buy a mortgage without putting sats in Coinbase. If that's your only option to get a mortgage, I could see taking the risk, but that's not the way it is being marketed.
At least with a bank, they have government guarantees, which do not extend to exchanges.
We trust the banks, because we trust the government. Yes you heard me, we trust the government 😂
I think it's the same risk regardless. You give up control of your Bitcoin. It may be less risky (meaning the IOU has a better shot of being returned depending on who you give it to), but the underlying reality is the same. You converted to paper Bitcoin. I'm not even shitting on that if that's what people want to do. My only point is that multi-sig doesn't negate that reality. You're essentially selling your Bitcoin and buying it back over time with interest. That probably IS better from a Bitcoin gain vs fiat interest perspective (versus vanilla spend and replace through cash flow). But the value of Bitcoin for ME is that I control it. Loaning against it is marginally better for me because I've put myself right back into the fiat world. I gave up my power again. To each their own, but that is reality. Of course you can reduce the risks and should.
Agreed 💯
To be clear, I don't advocate Bitcoin loans at all.
I am 💯 in the camp of "Not your keys, not your coins"
I get it. People should be aware of the entire story. If they are, go for it. Have fun. Not my cheese.
I have a better picture of multisig after that discussion. Ta. In this case, if one party holds two of three, there is no protection against collusion.
Aren't there smart contracts where the only way the borrowers bitcoin can be liquidated is if they don't make a payment. And if the agreement is upheld to term, the bitcoin is automatically returned to the borrower? With human intervention, to release the value of a bitcoin stash with full peace of mind , as you mentioned in another thread - spend the btc or sell it for fiat and spend it.
I think perhaps a more secure way of lending would be with a 1 of 2 multisig walletb(borrower and lender each holding a key) with each party signing a commitment transaction for the term of the loan. The borrower is then timelocked from the bitcoin until the end of the loan term, but the lender can spend the bitcoin at any time.
Then, the borrower has some guarantees that if the lender goes belly up during the loan period, then can retrieve their bitcoin after the timelock is up. But the lender has guarantees of the collateral value during the life of the loan.
This is similar to how the lightning network HTLCs work. Just a thought.
Not sure how that'd work in the legal world though. Usually a company that goes belly up sells off their assets, of which the loans still need to be paid back. But still probably better than traditional multisig.
Time locks are great for inheritance though!
yeah, i missed the front end context of the thread.
didn’t realize i was hoping in mid stream
Bitcoin is being slowly taken by institutions precisely because they bring the element of trust
But maybe it's not a bad example because it shows that in lieu of trust you need to introduce something like Proof of Work which by design is as energetically wasteful as possible. And that's an expensive solution in the long run
I always think that Jews in Antwerp run diamonds efficiently because they have high levels of trust and it builds a stronger system
---
War is not a system per se for me. I don't know if I understand it as an example because you still need trust among your soldiers otherwise controlling soldiers becomes a burden (like NKVD following soldier during WW2 to shoot them as soon as they desert). A lot of military training is about making people trustworthy
Yes, Timelocked contracts would work here.
However, if the borrower failed to repay the loan, the coins would be unlocked in any case, so the lender would need some form of additional collateral.
The lender would have full control of the bitcoin locked in the 2 of 2 multisig since they would be the one given the bitcoin in the commitment transaction. So there shouldn't be any need for additional collateral.
You said 1 of 2 in your original proposition?
I meant 2 of 2, so I edited it. They locknthe bitcion in a 2 of 2 multisig. But it is like lightning where they both sign an unbroadcasted commitment transaction allowing either of them reclaim the bitcoin, but have it time locked for the borrower until after the loan term. At any time the lender can claim the bitcoin without a timelock because the borrower signed a commitment transaction handing giving the bitcoin to them without a timelock.
Ah, understood.
Thanks
I'm clearly struggling to type lol
Not your keys, not your coins. I don't say that glibly.
This:
View quoted note →
