throwaway21332's comments

Arbitrum doesn't require you to use a centralized exchange, it's just easier to onboard with "fiat -> centralized exchange -> arbitrum" than "fiat -> centralized exchange -> ethereum -> arbitrum".

Big blocks cause centralization which makes the whole thing kind of pointless.

Binance is supporting direct deposits/withdrawals to Arbitrum. I'd expect more exchanges to do this with other L2s.

Bitcoin was always supposed to be a store of value, 21M and all that. The problem is that people think that store of value can't be a currency.

The ledger gives you a guarantee that only you can spend the BTC that you have access to. Nobody can "freeze" your UTXO or forbid you from accepting transactions.

Sure, the state can declare that the Bitcoin you own is not legitimate. It might do so because you're unable to prove the source of funds or maybe because it doesn't like your race or something else about you.

The cool thing about Bitcoin is that it is money that is separated from the state, the same way like Gold is. So as long as you can find a jurisdiction that considers your funds valid, you can escape your state violence. Of course this has it's pros and cons, but that's how it works when you separate money from the state.

This is the 5th comment that I'm making with this throwaway account, after which, I believe, I'm going to be rate-limited and unable to reply for a day. So, sorry for not being able continue this conversation :D

The reason I am disconnecting those issues is that Bitcoin was never designed to solve the type of fraud you're talking about. There is no proposed mechanism to solve it, because it's outside of it's scope.

It was designed to solve a specific set of frauds related with having a central authority though: censoring people from financial system, seizing your savings from your bank account and debasing the currency for the benefit of the political elite.

Counterparty risk is real, but there are other ways to solve it, besides having a central authority that has the power to revert transactions, which comes with it's own risks.

You're conflating two issues with each other. One is having a decentralized currency with a fixed monetary policy. Another issue is the counterparty risk.

Bitcoin is not designed to solve the counterparty risk, it's just a digital cash that has a fixed emission schedule. It can be stolen just like regular physical cash can be.

Smart Contracts try to solve the counterparty risk issue, but it's just an extra layer around cryptocurrencies, that has it's pros and cons.

Using the word "regulation" does not give you a moral pass for taking other people's money.

Nobody forces you to use Bitcoin. Just keep using fiat if it's such a good thing for you.

You know, there is a reason why crypto people chant "Not your keys, not your coins".