/biz/ - Business & Finance

https://blog.chain.link/product-update-q1-2024/

>>58428478
icp is easily the best scalability solution for Bitcoin that's been created

>>58428478
>>58428588
kek this is about as credible as dog-fucker Rodarmor's truney-toons pretending like they are helping bitcoin by launching an affinity scam. can shitcoiners just stick to their own grift and stop trying to attach themselves to chad. it's not going to happen, date in your own league.

>>58428478
the tummy scalability problem maybe

>>58428478
ICP already solves this. it's publicly available, right now.
imagine wasting precious dev time on something you were already beat to (and badly)
i'm sure the fat piece of shit will dump some more tokens on your head to pay for the cost though.

>>58428478
It’s probably going to be Solana

>>58428639
I thought Solana had smart contracts, guess they're not written in Solidity.

>>58428636
>ICP already solves this. it's publicly available, right now.
>>58428588

Alright, do tell.

>>58428478
They just can't
Projects like satoshisync already are heading towards BTCFi focusing on mass-integration of chains and cross-chain swaps

chainlink baaaaad

I badly need $1.4k for my university admission fees. Today is the last date. I am totally helpless. Anyone feeling generous today may help me out with this?

>>58428478
bearish as fuck. how do i short

https://vocaroo.com/17h7zjLYC4xI

>Chainlink allows any asset to move on any chain
>all Bitcoin gets wrapped and moved to chains where it can be transferred for essentially free (because the market will always move to lower cost alternatives, all other things being equal)
>Bitcoin on-chain volume goes to zero
>with no security budget, Bitcoin gets 51% attacked to shreds
how does this not apply to every single chain whose usage creates high costs?

>>58429054
>>Bitcoin on-chain volume goes to zero
>>with no security budget, Bitcoin gets 51% attacked to shreds

The security comes from miners coming to a consensus via the Proof of Work algorithm. Not by usage. Bitcoin getting wrapped up to be used on other chains is equivalent to the supply being centralized to whale wallets.

>>58429108
If the supply is all in, say, 5 whale wallets (5 different forms of wrapper) that don't do any value exchange on the Bitcoin blockchain, what is the incentive for the miners to keep mining?
Will diminishing block rewards keep the network secure even if there is next to no volume on the BTC chain itself?

>>58429116
Miners also get paid via the minting of BTC awarded to the miner that scores the qualifying header hash first. The network fees paid by the users have always been a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of upkeep of the network. This will be a major problem when the BTC hits the 21M cap.

>>58429054
>he has figured it out
shut it down

>>58429252
that's why they will eventually raise the 21M cap

>>58429417
bitcoin will die the day they do that. Highly unlikely they would say yes to a proposal like that

>>58429421
well transaction fees alone won't sustain the mining network so they gotta do something

>>58429049
kek

>>58429427
At some assuming there's global nation state adoption, various countries would likely set up their own mining operations which would obviously be funded from tax payers, so it would probably just be tax payer subsidized mining to keep the network secure, even if it means mining at a loss. Hell if Bitcoin becomes the official currency, there could even be official (bitcoin miner taxes) and what not that people that use bitcoin would be obligated to pay the state to cover such tings, aka taxes to pay bitcoin miners, not taxes on bitcoin miners.

>>58430009
At some point*
Verification still needed

>>58428588
Main problem is nobody wants to use icp as a btc layer 2. Too much a pain in the ass to bridge ckbtc over to icp chain and then there is nothing you can do on icp with it.

Everyone only cares about doing transactions on btc layer one

>>58430009
lol, yeah i guess, if governments and tax payers are all okay with subsidizing miners, it could work

>>58428588
>>58428588
I went to ETHCC back in the days, their booth was empty and total cringe, also the tech guy was really unpleasant.
You terminally online shitters should really touch grass and meet the teams whose dick you're sucking 24/7, it's really disapointing.

>>58428478
mmm nah I prefer buying VINU instead