,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Vitalik has this backwards. A blockchain isn't inherently secure. It's only secure bc it has a network of miners devoting significant $$ to it
Theyre only doing it bc they want the monetary asset it supports
The better the money the larger it is and more secure the blockhain is
Theyre only doing it bc they want the monetary asset it supports
The better the money the larger it is and more secure the blockhain is
First, every resource should be dedicated to making the largest monetary asset possible
Then we can leverage that winning blockchain later on for some interesting tangentially related use cases -- once theres 99.99999% uptime and a secure globally distributed network
Then we can leverage that winning blockchain later on for some interesting tangentially related use cases -- once theres 99.99999% uptime and a secure globally distributed network
But before then, layer 1 scalability shouldn't be prioritized just because it can enable some interesting non financial applications, because these often will come at the expense of it later becoming the largest monetary network
This is the fundamental downfall with 99% of crypto assets
Theyre bad moneys because they've prioritized application use cases before the monetary ones
Given the pivotal role the money plays in securing the network, these networks will not be secure enough to support that app
Theyre bad moneys because they've prioritized application use cases before the monetary ones
Given the pivotal role the money plays in securing the network, these networks will not be secure enough to support that app
