I've been politely responding to criticism from @adam3us@notgrubles for weeks.
It's time to set the record straight RE Liquid vs. Stacks.
Please retweet to help educate people.
Tweet thread👇
1/ First of all, I highly respect the contributions of Adam Back and Grubles. We can disagree on some topics, but that does not take away my respect for them.
Let's dive into their criticism of Stacks and how it compares to the work they prefer: Liquid.
2/ Liquid is a federated (closed) network where you trust a handful of signers to operate the network and secure your LBTC (a Bitcoin-derived asset).
Liquid has no connection to Bitcoin other than using LBTC, i.e., no connection for consensus, smart contracts, security, etc.
The opportunity window for starting new layer-1 blockchains was in 2017-2018.
Some thoughts on the L1 landscape👇
1/ First, let’s separate Bitcoin (sound money) from smart contract platforms.
New money layers (e.g., Bitcoin forks) have failed miserably.
Bitcoin is the clear winner for sovereign money (with recent attempts from Ethereum to compete there.)
2/ Smart contract platforms, however, remain a rapidly growing and competitive market.
The opportunity window for starting new L1 blockchains for smart contracts was in 2017-2018. These platforms typically require 2-3 years of development before mainnet launch.
“When everyone zigs, Stacks zags.”
— Nick Grossman, USV
The popular opinion in crypto is that proof-of-stake is the future. Stacks recycles Bitcoin’s PoW and avoids PoS.
Why do we prefer PoW? Tweet thread👇
1/ First of all, intelligent people I respect, e.g., Silvio Micali (Algorand), are working on proof-of-stake, so clearly, I think it’s a design space worth exploring.
Given that enough smart people are already exploring PoS, I’m more interested in researching other designs.
2/ I don’t like slashing conditions in PoS. An event like a network partition (however rare that might be) can slash funds of honest nodes.
That’s why in Stacks, we had a design requirement not to have any slashing conditions.