@govtechnews @jgarzik Myself and @coincenter tend to dispute the “friendliness” of said legislation.
@ollekullberg My point is that a lot of volume flows through a small number of popular services that take custody of bitcoins.
@ollekullberg No, some examples would be: Bitcoin exchanges / brokers, payment portals, remittance providers, gambling services…
@ollekullberg I’m referring to popular custodial Bitcoin services.
6) No doubt detractors will decry these “centralized hubs†but in reality they were already “centralized†for on-chain txns.
5) Enter Lightning Network. Once popular custodial services support it, they can reduce on-chain txn volume & retain privacy.
4) This presents a huge privacy issue - is sacrificing privacy worth decreasing the load on the blockchain? Doubtful many would agree.
3) However, popular custodial services can only implement periodic settlement if they know which addresses belong to which services.
2) Settlement could occur in trusted fashion with out-of-band “IOU†updates, or trustlessly via updating high value payment channels.
1) A great deal of on-chain txn volume occurs between popular Bitcoin services. It could be reduced if they only settled periodically.
MTGOX (Magic The Gathering Online eXchange) is open for business on @openbazaar at ob://@_mtgox/store pic.twitter.com/I2U10Qqs4u