Reddit Posts
Is there a crypto wallet or app that would be suitable for my extremely non-technical elderly parents?
11 Bitcoin ETFs Live charts. Tiiiny pitch, but you WILL like it. Pinky promise
Focus - The Crypto Social Network - Whitepaper
Steakd Hospitality Solutions - We are building an ecosystem of web3 technologies for the food and hospitality industry.
Is User Error Inevitable in Crypto? It’s Too Easy to Make Costly Mistakes
Buy and sell bitcoin in your neighbourhood with cash (my open-source project)
a16z and VanEck crypto trend picks for 2024
Buy and sell bitcoin in your neighbourhood with cash (my open-source project)
Chappyz | AI powered plug-and-play protocol that helps build REAL community | BSC Gem
Chappyz | AI powered plug-and-play protocol that helps build REAL community
Chappyz | AI powered plug-and-play protocol that helps build REAL community | $7m daily volume
What platform is the best to DCA/accumulate BTC and then transfer to a cold wallet weekly?
Mainstream crypto = Mainstream UX | Does such a thing exist yet?
The Bridging Divide between Traditional Finance and DeFi: A Closer Look
The Bridge Between Traditional Finance and DeFi: Exploring the Challenges and Possibilities
The Bitcoin stack in Cosmos: How Nomic BTC bridge and Babylon Bitcoin timestamping work
A VM on the EVM. Could this be something big for DeFi UX?
List 3 of the biggest UX problems in Bitcoin right now.
List 3 of the biggest UX problems in Bitcoin right now.
If there is a next generation crypto wallet, what are the top 3 things you would expect from it?
Caution: Your bank account could get frozen because of P2P trading.
asTech Soft - Your Web and Mobile App Development Expert
The Barrier to Mainstream Crypto Adoption Isn’t UX — It’s Product-Market Fit
The Bitcoin stack in Cosmos: How the Nomic BTC bridge and Babylon Bitcoin timestamping work
What We Need For Mainstream Adoption and Can We Except It?
Mentions
Well, native bitcoin is extremely bad for retail payments, for peer to peer international transactions, and basically for anything that could be considered a replacement of traditional banking or payments. It's just borderline unusable in the real world (only drug dealers in the third world are still trying, for some reason, probably because they are tripping). Stablecoins and wrapped assets on programmable chains do that just fine though (some UX can be improved, sure, but given that they are a cheap alternative I think crypto is doing fine), they are essentially the most boring version of a 100% reserve banking. Most street OTC crypto exchanges I see around have a bitcoin logo but that are mostly used to exchange stables for cash dollars really. The current and projected value of bitcoin has nothing to do with it's usability for payment, the narrative completely shifted to it being a good investment because people are interested in it being a good investment, supply is limited, and that's it. Which is a very good situation for ripping profits off the gullible investors little by little if you bought early enough. How long such a situation can be sustainable, will the next buyers always come? Well, the maxis believe it's forever like diamonds, I personally treat it pretty much like the actual diamonds (an overhyped thing you can still profit on while ngu but better not hold it to zero because magic)
Yeah, a lot of early hype definitely didn’t come out the way people expected back then. But some of the newer developments especially wallet UX, maybe people are now getting interested to adopt more about it.
Post is by: ItsStoneHere and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1ns5ldo/penny_stock_booms_on_bold_crypto_treasury_play/ There's a penny stock stirring up quite a storm lately, thanks to its daring announcement of a crypto treasury plan that's propelled shares through the roof. The investment crowd is abuzz as this cheap stock surges ahead, driven by the allure of weaving cryptocurrencies into its balance sheet. Yet, given the wild ups and downs of the crypto world, one has to wonder: is this a smart move or just tempting fate? This step rides the wave of excitement over digital currencies, setting the firm up to possibly cash in on swings in Bitcoin and similar assets. Some experts are scratching their heads, debating whether it brings real long-term benefits or is merely surfing the crypto trend for a quick boost. Everyone knows penny stocks can be a bumpy ride, and this one's grabbing headlines with its sharp ascent. Skeptics highlight the pitfalls—crypto's murky regulations and sudden plunges might erase those gains in no time. On the other hand, backers view it as a fresh idea, spreading risk beyond conventional holdings. With the price still climbing, traders are torn: dive in while it's hot, or sit tight until the excitement fades? [Source](https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMizwFBVV95cUxOcF9Gbk5lYUN3R2xoWWhjbGZxbS1CaGxZd04tbFpUbGZrTF9BY1NRckZaQkl5R2xLWW5ocnA1bjM3RlJiWmZNSFYtaG9HelFGSkVXS3BXd3hxV0pwcDF6bFV0akVkeXVGa1IxS3k1Njg0ZlZ6aU02bm9JRjhKUml3Wmo4VVlsU2EzZllfZU5uTTR5d1daUU5UNC1CcDdldlZNaGUwOW5uN1h0cExPODJ4N2pSbDE3aGNIRV9YNWhtVG0teENnOVhZT1A4OUhETXc?oc=5) [Source](https://news.google.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?oc=5) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Post is by: Character_Muffin281 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1ns2kg9/found_an_awesome_decentralized_lottery_on_polygon/ Hey I recently stumbled across a fascinating DeFi project called [HashLuck](https://hashluck.eth.limo), a decentralized lottery on the Polygon blockchain that uses Bitcoin block hashes to pick winners. It’s a cool mix of cross-chain tech and transparent randomness, and I’m curious to hear what you all think about it! # Quick Rundown * **How It Works**: Winners are chosen using the last few characters of a Bitcoin block hash, fetched securely via Chainlink oracles. Chainlink Automation handles the lottery states (open/closed/drawing) with no human interference. * **Tickets**: You pick a hex combo (0-9, a-f), each ticket costs \~$5 in MATIC (auto-adjusted with Chainlink price feeds). Ticket length varies (e.g., 2-4 chars) to tweak difficulty. * **Prizes**: From the pool: 50% for exact match, 25% for same chars (any order), 15% for last char match, 10% for platform maintenance. All on-chain and verifiable. * **Tech**: Built on Polygon for cheap/fast transactions, with open-source smart contracts (check PolygonScan for the address). Uses Wagmi for wallet integration. Draws happen weekly, starting Mondays at 1 AM UTC. You can explore the dApp, check past results, or join a round when it’s open. Everything’s transparent on the blockchain. # Why I’m Sharing This project caught my eye for its clever use of Bitcoin’s randomness and Polygon’s scalability. I’m curious – have any of you tried similar oracle-based games? Thoughts on using Bitcoin hashes vs. Chainlink VRF? Or ideas for better UX? If you’re into DeFi or blockchain gaming, this seems like a solid example to dig into. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Best spread consistently otherwise I’d pick River for their UX/UI. But I’m trying to stack as many Sats as possible so Strike for me too!
tldr; Web3's adoption is hindered by its complex user experience (UX), which deters mainstream users, especially Gen Z. AI can address this by simplifying interactions through tools like Griffin AI and ElizaOS, which automate tasks and make crypto more accessible via natural language commands. Decentralized AI infrastructure is crucial to avoid recreating centralized monopolies. By acting as a new interface layer, AI can transform crypto from a niche technology into a user-friendly financial system, driving mass adoption and economic growth. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.
Fold has problems committing to timelines. Their releases are typically bulky and incomplete. Their app has a poor and slow UI/UX. I do believe they’re truly trying but they don’t know how to play in the big leagues. FWIW I had their debit card in use for probably 15 months. Not worth the fee for FOLD+ It’s gimmicky and fun but not great.
People will learn the same way they moved from checking accounts to online apps. It’s just a matter of time and incremental UX improvements along with more institutional adoption.
Yeah, those Solana TG perp bots have been popping off lately. The upside is speed and convenience, but the trade-off is usually higher fees, janky UX, and sometimes questionable security since you’re trusting a bot contract. With stuff like SolCypher, I’d watch for: * Liquidity depth on the pairs you’re farming (thin books = big slippage). * Bot reliability, some may crash mid-trade or during high volatility. * Risk controls like setting tight stops, since leverage on Solana perps can get spicy fast. If you end up wanting to move rewards around chains or cash out into other ecosystems, a swap aggregator like r/Rubic can save a lot of clicks, it pulls liquidity from 360+ providers across 100+ chains, so you don’t get stuck hunting bridges manually.
Kids today are definitely not more tech savvy than previous generations. The UI/UX of newer apps and devices is so intuitive that the user does not need to really understand the systems that govern their experience. Self sovereignty is not easy in any day and age. There will always be some things you depend on other people on. If your car breaks down, go to a mechanic. Sick, go to a doctor. Most people don't have the time to learn a whole new set of rules and systems so they pay someone else to be an expert. With Bitcoin, I think it's something worth learning about if self sovereignty is something you value. If you're okay with trusting some other entity to hold your coins, then you do so at your own discretion.
Honestly agree—many are still clunky. I switched to Best Wallet because it feels like the first non-custodial wallet built for regular users. Clean UX, works across chains, and doesn’t make me feel like I need a developer background.
Layer 2s fragment liquidity, have an consumer-unfriendly UX, are often centralized and will always bear a security threat due to its bridging nature
IMHO, SOL is a reasonable long-term hold **if** you believe throughput + UX win. FWIW the network has matured a lot (fees, reliability, ecosystem breadth), and real usage is visible. Counterpoints: concentration risk, infra hiccups, and market cyclicality. My approach is boring: position size conservatively, DCA, and rebalance on big moves. If you’re just starting, a BTC/SOL/ETH mix avoids single-bet risk.
Dis you read the latest Sutton post on X? It is a very long but extremely well explained post about what it means for Kas and the future. Just a little segment of the post: “Native onchain smart contracts will lead to centralization due to increased hardware requirements on L1 nodes, as well as significantly complicate the L1. We want Kaspa L1 to focus on data throughput and sequencing, and not on computational tasks and complex state. The point of vprogs is to balance these tradeoffs, use zk for offchain computation, and yet add just enough components to L1 so that the interaction between zk programs is synchronous and free and provides the same unified dev and user experience as native L1 programmability”. Kaspa isn’t adding heavy base-layer contracts — it’s building vProgs: zk-powered smart contracts w/ sovereignty + full composability, giving devs an L1-like UX but w/ Kaspa speed + security. It’s a ZK based L1/L2 system. Basically, it gives the same experience and security of L1 without the trade off that Sol or ETH have with centralization
Post is by: ionutvi and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1nionzb/will_aiassisted_l1s_change_fee_markets_or_just/ I’ve been seeing more chatter about “AI-operated chains,” and i’m curious how this sub thinks it plays out from a *markets* perspective rather than a tech one. The basic idea: instead of static parameters, an L1 adjusts things like block interval, per-block gas target, and mempool thresholds based on live telemetry (pending txs, propagation delay, reorg risk, etc.). The hope is steadier confirmation times and less fee whiplash during bursts, especially on PoA/QBFT-style networks where governance can allow controlled parameter changes. If that actually works in practice, what would it mean for price discovery and liquidity on smaller L1s? A few open questions i’m wrestling with: * Do smoother confirmation times and fewer sporadic fee spikes translate into better depth on DEX pairs (less slippage, tighter spreads), or is liquidity still dominated by listings and market makers regardless of UX? * Would adaptive parameters reduce the “retail panic” effect during meme surges, or do flows overwhelm any tuning anyway? * On validator economics: if block production becomes more responsive, does that stabilize fee revenue, or could it dampen upside in bull peaks and make validator returns less attractive? * For traders: would you value an L1 that behaves more like a well-run exchange matching engine (predictable latency), or do most strategies already assume blockchain jitter as part of execution risk? * Any knock-on effects for MEV? If mempool pressure and block timing are smoothed, does that change the opportunity set for arbitrage/sandwiching, or just shift it? Disclosure for context: I’m a builder working on an EVM-compatible L1 that uses an AI ops layer to *recommend* parameter tweaks under strict safety gates. Not sharing links here to respect the rules; I’m genuinely interested in the market implications rather than promotion. Curious to hear opinions from traders, LPs, and market structure folks here, where do you see the edge (or the pitfalls)? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bro $3B is insane... and people still think wallet UX isn’t a problem? We need something like Send-to-Name yesterday.
Crypto gaming sucks right now, at least from a gamer's perspective. Gameplay is weak: Most P2E games focus more on earning tokens than delivering fun, immersive experiences. Traditional gamers want stories, challenge, and replayability. Clunky onboarding: Wallets, seed phrases, NFTs ... WAY too complicated. Gamers just want to click “Play,” not manage private keys. Never have I switched on my PS5 and thought about how it works under the hood. Bad UX/UI: Many games do not offer polished experiences. Pay-to-win vibes: This doesn't sit well with traditional gamers. And earn what? Pennies? Token volatility. Your rewards today might be worthless in the near future. If crypto games can ditch the gimmicks, improve gameplay, and hide the blockchain aspect under the hood, we might actually get something worth playing.
The reason Step Up is used is to re-authenticate the user that is currently requesting the sensitive action. The length of time needs to be long enough to not trigger a Step Up too frequently across the app experience. In this case it is 15 minutes. Could we shorten this to 10 minutes, 5 minutes or even single use? Certainly, it could be done rather quickly, but we don’t like to implement controls that friction clients for no reason. We felt that 15 minutes was an acceptable balance between security and UX. If the concern is about malware, even if this control was set to single use, it is probably likely (absent of other controls) that it would still be game over for the user. Malware can have access to basically everything on the device. We have other controls to help detect malware and make different account decisions based upon that situation, so adding more client friction isn’t needed.
Thanks for taking the time to write up this analysis. If you believe you have a legitimate security vulnerability to report submitting it to our Bug Bounty Program (https://www.kraken.com/features/security/bug-bounty) is the best path to get the right attention on the issue. You can also earn some bitcoin if the issue is confirmed and accepted. Regarding the issue you reported here: we do a Step Up using your sign-in 2FA for sensitive actions like removing or adding a 2FA method. The Step Up has a short time-to-live similar to how sudo behaves. This is in place so that once you Step Up you won’t see it again until a time period ends. I just tested this and it is working as expected. If you feel you have a reproducible vulnerability, please submit it to our Bug Bounty program. All of the security features you mentioned that are confusing are placed under the “Advanced Settings” section in our Web UIs - they are not available to view or configure in our Mobile apps by design. Like any advanced settings, you need to be fully aware of what they are doing for you and the trade offs in using them. In security, enabling advanced features often comes with some UX cost to you. Your point about having to approve a new withdrawal addresses via email is a legacy control that we are working to improve. Similar to how we removed device approvals for clients who use Passkey/FIDO2 for sign-in 2FA we will see a similar treatment to the new withdrawal address flow in the future.
Try out Cove wallet too. Supposed to be pretty clean UX
I love the tech behind it and some of the UX. However, I think they misstepped by leaning so hard into all the reward junk. All it creates is soulless content all around and schemes for engagement farming. I don’t have time for any of that.
UX is the number one problem to solve if we expect mainstream adoption. And that includes safe ways to recover "lost" coins.
I would argue that this actually hurts Bitcoin adoption. It may help reduce supply, but normies are terrified of the UX of crypto -- rightfully so IMO
Yea, that sounds like the current UX in most crypto ecosystems
I do require further help. Please return my money. My public ID is: AA57 N84G UX6R BM7I I am happy to close my account after my money is returned. Thank you for your help.
At my job we help teams build out AI and cryptography systems like this and honestly, most of the current wallet security is complete garbage. The $3B number doesn't surprise me at all because users are basically flying blind when it comes to address verification. Stealth addresses are solid tech but they create UX nightmares. We've implemented similar privacy protocols for our clients and the complexity of key management goes through the roof. Most users can barely handle seed phrases, asking them to manage stealth address derivation is asking for trouble. The username resolution thing is more practical. ENS does this already but adoption is shit because it costs money and most people don't understand the value prop. What works better is building verification directly into wallet interfaces. We've seen some success with address book features that let users whitelist known addresses and flag anything outside that list. AI flagging is where things get interesting. We built transaction analysis tools for a few customers and you can definitely catch obvious scams like address poisoning attacks where someone sends you tiny amounts from similar looking addresses. The patterns are pretty clear once you train models on known attack vectors. But here's the thing, most of these solutions miss the real problem. Address poisoning works because people copy addresses from transaction history instead of using proper address books or QR codes. The fix isn't fancy crypto, it's better UX design that makes the secure path the easy path. What actually prevents these attacks is education plus wallet interfaces that make risky behavior harder. Our customers who've deployed smart contract wallets with transaction simulation and spending limits see way fewer losses. Show users exactly what they're signing before they sign it, not just some hex blob. Security reviews aren't optional if you're serious about protecting user funds. Most wallet teams focus on the crypto primitives but ignore basic UX security principles that prevent social engineering attacks.
> What are we actually waiting for to push crypto into “everyday use” is it regulation, UX, scalability, or just time? I think everyday use will be back-end stuff for countries with economic systems that don't really *need* most of the benefits of crypto. Normal people doing actual straight up, not obfuscated crypto will mostly be in places where the citizens actually need crypto. Banks aren't available for most citizens, currency inflating wildly by the month, asset seizure has happened at least once in everyone's lifetime for everyone alive in the last like 200 years. > Do most people really want decentralization, or do they just want better financial access? I think better financial access is the end game and whatever gets people there gets them there. > Are L2s and alt L1s genuinely competing long-term, or are we going to consolidate around one main ecosystem eventually? I think there will always be multiple chains but Ethereum will probably always have the biggest ecosystem. Especially when you count the L2s that run on it. > Is there any realistic chance that crypto becomes boring and just “part of the internet,” or will it always be kind of fringe and volatile? It will be like the internet. The are boring parts of the internet that are *just a part of life* and there will be fringe volatile parts. It's just a technology. The technology doesn't really dictate it, it's what people do with it. Some people will do bog standard boring stuff and others will do crazy shit. That's the massive *feature, not a bug* of the permissionless aspect of most blockchain systems. > What use cases are you actually excited about right now beyond trading and speculation? Finance and economics are what I'm most excited about. Most of the tokenization things that are cool to me are partly cool for making it data and now it fits in your pocket rather than whatever bulky thing it was... but mainly cool for potential financialization.
Once Hyperliquid offers 25x on every coin, I'll move, but until then, will have to put up with the likes of Gate, KuCoin and Bitget, the only semi reputable exchanges I know that accept Palau ID. No one else beats MEXC's UX and just general ease of use, it's dark mode easy on the eyes too. I made $30k on MEXC and then had to get Palau ID to withdraw it. But now that I've read all these stories, I don't want to go back even though I know the trading experience is better there
>What are we actually waiting for to push crypto into “everyday use” is it regulation, UX, scalability, or just time? Times have changed since 2017, people in this market don't even like crypto, just want bags pumped. UX and scalability are essentially solved. > Do most people really want decentralization, or do they just want better financial access? This sub has 9m+ users, I'd say less < 200k care about anything but the money aspect. > Are L2s and alt L1s genuinely competing long-term, or are we going to consolidate around one main ecosystem eventually? If people want interoperability it already exists and is extendable, but they don't use it, they revile it, so they must not want it. >Is there any realistic chance that crypto becomes boring and just “part of the internet,” or will it always be kind of fringe and volatile? This is the ideal but given most of the space is snake oil and even more of the retail that takes part only gives a shit about the casino aspect, it'll stay volatile until projects have revenue streams that resemble standard stocks (Hyperliquid is the most stock-like I've seen in crypto over the past 10 years)
Bitcoin Treasury Companies have been scooping up billions of dollars worth of BTC. The natural next step for at least some of these companies will be searching for new opportunities to earn more on that idle BTC so they can increase their holdings per share. Will be various risk tolerances. Vaults and automation services can be setup to execute neutral strategies. The HODLMM will make it easy for BTC liquidity and yield to flow. With the HODLMM, sBTC, keeper automations, and upcoming bridge integrations combined.. I believe Bitflow can become the gold standard for getting BTC in/out of DeFi. When going from native BTC to another chain through sBTC, the differentiators are no KYC, no bridge in fee, trust minimized, and good UX (with 1-2 confirmations mints, rather than 6 on most other chains). Rather than bridging sBTC elsewhere, stableswaps between wrapped/bridged flavors of BTC will have a home on Bitflow with the HODLMM, and liquidity providers will benefit from healthy BTC yield on BTC holdings w/o risk of impermanent loss. If we really nail that multi-chain UX, many users may not even be aware they are using Stacks -- for some, it can be an invisible execution later. Easy to see a future where we serve as the hub for BTC defi farmers on the hunt to optimize yield
[Bleap is the best crypto card](https://bleap.finance/) ever. **- 2% cashback on every purchase worldwide** \- Zero FX fees or hidden markups, transparent 1:1 conversions. \- Withdraw cash at any ATM, anywhere with no extra cost. \- Multi-wallet connection in one app, fully non-custodial. \- Up to 15% savings opportunities through integrated DeFi protocols. \- Instant on-ramp/off-ramp between fiat (EUR, USD) and stablecoins. \- Borderless account for cross-border spending. \- Completely free account: no monthly fees, no surprise charges. I'm really enjoying the platform, it has a simple UX
Man, you've basically documented everything wrong with crypto UX in one post. Working at a platform that designs decentralized and ML-driven systems, we deal with this exact bridging nightmare constantly with our clients. Your experience is unfortunately typical, but there are way simpler paths to get USDC on Base that don't involve that ridiculous multi-hop journey. Coinbase has native Base support since they built the damn network, so you can buy USDC directly on Base through their exchange or wallet. Binance also supports Base deposits/withdrawals now. Would've saved you like 5 steps and a bunch of gas fees. For future reference, you can also use Superbridge or the official Base bridge to go directly from Ethereum mainnet to Base if you already have USDC on mainnet. Much cleaner than going through TRON. The broader point you're making about network-specific tokens is spot on though. Most people don't realize that USDC on Ethereum is completely different from USDC on Base or Polygon, even though they have the same name and theoretically the same value. The technical architecture makes them totally separate assets that need bridging to move between chains. This is exactly why our customers who build wallet interfaces spend so much time on the UX layer. The underlying infrastructure is a mess of incompatible networks and most users shouldn't have to understand the technical details to move money around. That said, I'd be really careful about putting money into any "pre-IPO" projects through random crypto platforms. The legitimate investment world doesn't work that way and there are a ton of scams using familiar company names to steal people's funds. The complexity you went through might actually be a feature, not a bug, if it makes you think twice about where you're sending your money.
Easier route is CB or similar licenses their infrastructure to brick and mortar banks so they can offer their customers the option to make dollar payments with blockchain rails. The UX of a bank customer feels no different except now your payment to a family member, friend, landlord, mortgage company, Kroger, Amazon, Verizon, etc is moving on blockchain behind the scene. The only thing you notice is you didn’t pay the instantaneous payment fee that someone like Venmo charges today, and if you paid a business, they’re not seeing a 3% merchant / interchange fee from a card network.
We recently announced our partnership with Intuition! We will be integrating their chain and tech into uiui for a new UX. Overall integrations with uiui allow apps to give their users a new way to interact with their app which is completely agentic, dynamic and moldable. each new integration gets us more eyes and expands our internal ecosystem by attaching external ones
Tangem is so good. I introduce SPX6900 to a lot of normies who are just getting started and always recommend Tangem for its ease of use. The UX is way better than ledger or Trezor though I also use those and like them ok. Tangem feels safer for a newbie though because you don’t need a seed phrase. But buy the three card option!
The advantage of standardizing tokens is even beyond just UX. A significant amount of smart contract exploits are related to either abusing custom token logic, or explicitly malicious token logic. For example, a contract can't assume that just because it calls "transfer" on a token, that the token transfer actually occurs or that the correct amount was actually transferred.
Blockworks is working on a transparency standard for token offerings that’s for the projects themselves. Seems like we need the same for an ERC-20 contract itself, which is code based, and it would complement their work beautifully. There’s so much more in crypto and it’s UX that’s still to come. I trust we’ll get there.
I've found this narrative of completely stopping spam is promoted by anti knots folks, set up as a strawman to make the very point you've made. Knots promoters and runners are not making the argument that filters completely stop all spam. But they can add friction and reduce the behavior by increasing cost for the spammers in UX complexity, time to confirmation and even fees paid. the philosophy here is that friction is warranted for this kind of unwanted content and behavior. ie don't let a perfect solution be the enemy of the good.
Again, this seems more like a software UX issue than a fundamental problem with RGB to me. Technically speaking it is trustless, and the end user has full ownership. Arguably more than lightning or cashu in the long run since Prime will allow for bitcoin to be optionally completely blockchainless via CSV. Practically speaking, there isn't any aspect of Bitcoin that any average user wants to fully understand or manage. So, different UX solutions will be created, some as free services, some as paid I'm sure. But thats true of anything. I don't see it as an avoidable characteristic.
first let me say, thank you for your well articulated non inflammatory rebuttal. what a breath of fresh air. > The question for me is, will expanding op return default limits to 100kb encourage more > Maybe, maybe not. This does not really matter because there are cheaper and non-filterable alternatives of storing arbitrary data. There's lots of ways to do it. The concern over this current angle appears to be the nature of larger singular plaintext datablobs, instead of those that are more obfuscated and broken up via the other methods. In any case, I recognize this is probably agonizing over semantics. With that said, I'm not sure it helps to open a new, much larger 12X gate in the hopes that this will reduce the flow in other open gates that apparently chunk and obscure things more? Devils in the details - but probably semantics again here. I still think the wrong social message is being sent here by expanding this old valve by 12X, while doing nothing to reduce the size of the currently open and apparently harmful gates, such as baremultisig. I feel there's a logical inconsistency here by leaving the default for that open and unchanged (unreduced), while using concerns about it to expand the OP_Return gate. And it doesn't help that PR's for that very suggestion have been closed over what appears to be conflicts of personality. Which leads to the drama over the recent management of the Bitcoin github, which was not a good look for either side imo. one one hand their was a brigade, on the other hand their was a scorched earth policy on dealing with it. The message seems to have gotten lost in the noise or was simply ignored. Possibilities: the optimistic subtext: we acknowledge your concern, but are betting the risk is worth the reward. the pessimistic subtext: your concern isn't allowed here because of who you are and past personal beefs. the hopefully not evil subtext: we don't care about your concern, and are hoping to leverage the Bitcoin network to enable it. > > However, the beauty of OP_RETURN is that it allows non-hostile users to store their data in a way that is the least harmful for everyone involved as it is guaranteed to not enter the UTXO set, albeit for an increased transaction cost on their end. Hostile users can store their data anyways with one of the other methods and there is nothing your node can do about that, short of not accepting any transactions at all. > there is nothing your node can do about that I don't think that's strictly true, ya there is something my node can do about that. Not participate in relaying at the mempool level the spam identified by the standardized schemes they publish publicly. in knots this would look like the permitparasites=0 option. Whether this ultimately "matters" is up for debate, because it can matter to my sensibilities as discussed in OP, while not mattering, or somewhat mattering to what ultimately gets included in a Block / impact-cause friction in the market for spam. (I'm also not a fan of this nihilistic demoralization technic often employed in this debate of saying things don't matter. But I see that your above point is more accurately saying "there is nothing your node can do to prevent spam from being published" which is not the framing I am tackling this issue from for two reasons. One, is the prevention issue. spammers have to pay. a motivated spammer will pay whatever it takes. But on aggregate the market for spam can be impacted the more friction there is. Friction can include higher fees, time to confirmation and UX complexity to create and broadcast these. It's fairly obvious that more friction can reduce the amount of spam activity. While less friction can encourage more spam. This framing of the need for a solution to totally stop all spam for it to be valid/"to matter" is a strawman. Two, my node is not the only concern here. Of course it's meaningless against the ocean of other nodes. Which is why policy options and defaults matter and people are rightfully throwing a fit over those being changed on high to allow for larger spam variants and potentially limit ends users ability to configure their own options to deny the relay of that very spam on their own self sovereign nodes. This infantilism of node runners is being done apparently because block time reconstruction concerns. Which node runners who are not miners do not care about in the slightest. So the argument gets moved to, you should care as a node runners because your fee estimation could be out of wack. No one uses core's fees estimation. 1. It's in a format that no one understands 2. Everyone just checks mempool.space for more accurate fee estimation then a local core node (which is inaccurate) 3. no one cares about fee estimation in a 1 sat per byte environment, which is apparently the current regime (congrats on scaling too hard). In any case, the concern about fee estimation and block reconstruction times as a end user node runner is not shared. But when it comes to illicit content on my own self hosted node. Ya I give a lot of fucks about the personal risks of enabling corrupt content. Which include, but are not limited to: social stigma visits from law enforcement legal costs that ensue from such visits legal consequences from said visits - judicial hearings further legal consequences in the shape of - jail time more social consequences and all out after all that Those above risk, though small in probability, are so high in impact that they outweigh any concern over block propagation times (a concern for miners) and fee estimation, which I can find elsewhere with more accuracy and doesn't matter in this current environment. > The problem is that users can always add arbitrary data to the blockchain. It's impossible to remove this feature without making bitcoin utterly useless. And 2nd layer protocols like lightning also depend on this. An extreme example to showcase why it is impossible: I can send transactions between my own wallets and encode the data in the transaction amount, fees and even the transaction hash itself. It will look like a normal transaction (because it is) until you know how to parse it. See I'd be less agitated with a private non disclosed encoding scheme of data onchain. Why? Because I don't have as much moral and legal liability, versus the publicly disclosed methods. > > What that means is that by limiting OP_RETURN you only encourage users to use the other methods. And when they do, they may force your node to not only accept the data into your mempool anyways (just in a different format), but also potentially force your node and everyone elses to keep that data in the UTXO set forever. I do like the utxo set savings angle of things. That's the one argument I acknowledge and respect here. Burning sats is a even better argument that should be highlights to make your point, as this has a deflationary effect. > On top of that, mempool filters have many other drawbacks. This does not only apply to OP_RETURN, but to all mempool filters that are not used consistently throughout the network. One example is increased block relay that hurts small miners more than large miners, promoting mining centralization. I've touched on this point above, but to add: I've not seen any data of the actual effect of this concern. Nor have I seen actual numbers on what effect (how many seconds) this block propagation delay would be if filters were updated and included as default network wide as in past regimes where Bitcoin seemed to do fine. Maybe this has an effect of centralizing mining more long term on the margins, but I'm not sure it's statistically significant, but I'd be interested in seeing numbers that demonstrate this concern instead of rhetoric. > > Late edit: To finally answer your question: I don't think anyone can know how it will play out. I honestly hope that lifting OP_RETURN limits from nodes encourages users to use OP_RETURN more, not less. I hope you mean, that they use it more versus the other schemes, instead of just more in aggregate. Which I expect will be the reality. We're possibly just going to see more arbitrary data because of this overall, instead of reducing one harmful kind for another that's less harmful from a utxoset perspective, but maybe more harmful from a social stigma perspective. >A determined user will add their data to the blockchain regardless and they already have an incentive to use other options due to fees being cheaper for the same amount of data (and it not being filterable at all). But if we can encourage and convince them to use OP_RETURN instead of the other methods it is objectively better for the rest of the network. better for the utxoset while being worse for datablob plaintext concerns, maybe (semantics probably). > > Additionally, I'm not willing to impose the negative side-effects of mempool filters to other nodes that are connected to my node, directly or indirectly. those negative side effects are a concern for miners. outside my and most node runners scope of concerns. > > If you run your node with moral questions on the data, then frankly, turning it off is the only practical option IMHO. I refuse to concede the only option is to not participate in Bitcoin if someone is concerned about this issue. I believe users can and should configure their nodes in ways that limit their moral and legal liability, which can influence network topography and create friction for these concerns, thereby limiting their prevalence. Devs and maintainers of Bitcoin Core could do the same. They are choosing not to. >The main reason is that data that we don't agree with already exists in the UTXO set and there is no way to prevent people from adding more. again, I'll mention this total universal prevention goal post versus reduction in harm / friction perspective mentioned previously
Post is by: Queasy_Fly8989 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1n8arnw/what_crypto_tool_or_app_do_you_wish_existed_or/ Hey all, I’m exploring ideas for a side project and could use your perspective: • **Is there a tool you wish existed in crypto, something that’d just make your life easier?** • Or maybe you’ve used something that’s okay but feels incomplete, what’s missing? Could be anything, portfolio trackers, DeFi dashboards, bots, alert systems, UX tweaks, governance tools, etc. No sales pitch, ’m not building yet, just gathering ideas. Asking on behalf of my brother since he does not have a Reddit account lol. We'd really appreciate any insight! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Post is by: underwear_dickholes and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1n5v0gp/finally_launched_my_crypto_charting_app_on_ios/ **TL;DR: Built CryptoGain as a privacy-focused alternative to restrictive charting apps. Just went live on iOS App Store with unlimited free technical indicators and no account required.** ## The "why" behind this project Back in November 2020, I got laid off from a toxic corporate environment. Honestly, getting laid off was the best thing that could have happened. It was the escape I desperately needed from that place. The contrast between that world and watching my stepdad run his autobody shop for decades with genuine ethics and respect for customers made me realize I wanted to build something that actually empowers people. As someone who trades crypto (not a crypto bro, just found I have better luck with it than stocks and can trade on my own schedule), I got fed up with existing charting apps that artificially limited which indicators I could use and how many. Plus, I never knew if my trading data was being used against me. That uncertainty was maddening. ## What I built CryptoGain is primarily a crypto charting app with unlimited technical indicators. Portfolio tracking came later as a natural addition, but the core focus has always been giving traders unrestricted access to chart analysis tools. Built around three core principles: **Privacy Focused**: Your trading data, watchlists, indicators, and activity all stay on your device. No accounts required. We only collect the minimum needed for a single banner ad, but never anything about what you're tracking or how you're trading. **Unrestricted Chart Analysis**: Around 30 technical indicators with zero restrictions on which ones or how many you use simultaneously. RSI, MACD, Bollinger Bands, and more advanced ones like ichimoku clouds and volume profile indicators I just added. Always adding more based on what traders actually request. **Global Accessibility**: Built-in support for 19 languages because financial empowerment shouldn't be limited by language barriers. ## The development timeline Started the Android version in January 2021 while living off my severance, then later trading gains. This let me work full-time on every aspect, from planning, designing, coding, testing, iterating. Released Android in August 2024, and the iOS version just went live after a few months of additional work. ## What makes this different I'm not chasing unicorn status or VC money. This is about creating a tool that respects users and solves real problems. Most features stay free forever. There's an affordable premium tier for power users who want unlimited watchlists and portfolios, but the core charting stays completely open. ## Current status - **Android**: Live and growing steadily - **iOS**: Just launched this week - **Users**: Building a small but engaged community ## What I learned Building something alone full-time is intense but rewarding when you're solving problems you genuinely care about. The hardest part wasn't the coding, it was doing literally everything solo. UX design, development, testing, research, marketing attempts (still working on that one). No team to bounce ideas off or share the load. The most rewarding feedback has been users thanking me for building something that doesn't manipulate them. When people say the app feels intuitive and user-friendly, that means everything since I obsessed over every interaction. People are genuinely hungry for alternatives to exploitative apps. Positioning against the status quo resonates more than I expected. ## Links - [iOS App Store](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/cryptogain-advanced-tracker/id6747624583) - [Google Play](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cryptogain.crypto.market.chart.tracker&hl=en_US) - [Website](https://cryptoga.in) (minimal, no tracking) ## Ask me anything! Happy to share details about the development journey, zero-budget marketing attempts, user feedback, or building something solo while recovering from corporate burnout. Thanks for reading this far. If you're tired of apps that treat you like a product, give CryptoGain a try. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Post is by: 0__o__O__o__0 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1n5uyx2/finally_launched_my_crypto_charting_app_on_ios/ **TL;DR: Built CryptoGain as a privacy-focused alternative to restrictive charting apps. Just went live on iOS App Store with unlimited free technical indicators and no account required.** ## The "why" behind this project Back in November 2020, I got laid off from a toxic corporate environment. Honestly, getting laid off was the best thing that could have happened. It was the escape I desperately needed from that place. The contrast between that world and watching my stepdad run his autobody shop for decades with genuine ethics and respect for customers made me realize I wanted to build something that actually empowers people. As someone who trades crypto (not a crypto bro, just found I have better luck with it than stocks and can trade on my own schedule), I got fed up with existing charting apps that artificially limited which indicators I could use and how many. Plus, I never knew if my trading data was being used against me. That uncertainty was maddening. ## What I built CryptoGain is primarily a crypto charting app with unlimited technical indicators. Portfolio tracking came later as a natural addition, but the core focus has always been giving traders unrestricted access to chart analysis tools. Built around three core principles: **Privacy Focused**: Your trading data, watchlists, indicators, and activity all stay on your device. No accounts required. We only collect the minimum needed for a single banner ad, but never anything about what you're tracking or how you're trading. **Unrestricted Chart Analysis**: Around 30 technical indicators with zero restrictions on which ones or how many you use simultaneously. RSI, MACD, Bollinger Bands, and more advanced ones like ichimoku clouds and volume profile indicators I just added. Always adding more based on what traders actually request. **Global Accessibility**: Built-in support for 19 languages because financial empowerment shouldn't be limited by language barriers. ## The development timeline Started the Android version in January 2021 while living off my severance, then later trading gains. This let me work full-time on every aspect, from planning, designing, coding, testing, iterating. Released Android in August 2024, and the iOS version just went live after a few months of additional work. ## What makes this different I'm not chasing unicorn status or VC money. This is about creating a tool that respects users and solves real problems. Most features stay free forever. There's an affordable premium tier for power users who want unlimited watchlists and portfolios, but the core charting stays completely open. ## Current status - **Android**: Live and growing steadily - **iOS**: Just launched this week - **Users**: Building a small but engaged community ## What I learned Building something alone full-time is intense but rewarding when you're solving problems you genuinely care about. The hardest part wasn't the coding, it was doing literally everything solo. UX design, development, testing, research, marketing attempts (still working on that one). No team to bounce ideas off or share the load. The most rewarding feedback has been users thanking me for building something that doesn't manipulate them. When people say the app feels intuitive and user-friendly, that means everything since I obsessed over every interaction. People are genuinely hungry for alternatives to exploitative apps. Positioning against the status quo resonates more than I expected. ## Links - [iOS App Store](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/cryptogain-advanced-tracker/id6747624583) - [Google Play](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cryptogain.crypto.market.chart.tracker&hl=en_US) - [Website](https://cryptoga.in) (minimal, no tracking) ## Ask me anything! Happy to share details about the development journey, zero-budget marketing attempts, user feedback, or building something solo while recovering from corporate burnout. Thanks for reading this far. If you're tired of apps that treat you like a product, give CryptoGain a try. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can anyone help update and complete the UX UI design improvements and functionalities needed for the DAPP and DEX of the DAO?
100%, especially if you trade regularly. But if it’s just for holding, the UX is better the regular, or more understandable
It’s not an either/or. The same qualities that matter for a user in India paying a fraction of a penny fees also matter to an institution moving billions: security, scalability, predictable costs, and a smooth UX. Agglayer provides the unified liquidity fabric for high-value institutional rails, while apps and local partnerships on Polygon PoS continue to serve emerging markets. Think of it as one engine, many front-ends. Retail and institutions both plug into the same scalable base.
The Chainlink VRF approach is actually pretty smart - I've been deep in the crypto casino space for years and trust is everything. Players are getting more sophisticated about fairness verification, especially the crypto-native crowd. That said, from a practical standpoint, you're gonna face some challenges. Gas costs for on-chain randomness can get brutal during network congestion, and players expect instant results. At Coinplay - Crypto Casino, we've found that even a few seconds of delay can kill the momentum in fast games like crash or dice. The 5K traffic for PrimeDice is interesting but remember they built that userbase over years when competition was way lighter. Today's market is saturated with crypto casinos, so your differentiation needs to be crystal clear to players - not just "more fair" but tangibly better UX. Few things to consider: \- How are you handling the latency between bet placement and Chainlink response? \- What's your plan for player acquisition beyond the tech differentiator? \- Have you stress tested the oracle costs at scale? The Web3 gaming space is definitely heating up, but execution on the basics (speed, UX, retention mechanics) usually matters more than the underlying tech for most players. What's your target audience - crypto degens who care about provable fairness, or broader gambling market?
Yeah, I'm sick of clunky UX and high fees. We need crypto to be so you don't even know you're using crypto (from a UX standpoint). Zypto is probably the closest I've seen in making crypto usable and they just announced they're building a blockchain to tackle usability issues head-on. Could be a game-changer. Early days, but maybe a step forward.
Hi Sandeep, with Agglayer making cross-chain UX smoother, how do you prevent Agglayer from becoming a meta-hub that introduces centralization risk while still giving users the seamless experience you’re aiming for?
Question from X >The $POL upgrade + AggLayer vision feels like Polygon is positioning itself as the unifying fabric of Ethereum’s multi-chain future. My question to you: how do you see Polygon balancing two huge goals at once; becoming the chain of choice for retail adoption in emerging markets (where fees and UX matter most), while also scaling to meet the needs of institutional players and government-grade digital assets like Wyoming’s $FRNT? Because from where I stand, Polygon isn’t just ‘another L2’… it’s quickly becoming the backbone for both sides of Web3 adoption.
Hello r/CryptoCurrency, I’m Sandeep Nailwal, Founder of Polygon and recently became CEO of the Polygon Foundation. I’m here to talk with you directly about the next era of Polygon. Join me for an AMA this Wednesday, August 27, where I’ll be answering your questions right here in this thread. # What I’m excited to talk about **Polygon’s future** I’ve stepped into the CEO role at the Foundation to sharpen our focus on core protocol development, ecosystem growth, and user adoption. Our mission is to build the trustless internet for people to easily do whatever they want with their assets, whenever they want. I’m here to talk strategy, vision, and how we scale responsibly. **Gigagas Roadmap: 100k+ TPS** Polygon is aiming to become the leading payments and settlement layer in crypto. Gigagas is our new architecture designed to unlock massive throughput (100k+ TPS) and support consumer-grade experiences across chains. The roadmap is already underway with sub 5sec finality and 1000 tps already enabled. Ask me anything about how this works and why this scaling is critical. **RWAs, payments & real-world utility** Polygon is the rails of choice for real-world assets and onchain payments. We see projects ranging from tokenized trading cards (Courtyard) to prediction markets (Polymarket) to global stablecoin processors (Stripe). We’re doubling down on real-world use cases that actually touch users. **Agglayer: Interopability for unifying all of web3** The Agglayer vision is connecting all chains into a single, unified user experience with seamless cross-chain execution and shared liquidity. It’s how we scale horizontally without fragmentation. Curious how it works? Ask away. **Agglayer Chain Development Kit (CDK) & custom chains for a better user experience** General purpose blockspace is no longer needed, but there is significant demand for specialized chains. We currently have cdk-opgeth and cdk-erigon and are actively building more solutions to support different use-cases (DeFi, gaming, identity, etc), all to ensure web3 feels like a single seamless experience. More chains shouldn’t mean more fragmentation. With Agglayer CDK, more chains means we deliver a better UX with apps that are built for what you actually want to do onchain. **POL staking & ecosystem airdrops** Staking POL is the gateway to the future of Polygon: * Secure the network * Power Agglayer * Qualify for future ecosystem rewards & airdrops Early stakers are already seeing upside via incubated chain airdrops like Katana, Miden, and PrivadoID/Billions, with more coming. # How to participate: 1. Ask your questions below – anything goes: Agglayer, Gigagas, staking, strategy, tech stack, adoption. 2. I’ll be live and answering questions beginning on Wednesday, August 27. Excited to hear from you all and share more about how Polygon is scaling web3 to meet the real-world moment. — Sandeep
It’s getting better. I think there’s a future with SOL and ETH. L2s are getting better and better UX and that’s due to Solana pushing the envelope. There’s a future where SOL and L2s compete for apps but everything feels the same and just works and users don’t need to know or care which chain they are using.
True, UX is rough but it’s worse when the token itself is centralized like XRP. I’d lean IOTA, easier adoption ahead since it’s actually built for open infrastructure.
>There’s a flipside nobody talks about: the UX is stuck in beta. 100% true. There was an excellent payment protocol for Bitcoin early on, but since on chain payments were outed in favor of lightning its useless now. Ethereum on the other side, fragmented it's ecosystem and forgot that you need chain information in the payment request. So user has to switch chains manually risking mistake and loss of funds It's fucking ridiculous
Somehow Reddit is more concerned to blocking better UX, instead of blocking bots and scammers
tldr; Crypto payments face significant challenges despite growing adoption and regulatory clarity. While stablecoins and blockchain technology promise faster, cheaper transactions, the user experience (UX) remains cumbersome, with high fees, complex wallet setups, and risks like losing funds due to network errors. Institutional adoption and regulatory compliance are improving, but crypto payments struggle to compete with traditional banking for small transactions. Simplifying UX and reducing costs are key to achieving mass adoption and fulfilling crypto's potential as a global payment system. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.
sure that will be useful for new traders, but then should consider that niche, because for the pros any "learning" feature will be not just useless but maybe a blocker in the UX.
ETH = security + decentralization + largest ecosystem (DeFi, NFTs, L2s). Also the staking yield + ETF adds institutional demand. SOL = speed + UX + fast-growing ecosystem (perps, memecoins, gaming). But also centralization concerns and network outages in the past. If I had to pick just one as a beginner, ETH feels like the safer bet. That said, I like SOL as a “high beta” play — it tends to outperform ETH in bull cycles, but underperform in bear cycles. Anyone else here think SOL could eventually become the “retail chain” vs ETH as the “institutional chain”?
I made the mistake of focusing too much on your 1st point (where the infrastructure is hosted) and glossed over your later points (e.g. full application stack is not on-chain for most other blockchains). Personally, I don't really care about your 1st point that much, but your later points are quite good and a concern for other blockchains. For other blockchains, most of the dApp is hosted off-chain, and only the state change for smart contract is hosted on-chain (e.g. changes in account balances). Client-side wallet UX hasn't gotten advanced enough to decipher a complex batch transaction for non-technical users. That is a concern for trustlessness. Much of the reason consumers trust dApps is almost entirely reputation-based. For example, we trust OpenSea or Uniswap because they have gained sufficient reputation and known teams, and because there are enough users to raise alarms if something goes wrong. But if a dApp developer ever decides to go rogue and be malicious for a one-time whale attack, this would be really hard to prevent on other blockchains if the whale consumer is on auto-pilot signing transactions generated from the dApp without carefully examining them. I think ICP is the best solution for when the application full stack needs to be run entirely on-chain. On the other hand, would this make things more secure for non-devs? They don't have control over the application code. Non-dev end users are still trusting that the dev using ICP is running the correct code and making safe updates.
For blue wallet: A tale as old as open source, free, super powerful and versatile, UI/UX straight from bureaucracy city of the 90s, most secure, free, so no complaints! Godspeed to the developers!
Well, as I said - RGB has it's uses, but I asked a LLM what it thought of both BitVMX/zK SNARKS/RISC-V/Cardano Vs RGB: Take from it what you will: That's an excellent breakdown of the RGB approach, and it's clear you've done your research. However, while RGB is a clever solution for adding functionality to Bitcoin, the Cardano/BitVMX model with zk-SNARKs and RISC-V represents a fundamentally superior and more secure paradigm for general-purpose smart contracts. The core difference lies in the trade-offs of client-side validation vs. on-chain verification. RGB's model is a workaround necessitated by Bitcoin's intentional limitations, whereas Cardano's approach is a direct solution designed for a trustless, global smart contract platform. Here's a direct counter-argument to each of your points: 1. On-Chain Verification is a Superior Security Model You're right that RGB uses client-side validation, which allows for complex logic without a Bitcoin soft fork. However, this is also its biggest weakness. In this model, only the transaction participants and the "state owners" have the full history needed to validate a transaction. This creates a significant information asymmetry and a trust assumption. Fraud Potential: A user must be vigilant and online to validate the entire history of an asset, which opens the door for potential fraud or disputes if data is lost or a state transition is malformed. The Oracle Problem: For a DeFi app like a DEX, every user would need to trust that every other user is performing their own validation correctly. This is not a trustless system in the same way as on-chain verification, where the entire network of nodes validates every state transition. Cardano's Solution: Cardano's eUTXO model, combined with BitVMX, zk-SNARKs, and RISC-V, solves this problem. It allows for off-chain computation and scaling, but with the critical ability to optimistically verify the results on-chain. If a dispute arises, a fraud proof (a zero-knowledge proof) can be submitted and verified on the blockchain, definitively resolving the issue in a trustless manner. This combines the scalability of off-chain execution with the unassailable security of on-chain finality. 2. General-Purpose vs. Specific-Purpose DeFi While projects like KaleidoSwap are building on RGB, they are operating within the constraints of a client-side validated model. This limits the complexity and composability of the DeFi ecosystem. Complexity: Building a complex DEX with liquidations, lending, and sophisticated vaults is far more challenging on a system where state is not globally verifiable. You can't easily create a dApp that needs to read the state of another dApp in a trustless way. Cardano's Solution: Cardano's on-chain Plutus smart contracts and the upcoming BitVMX integration provide a robust, composable, and globally verifiable environment for DeFi. Every dApp's state is publicly available and secured by the mainnet, allowing for seamless and trustless interaction between different protocols. 3. Scaling is Not Unbounded, and Lightning is Not a Smart Contract Platform The claim of "massive unbounded scaling" with Lightning is misleading. The Lightning Network is designed primarily for peer-to-peer payments, not for the complex, stateful logic of smart contracts. While it can be used for simple transfers, it struggles with the multi-party, multi-step transactions required for DeFi. State Channels: A Lightning channel is a state channel between two parties. Adding more parties and complex logic is incredibly difficult and unwieldy, limiting its use for decentralized finance. Cardano's Solution: Cardano's scaling approach is holistic. It includes the Hydra L2 protocol, a more advanced form of state channel designed for multi-party dApps, as well as the upcoming BitVMX integration which uses zk-SNARKs to offload computation. This multi-pronged approach is designed from the ground up to handle both simple payments and complex, stateful smart contracts, all while retaining the security of the L1. 4. Latency and UX are Fundamentally Better on a General-Purpose L1 Off-chain handling via Lightning may seem fast, but it's not a general solution. For most smart contract interactions, users still need to go back to the L1 for settlement, which is slow and expensive. User Experience: For a user to interact with a smart contract on RGB, they need to manage their own off-chain data and ensure they are always online to participate in validation. This is a cumbersome user experience compared to a blockchain where the state is always available and verifiable by anyone. Cardano's Solution: Cardano's Plutus scripts, combined with L2 solutions like Hydra, allow for a much better user experience. Transactions can be batched and executed off-chain with minimal latency, while the on-chain settlement is fast and cheap compared to Bitcoin. The state is handled by the network, not the individual, which simplifies the process for the user. 5. zk-SNARKs for On-Chain Verification, not Client-Side Privacy The use of zk STARKs in RGB is primarily for privacy and scaling via hiding data. However, the true power of zero-knowledge proofs is in creating trustless, verifiable computation. The Critical Difference: Cardano's approach with BitVMX will use zk-SNARKs to prove the correctness of off-chain computations. This means a node can verify in a fraction of a second that a complex program was executed correctly, without needing to re-run the entire computation. This is a far more robust and secure use of the technology. RISC-V and BitVMX: The combination of a standardized instruction set (RISC-V) with a verifiable computation protocol (BitVMX) creates a universal "verifiable computing" layer. This allows any program to be compiled to RISC-V and its execution proven on-chain with a zk-SNARK, a feature that goes far beyond what is possible with RGB's current implementation. 6. Bitcoin's Limitations Are a Reality, Not a Distraction The talk about opcodes and forks is not a distraction—it's the fundamental reason why RGB and other complex workarounds are necessary. Bitcoin's intentionally limited scripting language prevents complex smart contracts from being run natively and securely on the mainnet. Turing Completeness: Cardano's Plutus is a Turing-complete language, meaning it can express any computable function. This allows for a much wider range of applications and more sophisticated logic than Bitcoin's non-Turing-complete scripting language. The Right Tool for the Job: While Bitcoin is a powerful and secure digital asset, its architecture is not designed for the complex, stateful applications of modern decentralized finance. Cardano, with its eUTXO model and a dedicated smart contract platform, is a purpose-built solution that provides a superior environment for advanced functionality. In summary, while RGB is an innovative protocol, it is ultimately a pragmatic solution to the limitations of its host chain. Cardano's approach, leveraging BitVMX, zk-SNARKs, and RISC-V, is a more foundational solution that provides a secure, trustless, and scalable environment for smart contracts by combining the best of off-chain computation with the unparalleled security of on-chain verification.
I don't agree with that Cardano/BitVMX perspective. RGB offers strong DeFi potential on Bitcoin without those specific trade-offs: - RGB supports complex smart contracts through client-side validation, AluVM for flexible logic, Contractum for development, and single-use seals for secure state. All native to Bitcoin, no soft forks required. - For DEX pools and liquidity: projects like KaleidoSwap (alpha on Lightning) and UTXOSwap (mainnet via RGB++) are developing AMMs, swaps, and vaults. - It integrates directly with Bitcoin L1, Lightning for faster transactions, and prime for massive unbounded scaling, fully within the Bitcoin ecosystem, and completely decentralized. - On latency and UX, off-chain handling via Lightning minimizes issues for routine operations, with L1 only for final settlements; this maintains better alignment with Bitcoin's principles compared to on-chain alternatives. - Overall, with v0.12 now production-ready and features like zk STARKs for privacy and scaling, RGB strengthens Bitcoin's case against needing alts for advanced functionality.
It's a good solution for transfers, NFTs and Stables, not really for complex smart contracts, all the contract logic is on the RGB client part, no good for dex pools/ liquidity protocols, if you want full DeFi functionality on top of Bitcoin without suffering RGB’s latency and UX trade-offs, then Cardano's extensible UTXO and BitVMX with RISC-V as the execution layer is the better architecture. Cardano handles state directly on-chain. BitVMX fraud proofs only trigger when there’s a dispute, so in normal operation, latency is just Cardano’s block time.
Ever use any of these interchain operability on a daily basis? It's absolutely miserable to use, keep track of, and make sure everything is in the right place. If a normal person thinks Crypto is miserable to use as UX, a crypto person is going to think Cosmos and interchain stuff is miserable. Go ahead, try it out, try to swap a few things between different weird cosmos bridges and see if you can get the right results without googling at least a few times.
Can’t you just offer the option to delay the conversion by a day? That would match your existing UX with the free 24-hour transfers and allow you to queue the buy with your next batch window (or however you handle DCAs currently that allows you to offer them free). The point is having a “click-button” experience rather than trying to synchronize a direct deposit in cash and a separate DCA schedule.
Ledger’s had more resources to invest in UX, so the app feels slicker. Trezor puts more focus on transparency and security than flashy UI
I use Strike to buy BTC because they have decent rates, great UI and UX, and I like Jack Mallers. I use Amethyst for Nostr. I'm tired of algorithms throwing aome kind of hatred or rage bait in my face for engagement. Since Nostr is decentralized, there are no ads, no algorithm, and people tend to be pretty real. It takes a minute to find your crowd, but now enjoy my Nostr time much more than any other social network.
>so you’re basically selling crypto at POS That's how paying with anything works. When you buy something with cash you're just selling the cash. >Still counts for UX, but it’s not on-chain commerce If they're swapping the asset you pay with, then there would have to be onchain commerce. It's just happening after when it would happen if it were done directly onchain. Either they're holding what you pay with or they're swapping it. They might batch the transactions, but onchain commerce will still happen at some point and in some capacity.
It’s getting there, but most of those are fiat-settled at the merchant via processors (Flexa/BitPay), so you’re basically selling crypto at POS. Still counts for UX, but it’s not on-chain commerce
i think the main reason why Bitcoin memecoins have not gained traction is because the barrier to entry to them is still very high and the UX is too complicated improvements in the space that make it much easier to buy them would help accelerate their adoption these improvements could be in form of key CEX listings, widely accepted AMMs, or some other innovation that make it stupid easy to buy them by clicking a few buttons
Bit of an older thread but still relevant, this convo comes up every cycle. Everyone’s been chasing that dream stack: security, UX, liquidity, low fees, compliance. But maybe the answer isn’t cramming it all into one protocol, maybe it’s better coordination between the ones we already have. Some of the newer infra like Biconomy lets you string cross-chain actions together like it’s one smooth move. No more bouncing through five apps and signing a dozen txs. That kind of orchestration might be what finally tips the scale against TradFi. Complexity’s the killer. Hide that, and things get interesting.
Hey, totally get where you’re coming from. I’m 30, freelancing in UX design and get paid in USD too—huge advantage when your local currency lags. I used to park most of my savings in gold, but over the last year I’ve been DCAing into BTC and sending it straight to my wallet via MoonPay (super simple). I’ve already got my basics covered—place, wheels, the works—so I’m rotating about half my nest egg into Bitcoin and the other half into land here in Indonesia. If all goes well, I’m aiming to hang up my laptop around 40. HODL strong! 🚀
The main reason Tron sticks around is that it’s still one of the cheapest and fastest options for stablecoin transfers, especially for USDT. Yeah, renting energy can be annoying for one-off users, but for anyone staking tron, they generate their own energy - so regular users basically avoid those fees. It’s not the prettiest UX, but for people transacting often or in larger volumes, it adds up to major savings
In recent years, most of consumer habits have moved towards buying through distribution platforms - in the case Steam for games. If a publisher were to not launch on Steam because they have content that will be taken down, and they have to launch on their own site, is that really viable? Consumer UX would be poorer, not to mention traffic also decreases.
I get where you’re coming from, CEXs still win for convenience and fiat access, no doubt. But the thing that’s kept me using DEXs more lately is how much better some of the tools have gotten. Like with Jumper Exchange, bridging and swapping between chains is a lot smoother now, and I don’t have to deal with five tabs just to get a token on the right chain. Still not perfect, but it’s closing the gap for folks who care about UX and decentralization.
>I have no access to FedNow or RTP that's for financial institutions. Just saying, the notion that traditional finance only operates 9-5 is a myth. >That's their decision. But the transaction would go through quickly. Then how does Bitcoin help your situation? >Your standard small business is paying around 3% and .25c. Citation needed. >You are being purposely obtuse. Reread my comment again. Ok. You said: "I've shown you that customers are willing to pay for quicker finality. It shows there is demand for it. I honestly don't understand how you can read that and understand it and then ask me 'why is finality so important?' It's clearly important to some people for some types of transactions." You haven't shown that "customers are willing to pay for quicker finality." All you've shown is that Venmo offers it as an option. That is NOT the same thing. >I did not say this. I never said this. You're right, you didn't. What you actually said is: "I've shown you that customers are willing to pay for quicker finality." Except that you didn't. You misunderstood what you "showed." >This is a great example of how you are completely misconstruing what I'm saying. No, you're misremembering what you've said and what you think you've "proven." >I did. I gave you multiple examples. Yes, NOW you have. And we're still working on whether they're valid examples or not, because you haven't shown how Bitcoin would have helped you in either example. >And that's my point. If I need to pay someone RIGHT NOW and my business depends on it and it's past banking hours and over the low Zelle limits I'm shit out of luck. And like I said: "even YOU must see how much of an edge case that is." >You are severely confused. No, you are. >I've given you examples of why you don't understand our current financial system Which led to me proving how YOU are the one who didn't understand how the current financial system actually worked. >why you don't understand bitcoin No, all you did was spout jargon about decentralization, P2P, and finality. At no point did you demonstrate any awareness of how Bitcoin actually works on a technical or economic level. You even forgot the fact that Bitcoin isn't truly P2P because it relies on miners as intermediaries. >why you don't understand why a person/business would like instant payment vs waiting I understand why someone would WANT that. I'm just asking you to quantify what the actual benefit is, other than using increasingly unlikely edge cases. >, UX vs backend, etc. You're the one who thinks the financial system shuts down at 5pm. >You have consistently misconstrued what I said. No, I haven't. >If you don't think bitcoin will be useful for ANY type of payments in the future, fine. Believe what you want. Not what I said. What I said is that Bitcoin hasn't proven to be MORE useful than the current traditional financial system in any niche.
> I'm going to assume you're not in the US because you said it's Friday over there, but FedNow and RTP operate 24/7/365 and are instantaneous. I have no access to FedNow or RTP that's for financial institutions. > Also, you haven't answered how they would accept your Bitcoin payment, considering they won't be able to get the money into their accounts until Monday anyway because they still have to exchange the Bitcoin for money and then transfer the money into their account. That's their decision. But the transaction would go through quickly. > So you're not really saving by using something like BitPay after all. Maybe you just need to find a better card processor to work with. Your standard small business is paying around 3% and .25c. > Why is this so hard to understand? You are being purposely obtuse. Reread my comment again. > No, you are, by claiming that it MUST be useful just because you can pay for it. I did not say this. I never said this. This is a great example of how you are completely misconstruing what I'm saying. I never made a claim that just because something is for sale that it is useful--solely because it is for sale and for that reason alone. And to be clear, I did say that instant payments ARE useful to SOME people for SOME transactions. > but provide no rationale and no examples of how it would be more than a marginal improvement over what we already have. I did. I gave you multiple examples. > then you're acting as if a weekend delay is a make-or-break moment for your business. It can be. And that's my point. If I need to pay someone RIGHT NOW and my business depends on it and it's past banking hours and over the low Zelle limits I'm shit out of luck. > And don't think I haven't noticed that you abandoned everything else you were talking about before with regards to "backends vs UX" and whether Bitcoin is a currency or money or whatever. I just assume you realize you were less informed than I was and stopped trying. You are severely confused. I've given you examples of why you don't understand our current financial system, why you don't understand bitcoin, why you don't understand why a person/business would like instant payment vs waiting, UX vs backend, etc. You have consistently misconstrued what I said. If you don't think bitcoin will be useful for ANY type of payments in the future, fine. Believe what you want.
>Shipping is M-Sa, and shipping LTL and FTL, can be done any day of the week. So yes, it could be shipped Friday in this scenario. I'm going to assume you're not in the US because you said it's Friday over there, but [FedNow](https://www.frbservices.org/financial-services/fednow/organizations) and [RTP](https://www.theclearinghouse.org/payment-systems/rtp/institution) operate 24/7/365 and are instantaneous. Also, you haven't answered how they would accept your Bitcoin payment, considering they won't be able to get the money into their accounts until Monday anyway because they still have to exchange the Bitcoin for money and then transfer the money into their account. >Great! This proves my point well. Well, not really, because I dug into it a bit more: * [Discover](https://merchantcostconsulting.com/lower-credit-card-processing-fees/discover-interchange-rates/) charges between 1% and 2.5%, plus $0.05 to $0.10 per transaction * [Visa](https://merchantcostconsulting.com/lower-credit-card-processing-fees/visa-interchange-rates/) charges between 1.3% and 2.10% plus $0.10 per transaction And yes, I know there are additional fees on top of the interchange fees. But [third party processors](https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/small-business/credit-card-processing-fees) like Shopify, Stripe, etc., charge 2.5% to 3.5% (vs 2% for BitPay) and $0.05 to $0.10 per transaction (vs $0.25 for BitPay), but Helcim only charges interchange + 0.5%. So you're not really saving by using something like BitPay after all. (I'm assuming the percentages are higher for Shopify, Stripe, etc., because they rely more on smaller value but higher volume merchants than someone whose average transaction is $1,200.) >Come on, you are being ridiculous. No, I'm not. Just because a thing is for sale doesn't automatically make it useful. All it means is that the seller thinks they can convince their customers it's useful. Why is this so hard to understand? >To claim that instant payment vs. 1-3 days waiting is not useful to some people is crazy. You are purposely being obtuse here. No, you are, by claiming that it MUST be useful just because you can pay for it. This is what I mean by "You are not rational." You are relying on "Trust me, bro" vibes to justify your claim that "Oh, it must be useful because it's for sale." Demonstrate the actual utility. >It's quite a weird hill to die on, but to be honest its pretty much par for the course. This isn't a hill to die on. This is yet another thing you are brushing under a rug because you can't answer. I appreciate your earlier examples, but what you are doing right now with THIS particular topic is your MO the whole thread: loudly proclaim the value of THIS THING Bitcoin does, but provide no rationale and no examples of how it would be more than a marginal improvement over what we already have. It took this long just to extract a couple of examples from you, and even then you're acting as if a weekend delay is a make-or-break moment for your business. I get that it CAN be, but even YOU must see how much of an edge case that is. And don't think I haven't noticed that you abandoned everything else you were talking about before with regards to "backends vs UX" and the nature of currency vs money and whatnot.
> Example 1: I own a business, my average credit card transaction from customers is $1200. I pay $36 per transaction. If my customers paid in bitcoin I'd save 10s of thousands of dollars a year in fees. Them paying in Bitcoin is a benefit to you, not to them. >Example 2: I own a business, my vendor is waiting for payment to release shipment of a critical item I need costing $8k. It's now Friday 3pm and my bank's wire desk is closed. I can't send the money until Monday. I could send bitcoin and have it there in minutes. And? Would they release it instantly? How does paying on a Friday afternoon instead of a Monday morning get it to you any faster? >I could make infinite of these. Challenge accepted. Go wild. >And just to be crystal clear, bitcoin is not just an option for payments, it's much more than that. But we seem to only be focused on payments. I'm not only focused on payments. I'm looking for any use case. But the financial system is fundamentally about processing transactions and valuing goods and services, so it's understandably a major factor. >Every word I chose is very specific and a fundamental practical utility to bitcoin. None of which you've explained or provided an example for. >It absolutely is an example of importance. Speed to finality is so important people are willing to pay a % of their money for speed. Obviously they have the option to do this. No it's not. It's **implied** to be important, but you have no evidence of it actually being important. How many people actually use it? I can tell you my cousin used it when I was supporting him, until I told him the regular option is almost always overnight. >I'm not sure why you are so confused by finality being useful in certain cases. I'm not confused. I'm just not doing your work for you to prove that finality is useful. >I've shown you that customers are willing to pay for quicker finality. It shows there is demand for it. I honestly don't understand how you can read that and understand it and then ask me "why is finality so important?" It's clearly important to some people for some types of transactions. "Willingness to pay" is not evidence of "usefulness" in a world where Labubus go for thousands of dollars. >The reason Zelle limits are low are because the "instant" transaction you see on your UX is not actually happening in real time. It's not final. Zelle is taking a risk and therefor limits you on how much you can send. Yes, I know. It doesn't matter to my friend who saw the money in his bank account. >It's not actually there. It's an IOU until it's actually finished in a few days. And that doesn't matter for the end user. >What other P2P systems are you talking about? I have no idea what you are claiming here. I'm saying that you cited "speed" as a beneficial property of P2P. I'm pointing out that speed is only a beneficial property of **cash** specifically, not P2P systems in general, including Bitcoin. >You are just not reading my comments. >I'm not refusing to admit that some people want a bitcoin standard. >I was very specific with that I said I'll just repeat it. >-I don't care what "cryptobros" want. You would need to first show me WHY I should care about what "cryptobros" want. >-I couldn't care less what "cryptobros" want. Just like I don't care what some random person on the sidewalk next to me wants. And I already said: You're the one who came prancing into this thread clucking about "Hurr durr wanting Bitcoin to be a reserve asset doesn't mean they want a Bitcoin standard." If anything, you're the one who needs to convince me.
> You've described the benefits of cash over credit at a restaurant, and implied that instantaneous withdrawal is a desirable (but not necessarily useful) feature for Venmo's customers, but not once have you provided an example where Bitcoin has a useful niche. Example 1: I own a business, my average credit card transaction from customers is $1200. I pay $36 per transaction. If my customers paid in bitcoin I'd save 10s of thousands of dollars a year in fees. Example 2: I own a business, my vendor is waiting for payment to release shipment of a critical item I need costing $8k. It's now Friday 3pm and my bank's wire desk is closed. I can't send the money until Monday. I could send bitcoin and have it there in minutes. I could make infinite of these. And just to be crystal clear, bitcoin is not just an option for payments, it's much more than that. But we seem to only be focused on payments. > That's just a bunch of buzzwords that don't translate to actual practical utility. Every word I chose is very specific and a fundamental practical utility to bitcoin. > That's not an example of importance. That's an example of optionality. It absolutely is an example of importance. Speed to finality is so important people are willing to pay a % of their money for speed. Obviously they have the option to do this. > It's also not an example of Bitcoin's finality being useful I'm not sure why you are so confused by finality being useful in certain cases. I've shown you that customers are willing to pay for quicker finality. It shows there is demand for it. I honestly don't understand how you can read that and understand it and then ask me "why is finality so important?" It's clearly important to some people for some types of transactions. > I can send a Zelle at 2am and my friend will see it represented in their account immediately. The reason Zelle limits are low are because the "instant" transaction you see on your UX is not actually happening in real time. It's not final. Zelle is taking a risk and therefor limits you on how much you can send. It's not actually there. It's an IOU until it's actually finished in a few days. > Speed is a property of cash and other portable physical assets because they are portable and physical, not because they are "P2P." Speed is not necessarily a property of P2P systems. It's highly conditional. What other P2P systems are you talking about? I have no idea what you are claiming here. > You're just digging your heels in and refusing to admin that cryptobros want a Bitcoin standard (which starts with Bitcoin being adopted as a reserve asset) for some inexplicable reason. You are just not reading my comments. I'm not refusing to admit that some people want a bitcoin standard. I was very specific with that I said I'll just repeat it. -I don't care what "cryptobros" want. You would need to first show me WHY I should care about what "cryptobros" want. -I couldn't care less what "cryptobros" want. Just like I don't care what some random person on the sidewalk next to me wants.
>This is the same issue you had with Zelle. >You equate UX with backend. No, you equate backend with the whole system. I understand how the backend works for all of these systems. But people don't interact with the backend. >See, you are doing it again. No, I'm not doing it again. You're again equating backend with the whole system. >It's not a replacement for cash. You still aren't getting it. >Physical cash is the base layer for fiat currency. >A bitcoin transaction is the base layer for the bitcoin network. >That's why they are equivalent. Physical cash is not the base layer for fiat currency. The dollar is, no matter what form it takes. Physical cash is just a representation of the dollar for physical transactions, but banks don't literally ship pallets of cash to each other to settle transactions. That is why they are NOT equivalent. >You are wrong and it's easily provable. Many companies accept bitcoin as payment. You can also go to other countries and pay using bitcoin. >You keep repeating this lie, but it's verifiably wrong. Like I said, if you want to claim that Bitcoin is a currency with a very limited scope in terms of what can be purchased directly with it, I'm not going to object to that. >But you HAVE been objecting to this! Look at the quote above, you have literally been rejecting this idea for multiple comments now. No, I've been rejecting the notion that Bitcoin is money, not currency. Do you understand the difference? Only in my last comment did I touch on the idea of Bitcoin as currency, which is when I specified its limited validity as a currency. >Sure, if I had Laotian Kip on me I couldn't use that to buy anything. Literally nothing. In fact, I couldn't even exchange it in my city as no exchange would take it. But that doesn't mean Laotian Kip isn't a currency. Actually that's exactly what it means. Unless the merchants where you are accept an asset as currency and denominate prices for their goods/services in that asset, it's not a currency where you are. That doesn't mean it isn't a currency in Laos, but it's not a currency in most countries. >How would you not know? You could just look at a chart to see it's relation to whatever fiat currency you want. The fact that you need to look it up at all is my point. Those charts only represent what the last buyer was willing to pay, but there's no guarantee the next buyer will pay the same amount. Its value is not "real" until someone else as paid you real money for it, at which point you have gained "real value" and your counterparty has lost "real value" (in the form of real money, not Bitcoin). >If I sent you 20,000 Colombian Pesos would you know how much you can buy with it off the top of your head? Colombian Pesos aren't a currency here. It's a currency in Colombia and any other countries that accept it. >What if I gave you a pebble of gold? Not a currency here either. I know there are some jurisdictions where it's still accepted. >So there is no real value unless you know the conversion off the top of your head? There is no **real**ized value until you've exchanged it for real money first or have established an agreed-upon price in a real money with your counterparty and completed the transaction. If you're just holding it with no counterparty, there is no way you can have any "**real**ized" value because you have no counterparty. >I'm pretty confused at the point you are making here. Yes, simple concepts like "prices" must be very confusing. >Many reasons, honestly too many to list. >P2P can be cheaper, faster than current financial processing. (NOTE: I said CAN be. Not ALWAYS IS) >P2P can be run 24/7/365 So does the traditional financial system. I can send a Zelle at 2am and my friend will see it represented in their account immediately. And yes, in this case the backend DOES run 24/7/365, not just the UX. It's not like American banks shut down their data centers in Nebraska at 5pm EST. >Think of using a credit card to buy a $200 dinner. You are borrowing money from a credit card company with a very high APR, that credit card company is then sending an IOU to the restaurant's credit card processing company and then in 1-3 business days the restaurant will get that money. The credit card company will then give the user 30 days free interest then start charging interest. The restaurant pays $6.25 for that service. There are about 3 different 3rd parties involved each getting a cut of transaction with YOU as the consumer are paying for whether you see it directly or not. >Clearly P2P would be faster and cheaper. And you don't even need to go to bitcoin for this, just paying physical cash for dinner would be faster (instant) and cheaper (free). Speed is a property of cash and other portable physical assets because they are portable and physical, not because they are "P2P." Speed is not necessarily a property of P2P. Also, we're talking about Bitcoin, so use Bitcoin examples. >I never said 1 hour finality is important. I'm not disagreeing with that, but I never made that claim. You specifically called out "finality" and "P2P" as the properties Bitcoin shares with cash that makes it a cash equivalent: "And you are absolutely right I'm harping on decentralized and finality as those are some of the KEY components of what makes a bitcoin transaction different." >Finality time CAN be important depending on the transaction. 1 hour is certainly better than 1-3 business days. >For example (and I'll do one without even using bitcoin) -if you want to withdraw your Venmo balance to your bank account it takes 1-3 business days, or you can pay a % for "instant" withdrawals. Clearly there is interest in users who don't want to wait. That's not an example of importance. That's an example of speed being an option. It's also not an example of Bitcoin's finality being useful. You keep bringing up examples of how other financial products are useful, but not one example of how Bitcoin would be useful. >You appear to keep being confused about the gold standard vs. reserve assets. I am not. You're just digging your heels in and refusing to believe that cryptobros want a Bitcoin standard, which starts with Bitcoin being adopted as a reserve asset. >I do too. Clearly not. >And I think a decentralized, global, digital P2P monetary network that runs 24/7/365 is a benefit to society. That's just a bunch of buzzwords that don't translate to actual practical utility.
> A Bitcoin transaction, from a practical end user's perspective, has more in common with a credit or debit card transaction. This is the same issue you had with Zelle. You equate UX with backend. > If a normal bank will let me use "pending" funds as if they were normal funds, then as far as I'm concerned, the transaction is completed. See, you are doing it again. > I AM denying is that it is a replacement for cash, because it simply isn't used that way. It's not a replacement for cash. You still aren't getting it. Physical cash is the base layer for fiat currency. A bitcoin transaction is the base layer for the bitcoin network. That's why they are equivalent. > Not without exchanging it for real money. You are wrong and it's easily provable. Many companies accept bitcoin as payment. You can also go to other countries and pay using bitcoin. You keep repeating this lie, but it's verifiably wrong. > If you want to claim that Bitcoin is a currency with a very limited scope in terms of what can be purchased directly with it, I'm not going to object to that. But you HAVE been objecting to this! Look at the quote above, you have literally been rejecting this idea for multiple comments now. You literally reject this idea over and over in this comment. > But just understand that there are plenty of examples of "currencies" that share that quality that most people would not regard as real currencies, either. Sure, if I had Laotian Kip on me I couldn't use that to buy anything. Literally nothing. In fact, I couldn't even exchange it in my city as no exchange would take it. But that doesn't mean Laotian Kip isn't a currency. > If you sent me 25,000 sats right now, I'd have no idea what that can actually buy or how much change I'd get in return. That's not "real" value. How would you not know? You could just look at a chart to see it's relation to whatever fiat currency you want. If I sent you 20,000 Colombian Pesos would you know how much you can buy with it off the top of your head? What if I gave you a pebble of gold? So there is no real value unless you know the conversion off the top of your head? I'm pretty confused at the point you are making here. > Why is P2P important? And I don't mean from a pseudophilosophical/political activist standpoint. I mean in real terms, for practical uses, why is it important for digital payments to have a P2P option instead of going through a normal processing network? Many reasons, honestly too many to list. P2P can be cheaper, faster than current financial processing. (NOTE: I said CAN be. Not ALWAYS IS) P2P can be run 24/7/365 P2P is useful in many situations, not every situation. Think of using a credit card to buy a $200 dinner. You are borrowing money from a credit card company with a very high APR, that credit card company is then sending an IOU to the restaurant's credit card processing company and then in 1-3 business days the restaurant will get that money. The credit card company will then give the user 30 days free interest then start charging interest. The restaurant pays $6.25 for that service. There are about 3 different 3rd parties involved each getting a cut of transaction with YOU as the consumer are paying for whether you see it directly or not. Clearly P2P would be faster and cheaper. And you don't even need to go to bitcoin for this, just paying physical cash for dinner would be faster (instant) and cheaper (free). That's just 1 example. And just to be ultra clear, **I'm not saying P2P is the best way to transact for every transacting scenario.** > Why is ~1 hour finality important? I never said 1 hour finality is important. I'm not disagreeing with that, but I never made that claim. Finality time CAN be important depending on the transaction. 1 hour is certainly better than 1-3 business days. For example (and I'll do one without even using bitcoin) -if you want to withdraw your Venmo balance to your bank account it takes 1-3 business days, or you can pay a % for "instant" withdrawals. Clearly there is interest in users who don't want to wait. (and just like Zelle, it's not actually instant in the backend, just for the UX, with low limits.) > I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You're the one who came prancing into this thread clucking about "Hurr durr wanting Bitcoin to be a reserve asset doesn't mean they want a Bitcoin standard." If anything, you're the one who needs to convince me. You appear to keep being confused about the gold standard vs. reserve assets. Reserve assets are assets held by central banks used to manage a country's balance, influence exchange rates, and provide overall financial stability. For instance, the US holding gold right now is a reserve asset. The gold standard is when a country's currency is directly related to gold and the country will exchange it's currency for a specific fixed amount of gold. > I care about what matters to real people. I do too. And I think a decentralized, global, digital P2P monetary network that runs 24/7/365 is a benefit to society.
>You are very confused and wrong. I'm the very complete opposite. You need to step out of this sub and touch grass. >A physical cash transaction is a P2P transaction that ends in finality. >A bitcoin transaction is a P2P transaction that ends in finality. Those are literally the only qualities Bitcoin shares with cash, and you've convinced yourself that those are the most important qualities when it comes to determining Bitcoin's equivalency to other transaction types. Sorry, but no. Bitcoin's other qualities make it far more comparable to credit and debit networks. The need for connectivity, the traceable record of the transaction, the ability to transfer value long distance, the need for a transaction fee paid to a third party, the ability to integrate with computer applications, the ability to account for sub-cent values (technically possible), etc. I am not denying that Bitcoin is a **brand new innovation** that is different from everything else that came before. It has cash-like qualities, it has debit card-like qualities, and it has qualities that have never been seen before. But what I AM denying is that it is a replacement for cash, because it simply isn't used that way. It was intended to be, but Satoshi was a WAY better computer scientist than he was an economist or monetary theorist. A Bitcoin transaction, from a practical end user's perspective, has more in common with a credit or debit card transaction. And Bitcoin itself is more of an investment asset than a currency. >There is literally no other P2P fiat transaction. Not credit cards, checks, wires, apps, etc. Those all require 3rd parties to facilitate the transaction for you. Bitcoin also requires third parties to facilitate the transaction (the miners), so it's not even true peer-to-peer. Never mind the fact that P2P is not important at all when comparing transaction methods. >This is actually a great example of why it's so hard you to understand these concepts. You don't know how our current financial system works including these financial products in which you are the customer. >The Zelle UX tricks you into thinking the transaction is instant, when in reality it takes days to settle on the backend. That's why Zelle has such low daily/monthly limits. No, I know how it works. You're just trying to convince me that it's important. That's what you don't seem to understand. You're utterly blinded by the tech wizardry that you are ignoring the actual practical impacts. It doesn't matter that the banks on the back end have to move *their* numbers around for another day or so, and it doesn't matter that it's not technically peer-to-peer (especially since Bitcoin isn't P2P, either). If a friend of mine in New York sends me $100 via Zelle that I can use to pay for a flat tire fix, then it's fast enough for me. If a normal bank will let me use "pending" funds as if they were normal funds, then as far as I'm concerned, the transaction is completed. And, as I've already mentioned, you keep omitting the time it takes to exchange Bitcoin for real money in your statements about finality. A Bitcoin transaction's "finality" is isolated to the Bitcoin Network, but it is not actually finalized (realized) until it's exchanged for real money. >This is false. Bitcoin can be used and accepted as a currency. Not without exchanging it for real money. I'm pretty sure that none of the few **legitimate** merchants that accept Bitcoin actually hold it. They convert it as instantly to real money as soon as they get it. That doesn't make Bitcoin a currency. If you want to claim that Bitcoin is a currency with a very limited scope in terms of what can be purchased directly with it, I'm not going to object to that. But just understand that there are plenty of examples of "currencies" that share that quality that most people would not regard as real currencies, either. >This is false. I've been very clear and rational. If you don't think so, quote me and point out what is not clear. No, you THINK you're being rational because you're repeating the same jargon you've learned on this sub, but jargon isn't rationality. And you make Why is P2P important? And I don't mean from a pseudophilosophical/political activist standpoint. I mean in real terms, for practical uses, why is it important for digital payments to have a P2P option instead of going through a normal processing network? Why is ~1 hour finality important? You've simply accepted these as unambiguously important qualities, but a normal person would just look at those statements and ask "Why?" >Bitcoin doesn't need to be exchanged for the value to be realized. It absolutely does. >If someone sent you 1 bitcoin right now would you not feel that you have anything of value until you exchange it for fiat? That is what you are claiming. No, what I'm claiming is that I would not know what value I held until I sold it, because who the fuck knows when the next crash or spike will happen? That is what it means for value to be "un**real**ized." "Realized" value means there's no speculation (in all senses of that word) about the value of the asset you are holding. If you sent me 25,000 sats right now, I'd have no idea what that can actually buy or how much change I'd get in return. That's not "real" value. "Realized" value is knowing, without ambiguity, that 25 dollar bills will cover the cost for a Netflix premium subscription. The fact that you don't understand this further proves that you are the one who doesn't understand financial systems. >I don't care what "cryptobros" want. You would need to first show me WHY I should care about what "cryptobros" want. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You're the one who came prancing into this thread clucking about "Hurr durr wanting Bitcoin to be a reserve asset doesn't mean they want a Bitcoin standard." If anything, you're the one who needs to convince me. >It's meaningless to me. I don't care what's meaningless to you. I care about what matters to real people.
> Bitcoin is entirely dissimilar cash in so many other ways that it cannot be treated as equivalent to cash when there are other equivalents that it much more closely resembles. You are very confused and wrong. A physical cash transaction is a P2P transaction that ends in finality. There is literally no other P2P fiat transaction. Not credit cards, checks, wires, apps, etc. Those all require 3rd parties to facilitate the transaction for you. A bitcoin transaction is a P2P transaction that ends in finality. > Zelle is faster. This is actually a great example of why it's so hard you to understand these concepts. You don't know how our current financial system works including these financial products in which you are the customer. The Zelle UX tricks you into thinking the transaction is instant, when in reality it takes days to settle on the backend. That's why Zelle has such low daily/monthly limits. > So? You are ignoring literally every other characteristic that Bitcoin shares with digital transactions and holding up "decentralization" and "finality" on pedestals as THE distinguishing characteristics that make it equivalent to cash. That's called cherrypicking. I'm not ignoring anything. I'm specifically pointing out the most important differences. That's not cherry picking. And you are absolutely right I'm harping on decentralized and finality as those are some of the KEY components of what makes a bitcoin transaction different. > You can't send money outside of banking hours with Bitcoin because you still need to exchange Bitcoin for money, which requires banks. This is false. Bitcoin can be used and accepted as a currency. > You, on the other hand, ARE an anonymous online poster saying crazy stupid shit who hasn't really provided any valid rationale for his points. This is false. I've been very clear and rational. If you don't think so, quote me and point out what is not clear. > You ignore Bitcoin's OTHER characteristics and cherrypick only the ones you think relevant in order to argue Bitcoin is like cash What characteristic am I ignoring? > You ignore the necessity of exchanging Bitcoin for money for the value to be realized and utilized by the recipient Bitcoin doesn't need to be exchanged for the value to be realized. If someone sent you 1 bitcoin right now would you not feel that you have anything of value until you exchange it for fiat? That is what you are claiming. And that is so ridiculous it's hard to even take seriously. > You quibble about whether cryptobros want a Bitcoin standard or not knowing full well that they do I don't care what "cryptobros" want. You would need to first show me WHY I should care about what "cryptobros" want. I couldn't care less what "cryptobros" want. Just like I don't care what some random person on the sidewalk next to me wants. It's meaningless to me.
If you have an old computer or a RPi, downloading Start9 OS and setting it up is fairly easy to do. There is little that can go wrong. Umbrel has also a very friendly UI and UX, but I like Start9 more
I think you misunderstand what I said. I said you're not going to have 100s of different public blockchains that users will have to bridge across. That's a UX and security nightmare. Like you said, almost all stablecoins are on ETH, that's literally the point I was making.
Zcash having a compatibility layer that is transparent and the same as BTC is why Maya DEX and NEAR intents can easily uptake there are bridges coming online as well. I think its also fine that CEXs use it as you can audit them. All users txs should be private though which is why Zashi is great. Zcash is private by default with Zashi it always forces users to shield and the UX is better than even phantom. Soon they will native swaps and even pay to most crypto QR codes from Zashi which will swap on behalf of the user for the requested payment token and send it.
More people use eth ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ The UX of any given chain will not matter when you can tap your exchange credit/debit card at a point of sale terminal, type in a pin, and your stablecoins leave a wallet that you hold the private keys to, and are practically instantly settled in the vendors wallet, for any chain of yours/the vendors choosing.
I don't think it is a horrible idea to upgrade hardware wallets periodically. The Nano X is much better than the S. I didn't upgrade for the security but the usability. The S could only hold a few chains and the UX on for the X was much better too.
I'd say either Binance or Coinbase, UX is pretty okay and it's easier to buy via CEX than via Dex
Been using Trustee Plus for a while - pretty impressed with how they’ve handled both UX and real-world usability. The in-app card setup is stupid fast (literally 3 mins), and it pulls from BTC, ETH, or USDC directly. Feels smooth and works like any regular card, even for big purchases. Also cool they added an EU IBAN for fiat stuff. Curious how your project will stack up against stuff like that.
Nice work. Clean UX. Will use it. Thanks for sharing 👍👍
Perfect UX and UI, simple and minimalist, I find your app very good, it does what it needs to do, well done 👏
Yeah. The interesting part is that they don't complain about CEXes, and that's a point which the article also makes. It uses Binance and XBO as examples but even the lesser known ones are easy to join and navigate. We need the whole industry to be on that level in terms of UX
Figma is a cloud-based design and prototyping tool used by teams to collaboratively create user interfaces for websites, apps, and digital products. It allows multiple users to work in real time on the same design file, similar to how Google Docs works for documents. With features like vector editing, interactive prototyping, reusable components, and developer handoff tools, Figma streamlines the entire UI/UX design process from concept to code. It's widely used by designers, developers, and product teams to create, test, and iterate on digital experiences efficiently. Figma was almost acquired by Adobe for $20 billion in 2022, but the deal collapsed in December 2023 due to regulatory concerns, with Adobe paying a $1 billion breakup fee. Previously valued at $12.5 billion in a 2024 tender offer
Message from Portal to Bitcoin team Hey r/cryptocurrency! We’re Portal to Bitcoin, the first fully custodyless, cross-chain infrastructure built for Bitcoin. Using our BitScaler architecture, we enable native-to-native asset transfers across blockchains without the security risks of bridges, wrapped assets or centralized custody. What We’re Solving: Truly decentralized cross-chain transactions with no wrapped assets, vaults or multi-sig risks Fast, low-cost swaps secured by Bitcoin, the most capital-rich blockchain & what we believe to be the fundamental monetary layer Seamless DeFi access with a UX rivaling CEXs and fully self-custodied Sustainable liquidity incentives through a first-of-its-kind Bitcoin AMM Barriers to Americans from participating in incentivization campaigns. Who’s Here? Our team at Portal to Bitcoin has been building on Bitcoin for a long time and is backed by Arrington Capital, Coinbase Ventures, Gate.io and OKX Ventures. We’re here to discuss: How Portal connects native Bitcoin to DeFi The risks of bridges and how we solve them The future of cross-chain finance The road to launch Earning on Kaito And everything in between! Ask us anything and we’ll be answering questions on July 29. When and Where? Tuesday, July 29, 2025 Time: All day! Subreddit: Right here at r/cryptocurrency We believe Bitcoin should be the foundation of DeFi and Portal is making that possible. Whether you’re a trader, LP, dev or just crypto-curious, drop your questions below and let’s talk. Are you a yapper? Earn rewards for adding real value, 0.5% of Portal's token supply is being allocated to top yappers. That is a serious commitment to early community builders. Visit https://yaps.kaito.ai/portaltobitcoin to join More ways to connect with us: X: https://x.com/PortaltoBitcoin Rewards Hub: https://hub.portaltobitcoin.com/login Official Site: https://portaltobitcoin.com/ Join the Community: https://discord.com/invite/portaltobitcoin
I think its a fair question. Its a company which has cloud tools for UX design. its cool and easy to share across teams. They have few other products but they are not that popular. In a way they compete against Adobe who tried to acquire them for 20B 3 years ago but regulators nixed that deal.
Nice to see another Dubai-based team in this space! The feedback about custody is spot on. At OrbitX we've taken a different approach - true self-custody where users hold their own keys. No company wallet needed, which addresses a lot of the trust concerns raised here. Your focus on web2-like UX is smart. We've found that's crucial for adoption. Are you planning to support direct stablecoin spending or requiring conversion to fiat? Also interested in how you're handling the regulatory side in the GCC region. Feel free to check out our approach at [orbitxpay.com](http://orbitxpay.com) Transparency: I work at OrbitX, but always good to see innovation in crypto payments. Happy to discuss technical approaches if helpful.
The bet for new VMs wasn't just better UX - yes EVM UX sucks. It was also hope for new design space expansion. So far, nothing has really grown the market much from last cycle besides on-chain perps. But that growth didn't even come from a new VM but just a four-validator chain.