[dmitriid]

> why there couldn't be a centralized service offering payment dispute arbitration on top of Bitcoin

What exactly does Bitcoin provide in this case?

> this is what I meant by building "trustful" systems being built on top of trustless foundations

So, a service that exists outside bitcoin, has a trust system built entirely outside bitcoin and only doing something with bitcoin because reasons... is "building trustful systems on top of trustless systems".

I don't think you know what "building on top" means.

Edit: grammar and mobile typos

[olalonde]

Do you extend the same reasoning to fiat?

There are many centralized services that do dispute arbitration on top of USD. Those systems are built entirely outside of USD. PayPal for example doesn't have an account at the Federal reserve nor does it handle physical cash. They are effectively "off-chain" payment systems for USD.

So I guess your question is, what are the advantages of BTC over a fiat currency like USD. The answer is two folds:

1) BTC has an open network (the Bitcoin blockchain) allowing users to exit payment systems for the purpose of self-custody or for interconnecting with other payment systems. There's no equivalent system with fiat. Self-custody of USD literally requires transporting and storing pieces of paper. You also can't directly transfer USD from PayPal to say, CashApp.

2) BTC has a predictable money supply. Fiat currency doesn't: money supply can be arbitrarily inflated.

In addition to the above, Bitcoin enables the creation of payment systems that are more tightly built on top of it, like the Lightning network, which preserves many of the properties of Bitcoin (e.g. trustless). You could also build a dispute arbitration system where the arbiter just needs to be semi-trusted (e.g. there are schemes that can cryptographically prevent the arbiter from stealing escrowed funds, etc.).

[dmitriid]

> Do you extend the same reasoning to fiat?

We are talking bout fiat? No.

> So I guess your question is, what are the advantages of BTC over a fiat currency like USD.

No. The question is: what does the trustless blockchain offer when you still have to rely on a centralised trusted entity.

> BTC has a predictable money supply. Fiat currency doesn't: money supply can be arbitrarily inflated.

Which immediately means that whoever got in early and got the first initial supply is at great advantage compared to anyone who got in later. For example compared to any people born 20 years from now.

> You could also build a dispute

Could. Maybe. Should. Perhaps. That's all you can ever hear from crypto proponents.

[olalonde]

> Do you extend the same reasoning to fiat?

I was asking about fiat because many of your criticisms equally apply to fiat.

> No. The question is: what does the trustless blockchain offer when you still have to rely on a centralised trusted entity.

I answered that multiple times already.

> Which immediately means that whoever got in early and got the first initial supply is at great advantage compared to anyone who got in later. For example compared to any people born 20 years from now.

That's, unfortunately, the case for almost anything of value.

> Could. Maybe. Should. Perhaps. That's all you can ever hear from crypto proponents.

I'm not sure I would consider myself a crypto proponent, I was trying my best to answer your questions as objectively as possible.

But it seems you are very emotionally invested in this for some reason... Did you have a bad experience with crypto?

[dmitriid]

> I was asking about fiat because many of your criticisms equally apply to fiat.

They... don't.

> I answered that multiple times already.

You haven't. All you're saying "o let's have this centralised trusted entity that does something with blockchain because blockchain".

> That's, unfortunately, the case for almost anything of value.

If bitcoin is a currency as you would have us believe, then this is not what a currency should be.

> But it seems you are very emotionally invested in this for some reason...

Ah yes. There are only a few ways crypto discussions go: problems are dismissed out of hand and/or "have you had bad experience with crypto" (often in the form "you're just sad that you didn't get in on it early").

[olalonde]

I didn't dismiss anything out of hand, I replied to all your questions as objectively as possible, but you just pretend that I didn't. I also would not have you believe anything, I am not trying to sell you anything here. I just answered your questions because I believed they were genuine questions. I am now starting to question that...

My question to you: what is your alternative? USD has many of the problems you mentioned and more. Transactions happen "off-chain", monetary inflation largely benefits the wealthy, etc.

[skinnymuch]

Pretending you’re not a crypto proponent is funny while trying to imply the other person isn’t genuine.

They already said fiat doesn’t have close to the same issues as crypto. The monetary inflation benefits to the wealthy are nowhere near the same for Bitcoin or any crypto. It’s a fraction of how bad Bitcoin is. They also basically said that multiple times too.

They have answered the rest too. Being on chain isn’t an issue for fiat because they aren’t trying to be on chain. They aren’t trying to shoehorn in blockchain.

[skinnymuch]

Now they have turned to acting like you aren’t genuine in their next reply, haha. When they actually tried to pull a “I don’t know if I’m a crypto proponent”

Yes the last line is a recurring one lol.