[untitled]
3 comments
> better privacy, or easier scaling
You can get both [1] without trading away anything except trusting Pedersen commitments to actually commit to their values (i.e. no-one ever able to compute one particular EC discrete log).
> they often sacrifice decentralization or long-term economic incentives.
One could argue that Bitcoin's capped supply sacrifices long-term economic incentives as its shrinking security budget threatens long term network security, and that an uncapped supply better serves long-term economic incentives [2].
[1] https://forum.grin.mw/t/scalability-vs-privacy-chart
[2] https://tromp.github.io/blog/2020/12/20/soft-supply
You can get both [1] without trading away anything except trusting Pedersen commitments to actually commit to their values (i.e. no-one ever able to compute one particular EC discrete log).
> they often sacrifice decentralization or long-term economic incentives.
One could argue that Bitcoin's capped supply sacrifices long-term economic incentives as its shrinking security budget threatens long term network security, and that an uncapped supply better serves long-term economic incentives [2].
[1] https://forum.grin.mw/t/scalability-vs-privacy-chart
[2] https://tromp.github.io/blog/2020/12/20/soft-supply
[flagged]
> Many of these projects promise faster transactions, cheaper fees, better privacy, or easier scaling. And on the surface, that can sound very attractive, especially to users who feel slowed down by Bitcoin. But Aaron cautions that it is worth looking past the headline features and asking what is being traded away to make those improvements possible.
> When altcoins optimize for speed or cost, they often sacrifice decentralization or long-term economic incentives. Some rely on small validator sets. Others depend on foundations or companies that quietly reintroduce trust. These trade-offs shape the future of crypto competition far more than marketing narratives or short-term price action.