Stark and the Lightning Labs clearly understand the possible consequences of this new development. While on earth should the Bitcoin Blockchain be the main center of target. Of course, this idea would help in terms of businesses transaction wise, but it doesn't change the fact that it's also a way of spamming the Blockchain. From the FT Live crypto summit she had in London, she clearly stated that this idea has caused issues for other Blockchain, but feels the Bitcoin Blockchain is the best place that the otherwise won't happen. Could this possibly be part of their reasons for launching the Bitcoin Lightning Network?, Don't know what their true intentions are, but they need to think of better things that won't cause problems.  

New demand will cause new transactions and mempools will be overloaded than now but will people spam the network with stable coin transactions, I don't know.

I guess it can be true demand for transactions because it's non sense to make a stable coin transaction and hope to get rich with stable coin. It is different than their hope to get rich with NFTs, Inscriptions so less reasons for spam.

Bitcoin blockchain is more secure than altcoin blockchains but I am really curious and unsure how it can help peg of a stable coin?

In my thinking, the peg of a stable coin depends on how that team design that stable coin and their treasury of $ to peg that stablecoin, for example. It does not depend on Bitcoin blockchain.

If it does not cause network spam to convert bitcoin to dust, like transactions for Ordinals, Runes, I think it is good enough to accept as part of Bitcoin blockchain.

The beginning of stablecoins was on the Omni Layer, which was a Bitcoin transaction except that it represented USDT value, and many stopped using USDT on Bitcoin blockchain due to high transaction fees, so I do not think that returning again to the Bitcoin blockchain would be beneficial.

The report above talked about test transaction on the Lightning Network using Taproot Assets protocol, and therefore it is similar to L-USDT Liquid-based Tether, and its impact on increasing bitcoin fees will be low (Lightning Network transactions will increase, which require two onchain transactions).

News can be confusing but if the news is not confusing but true, it is about a stable coin that can be used on bitcoin blockchain. That means the stable coin transaction will make use of bitcoin and these can still make the stable coin transaction to be having a very high fee just like USDT on Omni layer. Or probably my assumption may be wrong but we are going to know after the project has been finalized and done.

Let us see what would happen. It can also be that the stable coin can later be able to be like the bitcoin on the lightning network with opened channels. The developers of the stable coins are more pros in lightning network which will not make this not to be surprising at all. If this is it, the transaction will be cheap for those that like it. But I will prefer to use lightning network for small amount of money.

bitcoins main value creation is based on the PoW cost of creating the coins which set the 'non zero bottom' because there is actual cost of creating bitcoin.. people then speculate above the non zero bottom value to have a market price.
the value increases slowly as mining costs increase over time, the market price increases more speculatively and volatile above value

however creating new units of any currency by just appending junk data to the end of a bitcoin transaction is not creating real value nor creating true currency. its just junk data misrepresented and mis-sold..

anyone can create an appended taproot metadata called "stablecoin257" and then anyone else can also then append another transaction with the same junk data to effectively double the amount of "stablecoin257" for just the cost of a tx fee.. meaning anyone can effectively create trillions of units of "stablecoin257" and inflate the "stablecoin257"

thus these junk appended new units are not actual real value of cost, nor with true audit of avoiding manipulation.. so not even "stable" let alone "coin"

It will definitely help those who transact with bitcoin for their businesses but it’s just going to drive up the transaction fees even more so. It’s already high now and for us who don’t really use bitcoin for minute purchases this will prove to be just a another useless tool on the blockchain.
I don’t think so. We should aim all these efforts towards solving other issues rather than trying to make up new ones.

Reading the reply, it seems some user miseed these parts of the news.


So whoever write the news title probably should be fired, since LN is not equal Bitcoin blockchain. But i'd rather see stable coin developed on Bitcoin Sidechain or different L2 instead, where user don't need to worry about complexity brought by LN. Stable coin is centralized anyway, so there's no big problem adding it on Bitcoin Sidechain or other L2 which is less decentralized than Bitcoin.

Yep, definitely a 'Taproot Assets' thing (they apparently can't call it 'Taro' anymore due to some trademark dispute or something).  But the key takeaway is that it won't result in more blockchain spam.  I'm hoping all the so-called NFT trash will move over to that platform over time, as it is far more resource-efficient versus the Inscriptions Ordinals Runes etc crap.

It's not necessary long term, but still better solution than dealing with bunch of altcoins, swaps and using exchanges when you need to use some alternative for fiat currencies.
I suspect that this project from Lightning Labs is going to be something centralized, like everything on Lightning Netwrork, but let's wait and see.

My guess is that centralized stablecoins developed more or less to exploit the altcoin exchange market offering them an easy alternative to e-money (=fiat representations like PaypalUSD, for those who don't know). They were very easy to integrate into existing cryptocurrency exchanges, easier than traditional e-money because of their blockchain-based transparency, eliminating the risk of "chargeback fraud" (that's why those exchanges accepting PayPal usually charge high fees), and also easier than offering an on- and offramp via bank transfers. In addition, it allowed thousands of altcoin exchanges to offer a fiat-like product instantly, without having to maintain a huge fiat reserve, which would need other kinds of infrastructure.

So basically the main advantages are for exchanges, not so much for ordinary users.

Apart from what you already mentioned (which is also delivered by PayPal and similar e-wallet services), there are a few more advantages of stablecoins which also can appeal to some groups of ordinary users:

1) to store a fiat-like product with your own keys, not on an exchange;
2) to move a fiat-like product from one exchange to another one, for exampĺe for arbitrage purposes;
3) to integrate a fiat-like product into smart contracts, perhaps even into atomic swaps and Lightning;
4) to be able to store a fiat-like product without KYC in some cases.

Of course, the "not your keys not your stablecoins" principle is not the same as "not your keys not your bitcoin". First, stablecoin issuers can go bankrupt, and second, they can block your stablecoins even if you have a valid private key in most cases. So most stablecoins don't offer censorship protection.