Inconvenient truths

When we talk about Bitcoin scalability we inevitably talk about the blockchain trilemma.

The blockchain trilemma is a concept that explains the difficulty of balancing three key properties in a blockchain network: decentralization, security and scalability.

Imagine the vertices of a triangle, it is impossible to change the angles of two vertices without affecting a third and in the same way if you lengthen the vertex of a triangle it also affects the angles of the other two vertices.

Bitcoin prioritizes decentralization and security at the expense of scalability. 

Therefore, if or if not, we are going to need alternative solutions to the L1 layer to scale because we want Bitcoin to remain decentralized and secure. This is where the rest of the cryptocurrencies fail, either not accepting the blockchain trilemma or outright lying to users. If Monero were to have mass adoption with its dynamic block size, who would be able to run the nodes? Only the megacorporations like Apple, Microsoft or Amazon. And block size also affects security, the less decentralized a Blockchain is, the more insecure it is.

That said, we have to accept that not everyone will be able to use the L1 layer, Bitcoin does not understand rights, and we will have to accept the trade-offs of scaling solutions.

That said, neither drivechains nor sidechains are feasible scaling solutions in the long term as they are still blockchains. 

Lightning is only scalable if we assume losing self-custody. If everyone adopts Lightning and we need one channel per human, it would take decades to open all the necessary channels (about 40 years), the fees would be huge and obviously not everyone could afford to open a channel, it is an oxymoron in itself.

And this brings us to ARK's vUTXO (virtual UTXO) model or statechains like Mercury Layer or Spark. The only way to scale and maintain self-custody, at least so far, will be to use these solutions that do not rely on a blockchain and accepting their trade-offs in terms of security and decentralization.

And for these solutions to be scalable they will have to face the challenge of leaving as small a footprint on the blockchain as possible, and this implies that many people will never be able to go out to the L1 layer.

The other alternative is full reserve Bitcoin banks, and this we know always ends up in a fractional reserve Fiat system. Both Satoshi and Hal were always very clear about these trade-offs in fact Hal himself talked about Bitcoin banks as a way to scale. 

In conclusion, we must emphasize that Bitcoin does not understand rights, that Bitcoin has never been scalable, Satoshi and Hal knew it from the beginning, that the trilemma of the blockchain cannot be violated, it is like the laws of thermodynamics and that the only way to deal with scalability are layer 2 or even layer 3 solutions assuming the trade-offs.

We have no alternative to the Fiat system scam other than Bitcoin as it is, the rest are just lies and false pretenses.