Oddbean new post about login | logout > The higher the value transaction, the EASIER it is to settle, send globally, and sovereignly hold. The fundamental problem with scaling bitcoin is low value transactions. If we lock out small transactions then we lock in a permanent underclass who will be forced to interact with bitcoin through trusted custodians. Freedom for me but not for thee. Maybe you're happy to elevate your own standing and then pull the ladder up behind you. That's not why I'm here.
I have to disagree. No one is pulling the ladder out from under anyone. First, the majority of people don’t want self-custody; they prefer trusted custodians. That said, everyone still has the ability to use Layer 2 self-custodial solutions if they choose—there’s nothing stopping them. Second, it doesn’t matter to me if the majority of people don’t directly access Layer 1 UTXOs. What matters is that everyone has an equal opportunity to do so. If someone doesn’t own enough sats for a UTXO, that’s fine. When they accumulate enough, they can move their sats to Layer 1. Bitcoin isn’t built on guaranteeing equitable outcomes; it’s built on ensuring equality of opportunity.
> everyone still has the ability to use Layer 2 self-custodial solutions if they choose—there’s nothing stopping them. high fees stop them > What matters is that everyone has an equal opportunity to do so. If someone doesn’t own enough sats for a UTXO, that’s fine. you contradict yourself
How am I contradicting myself? I'll leave the high fee rebuttal be, because I have a feeling that we simply have an ideological disagreement.
Nope. You need to be able to pay the prevailing fee rates in order to use any L2. They all rely on the assumption that you can unilaterally exit, which is another way to say that you need to be able to go on-chain. If you can't afford on-chain fees then you can't afford a lightning channel. You don't have equality of opportunity if most people can't afford that opportunity. Do we have equality of opportunity for super yachts? Depends on how you define it I guess, but super yachts are a luxury item, freedom of transaction is a basic human right. I like to think we can do better than "freedom for those who can afford it".
I was going to answer until you pulled this self aggrandizing bullshit right here: "Maybe you're happy to elevate your own standing and then pull the ladder up behind you. That's not why I'm here." Quit pretending your the only person who cares about Bitcoin because you have a tagline opinion that someone doesn't regurgitate verbatim.
I thought you were gonna go with nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7erfw36x7tnsw43z7un9d3shjqpqqc9umgwf5thc4hndzdwk6wze6vwuk09lk2dhh7xmgpyef5zctr4qzncgxx's observation about the difference between transaction speed and settlement speed being a centralizing force. That's a better argument, IMO, but still wrong. With no improvement to on-chain throughput and a rapidly increasing bitcoin price we will see very high on-chain fees. If it costs house money to move funds on-chain then A) most people will not self-custody and B) the people who are barely able to maintain an on-chain balance will be willing to wait a long ass time for the absolute lowest fees. This increases the friction for on-chain settlement and drives settlement speed down, leading to the exact same situation we had with gold. Transactions flow at the speed of the internet but settlement runs at a snail's pace. Better entrust all my bitcoin to a custodian and handle my finances with paper (electronic) receipts. Feels like de ja vu all over again. We might have some wiggle room with low-trust options like federated side chains or fedimints. If these custodians can withstand the might of nation states then maybe we're ok. If not, we are doomed, unless we can avoid this fate through on-chain scaling. Your claim that bitcoin *cannot* fall prey to the same economic forces as gold is patently incorrect.
Over the line! , this is a league game Smokey, am I the only one who gives a shit about the rules? High value, honest conversations is what lifts up communities. Let’s keep it clean, and we’ll make it to the next round robin… there will be plenty of enemies, no need to create unnecessary ones.
No one is pulling up the later. Low value transactions will be just fine on other layers that are secured by the base layer. To say people who have less accumulated purchasing power don’t have freedom is disingenuous
Are these proper layers with unilateral exit to an on-chain UTXO like lightning or ark? If so, they are subject to the exact same scaling pressure as on-chain transactions. Are these layers secured by a multisig like Liquid or Fedimint? Can your multisig withstand the might of nation states? You better hope so because your life savings depend on it.