Bitcoin no Futuro - “Elite” do UTXO
https://youtu.be/oQGVxYZsBWQ 

 I'm still learning. Is it the case that:

On-chain - Settlement layer, meant for infrequent transactions, where your BTC "sits"
Layer 2 - For smaller transactions like payments in shops, etc 

 Not a bad way to think of it but be careful with the words "layer 2" the new wave of affinity scams use those words.  

 Thanks! Two questions:

1. What would be a better phrase? "Off chain"?
2. What are affinity scams? 

 Lightning and liquid are layer 2 solutions and that's what you'd call them but there are several new things popping up that are saying they are layer 2 but are actually just affinity scams. An affinity scam pretends to be the thing people want in order to run their scam.

If you go to bitcoin .com you'll see them selling the shitcoin Bitcoin cash. It's not bitcoin but to the uninformed, they want bitcoin, go to bitcoin .com, then get scammed 

 Thanks for the explanation. Was aware of BCH being lame but good to know about other affinity scams around layer 2 

 What’s the smallest size UTXO that makes sense to have in a typical multisig in your opinion? Thinking 10-20 years out 

 How do you foresee this playing out? Do fees continue to rise up permanently above 2,000 sats/vbyte?

Seems like fees will be a function of the distribution of sats per UTXO. For example, if 1 million sat UTXOs become dust then the network strands a lot of adopters which seems unsustainable. 

 "onchain will not be for everyone"

Suppose I have a friend named Jimmy who is one of the people for whom "onchain is not for them." How should Jimmy use bitcoin? It seems that lightning requires the ability to force close i.e. do an onchain transaction. If onchain is not for Jimmy, how can Jimmy, how can Jimmy force close? And if Jimmy cannot force close, how can he use lightning? 

 Jimmy will have to trust someone 

 Asking the right questions, as usual :) If Jimmy cannot use onchain bitcoin *at all*, then Jimmy can never be a first-class user of Lightning (i.e. not having to trust anyone else). That's trivial logically speaking, right. Which just illustrates that Lightning has never been a *full* solution to bitcoin scaling, only ever a partial one; but that was clear from day one, from the paper itself.

Here I define "full" as "available for billions, not millions or less people".

I think it very doubtful we will get such a full solution, ever, but I'm not sure. I tend to believe ZKPs are the path via which we will get there, although I wouldn't be amazed if just a few extra bits of expressivity in Script could achieve big steps forward on their own. But only in ZKPs (and probably further, *recursive* ZKPs) will we get the necessary scaling factors of multiple orders of magnitude of compression. Even if we do, the glaring issue of needing fully participating nodes for absolute final settlement might be insurmountable. So, ultimate final settlement for billions seems like it won't happen in this paradigm, but that's probably OK. 

 For anyone who cares, I'm more talking about succinct noninteractive arguments of knowledge (SNARKs for short), than ZKPs or ZKSNARKs, but we tend to use ZKPs as a shorthand. 

 Send zaps 

 No worries my friend, I am fine with onchain untill we have something better than lightning. 

 🎯💯 

 People are so tard on this. They've all been spoiled by low Onchain fees. This is why I love ordinals, ANYTHING to get Onchain fees so people actually tackle scaling. Humans don't tackle problems unless they are critical. When Onchain fees are in £1000s then we are winning.  

 Can't zap you 
https://m.primal.net/HyCy.png 

 That was my long running pointless protest against zaps.
(even though we're building a bunch of things that use zaps, so it's time to climb down from this lonely hill no one cares about)  

 Ok, protest over, can I zap you now? 

 To the contrary, "bitcoin winning means fees are/will be" minimal in my opinion. 

 Don't you still take onchain only on coinkite? 

 It’s not that complicated 

 Plug in ASICs 

 Lightning is multisig