We will eventually have a trustless way to share UTXOs and Liquid or Fedimints or Arks (or whatever comes next to improve upon them) will be the way most people interact. Lightning is also likely to be more for settlement between institutions. More horizontal scaling may come in the form of cross input signature aggregation or something like that.

Increasing the blocksize doesn't solve the problem. It's only a linear improvement in capacity & it is a compounding increase in the cost of node operation. You cannot sacrifice network infrastructure to gain functionality. 

 Certainly. Increasing the blocksize alone doesn't solve anything. But this is not the same discussion as 10 years ago. So now we have everything from scaling vertically to scaling horizontally on other chains with increased block size. 

 We have proof from ETH that increasing the blocksize kills decentralization completely.

We also have proof from BCH (+ Bitcoin Dark, BSV, etc) that using hard forks introduces fundamental vulnerabilities that fuck up the network & lead to more forks & division.

You just refuse to see what is right in front of you because you want your bags to pump & either don't want to admit you were wrong or you're a newb that was "educated" by people who don't want to admit they were wrong. 

 I've been in Bitcoin for long enough that I luckily don't need anyone to pump my bags. Especially not BlackRock.

But the safety of me and my family in this society depends on others to re-gain or keep their freedom and privacy.

And in a limited supply system price is an indicator for freedom available to all of us. But it's the other way around more freedom will be represented by a higher price. A higher price not necessarily means more freedom, especially if measured in USD. 

 I agree that the establishment attacks on Monero are despicable. Dark money must be allowed in a free society and if it is not we are  heading toward tyranny. A black market is a free market and I support that.

Monero has a different function than Bitcoin and cannot have the same impact on politics.

Capital leaving a jurisdiction because the jurisdiction is authoritarian will have an impact on politics.

This is the domain of Bitcoin game theory. Jurisdictions that respect individual liberties will attract capital (Bitcoin) and outcompete authoritarian jurisdictions. Monero cannot achieve this as dark money.

Bitcoin over LN, Liquid and other L2-L3 solutions will be the everyday 'e-cash' formats. L1 will be for store of value only. In a free market competition the user can achieve a desired balance between speed, cost and security.

Bitcoin and Monero aids different liberty mechanisms. I am personally not into Monero, but dark money might be useful at some point, so I am not ruling out the possibility that Monero will have a liberty impact. It is just that its liberty function can be achieved equally well by a Monero competitor. 

 Bitcoin has first mover advantage. So has Monero. It's unlikely any competition will take the provacu kings crown. It's constantly increasing market share.

Appreciating both aspects dark and light gives us more strategic leverage to tackle governments. 

 Agreed.

Cash is dark money and it is important that people have access to dark money in the digital age. History has demonstrated to us what crimes surveillance regimes can commit when they go unchecked. Under authoritarian systems, dark money will always be vital. It is my hope that Bitcoin can compete with Monero on L2-L3's in regards to dark money. The base layer obviously cannot be both a store of value and dark money at the same time. As such Bitcoin and Monero occupy different niches. 

 nostr:note1dvfnlj7h4g333uxxy7wy3v9c9ewr675xfs2qy78t2hgc6rzvuensudaem7 

 Money tends toward one because it is a language & an economic protocol. Saying we need monetary competition is kinda like saying we need competition for rules of the road. We need competition to decide if driving on the right or left is better, we need competition to decide if red should mean stop or go. Consensus around the rules of the road are what allow people to get where they need to go. Money is what enables value comparison & competition. If we had endless competition about internet protocols then nothing would work. The monetary competition is going to eventually come to an end & I think Bitcoin is going to win it because development took network security & robustness more seriously. 

 I see where you are coming from, but I can not see this represented in reality. At least not where markets play a role.

You are stating your assumption as a fact when it is in reality just your belief.

And it's an interesting one as maximalism builds on that belief.

I and many others have different believes which ironically renders your belief invalid. But you don't care. Maximalism must prevail.

Look around. There is competition in everything. Nature is built on competition. Markets are built on competition. Temporary social consensus (man made and because of that impermanent) doesn't change that.

Anyways nice to understand that Bitcoin maximalism is not rooted in the Austrian school. 

 The dollar has been dominant even with countries violently trying to impose their own currency monopolies, the internet is built on a common protocol stack, english is the dominant language to an ever growing degree, all life is built from RNA & DNA, I think nature supports what I am saying quite well. 

 It supports different perspectives.

And a dominant currency is not the same as one currency. 

 I mean, I think people should be free to create & buy any sort of collectible bullshit they want, but I think everything outside of bitcoin will eventually be seen as just that. 

 Interesting take, I guess technically youre right by definition, but I think you know what I meant. 


I can safely and privately use Bitcoin, to where no one other than me knows about it 

If you'd rather use the word pseudonymous I can live with that. 

But at the end of the day my statement remains.


It is not hard to use Bitcoin in a privacy focusing manner. 

Just takes a bit of learning. Like anything in this world. 

You never just start with the knowledge. You gotta learn.  

 Privacy is hidden content/actions, anonymity is hidden identity

I think both are pretty important because missing privacy leaks data that can be used to unravel your anonymity/psuedonymity over time (what addresses you interact with, amounts, timing, etc)

It's harder than ever now since Samourai and Wasabi are out of the game. And it's impractical to coinjoin every transaction anyway especially as fees climb.

If you don't coinjoin every transaction, aside from third parties, your counter parties will be able to see balances and see past history + follow you going forward. I'm sure people most wouldn't be comfortable with that even if you know the person.