Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
OrangeMan | 10 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 Continuing with testing, all L2 solutions aim for a definitive victor. 
However, if it's not Core (BTC), it's fundamentally exploitable.
▲ ▼
LukeParker | 10 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 Now define L2s... 

Are the ETFs L2? They're going to win by many metrics. 

Is custodial lightning L2? It's going to beat the crap out of self-kept lightning. 

Are individual Fedi federations all L2? One of those, if done right, has the possibility of eclipsing lightning too.
▲ ▼
OrangeMan | 10 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +2 
 In my viewpoint (in the context of #BTC):
L2 is a protocol building upon Bitcoin's native security and decentralization, which resolves the missing piece for it to be a trifecta in the blockchain trilemma—scalability. 

Assessing the best solution is premature, with so many possibilities, it's a complete wonder; and It's simply an exciting time to witness the progress manifest.

What's your take on L2s Luke?
▲ ▼
LukeParker | 10 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 I'm a L2 maximalist. ;) We certainly need it for bitcoin to become useful currency, but I don't think we're going to see a single L2 defeat all the others for quite a while, maybe centuries... Because TradFin (Nations, banks & corps) needs their high-KYC'd, well-regulated Bitcoin while bitcoiners want the opposite. (And Senator Warren can't stop us getting it.) Thank goodness more than one L2 can be popular at once. 

I'd ideally like to see ETFs and bank-custodial Bitcoin in use by TradFin while the rest of us choose the L2 flavor that is best for us individually. Maybe we even have room for a more Private L2 (for extreme privacy) beside the existing ones today.