When Will We No Longer Need the L2? \ stacker news ~bitcoin

When Will We No Longer Need the L2?

Can Bitcoin ever return to a time when it didn't need a second layer?

In its early days, transactions were fast, cheap, and simple—no need for complex workarounds. But was that simplicity sustainable? As adoption increased and the user base expanded globally, did the Bitcoin base layer reveal its natural limits?

Is network congestion now a permanent feature of Bitcoin’s success?

Today, high demand for limited block space leads to competition, high fees, and slower confirmation times. Can we deny that this is the cost of decentralization and security? If Bitcoin is to remain secure and decentralized, can we expect the base layer to handle global-scale payments without external help?

Is that why the Lightning Network was born?

The Lightning Network was proposed as a solution to Bitcoin’s scalability limitations. But is Lightning just a temporary patch, or is it a permanent pillar of Bitcoin’s architecture?

Could the Base Layer scale to global demand without Lightning?

Can we imagine a future with exponential growth in block size, bandwidth, and computing power that allows the base layer to support millions of users directly? But wouldn’t that increase the cost of running a node and reduce decentralization? Can a system remain truly permissionless and censorship-resistant if only a few can afford to validate it?

Is Lightning Network just a bridge, or is it here to stay?

If Lightning provides near-instant payments with low fees, accessible even on mobile phones and over USSD in Africa with services like Machankura, and making Ecash a reality, why would we want to move away from it? Could Lightning evolve to become more user-friendly, interoperable, and secure, until it becomes the default way to make payments in Bitcoin?

Or am I asking the wrong question?

Rather than asking, “When will we no longer need the L2?”, should I be asking, “How can we best use L2 to preserve Bitcoin’s core values?” If the Base Layer is the settlement layer and Lightning is the payments layer, are they not two sides of the same coin?

So perhaps the better question is: Can Bitcoin be both scalable and sovereign without L2?

And if the answer is no, then maybe we’ll never stop needing Lightning.

Maybe we’ll just get better at using it.

What do you think?

5 sats \ 0 replies \ @Akg10s3 17 Jul

I think Lightning is here to stay, and even more so now with the adoption by institutions and large companies!! And we must also take into account that hyperbitcoinization is going to happen, not maybe now, but it will happen!! And you'll usually be able to pay anywhere with the Lightning Network... As this progresses, Bitcoin will cost a lot more! It will be a more valuable asset!

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @justin_shocknet 17 Jul

delete this AI slop, some of the more embarrassing slop on the subject I've seen as a slop connoisseur

transactions were fast

Confirmation time hasn't changed, it's always targeted 10m and always will.

Lightning will always be needed for instant settlement.

Payment channels also pre-date Lightning as it is known, re-usable transactions are an indelible part of Bitcoin.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @hasherstacker OP 17 Jul

The 10 minutes was fast, as compared to bank settlements. Especially cross-border transactions.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @justin_shocknet 17 Jul

In its early days, transactions were fast

So are they not fast now?

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @beameduplol 16h

It depends on your feerate. 1.00sat/vB is like going gambling, sometimes you get 1-2 confirmations within 20 minutes, othertimes you dont get any in 8 hours. Same speed but wildly inconsistent unless you want to spend a rather significant amount of your stacked satoshis on fees each time.

600 satoshis per TX for "guaranteed" confirmations, while minimum wage in the U.S. is 6,000 satoshis per hour is a bit high right?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @hasherstacker OP 17 Jul

They still are fast. But with LN, they're lightning-fast. The fastest