As I've said many times, the only real scaling limitation is supply and (lack of) divisibility.
There's a minimum amount of coin one needs to be a sovereign Bitcoiner, to invoke chain level security.
Every coin someone holds over that minimum removes other potential users. Saylor, ETFs, and so on slay potential holders exponentially.
Scaling larps love to talk about 8BN people, but 8BN will never even have the chance at owning enough Bitcoin to use it even if blocks remain sub-sat per vbyte forever.
Scaling larp is usually focused on throughput and efficiency, which is retarded for these reasons
Lightning already makes throughput infinite
Batching already exists and fees are near zero without even using it
Increasing throughput does not increase the user ceiling
The user ceiling is a function of supply given the lack of divisibility of the base unit, and the necessity of a minimum amount of bitcoin being owned to leverage chain security (some multiple of the dust limit plus non-zero fees to be unilateral)
Since supply is non-negotiable, and increased divisibility would break literally everything, such a fork is never going to happen. Therefore, Bitcoin cannot scale to raise the user limit.
In fact, every large Bitcoin buy downscales Bitcoin considerably.
Fortunately, raising the user limit is not necessary, because the peers in the "peer to peer electronic cash" turned out to be about 200M people/institutions, which is still a drastic improvement over 1 federal reserve.
Genuin question, how would increasing divisibility break everything? I understand its similar to increasing supply(debasement), just with the distribution preportional to current ownership. Is it just the precedent it would set in terms of a hard fork?
Pretty much everything thats been written on top of bitcoin would need some refactoring around important accounting logic, the migration would be a shit show. All that for the benefit of a small cohort of potential users without any wealth to save.
I know I sound like the village crazy person and I have no way to prove this, but Saylor is part of the paper bitcoin problem, not the sound money solution.
Product market fit with STRC it seems, this could get interesting once reflexivity comes into play
34k less wholecoiners
340k less 10 mBTC holders
Scaling argument is over
I'm dense. How do you see STRC relating to the scaling argument?
As I've said many times, the only real scaling limitation is supply and (lack of) divisibility.
There's a minimum amount of coin one needs to be a sovereign Bitcoiner, to invoke chain level security.
Every coin someone holds over that minimum removes other potential users. Saylor, ETFs, and so on slay potential holders exponentially.
Scaling larps love to talk about 8BN people, but 8BN will never even have the chance at owning enough Bitcoin to use it even if blocks remain sub-sat per vbyte forever.
This seems like an argument against scaling. Or are you saying now, BC Strategy hoovers up everything, we gotta scale faster/sooner...?
Yes.
Scaling larp is usually focused on throughput and efficiency, which is retarded for these reasons
The user ceiling is a function of supply given the lack of divisibility of the base unit, and the necessity of a minimum amount of bitcoin being owned to leverage chain security (some multiple of the dust limit plus non-zero fees to be unilateral)
Since supply is non-negotiable, and increased divisibility would break literally everything, such a fork is never going to happen. Therefore, Bitcoin cannot scale to raise the user limit.
In fact, every large Bitcoin buy downscales Bitcoin considerably.
Fortunately, raising the user limit is not necessary, because the peers in the "peer to peer electronic cash" turned out to be about 200M people/institutions, which is still a drastic improvement over 1 federal reserve.
Genuin question, how would increasing divisibility break everything? I understand its similar to increasing supply(debasement), just with the distribution preportional to current ownership. Is it just the precedent it would set in terms of a hard fork?
Pretty much everything thats been written on top of bitcoin would need some refactoring around important accounting logic, the migration would be a shit show. All that for the benefit of a small cohort of potential users without any wealth to save.
I don’t believe Strategy or Saylor.
I think he’s part of a bigger paper bitcoin fraud -along with the ETFs- to dilute the supply to suppress the price.
Sailor “buys bitcoin” via some unknown OTC counter and then custodies it on Coinbase. All this does is amplify Coinbase’s ability to oversell even more bitcoin.
I know I sound like the village crazy person and I have no way to prove this, but Saylor is part of the paper bitcoin problem, not the sound money solution.
my thing is up, bitches. #1475688
Incredibly, and terrifying, to see this play out
I KNOW!
Will make a Strategy post tonight, featuring our beloved Mr. Livingston
https://x.com/AdamBLiv/status/2046244509244064250
About time
https://twiiit.com/AdamBLiv/status/2046244509244064250
https://twiiit.com/saylor/status/2046197791228068167