329 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 4 Apr \ on: I'm Dhruv Bansal, co-founder of Unchained, AMA! AMA
Forgive me if you've answered this before, but do you think the existence of only 21m bitcoin was:
  1. the intentional removal of a premature optimization/requirement
  2. economically motivated and coincidentally removed a premature optimization/requirement
write
preview
this territory is moderated
663 sats \ 0 replies \ @dhruv OP 4 Apr
I would lean towards (2) -- I think a finite monetary supply was a top-line goal for Satoshi, and it just so happens that imposing this constraint led to great simplifications of what came before. Check out this talk where I expand on this claim.
reply
302 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 4 Apr
Are there any specific bitcoin layers or products where you think they're making a mistake similar to Satoshi's predecessors? That is, adding superfluous requirements that block problem solving?
reply
333 sats \ 0 replies \ @dhruv OP 4 Apr
A great question! I'm not sure, but probably "yes" ? I'm not an expert on lightning so it's hard for me to point at superfluous things. I do think lightning does a good job not solving some problems, e.g. finding routes, because I think those can be solved through dedicated markets that have yet to emerge. Lightning is complex, more so than bitcoin in many ways, but I worry that this complexity may be necessary to solve the problems it's trying to solve. Hard to know. But I'm excited about recent new L2 proposals -- I've long-believed that there should be multiple, competing L2s, and the fact that Lightning seemed the only major design space being explored made me uncomfortable. Let a thousand flowers bloom!
reply