pull down to refresh
17 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury OP 3 May \ parent \ on: All the World's Txns bitcoin
Thanks for the reply.
What about this hypothetical scenario: major governments stop being adversarial to btc. Tax law changes s.t. buying coffee is no longer taxable event. Now people can use it for MoE if they wanted.
I take your comment to mean:
a) nobody really wants that, so scaling isn't an issue and won't be an issue in any conceivable near-term
b) if they did start to want that, there would be a variety of signals, including upticks in self-custody and demand for blockspace
If b) happened, would you then believe that scaling shortcomings were inevitable and needed to be solved, by something like PS's proposal, or something else, and it could be handled at that time? Or are you saying that even in that case, existing infrastructure is up to the task?
In other words, I'm trying to figure out if your principal objection is timing (it's not a problem yet, it's more harm than good to pre-solve it) or something more foundational.
I believe in that scenario, the current state is up to the task,
Digressing, I also think that's the case now and not a hypothetical. My thesis is Bitcoin is a white-hat psyop by NSA/military intelligence to save America from the Triffin dilemma and inevitable global reserve collapse. We're just watching this op, among many others, like a movie🍿
In any event, US adoption ends in it becoming a foreign reserve backing the dollar, the US Treasury and it's foreign peers basically becoming giant ECash mints (see ECash Act)
Why is this path inevitable? Because anything else requires destroying Bitcoin as we know it. No scaling proposal can accommodate the ridiculous hypotheticals of ~8BN people using it to buy coffee self-custodially and remain Bitcoin. At best, we're talking a peg, with a weaker form of consensus.
We already have pegs without destroying the base layer, so there's no rationale to add risk to the base layer because a peg is inherently a downgrade.
Reasonable scaling improvements (optimization within current design space) are marginal by comparison so they tend to not be as exciting. They are also unquantifiable until they are actually needed- and we have the real data necessary to quantify them.
Scalooors like Paul and the CTV clowns do a disservice by taking resources away from projects that want to get us to that very achievable milestone of 1BN users.
reply