"Self-custody doesn't work... oh btw we just happen to sell something that doesn't require it!"

Not every person who owns bitcoin adheres to cypherpunk ideals. And the way things are going self-custody could become a pretty niche behavior.

There is no way a billion people are using bitcoin today

"We are so early."

...as if bitcoin is inevitable (another one I disagree with). I always read this as a rationalization for bad UX, lack of user adoption, or a lack of awareness by the general public.

Thanks!

At today's fees, I can just send on-chain for pretty cheap.

I don't think I'm side-stepping the issue with exchanges facilitating so many payments, mainly because I can easily rationalize that individuals still have the ability to very easily send payments on-chain to one another with or without an exchange. That is not the case with lightning.

I wouldn't frame my pov as "lightning is more of a failure than bitcoin" or that custodial bitcoin MoE would be equal to failing. I do, however, believe that the direction lightning is headed in as a primarily custodial layer for bitcoin payments undercuts most of what makes bitcoin so powerful as a peer-to-peer network. My fear is that if lightning continues in this direction it will be as unimpressive as USDC or Tether.

Framing this more broadly: What incentive do people have to acquire and then spend bitcoin if it works just like fiat does? It's cheaper and more convenient to spend in dollars or USDC in most situations today. The ideal of lightning (self-hosted, instant, peer-to-peer) is inspiring. But the reality is so far from that ideal and I think the compromises have gone too far for too long.

Let's revisit this debate the next time on-chain fees spike.

Funny thing, that debate is actually what partially triggered this post. I found Alex's parroting of tired lightning talking points exhausting and so representative of the discourse around lightning for the past few years. Yes, Paul might be overly pessimistic in many ways but he is speaking to a reality on the ground that no one uses lightning but enthusiasts. Adoption just isn't happening and it's incredibly frustrating to see people hand-wave serious issues around onboarding and custody with excuses like "it's just for small amounts".

Well for starters, just about everyone takes it as payment.

Paul is raising good questions here. It's healthy skepticism. I don't think Alex can see outside the bubble anymore.

I don't think it's about the code, it's about the regulation and the ramps, which the bag pumpers have done a great job of handing over eagerly to corporations and states in the interest of quick gains. Meanwhile VC's have steadily convinced us that custodial Lightning is the best way to get people to use bitcoin as cash, when at best that arrangement is no better than using dollars. This current pattern of adoption doesn't necessarily lead to widespread adoption among a billion people. In fact, I think you could make the case this path leads to even darker places than fiat.

I also don't know what "bitcoiner" means anymore, but the dream of non-sovereign, uncensored money is what the bag pumpers are swiftly killing. Bitcoin has made huge strides in the last couple years but not in the direction I, for one, had hoped. It's unfortunate and it seems the chances of walking some of these steps back are diminishing.

For those of y'all who wear fanny packs

I agree with you in principle but practically speaking, do you truly believe that homemade guns are a defense against authoritarian governments? Even at scale this is a stretch. Again, I agree with the idea of defense against the state in principle but in reality I don't think people stand a chance against determined and powerful militaristic states.

"Stop looking at me swan!"

... among other Billy Madison quotes said at the right moments are a good way for me to tell if I'm way older.

Something that I think gets lost in all the hype around Lightning is how heavily it's been subsidized by VC. The growth we've seen over the last eight years has had little to do with organic adoption, contrary to the popular narrative. VC has funded most of the ecosystem including development, infrastructure and especially, marketing.

There's still a chance that bet pays off, but I think a lot of the shortcomings this post highlights indicate otherwise.

Yes, I think that's a good way to frame the debate. And I guess my pov is that it's too early to define bitcoin as a simple thing like "money". We should be more open-minded.