I wonder how repeatable these types of outcomes are. My experience with LLM's has been that they are non-deterministic by nature, so of course it will spit out some weird stuff randomly sometimes.

We really should stop treating these tools as being intelligent in any way. These are outputs based on probabilities, not anything that has been reasoned about.

Yes, at least. This is a very long game we're playing here and it's possible the initial adopters of this tool never get to see its full benefits.

A "free market" is not the same as a fair one. The US does not have a fair market. Even the Austrian school believed in a level playing field. Regulation is not the issue, it's what the government chooses to regulate.

Yeah I can't even see the embed 🤦‍♂️

Bitcoin.... fixes this?

It is an interesting thought exercise to imagine what a Bernie presidency would have evolved into given the environment of the last decade. Unfortunately I think the vast inequality coupled with the bipolar extremism fueled by social media still brings us to a similar inflection point of outrage and violence.

That's an intriguing idea in that video, of Trump and MAGA being the heirs of the 60s counterculture and civil rights movements. Thanks for the share

Thanks for this reply, this section especially makes a ton of sense

How do you know they're correlated?

"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.