pull down to refresh
You're asserting things as true that simply are not, that's not asking questions. You're presupposing.
Linked you to 3 different long posts that break it down, and referenced papers from peter gutmann... and all you got is "agree to disagree"
You're not looking for answers, you're looking to confirm your idiotic presuppositions.
All you're asking for is to be flamed by posting nonsense as fact: #1468593
I'm telling people what my understanding is and I've been extremely open to being corrected, and my responses to you are "agree to disagree" because I don't think you're capable of having a reasonable conversation about this.
Flame away, but I'm on the verge of just muting you entirely. There's people here who are capable of acting like adults.
don't think you're capable of having a reasonable conversation
Projection.
I've provided materials that lay out the case very clearly, you won't engage on the topic because you're not actually trying to learn anything and seem content to just repost lies.
If you want to learn, I'll educate you, but you've shown only the opposite so far.
The only thing you've shown me is that you take any disagreement as a personal attack. It's not projection, I've been completely civil towards you and am continuing to do so, despite your inability to show the same courtesy.
Yes by providing the information to correct you and telling you not to be so gullible I clearly scrambled the virtue signals you were emitting. Much attack.
Ok, you provided me 3 papers by Gutman. Gutman did not disprove the math behind quantum computing, his stance is that the current state of quantum computing is wildly overhyped.
Let's say he is 100% correct, and I'm completely fine believing that. It still doesn't change the fact that at some point in the future, computing will likely get to thet point.
As far as 2% of the population sustaining the current security budget. It would mean that the average transaction fee on L1 would have to be $45 to $50 per transaction. That means it will be either extremely expensive for a common person to make a transaction, and one of the proposed solutions is batching thousands of transactions together off chain on L2. I'm not attacking bitcoin or making up facts.
I'm not spreading fud, I'm not shaking in my boots, im not running out to buy quantum safe shit coins, and I'm not pushing some weird scam. I'm talking about the fundamental math of thr halvings and the different scenarios that can and will happen.
Gutman did not disprove the math behind quantum computing
Math is not physics, he disproved that there are quantum computers. All "quantum computers" are parler tricks. Superposition is analogous to a time machine.
at some point in the future, computing will likely get to thet point.
Only if someone invents a time machine.
sustaining the current security budget
Goal post shift, opinions on what amounts to a sufficient security budget don't change the facts of distribution. Distribution is price discovery, nothing is going to change that except a supply increase... also less likely than a time machine.
Also there's an presupposition here that there is a correct number for a security budget, when there isn't. For-profit-mining is a anomalous and transient phenomenon. #1442322
batching thousands of transactions together off chain on L2
This is already doable, no forks needed. The real constraint is, again, supply.
I'm talking about the fundamental math
The math bears out that more people can use Lightning than there are people that can use Bitcoin at all.
Had you read the posts I linked, it's conclusive 1BN Lightning channels can be opened per year with existing batching tech, that's already more channels than there are people that can afford chain representation based on supply distribution.
Since you are concerned with the number of people that can have chain representation, understand that there is no collective mechanism, script, or other crypto-theater that can run on the chain that scales trustless-ness to people you claim cannot otherwise access the chain to enforce or escape that collective/script.
You'll hear the emotional blackmail from scammers: "But don't you want to scale self-custody to 8 billion people? Don't you care about anyone else but yourself?"
Per my linked article, this is how scammers use ethos to override pathos.
When you use logic, this emotional blackmail breaks down, because... math.
- There are only 200M or so businesses on the globe
- Only 1BN households
- Only a fraction of those households have any wealth to save.
- Non-zero fees, dust, multipled for sustainability, are a threshold for sovereignty
- Current distribution limits the nzf capable
- Distribution is getting more concentrated as wealth moves in and Bitcoin becomes the world reserve currency
- The 2% number will likely decrease
So, there's nothing that changes the mathematical fact that Bitcoin is for the 1%, other than a supply increase (change of base unit)
As far as moving goal posts go, I'm not doing that. For whatever reason, you think I'm trying to "win" an argument. I'm absolutely open to the idea that we currently have a very high security budget, and that a lower one wouldn't pose a risk.
There are some things we just fundamentally have to agree to disagree on. I know that bothers you, but Gutman is not the only authority on the subject. The timeline is uncertain, but gutman is an extreme outlier in the cryptographic community.
As far as your batching model goes. It still keeps fees incredibly high if you want to move from L2 to L1 in order to defend your self custody, whereas covenants would keep it affordable. If your base case is that only 1% of people should have access to the base layer, then I just fundamentally disagree with you.
By the way, disagreeing isn't saying your wrong it's saying we view this differently.
I'm just asking questions and voicing concerns in a corner of the internet that I respect, and consider the best place to find legitimate, well thought out answers.
I'm not sure where he's getting his ideas about me from, and he's welcome to have his own opinion about me, but I don't think anything I've said counts as an attack on bitcoin, or is overly alarmist.
I also know there are people here that actively develop for bitcoin, so I'm asking for expert opinions.
Simple as that.