pull down to refresh
560 sats \ 2 replies \ @SimpleStacker 23 Dec 2023 \ on: What if scaling Bitcoin isn't a goal? bitcoin
No offense, but I find your thinking to be quite muddled. High fees and high price are not the same. No one thinks high price is a weakness because it doesn't affect Bitcoin's usability as money. High fees, on the other hand, directly impacts its usability as money, that's why it's a problem.
Your claim that wanting low fees is fiat thinking. This is wrong. Fiat thinking is believing that resources come from thin air. But wanting to scale up is not the same as that. Scaling up is trying to make better use of existing resources, which in this case would be bitcoins energy budget, processing powers, and storage capacity, which we acknowledge is limited but we want to make the best use of it so that Bitcoin's properties of hard money and decentralization is broadly accessible
I think there will always be a price to pay. My argument is that "high fees" is relative to your stack size. The more BTC you own, the less the fees can be considered to be "high". If you price fees in fiat, yes it's "high" but that's an inflated number that Bitcoiners should be relatively ignoring at this point. We all KNOW that fiat is inflated to infinity, so it's not a useful or reasonable way of looking at the price of fees (or the price of anything, even Bitcoin itself).
So as long as you stack early and often, fees will always be low. You're not just investing in BTC's price when you buy BTC, you're investing in the ability to pay low fees for transactions in the future. And it will be low, comparatively to those who came into BTC later. I imagine people with 500,000 BTC stacks don't care about 700 sats/vbyte. Extreme example, but the point is, the earlier you stack, the cheaper you transact.