AGREE/DISAGREE: Everyone will eventually be able to self-custody bitcoin \ stacker news ~bitcoin

AGREE/DISAGREE: Everyone will eventually be able to self-custody bitcoin

1881 sats \ 31 comments \ @Scoresby 9 Mar bitcoin

With Bitcoin as it is, it does not look like 8 billion people can use it in a self-sovereign manner where they have sole control over their funds without a third party. Will we ever get to a point where it is possible?

Not asking about people's know-how/skill, or desire.

AGREE35.1%

DISAGREE64.9%

57 votes \ poll ended

view all related items

72 sats \ 3 replies \ @jgbtc 9 Mar

There must always be a path for someone who wants it badly enough to be able to self custody. But the goal should definitely not be to make it possible for everyone to self custody simultaneously.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Scoresby OP 9 Mar

badly enough

Problem: as more people want it badly enough, fewer people will be able to afford wanting it badly enough.

At what point does the cost of making a transaction become high enough that someone who wants it badly enough simply doesn't have the money to pay for it?

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @jgbtc 9 Mar

The moment the cost of making a transaction becomes too high for someone is the same moment they don't want it badly enough.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby OP 9 Mar

"There must always be a path for someone who wants private jet travel badly enough to be able to" doesn't mean very much because most people will never be able to afford it.

Rather than saying that a person doesn't want it badly enough, I'd say they don't have the option.

Buying a ticket on one of these rockets that take people to space is higher than most people are willing to pay. Sure, they don't want it badly enough, but any system that purports to "always have a path to space" but requires hundreds of thousands of dollars obviously isn't a system that is widely available.

86 sats \ 7 replies \ @justin_shocknet 9 Mar

It's a mathematical impossibility. If you cannot afford your own UTXO, you have to trust someone who can.

Solutions that suggest otherwise are advocated for by either clowns that can't decipher Bitcoin from shitcoin, or outright frauds using class-warfare tactics wrt UTXO affordability that advance their agenda.

57 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 10 Mar

Solutions that suggest otherwise are advocated for by either clowns that can't decipher Bitcoin from shitcoin, or outright frauds using class-warfare tactics wrt UTXO affordability that advance their agenda.

I think people would give you more credit if you don't ignore nuances and don't speak in absolutes against things you disagree with. It makes you look biased.

34 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 10 Mar

I am biased, towards my version of the truth. Anyone who believes anything should be. Who learns from milquetoast takes?

Being incendiary at times serves to provoke debate or reflection, because if I base my positions on sound reasoning, those who disagree must therefore be unreasonable. Gentle persuasion is futile if someone isn't reasonable or consistent.

If someone thinks I'm wrong, that's great:

They either can stew about it until they realize better, or put me in place, in which case I learn something. That's still a win to me.

In the best case, and oh so common, is their emotions show and can be disected in public... This is important because narratives are a weapon of mass manipulation.

21 sats \ 4 replies \ @Scoresby OP 9 Mar

I was thinking about your exchange with @supertestnet on twitter when I wrote this.

I wonder if there is a way to predict the cost of "affording your own utxo"? It does change the conversation if holding your own utxo becomes expensive enough that only corporations, governments, and family office types can do it.

304 sats \ 3 replies \ @justin_shocknet 9 Mar

if there is a way to predict the cost of "affording your own utxo"

That's at the crux of the problem I think when people propose solutions, they're implying they've been able to make this prediction, which is impossible.

And without an accurate prediction, it's impossible to evaluate trade-offs of any alleged solution, or if it's even a solution at all.

This is not a new conversation, it's how BCashers misinterpreted "Peer 2 Peer" to such an extreme that they ended up with "Poor 2 Poor".

There is an emotional trigger here, the same that has been used in class-warfare since the beginning of mankind. The urge to signal ones own virtues about equality and equity makes people willing to believe the impossible.

These feels based narratives are why the questioning of fork use-cases trigger proponents so. It's a threat to their fragile reality, as illustrated by the many angry and denalist responses as seen elsewhere* in that thread.

not implicating @super_testnet, I know that he is thoughtful and truly seeks understanding

It's also a bit of the weak men create hard times meme. There's no reason to believe that owning of real Bitcoin will be any less attainable than owning a home, so a hyperfixation on that just shows that you didn't understand what you had, which always leads to ruin.

BCashers were created to serve as a warning to others.

526 sats \ 0 replies \ @Atreus 9 Mar

This is not a new conversation, it's how BCashers misinterpreted "Peer 2 Peer" to such an extreme that they ended up with "Poor 2 Poor".

Speaking as a writer, this is a high IQ turn of phrase 🫡

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 9 Mar

A lot of people (myself included) want bitcoin to be "money you can send to anyone anywhere anytime and no one can stop you." And conversations about the technical limits of bitcoin challenge this.

If the only way I can get the "no one can stop you" part is hitting the chain and that costs $1000, then I it isn't really "money I can send to anyone anywhere."

And if it doesn't have the "no one can stop you" part, it's not even bitcoin is it?

It feels like I am just hoping that with the right little tweak and the right innovations, we can have both.

34 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 9 Mar

I know, history repeats. We already went through this with the big blockers, and will probably have to forever and ever in various forms.

Nature finds a way to create a two party system.

130 sats \ 5 replies \ @DarthCoin 9 Mar

I don't think every user on this planet will ever use self-custody. Will always exist Bitcoin banks, being your uncle, your friend or a professional company.

But as Odell said very well: "let's make better custodians." That they cannot rugpull and less or almost no tracking users. Just provide a good custody for those in need.

21 sats \ 4 replies \ @Scoresby OP 9 Mar

Better custodians sounds good. There is a sense though that anything less than self-custody is a betrayal of cypherpunkism and the sainted satoshi.

108 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 9 Mar

I recommend you to listen that last dispatch with Odel and Voltage team. They are talking about a lot of things and also about custodians. Here: #455228

I am a strong believer in the "uncle Jim" method. Just think about a "LN bank" in each household. Not for a single user, but maybe 4-5-10 users. That is already a lot.

Not every people must be a 100% "cypherpunk"...

38 sats \ 0 replies \ @Atreus 9 Mar

Darth I was just thinking about this topic a few hours ago & your link is right on time. Thanks for posting!

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @kytt 9 Mar

Do you have any guides on being an Uncle Jim? I've been considering just waiting on eCash to get out of beta so I can use that and also take advantage of offline payments. What do you think?

121 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 9 Mar

Plenty here, by category https://darth-coin.github.io/ Also here: #330346 I wrote so many guides on SN, that I get tired.

44 sats \ 2 replies \ @NoIdols 9 Mar

there will be little to none BTC left for self custody in the future. Figures like Saylor or big players like black rock will keep indebting themselves in order to purchase all the btc...You will be able to buy from them, but not BTC (on chain) but Btc derivatives or through Etfs...

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 9 Mar

That's kind of a shitty future. I'm hanging on for something better.

52 sats \ 0 replies \ @NoIdols 9 Mar

the best thing we can do is to take care/educate our family and friends, and whoever is willing to listen...and onboard as more people as we can...

35 sats \ 0 replies \ @030e0dca83 9 Mar

Only brave stackers will have enough sats to self custody it. Everyone else will use custodial lightning wallets to store their 1k sats

34 sats \ 0 replies \ @joda 10 Mar

Bitcoin was the result of decades of multi-disciplinary work, with a spark of genius to put it all together and get it working. The last 15 years have been relentless work by talented devs to expand the capabilities and throughput of the network.

A ton of work is being done but we are still waiting on another flash of brilliance to make ownership possible for all people.

I read about the new developments, X-chains, third layers, etc... Daily. To be honest, there is currently no prospect.

We could see the "magic" solution tomorrow... or in 20 years. The incremental improvements being made now cannot provide full custody for all people.

34 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 9 Mar

It is yet to be seen

34 sats \ 2 replies \ @TNStacker 9 Mar

Everyone already is able. Willing. Willingness is the problem. People have been brainwashed into thinking self-custody is old fashioned, e.g., stuffed mattresses. LOL.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 9 Mar

I don't think everyone is able.

You've probably heard this before, but I'll repeat it because I'm curuous for your thoughts.

There's a number of ways to demonstrate that self-custodial bitcoin is not currently possible for 7 billion people.

Here's a common one: say each block contains 3000 transactions on average. Blocks are found at an average of every 10 minutes. That means 144 blocks a day, ~160 million transactions a year. To create 7 billion new utxos at this rate would be something like 40 years with every transaction being dedicated to sending btc to a new wallet.

Now maybe you can cut that number in half because of batch transactions, but you would also have to allow for the continued functioning of the network (people who already use btc wanting to do all the things they normally do with it).

Obviously, not everyone on the planet will suddenly decide to try to self custody their sats at the same time, but you can see how if any significant percentage of the world's population wants to hold their own keys, fees are going to have to go massively up, which makes the minimum value of a viable utxo go up and voila: not everyone can hold their own keys.

What do you think?

17 sats \ 0 replies \ @TNStacker 9 Mar

I think all things equal you may be right, but as you say adoption will take time. Advancements will take place. I think we both know it won't happen if if it can, so. interesting intellectual exercise.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @mateusdeap 11 Mar

I think yes, at some point. But given the other factors you didn't ask about, I don't think it will happen nor is it reasonable to go for such a goal. Making it possible is enough

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nullama 10 Mar

Technically speaking, you can easily have billions of wallets, each one holding whatever amount of sats is needed.

The reality is that not everyone will be interested in doing so.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @orange_crush 9 Mar

The open, rule-based system of bitcoin provides the permissionless environment needed to build solutions to problems as they arrive. We are in year 15 of a base layer that can last centuries.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SaToSHiWoMaN 11 Mar outlawed

stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.