by Rusty Russell at nostr
First up, I want to recognize that this is an uncomfortable topic! Bitcoin is inevitably changing towards user-pays, and that's not all positive. But facts we don't like are still facts: can't engineer a solution if we can't think about the problems.
There are three kinds of bitcoiners. A. Those who can afford any fee. B. Those who can afford a UTXO, but not often. C. Those who can't afford a UTXO.
Nobody worries about the A group (and in the early days, that was everyone). Obviously Lightning (my area!) caters to the B group, and we want it to be as large as possible. To do this we can (1) make lightning as resiliant as we can so onchain spends are rare, (2) make bitcoin as efficient as possible so we can cram as much as we can into what we have.
good post
reply
I thought so too, so I shared it. Too bad it didn't get traction here on SN.
reply
SN is full of statists, shitcoiners, gov agents, NgU speculators, clueless newbies... what do you expect?
reply
... sats farmers. Yep! I'm not denying your hypothesis, but it may also have something to do with the time I posted.
reply
I am glad that a lead LN developer is taking time to think about these issues. LN is not easy to fulfill all the demands. It have good points but also many others that have to be attented. We are still early.
reply