pull down to refresh
339 sats \ 16 replies \ @BTCNautilus 14 Nov \ on: On Bitcoin "Scaling" and the need for "Changes" bitcoin
Not sure I want to wade into this one fully, but, I think you misunderstand the capability of the Lightning Network to provide scale.
Yes, it can provide an "unlimited" number of transactions. Lightning does an amazing job scaling the number of payments between parties that have a UTXO. Also yes, it's conceivable that the cost of opening a Lightning channel will be worth the cost, even on an individual basis, for quite awhile longer.
The problem isn't about cost, exactly (though the issues are related). The problem is throughput. It is the sheer number of UTXOs required to use the Lightning Network this way. We simply cannot make enough Lightning Channels for individuals, at scale, to have ownership over their bitcoin with a self-custody Lightning UTXO.
Arguing about cost isn't going to change that fact. You may be fine with this, and it's an arguable point, but what you're really saying is that custodial solutions are the way most people will use bitcoin going forward.
If i understand what you're saying...
You're saying that 1 person = 1 lightning channel
And even if that channel is opened once (or very infrequently)
there still won't be enough 'utxos' to open enough 'channels' for each and every individual.
I would agree with this. But even if this were the intention... why should each person have a channel? What about a channel per family? Or a channel for an entire business (for employees to use, kind of like a business credit card, or debit card).
And I still believe that some people will use custodial solutions regardless, no matter the cost or efficiency of scaling because they don't want to take custody or 24 words (for example).
So between the number of people wanting to use Bitcoin
the number of individual 'groups' (businesses, families, etc that constitute those groups)
the number of channel opens and closes
and the infrequency with which people can open and close those channels (generally choosing to keep them open)...
I believe we can scale lightning much, much more. It's not unlimited but if people were really interested in it there's a lot more we could do.
Right now there isn't much in the way of demand... and most people running their own lightning nodes/even using lightning at all are enthusiasts
reply
I would agree with this. But even if this were the intention... why should each person have a channel? What about a channel per family? Or a channel for an entire business (for employees to use, kind of like a business credit card, or debit card). And I still believe that some people will use custodial solutions regardless, no matter the cost or efficiency of scaling because they don't want to take custody or 24 words (for example).
I think we're on the same page with this, at least in that custodial solutions are inevitable, and that in our current state, we'll fine equilibrium somewhere between sovereignty and custody that makes the most economic sense.
My individual concern is that if we are not able to find a way to move the slider more toward self sovereignty being possible for more people, bitcoin ends up no better than gold in terms of being "sound money."
If you're a fan of Lyn Alden (or even if not), this is one of the ideas I've internalized most from her writing. Why did gold fail, and why was it replaced by paper and eventually fiat? The demand and velocity of payments required a different technology. This force centralised gold into the hands of fewer and fewer, and the paper promises into the hands of more and more. All that remained for fiat to take over was to sever the redeemability of the paper to the gold. That dynamic can play out with Bitcoin too if we're not careful.
reply
I agree.
I think how Bitcoin is different to gold... is that it's just so far superior.
Try explaining that to a 'no-coiner' though. And I'm not judging 'no-coiners' at all, the vast majority of people are that way, but it is how it is.
reply
Lightning may not be the only way to scale though. Hal Finney predicted that there'd be private bitcoin banks that would issue notes backed by Bitcoin. I think that may be quite likely too.
reply
reply
at least it's still sound money.
You could provide people easy to use, cheap effective self custody and 'censorship resistance'. And I'm not sure that everyone would use it however it's still a big improvement.
I agree. I'm not sure that Bitcoin's fate is really for 'small daily' payments for candy bars cigarettes and chocolates. I mean maybe it is and I'm wrong!
But those things lose value very quickly... and Bitcoin doesn't.
It would make sense that Bitcoin is traded for other commodities, oil, gold, soybeans, property... even using the lightning network depending on the type of trade.
Trading Bitcoin for a candy bar to go and immediately eat it... unless you are out of everything else doesn't make as much sense honestly.
reply
Not only is it likely, it's definitely going to happen. But as I said the reply below, if we end up in a situation where you either own your own UTXO, or someone else does, and most people are in the "someone else" camp, I think we have a chance to the entire value bitcoin could bring to the world slip away.
reply
this is an interesting idea.
If the demand for Bitcoin and holding Bitcoin (specifically in self-custody where this becomes an issue anyway) is so great that 'we are running out of UTXOs' despite being able to willing to pay much much more for them....
then wow we have far more Bitcoin adoption than today.
reply
I don't necessarily agree with that.
There's still two huge differences between Bitcoin and fiat, even if most people hold Bitcoin in custodial accounts:
-
It's actually possible to self custody if you want to. With the current fiat system, this is almost impossible (or very inconvenient and unsafe) to do in large amounts.
-
The money supply is fixed and not controlled by governments.
These two features already bring much benefit, even if most people hold bitcoin custodially.
reply
Right. I'm not comparing bitcoin to fiat though, I am comparing bitcoin to our previous iteration of sound money, Gold.
Yes, it is possible to self custody, but will it be possible forever? Maybe for you and I, because we already own nice and shiny UTXOs.
Again, if most people only interact with bitcoin through custodians, we risk the slippage into the same situation. Sound Money held by few > Paper Promises > Paper Promises eroded > Paper Promises revoked.
reply
I agree with that. I suppose it will depend on how and when it becomes too expensive/difficult to self custody. I still would argue that Bitcoin offers some advantages over gold in this regard; less difficult to self custody, more secure, more portable. But only time will tell how an actual bitcoin based economy materializes.
reply
this is an interesting point.
perhaps one way to think of Bitcoin... is as a digital property. Property is 'finite'... that's why it's valuable.
Folks with the UTXOs (even small ones) are the property owners, property holders. And folks with lightning channels and their own utxos own that property but it's like a condo of sorts. The owner of the building has some say in the future and any given state of the property.
And the people using custodial services (which will be some people no doubt) are like renters. They don't own the property at all... they just rent property and us it for their own purposes while they can.
Is this a perfect system? No. But it gives people options and maybe that's the best we can hope for.
reply
I agree with that.
I think most folks would have an issue... only to the extent that rehypothication could and would occur. Banks and institutions 'saying' they had the Bitcoin, when they really didn't.
reply