pull down to refresh
30 sats \ 2 replies \ @028559d218 OP 14 Nov \ parent \ on: On Bitcoin "Scaling" and the need for "Changes" bitcoin
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
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