1. Banks want to keep you using banks

2. Keeping Bitcoin blocks small, makes Layer 1 unusable as real world cash

3. Non-Custodial Layer 2 is complex, the average person won't do it or pay for it

4. Custodial Layer 2 is the new Banking

5. Fiat Banks and insurance companies funded Blockstream.

6. Bitcoin Core devs also worked for Blockstream, which sells layer 2 solutions. That's a conflict of interest, they are solving the problem they create with the "small block" routine.

7. By having Maxis do the shitcoin routine on good alternatives, it forces the unrealistic solution of self-host Layer-2 hot wallets with a 1k minimum to play... or use bank custodial accounts.

8. Keeping the blocks small does NOT decentralize it, as lightning routes only work with large players acting as facilitators. And you can't even receive lightning unless you've already got funded channels. This is literally inequality: You need money to get money.

Therefore,

Nobody uses Bitcoin in the Real World. And Banks win.

What part of this are you disputing?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

The monero part

How would block size effect node operators?

This was discussed early on in the history of bitcoin. You’re conflating banks, which aren’t a societal detriment per se, with unbanked fiduciary media, which is everywhere and always the problem (see Austrian Business Cycle Theory). The part of the equation that you’re missing is automated proof of reserves and automated bank runs making fractional reserve banking untenable despite the existence of banks.

If you want to use a different protocol on a different network that sacrifices monetary assurances for the sake of privacy and also suffers from the same inherent non-scalability of all blockchains then that’s your prerogative, but it’s everyone else’s prerogative to disregard softer money in favor of harder money.

>automated proof of reserves and automated bank runs

I can't tell if this is dumber than delegated proof of stake

Custodial layer 2 on lightning, if there’s enough competition, will likely always allow you to withdraw and self custody your savings… even if there’s a premium to that feature, the market will pay and companies respond accordingly to profit motives. My hopes anyway. Cheers

you can never permissionlessly exit from a channel that you did not personally open

No kidding, I think it’s generally correct though that most people will not operate their own lightning channels as unfortunate as that may seem. I’m providing an optimistic market view that this won’t be all Orwellian due to market forces

I think payment channel based solutions belong in the trash bin

Perfect maxi clickbait and rage posting.

The arrogance of people is always outmatched by their mental bubble strength. Constant implosions.

On-chain layer 1 BTC will not be used as peer-to-peer cash. The community does not want that. The community likes to LARP as if they do, but it is ok to admit it is a forgotten dream of Satoshi.

Atomic swaps will be the solution for a non-custodial peer-to-peer cash and Bitcoin.

8. We have dual funded LN channels now. I can open a channel with my butcher. They pull payments through as I purchase meat each week.

Maybe not many are doing this, but it is possible today. A crackdown would see it flourish too.