Have to agree with Chris here. Some would say, myself included, that Lighting is Bitcoin because it is directly tied to UTXOs. I also don’t think Dorsey is advocating for changes to blocksize, and even if he was, incredibly unlikely to mean or amount to any protocol changes. I don’t know 100% - but am pretty confident here.
Discussion
Yeah, and dollars were directly tied to ounces of gold... AGAIN, I am not saying he wants to change the protocol, you implied that.
Lightning is a coupon system derived from UTXOs but they are not the same thing. It is also not a semantic difference either. It is fundamentally different because lightning bitcoin is created and destroyed with each channel open and close. It is also bound to the revocation rules applied to channel states. So, not some irrelevant difference.
Valid point.
But I don’t think it all neatly fits in the Austrian School definitions. Lightening strikes me as far more of an “asset” than typical layer 2 on fiat.
Once again. Just my 2 cents.
True, the closest the Austrian school got to bitcoin was Hayek's quote: “I don’t believe we shall ever have good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government, that is, we can’t take them violently out of the hands of government, all we can do is by some sly roundabout way introduce something that they can’t stop.”
Really prescient prediction.
You may be right. But non of this, I believe, is the essence or spirit of what Jack D intended to mean. So while factually what you are sayin re: lighting may be true; it is possible that what is so confusing here in this thread is your misinterpretation of what he is trying to say.