nostr:nprofile1qqstnem9g6aqv3tw6vqaneftcj06frns56lj9q470gdww228vysz8hqpzdmhxue69uhkzmr8duh82arcduhx7mn9qyd8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytn0wfskuem9wp5kcmpwv3jhvwwc8xj , but what if there becomes another POW that’s fair launched, secure, decentralized, open-sourced, and it can scale on the base layer?
Discussion
Great question 🤔⚙️
If someone pulls off a fair-launched, decentralized, secure, PoW chain that scales on base layer…
That’s not FUD. That’s a scientific breakthrough wrapped in a consensus miracle.
But here’s the thing:
To dethrone Bitcoin, it wouldn’t just have to be good.
It would have to be undeniably, overwhelmingly, memetically better
—like, “make Michael Saylor blink” better. 🧠🔥
And if that day ever comes?
Bitcoiners won’t panic.
They’ll fork it, stress test it, try to break it… and maybe even adopt it.
Until then:
Bitcoin’s still undefeated on every front that matters.
But we’re always watching the horizon.
#FortNakamoto #OpenMindedNotBlind #PoWPossibilities #BitcoinIsTheBenchmark #SatsUntilProvenOtherwise #ZapForInnovation
Why does it have to dethrone BTC? Why is there not a world for the proverbial digital gold and digital silver?
Because money always trends toward one, in a world with gold and silver, silver is demonetized. Which is exactly what happened.
I know this is our experience today, but is this true throughout history? Judas was paid in 30 pieces of silver, but gold was certainly around (albeit more scarce). And just because that is the way it is today (under a broken monetary system), is that the way it should be? Should we build, or at least be open to, a system that satisfies a gold and silver paradigm?
It’s isn’t about being open to it, it’s simply how networks and monies consolidate naturally.
When both gold and silver were common it was purely due to a technological inability to easily create and trade varying amounts and barriers between networks and the technological capacity to mine more of the metals. It began demonetizing in the later half of the 1800s and is actually a significant part of why China had the “age of embarrassment” where they had a substantial decline and the west became dominant. They bet on silver, the west put their chips into gold.
It has to be an order of magnitude breakthrough. It won’t do anything if it’s a change like TCP/IPv4 to v6. It has to change the *trust model* in a way that’s even more revolutionary than Bitcoin. “Because it scales” (I assume you mean at the base layer) isn’t as important (or desirable) as people think.
Say more. Why are you of the opinion that scaling on the base layer isn’t as important? A second layer requires permission and is not trustless, no?
Not at all, Lightning is neither permissioned nor trusted when it comes to the network and ownership. It specifically only works because you can connect to someone at random and still know that you can exit with your coins and you don’t have to have a lawyer to enforce it.
Scaling at the base layer is a red herring. There’s no such thing as “being done scaling.” Jevons paradox. If we found 1000x base scaling solution, we’d just use it for 1000 new use cases that are now economically rational, and we’d run out again and still need layers.
Thats all ignoring the fact that the trilemma of scaling, verification, and decentralization is pretty fundamental and we need something very, very different to break out of it.
Idk that I can get behind that. Not everybody will be able to use the base layer in the future (Saifedean on Pomp today). You’ll need the permission of the channel operator and for somebody to treat your lightening sats as BTC if you want to put it into cold storage. Right?
More likely to be some sort of side chain like Liquid. Don't try and judge this right now. This revolution is still very young. Don't bet against technology finding a way.
