Replying to Avatar hopfield

“A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending. We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.”

So is it peer-to-peer, or institution-to-institution?
Avatar
Lyn Alden 2y ago

Peer to peer, but not scalable to 8 billion people on the base chain unless you make an insanely bulky one that only institutions can run. This is "Blockchain 101".

So what you do, is you build additional peer-to-peer layers on top of it, so it consists of multiple layers of open-source peer-to-peer payments and savings technologies for different sizes and speeds.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
hopfield 2y ago

I understand the scalability, and layers 2 and 3, etc. could provide a solution, but can they achieve the ideal characteristics that we seek with the base layer.

And regarding the base layer, I know hard forks are unpalatable, but how much longer can we stare the problem (ordinals) in the face and not talk about a fix?