Rebalancing allows people to keep channels open longer. They still need to open and close channels from time to time.
And Lightning is only one of many sources of block space demand.
Discussion
Now that we can batch transactions thanks to Taproot and connectors, every prior needs to be reexamined.
The return on investment for developing solutions that leverage this new paradigm is far greater than hand-wringing over the block size.
It's not an either / or issue.
Obviously folks should continue improving layer 2 solutions.
What if they are so successful that demand for block space remains below the threshold necessary for a robust fee market?
We will have screwed ourselves out of sustainable thermodynamic security via our own success.
It’s quite incredible that this type of discourse is being held by Bitcoiners.
“What if consumers do no spend enough, we might have to twist the knobs of the economy to fix it”
Layer 2s are anchored in Bitcoin. They directly lead to more economically dense transactions, if adopted.
Trying to intervene with the market is a surefire way to screw ourselves
Not sure if you watched but the economics is only one issue
Another is centralizing forces.
Another is taking advantage of technological growth.
The world will continue to change, the question becomes whether or not Bitcoin will adapt.
The world will adapt to Bitcoin.
Not much else is needed.
Adjusting economic inputs regardless of the motivation is an exercise in centralization.
I think it’s more simpler than this. I’d make the argument that Bitcoiners don’t actually understand Bitcoin.
If that statement is true, then we have a limited understanding of what the blocksize even is. Why are we trying to change something we don’t yet fully understand?
Ugh, so we all don’t know anything really, well what’s all this about then? What’s going on? Who knows what, and do they REALLY know?
Simply put, I believe the answer to how we approach Blocksize is rooted in a completed understanding of both energy, entropy and their relationship to each other and Bitcoin.
Going back to source; what does a peer to peer electronic cash system actually mean?
Ok I'll bite, where's the outline or sketch of such thoughts?
Glad to see these convos on Nostr!
Yeah, and the world may adapt by sending the overwhelming majority of users through ETFs and trusted third parties.
The most convenient way to "scale Bitcoin" is an exercise in centralization.
You don’t need the majority of users to generate sufficient economic demand onchain.
Realistically only a small percentage suffice.
I’m thinking about why adjusting economic inputs is an exercise in centralization. Do you mean that because the action requires coordination it is de facto centralized? Or maybe because the intent is to benefit some group—the ability to focus specific attention is evidence of centralization?
How do you agree on the security target?
How is this any different than agreeing on the “right” inflation rate?