Replying to Avatar Corbin

Bitcoin's fungibility, akin to cash or gold, faces no inherent flaw but reflects external pressures like governmental overreach, not the protocol itself.

In monetary theory, fungibility ensures units are interchangeable, a criterion Bitcoin meets at its core, where one Satoshi equals another.

Its transparent design enables verifiable auditability, reinforcing trust, integrity, and resilience-a feature absent in opaque systems like Monero.

Bitcoin's transparent blockchain ensures auditable integrity, enabling proactive countermeasures against nefarious actions like double-spending or 51% attacks, fostering trust.

Anyone, holders or newcomers can verify transactions or reject invalid blocks, sparking participation like buying Bitcoin or running nodes when threats, like nation-state, corporate, or central bank attacks, become visible, strengthening its self-sustaining security.

Provable unethical actions against Bitcoin raise awareness, inspiring education, adoption, and political advocacy for values like private property and sound money.

This openness turns perceived vulnerabilities into a robust security feature, enabling prompt calls to action that grow resilience.

Ever-growing advancements, tools like CoinJoin, Lightning Network, eCash, and Nostr, enhance practical fungibility by enabling private, uncensorable transactions without sacrificing base layer integrity.

Bitcoin’s open-source, fully transparent nature ensures perpetual advancement, open to all, with unstoppable free markets upholding its integrity.

External interventions, like government restrictions seen with gold bans, cash tracking, or efforts against privacy tools like CoinJoin, do not undermine Bitcoin's intrinsic properties, just as state efforts failed to suppress cryptography.

Its decentralized, unalterable cap and nation-state-resistant design erode centralized control, defunding mechanisms of arbitrary regulation.

This ensures its sound money properties: scarcity, portability, divisibility, fungibility, durability, verifiability, and universal demand sustain unmatched global adoption, outstripping alternatives prone to centralized risks.

sats may be arguably fungible but LN is a “payment method” on a side chain, or layer 2, that isn’t as reliable as layer 1 and for big amounts is far from efficiency. Although I agree that it is an amazing solution for small amounts

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Yeah, lightning on nostr is such a good example.

Over time companies could build trust through track record/reputation, kind of like how people trust visa, amex and mastercard. Cashapp uses lightning, and as it gets built out more, it could facilitate higher amounts.

More layer twos will be built of course, maybe some will outdo lightning.

To state the obvious, like Nik Bhatia in layer money talks about money is built on layers. Gold takes too much energy, it's too costly - not possible to move fast hence paper money and wire transfers.

Critical aspects of the base layer being robust security, transparency, immutability, decentralization and proof of work; it's a feature to have privacy and near instant transactions on secondary layers.

And the obvious again for anyone interested, once you open a payment channel and commit funds, it can stay open indefinitely as long as both parties keep it active, no need to settle on the Bitcoin blockchain.

This lets you transact privately off-chain, potentially forever, creating a kind of self-contained, circular economy within the channel.

The base layer only gets involved if you close the channel or someone tries to cheat, triggering the on-chain settlement.

It’s a powerful setup for privacy and efficiency, as long as the channel stays funded and both sides cooperate.

Lightning channels do involve a degree of trust, but it’s minimal and technical rather than interpersonal.

Both parties need to trust that the other won’t try to cheat by broadcasting an old channel state, but this is deterred by the protocol’s penalty mechanisms-like the watchtower feature or timelocks that let honest parties reclaim funds if someone tries to close the channel maliciously.

But yeah, if someone unilaterally closes the channel, it settles on-chain, and that privacy layer shifts.

Trust in Lightning Network channels often ties to reputation and incentives, especially in practical scenarios.

If you're running a channel with a big player like a mastercard or visa equivalent (some entity with a strong track record) they're heavily incentivized to keep the channel open and act ethically to protect their brand and business.

Same goes for smaller, private setups; reputation and the promise of ongoing business creates a strong motive to avoid screwing over a partner by closing a channel maliciously.

Plus, legal recourse, adding another layer of deterrence. Even in off-grid or remote cases, mutual benefit and social trust can keep things stable. It's less about blind trust and more about reputation and track record and or aligned incentives backed by the protocol's safeguards.

Agree, lightning network is awesome