> Most individual people won’t self custody

I think you're wrong about this. We are technically capable of scaling onchain throughput to serve every human at reasonable fee rates.

If we fail to achieve this scale it will be due to a failure of social scaling. Wasted too much time on OP_RETURN and defeatist takes while the foxes raided the henhouse.

the fox is already in the henhouse btw

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I hope I am wrong about it.

Technically you’re right. But my view of most people and their laziness / lack of technical aptitude is obviously a lot more cynical than yours lol!

Agreed the fox is already in. There’s blood everywhere. I’m pivoting my energy towards another angle of power distribution that I believe is more realistic.

Maybe that’s defeatist. In the meantime I’ll also support the efforts of people who share your view, despite my cynicism (looking into this small pools thing and probably going to contribute hash). If I’m proven wrong, then that’s a good thing.

Wait... I thought the maximum number of yearly transactions is a couple hundred million. How would that meet throughput of everyone?

Increase throughput. There are many possible designs. Some soft forks, some hard forks. I like Lopp's goldiblocks proposal. James O'Bierne talks about $1000 self-sovereign nodes being a perfectly reasonable goal. 1MB blocks are not the answer. That was just a number Satoshi picked with no rationale. Why should we be stuck with it forever?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPPKok5luk4

Lopp sent me this presentation too in another discussion but I don’t understand how this is a robust solution:

nostr:nevent1qqstrmtk0xtd5jymyln660jl032ejs9k5yrv059mkk42dsf6y65yevqp0t4hz