I wish I could get inside the minds of these people who think "sharing utxos" accomplishes anything for Bitcoin in terms of scaling
lightning is already "sharing utxos" and look at how bad it is, any other construction will be worse
Discussion
i’ve always thought the worst scaling axiom was ‘it must have unilateral exits’
What is a better scaling axiom? Centralise coodination and control? Is there anything else?
But I qualified with an open question at the end. My initial question certainly can look like your meme but it explains my world view. My follow up question shows I'm open to be taught. You didn't answer the question.
What other scaling options do we potebtially have? What should I be reading about?
i only really care about seeing better trust-minimised two-ways pegs.
there’s liquid, there’s the drivechain approach but my preference is pegs permissionlessly enforced by proofs.
CISA
We need to be realistic about scalability.
As Bitcoin grows, later entrants are going to get priced out of base layer regardless if its gonna survive so why do we need to try and have 8 Billion+ people with direct sovereign access to this layer when 95% of them couldn’t afford the fees? Makes no sense.
What is your current way of thinking?
What else do we even have? Bitcoin has a lot more demand to get through in the coming future.
People actually think that?
I’ve always thought it’s all about privacy and assumed others understood the same.
Can a person with a shared utxo spend said utxo without permission/obstruction from someone else?
I don’t understand how utxo sharing works or even could work.
But I can tell you how to think about it. Any software trick that allows more people to transact per byte of block space is potentially critical to the survival of bitcoin.
Remember, bitcoin must evolve to spread cost of ongoing security to whichever users are currently transacting. Right now, hodlers are paying most of the cost of security by permitting debasement of their coins.
This is why every successful halving is worth a party. It means technology grew sufficient to spread security costs over enough users to keep the system running securely with half the debasement subsidy.
If bitcoin doesn’t get used more efficiently, this system won’t last much longer. Bitcoin has to incentivize new and clever ways to be used to keep it alive.