Was thinking about this yesterday.

The current banking model is set up so that small amounts of money can be self custodial (cash) but large amounts of money must be held at a trusted institution for safe keeping.

The Bitcoin model is the exact opposite. Large amounts of value are worth taking self custody of and paying for the use of block space, while small amounts can be kept with a custodian for better payments solutions. Lightning will scale much further, but in the future you could have an on-chain address which represents your life savings, one single lightning channel going to a trusted payments provider, and some small amount of remote liquidity to make payments through them. That’s all you’d need to live on a complete Bitcoin standard, and even without further scaling (which there will be lots of) we could service a huge proportion of the world through this model.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

few | wef

#[1]

few | wef

#[0]

Exactly. But I totally understand peeps with technical know-how and incentives who prefer to run everything themselves. I just don't believe that at this time NOSTR zaps is one of applications that needs to run on a self-sovereign setup 🤙👊🍻

I think the point is for one zap provider (WoS) to dont have extreme % of lightning cake. The problem right now us that in zapping front one zapping provider is much better than competition. This shouldn’t last due to economical incentives.

I reckon there will be more and more options for Lightning and other for more private cash-like payments (Cashiu 🥜) the more the merrier. Till we get to Bitcoin Standard, self custody needs to win hearts and minds. Without that the future won’t be great. The idea that some of my #nostr friends aren’t stacking and using non-custodial solution… doesn’t sit well with me.