Subnostr

If we assume 3,200 transactions per block, and we assume every transaction is a Lightning channel open/close/swap in, and that every LN node has one of these per week, there is enough for blockspace for some 3.2 million operating lightning nodes. If we assume those nodes bank the entire world, then they will on average bank 2,325 different individuals.

Even if we assume Pareto principle where 20% of these custodians bank 80% of people, the remaining 80% will still on average bank hundreds of people.

With such limited capacity, I struggle to imagine a world where Bitcoin’s future is not co-opted by the chokeable necks of these many, many custodians.

I would love to hear solutions to this issue. Side chains are something I know little about. But, for example, torrents still absolutely exist and do easily and quickly distribute every single one of the movies in the world with a few simply clicks, and yet everyone still has a Netflix account. And a number of other accounts. These official apps manage to be just that much more convenient.

I fear the same will happen for Bitcoin. But I’m happy to be reasoned out of this worry.

Jeff Swann 2y ago

As things stand right now, people could theoretically be onboarded to the Lightning network in a non-custodial manner via the Liquid federated sidechain which has like 10x the block capacity of Bitcoin & can be changed much more easily. That alone is far better than any sort of less transparent custodial relationship. And even better is that BitVM seems to make trustless two way pegs possible, which means Liquid could potentially be made much more trustless & we will likely get all sorts of sidechain solutions, which will probably just be linked together via LN. Scaling seems like much less of an issue now than it ever has, it's just a matter of making use of all the tools currently available. There are Bitcoin Audible episodes covering a lot of scalling ideas.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

mrclownworld 2y ago

This is all fascinating and helpful, thank you. I’m just so hoping for that Sovereign Individual future where governments have to compete and lower taxes to attract capital… our children deserve that future and I hope we can deliver.

Jeff Swann 2y ago

I think freedom is going to be available to the people who really want it. Unfortunately, I'm so not sure everyone does.

mrclownworld 2y ago

That’s always a problem. But my worry is freedom will be too expensive for most, and that might negatively impact even the free ones.

Jeff Swann 2y ago

I think freedom will be far less expensive, in basically every way, than allegiance to any State. But States will make it seem scary or difficult & try to create all sorts of lock in so that people cannot leave with anything they have.

mrclownworld 2y ago

But if non-custodial Bitcoin is too expensive, then the doors are already locked for those people. I think we agree some will be in this boat, I think I’m just starting to realize it will be more people doomed than I thought.

Jeff Swann 2y ago

I don't think non-custodial solutions are going to be too expensive. Like I said the building blocks for proper scaling are already there & from the rumors I have heard even some of the newest ones are already being put to use in major projects.

mrclownworld 2y ago

This is what I was hoping to hear writing the post. Thanks for the optimistic info 🙏