So 21million is enough, even if only a fraction of the population hold keys?
Discussion
News flash: Most people don’t want the responsibility of holding their own keys. If you don’t solve for that, any proposed upgrades to Bitcoin Core to encourage self-sovereignty won’t make a difference.
Have this conversation all the time. People can barely manage bank accounts.
Oh, you lost your private key backup and now your kids can’t go to college? Guess you’re shit outta luck, my dude.
This level of responsibility is not for everyone.
If only we had chain native ways to do vaults or more expressive ownership. How do we enable that?
Oh. With a soft fork.
Lol, yes people have to be able to hold their wealth and NOT lose it in order to spend it later. Welcome to Earth.
I just don’t see a world where some form of custodial banking services doesn’t exist for the indefinite future.
Right, there will always be custodians. The point is it is a service not a requirement. Right now you cannot self custody cash at your house and spend that cash electronically with a card without being an accredited bank. With Bitcoin you can. But that same custodial service exists in Bitcoin. It just carries the same risk as a bank. Most people will trust a custodian and risk their asset for the privilege of not having to learn about wallet software and seed phrases.
Does Bitcoin become captured if there are no unilateral exits once you have enough sats to pay fees?
Define some terms for me, please. What does "Exits" mean in this context?
And to which fees are you referring?
"Exit" means making a transaction on chain. Satisfying a script condition for a valid transaction per consensus rules.
Sats/vbyte. Transaction weight fees.
So is the question is: is Bitcoin captured if you can make a transaction?
I would say no but of course captured by what? The miners including your transaction in a block? The node runners validating? The entity sending the coins?
There is no way around the educational hurdle of the great mass of people to learning to manage private keys.
Do people have an alternative to banks? Is it technically possible?
Timed transactions which we need for inheritance would also maybe help make this less daunting for people. Could make it so if you lose your keys, your money gets sent to a trusted exchange or bank you use
(or a friend/family obv)
Go read first paragraph of the whitepaper.
Also, you can already do inheritance with script. Time decaying multi-sig exists today.
"first paragraph of the whitepaper" - you mean the abstract? I don't get what you're saying
"you can already do inheritance with script" - no I can't because I don't code, but if I could I would still wait for a major cryptocurrency like Bitcoin or doggie coin to have it on chain instead of thinking it needs an ecosystem split
Yes. Read it again to understand the problem bitcoin is the solution for.
This is like saying you can't use WiFi or email when it first came out. Weak argument.
I don't need to read the whitepaper abstract again, thanks
You're not making any sense - WiFi indeed cannot be used to secure your inheritance in any way I know of
"Custodians are a feature not a bug" thinking will result in regulatory capture of the network.
People have to man up and learn to manage their own private keys.
If not to manage their own money,
To prove their own identity on an online world
And that's what created the fiat system in a nutshell. Mommy mommy I don't wanna do it, I'm tired, do it for me mommy.
Adults need to take responsibility over their own lives, giving their money and their other keys to third parties is irresponsible, simple as that
Most people don't want the inconvenience or friction.
The UX for holding keys has improved drastically over time. Same with email and WiFi.
Strawman argument. This is like saying no one will use the internet because dial up sucked. The UTXO limitation is technical, what you describe is social.
Everyone thought that amazon would fail because the UX of dial up and payments was terrible but while Bezos openly recognised this, he knew what he was building was going to be so compelling that people wouldn't care and persevere to enter the largest bookstore in the world.
don't conflate the argument of 'will they' with 'can they'. Two separate issues.
Yes because it is infinitely divisible. There is nothing in the code that says you have to stop at 8 zeros.