To each their own, there thousands of options trying to bring “missing functionality” to Bitcoin, it called crypto, bridges are fragile and bridges break, I use lightning and cashu so I can’t say much.
I think the best way to say it is to just post nostr:npub12qz56plzehejkyp4waaannmnny4y4c30j8q55a3wlk49haslga2snypdx8's Bitcoin Takeover podcast and let you decide for yourself. https://www.youtube.com/live/1mLey8XsMBg
Fragile bridges indeed. Build on rock, not sand. 🙏
The real take-over attempt and threat for Bitcoin is keeping Bitcoin stale as an asset and have mostly centralized Bitcoin derivatives circulate in the market. This is what Michael Saylor supports currently.
In my view, decentralized finance on the Bitcoin network, Nostr, local Bitcoin economies ... everything that makes Bitcoin useful and flow, that enhances people's financial freedom, while keeping Bitcoin's secure and decentralized qualities, is what keeps the freedom future of Bitcoin alive.
The main take away I got from this pod hinges on everyone's reliance on Bitcoin Core, and to a smaller extent Knots. We need 100 different Libbitcoin interfaces with the network. Eric is a very knowledgeable guy and his work is invaluable. So heed the warning, SINGLE POINTS OF FAILURE are bad. Everyone looking at robust layer 2 solutions (scaling money is not a compsci reference) might want to check their Presuppositions about a robust layer 1.
Regardless there's no point in convincing people to use one money or another, the results speak way clearer and louder than roadmaps and function adds. If Bitcoin was worthless no one would waste their energy making them, or trading for them, or using them. So, that on its face isn't true. From that framework there are still a multitude of possibilities.
