it’s hilarious how very few people actually hold a significant amount of bitcoin. my guess is in the single millions
what did they offer you matt?
https://primal.net/e/note13trdrcdtka2nag7etuy7yg0m6vxrqakthnk6k3zm5lpeu89y5w3s0vjrv2
they have chimneys in apartments?
bitcoin cannot be attacked used as is
if not make it more extreme
all fake news have some truth in them
where is the new demand?
this makes no sense. as long as there is blockspace demand people will shell as much sats as required from their utxos as possible
they obviously planned for this and executing the right direction. the pricing mechanisms will improve
21M is enforced through the UTXO set. everything _outside_ of direct cryptographic ownership of UTXOs is designed to be regulated by this mechanism. whether it's an ETF, Liquid, a rollup, a fedimint, coin-pools or just vanilla LN - it's all regulated by the OPTIONALITY to demand and provide on-chain settlement
this means that the "thundering-herd" apocalypse scenario is not just a risk of technical layers like LN, Covenants, but a structurally unsolvable limit of bitcoin. by design
if so, why not go with the constructs that can at least guarantee the highest amount of successful unilateral enforcement: Covenants?
if the alternatives are banks, ETFs and/or federations, i rather at least knowing i have _some_ chance of ejecting a non-cooperating counter-party than having none at all
that quality is also the only kind of game-theoretic dynamic that can be stable on the highest resolution of end-users
ordinal are an attack on bitcoin as much as excess fiat liquidity is an attack on everything else
people pay for the range of their EV battery. why won't people pay for the range of sats they can receive in their channel?
segwit wasn't a significant improvement of scale. as long as block-size isn't hardforked, the demand for bytes will remain the same. if better alternatives materialize in the future it will STILL be expensive to move out of your current UTXO. there are no magics
the best shot for the common pleb of ever holding RealBitcoinâ„¢ is holding _optional_ UTXOs in covenant enabled models such as Ark or Timeout-trees where the only need for an on-chain tx is if the operator fails to cooperate
this requires a stable incentives model that is still theoretic, and it's theoretically irresistant to a "run on blockchain" scenario where a large cohort of cooperated activity breaks and requires settlement
yet that's the best option i can think of going forward, BEFORE resorting to things like federated pools
the thing is you cannot use NgU to justify the ability to move a 0.01 utxo in the future. if anything, NgU will make the required fee, priced in bytes, more expensive
you need to forecast fees in available kilobytes. not dollar price
if you're poor and want to save with bitcoin you'll have to be extremely efficient managing your utxos and plan for very few top-ups, maybe once a year
the interim will have to be held with dollars
look at it like a bit more liquid real-estate
the great thing about ordinals is that they simulate hyperbtc before hyperbtc. you'll probably have a few more chances of consolidating your bullshit, but that's it. no more 50$ on-chain DCAs. no more 20$ spliced-in phoenix channels. bitcoin L1 is not for the general population of end-users
LN LSPs might be able to provide a few 10s of millions of economically viable channels, but that's it. the rest will be built on higher-level trade-offs
you really though you’re getting perfect scarcity without carrying cost? smh