Also the btc main layer is a major settlement layer. It doesnt even compare to ACH or wires in frequency. The fees going up if its tried to be used in that way will force it, and that is a good thing.

A chain cannot grow so fast with high tx so that it bloats and exceeds hard drive capabilities for distributed nodes or it becomes centralized. Its performing exactly the way it should. L2 solutions will take care of coffee transactions.

You talk about BTC as a settlement layer. A settlement layer for what? The lightning network? Laughable.

BTC might have a future as a store of value like gold, and it deserves credit for establishing cryptocurrencies as an entirely novel asset class. But I think other, better protocols will be used for those coffee transactions instead of hacking on a secondary layer to BTC.

> You talk about BTC as a settlement layer. A settlement layer for what? The lightning network? Laughable.

Personal opinion: I think the part you are missing here is that lots of transactions shouldn't be occurring on the base layer. Remember that every transaction that occurs is stored in perpetuity on every node in the Bitcoin network. It should be expensive for a transaction like that to occur, and we should create incentives that limit the creation of these as much as possible.

Why is it "laughable" for the lightning network to use BTC as a settlement layer? I think it's perfectly reasonable to have second and third layer networks that sit on top of Bitcoin acting as transaction networks, while the main BTC chain is used for larger transactions or to settle large batches of transactions from other layers.

It should not. Current systems manage it fine, because they don't use an insane model which tries to distribute every transaction to everyone, a model you're saying Bitcoin should move away from, at which point, why does Bitcoin exist?

I think it's perfectly reasonable to have second and third layer networks that sit on top of Bitcoin acting as transaction networks, while the main BTC chain is used for larger transactions or to settle large batches of transactions from other layers.

Instead of think of what we can do for Bitcoin, why don't we think about what it can do for us?

I don't really need a globally distributed ledger and all the problems that brings.

I think you missed my entire point.. I am saying that Bitcoin layer 1 should be a settlement layer for other "less distributed" state systems that sit on top of it.

> I don't really need a globally distributed ledger and all the problems that brings.

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on how to solve this.

To solve ‘this’, i.e. global payments throw bitcoin away and start again.

Focus on the problems real people have with payments, identity, trust, fees, speed, reliability, reversibility, somewhere reliable to store their money.

Blockchains fix none of that and actively make some of it worse.

I'm not convinced that niche in any way justifies the current valuation or hype, in particular from corps like Payal.

What you're really saying is that you don't think BTC should help banking the unbanked (because they often live in poor countries where their weekly salary is your cup of coffee).

> Why is it "laughable" for the lightning network to use BTC as a settlement layer?

It's laughable because people will just use another crypto, so they don't have to pay the +2 large and expensive BTC on-chain fees.

That is not at all what I am saying. I'm saying that technically only a very small subset of transactions should be settling on the base BTC layer, and hence that is how incentives should be (and are) setup.

In terms of USD vs BTC spending - I imagine a lot of people will want to spend USD, and BTC will serve as a store of value and backing asset. USD is possible via stablecoins though.

Serious question because this is something I have had trouble figuring out.

Why should transactions not be on the base layer? Isn't the whole point that the ledger is fully decentralized? How does pushing transactions into side channels (lightning, eth's layer 2) not end up centralizing transaction validation (they might not be completely centralized, but they seem by definition less centralized than the bitcoin base network)?

They're perhaps not on the general public radar yet, but Ethereum and Cardano both have a greater market cap than bitcoin had 4 years ago, and Cardano currently addresses lots of the other issues people talk about.

Why is it laughable?

The whole world doesn't need every little transaction to be permanently recorded on the public blockchain.

What is my blatant lie?

The maximum is about 8. But who cares at the end of the day. Settlement will be a rare event and needs to be for the reasons I just mentioned. Its the only system that works for decentralization and to deal with the bloating issue.

Despite all of Bitcoin's shortcomings, I'm a strong believer in the technology and the protocol. If we compare it to the internet and TCP/IP it is pretty designed. In real life its not necessarily the perfect protocol that wins. Sometimes a "crappy" one gets a head start, but it's good enough, and people will patch it along the way. The network participants will also end up using the network in novel ways that were not designed for originally.

Almost every technical aspect of Bitcoin that people like to claim makes it "old technology" or inefficient were purposefully chosen trade offs with decentralization. It's obvious that a single centralized database would beat every cryptocurrency on transactions per second.

As you say, this has never happened (to my knowledge). So it's possible that even though the problem is real, it will never actually occur in practice. In the end the real measure of success is how well these systems perform in the real world, so we could say this analysis of the theoretical problems doesn't hold much water. On the other hand if something like this were to happen, it would probably tremendously undermine confidence in the currency & destroy it overnight. So this could be more of a thanksgiving turkey situation where each day seems better than the last until thanksgiving arrives.

Here is a writeup I found on reddit that further elaborates this: """ There is a (currently hypothetical) edge-case where this could be reversed (not exactly the same as PoW chain reorganization due to forking, but similar.) In this edge-case:

We imagine the Internet has, right now, been carefully split by a malicious attacker into two exact halves

The Internet halves would be carefully contructed to each hold >60m online Nano votes. (This Internet fracture has never actually happened in Nano's lifetime. There are not 2 x 60m votes currently online.)

The attacker double-spends on a coffee (or house) in two of your stores worldwide just now

They then allow the Internet to heal

One of their transactions will be reversed by majority voting.

So while Nano transactions are fully-confirmed, they are not currently immutable.

Since there are not >120m votes currently online, it has not happened and cannot currently happen either. No previous-to-today Nano transactions will ever be reversed. """ -- throwawayLouisa https://www.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/bgdshq/what_i...

The blanket dismissal of all cryptocompute/cryptocontracts, because people only see it as a currency, is going to leave a lot of people behind. This is more like the emergence of virtualization or time sharing or c++. Cardano is multiple different development platforms and languages and an entire ecosystem. It's a backbone, the kind of underlying infrastructure that will go unseen by the masses, but be underneath a many things.

Edit: taking a peek, their proof-of-stake algorithm (called ouroboros) claims to have some formal security proof employing game theory. That would be interesting to look into as I am not familiar with that technique.