I agree with this. But we won't have this problem until we get close to exhausting the mining-subsidy supply around the middle of this century, because one sat cannot reach one dollar (today's money) until the hashpower and subsidy balance to around one dollar per sat. We are far from that possibility today because we are no only constrained by supply-inflation and market forces, but also by mining equipment bottlenecks and energy availability. Once the value of a sat is on course to cause a transaction to be cost-prohibitive, let's say because a single-sat would potentially be worth an average middle-class household's month or year's pay, and the minimum transaction cost were to be clamped to one sat, then it may be worthwhile to further fractionalize the sat onchain, but until then, we are arguing the sexes of angels.
Replies (2)
Yea my framing is in a hypothetical scaling scenario to entertain the "we must scale to 8BN people that don't have any money" virtue signals people use to justify shitcoining.
I personally think that's retarded, but it undercuts these fake L2s re-branding trust and centralization.
It is possible all L2s must necessarily be non-final to maintain the value of on-chain settlement. That idea has crossed my mind. If everyone is comfortable with the security of the L2, and there no cryptographic or security need to settle on L1, and it is effectively free to settle on L2, them there is no longer a need to mine in L1. Of course this breaks the entire system because L2 security depends on L1 security which is guarded by sufficiently large hashpower. So a "perfect" L2 can never actually eliminate the need to settle on L1, and L1 necessarily must be "more secure" than L2 alone.
