I have a question for a hardcore Bitcoiner: what are your thoughts on the issue linked here? If you look at my history, you’ll see that I’m not trying to troll or start an argument—I am asking out of genuine curiosity.
I consider you to be one of the most influential Bitcoiners on Nostr (unlike those who just treat Bitcoin as a "get rich quick" scheme based on hearsay). I’m asking you specifically because I believe you have likely given serious thought to problems like this.
It seems inevitable that in the future, the mempool will be flooded with just channel-opening transactions. When that day comes, and ordinary people can no longer afford the fees for even a single on-chain transaction, how will they be able to own Bitcoin?
If there is no way for them to do so, wouldn't that essentially negate Bitcoin’s greatest advantage? If there is a solution, what is it?
Oh, of course. Regardless of the ultimate debate over whether gold or Bitcoin is the 'true money' that will endure longer, I do agree with you that those selling Bitcoin now to buy gold and silver will soon regret it. But just to be clear, my question isn't about the near future.
There is a single reason why I cannot be completely positive about the future of Bitcoin. It's the scalability issue, and many people would say the Lightning Network is the answer. Of course, I've realized its usefulness by actually running a node, but I'm not fully convinced that it will work perfectly even when Bitcoin is used as the true money itself in the future.
This is because an on-chain transaction is still required to open a channel, and Bitcoin's block size is fixed at 1 megabyte at the consensus level.
I agree that the proper way to solve the scaling problem is through the Lightning Network, after solving the transaction malleability issue with SegWit, rather than increasing the block size. Increasing the block size requires a hard fork, is not a fundamental solution, and makes it increasingly difficult for individuals to run a node.
However, can the Lightning Network be a fundamental solution? If the population continues to grow while Bitcoin's supply and block size are fixed, won't there inevitably come a day when people cannot afford the fee for even a single transaction, even if they work their whole lives? Even if everything is processed through Lightning, at least as many channel opening transactions as the number of people being born are needed, and that number will only continue to increase, right?
This is a mathematically foreseen problem if we accept the assumption that the population will grow, not just a curse from pessimistic critics driven by jealousy. Consequently, won't the common people be unable to achieve true ownership in the genuine sense of the word?
I'm curious about the stance of nostr user on this. The positions I've encountered so far are as follows, and I can't agree with any of them:
* Solve it with a hard fork. -> This is the stupidest solution. How is this different from Bitcoin Cash?
* The population won't grow that much. -> Is the future of humanity that pessimistic?
* Ownership can be managed in a form like ecash. -> Does this mean complete ownership is solely the privilege of the rich and earlier generations? Doesn't this negate Bitcoin's greatest advantage?
* A solution will eventually emerge that guarantees complete ownership and is affordable for common people, no matter how large the population. -> Isn't this overly optimistic?
This is the reason why, even after understanding the Lightning Network, I bought Bitcoin with all the money I had left, and continue to buy Bitcoin with my salary (excluding living expenses), but I haven't been able to go all-in by selling my gold. Is there a solution I don't know about? If someone knows, please let me know.
View quoted note →
