Maybe just stake some SOL at 7 to 8% APY and wait for SOL to flip ETH MCAP & get some Bitcoin Cash as it looks likely to outperform BTC (BCH is the better Bitcoin)
The important point is that the 'banks' or institutions will be able to provide proof that they own the real BTC. This is much easier to do than auditing fiat.
They can prove they own X BTC onchain. But then we have to audit their offchain records and assert they match. It's not impossible. But it's basically what we have now - maybe a 4% improvement. If that's where we end up then I'd say there's really no point to any of this.
@@jordanmmck we don’t need to audit them. The consumers will inevitably audit them when the bank run happens. At that point they would not be able to find the money demanded of them. Then they collapse. No QE means no bailouts
@@jordanmmck any bank selling paper BTC will get wrecked as the cycles continue, as the price increases and as people learn about self custody. Bank runs on your BTC holding is different than a bank run on a bank for fiat that can be printed
@@mikejames7093 I want to see more ambition out of you guys. It's time we build a new civilization, not just make a digital gold then make regulations to ensure banks stick to the hardcap. Come on, think bigger
Lightning has not ‘failed’. It provides a viable network for a significant bump to transactions. It doesn’t have to solve the entire world to be worth something and is working pretty well for a significant number of people currently. More scaling solutions are needed, as LN is not the end all be all so thank you for demonstrating.
The title of this video is somewhat inflammatory, I'll give you that. Maybe I'll change it idk. It depends what you mean by "fail". It depends what the goal was. Lightning has often been presented as a "complete" solution. And in that sense it most certainly has failed. Or, more accurately, some bitcoiners have been misrepresenting it and claiming that bitcoin has no scaling issues at all, LN solves it etc etc. That's the kind of discourse that drives me toward inflammatory titles. WE SHOULD JUST BE HONEST. lol.
@@jordanmmck best video I’ve seen to clearly demonstrate where the shortfalls of LN are. Replacing the fiat foundation with Bitcoin was a great first step and it’s useful to see how fractional reserve banking results due to loss of transparency. Need some way to audit.
Maybe just stake some SOL at 7 to 8% APY and wait for SOL to flip ETH MCAP & get some Bitcoin Cash as it looks likely to outperform BTC (BCH is the better Bitcoin)
The thing is there are like ten different projects all of them are going to be together in sync increment the scalability of BTC to billions of users. All of this is simply a question of they all solve a different problem. They all work together and strengthen each other. Bitcoin can absolutely scale and the higher the number the greater the amount of people who will try to solve the issue.
Exactly, if we want to be early like we all are, we all try to understand these technologies on a fundamental level to maintain conviction in our thesis. But the reality is nobody needed to learn the coding and protocols of email to use it 20 years into its adoption, it works seamlessly (even though it was centralised, but ignore that part of the analogy). No other coin is catching bitcoin at this rate. And that means none can have a base layer value, and network brand that bitcoin has, even if it has its downfalls (hard to scale - but not impossible). Bitcoiners prioritise decentralisation as was shown with the blocksize wars. Decentralisation, in the way bitcoin was birthed is not replicable by any of the coins. It is so far ahead in its trajectory of network effects and scale in orders of magnitude that nothing can catch it. This means that since it is the clear winner, these scalable rails will get eventually get built, and bitcoiners, always prioritising decentralisation and security, will make sure its done right. Getting things right takes time. People say lightning, liquid, fedimint are all too complicated. Setting up and using dialup internet to make a purchase on ebay while your son was trying to make a phone call on the landline was complicated and total shit show. It could take an hour is your connection kept getting interrupted. What normie sees things scaling when they are at that stage of adoption? Fast forward 30 years and you can make an amazon purchase in 23 seconds from unlocking your phone screen. In 30 years lightning, liquid, fedimint and other 3rd layer apps will happen in a behind the scenes way on an incredibly idiot proof app that is so user friendly one wont have to worry about which of those systems is doing your payment and how, only that it is paying the person that you want and the software is optimising the fee, channels and processes. These words like lightning, liquid, fedimint, we wont care. They wont be exciting in the way they are now, they will processes that happen beyond our knowledge that just make a payment, in the way nobody knows what happens when they make a visa payment online. Anyone who cannot see that happening, and think another centralised shit coin is going to out and out win the race is either kidding themselves or being dishonest. Creating new monetary networks that work seamlessly while optimising decentralisation, privacy, low fees, undo buttons for wrong sends, while all connecting to an impervious and valuable base layer (one that truly has value and not a K-mart token like Eth) will take time, effort, political action, cultural action, technological progress. Its a once in a century immaculate conception. It will happen on bitcoin, its achievable.
From an investing point of view it is still great. It will still go 1 million and more as it is right now. Even if it only becomes the perfect permissionless ''Store of value'' and final settlement payment system for Nations, Institutions and rich people. Time will tell if the computer geniuses of the world will be able to create a layer that will allow ''plebs'' to participate in a self sovereign way.
@@ShawnDaniel if the base layer of btc is changed it will lose its integrity. The only reason why bitcoin is becoming a store of value is because people are comfortable putting large amounts of capital in a protocol that they know that no group of people can change.
Wow! I'm trying to understand bicoin to the extent of it being a medium of exchange for humanity. Though the video was discouraging, it does offer great thought provoking questions that need to be discussed. Excellent visuals too. Subscribed. Fantastic sir. ❤
I may be missing something here, but if the majority of transaction volume starts to be offloaded from L1 and begins to concentrate to Lightning (L2)...then this completely alters the supply/demand equation for transaction fees. A lot of what I heard is premised on the assumption of ever-INCREASING L1 transaction fees. Can this really be a hard assumption from which you extrapolate arguments if DECREASING L1 transaction volume counteracts transaction fees? After all, transaction fees are primarily a result of competition for L1 block space. If we see decreased competition for L1 transactions, does that not reduce transaction fees?
The L2 takes some pressure off the L1 of course. So maybe L1 fees without L2 would be $2000, and with L2 they reduce to $1000. Or, maybe the fees would be $1000 but the L2 reduces them to $200. We have no way of knowing. What we do know is that the L1 is doing ~5 tps. So forget about fees, it just doesn't have the throughput to onboard billions of people. And, as I said, the L2 channels have to be managed via the L1. So the system just literally can't handle mass adoption - except with custodial services of course.
@@jordanmmck First of all, fees right now are running at about $2 on most days- with the exception of rare spikes like the Halving where they temporarily went nuts. I'm not sure how we get to $2,000 any time soon - even with mass adoption - while off-chaining things to L2 (Lightning, or whatever comes next?) simultaneously REDUCES on-chain (L1) transactions quite substantially. Also, you speculated a 50% reduction in on-chain transactions due to Lightning ($2000 vs. $1000). I suspect it will be a whole lot more than 50%! If we do get to mass adoption and the vast majority of smaller (day-to-day) transactions are handled off-chain on something like Lightning, then demand for L1 block space would DRAMATICALLY decrease. I understand the need for L2 channels to be managed on L1, but I think you may be grossly underestimating the extent to which off-chaining all the 'cup-of-coffee' transactions would have on L1 demand and therefore fees. When I want to buy a beer, I don't move the entirety of my savings account into my wallet and walk around with that in my back pocket. No one does. You move a small enough chunk of capital that you would be willing to lose in the rare event you get mugged or lose your wallet - like any rational human being does. L1 transactions would be extremely infrequent, and primarily used for the 'digital gold' type scenarios of long-term capital storage/preservation. I appreciate your video, and thought you did a great job with the explanations - but I remain unconvinced. It's good to have these discussions, and I agree that they need to be had for us all to move forward. Thanks for all your hard work, and have a great day!
Tx fees scale with price and price scale with adoption. Working off chain accumulates the small transactions that also don’t substantially drive price of BTC anyway. Makes it more efficient, but only strikes me as a ~10% improvement on fee impact. This 10% is wholly accumulated to to the small fees making it a nice solution for tax of varied scales. No one is settling $1M via lightning.
@@jordanmmck I think it would make more sense at this point to measure the transaction fees not as a fixed amount, but as a percentage and in Bitcoin rather than in dollars.
This is literally what the gold standard was. It was too expensive to move huge amounts of gold around, so the central banks just kept everyone's gold and a ledger of who owned what, (kind of like the lightning L2) and when someone wanted to pay someone else the bank just adjusted the ledger (big simplification) instead of shipping bars of gold around all the time. However at certain times of course a big shipment would be justified, maybe to settle trade between countries, i.e. changing the L1. It was also easier for people to use bank notes (kind of a layer 3) because they were more divisible and portable than gold coins, so there was an incentive to leave your gold in an institution and use notes instead. Though ironically that system was better because you could, at no cost, simply walk in to a bank and exchange your bank note for gold coins again should you wish. Which clearly the Bitcoin system cannot do. I would, for future reference, stop comparing Bitcoin to the batshit crazy mess of a fiat system we have now but at least compare it to a gold standard system which was at least based on a scarce resource of value. Any system based on Bitcoin, and thus on something limited and of actual value, is better than the fiat system we have now where the currency is literally baseless and entirely corrupt.
Great key points! Thanks for starting with the clear overview. I think you're nailing the core components of Lightning Network and showing how they're problematic with important considerations
Great video. Your channel deserves more subscribers for sure. I think Lightning Network is not L2 for a mass adoption scenario. It’s rather for B2B or any interbank transactions. Anyway there are no any technology possible which can provide decentralised and stable network for billions of transactions every day. It’s always be custodial or semi-custodial.
The difference is that any rehypothecation the banks do will not be bailed out. We get a free banking market with bitcoin. The current system is not free market due to money printing
@@jordanmmck if it requires a hardfork, in order for all bitcoiners to adopt it, it needs to improve the protocol by at least an order of magnitude. If not, it’s not worth the risk.
IOUs won't be as valuable as true Bitcoin unless there is cryptographic proof of reserves, I think this will be a natural guarantee that the market will ask for. This would eliminate the problem of hidden fractional reserves, right?
Dude, you are killing it with your super crisp explanation and graphics. You deserve a lot more visibility and you will get it for sure. So much respect and I can’t wait for vids on the other topics you mentioned! 🙌🙌🤑🔫
Another thing is, if you had 8 billion people each with 1 bitcoin address (and this is being very generous, because as you transact you generate new change addresses), the UTXO set would be about 8 billion UTXOs * 75 bytes / UTXO = 600 Gigabytes, so you would have to have that much RAM to run a full node. I don't know how big RAM is these days, I'm still operating in the 12 to 24 Gigabyte realm myself.
How did you get to 75 bytes? Normal Btc Adress has up to 35 signs. And why should all adresses have to be stored in the RAM? You can store them on an ssd if you need them, as you do with the blockchain
First of all, I'm not 100% sure how big a UTXO is in memory - I think it depends on how complicated the bitcoin script is, so it could very well be between 36 and 200 bytes is my guestimate. The 35 sign address you are talking about is related but different. To reference a UTXO you need the transaction hash (32 bytes) and the index of the vout that that UTXO lives in (4 bytes) and the bitcoin script (variable size). This is what the full node needs to keep in memory. You would think an SSD would be fine, but the full node needs to keep the ENTIRE UTXO set in RAM in order to verify an incoming block within 4 seconds (this is the figure the bitcoin core developers strive for) - so an SSD won't do, as that would slow down verification of blocks to > 4 seconds. Remember UTXOs are just the "chunks" of bitcoin that are in people's wallets that have not been spent yet. Currently it's about 15 gigabytes, due to all the ordinals and runes and stamps that have been a thing for the last year and a half (before this it was about 5 gigabytes). So that really limits who can be a full node operator. Your 8 Gigabyte full node worked 2 years ago? Now you need to add more RAM to your PC. I am talking about a theoretical situation where 8 billion people each have 1 or more UTXOs, and therefore you would need potentially terabytes on your PC. I'm not saying this isn't possible in the future, I'm just pointing out the challenges. If you actually watch some of the main bitcoin developers, such as Greg Maxwell, and Tadge Dryja, they will admit that bitcoin CANNOT support all 8 billion people as it is currently structured. Hence, this is the reason I am NOT a bitcoin maximalist; obviously there are way too many cryptos out there, but it shows that there is a free market demand for more than just bitcoin, and for maximalists to pretend they are ALL garbage is ideological sillyness.
@@MrCoreyTexas Are you talking about bitcoin or lightning? Because the bitcoin mainlayer was never intended to store all transactions. Scaling is possible in a second layer or even multiple second layers. So you will never have 8 billion UTXOs at the same time. The bitcoin mainlayer is only intended to create a fixed money supply. Like gold was (in the gold standard) the base for paper money and the scaling is only possible with paper or electronical money, but not with gold itsself (slow, heavy, hardly divisible...). You can even compare it with today's central bank currency. A central bank wouldn't work if all the people run to the central bank and want to do a transaction. The same can be done with bitcoin, so you have one layer where the fixed supply is created, but spendings will be done in lighting, PayPal, Visa or other banks built up on Bitcoin. And that is the main critics from bitcoin maxis to other altcoins. You can build your service as a scaling solution directly on bitcoin. The only reason, therefore, is that the altcoin developers earn money by being able to sell their own cheaply created money. The solution they offer would almost always also be possible as a second layer on bitcoin, whereby they would earn nothing here (like lightning) or would be dependent on donations. But they sell you that they have a better solution that can scale better, which is not possible at all due to the blockchain trilemma alone, because scaling always reduces decentralisation and / or security. So altcois are the same shit than modern, new central banks, but even worse because they are in private hands and not controlled of the government...
It took you 9 years to figure it out, but you got it. Next step for you: find out the only thing needed to scale Bitcoin is a block size increase, just like the real Bitcoin version did many years ago.
You deserve a follow/subscribing because you did in fact fairly examine how BTC and Lighting function and the flaws the systems have I'll keep an eye on you, maybe one day you will come to realise that BTC is not the actual Bitcoin any more at all 🙂
Eltoo solves the channel state management problem and makes it safer to run a node. Coinpool further extends L1 scalability to allow Eltoo channels to exist as leaves in a Merkle tree embedded in a UTXO.
At about 5:40 you say you can't add more bitcoin to the lightning channel, that's not correct, there is a thing called a submarine swap, but guess what, it involves another L1 bitcoin mainnet transaction, which kind of defeats the purpose of lightning. Also one thing I noticed on electrum is some of the funds you deposit are unusable, because it has to hold a significant portion for miner fees. And the latest electrum the smallest channel you can open is .002 BTC. I guess you could say that lightning is good for testing your understanding of Bitcoin Script at least, LOL
Crypto kids playing with their crypto bits. As a no-coiner, I'm just SMH. Edited to add: Video explanation of LN and its problems is great, though. Thank you, Jordan. Cheers!
I'm not a computer person so thank you for the simple explanations. I always imagined that if Bitcoin did become globally adopted it would end up very similar to what we have now. It will naturally lead to fractional reserve/ corruption. I still think it would be a net overall improvement from Fiat. I think that's another reason governments will welcome the system because they still can control the mass population. Is that a good thing no but is that the reality we live in? If banks used the lightning network to open the channels then everyone could use lightning. Sure its a IOU but they still could not manipulate the supply. (Am I right in assuming that?) I'm subscribing because that was a brilliant simple breakdown. My biggest concern for Bitcoin is miner centralisation. I know people say the nodes have the power but a large mining pool is going to have a big influence on Bitcoins path.
Thanks! I think the hardcap becomes a bit more of a softcap if people are forced to use IOUs. Because yeah, no one can print more BTC on the chain. But like I said, they can always issue more IOUs than Bitcoin they have. And we can't really prevent that. Yeah I agree. Miner centralization is an issue. There's economies of scale in mining, and geographic power cost differences etc. so it's hard to prevent in PoW.
@@jordanmmck People will gravitate towards large pools because the win rate is more frequent. Even if they end up with same amount of Bitcoin at the end of the year they will want that reliable payment. I doubt a large pool would perform an attack but it's almost guaranteed they will start blocking certain transactions.
Lightning would have a lot of potential if it offered the ability to issue M1 off of the base layer, which would function as M0. That way, fractional reserve banking could be controlled via lightning, instead of outright banning it.
honestly opening channels is absolutely ridiculous. you have to pay to open channels with these centralized providers to get any kind of liquidity. base layer is the only option. dont try opening your own lighting node. i lost $400 in sats trying to get the insianity set up. that doesnt happen on the base layer. what a joke it is.
No banks will not be require for scaling. There wil be hundreds of side chains which will have lighting channels between them. This along with with proof of reserves and federated peg in and out systems will allow the entire world to use bitcoin as the side chains btc are fundamentally equivalent to the bitcoin which are held. This is trivial to verify. Sure, one will need to trust a given federation to manage the side chain, but this is still extremely open and transparent compared to the current banking system and will prevent the fractional reverse banking from occurring. Which of course leads to a growth in the money supply and ultimately economic recessions and busts.
Do you think a region-based side chain would work the best for customer and local merchant adoption? And if so, since it's functioning primarily in a legal jurisdiction regulation may be imposed on that side chain? And would we pay transaction fees to exchange coins between different regional side chains? So, in effect we've recreated local currencies and forex, albeit while still being pegged to hard money (BTC). Also, using Liquid as a model, 1 minute per block is still way too slow.
As things are currently, Bitcoin LN definitely cannot scale enough for global adoption. However, the LN model, with some tweaks, will be the most scalable solution for a global transaction network because it does not require that every Miami node holds transaction data for cafes in Delhi -- it keeps the channel state data local to where it is relevant, and a properly designed system can further compress txn data using roll-ups of txn IDs and aggregate txn effects.
You have a lot of missing parts in your video. Bitcoin maxi will own their node and open channels, but mass adoption will work through managed wallets like Phoenix, etc. Adoption paired with the limited supply of bitcoin will increase the value of sats. Additionally, LN is meant for day-to-day transactions and not a settlement for a large amounts that will be settled on the chain. Anyway there are so many things not mentioned that I can’t approve this video
Bitcoin watcher nodes are useless unless you are a mining node. Maxisthese days are not very smart, the smart ones moved from bitcoin a while ago because btc stopped being cyphurpunk.
25:33 Change Liquid for Rollup and change Bitcoin for Ethereum and you will see the problem, at least Liquid is PoA, most L2s don't have any consensus mechanism at all. I like your content but you have to see the issues with Ethereum L2s
Yes, this point was made by Eric Wall on Bankless yesterday. Most Eth L2s are fairly centralized today. But there's a clear path to solving *all* those centralization points. Liquid is just a permanent multi-sig forever. If the L2s don't make any progress toward decentralization over the coming years, then I'll be totally with you.
@@jordanmmck The problem is that no matter how good the L2's are Eth is centralised on the base layer. Btc may have challenges with scaling but at least the base layer is decentralised and wasn't pre-mined.
@@cheesyandy1 How is eth base layer centralized? I just don't find the pre-mine criticism that compelling, and I'm not sure many people do. There was a public sale to fund development of ethereum. Anyone was free to participate. Yeah obviously some people got a ton of ETH. But the same thing happened with Bitcoin. Early miners/buyers got massive stacks for pennies. There's no way to prevent high GINI in these systems.
@@jordanmmck Its controlled by a foundation that has a road map! They were able to switch the consensus mechanism from proof of work to proof of stake, one of the most fundamental changes you can make to a chain. Also proof of stake is fundamentally centralised, the largest holders get to decide the state of the ledger, no different to the current fiat central banking system. As for pre-mine, the eth foundation pre-mined over 60% of the total supply before the public sale. the same thing did not happen with bitcoin, anyone could download the software and mine from day 1. On top of all this does anyone know what the supply cap is on eth? Or what the economic policy is for next 5 years let alone the next 100 years? Eth can never be the base layer of money for any one of these reasons.
Thank you for the informative video. I am still learning a lot about the subject. Do you believe that there is no fundamental difference between the future bitcoin banking scenario you presented and our current system?
Cheers. I'm mean, there's not *no* difference. But it's close enough to existing system that I don't see the point. And switching to a new system is a MASSIVE challenge. So the new thing has to be like 100x or 1000x better.
@@jordanmmck The main benefit I see is that the currency can't be easily manipulated by a single organization. Sure all the new Bitcoin banks could do their manipulations, but it wouldn't be as blatant as what the Fed does now. Would the banks be incentivized to collude and manipulate the new currency? Maybe if the population cared enough about having hard money then the most successful banks would be the ones that are transparent and auditable. If not, then maybe they would be incentivized to manipulate. After all, the free market tends to provide what the market wants. Maybe the real benefit of the new system would be that it's no longer controlled by the government. Which to me is 1000x better.
@@nickvines5341 Maybe it would be a significant improvement. But to me it's really clear that we can build something that is 100x better than that. We can actually build a complete system that billions of people can use with zero reliance on banks of any sort, and with zero possibility of money printing. I'm not referring to ETH itself btw. To me it's clear that the future of money will be built *on* ethereum (and eth L2s), but it won't be ETH - it will be something much better. I have a video planned explaining it all.
Maybe just stake some SOL at 7 to 8% APY and wait for SOL to flip ETH MCAP & get some Bitcoin Cash as it looks likely to outperform BTC (BCH is the better Bitcoin)
@@jordanmmck I think a lot of people need the wake up call. People who think this is just investing are kind of lost right now imo. People need to see that the primary focus is actually on the technologies and that the financial stuff and investing are just byproducts of what the technologies allow.
Not really. Most of us use BTC as a store of value. Property. I will never use it for payments of transactions. We have fiat for that. Fiat will never go away, if you think it will you're delusional.
@@mikejames7093 When did you guys lose your ambition? I want to see money, finance, media, government - the whole stack replaced. You think a mere digital gold is going to save us? If only
@@jordanmmck bitcoin has broad ranging implications on all systems of governance and the layered solutions over the next 30 years will effectively iterate out the worst of the fiat system. Let’s give credit to successes where they exist though. LN may not be the end all be all, but it is a great option to have with areas for improvement.
Some might remember: Satoshi wrote that with growth nodes will become server farms. He was big blocker, used 100GB/d as example. It is the generation "Decentralisation" that refuses to follow the original intention (which is fine, but has consequences). Bitcoin (the concept, the system) scales on L1. There is no scale ceiling (Satoshi). And BitcoinSV will show you how. No, not just big blocks, but also overlay networks, making use of Merkle trees and SPV. 1 Million TPS in tests have been seen already. Maybe BTC can learn from it. At least, OP_CAT will probably also be reanabled, like on BSV. ;-)
@@nathanmagnuson2589 It seems, you miss the point. I have made a statement and pointed to existing proof of demonstration. This alone already is worth the existence ;-)
i've not used it but i've done some reading on it. it helps with onboarding UX basically right. like, easier custodianship. but doesn't actually achieve scale right?
I think for day to day activities paper BTC is basically fine. People would then just keep long term savings on the L1. I also think Chainlink proof of reserve DONs can help with auditing secondary layers.
What you said at 5:56 is not correct. When you have spent all the 'outbound liquidity' all you have to do is go to an exchange and deposit fiat (think kraken, coinbase etc) and the new 'liquidity' the new spending money you want to have on your side of the channel will be routed to your side of the channel. Instantaneously, for almost no fee at all. While maintaining the hard cap of 21m bitcoin, with every satoshi accounted for... You don't need to hit the main chain again at all. As a matter of fact, you can continue to spend from your lightning channel and 'top up' whenever you want from an exchange over and over (as long as you don't exceed the size of the channel) without ever paying an on-chain fee. I'm not sure... why you present this information differently but it's a really exciting aspect of the lightning network.
Just a kind reminder: BTC started as a blockchain but now (hopefully) it's a community. An open-source one. That means that if a whale gonna manipulate people's finances then the community can discard some devious blocks
Lightning essentially was born a dinosaur and is as bad as a futures contract vs the spot price of an asset. XRP for any use case far superior and BTC is far behind for mass adoption. I do HODL both
Let bitcoin be ome store of value for the world before it is required as unit of exchange. Cant call an emerging technology failed before mass adoption. The inherent flaws are mainly related to maintaining the liquidity of a channel, when Bitcoin become unit of exchange then liquidity will come as well. We dont have to onboard 7.9 billion people, how absurd is that. People manage money at household level at best we have to onboard as many bank account that are currently existing, certainly not 7.9 billion.
@@anthonyriseley ethereum was that "hardfork" and it's being used plenty. Vitalik et al. wanted to add smart contracts to bitcoin, but were blocked. so here we are. all the advanced stuff happening in ethereum land. and elsewhere too.
Good points. But I think this could be solved by wrapping BTC via smart contracts onto other, interoperable blockchains that have solved the scalability issues that plague Bitcoin. In that way, BTC can still can fulfil its role as digital gold, bypassing the need for banks or other centralised entities. Bitcoin was and is a great idea but we really need those third and fourth generation blockchains to take it to the next level.
Yeah I think that's technically possible. Maybe we have some hyper scaled Zk roll up that we can bridge BTC to. But then it's just another token right. At that point it's no different from Pepe or 1000 other coins - except for the name and history. It's hard for me to imagine it being true digital gold at that point
based on the little research into kaspa that i've done, i don't see its value. it's a PoW, DAG based chain with no smart contracts right? why would anyone use that if they could instead use a hyper scaled L2 running on eth?
@@jordanmmck There are some good video's on Kaspa on the Plan K channel of @MikoGenno . Kaspa is indeed a PoW DAG based chain. Smart contract capability is going live this August. Kaspa solved the Trilemma and is scalable on the base chain, the hashrate is increasing rapidly, adoption and network effects are going really strong. Might be worth it to look into again. Personally I'm only invested in Bitcoin and now since a few months ago also Kaspa. Ethereum lost my interest when going from PoW to PoS. Also a lot of value is going to L2's now in that ecosystem.
First, nobody expects all 8 billion to appreciate and embrace BTC in the next few decades. And that is OK. LTN is just the beginning. The second point, is the bias coming from ETH fan, which is natural and totally understandable.
You could make a similar argument against gold .. I think BTC will be a store of wealth, which is its strength .. you will then move money into other currencies for buying gasoline and dinner at a restaurant.. but you wouldn't want to store life savings in them due to counterparty risk .. you can't trust gold due to re-hypothecation and the risks of owning it (and counterparty risk) ... property is good but hard to move, maintain and sell .. stocks are good but only barely better than fiat when inflation is considered .. and I don't need to describe the long term risks of fiat
Yeah, I have a whole video planned on the future of money. I don't think BTC will be a significant SoV in the long-term. But I don't think ETH will be the world's "money" either. I think there's very clear/logical reasoning which leads to something else entirely.
To avoid this I'm sure the blockchain needs to increase block size. Hyperbitcoinization will be a reality in probably 20-30 years. in The meantime we'll need to work together and have the infrastrructure ready. Lightning first, then increase blocksize. Woulndt mind blocksize to 8mb in 2050, when cost per mb will be super low. so that decentralization will be kept.
Ethereum L2s will have the same fate, centralized sequencers, admin keys (no one is going to "destroy" their private keys), and limited scalability (even running on centralized tech). Validity Proofs, Fraud Proofs, etc. is all jargon once you realize that if single entity controls the entire thing, which defeats the whole purpose of a blockchain. Competing L1s are scaling, is just that the majority of developer power is on EVM chains and ETH. Once that starts to fade (with real adoption) L2's are going to be seen as trash Don't get me wrong I'm an EVM maximalist, and once competing L1s start to scale while still using the EVM that is going to be the end of Ethereum, unless the Ethereum Foundation step-ups its game
The L2s are centralized currently. But there is a very clear path for them to take the training wheels off. And there will be massive pressure for them to do so. I don't see how we can achieve true scaling with L1s only. Either you crank the L1 speed up to Solana levels, at which point all nodes run are run by AWS, or you run the L1 at 15 tps and maintain decentralization, but then you need like 1000 L1s to get decent overall throughput.
@jordanmmck What about Fantom Sonic, NEAR, or Avalanche, it's clear that there is was to scale the L1 way past 15 TPS while maintaining a high level of decentralization. I know there is pressure to make the L2's decentralized but I would call that massive, due to simple game theory and economic incentives Ethereum is not what it could be, each rollup is essentially its own chain, completely isolated from the Ethereum ecosystem, making a 1000 rollups is like making 1000 chains, the same bridges between Optimism and Arbitrum can connect Optimism with Avalanche or Aptos. Solana node requirements are high, but not everyone runs a node, and NO ONE runs decentralized sequencers or decentralized batchers. I'm not saying 1 chain will rule over the world, what I am saying is that we need to make crypto about decentralized computing, a true world computer, not a cloud managed by admin keys and a single entity. We are essentially trusting each of the L2 operators to be good actors... If that is the future you want for crypto, let me tell you something, using GCP or AWS is cheaper than any blockchain
@@PedroPerez-u6p Any L1 will be limited by the slowest machines in the network. And if the network is global and allows for consumer level nodes, then it's just not going to be fast enough for mainstream adoption - unless maybe through extensive use of ZK proofs. The L2s are separate chains yes, but they can be run at orders of magnitude higher throughput because centralization of sequencers is a totally different issue vs. centralization of L1 nodes. Centralization of L2 sequencers isn't really an issue (all they can really do is censor you, in which case you switch to another L2). Especially since those sequencers *can* be decentralized and run by multiple parties, all while still being super high end machines. Basically each L2 can become like Solana, except sequencers running in AWS is actually fine, unlike L1 nodes being run in AWS. Not everyone runs a Solana node but this is bad! See my previous video. Hey, all I really care about is that we get our world computer. I don't care if it's Ethereum or some other system. I just see the L2 approach as the best path.
@jordanmmck What if they censor you and you have like 20 ETH on that L2? I also want a world computer, native internet money, and autonomous software running on decentralized networks. In the short term, I don't mind L2s being centralized, but in the long term, L2s are fragmenting the UX on Ethereum even more, to the point that is more complicated than before to use blockchain, a friend of mine wanted to buy some tokens the other day, it was an odyssey to find which L2 had it, bridging from one to another. if we are being real here 90% of dapps are not apps that you may use on a day-to-day basis, they are not Notion or 𝕏, and there are not many true native decentralized applications, what I mean with true native are actual state machines that interact in complex ways represented via smart contracts. I would love to see Ethereum scale, becoming a usable chain again, using shards or going modular. Rollups are App Chains with ETH as their native token, that's it if a Rollup uses a DA service like Celestia and connects to Ethereum... via? Nothing. Is a completely different chain. I don't like L2s (don't even get me started with L3s) I like blockchains, distributed systems, and distributed computing. I know people want to have the solid tokenomics that ETH provides, that's why L2s are flourishing, many great alternative L1s had great tech (Algorand is a great example) but they had poor tokenomics, really scummy token distribution and the organization that is responsible for their development is bad Many core Ethereum team members have been very vocal against L2s
@@PedroPerez-u6p the L2 operators cannot prevent you from leaving. so you take your 20 eth and leave. yeah there's lots of UX stuff to improve with roll-ups. we're early. but all scaling approaches have trade offs. and roll-ups to me look like the best overall. i actually just legit don't see any good alternatives. and i think 3 years down the road the L2 ecosystem could actually just be extremely good with minimal downside.
28:30 claiming that this system is like the fiat system we already have is absolute bullshit. nobodys savings will get inflated away to to money printing and everyone (who can afford some hardware and some onchain btc) has the option to become one of those "central hubs" himself without needing a banking licence or any other permission from the state.
@@jordanmmck The L1 can in fact handle everyones transactions. just not in a non-custodial way. 99% of population is to dumb to run a lightningnode themselves anyway. but they all can hold a claim on btc at the full reserve bitcoinbank they trust most via an app on their phone. thats way better than having a claim on fiat in a fractional reserve fiatbank - dont you see this advantage?
Satoshi actually was a big blocker. Most people need to understand it is better for something to exist maybe not forever in a massively decentralized way, but lead to massive changes in society and destroy central banking forever, then searching for the optimal solution. Do you really want the central bank theft and KYC to continue until we have all problems solved and wait 10-20 years plus (it will not happen any faster!). There are not many issues for the next decades with big blocks and chances of fraud are really minimal. And even at massive scale it is a much better, fairer and transparent system then the status quo. Bitcoin was without any doubt hijacked only thing that BCH does not fullfill in the whitepaper is the most hashpower. In contrast BTC has not much to do with the whitepaper anymore except you are very creative and dishonest.
Yes it is. You re thinking with a brainwashed Saylor brain. Hodl narrative was out out to stall the bitcoin network so that banks could catch up. Your blinded by greed of number go up. You cNt have store of value without multiple points of utility. Security alone is not enough. Get People tonuse bitcoin so little that they can get away with making paper bitcoin
At last, someone who understands the issue Bitcoin Cash: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System BCH is the better Bitcoin, P2P, fast and cheap@@jordanmmck
I think, sadly, anybody, especially westerners from developed nations, who thinks that bitcoin is going to allow you to escape from the traditional system, is in for an unpleasant surprise. As long as governments issue fiat and demand taxes in their fiat, Bitcoin really won't solve for anything. Will it hedge against fiat inflation? Probably. But that's about it.
Yeah, I think Bitcoiners are far too optimistic really. We need to build a whole parallel system. Money, finance, media, etc etc. That's what it will take to defeat the current system.
We should stop trying to limit BTC by insisting full nodes must be able to be run on shitty Raspberry Pi's.... If we upped the expected node power to a fat gaming PC then you could 100x the block size tomorrow and then 100x again in 10yrs! Im not advocating for massive blocks just a gradual and continuous increase in block size. Today 20TB hard drives are only about $500 and most gaming rigs run 12-20 4GHz core CPUs and 64GB Ram... we limit to Pi's which have 4gb ram and probably only a 1TB HD and 4x 1.5GHz cores! Block size is the only solution to allow BTC to scale as a peer to peer cash... start with a 3x increase then in time 2x again and so on, step by step... not like BSV and jump to 2GB blocks tomorrow! Lightning is just clever people trying to prove how clever they are... by ignoring the solution presented and worked out by Satoshi in the first place!
It doesnt solve the Problem 500gb in 15 yrs. Lets say we do 10x. So we would need additional 5TB in the next 15yrs. 10x = 70tx/s is still to slow for 8b ppl. Even 100x wouldnt enough. If im not wrong.
@@Sacify So 5TB in 15years is nothing... Im below average pay and have over 50TB today! So 10x = 5TB, 100x = 50TB, and 1000x = 500TB... so today as a normal person stands 100x (700TPS) is achievable ... in 10years we will easily be able to 10x that and hit 7000TPS and by 2045 you could do another 10x and handle 70,000TPS far surpassing VISA!
@@robins3352 no usual user has 50 TB today, you're far average. 16TB HDD is here 200€, for your 50TB i would need more then 3 of them for 600€ alone, hell no thats not average, it would lead to centralization, go ETH Soundmoney for that..
![Summer Walker - Heart Of A Woman [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SFddctbZzw8/mqdefault.jpg)
I’m a BTC Maxi/cultist myself, and am truly grateful for any thoughtful, well-reasoned criticism of the project. Thank you. Subscribed.
Agreed
Maybe just stake some SOL at 7 to 8% APY and wait for SOL to flip ETH MCAP
& get some Bitcoin Cash as it looks likely to outperform BTC (BCH is the better Bitcoin)
@@dsflat6785YES BCH is better! Miles better!!!!!!
@@dsflat6785 Lol
The important point is that the 'banks' or institutions will be able to provide proof that they own the real BTC. This is much easier to do than auditing fiat.
They can prove they own X BTC onchain. But then we have to audit their offchain records and assert they match. It's not impossible. But it's basically what we have now - maybe a 4% improvement. If that's where we end up then I'd say there's really no point to any of this.
So they can prove they are fucking you. Bitcoin will change and evolve
@@jordanmmck we don’t need to audit them. The consumers will inevitably audit them when the bank run happens. At that point they would not be able to find the money demanded of them. Then they collapse. No QE means no bailouts
@@jordanmmck any bank selling paper BTC will get wrecked as the cycles continue, as the price increases and as people learn about self custody. Bank runs on your BTC holding is different than a bank run on a bank for fiat that can be printed
@@mikejames7093 I want to see more ambition out of you guys. It's time we build a new civilization, not just make a digital gold then make regulations to ensure banks stick to the hardcap. Come on, think bigger
Lightning has not ‘failed’. It provides a viable network for a significant bump to transactions. It doesn’t have to solve the entire world to be worth something and is working pretty well for a significant number of people currently. More scaling solutions are needed, as LN is not the end all be all so thank you for demonstrating.
The title of this video is somewhat inflammatory, I'll give you that. Maybe I'll change it idk. It depends what you mean by "fail". It depends what the goal was. Lightning has often been presented as a "complete" solution. And in that sense it most certainly has failed. Or, more accurately, some bitcoiners have been misrepresenting it and claiming that bitcoin has no scaling issues at all, LN solves it etc etc. That's the kind of discourse that drives me toward inflammatory titles. WE SHOULD JUST BE HONEST. lol.
@@jordanmmck best video I’ve seen to clearly demonstrate where the shortfalls of LN are. Replacing the fiat foundation with Bitcoin was a great first step and it’s useful to see how fractional reserve banking results due to loss of transparency. Need some way to audit.
While I disagree with 'failed' I appreciate the work you put in for your thesis. thank you
Maybe just stake some SOL at 7 to 8% APY and wait for SOL to flip ETH MCAP
& get some Bitcoin Cash as it looks likely to outperform BTC (BCH is the better Bitcoin)
@@jordanmmckif by inflammatory you mean cancerous click bait then yes
Great video I was surprised someone else also realized that lightning network will lead to centralization of bitcoin which of course we don't want
Bitcoin Cash: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
BCH is the better Bitcoin, P2P, fast and cheap
Doesn't FediMint solve the fractional reserve problem?
The thing is there are like ten different projects all of them are going to be together in sync increment the scalability of BTC to billions of users. All of this is simply a question of they all solve a different problem.
They all work together and strengthen each other. Bitcoin can absolutely scale and the higher the number the greater the amount of people who will try to solve the issue.
Exactly, if we want to be early like we all are, we all try to understand these technologies on a fundamental level to maintain conviction in our thesis. But the reality is nobody needed to learn the coding and protocols of email to use it 20 years into its adoption, it works seamlessly (even though it was centralised, but ignore that part of the analogy).
No other coin is catching bitcoin at this rate. And that means none can have a base layer value, and network brand that bitcoin has, even if it has its downfalls (hard to scale - but not impossible).
Bitcoiners prioritise decentralisation as was shown with the blocksize wars.
Decentralisation, in the way bitcoin was birthed is not replicable by any of the coins.
It is so far ahead in its trajectory of network effects and scale in orders of magnitude that nothing can catch it.
This means that since it is the clear winner, these scalable rails will get eventually get built, and bitcoiners, always prioritising decentralisation and security, will make sure its done right. Getting things right takes time.
People say lightning, liquid, fedimint are all too complicated.
Setting up and using dialup internet to make a purchase on ebay while your son was trying to make a phone call on the landline was complicated and total shit show. It could take an hour is your connection kept getting interrupted. What normie sees things scaling when they are at that stage of adoption?
Fast forward 30 years and you can make an amazon purchase in 23 seconds from unlocking your phone screen.
In 30 years lightning, liquid, fedimint and other 3rd layer apps will happen in a behind the scenes way on an incredibly idiot proof app that is so user friendly one wont have to worry about which of those systems is doing your payment and how, only that it is paying the person that you want and the software is optimising the fee, channels and processes.
These words like lightning, liquid, fedimint, we wont care. They wont be exciting in the way they are now, they will processes that happen beyond our knowledge that just make a payment, in the way nobody knows what happens when they make a visa payment online.
Anyone who cannot see that happening, and think another centralised shit coin is going to out and out win the race is either kidding themselves or being dishonest.
Creating new monetary networks that work seamlessly while optimising decentralisation, privacy, low fees, undo buttons for wrong sends, while all connecting to an impervious and valuable base layer (one that truly has value and not a K-mart token like Eth) will take time, effort, political action, cultural action, technological progress.
Its a once in a century immaculate conception.
It will happen on bitcoin, its achievable.
That is why we have KASPA.
KASPA is the elephant in the room.
From an investing point of view it is still great. It will still go 1 million and more as it is right now. Even if it only becomes the perfect permissionless ''Store of value'' and final settlement payment system for Nations, Institutions and rich people. Time will tell if the computer geniuses of the world will be able to create a layer that will allow ''plebs'' to participate in a self sovereign way.
Or maybe idk just increase the block size? Nah that's too crazy.
@@ShawnDaniel if the base layer of btc is changed it will lose its integrity. The only reason why bitcoin is becoming a store of value is because people are comfortable putting large amounts of capital in a protocol that they know that no group of people can change.
@@herman29958 false.
Wow! I'm trying to understand bicoin to the extent of it being a medium of exchange for humanity. Though the video was discouraging, it does offer great thought provoking questions that need to be discussed. Excellent visuals too. Subscribed. Fantastic sir. ❤
Always appreciate your videos. Thanks for the time you invested researching Lightning and sharing that!
I may be missing something here, but if the majority of transaction volume starts to be offloaded from L1 and begins to concentrate to Lightning (L2)...then this completely alters the supply/demand equation for transaction fees. A lot of what I heard is premised on the assumption of ever-INCREASING L1 transaction fees. Can this really be a hard assumption from which you extrapolate arguments if DECREASING L1 transaction volume counteracts transaction fees? After all, transaction fees are primarily a result of competition for L1 block space. If we see decreased competition for L1 transactions, does that not reduce transaction fees?
The L2 takes some pressure off the L1 of course.
So maybe L1 fees without L2 would be $2000, and with L2 they reduce to $1000. Or, maybe the fees would be $1000 but the L2 reduces them to $200. We have no way of knowing. What we do know is that the L1 is doing ~5 tps. So forget about fees, it just doesn't have the throughput to onboard billions of people. And, as I said, the L2 channels have to be managed via the L1. So the system just literally can't handle mass adoption - except with custodial services of course.
@@jordanmmck First of all, fees right now are running at about $2 on most days- with the exception of rare spikes like the Halving where they temporarily went nuts. I'm not sure how we get to $2,000 any time soon - even with mass adoption - while off-chaining things to L2 (Lightning, or whatever comes next?) simultaneously REDUCES on-chain (L1) transactions quite substantially.
Also, you speculated a 50% reduction in on-chain transactions due to Lightning ($2000 vs. $1000). I suspect it will be a whole lot more than 50%! If we do get to mass adoption and the vast majority of smaller (day-to-day) transactions are handled off-chain on something like Lightning, then demand for L1 block space would DRAMATICALLY decrease. I understand the need for L2 channels to be managed on L1, but I think you may be grossly underestimating the extent to which off-chaining all the 'cup-of-coffee' transactions would have on L1 demand and therefore fees. When I want to buy a beer, I don't move the entirety of my savings account into my wallet and walk around with that in my back pocket. No one does. You move a small enough chunk of capital that you would be willing to lose in the rare event you get mugged or lose your wallet - like any rational human being does. L1 transactions would be extremely infrequent, and primarily used for the 'digital gold' type scenarios of long-term capital storage/preservation.
I appreciate your video, and thought you did a great job with the explanations - but I remain unconvinced. It's good to have these discussions, and I agree that they need to be had for us all to move forward.
Thanks for all your hard work, and have a great day!
Tx fees scale with price and price scale with adoption. Working off chain accumulates the small transactions that also don’t substantially drive price of BTC anyway. Makes it more efficient, but only strikes me as a ~10% improvement on fee impact. This 10% is wholly accumulated to to the small fees making it a nice solution for tax of varied scales. No one is settling $1M via lightning.
L2's ultimately need to sync to L1 which then should incur the cost you are worried about going away.
@@jordanmmck I think it would make more sense at this point to measure the transaction fees not as a fixed amount, but as a percentage and in Bitcoin rather than in dollars.
This is one of the best videos on bitcoin/crypto tech I have ever watched. Clear and paced explanation with great graphs and sources. Thank you.
Bitcoin Cash: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
BCH is the better Bitcoin, P2P, fast and cheap
OG here, your analysis is sadly correct. Thank you.
What about Kaspa can it scale and to how much
King kaspa will save the day
No sharding/L2s/payment channels = no scaling, there's no magic
I am so confused on why people are talking about this and not just using BSV. It works perfectly.
This is literally what the gold standard was. It was too expensive to move huge amounts of gold around, so the central banks just kept everyone's gold and a ledger of who owned what, (kind of like the lightning L2) and when someone wanted to pay someone else the bank just adjusted the ledger (big simplification) instead of shipping bars of gold around all the time. However at certain times of course a big shipment would be justified, maybe to settle trade between countries, i.e. changing the L1. It was also easier for people to use bank notes (kind of a layer 3) because they were more divisible and portable than gold coins, so there was an incentive to leave your gold in an institution and use notes instead. Though ironically that system was better because you could, at no cost, simply walk in to a bank and exchange your bank note for gold coins again should you wish. Which clearly the Bitcoin system cannot do. I would, for future reference, stop comparing Bitcoin to the batshit crazy mess of a fiat system we have now but at least compare it to a gold standard system which was at least based on a scarce resource of value. Any system based on Bitcoin, and thus on something limited and of actual value, is better than the fiat system we have now where the currency is literally baseless and entirely corrupt.
Shout out to Lyn Alden's book "Broken Money" which I am still reading... really great book
Great key points! Thanks for starting with the clear overview. I think you're nailing the core components of Lightning Network and showing how they're problematic with important considerations
Great video. Your channel deserves more subscribers for sure.
I think Lightning Network is not L2 for a mass adoption scenario. It’s rather for B2B or any interbank transactions.
Anyway there are no any technology possible which can provide decentralised and stable network for billions of transactions every day. It’s always be custodial or semi-custodial.
I think we can build something that handles billions of users!
The difference is that any rehypothecation the banks do will not be bailed out. We get a free banking market with bitcoin. The current system is not free market due to money printing
We can do so much better. We can really have it all. The technology exists. Zk proofs alone unlock so much.
@@jordanmmck imagine if eth wasn't a scam, maybe
@@thefig8832 if only
@@jordanmmck if it requires a hardfork, in order for all bitcoiners to adopt it, it needs to improve the protocol by at least an order of magnitude. If not, it’s not worth the risk.
Sure, Lightning might not be the end solution, but it is supplying great infrastructure for layer 3 solutions like Ecash.
Bitcoin Cash: A Pee-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
BCH is the better Bitcoin, P2P, fast and cheap
I've heard a developer say ecash wasn't a scaling solution but I don't understand their reasoning.
IOUs won't be as valuable as true Bitcoin unless there is cryptographic proof of reserves, I think this will be a natural guarantee that the market will ask for. This would eliminate the problem of hidden fractional reserves, right?
Dude, you are killing it with your super crisp explanation and graphics. You deserve a lot more visibility and you will get it for sure. So much respect and I can’t wait for vids on the other topics you mentioned! 🙌🙌🤑🔫
Bless thanks! Many more on the way!
Another thing is, if you had 8 billion people each with 1 bitcoin address (and this is being very generous, because as you transact you generate new change addresses), the UTXO set would be about 8 billion UTXOs * 75 bytes / UTXO = 600 Gigabytes, so you would have to have that much RAM to run a full node. I don't know how big RAM is these days, I'm still operating in the 12 to 24 Gigabyte realm myself.
How did you get to 75 bytes? Normal Btc Adress has up to 35 signs.
And why should all adresses have to be stored in the RAM? You can store them on an ssd if you need them, as you do with the blockchain
First of all, I'm not 100% sure how big a UTXO is in memory - I think it depends on how complicated the bitcoin script is, so it could very well be between 36 and 200 bytes is my guestimate. The 35 sign address you are talking about is related but different. To reference a UTXO you need the transaction hash (32 bytes) and the index of the vout that that UTXO lives in (4 bytes) and the bitcoin script (variable size). This is what the full node needs to keep in memory.
You would think an SSD would be fine, but the full node needs to keep the ENTIRE UTXO set in RAM in order to verify an incoming block within 4 seconds (this is the figure the bitcoin core developers strive for) - so an SSD won't do, as that would slow down verification of blocks to > 4 seconds.
Remember UTXOs are just the "chunks" of bitcoin that are in people's wallets that have not been spent yet. Currently it's about 15 gigabytes, due to all the ordinals and runes and stamps that have been a thing for the last year and a half (before this it was about 5 gigabytes). So that really limits who can be a full node operator. Your 8 Gigabyte full node worked 2 years ago? Now you need to add more RAM to your PC. I am talking about a theoretical situation where 8 billion people each have 1 or more UTXOs, and therefore you would need potentially terabytes on your PC. I'm not saying this isn't possible in the future, I'm just pointing out the challenges. If you actually watch some of the main bitcoin developers, such as Greg Maxwell, and Tadge Dryja, they will admit that bitcoin CANNOT support all 8 billion people as it is currently structured. Hence, this is the reason I am NOT a bitcoin maximalist; obviously there are way too many cryptos out there, but it shows that there is a free market demand for more than just bitcoin, and for maximalists to pretend they are ALL garbage is ideological sillyness.
@@MrCoreyTexas Are you talking about bitcoin or lightning? Because the bitcoin mainlayer was never intended to store all transactions. Scaling is possible in a second layer or even multiple second layers. So you will never have 8 billion UTXOs at the same time. The bitcoin mainlayer is only intended to create a fixed money supply. Like gold was (in the gold standard) the base for paper money and the scaling is only possible with paper or electronical money, but not with gold itsself (slow, heavy, hardly divisible...). You can even compare it with today's central bank currency. A central bank wouldn't work if all the people run to the central bank and want to do a transaction. The same can be done with bitcoin, so you have one layer where the fixed supply is created, but spendings will be done in lighting, PayPal, Visa or other banks built up on Bitcoin.
And that is the main critics from bitcoin maxis to other altcoins. You can build your service as a scaling solution directly on bitcoin. The only reason, therefore, is that the altcoin developers earn money by being able to sell their own cheaply created money. The solution they offer would almost always also be possible as a second layer on bitcoin, whereby they would earn nothing here (like lightning) or would be dependent on donations.
But they sell you that they have a better solution that can scale better, which is not possible at all due to the blockchain trilemma alone, because scaling always reduces decentralisation and / or security. So altcois are the same shit than modern, new central banks, but even worse because they are in private hands and not controlled of the government...
It took you 9 years to figure it out, but you got it. Next step for you: find out the only thing needed to scale Bitcoin is a block size increase, just like the real Bitcoin version did many years ago.
You deserve a follow/subscribing because you did in fact fairly examine how BTC and Lighting function and the flaws the systems have
I'll keep an eye on you, maybe one day you will come to realise that BTC is not the actual Bitcoin any more at all 🙂
Eltoo solves the channel state management problem and makes it safer to run a node. Coinpool further extends L1 scalability to allow Eltoo channels to exist as leaves in a Merkle tree embedded in a UTXO.
At about 5:40 you say you can't add more bitcoin to the lightning channel, that's not correct, there is a thing called a submarine swap, but guess what, it involves another L1 bitcoin mainnet transaction, which kind of defeats the purpose of lightning. Also one thing I noticed on electrum is some of the funds you deposit are unusable, because it has to hold a significant portion for miner fees. And the latest electrum the smallest channel you can open is .002 BTC. I guess you could say that lightning is good for testing your understanding of Bitcoin Script at least, LOL
Oh interesting, thanks. Yeah I think state channels just aren't the best approach
@jordanmmck Is it 2 mistypes on the diagram naming custodial services as non-custodial?
Yes that was a mistake!
Hey Jordan, incredible video.
I would really love to know what software you used to create these diagrams. It would help me out quite a bit.
Thanks! I use ProCreate
Crypto kids playing with their crypto bits.
As a no-coiner, I'm just SMH.
Edited to add: Video explanation of LN and its problems is great, though.
Thank you, Jordan. Cheers!
I am a Bitcoiner and I appreciate you making this video because I have been trying to figure out why the Lightning Network's growth has slowed down.
Bless thanks
Kapsa...
You are not a bitcoiner, you are btcoiner.
best video on this I've ever seen. Thank you!!!!!
"Mint the NFT (available for 24 hours)" - SCAMMER ALERT
lol. the NFT is free to mint aside from the $2 fee that Zora charges.
Finally!!!! TRUTH!!!!!
10 years later.
I'm not a computer person so thank you for the simple explanations. I always imagined that if Bitcoin did become globally adopted it would end up very similar to what we have now. It will naturally lead to fractional reserve/ corruption. I still think it would be a net overall improvement from Fiat. I think that's another reason governments will welcome the system because they still can control the mass population. Is that a good thing no but is that the reality we live in? If banks used the lightning network to open the channels then everyone could use lightning. Sure its a IOU but they still could not manipulate the supply. (Am I right in assuming that?) I'm subscribing because that was a brilliant simple breakdown.
My biggest concern for Bitcoin is miner centralisation. I know people say the nodes have the power but a large mining pool is going to have a big influence on Bitcoins path.
Thanks! I think the hardcap becomes a bit more of a softcap if people are forced to use IOUs. Because yeah, no one can print more BTC on the chain. But like I said, they can always issue more IOUs than Bitcoin they have. And we can't really prevent that.
Yeah I agree. Miner centralization is an issue. There's economies of scale in mining, and geographic power cost differences etc. so it's hard to prevent in PoW.
@@jordanmmck People will gravitate towards large pools because the win rate is more frequent. Even if they end up with same amount of Bitcoin at the end of the year they will want that reliable payment. I doubt a large pool would perform an attack but it's almost guaranteed they will start blocking certain transactions.
Nodes don't care.
Maybe we should look at the version of Bitcoin that is not government welcomed.
Kaspa solves this. 1 block per second. Layer-1. POW. Fair-launched.
Lightning would have a lot of potential if it offered the ability to issue M1 off of the base layer, which would function as M0. That way, fractional reserve banking could be controlled via lightning, instead of outright banning it.
I agree. I would only add some explosions and colored sparkles.
So a new idea can’t be created? Since Lightning failed does that mean all attempts at something similar will fail?
Of course not. At the end I suggest that real solutions can be achieved but will probably require hard fork. OP_CAT for example
Bitcoin Cash: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
BCH is the better Bitcoin, P2P, fast and cheap
The only thing needed is a block size increase. But unfortunately it's already too late for BTC.
@@trueMaxiby how many? 256 MB?
@@diondion3968 it does not matter how many as long as it can handle all current txs and keep the fees near to zero.
kaspa solves this
Exactly my thoughts!
100% kaspa is the elephant in the room.
No it doesnt, spam bots.
honestly opening channels is absolutely ridiculous. you have to pay to open channels with these centralized providers to get any kind of liquidity. base layer is the only option. dont try opening your own lighting node. i lost $400 in sats trying to get the insianity set up. that doesnt happen on the base layer. what a joke it is.
No banks will not be require for scaling. There wil be hundreds of side chains which will have lighting channels between them. This along with with proof of reserves and federated peg in and out systems will allow the entire world to use bitcoin as the side chains btc are fundamentally equivalent to the bitcoin which are held. This is trivial to verify. Sure, one will need to trust a given federation to manage the side chain, but this is still extremely open and transparent compared to the current banking system and will prevent the fractional reverse banking from occurring. Which of course leads to a growth in the money supply and ultimately economic recessions and busts.
Do you think a region-based side chain would work the best for customer and local merchant adoption? And if so, since it's functioning primarily in a legal jurisdiction regulation may be imposed on that side chain? And would we pay transaction fees to exchange coins between different regional side chains? So, in effect we've recreated local currencies and forex, albeit while still being pegged to hard money (BTC). Also, using Liquid as a model, 1 minute per block is still way too slow.
Delusion definition.
As things are currently, Bitcoin LN definitely cannot scale enough for global adoption. However, the LN model, with some tweaks, will be the most scalable solution for a global transaction network because it does not require that every Miami node holds transaction data for cafes in Delhi -- it keeps the channel state data local to where it is relevant, and a properly designed system can further compress txn data using roll-ups of txn IDs and aggregate txn effects.
Your enthusiasm for the crypto market is contagious!
You have a lot of missing parts in your video. Bitcoin maxi will own their node and open channels, but mass adoption will work through managed wallets like Phoenix, etc. Adoption paired with the limited supply of bitcoin will increase the value of sats. Additionally, LN is meant for day-to-day transactions and not a settlement for a large amounts that will be settled on the chain. Anyway there are so many things not mentioned that I can’t approve this video
It just doesn't seem viable to me. Crypto can be so much better. Thanks for watching tho
Bitcoin watcher nodes are useless unless you are a mining node.
Maxisthese days are not very smart, the smart ones moved from bitcoin a while ago because btc stopped being cyphurpunk.
KASPA SOLVES THIS
No true. Kaspa and other dag based protocols solved problems like block time and offline/mallicious block proposers but not scaling
25:33 Change Liquid for Rollup and change Bitcoin for Ethereum and you will see the problem, at least Liquid is PoA, most L2s don't have any consensus mechanism at all. I like your content but you have to see the issues with Ethereum L2s
Yes, this point was made by Eric Wall on Bankless yesterday. Most Eth L2s are fairly centralized today. But there's a clear path to solving *all* those centralization points. Liquid is just a permanent multi-sig forever. If the L2s don't make any progress toward decentralization over the coming years, then I'll be totally with you.
@@jordanmmck The problem is that no matter how good the L2's are Eth is centralised on the base layer. Btc may have challenges with scaling but at least the base layer is decentralised and wasn't pre-mined.
@@cheesyandy1 How is eth base layer centralized?
I just don't find the pre-mine criticism that compelling, and I'm not sure many people do. There was a public sale to fund development of ethereum. Anyone was free to participate. Yeah obviously some people got a ton of ETH. But the same thing happened with Bitcoin. Early miners/buyers got massive stacks for pennies. There's no way to prevent high GINI in these systems.
@@jordanmmck Its controlled by a foundation that has a road map! They were able to switch the consensus mechanism from proof of work to proof of stake, one of the most fundamental changes you can make to a chain. Also proof of stake is fundamentally centralised, the largest holders get to decide the state of the ledger, no different to the current fiat central banking system. As for pre-mine, the eth foundation pre-mined over 60% of the total supply before the public sale. the same thing did not happen with bitcoin, anyone could download the software and mine from day 1. On top of all this does anyone know what the supply cap is on eth? Or what the economic policy is for next 5 years let alone the next 100 years? Eth can never be the base layer of money for any one of these reasons.
@@jordanmmckthe problem is premined + proof of stake makes it centralised
Thank you for the informative video. I am still learning a lot about the subject.
Do you believe that there is no fundamental difference between the future bitcoin banking scenario you presented and our current system?
Cheers. I'm mean, there's not *no* difference. But it's close enough to existing system that I don't see the point. And switching to a new system is a MASSIVE challenge. So the new thing has to be like 100x or 1000x better.
@@jordanmmck The main benefit I see is that the currency can't be easily manipulated by a single organization. Sure all the new Bitcoin banks could do their manipulations, but it wouldn't be as blatant as what the Fed does now.
Would the banks be incentivized to collude and manipulate the new currency?
Maybe if the population cared enough about having hard money then the most successful banks would be the ones that are transparent and auditable. If not, then maybe they would be incentivized to manipulate. After all, the free market tends to provide what the market wants.
Maybe the real benefit of the new system would be that it's no longer controlled by the government. Which to me is 1000x better.
@@nickvines5341 Maybe it would be a significant improvement. But to me it's really clear that we can build something that is 100x better than that. We can actually build a complete system that billions of people can use with zero reliance on banks of any sort, and with zero possibility of money printing. I'm not referring to ETH itself btw. To me it's clear that the future of money will be built *on* ethereum (and eth L2s), but it won't be ETH - it will be something much better. I have a video planned explaining it all.
@@jordanmmck that's fair. I agree that we can and should do a lot better.
Maybe just stake some SOL at 7 to 8% APY and wait for SOL to flip ETH MCAP
& get some Bitcoin Cash as it looks likely to outperform BTC (BCH is the better Bitcoin)
You're about to make so many bitcoin guys mad lmao
Lol that's fine
@@jordanmmck I think a lot of people need the wake up call. People who think this is just investing are kind of lost right now imo.
People need to see that the primary focus is actually on the technologies and that the financial stuff and investing are just byproducts of what the technologies allow.
Not really. Most of us use BTC as a store of value. Property. I will never use it for payments of transactions. We have fiat for that. Fiat will never go away, if you think it will you're delusional.
@@mikejames7093 When did you guys lose your ambition? I want to see money, finance, media, government - the whole stack replaced. You think a mere digital gold is going to save us? If only
@@jordanmmck bitcoin has broad ranging implications on all systems of governance and the layered solutions over the next 30 years will effectively iterate out the worst of the fiat system. Let’s give credit to successes where they exist though. LN may not be the end all be all, but it is a great option to have with areas for improvement.
Liquid IOUs have a verifiable peg. No possibility of fractional reserve
Beautifully done!!!!❤
Popped my bubble.
Some might remember: Satoshi wrote that with growth nodes will become server farms. He was big blocker, used 100GB/d as example. It is the generation "Decentralisation" that refuses to follow the original intention (which is fine, but has consequences). Bitcoin (the concept, the system) scales on L1. There is no scale ceiling (Satoshi). And BitcoinSV will show you how. No, not just big blocks, but also overlay networks, making use of Merkle trees and SPV. 1 Million TPS in tests have been seen already. Maybe BTC can learn from it. At least, OP_CAT will probably also be reanabled, like on BSV. ;-)
LOL BSV is garbage.
@@nathanmagnuson2589 It seems, you miss the point. I have made a statement and pointed to existing proof of demonstration. This alone already is worth the existence ;-)
Does the internet computer protocol as an L2 solve this?
no
L2 on bitcoin is marketing gimmick
Tried Fedimint yet?
i've not used it but i've done some reading on it. it helps with onboarding UX basically right. like, easier custodianship. but doesn't actually achieve scale right?
I think for day to day activities paper BTC is basically fine. People would then just keep long term savings on the L1. I also think Chainlink proof of reserve DONs can help with auditing secondary layers.
Of course dude, who on earth cares about it as a MoE.
Kaspa.
What you said at 5:56 is not correct.
When you have spent all the 'outbound liquidity' all you have to do is go to an exchange and deposit fiat (think kraken, coinbase etc) and the new 'liquidity' the new spending money you want to have on your side of the channel will be routed to your side of the channel. Instantaneously, for almost no fee at all. While maintaining the hard cap of 21m bitcoin, with every satoshi accounted for...
You don't need to hit the main chain again at all. As a matter of fact, you can continue to spend from your lightning channel and 'top up' whenever you want from an exchange over and over (as long as you don't exceed the size of the channel) without ever paying an on-chain fee. I'm not sure... why you present this information differently but it's a really exciting aspect of the lightning network.
How does that fiat sent to kraken/coinbase get onto the lightning network?
@@jordanmmck kraken and Coinbase have lightning withdrawals.
Wrong. Gold is much slower.
Right? Gold has something like a $10 trillion market cap with zero merchant adoption. It's done pretty well.
@@dudleydooright How do you mean zero merchant adoption? You can buy any fiat currency with gold and thus anything that fiat money can buy
Great video, could not agree more with it.
I didnt find anything to XLM and XRP, what makes me ultra bullish lfg
Just a kind reminder: BTC started as a blockchain but now (hopefully) it's a community. An open-source one. That means that if a whale gonna manipulate people's finances then the community can discard some devious blocks
OMG. You either are 12 years old or suffer serious disabilities.
Peter Schiff hasn't seen this video.
Lol
Thanks for the video, really useful for people new to blockchain like myself.
Thank you so much for your work
Lightning essentially was born a dinosaur and is as bad as a futures contract vs the spot price of an asset. XRP for any use case far superior and BTC is far behind for mass adoption. I do HODL both
Let bitcoin be ome store of value for the world before it is required as unit of exchange.
Cant call an emerging technology failed before mass adoption.
The inherent flaws are mainly related to maintaining the liquidity of a channel, when Bitcoin become unit of exchange then liquidity will come as well.
We dont have to onboard 7.9 billion people, how absurd is that. People manage money at household level at best we have to onboard as many bank account that are currently existing, certainly not 7.9 billion.
Kaspa solves this
This is why Btc will go onto the XRPL 😎 that last GASP
If you don’t like it, build another solution. Bitcoin is permissionless
If bitcoin had a real programming language we would have actual L2s on it already
@@jordanmmck this was a design choice. Constrain the protocol for to this one purpose. Also less likelihood for devs to break it.
@@jordanmmck anyway feel free to hardfork it. But it ain’t going to be used even if you do
@@anthonyriseley yes it was a design choice and now the system can't scale because of this choice
@@anthonyriseley ethereum was that "hardfork" and it's being used plenty. Vitalik et al. wanted to add smart contracts to bitcoin, but were blocked. so here we are. all the advanced stuff happening in ethereum land. and elsewhere too.
Good points. But I think this could be solved by wrapping BTC via smart contracts onto other, interoperable blockchains that have solved the scalability issues that plague Bitcoin. In that way, BTC can still can fulfil its role as digital gold, bypassing the need for banks or other centralised entities. Bitcoin was and is a great idea but we really need those third and fourth generation blockchains to take it to the next level.
Yeah I think that's technically possible. Maybe we have some hyper scaled Zk roll up that we can bridge BTC to. But then it's just another token right. At that point it's no different from Pepe or 1000 other coins - except for the name and history. It's hard for me to imagine it being true digital gold at that point
Duuuude. Come on.
Can you make a video on Kaspa?
based on the little research into kaspa that i've done, i don't see its value. it's a PoW, DAG based chain with no smart contracts right? why would anyone use that if they could instead use a hyper scaled L2 running on eth?
@@jordanmmck Would recommend doing all research into kaspa. It will flip eth one day. Only time will tell.
@@jordanmmck There are some good video's on Kaspa on the Plan K channel of @MikoGenno . Kaspa is indeed a PoW DAG based chain. Smart contract capability is going live this August. Kaspa solved the Trilemma and is scalable on the base chain, the hashrate is increasing rapidly, adoption and network effects are going really strong. Might be worth it to look into again. Personally I'm only invested in Bitcoin and now since a few months ago also Kaspa. Ethereum lost my interest when going from PoW to PoS. Also a lot of value is going to L2's now in that ecosystem.
i appreciate you putting out this very information. so imformative and greatly presented
Funny, I jsut paid to 3 merchants today to buy food with LN ......I call BS
incredible reasoning
First, nobody expects all 8 billion to appreciate and embrace BTC in the next few decades. And that is OK. LTN is just the beginning. The second point, is the bias coming from ETH fan, which is natural and totally understandable.
It wouldn’t be hard at all to audit the banks.
Lel
Brilliant vid. Very informative. Thank you
I would find an alternative token or system for transferring
I recommend you the original version of Bitcoin. Give it a try.
Its operation is on xapo bank.
You could make a similar argument against gold .. I think BTC will be a store of wealth, which is its strength .. you will then move money into other currencies for buying gasoline and dinner at a restaurant.. but you wouldn't want to store life savings in them due to counterparty risk .. you can't trust gold due to re-hypothecation and the risks of owning it (and counterparty risk) ... property is good but hard to move, maintain and sell .. stocks are good but only barely better than fiat when inflation is considered .. and I don't need to describe the long term risks of fiat
Yeah, I have a whole video planned on the future of money. I don't think BTC will be a significant SoV in the long-term. But I don't think ETH will be the world's "money" either. I think there's very clear/logical reasoning which leads to something else entirely.
@@jordanmmck as long as it doesn't involve counterparty risk and trust in central banking systems
That's why I'm invested is scalable/efficient utility tokens. XRP, HBAR, FLR, ALGO. Bitcoin was the prototype. I won't be someone's exit liquidity
Look into Kaspa
"Woe to us! Hail to us! The thawing wind bloweth!"-Thus preach, my brethren, through all the streets!
BLESS
To avoid this I'm sure the blockchain needs to increase block size. Hyperbitcoinization will be a reality in probably 20-30 years. in The meantime we'll need to work together and have the infrastrructure ready. Lightning first, then increase blocksize. Woulndt mind blocksize to 8mb in 2050, when cost per mb will be super low. so that decentralization will be kept.
Ke stark as The BTC and allow more coins in as currency.
Ethereum L2s will have the same fate, centralized sequencers, admin keys (no one is going to "destroy" their private keys), and limited scalability (even running on centralized tech). Validity Proofs, Fraud Proofs, etc. is all jargon once you realize that if single entity controls the entire thing, which defeats the whole purpose of a blockchain. Competing L1s are scaling, is just that the majority of developer power is on EVM chains and ETH. Once that starts to fade (with real adoption) L2's are going to be seen as trash
Don't get me wrong I'm an EVM maximalist, and once competing L1s start to scale while still using the EVM that is going to be the end of Ethereum, unless the Ethereum Foundation step-ups its game
The L2s are centralized currently. But there is a very clear path for them to take the training wheels off. And there will be massive pressure for them to do so. I don't see how we can achieve true scaling with L1s only. Either you crank the L1 speed up to Solana levels, at which point all nodes run are run by AWS, or you run the L1 at 15 tps and maintain decentralization, but then you need like 1000 L1s to get decent overall throughput.
@jordanmmck What about Fantom Sonic, NEAR, or Avalanche, it's clear that there is was to scale the L1 way past 15 TPS while maintaining a high level of decentralization. I know there is pressure to make the L2's decentralized but I would call that massive, due to simple game theory and economic incentives Ethereum is not what it could be, each rollup is essentially its own chain, completely isolated from the Ethereum ecosystem, making a 1000 rollups is like making 1000 chains, the same bridges between Optimism and Arbitrum can connect Optimism with Avalanche or Aptos.
Solana node requirements are high, but not everyone runs a node, and NO ONE runs decentralized sequencers or decentralized batchers.
I'm not saying 1 chain will rule over the world, what I am saying is that we need to make crypto about decentralized computing, a true world computer, not a cloud managed by admin keys and a single entity.
We are essentially trusting each of the L2 operators to be good actors... If that is the future you want for crypto, let me tell you something, using GCP or AWS is cheaper than any blockchain
@@PedroPerez-u6p Any L1 will be limited by the slowest machines in the network. And if the network is global and allows for consumer level nodes, then it's just not going to be fast enough for mainstream adoption - unless maybe through extensive use of ZK proofs.
The L2s are separate chains yes, but they can be run at orders of magnitude higher throughput because centralization of sequencers is a totally different issue vs. centralization of L1 nodes. Centralization of L2 sequencers isn't really an issue (all they can really do is censor you, in which case you switch to another L2). Especially since those sequencers *can* be decentralized and run by multiple parties, all while still being super high end machines. Basically each L2 can become like Solana, except sequencers running in AWS is actually fine, unlike L1 nodes being run in AWS.
Not everyone runs a Solana node but this is bad! See my previous video.
Hey, all I really care about is that we get our world computer. I don't care if it's Ethereum or some other system. I just see the L2 approach as the best path.
@jordanmmck What if they censor you and you have like 20 ETH on that L2?
I also want a world computer, native internet money, and autonomous software running on decentralized networks. In the short term, I don't mind L2s being centralized, but in the long term, L2s are fragmenting the UX on Ethereum even more, to the point that is more complicated than before to use blockchain, a friend of mine wanted to buy some tokens the other day, it was an odyssey to find which L2 had it, bridging from one to another.
if we are being real here 90% of dapps are not apps that you may use on a day-to-day basis, they are not Notion or 𝕏, and there are not many true native decentralized applications, what I mean with true native are actual state machines that interact in complex ways represented via smart contracts. I would love to see Ethereum scale, becoming a usable chain again, using shards or going modular.
Rollups are App Chains with ETH as their native token, that's it if a Rollup uses a DA service like Celestia and connects to Ethereum... via? Nothing. Is a completely different chain. I don't like L2s (don't even get me started with L3s) I like blockchains, distributed systems, and distributed computing.
I know people want to have the solid tokenomics that ETH provides, that's why L2s are flourishing, many great alternative L1s had great tech (Algorand is a great example) but they had poor tokenomics, really scummy token distribution and the organization that is responsible for their development is bad
Many core Ethereum team members have been very vocal against L2s
@@PedroPerez-u6p the L2 operators cannot prevent you from leaving. so you take your 20 eth and leave. yeah there's lots of UX stuff to improve with roll-ups. we're early. but all scaling approaches have trade offs. and roll-ups to me look like the best overall. i actually just legit don't see any good alternatives. and i think 3 years down the road the L2 ecosystem could actually just be extremely good with minimal downside.
Great content as always, thanks
Damn, so I guess we're moving over to BlockDAG then
Not to kaspa, to Kadena’s chainweb
@@epicmedia2280 KAS makes more sense to me
The original blockdag is Dero. Also the best as its private on layer 1 and smart contracts,
can you do video about kaspa pls
Careful what you wish for
@@jordanmmck why??
@@BillyJakeBulda based on what i know about kaspa i think it has
@@jordanmmck so you are smarter than yonathan???
@@BillyJakeBulda the time to build an alt L1 was like 7+ years ago
litecoin is the answer...
28:30 claiming that this system is like the fiat system we already have is absolute bullshit. nobodys savings will get inflated away to to money printing and everyone (who can afford some hardware and some onchain btc) has the option to become one of those "central hubs" himself without needing a banking licence or any other permission from the state.
The L1 can't handle everyone using it or lightning tho. It doesn't have the capacity
@@jordanmmck The L1 can in fact handle everyones transactions. just not in a non-custodial way. 99% of population is to dumb to run a lightningnode themselves anyway.
but they all can hold a claim on btc at the full reserve bitcoinbank they trust most via an app on their phone. thats way better than having a claim on fiat in a fractional reserve fiatbank - dont you see this advantage?
Satoshi actually was a big blocker. Most people need to understand it is better for something to exist maybe not forever in a massively decentralized way, but lead to massive changes in society and destroy central banking forever, then searching for the optimal solution. Do you really want the central bank theft and KYC to continue until we have all problems solved and wait 10-20 years plus (it will not happen any faster!). There are not many issues for the next decades with big blocks and chances of fraud are really minimal. And even at massive scale it is a much better, fairer and transparent system then the status quo. Bitcoin was without any doubt hijacked only thing that BCH does not fullfill in the whitepaper is the most hashpower. In contrast BTC has not much to do with the whitepaper anymore except you are very creative and dishonest.
It's still way faster than sending gold
Wow
Bitcoin Cash: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
BCH is the better Bitcoin, P2P, fast and cheap
BTC is not just about doing day to day transactions, you are thinking with a fiat brain
Didn't Satoshi call it a p2p electronic cash? 🧐
Yes it is. You re thinking with a brainwashed Saylor brain.
Hodl narrative was out out to stall the bitcoin network so that banks could catch up. Your blinded by greed of number go up.
You cNt have store of value without multiple points of utility. Security alone is not enough.
Get People tonuse bitcoin so little that they can get away with making paper bitcoin
At last, someone who understands the issue
Bitcoin Cash: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
BCH is the better Bitcoin, P2P, fast and cheap@@jordanmmck
Of course not dude. Who on his mind would think BTC is a peer to peer electronic cash system.
@@jordanmmck He is talking about BTC, not Bitcoin.
So BTC is destined to fail .
I got it right. BTC is destined to fail, Bitcoin is destined to succeed.
Love the content brotha
BSV is the answer
Bsv?
I think, sadly, anybody, especially westerners from developed nations, who thinks that bitcoin is going to allow you to escape from the traditional system, is in for an unpleasant surprise. As long as governments issue fiat and demand taxes in their fiat, Bitcoin really won't solve for anything. Will it hedge against fiat inflation? Probably. But that's about it.
Yeah, I think Bitcoiners are far too optimistic really. We need to build a whole parallel system. Money, finance, media, etc etc. That's what it will take to defeat the current system.
Yes, just like me and every other person on Earth - we open and close our bank accounts twice a year each year, therefore banking can not scale.
I don't think you understand...
#BSV the original bitcoin as indicated in the white paper
sure dude, and that guy wrigh or whatever is Satoshi Nakamoto right?
We should stop trying to limit BTC by insisting full nodes must be able to be run on shitty Raspberry Pi's.... If we upped the expected node power to a fat gaming PC then you could 100x the block size tomorrow and then 100x again in 10yrs! Im not advocating for massive blocks just a gradual and continuous increase in block size. Today 20TB hard drives are only about $500 and most gaming rigs run 12-20 4GHz core CPUs and 64GB Ram... we limit to Pi's which have 4gb ram and probably only a 1TB HD and 4x 1.5GHz cores! Block size is the only solution to allow BTC to scale as a peer to peer cash... start with a 3x increase then in time 2x again and so on, step by step... not like BSV and jump to 2GB blocks tomorrow! Lightning is just clever people trying to prove how clever they are... by ignoring the solution presented and worked out by Satoshi in the first place!
Gotta get away from the monolithic network structure mindset first and this problem isnt exclusive to bitcoin.
It doesnt solve the Problem
500gb in 15 yrs. Lets say we do 10x.
So we would need additional 5TB in the next 15yrs.
10x = 70tx/s is still to slow for 8b ppl.
Even 100x wouldnt enough.
If im not wrong.
@@Sacify So 5TB in 15years is nothing... Im below average pay and have over 50TB today! So 10x = 5TB, 100x = 50TB, and 1000x = 500TB... so today as a normal person stands 100x (700TPS) is achievable ... in 10years we will easily be able to 10x that and hit 7000TPS and by 2045 you could do another 10x and handle 70,000TPS far surpassing VISA!
@@FainTMako Why - you make a statement without anything backing it up?
@@robins3352 no usual user has 50 TB today, you're far average.
16TB HDD is here 200€, for your 50TB i would need more then 3 of them for 600€ alone, hell no thats not average, it would lead to centralization, go ETH Soundmoney for that..