Please report any fake Michael Saylor ads and scammy Ripple or Solana ads that are sometimes played before my video. Unfortunately I have no control over these ads, which may be served up to you by RUclips. Never ever send your Bitcoin to anyone and expect to get double the Bitcoin back. Please be smart.
It’s interesting how effectively an algorithm can filter COVID misinformation, yet it is unable to filter an obvious scam ad faking Michael Saylor. Given that Saylor appears in exactly zero legitimate ads, it leads one to wonder.
thisite is in cohoots - aiding abetting these SE Asian fraud companies to illicit and be complicit to their own users being scammed - congress time@@gregdaugherty6065
Hi Matthew, I remember you used to make videos with life advice (e.g. the one about your grandfather, what you’d tell your 18 year old self, etc.) before you really went down the bitcoin rabbit hole. With the obvious decline of the US over the past several years, have you considered making some more of these? Curious because the path forward seems unclear with the coming hyperbitcoinization. Like, is it advisable to spend 20s-30s in a VHCOL area in order to mine more fiat, then plan to have children abroad and accumulate passports to maximize freedom?
Hey Matt, I feel like in a reality where "not having to use block space efficiently" was a strength of BTC, you would have totally used it as yet another reason why BTC is the ultimate form of money, much like divisibility, fungibility, portability, etc. Needing to be super efficient with block space usage is not something Satoshi envisioned, out he would have named it a "store of value system" instead of a "cash system". There is no denying that having to think about UTXO consolidation is a failure for BTC. Yet you won't admit it and you'll instead portray it as a "strength" which sounds like what someone that's part of a cult would say. If BTC fails at one thing, it's ok to admit it. We're all grown ups here and you don't need to pretend that obvious problems are not problems. I still stack only sats and own ZERO shipcoins, stocks, etc, but this is the one thing I wish BTC did differently. It would help your credibility if every now and then you also admitted that BTC isn't absolutely perfect. But you won't. I've been watching your videos for years now and never heard you name a single weakness in BTC. Even an obvious one like this
Finally some critical thinking in the herd. Bitcoin was supposed to remove trust from the system, remind me again why lightning is being celebrated exactly?
Did he say anywhere on this video that it’s a strength? I believe he just portrayed it as a fact and something common to all money. As any form of money scales, it layers. If we imagine a world where Bitcoin is fully adopted, I don’t see why it would be a bad thing to have credit cards, etc. that utilize Bitcoin. Because there are absolutely instances where it is beneficial to have a third party to appeal to in a transaction, and have channels through which a transaction can be reversed. I love those features of my credit card, they give me a certain category of protection that makes sense for certain kinds of transactions. Bitcoin being able to have layers stack on top of it is not necessarily a “strength” but I also don’t see how it’s a problem. It’s just how money works. It’s how systems work. It’s how protocols work. Almost every technology develops in layers. I also don’t think normal users are ever going to need to worry about consolidating UTXOs. I’m not an expert on this issue but that seems to be for people who have numerous transactions that are extremely small. Normal users were never transferring Bitcoin to their private wallet in
@@vejoshiraptor "money scales in layers" says who? We never had anything like bitcoin before. Why does it have to follow the pre-existing rules then? It was supposed to remove third party trust - by design mind you - and now because of the high fees it's gonna be unmovable and centralised. Failed project if you ask me
@@easycoding5289”who says” is just observation of history and reality. Bitcoin follows laws of nature. Does a fee of a few dollars really force it to become centralized? If driving to the bank, waiting, and driving back home takes 20+ minutes, paying a $5 fee to do this at home on a decentralized platform has already paid for itself. And the money paid in fees goes 100% toward incentivizing the security of the network - for the common good of all. It’s a tax, in a sense, but one that is actually fair and productive. And as inflation is probably the biggest tax in existence today, and Bitcoin’s mission is to eliminate that entirely, a much smaller and fairer tax (fees) to make that happen seems like a good trade-off. Especially when the fees can be avoided by layering other services, as described in this video. Some of those other services, like Lightning, don’t even relinquish self-sovereignty or require trusting a third party. So, I genuinely don’t understand what your concerns are.
@@vejoshiraptor I never said having layers is not a strength. Read my comment again. The need to scale in layers is just a consequence of the weakness of BTC which is that transaction fees are going to be way too high to have smaller UTXOs. And you seem to be under the impression that I'm talking about $5 UTXOs. I am NOT. The direction we are heading towards makes it so that a reasonable UTXO should have size 1 million sats. At peak ordinals euphoria last month, performing a transaction with anything less than 100,000 sats meant that 50% of your UTXO would have gone towards TX fees. Now you tell me if that's just $5. If this increases on the same trajectory in the future, we may not be able to feasibly perform transactions that are less than 1 million sats in size because most of the sats will go towards making the transaction happen. I have nothing against scaling in layers but I do have an issue with how expensive transactions are getting in general. BTC is not perfect and we tend to forget that. If it was perfect, then the Nested Segwit and Taproot updates (both of which have the goal of decreasing TX fees) would not have exited
These are definitely tough concepts, so give yourself time. Watch and rewatch the videos and feel free to ask questions. It will take some time, but I promise you that it will all eventually make sense
Yes, but the way that works now is having to trust a third party. With some upgrades like ARK, it will be possible to do as you suggest without having to fully trust a third party.
Yes, there is a new wallet called AQUA Wallet. it uses lighthing but when you recieve, it converts and stores in bitcoin liquid. So you dont need to open channels. When sending it does the opposite, it converts bitcoin liquid to lightning.
Another great BITCOIN video. And yes, of course a Bitcoin University would also consider the Bitcoin environment, but Bitcoin would be the main focus, at least to me.
Like Matthew said, don’t blame Bitcoin for high fees. I think we should look at Bitcoin like gravity. We may want to change gravity so we can build houses more easy for instance. However we can’t, gravity is a natural force. Now look at what we build despite gravity. Learn to live with it and build around stuff. Now I don’t have enough confidence in Lightning yet to put a reasonable amount of money there. Maybe it’s robust enough but you talked about things like 'The replacement cycling attack’ and besides I would like to see hardware wallet like setups on lightning as we do on the base layer. Especially for relatively poorer countries who earn too little for the base chain so they’ll have to put a years salary on lightning, which is a bit scary.
The Bitcoin protocol developed by Satoshi was never meant to have high fees. BTC has high fees because people believe that a cap on the size of blocks is necessary to maintain the integrity of the network. These people are wrong. The BTC block size cap is harmful and will prevent billions of people from taking possession of their own private keys and instead have to rely on trusted 3rd parties.
@@dasherman5150 How do you know Satoshi never meant it that way? Besides, your comment raises the question wether it’s still important what Satoshi thought. Scaling has always been on second layers. Who says we can’t achieve self custody on second layers? That’s what I mean with Bitcoin being a force of nature. There’s many ways to work around the block size limit en the self-custody issues on second layers. It will be faster if we come to terms that Bitcoin base layer is a force of nature not to be messed with and focus our energy on solving problems instead of changing what is already working. You can’t undo what you’re proposing. Bitcoin is too important to take the risk unless it’s absolutely necessary. And I would argue it’s absolutely not right now
@@f.flinstone252 Satoshi was active on Bitcoin discussion groups back in the day. If you read the whitepaper there is no mention of a block size cap and the title states that Bitcoin was designed to be a peer to peer digital currency. Satoshi discussed how Bitcoin, even back in 2012, could scale to greater than Visa level numbers of transactions per day. While not everything Satoshi said should be taken as gospel I think the onus is on detractors to prove that the creator of Bitcoin got the fundamental design of Bitcoin wrong. In any event, other forks of BTC have already shown that Bitcoin can scale more than BTC is currently allowed to. Layers above the 1st layer are not as secure and are fraught with additional technical complexity and risks. Not scaling the base layer is already having a negative impact in terms of high fees and UTXOs which can't be spent. These problems only get worse with more adoption. While I understand that money has scaled in layers in the past, it does not logically follow that the base layer should not be allowed to scale at all. Eventually the market will figure this out and BTC will fork to uncapped/larger blocks or market participants will choose Bitcoin forks that have already embraced on chain scaling.
Hello Matthew, thank you so very much for all your POW. I have a question regarding consolidating UTXOs and preparing for the future in Bitcoin I have in my desktop wallet sparrow some UTXOs with the smallest valued at 10,000 sats, the ideal will be to have fewer UTXOs with larger value? I saw your previous video about consolidating the UTXO transactions using the Bitcoin testnet. I think I will give it another look. In summary, your point is that having a larger value in fewer UTXOs will save me in the future on on-chain fees. I appreciate your input here and confirmation, all the very best!
I have a question about stranded sats- if the fees make small utxos not economically worthwhile to move, then won’t over time the entire Bitcoin network bleed out ever so slowly reference small locked utxos and dust wallets?
I imagine if we reach hyperbitcoinisation the fees will plateau at a number. I don't know what that number is but it will need to support mining operation as we head into the 2030s so prob quite big. If people don't off chain (to lightning e.g.) or consolidate UTXO as the fee goes up then yeah they'll become stranded
There will be some address owners who forget or lose track of their stranded UTXOs. So these won’t be combined into a larger UTXO as Matt describes in other public videos. There are likely lots of addresses with one or more UTXOs like this now. So, they’ll fall into the general category of “lost and unavailable” UTXOs over time. Problem is, nobody can verify that any specific UTXO is really lost or just being hodled. So we can’t know if they’ll ever be recovered in larger combined UTXOs. But it doesn’t matter. The market will recognize the more active addresses (moved within the past few months) and react with Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand”. Not to worry, there are over 5 million available bitcoin for exchange now. This number will drop as more hodlers adopt bitcoin. Let’s say that number drops to 2 million bitcoin. Then the total number of trade-able sats is 2,000,000 x 100,000,000,000 sats = 200,000,000,000,000 sats. That’s about 25,000 sats for each human alive now. Also, in the future, every sat could be split up into 1,048,576 micro sats. Companies do this all the time with stock shares - through stock splits. So if I possess exactly 1 Sat prior to the split, then I possess 1,048,576 micro sats after the split. Another wonderful attribute of bitcoin that gold cannot match - bitcoin is effectively infinitely divisible.
@@Jim-ct1hiOn the topic of mining, there is also a plateu that will be reached in the overall hash rate. There is a realization I had recently that the overall hash rate will eventually have a similar property to the value of a commodity with a high stock-to-flow ratio. Gold, for example, being a stable metal that doesn't tarnish, has a total supply that still includes nearly all the gold that was ever mined in history. Thus, compared to other metals, the value of gold is not impacted as easily by increased demand, because no matter how much gold mining you do in a given year, it will always produce only a tiny fraction of new gold compared to the total supply. Similarly, as the overall hash rate gets higher, the number of ASICs coming online will have less and less impact on the overall hash rate, because they will generate a smaller and smaller fraction of the overall hash rate. As the hash rate increases, the number of ASICs needed to make the hash rate go even higher will increase exponentially. Eventually, larger and larger numbers of ASICs will be able to come online each year while the increase in the difficulty adjustment will become less and less. Thus, the amount needed in transaction fees for a mining operation to be profitable will plateau. This will factor into the stability of transaction fees in the future. I think the result will mainly be that increases in transaction fees will become almost exclusively driven by competition for block space, rather than increases in the cost of mining operations.
Hi Matt, can you make a video about liquid bitcoin? There is a new non custodial wallet called AQUA wallet that uses lightning and converts it to liquid bitcoin. It looks interesting, what are your thoughts?
I see UTXOs as gold 2.0 bars... even with ordinal grifters, the cost to move 1 ounce gold value equivalent UTXO is still cheaper that the 5% premiums on 1 ounce of us mint gold. Its as high as 20% premiums on silver eagles.
Greatest respect to your PhD, but I think it's "those subscribe and like buttons". I can see how someone might rationalise that you're in effect saying "that subscribe button and that like button", but I still beg to differ.
Well, no. It matters not how efficient block space usage is if the main cause of the problems is the blocksize is too small. The blocksize debate is not rocket science and can be revisited. It is a question of trade-offs, each of which has a pro and con. The cons of a larger blocksize have been very clearly explained in videos here. But larger blocksizes have the pro of allowing the poorer and unbanked to send smaller transactions, and the avoidance of the trust dependent 3rd parties (layers), and from what I can tell, these goals are consistent with what Satoshi wanted.
Scarce block space is what enables a robust transaction fee market to develop and thus pay miners as the block subsidy goes to zero. As I discussed in yesterday's video, money always scales in layers. The poor and unbanked will be vastly better off on a global Bitcoin standard.
At the moment, a medium priority transaction is 170 sat/vb, or $10.31. That is already prohibitive for the poor doing small transactions. Now multiply it by 10 which is a not unreasonable prediction of future high rates. In this high fee scenario we are discussing the poor are not able to partake.
Who cares what Satoshi wanted if you can't verify your UTXOs on your own copy of the blockchain? Why would I EVER want to trust anyone else's copy of the blockchain?
@@ArnoldSommerfeld Yes, that is correct. The global poor are also not able to jet around the world on airplanes, but that doesn't mean that the invention of the airplane was flawed or bad for poor people or that we should try to make really big airplanes that hold 100,000 people on a single airplane. We can use airplanes to bring antibiotics and food to the poor anywhere. A village running on a fedimint backed by BTC will be a gigantic step forward from enduring endless government theft through depreciating fiat currencies. Gigantic Bitcoin blocks would destroy the very system that is our only hope at this point. There would be nothing noble or magnanimous about that. Your only real choices today are fiat central bankers or Bitcoin.
@@MikeG4936 If transaction fees move up to a certain level, most people will not be able to transact directly on chain. It's not a question of what anyone wants, but what the fully mature protocol will allow
Sure, but if every American used BTC on the LN, they would get one base transaction every two years. What about the rest of the world? Consider scaling horizontally with Litecoin. Different team, same league.
I can see why you hold Litecoin, because you don't even have a basic understanding of the differences between on-chain BTC and Lightning. The world does not need two coins. Money converges to one. And Bitcoin has already won the race
@@handystoic Feel free to explain the math behind your statement: "if every American used BTC on the LN, they would get one base transaction every two years."
🧠size always increases from listening to you 🧠🙏🙏🙏🙏Could you set up lightning channel between wallets under different keys I control.? As a utxo consolidation method?
Please report any fake Michael Saylor ads and scammy Ripple or Solana ads that are sometimes played before my video. Unfortunately I have no control over these ads, which may be served up to you by RUclips. Never ever send your Bitcoin to anyone and expect to get double the Bitcoin back. Please be smart.
It’s interesting how effectively an algorithm can filter COVID misinformation, yet it is unable to filter an obvious scam ad faking Michael Saylor. Given that Saylor appears in exactly zero legitimate ads, it leads one to wonder.
thisite is in cohoots - aiding abetting these SE Asian fraud companies to illicit and be complicit to their own users being scammed - congress time@@gregdaugherty6065
Aiding and abetting fake generated imposter videos will by under the eyes of authorities in coming years. Look at you craptoob
Hi Matthew, I remember you used to make videos with life advice (e.g. the one about your grandfather, what you’d tell your 18 year old self, etc.) before you really went down the bitcoin rabbit hole. With the obvious decline of the US over the past several years, have you considered making some more of these?
Curious because the path forward seems unclear with the coming hyperbitcoinization. Like, is it advisable to spend 20s-30s in a VHCOL area in order to mine more fiat, then plan to have children abroad and accumulate passports to maximize freedom?
I was asking about this earlier as well
Can you do a video on chain-key bitcoin / ckBTC?
Hey Matt, I feel like in a reality where "not having to use block space efficiently" was a strength of BTC, you would have totally used it as yet another reason why BTC is the ultimate form of money, much like divisibility, fungibility, portability, etc.
Needing to be super efficient with block space usage is not something Satoshi envisioned, out he would have named it a "store of value system" instead of a "cash system".
There is no denying that having to think about UTXO consolidation is a failure for BTC. Yet you won't admit it and you'll instead portray it as a "strength" which sounds like what someone that's part of a cult would say. If BTC fails at one thing, it's ok to admit it. We're all grown ups here and you don't need to pretend that obvious problems are not problems.
I still stack only sats and own ZERO shipcoins, stocks, etc, but this is the one thing I wish BTC did differently. It would help your credibility if every now and then you also admitted that BTC isn't absolutely perfect. But you won't. I've been watching your videos for years now and never heard you name a single weakness in BTC. Even an obvious one like this
Finally some critical thinking in the herd.
Bitcoin was supposed to remove trust from the system, remind me again why lightning is being celebrated exactly?
Did he say anywhere on this video that it’s a strength? I believe he just portrayed it as a fact and something common to all money. As any form of money scales, it layers. If we imagine a world where Bitcoin is fully adopted, I don’t see why it would be a bad thing to have credit cards, etc. that utilize Bitcoin. Because there are absolutely instances where it is beneficial to have a third party to appeal to in a transaction, and have channels through which a transaction can be reversed. I love those features of my credit card, they give me a certain category of protection that makes sense for certain kinds of transactions.
Bitcoin being able to have layers stack on top of it is not necessarily a “strength” but I also don’t see how it’s a problem. It’s just how money works. It’s how systems work. It’s how protocols work. Almost every technology develops in layers.
I also don’t think normal users are ever going to need to worry about consolidating UTXOs. I’m not an expert on this issue but that seems to be for people who have numerous transactions that are extremely small. Normal users were never transferring Bitcoin to their private wallet in
@@vejoshiraptor "money scales in layers" says who? We never had anything like bitcoin before. Why does it have to follow the pre-existing rules then? It was supposed to remove third party trust - by design mind you - and now because of the high fees it's gonna be unmovable and centralised. Failed project if you ask me
@@easycoding5289”who says” is just observation of history and reality. Bitcoin follows laws of nature. Does a fee of a few dollars really force it to become centralized? If driving to the bank, waiting, and driving back home takes 20+ minutes, paying a $5 fee to do this at home on a decentralized platform has already paid for itself. And the money paid in fees goes 100% toward incentivizing the security of the network - for the common good of all. It’s a tax, in a sense, but one that is actually fair and productive. And as inflation is probably the biggest tax in existence today, and Bitcoin’s mission is to eliminate that entirely, a much smaller and fairer tax (fees) to make that happen seems like a good trade-off. Especially when the fees can be avoided by layering other services, as described in this video. Some of those other services, like Lightning, don’t even relinquish self-sovereignty or require trusting a third party.
So, I genuinely don’t understand what your concerns are.
@@vejoshiraptor I never said having layers is not a strength. Read my comment again. The need to scale in layers is just a consequence of the weakness of BTC which is that transaction fees are going to be way too high to have smaller UTXOs. And you seem to be under the impression that I'm talking about $5 UTXOs. I am NOT. The direction we are heading towards makes it so that a reasonable UTXO should have size 1 million sats. At peak ordinals euphoria last month, performing a transaction with anything less than 100,000 sats meant that 50% of your UTXO would have gone towards TX fees. Now you tell me if that's just $5. If this increases on the same trajectory in the future, we may not be able to feasibly perform transactions that are less than 1 million sats in size because most of the sats will go towards making the transaction happen.
I have nothing against scaling in layers but I do have an issue with how expensive transactions are getting in general. BTC is not perfect and we tend to forget that. If it was perfect, then the Nested Segwit and Taproot updates (both of which have the goal of decreasing TX fees) would not have exited
I'm a boomer in the space since 2020,your last 4 or so videos have gone right over my head
These are definitely tough concepts, so give yourself time. Watch and rewatch the videos and feel free to ask questions. It will take some time, but I promise you that it will all eventually make sense
Hi Matt,
Could you please make a video on the potential of moving to Bits & Sats and the implications to help onboard new users?
Hi Matt, is it possible to create a lightning network wallet and send btc to someone without opening a channel?
Yes, but the way that works now is having to trust a third party. With some upgrades like ARK, it will be possible to do as you suggest without having to fully trust a third party.
Yes, there is a new wallet called AQUA Wallet. it uses lighthing but when you recieve, it converts and stores in bitcoin liquid. So you dont need to open channels. When sending it does the opposite, it converts bitcoin liquid to lightning.
What size UTXOs should be consolidated?
0.01
1million sats
Another great BITCOIN video. And yes, of course a Bitcoin University would also consider the Bitcoin environment, but Bitcoin would be the main focus, at least to me.
Is there a risk in lightning networks becoming too efficient, reducing demand for (and compensation of) miners?
Like Matthew said, don’t blame Bitcoin for high fees. I think we should look at Bitcoin like gravity. We may want to change gravity so we can build houses more easy for instance. However we can’t, gravity is a natural force. Now look at what we build despite gravity. Learn to live with it and build around stuff.
Now I don’t have enough confidence in Lightning yet to put a reasonable amount of money there. Maybe it’s robust enough but you talked about things like 'The replacement cycling attack’ and besides I would like to see hardware wallet like setups on lightning as we do on the base layer. Especially for relatively poorer countries who earn too little for the base chain so they’ll have to put a years salary on lightning, which is a bit scary.
The Bitcoin protocol developed by Satoshi was never meant to have high fees. BTC has high fees because people believe that a cap on the size of blocks is necessary to maintain the integrity of the network. These people are wrong. The BTC block size cap is harmful and will prevent billions of people from taking possession of their own private keys and instead have to rely on trusted 3rd parties.
@@dasherman5150 How do you know Satoshi never meant it that way? Besides, your comment raises the question wether it’s still important what Satoshi thought.
Scaling has always been on second layers. Who says we can’t achieve self custody on second layers? That’s what I mean with Bitcoin being a force of nature. There’s many ways to work around the block size limit en the self-custody issues on second layers. It will be faster if we come to terms that Bitcoin base layer is a force of nature not to be messed with and focus our energy on solving problems instead of changing what is already working.
You can’t undo what you’re proposing. Bitcoin is too important to take the risk unless it’s absolutely necessary. And I would argue it’s absolutely not right now
@@f.flinstone252 Satoshi was active on Bitcoin discussion groups back in the day. If you read the whitepaper there is no mention of a block size cap and the title states that Bitcoin was designed to be a peer to peer digital currency. Satoshi discussed how Bitcoin, even back in 2012, could scale to greater than Visa level numbers of transactions per day. While not everything Satoshi said should be taken as gospel I think the onus is on detractors to prove that the creator of Bitcoin got the fundamental design of Bitcoin wrong. In any event, other forks of BTC have already shown that Bitcoin can scale more than BTC is currently allowed to. Layers above the 1st layer are not as secure and are fraught with additional technical complexity and risks. Not scaling the base layer is already having a negative impact in terms of high fees and UTXOs which can't be spent. These problems only get worse with more adoption. While I understand that money has scaled in layers in the past, it does not logically follow that the base layer should not be allowed to scale at all. Eventually the market will figure this out and BTC will fork to uncapped/larger blocks or market participants will choose Bitcoin forks that have already embraced on chain scaling.
Hello Matthew, thank you so very much for all your POW. I have a question regarding consolidating UTXOs and preparing for the future in Bitcoin I have in my desktop wallet sparrow some UTXOs with the smallest valued at 10,000 sats, the ideal will be to have fewer UTXOs with larger value? I saw your previous video about consolidating the UTXO transactions using the Bitcoin testnet. I think I will give it another look. In summary, your point is that having a larger value in fewer UTXOs will save me in the future on on-chain fees. I appreciate your input here and confirmation, all the very best!
I have a question about stranded sats- if the fees make small utxos not economically worthwhile to move, then won’t over time the entire Bitcoin network bleed out ever so slowly reference small locked utxos and dust wallets?
I imagine if we reach hyperbitcoinisation the fees will plateau at a number. I don't know what that number is but it will need to support mining operation as we head into the 2030s so prob quite big. If people don't off chain (to lightning e.g.) or consolidate UTXO as the fee goes up then yeah they'll become stranded
There will be some address owners who forget or lose track of their stranded UTXOs. So these won’t be combined into a larger UTXO as Matt describes in other public videos.
There are likely lots of addresses with one or more UTXOs like this now. So, they’ll fall into the general category of “lost and unavailable” UTXOs over time. Problem is, nobody can verify that any specific UTXO is really lost or just being hodled. So we can’t know if they’ll ever be recovered in larger combined UTXOs.
But it doesn’t matter. The market will recognize the more active addresses (moved within the past few months) and react with Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand”.
Not to worry, there are over 5 million available bitcoin for exchange now. This number will drop as more hodlers adopt bitcoin. Let’s say that number drops to 2 million bitcoin. Then the total number of trade-able sats is 2,000,000 x 100,000,000,000 sats = 200,000,000,000,000 sats. That’s about 25,000 sats for each human alive now.
Also, in the future, every sat could be split up into 1,048,576 micro sats. Companies do this all the time with stock shares - through stock splits. So if I possess exactly 1 Sat prior to the split, then I possess 1,048,576 micro sats after the split. Another wonderful attribute of bitcoin that gold cannot match - bitcoin is effectively infinitely divisible.
@@Jim-ct1hiOn the topic of mining, there is also a plateu that will be reached in the overall hash rate. There is a realization I had recently that the overall hash rate will eventually have a similar property to the value of a commodity with a high stock-to-flow ratio. Gold, for example, being a stable metal that doesn't tarnish, has a total supply that still includes nearly all the gold that was ever mined in history. Thus, compared to other metals, the value of gold is not impacted as easily by increased demand, because no matter how much gold mining you do in a given year, it will always produce only a tiny fraction of new gold compared to the total supply.
Similarly, as the overall hash rate gets higher, the number of ASICs coming online will have less and less impact on the overall hash rate, because they will generate a smaller and smaller fraction of the overall hash rate. As the hash rate increases, the number of ASICs needed to make the hash rate go even higher will increase exponentially. Eventually, larger and larger numbers of ASICs will be able to come online each year while the increase in the difficulty adjustment will become less and less. Thus, the amount needed in transaction fees for a mining operation to be profitable will plateau. This will factor into the stability of transaction fees in the future. I think the result will mainly be that increases in transaction fees will become almost exclusively driven by competition for block space, rather than increases in the cost of mining operations.
He made a video about this already
Thx. For your research and presentation
1st, for the 1st time ever!
Excellent video
IT posible to batch segwitt with taproot utxos¿
Do you have a video comparing BTC ETF vs BTC IRA (such as Swan)? I’m thinking about what I’d like to do with my Roth-IRA
Hi Matt, can you make a video about liquid bitcoin? There is a new non custodial wallet called AQUA wallet that uses lightning and converts it to liquid bitcoin. It looks interesting, what are your thoughts?
Good morning Matthew!
Love it man!
Great info!
I see UTXOs as gold 2.0 bars... even with ordinal grifters, the cost to move 1 ounce gold value equivalent UTXO is still cheaper that the 5% premiums on 1 ounce of us mint gold. Its as high as 20% premiums on silver eagles.
Bitcoin 🧡
Greatest respect to your PhD, but I think it's "those subscribe and like buttons". I can see how someone might rationalise that you're in effect saying "that subscribe button and that like button", but I still beg to differ.
Why Harry and Alice? What ever happened to Sally?😉 Thanks for your video, Matt!
Sally was a shipcoiner, so she didn't make it unfortunately
@@Bitcoin_University She had bad investment advice. She thought she could fake an "altcoin"gasm...
Well, no. It matters not how efficient block space usage is if the main cause of the problems is the blocksize is too small. The blocksize debate is not rocket science and can be revisited. It is a question of trade-offs, each of which has a pro and con. The cons of a larger blocksize have been very clearly explained in videos here. But larger blocksizes have the pro of allowing the poorer and unbanked to send smaller transactions, and the avoidance of the trust dependent 3rd parties (layers), and from what I can tell, these goals are consistent with what Satoshi wanted.
Scarce block space is what enables a robust transaction fee market to develop and thus pay miners as the block subsidy goes to zero. As I discussed in yesterday's video, money always scales in layers. The poor and unbanked will be vastly better off on a global Bitcoin standard.
At the moment, a medium priority transaction is 170 sat/vb, or $10.31. That is already prohibitive for the poor doing small transactions. Now multiply it by 10 which is a not unreasonable prediction of future high rates. In this high fee scenario we are discussing the poor are not able to partake.
Who cares what Satoshi wanted if you can't verify your UTXOs on your own copy of the blockchain? Why would I EVER want to trust anyone else's copy of the blockchain?
@@ArnoldSommerfeld Yes, that is correct. The global poor are also not able to jet around the world on airplanes, but that doesn't mean that the invention of the airplane was flawed or bad for poor people or that we should try to make really big airplanes that hold 100,000 people on a single airplane. We can use airplanes to bring antibiotics and food to the poor anywhere. A village running on a fedimint backed by BTC will be a gigantic step forward from enduring endless government theft through depreciating fiat currencies. Gigantic Bitcoin blocks would destroy the very system that is our only hope at this point. There would be nothing noble or magnanimous about that. Your only real choices today are fiat central bankers or Bitcoin.
@@MikeG4936 If transaction fees move up to a certain level, most people will not be able to transact directly on chain. It's not a question of what anyone wants, but what the fully mature protocol will allow
Sure, but if every American used BTC on the LN, they would get one base transaction every two years. What about the rest of the world? Consider scaling horizontally with Litecoin. Different team, same league.
I can see why you hold Litecoin, because you don't even have a basic understanding of the differences between on-chain BTC and Lightning. The world does not need two coins. Money converges to one. And Bitcoin has already won the race
I run an Umbrel node with LN. I'm 90/10 BTC/LTC.
LTC surpassed BTC payments on Bitpay.
@@handystoic Feel free to explain the math behind your statement: "if every American used BTC on the LN, they would get one base transaction every two years."
@@handystoic Who cares? Bitpay is a shitcoin company and people who use it instead of BTC Pay Server understand nothing about self-sovereignty
I think bitcoin cash is the real bitcoin
Then resign yourself to getting poorer and poorer over time
🧠size always increases from listening to you 🧠🙏🙏🙏🙏Could you set up lightning channel between wallets under different keys I control.?
As a utxo consolidation method?
Bitcoin Block space is part of bitcoins scarcity