3 ms·

Per-transaction is only meaningful if you believe Bitcoin's only utility is by competing with Visa for everyday transactions like buying a cup of coffee. But i

Per-transaction is only meaningful if you believe Bitcoin's only utility is by competing with Visa for everyday transactions like buying a cup of coffee. But if you find that Bitcoin is a digital, permissionless, borderless, uncensorable store of value, a better gold than gold, then it doesn't need millions of transactions per second. Bitcoin is just fine as the most secure settlement layer and long-term store of value for large, infrequent and expensive transactions. Fiat money isn't going anywhere, Visa doesn't need to be replaced, and Bitcoin doesn't need to pay for your coffee to be useful. It can do what it does best, coexisting with fiat systems and other cryptocurrencies.

arcticbull 6y ago
> Bitcoin is just fine as the most secure settlement layer and long-term store of value for large, infrequent and expensive transactions. It's not, because its inability to scale means folks are pushed onto L2 which has none of the guarantees you mention.
- panarky 6y ago
  If I buy real estate or fine art to defend against the money printer, my transactions are large, infrequent, slow and expensive. As Bitcoin's use as a store of value increases and transaction throughput remains constant, transactions will be larger, less frequent and more expensive. I won't get pushed out onto L2 just like I'm not pushed to liquidate real estate or art collections. I don't transact in long-term stores of value more than once every few years, and then I expect the transaction will be large, slow and expensive.
- Geee 6y ago
  These guarantees aren't needed for most daily transactions. Using Visa with Bitcoin is fine, and does not undermine the security of the currency.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Your absolute right, those guarantees are not needed in most circumstances, which is why bitcoin is irrelevant.
- shawnz 6y ago
  Users can choose to adopt the trade-offs of second layer solutions if and when it is convenient for them, and with whatever portion of their wealth that they like.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Almost like classical finance has worked forever. Remind me what we’re Expending this energy for again? Or are we closing in on the end of the speedrun?
    - shawnz 6y ago
      For situations in which the risk profile of traditional fiat currencies doesn't meet your needs. It is a strawman to say that Bitcoin can only be useful if it replaces all traditional financial instruments.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        I've never said that. I've said it does literally nothing better than classical systems. That point remains in contention. The idea that it's somehow everything and nothing at the same time, just a perpetual number go up machine, is a pro-crypto argument.

arcticbull 6y ago

> Bitcoin is just fine as the most secure settlement layer and long-term store of value for large, infrequent and expensive transactions. It's not, because its inability to scale means folks are pushed onto L2 which has none of the guarantees you mention.

panarky 6y ago
If I buy real estate or fine art to defend against the money printer, my transactions are large, infrequent, slow and expensive. As Bitcoin's use as a store of value increases and transaction throughput remains constant, transactions will be larger, less frequent and more expensive. I won't get pushed out onto L2 just like I'm not pushed to liquidate real estate or art collections. I don't transact in long-term stores of value more than once every few years, and then I expect the transaction will be large, slow and expensive.
Geee 6y ago
These guarantees aren't needed for most daily transactions. Using Visa with Bitcoin is fine, and does not undermine the security of the currency.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Your absolute right, those guarantees are not needed in most circumstances, which is why bitcoin is irrelevant.
shawnz 6y ago
Users can choose to adopt the trade-offs of second layer solutions if and when it is convenient for them, and with whatever portion of their wealth that they like.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Almost like classical finance has worked forever. Remind me what we’re Expending this energy for again? Or are we closing in on the end of the speedrun?
  - shawnz 6y ago
    For situations in which the risk profile of traditional fiat currencies doesn't meet your needs. It is a strawman to say that Bitcoin can only be useful if it replaces all traditional financial instruments.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      I've never said that. I've said it does literally nothing better than classical systems. That point remains in contention. The idea that it's somehow everything and nothing at the same time, just a perpetual number go up machine, is a pro-crypto argument.