> So in terms of actually handling transactions, Bitcoin seems ridiculously inefficient. Actually using the blockchain would result in a bidding war, and the im

> So in terms of actually handling transactions, Bitcoin seems ridiculously inefficient. Actually using the blockchain would result in a bidding war, and the implications of that are very messy - driving up the price would incentivize more miners which would drive up energy consumption, this looks highly likely to cause a massive speculative bubble whose side effect is massive energy consumption. Bitcoin itself has indeed a rather limited capacity of transactions per time unit. And people discussing/developing bitcoin have been well aware of this right from the very beginning. (You can dig up old discussions). It is everything but a new finding. So people have long been looking for solutions. And they came up with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Network AFAIK Lightning Network has yet to prove that it can be a stable and reliable system over many years. But it appears to be a promising approach that could solve the problem of bitcoin's low transaction capacity. Quoting from the OP article: > Section: Scaling By Layers and the “Cost Per Transaction” Fallacy > With Lightning, two people can open a channel with each other using a base layer transaction, and then send any number of instant transactions between each other. Days, weeks, months, or years later (whenever they want to), they can close that channel with a second base layer transaction. That means dozens, hundreds, or thousands of mini-transactions can be combined into two base layer transactions. It’s like keeping a bar tab open and settling at the end of the night, or the end of the month, except it doesn’t rely on trust but instead relies on programmed smart contracts that ensure the bar tab is settled.