pull down to refresh
an argument against scaling
Yes.
Scaling larp is usually focused on throughput and efficiency, which is retarded for these reasons
- Lightning already makes throughput infinite
- Batching already exists and fees are near zero without even using it
- Increasing throughput does not increase the user ceiling
The user ceiling is a function of supply given the lack of divisibility of the base unit, and the necessity of a minimum amount of bitcoin being owned to leverage chain security (some multiple of the dust limit plus non-zero fees to be unilateral)
Since supply is non-negotiable, and increased divisibility would break literally everything, such a fork is never going to happen. Therefore, Bitcoin cannot scale to raise the user limit.
In fact, every large Bitcoin buy downscales Bitcoin considerably.
Fortunately, raising the user limit is not necessary, because the peers in the "peer to peer electronic cash" turned out to be about 200M people/institutions, which is still a drastic improvement over 1 federal reserve.
Genuin question, how would increasing divisibility break everything? I understand its similar to increasing supply(debasement), just with the distribution preportional to current ownership. Is it just the precedent it would set in terms of a hard fork?
This seems like an argument against scaling. Or are you saying now, BC Strategy hoovers up everything, we gotta scale faster/sooner...?