[emeth]

> When a user receives money – which humans usually receive monthly as wages/salaries – they need to deposit it into the layer 2 system, in order for it to be available within it.

If my employer pays me in bitcoins from their coinbase account to my coinbase account, that transaction doesn't touch the chain. I can then send bitcoins from my coinbase account to another coinbase account, again without touching the chain.

Why wouldn't the employer pay wages in the layer 2 system to begin with?

[vincnetas]

"from their coinbase account to my coinbase account" so if i understand correctly this basically eliminates blockchain and leaves you with plain old database in the backed of some provider to keep track of how much "money" you have. And if provider gets hacked well, tough luck...

[MertsA]

If we're talking about Coinbase in particular then yes but you can have secure off chain transactions like Lightning network where either both parties agree or the funds are locked until the channel closes and returns them to the sender.

[runeks]

> Why wouldn't the employer pay wages in the layer 2 system to begin with?

(Author here)

Very few employers pay wages denominated in bitcoins. If you're lucky enough that an employer is willing to pay a part of your wage within a layer 2-system, you're right. For all the people who receive their wages in national currency (of whichever country they live in), they have to go via the blockchain, and thus run into this limit.

Also, it seems to me that, if layer 2 protocols want to solve Bitcoin scalability in order to increase adoption, it doesn't make sense for it to depend on everyone having adopted Bitcoin already (which, I would argue, would be the case if most people received their wages as bitcoins).

[rlpb]

> Very few employers pay wages denominated in bitcoins.

Very few merchants accept payment denominated in bitcoins, either. And these two statements are clearly tied together. If, upon bitcoin scaling up in the economny, more merchants accepted bitcoins, then it follows that more employers would pay wages denominated in bitcoins.

If the state of affairs remains the same as it is today, then there is no need for me to buy into layer 2 protocols monthly. My monthly spend in bitcoins will remain a fraction of my monthly wage. I could afford to buy into layer 2 annually easily enough.

If more of the economy moves into bitcoins, then employers will pay wages in bitcoins by definition. And at that stage, it will be feasible for them to pay in layer 2.

Either way, I think this exposes a vital flow in your chain of reasoning.

[jaclaz]

> Why wouldn't the employer pay wages in the layer 2 system to begin with?

Side note, would the wage be (initially or periodically) agreed upon expressed in US Dollars or Euro (or a local currency) or directly in Bitcoin?

I.e. do you see your employer agreeing on giving you 2,500 US$ /week or 1 Bitcoin/week, and on the other side, would you agree to be paid 4,000 US$/week or 1 Bitcoin per week?