[wickedlogic]

These pieces are starting to get pretty funny.

`If it keeps growing, it'll be so expensive, it can't possibly work.` Also assumes bitcoin as we know it today is fully immutable, but that isn't the case, and neither is energy production, or technology used to run the whole thing.

But you know what gets tricky, rewriting history in bitcoin's blockchain. `You'd almost have to spin up an alternate time line, and those alternate time lines are expensive, and use a lot of energy, it cant possibly work.`

The value in the future of bitcoin may be that it has a long and very public chain... and that alone is probably enough to hold reasonable utility in the future. Just like silver/gold and other scares things provided utility for quite a while. Only now of course, if it gets too expensive, another slightly different public fork will persist (or several of them).

[UncleMeat]

Isn't the immutability of BTC one of the major things that proponents point to? Wasn't this why there was such pushback against increasing block sizes by just 2x? Why should we assume that a community that is so based in political rather than technical ideals will just come up with some unnamed technical solution in the future to improve efficiency?