[CharlesW]

> It continues to function as it set out to be.

Satoshi's paper is literally titled, "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System", but it's generally considered to have failed at that. (Even most Bitcoin events don't allow you to pay in Bitcoin, for example.)

Bitcoin folks now talk about it as "digital gold" or "a store of value", which is fine, but very different than what it was set out to be.

[sunshinerag]

I understand, the P2P layer has moved to lightning layer atop Bitcoin. Works very well. In terms of adoption of P2P transactions, we will have to wait till more widespread adoption. And most who have bitcoin will be reluctant to spend it for coffees and would rather let it appreciate in value for now.

Meanwhile adoption does continue to rise with apps like https://gethaven.app

[CharlesW]

> I understand, the P2P layer has moved to lightning layer atop Bitcoin. Works very well.

I can appreciate how off-chain overlays can allow Bitcoin to achieve transactions at scale. What I don't quite get is why this kind of recentralization[1] is good for Bitcoin. It feels like the endgame may be a kind of "worst of both worlds" solution — no longer decentralized, but still not as efficient as centralized solutions.

Unless: Can Bitcoin users prevent off-chain transactions, to avoid Lightning?

[1] "10 percent of [Lightning] nodes control 80 percent of funds on the network." https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-lightning-network-is-growi...