[arcticbull]

> Bitcoin is just fine as the most secure settlement layer and long-term store of value for large, infrequent and expensive transactions.

It's not, because its inability to scale means folks are pushed onto L2 which has none of the guarantees you mention.

[panarky]

If I buy real estate or fine art to defend against the money printer, my transactions are large, infrequent, slow and expensive.

As Bitcoin's use as a store of value increases and transaction throughput remains constant, transactions will be larger, less frequent and more expensive.

I won't get pushed out onto L2 just like I'm not pushed to liquidate real estate or art collections. I don't transact in long-term stores of value more than once every few years, and then I expect the transaction will be large, slow and expensive.

[shawnz]

Users can choose to adopt the trade-offs of second layer solutions if and when it is convenient for them, and with whatever portion of their wealth that they like.

[arcticbull]

Almost like classical finance has worked forever. Remind me what we’re Expending this energy for again? Or are we closing in on the end of the speedrun?

[shawnz]

For situations in which the risk profile of traditional fiat currencies doesn't meet your needs.

It is a strawman to say that Bitcoin can only be useful if it replaces all traditional financial instruments.

[arcticbull]

I've never said that. I've said it does literally nothing better than classical systems. That point remains in contention. The idea that it's somehow everything and nothing at the same time, just a perpetual number go up machine, is a pro-crypto argument.

[Geee]

These guarantees aren't needed for most daily transactions. Using Visa with Bitcoin is fine, and does not undermine the security of the currency.

[arcticbull]

Your absolute right, those guarantees are not needed in most circumstances, which is why bitcoin is irrelevant.