[arcticbull]

Genuine curiosity: why would you trade third-party assets on the Bitcoin network when you could do it infinitely more efficiently on any of the competing chains? It's by far the least efficient blockchain ergo the least efficient way to trade third-party assets.

[edit] Direct fees are lower than they used to be, and the energy cost is about now up to about $100-120 per transaction. While that's being socialized across block reward for now, when that ends, it will have to be born directly by customers or see the network become less secure.

[thebean11]

> While that's being socialized across block reward for now, when that ends, it will have to be born directly by customers

That's true, total transaction revenue will need to go up. That doesn't mean per-transaction revenue needs to go up though.

Put another way, transaction volume needs to scale before inflation gets too low.

[wmf]

transaction volume needs to scale before inflation gets too low

Good thing they decided to never scale transaction volume.

[thebean11]

That's simply not true. They are ultra conservative with block size. That doesn't mean transaction volume won't scale. It doesn't even mean block size won't go up.

[vmception]

I'd like the option as thats where they were traded before the transaction space was limited. Counterparty, OMNI... doing that stuff over Lightning Network. Other Layer 2s. The growth of this stuff is limited by bitcoin's current state. It just makes interoperability with the broader Defi space more practical.

Regarding energy, if thats your battle then work on that aspect, there are some influencers aiming to convince miners to create a more energy efficient version of transaction propagation, settled on the Bitcoin network.