[Lucadg]

I think going maxi is a negative rather than a positive. It's when you go too far in the journey and seek for simplicity. Crypto is a complicated and fast moving world, so it's understandable that some people become religious (as in stop accepting new evidence) and tribal. Still, it's always good trying to keep an open mind.

[rlt]

Modern “Bitcoin Maximalism” has similarities to religion, but I think it’s possible to independently arrive at the conclusions that there needs to be a single dominant cryptocurrency, and for various reasons Bitcoin has the best chance of being it.

[Osiris]

And a lot of reasons it's terrible.

Front and center is the number of transactions per second it can process. It's no where near being able to handle the volume of transactions that happen around the world.

[rlt]

I don’t believe it’s possible to put every transaction on chain (or at least the main chain) while retaining the level of decentralization that makes cryptocurrencies interesting in the first place.

Most people believe a layered approach is necessary, and indeed, many are building L2 solutions on Bitcoin (Lightning) and other cryptocurrencies.

I think Bitcoin can and should be L1.

[anonporridge]

Clearly you haven't kept up to date with the lightning network.

The idea that any blockchain could squeeze all of the world's transactions on the system's layer one was always an absurd proposition to anyone with a basic understanding of computer science.

[CaptainZapp]

> but I think it’s possible to independently arrive at the conclusions that there needs to be a single dominant cryptocurrency

Why?