The Lightning Network isn’t working as intended and the devs have basically admitted it’s never going to though. I don’t think blockchain as it is built for the btc network is as scalable as you think it can be.
I offered the Lightning Network as a single example. I don't agree with you, but it's largely irrelevant at this stage.
The fact is that Bitcoin is very likely to absorb a vast percentage of the worlds value simply as it is. Once this has happened its value will stabilise and it will become useful as a unit of account/day-to-day currency. By this point, there will be far more motivation to focus on developing solutions (such as Lightning) to allow smaller and faster transactions.
> The fact is that Bitcoin is very likely to absorb a vast percentage of the worlds value simply as it is.
You present this as a fact, but the actual valuation of Bitcoin doesn't seem to support this claim. John McAfee bet (and proverbially lost) his testicles on broad estimations of Bitcoin's continued growth. Without extraordinary evidence, you can't make claims of extraordinary provenience.
> there will be far more motivation to focus on developing solutions (such as Lightning) to allow smaller and faster transactions.
If you need an L2 transaction layer to solve an issue inherent to an L1 chain, you're kinda just admitting that the base layer is flawed. Why use Bitcoin at all if we need mediators to settle regular transactions?
The "we'll fix it later" mentality works for shitty altcoins that have nothing to lose by reinventing themselves, but I'm not convinced Bitcoin can change. I was mining Bitcoin about a decade ago now, hearing people say "Lightning will work soon" or "a good interchain bridge will exist eventually" in 2024 leaves me convinced nothing has changed. It's a race between the economics and the technology to see which becomes outdated first.
> If you need an L2 transaction layer to solve an issue inherent to an L1 chain, you're kinda just admitting that the base layer is flawed.
On a similar note, TCP is an admission that IP is flawed. And HTTP is proof that the entire networking stack is a scam.
Clearly, any decent networking protocol would handle any and all information interchange anyone could ever need.
The fact that HTTP is on its third iteration, and it’s still built in top of the same Internet Protocol from 1974, proves that _nothing_ has changed. /s
None of what you said is inherently wrong. Much like the OSI model, if you reinvented Bitcoin today it would look much different.
Unlike the OSI model, Bitcoin's solution to finance is not modular or all-encompassing. If it's not going to adapt to modern demands, it will get replaced. There's no point in keeping around a financial solution that is impossible to fix when it breaks.
The fact is that Bitcoin is very likely to absorb a vast percentage of the worlds value simply as it is.
Your prediction for the future that a ledger with the throughput of a 28.8 modem will absorb the world's value is "fact"?
By this point, there will be far more motivation to focus on developing solutions (such as Lightning) to allow smaller and faster transactions.
It has been in the works for a decade and no one wants it. Why would someone use that when any other cryptocurrency (except for ethereum) already do small and fast transactions?
> Your prediction for the future that a ledger with the throughput of a 28.8 modem will absorb the world's value is "fact"?
Yes, the base layer network is ideally suited for storing extremely large amounts of wealth, for large amounts of time. No other asset has qualities that come close, they all leak value compared to bitcoin.
Where did you read this and why did you believe it? There is no technical reason this is true of course, for many reasons, including that many of the earliest coins are clones of bitcoin.
Are you copying some talking points or can you explain on a fundamental level why you believe this?
Fundamentally it comes down to perfect scarcity. If you increase supply, the value in your share leaks into the new supply.
As far as clones. Network effect takes care of that. They would have to be substantially better than bitcoin to beat it and that is extremely unlikely to happen as bitcoin is close to perfect.
All the money in the world will end up in bitcoin, even though it has about 4.5 transactions per second and the throughput of a 28.8 modem, because it was made first? How would this make any sort of logistical or technical sense?
You realize that ethereum already surpasses bitcoin in transactions and litecoin and even dogecoin do too right?
Also you still haven't linked where you are getting these ideas. When you believe in predictions of the future with no evidence and no possibility in reality, that's called religion.
Bitcoin refuses to increase their throughput and at the current rate, everyone on earth gets a single transaction every 50 years. What part of this actually makes sense to you?
Coinbase is a joke as an exchange. Other behemoths exchanges support it, such as Kraken or Binance. But I recommend you p2p exchanges, which don't require KYC, e.g. RoboSats or LNP2Pbot.
The fact is that Bitcoin is very likely to absorb a vast percentage of the worlds value simply as it is. Once this has happened its value will stabilise and it will become useful as a unit of account/day-to-day currency. By this point, there will be far more motivation to focus on developing solutions (such as Lightning) to allow smaller and faster transactions.