SaberhagenTheNameless on Nostr: >"I do not understand this argument. To me it completely misses the point: I argue ...
>"I do not understand this argument. To me it completely misses the point: I argue that self-custodial lightning has better privacy than custodial lightning"
It matters because it's complexity prevents most users from ever using Lightning privately+self-custodially. Essentially you're saying it has the potential to be very private, but what does that matter when it comes to how vast majority are using it? It's similar to why PGP failed to get broader adoption. UX means only you and and a handful of people are using Lightning that way.
>"Making blocks dynamic in size with the hope that someday technology will solve all the problems it brings"
I showed you a chart of tech advancements since inception of Bitcoin. Bitcoin blocksize hasnt even kept up conservatively.
Seems all for nothing at the expense of usability: ~60,000 node runners. ~50-100 million Bitcoin users. Apparently vast majority of Bitcoiners won't ever run a node even if they can.
Also Bitcoin is relying on this "wishful thinking" too to some degree since Lightning doesn't even scale globally without 100MB+ blocksize.
>"that incentivizes them to place *their own* limit on the size of their own blocks"
Not sure I understand what you're saying. Why would they do this? Penalty of increasing blocksize decreases with more use. Those doing that would just be leaving money on the table.
>"You're not sovereign if you're not running a node"
So you're conceding 95%+ of Bitcoin/Lightning is not sovereign? I think it's safe to say there are way more Monero node runners as a percentage of users than Bitcoin. Bitcoin has far more users, but the difference in total nodes is only a factor of 2x-6x vs Monero depending how you count them.
>"So at some point 0.6 XMR will have no material value. It will be worth less than 60 cents of today's money. Consequently, miners will need another source of revenue."
Ok, but doesn't that mean Bitcoin will be in an even worse state?
No block reward at all + sparse/no mining tx fees because almost everyone would be using an L2 at that point for almost all their transactions.
It matters because it's complexity prevents most users from ever using Lightning privately+self-custodially. Essentially you're saying it has the potential to be very private, but what does that matter when it comes to how vast majority are using it? It's similar to why PGP failed to get broader adoption. UX means only you and and a handful of people are using Lightning that way.
>"Making blocks dynamic in size with the hope that someday technology will solve all the problems it brings"
I showed you a chart of tech advancements since inception of Bitcoin. Bitcoin blocksize hasnt even kept up conservatively.
Seems all for nothing at the expense of usability: ~60,000 node runners. ~50-100 million Bitcoin users. Apparently vast majority of Bitcoiners won't ever run a node even if they can.
Also Bitcoin is relying on this "wishful thinking" too to some degree since Lightning doesn't even scale globally without 100MB+ blocksize.
>"that incentivizes them to place *their own* limit on the size of their own blocks"
Not sure I understand what you're saying. Why would they do this? Penalty of increasing blocksize decreases with more use. Those doing that would just be leaving money on the table.
>"You're not sovereign if you're not running a node"
So you're conceding 95%+ of Bitcoin/Lightning is not sovereign? I think it's safe to say there are way more Monero node runners as a percentage of users than Bitcoin. Bitcoin has far more users, but the difference in total nodes is only a factor of 2x-6x vs Monero depending how you count them.
>"So at some point 0.6 XMR will have no material value. It will be worth less than 60 cents of today's money. Consequently, miners will need another source of revenue."
Ok, but doesn't that mean Bitcoin will be in an even worse state?
No block reward at all + sparse/no mining tx fees because almost everyone would be using an L2 at that point for almost all their transactions.