Big Barry Bitcoin on Nostr: While everyone is bullish on twitter about the ETF craze, while there are cool things ...
While everyone is bullish on twitter about the ETF craze, while there are cool things happening in the nostr space, I am feeling unsure about bitcoin, where I'm sure I don't know it will last 20 more years, because the realisation that everything boils down to on chain fees is getting to me.
Maybe it's just a UX thing, maybe wallets need to build a "savings" feature in lightning wallets so users understand how much they are saving and therefore don't feel so bad when they have a forced closed channel or a high splice in fee.
Maybe it's much more nuanced than that, maybe on chain is so expensive that it's not about "saving", it's about "feasibility". This is where I think a lot of newbies are right now. They're stuck in lightning because they were introduced there. But if they got a non-custodial one, then they are likely feeling like they are hanging on to a rope just above water with alligators in it.
Will covenants solve this? Will covenants be widely accepted? As far as I know, the covenant specs haven't changed, so if it passes now, the only thing that has changed is the fee market but we don't know for sure how well covenants will fix this or even how quickly.
Meanwhile self custodial solutions are shining. Is this the way Bitcoin is really destined to go? If it does, Bitcoin is dead to me, it failed. Bitcoin always had the potential to fail, even when I learned about it in 2017, it was more accepted then.
Since I've seen what it can do, how it can help so many people all over the world, and how it empowers us so well, but if it can't empower those who are grossly, deeply trapped in the system, those who today will fight for the system that enslaves them, when they finally need it, it isn't what I thought it was.
Help me out peeps, why is bitcoin not destined to fail in 10 or 20 years under the weight of it's own success?
Maybe it's just a UX thing, maybe wallets need to build a "savings" feature in lightning wallets so users understand how much they are saving and therefore don't feel so bad when they have a forced closed channel or a high splice in fee.
Maybe it's much more nuanced than that, maybe on chain is so expensive that it's not about "saving", it's about "feasibility". This is where I think a lot of newbies are right now. They're stuck in lightning because they were introduced there. But if they got a non-custodial one, then they are likely feeling like they are hanging on to a rope just above water with alligators in it.
Will covenants solve this? Will covenants be widely accepted? As far as I know, the covenant specs haven't changed, so if it passes now, the only thing that has changed is the fee market but we don't know for sure how well covenants will fix this or even how quickly.
Meanwhile self custodial solutions are shining. Is this the way Bitcoin is really destined to go? If it does, Bitcoin is dead to me, it failed. Bitcoin always had the potential to fail, even when I learned about it in 2017, it was more accepted then.
Since I've seen what it can do, how it can help so many people all over the world, and how it empowers us so well, but if it can't empower those who are grossly, deeply trapped in the system, those who today will fight for the system that enslaves them, when they finally need it, it isn't what I thought it was.
Help me out peeps, why is bitcoin not destined to fail in 10 or 20 years under the weight of it's own success?