JT

Why EVERYTHING happening with ICP<>BTC is important youtu.be/nVaAN-ZWrsI?si=rx7j… $ICP #ICP

I seem to be converging my opinion on the #Bitcoin blocksize matter. Instead of looking at the numbers alone, we should get the fundamentals right and do our best to make it work. When thinking about blocksize we have to understand that there are always trade-offs. And so we must ask, what is the most important thing. For me, I am in the camp of L1 as a store of value (not medium of exchange, which comes second). Technically, you can't have it all on the base layer. You could move $100T on the L1 within minutes, yet you won't be able to move thousands of transactions per second. This is by design. Some might say, but Eerik, that's not the original vision of Satoshi, he designed a "peer to peer electronic cash system". But hold your horses. First, there's only so much that you can fit into a short whitepaper. The audience of that document dictates the wording. Second, what is the time horizon? That is, if we give us a few decades, we will get there. And third, Bitcoin does not have to equal only Layer 1. Ultimately, Bitcoin will be a peer to peer cash system, but the solution will be in layers. So again, what is the most important thing? Bitcoin L1 is about moving monetary energy through space AND time. That is, not just move but also store the value; and not for days but years, decades, centuries. Proponents of scalable L1 think about moving money fast now, not into the future. But that's a simpler problem and partial solution. L1 is the bedrock, ultimate scarcity, long-term soundness. It's where you (individual, organisation, government, etc) store wealth long-term and are not worried about being fast. L2 is what allows for private and fast transactions, that's the medium of exchange. Here, what BCH crew especially likes to point out are the centralized nature of most L2s. That's their case why this is wrong. They love to point out specific individuals and how they have built (centralized) companies to support the scaling and functionality. But first of all, we need L2 ANYWAY (unless you are a fan of BSV where the blocksize is practically infinite which defeats the entire purpose). And secondly, we CAN have decentralized full-stack L2s, like #ICP, allowing to embed Bitcoin straight into general-purpose dApps without centralized intermediaries. The tech is ready for that. Their problem is not noticing it. I feel that a small blocksize is fundamentally correct regardless. And that we should focus 100% on the ultimate incorruptible scarce asset that will "forever go up". This is the core, much more important than a fast payment system which is easier to do and we have many examples of it. Now, does it mean that the blocksize should stay as is? Not necessarily. As I said, we might need to increase the limit to be able to allow L2s to scale for global adoption. Let's leave the conversation open. But L1 adoption as a store of value is most important.