Reddit Posts
Mentions
>Why do you keep dancing over my question? If BTC starts producing blocks 10% as large would that be good or bad for Bitcoin? >Bad because it becomes more centralised. And it would need far bigger blocks anyway to compete with Visa. Reducing the blocksize would reduce node requirements and make Bitcoin more decentralized, not more centralized. Centralization is the whole argument against raising the blocksize from 1MB to even 10MB. That somehow $5 in storage requirements per year would kill Bitcoin. The solution sold is we must use off-chain and non-custodial solutions instead and those somehow don't kill Bitcoin. If I am to take that argument as fact, the natural conclusion is of course to decrease the blocksize from 1MB substantially to increase decentralization which is all Bitcoin is good for if we can't use it otherwise. I don't believe Bitcoin needs larger blocks to compete with VISA anyway. Ethereum L2s are able to post ZK proofs with thousands of TX using a few 100kb on-chain. Bitcoin only needs to support on-chain L2s, say by turning on OPCAT, but somehow that is incredibly contentious because so many people only want BTC to be a rock today. >Where did I contradict myself? Providing the base layer remains sancrosanct I don't give a shit. When you said, "We don't need 3 million shitcoins to supposedly improve Bitcoin. They are all cash grabs." in response to me saying the market highly values utility and Bitcoin should have simply enabled utility on-chain from the get go, and not forced it off-chain to be stolen by centralized parties. Saying 'the market is wrong, everything is a shitcoin and *shitcoins* have no value' the entire time as they take trillions away from Bitcoin is fallacious. If BTC was worth $2T more, and the underlying chain remains sancrosanct, everyone is building on and using the same network, would that not improve Bitcoin? You said we don't need utility or cash grabs on Bitcoin because that's not Bitcoin, then you said it doesn't matter that it's happening via Taproot anyway because it's on Bitcoin. Taproot is a decade late now, it's a moot point anyways. >Are you joking now? FTX is the Bitcoin network? FTX is how Bitcoin is scaling today, by design. How are even 1000 people meant to use something with 10TPS otherwise? Over 99.9% of BTC activity happens off-chain in CEXs.. >Source? Meanwhile it's likely several million BTC are lost forever. You want a source that CEXs operate fractional reserve systems? There is no way you've been here since 2013 if you don't understand this by now. Do some basic research into any of the hundreds of CEXs that failed and why. Not your keys, not your crypto. >Fees are currently 30-40 cents. Now you are making shit up. Okay, now calculate what fees need to be when issuance runs too low to pay for security/mining and only a handful of people can use the chain at once. That is the inevitable endgame for Bitcoin. This is literally all I am talking about, even if that's 30 years from now. Then calculate what fees would be, roughly, if 1% of the world wanted to open an LN channel in the same decade. The result shows people will have to use Saylor's non custodial BTC bank or any CEX instead, and the plot is lost, then there was no point. >And yet again you don't explain how altcoins are exempt from all this. I am not talking about altcoins. I don't know why you keep bringing them up. Altcoins are not exempt from this because generally everything that came after Bitcoin was influenced by VCs for their individual profit as part of the core design, while Bitcoin had a decade to run first before that occurred to it. However, like I said, more ETH is on-chain in self custody than BTC and ETH has much higher velocity. ETH is being used as a P2P currency much more, while its blockspace is more valuable. I haven't looked into other coins, but I'd guess there are at least a few other exemptions. In response to this you brought up how ETH doesn't hold value against BTC, which isn't relevant to self custody or utility at all. You're almost suggesting BTC being put into a fractional reserve CEX is what's generating value towards it (and if you know much about Tether's history, that isn't far from the truth) by coming up with such an irrelevant response. I don't see the relevance how this relates to Bitcoin not functioning as outlined in its whitepaper, or how that spells disaster once issuance runs dry because of an A+B design that was given up on halfway through. I honestly don't care if Bcash or Bitcoin123 follows the Bitcoin whitepaper through or not because it's not Bitcoin, the whitepaper isn't what makes something valuable as much as time and place and that can't be repeated after the fact. Altcoins aren't exempt, but no one ever said they were.
I hold a good amount of OPCAT and am very happy with it. They are launching their own Swap, OptimusSwap in a few days!
CRO, RevenueCoin and OPCAT. It's not stupid if it works (?)