pull down to refresh
interesting question, never actually thought about it. I actually disagree slightly on the fee point because, for example, say you have a lightning balance or an Ark vTXO lower than the chain fee. there is an interesting philosophical discussion as to whether you truly "own it" or if you are more like a de facto custodial customer. however, you definitively can still spend it. so are you a bitcoin user? I would say surely you are, and for the exact reason you point out of how many will inevitably be priced out by chain fees, probably a lot of people end up in this position.
and btw I don't bring this up just to ponder a cute technicality but rather because the point you are making is so fundamental, any either future L2 or improvement to an existing L2 surely has to be measured on these terms. no scaling solution can overcome this entirely, so asking how well it can be mitigated is valuable.
there is an interesting philosophical discussion as to whether you truly "own it" or if you are more like a de facto custodial customer.
You can only spend it within that closed network, to use the open network you're a dependent on others, there's no "unilateral exit" possible which is the standard by which fake L2's claim to be non-custodial
So in a purely black and white base chain context, what do you reckon?
IInteresting framing about supply vs users.
It seems like the "minimum viable UTXO" constraint becomes more binding over time as fees rise, effectively pricing out smaller participants at the base layer.
Do you think L2s genuinely solve this by abstracting ownership, or do they just shift the custodial/trust assumptions elsewhere?
At some point, it feels like the system optimizes for capital concentration rather than broad sovereign usage.
You're a math wiz IIRC?
I'd be interested to get your estimate on a realistic upper bound of actual Bitcoin users
Premise:
Because
Would you also conclude that Fake L2's who appeal to the scaling pathos are scamming?
Thanks.