Yes @BigStrawbs70 I can see how a solution like this could scale but the problem I have is when you step off the base layer you introduce problems that an on-chain solution like Bitcoin was solving in the first place.

A layer 3 solution like Chaumian Mint reintroduces custodial and trust issues and as a result of this potentially censorship and inflation problems.  Chaumian Mint is custodial. The real Bitcoin sits in a multisig wallet controlled by the Federation members. If a majority of those members collude - or are forced by a government to sign - they can drain the layer 1 vault. The Federation can refuse to let specific people enter or exit the system and along with this problem would come almost inevitable government regulation with KYC rules essentially turning the Community Pool into a bank. And yes it would be hard for users to verify that the Mint hasn't printed more tokens than it has BTC - inflation.

So counterparty risk, centralisation, censorship, ownership, inflation all problems introduced by an off-chain layer 3 solution - this is not a trustless solution. Widespread adoption of a solution is needed for Bitcoin (either a layer or hard fork) to support the increasing block transaction fee that will be necessary to maintain the underlying network security as the block subsidy reduces to zero.

Is the world willing to accept a layer solution of Bitcoin that has compromises? Maybe. Also I think the power of government regulation is underestimated. For example many privacy coins have been pushed off exchanges and in some countries made illegal making the trade of these difficult.

Just as an additional comment a pure base layer on-chain solution like Kaspa has some interesting technological advantages over Bitcoin. It had a similar fair launch protocol like Bitcoin (no pre-mine, no ICO, no VC allocation, equal start), is PoW, open source, no CEO and has a hard cap. It currently produces 10 blocks every second and has sub second confirmations. What it doesn't have is Bitcoins massive global network and it will take something very special to catch Bitcoin at this point.

I don't have a dog in this fight I just find all of this fascinating as the future foundations of the world financial system lie in this technology.

One can keep going further and further down the rabbit hole and I’m not overly sure how useful it is but if you’re putting a chunk of money into an asset, it probably is. The problem I’ve always had is that after a certain level of research it becomes a) too complicated for mortals to understand, and b) an ever-branching, multiplicative task such that you forget which direction/question you started off trying to head in/solve. Instead you now have 11 more branches of inquiry to follow and it’s 02:30 am and you need to have lie down cos you’re feeling unusual.

I have intermittent bouts of trying to keep up to date with the various inter-reactions between L1s L2s and occasional L3s. I gave up on new L0s as I think that race is over. I held some AVAX for a while thinking they might attract institutional (regular finance) money for their subnets, but they didn’t.

my very brief summary is that Base is winning the optimistic L2 war.

Arbitrum is hanging on ok and likely has a better safety track record.

In the zk space Starknet and zk Sync seem to be neck and neck. Starknet is running a BTCFi summer and it will be really interesting to see how that goes. It promises BTC staking with phenomenal security speed and low gas. It is not yet decentralised enough and not infrequent outages indicate the trilemma hasn’t been solved as yet

I should point out ETH is agnostic - it wins whatever L2 is dominant

What I hold:

BTC in a cold wallet and ETFs

ETH in a cold wallet

Staked ETH on Lido

Staked BTC on Starknet.

But my largest holding is on GLV a “pool of pools” (providing liquidity) GMX protocol on Arbitrum. It’s a basket of USDC (50%) and BTC and ETH predominantly. It has consistently provided 20-30% in fees for ~5 years, whilst still allowing upside to the underlying assets. You can download the tokens onto a hot or cold wallet but that doesn’t solve protocol or smart contract risk. So, there is that to think of

It’s done pretty well, and is pretty battle tested.

disclaimer, disclaimer, disclaimer

c

I watched this as well, and I appreciate how clearly he broke down (what he sees as) the issue and explained it.

However, I think his argument is fundamentally flawed. Or, maybe more accurately, he is saying because Bitcoin and Lightning doesn't perfectly to solve all perceived issues with money and banking, entirely trustlessly, for all people on the planet at once, it can't work at all. Umm... what tech solution has ever worked, out of the box, at scale, from day one?

He is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

@BigStrawbs70 has covered it, but if I was to paraphrase:

Bitcoin solves the first, and biggest, problem with fiat currency; The ability for governments to inflate it as they desire.

That is the trust issue. The entire system does not need to be trustless for everyone - I trust visa (with a few thousand dollars only). I'd happily use Bitcoin on my visa card (when the time comes to actually use Bitcoin as currency).

Most of my wealth is in shares, controlled be a central registry, and I trust the government to correctly regulate that (as the incentives align for them to do so).

Now, I know a lot of the world is not as lucky as me - they will want a more trustless layer 2 solution; Lightning may be appropriate for them. While it may not be able to scale to everyone in the world using it, it may well work for a while, in certain jurisdictions that adopt it. If/when the number of users make it unworkable - people will adopt another layer 2 solution.

Each person will choose (most probably without knowing all the details, and based on what works where they are in the world) the solution that works, not perfectly, but well enough, for them.

Lastly, he seems to have a issue with fractional reserve banking - which is not an issue for a currency/platform to solve. As long as people, should they choose, have a way to store their savings in a way that is cannot be lost (i.e on chain) then it is up to them whether they use that - or opt to deposit it into a bank for lending out.

That's funny @Chagsy and I can see from the depth of your response you have made it to 02:30am several times feeling unusual.

Your post is a good reminder to me that this is a complex ecosystem which is really only in the early stages of its technological journey.

I have previously had a little poke around in the zero knowledge space when I was looking at the privacy coin Monero which does allow for trustless interaction and I was amazed to see that this technology has evolved to also allow transaction compression with big efficiency gains as well. Privacy and efficiency. Wow.

Starknet also looks amazing with developers building things that can't exist on Ethereum, like fully on-chain video games and high-frequency trading bots and it has about $500m locked into smart contracts of the network. That's pretty deep pockets which demonstrates trust and liquidity.

The question on my mind is how much of this do you need to understand to currently interact with it because it is complex. Mass adoption needs retail money interacting several layers away. Presently you need to be seriously committed to get your head around this space.

Careful @Shapeshifter.. this is how you get yourself indoctrinated into the cult!

You have to distinguish between Relative Security (miner revenue as a percentage of market cap) and Absolute Security (the total dollar cost to attack). The game is about the latter.

As Bitcoin appreciates, the block subsidy can shrink in BTC terms while simultaneously growing in USD value. Consider the math: a miner earning 3.125 BTC at $90,000 nets roughly $280,000. If the reward eventually drops to 0.1 BTC but the price hits $5M, that miner earns $500,000. The security budget has actually expanded, even though the issuance rate collapsed.

Also, fees don't need to equal the old subsidy; they just need to be high enough to make the physical cost of attack (specifically, acquiring the ASICs and energy) prohibitively expensive. As long as the absolute cost to overwhelm the hashrate exceeds the resources of any hostile actor, the network is secure, regardless of how small the fees are as a percentage of market cap.

While a zero-subsidy future is very distant (over 100 years away), if Bitcoin is still relevant then, it stands to reason it will be far more valuable. History is already on our side here: we’ve seen the block reward drop by over 93% since inception, yet the hashrate has never been higher.

Ha! Well I have been taking a nibble with the recent price falls but not a cult member... yet.

Yeah good points @Strawman but there is a truck load of growth baked into those assumptions. If the price of bitcoin gets to $5m per coin in 2044 then its value has CAGRed at 24% for 19 years. That would be astonishing. And extrapolating from this the price of bitcoin would need to be $100m in 40 years to offset the loss from halving. At some point price growth must slow down at which point halving events become a pay cut for the miners. The security budget will inevitably shrink unless fees take over. But if bitcoin is worth $100m in 40 years then the incentive to attack it, most likely by sovereign disruption is huge. If the miner revenue does not grow prportionally to the market cap then bitcoin becomes a large honey pot with a small lock. The system would be particularly vulnerable during a bitcoin price crash when some miners can't pay their electricty bills and go bankrupt and the hashrate falls. A state actor that wanted to kill bitcoin wouldn't care about losing money on the attack and could exploit this.

The hashrate has fallen since late October in line with the recent bitcoin price falls. I'm not suggesting there is a security risk to bitcoin at the moment but only that network hashrate will be elastic and adapt to the incentives on offer.

Yeah I should have mentioned transaction fees @Shapeshifter. That's really the key.

Long term price projections are a total thumb suck, and I was just using a big number to emphasise the point, but I am assuming it becomes a major, if not the major, global settlement layer.. which, to your point, is certainly, let's call it, bold. But if that's the (very) long term role it plays, 3or4 times the gold market cap isn't unthinkable.

Either way, over the next few decades i don't think it's anything to worry about. And even for the longest of us long term investors that's about as far ahead as you'd need to think.

Definitely fascinating thinking about such things though.

Campbell is embarrassing himself with these risks @Remorhaz. Maybe they held water in 2015, but they have been so thoroughly debunked at this point as to be comical in there assertion.

I wont go into too much detail, people can dig into them if interested, but in short, a 51% attack would require spending (at least) $6 billion and assumes that demand could be met instantly and without massively distorting the market for ASICs. Besides, even if successful, all a 51% attack does is essentially allow the attacker to block new transactions (they can’t steal or forge coins, spend coins they don’t own, rewrite history, change the 21-million cap, or alter the consensus rules) and the second they stop the system goes back to normal. It's just not realistically possible at this stage.

As for quantum, it's not the dunk that people think it is. For one, it pretty much breaks EVERYTHING so its just as much a risk to your current bank balance (which is, in fact, orders of magnitude easier to hack). Moreover, we dont yet possess the technology and best estimates put it at least a decade away. But even if it did appear tomorrow, the network can easily upgrade to a quantum resistant signature scheme (functional solutions have already been developed and nodes would simply upgrade as needed).

People can (and should) verify these assertions. But if you take the time to examine them in good faith I'm confident you'll reach the same conclusion.