Your episodes keep getting better and better. This is a topic that I wrestle with as a Christ follower and a Bitcoin maxi. You took it much deeper than my personal wrestling had gone. Thank you!
Personally I'm focused on decentralization of nodes. Anything that diminishes node sovereignty is a departure from Bitcoin. This seems to me what core is doing.
When it comes to the importance of Bitcoin becoming a medium of exchange, I generally agree. But I'm skeptical about it's urgency. I think the path to that is first becoming a universally recognized store of value. I don't think we can get to medium of exchange without the majority of people wanting Bitcoin.
But I think it's going to happen on it's own. If enough people want bitcoin, they will naturally be willing to trade for it. The only question is if they'll be able to. If the infrastructure that Bitcoin has will support being able to earn and spend Bitcoin. But necessity is the mother of invention. When we get to the point where people universally want it, that will create incentive for a lot more brains to work on that problem than we have now.
I guess I'm not worried. I think it's required. And I think it's going to happen.
I'm sure there's a gap in my thinking. Would love to hear what it is.
What I wish @Marty Bent had asked in TFTC #620:
"Isn't slower block propagation a feature when there are transactions that contain OP_RETURN > 80 bytes?"
"Doesn't that create a higher cost for including spam in the chain?"
Bitcoin is not crypto. That word was only after there was more than one thing that needed description and people wanted to lump what they thought of as similar things into a category.
When Bitcoin was the only, no one called it crypto. They called it Bitcoin. So when you say crypto, you're really saying "all the Bitcoin wannabes"
Conclusion: Bitcoin is not crypto.
