Thread

There are those who say Bitcoin doesn't scale, and build blockchains with more throughput at the cost of more centralization (generally in the form of it being way harder to run a node), and then also point to Bitcoin as having low fees as a criticism. The limiter it turns out, 16 years in, is not how many people *can* self-custody bitcoin. It's how many people *want* to. Not everyone wants to deal with the technicalities of their own car, and not everyone wants to handle the technicalities of their own money. Quite few, in fact. It's always a subset for these types of things. People who are hardcore over their area of knowledge. I leave my car details to pros down the street who I know the name of, and handle my money myself. There are those who handle their own cars but leave their money details to others. Bitcoin currently processes about as many transactions per year as Fedwire, which handles $1 quadrillion worth of gross settlement volume per year for the US and for a good chunk of the world (in context, it's approximately 200 million $5 million average-sized transactions). That's actually a crazy stat. Bitcoin is casually this open-source global Fedwire with its own scarce units, and unlike Fedwire anyone can permissionlessly build on it or transact with it, for low fees despite it being a +$2T network. And if it gets clogged there are all sorts of permissionless layers above it with certain trade-offs. Some people say paper bitcoin holders detract from the network. I say the opposite- their willingness to hold IOUs helps add to price stability and network size without clogging it. That leaves more room for cypherpunks to develop with, and work on. And those who finance them. This has been foreseen as early as Hal Finney in 2010, when he wrote about bitcoin banks (). We live in a sweet spot by most metrics. A golden age. Historically, so few recognize it when they have it so good. Bitcoin is big enough to be of interest to many, and yet is still niche enough in a global context to have low base-layer fees. Suitcoiners are happy to add to its scale, and yet cypherpunks can also build, and users can transact right on the base layer, and move to Lightning and Ark and BitVM and Liquid and any sort of trade-off they want if fees get high. And you're bearish, anon? The real battle, though, is the ongoing government crackdown on privacy. Bitcoin itself is in a pretty good technical place. It's a great tool. Certain conservative low-risk covenants might make it better, but even the existing design space is great and still expanding. The US, Europe, and China cracking down on privacy is the threat. The headwind. And they're all expected. They're not surprising, but they're indeed fierce. That's the real battle- for the hearts and minds of people to embrace why privacy and permissionlessness are good traits. In this ongoing funny contrast between podcasters and developers, that's the ideal role of podcasters- to spread the good news of what developers have built. To educate people. To tell them what's now possible thanks to developers. To articulate why cypherpunk values are good to a broad non-technical audience. That's where the overlap is. In overly-simplistic D&D terms, those with high CHA try to spread the work of those with high INT. It's not so much that "governments" are the problem. Governments often at least partially represent the people. If you convince a lot of people that privacy and sound money are good things, then you defang the problem. And you also challenge them legally in jurisdictions where it makes sense. The technical foundation is good. The development of the past 16 years has been amazing, and it has brought us here. The scale has reached institutions, which is expected, not a threat. The actual threat is not treasury companies; it's anti-privacy regulations by governments. And more deeply that's a social issue, given how many people accept it. A vast amount of people believe privacy is only important for bad people who have something to hide. There's a ton of education work to do on it. Privacy is good. It's the default. But most people don't realize it when it comes to money. We're winning. For 16 years ya'll have been amazing. But we'll need another 16 years more. More developers. More podcasters. All of it. We're a $2 trillion in market cap entering into a global fiat network of hundreds of trillions. And as their own institutions melt down from their own failures, their own top-heavy demographics and false promises, they will look for scapegoats. They will look toward those who are winning, and say they are the enemy. When interviewers ask my price predictions, I tend to be conservative. That's mostly a liquidity assessment, and a rotation from OGs to new buyers. Price growth does take time. But under that surface, I also have the benefit of being a general partner at among the largest bitcoin-only venture funds. I see what people are building, and I'm bullish. And for those who are working on stuff that doesn't align with profit, entities like the HRF and OpenSats are doing great work. Across all of the options, people are building great things. I couldn't be more bullish on the ecosystem that's in place. All of you. Let's go. Good evening.

Replies (54)

JEEEZUS... It's a good thing I have blue eyes, a nice smile and muscles. I could never write this well even after the third cup of coffee. Lyn I see you around, everyone knows your famous tagline about trains, but great googley moogley you got me fired up! Thanks for all you do. Hola from πŸ‡²πŸ‡½
🚩 Scaling, Fees, and Custody 1. β€œThe limiter … is not how many people can self-custody bitcoin. It’s how many people want to.” ✘ Misleading: The actual limiter is both technical (running a node, limited throughput, UTXO set growth) and user preference. It’s not just a matter of willpower β€” scaling constraints are real. 2. β€œBitcoin currently processes about as many transactions per year as Fedwire.” ✘ False. β€’ Bitcoin: ~350,000 transactions per day β†’ ~130 million/year. β€’ Fedwire: ~200 million/year. βœ” She’s right they’re in the same order of magnitude, but Fedwire clears $1 quadrillion vs Bitcoin’s ~$12 trillion annual settlement. That’s almost 100Γ— higher per dollar volume, and the average Fedwire tx is ~$5 million vs Bitcoin’s ~$90,000. 3. ”…open-source global Fedwire with low fees despite it being a $2T network.” ✘ Misleading. Bitcoin isn’t equivalent to Fedwire: β€’ Fedwire is final settlement for banks with virtually no reorg risk; Bitcoin is probabilistic settlement. β€’ Bitcoin fees are currently low mainly due to demand not exceeding blockspace, not inherent scalability. βΈ» 🚩 Custodial Layers and β€œPaper Bitcoin” 4. β€œPaper bitcoin holders add to stability and network size without clogging it.” ✘ Misleading/False. β€’ Custodial IOUs don’t strengthen Bitcoin’s security model; they introduce counterparty risk, weaken censorship-resistance, and often end in blowups (Mt. Gox, FTX). β€’ Hal Finney did speculate about Bitcoin banks, but that was not an endorsement that custodial Bitcoin was good for the system. βΈ» 🚩 Market Size and Capitalization 5. ”$2T network.” ✘ Misleading. Bitcoin’s market cap β‰ˆ $2T at times, but the network value β‰  Fedwire settlement throughput. Fedwire moves orders of magnitude more in annual settlement volume than Bitcoin. 6. β€œEntering into a global fiat network of hundreds of trillions.” ✘ Misleading. The β€œ$hundreds of trillions” claim lumps M2 money supply, credit, bonds, and derivatives together. Bitcoin is not directly comparable. βΈ» 🚩 Technical Development 7. β€œThe technical foundation is good … scale has reached institutions.” ✘ Misleading. Institutional adoption of custodial Bitcoin products (ETFs, exchanges, custodians) β‰  scaling of the base layer. The base protocol itself still has the same throughput limits (7 tps theoretical, ~350k/day). 8. β€œLow base-layer fees” as a permanent feature. ✘ Misleading. Fees are only low during periods of low demand. During the Ordinals / BRC-20 craze in 2023, average fees spiked above $30. βΈ» 🚩 Government & Privacy 9. β€œThe real battle is government crackdown on privacy.” βœ” True that privacy crackdowns are real, but ✘ misleading to imply Bitcoin is in a β€œgood technical place” on privacy. β€’ Bitcoin’s base layer offers very weak privacy (pseudonymous, chain-analytic vulnerable). β€’ It’s incorrect to suggest the only issue is regulation; the protocol itself leaks data massively. βΈ» 🚩 Rhetorical Framing 10. β€œWe live in a sweet spot … golden age.” ✘ Subjective, but misleadingly dismisses structural risks: centralization of mining, mempool congestion, reliance on custodians, and fee market sustainability are unresolved. βΈ» βœ… In short: β€’ She overstates Bitcoin’s parity with Fedwire, β€’ confuses market cap with settlement volume, β€’ downplays real scalability and privacy limitations, β€’ misrepresents custodial IOUs as beneficial, β€’ and frames low fees as intrinsic rather than demand-driven.
Paper bitcoiners sacrifice the 21 million hard cap, censorship resistance and price discovery on the alters of adoption. I will never endorse fractional reserve bitcoin. Onboarding people with IOUs reintroduce trusted third parties, weakens censorship resistance, feed the fiat beast, divert demand and suppress the price. I rather promote second layer bitcoin solutions and the bitcoin circular economy. Bitcoin a peer-to-peer electronic cash system for the win
The Bitcoin Cash (BCH) folks are anti-scalability, even though they pretend to be pro-scalability (Apologies for the conspiracy theory here πŸ˜€) Their priority was to block Lightning, hence they refused to put Segwit on their chain as Segwit included fixes that enabled Lightning They blocked Lightning, because they wanted to force transactions on-chain. They know this can't scale, but they don't care because they are miners and they want higher fees. To release the pressure, they propose a bigger block as this would centralise nodes and only (big) miners could run nodes If the BCH folks cared about scalability, they would have enthusiastically embraced Lightning - and all Layer 2 tech - alongside a bigger blocksize.
High INT (Intelligence): Refers to developers, engineers, and technical builders. These are the people who deeply understand the code, protocols, and security of Bitcoin. They’re the ones doing the hard technical work. High CHA (Charisma): Refers to communicators, podcasters, influencers, and educators. They might not be writing code, but they’re good at making complex ideas accessible, spreading them widely, and rallying support. … meaning that podcasters and other communicators help amplify, popularize, and explain the technical work of developers to the broader public. The developers do the building, and the podcasters do the storytelling and evangelizing.
I love the quote, "Privacy is necessary for an open society." I agree the battle for privacy on the timechain is important, and you make many valid points. The main problem with paper bitcoin, however is that it re-introduces the double-spending problem. Since paper bitcoin does not solve the double spending problem, we must work on tools that mitigate the risk. This is why I am excited by protocols like Cashu, Fedimint, and Liquid.