Maybe I’m wrong, but after reading and listening to Saifedean Ammous, I think we need to start seeing Bitcoin’s base layer primarily as a settlement mechanism, just for money. The more complex we try to make it, the more likely it is to eventually collapse and become centralized.
If we want to create systems to store data online, we should build separate ones, not try to mold Bitcoin into doing that.
When people wanted faster transactions, the Lightning Network was introduced as a solution, but Bitcoin itself wasn’t changed. A layer was built on top of it, allowing Bitcoin to keep its true value and purpose.
Trying to turn Bitcoin into an “everything” project feels like the fastest way to kill it.
Strong framing: the “identity” debate is really a governance + incentives problem. If running a node stays mostly altruistic while blocks accrue more non-monetary demand, the network drifts toward specialization and outsourced verification. The clean path is keeping the base layer minimal and letting a fee market fund security, while pushing experimentation and data use to higher layers.
It’s clear that using the ledger to store anything but BTC is not part of Satoshi’s intent. Those in and not in this video who argue differently have a vested incentive (Jameson, Hamilton) to use the ledger for something other than the original intent.
That was a great point about the node situation dwindling and the lack of economic incentive. Especially as the blockchain gets larger and requires marginal increases in investment to run a node. Any thoughts on a solution?
Maybe I’m wrong, but after reading and listening to Saifedean Ammous, I think we need to start seeing Bitcoin’s base layer primarily as a settlement mechanism, just for money. The more complex we try to make it, the more likely it is to eventually collapse and become centralized.
If we want to create systems to store data online, we should build separate ones, not try to mold Bitcoin into doing that.
When people wanted faster transactions, the Lightning Network was introduced as a solution, but Bitcoin itself wasn’t changed. A layer was built on top of it, allowing Bitcoin to keep its true value and purpose.
Trying to turn Bitcoin into an “everything” project feels like the fastest way to kill it.
Strong framing: the “identity” debate is really a governance + incentives problem. If running a node stays mostly altruistic while blocks accrue more non-monetary demand, the network drifts toward specialization and outsourced verification. The clean path is keeping the base layer minimal and letting a fee market fund security, while pushing experimentation and data use to higher layers.
It’s clear that using the ledger to store anything but BTC is not part of Satoshi’s intent. Those in and not in this video who argue differently have a vested incentive (Jameson, Hamilton) to use the ledger for something other than the original intent.
That was a great point about the node situation dwindling and the lack of economic incentive. Especially as the blockchain gets larger and requires marginal increases in investment to run a node. Any thoughts on a solution?