People like to say that bitcoiners are speculators, gamblers etc. But what is not owning Bitcoin?
It’s betting that fiat money, a system devised by bankers and politicians for their own benefit, it the superior form of money, and that it will win on a free market of currencies.
I’m sure somebody will reply hurr durr, I don’t own fiat, I own stocks, property, things that yield returns, yadda yadda. Well guess what, then you already don’t trust fiat money.
deleted by creator
Lightning is cool as a concept, but it’s limited by base layer itself. Opening a channel requires a bitcoin transaction. Because of that you would need much larger block size. Bitcoin doesn’t want large block size. Almost every time the network forks because of it.
Lightning network had problems with minting non existant coins and due to internal state errors, actually locking up bitcoins forever.
Distributed networks are extremely difficult to implement, and they suffer from the traveling salesman problem. It’s insanely difficult to find the shortest route.
deleted by creator
I’ve looked into what you’re saying. Most of the information online seems to be marketing with no negative sides mentioned. Last time I’ve heavily read and tried to understand the bitcoin crypto was in 2016. Lightning network was only proposed as a solution to the inherit scalability problem all PoW cryptos have back then, and even then being slowed down by bitcoin itself was identified. It was clear that you would have to work with a hub and spokes model in order to more or less solve the routing problem. In the end it starts looking like casual banking and returning to a system that is in concept identical.
The only place where bitcoin is heavily encouraged seems to be El Salvador, and by some PPPeter channel on Youtube it seems it’s not exactly working. People still rather use dollars for convenience.
Bitcoin cash seems also to support my idea that you would need larger block sizes.
deleted by creator