[smashem]

That's why there's layer 2 solutions like Lightning to scale bitcoin's usability.

And application-level solutions like Cash App.

[simiones]

Lighntning, also known as not-Bitcoin. Lightning does away with Bitcoin's guarantees, unless you close the channel after each transaction, at which point it costs more than sending BTC directly.

And something like CashApp is even worse - it only uses BTC as a way to circumvent banking regulations, and for name recognition. Otherwise, it could just as easily work on top of regular banking, or do away with BTC entirely and simply work with their own centralized ledger.

[RustyRussell]

This first paragraph is simply untrue. You are always holding a valid signature to spend the latest funds.

The additional assumption vs simply holding your own funds is a throughput requirement: that miners not censor your transactions for some (up-front-chosen) period of time.

With normal funds there is a non-censoring requirement, but it's more vague since the miners may have to censor you forever to make your funds useless.

[kinakomochidayo]

Yeah naw. Bitcoin worked just fine without this Bank 2.0 LN crap that can’t even scale.

Ordinals wouldn’t even exist without Segwit.

0-conf worked just fine for immediate transactions.

[this_user]

The best way of scaling bitcoin is by not actually using bitcoin. That should tell you everything you need to know about crypto currencies.

[devnullbrain]

Why not use the 2nd layer with another 1st layer? Because I won't benefit financially.