@Anarchoeconomy Appreciate the depth, mate. I also usually avoid binary answers relevant. Nuance is important. I have a proposition, which might enhance the work you are already doing. Can I DM you? (I have nothing to sell:)!
@Anarchoeconomy Wow, really appreciate you sharing the thought process and nuance. I totally see how you could use this. Is it the main way you are currently trading the market? or do you have a part of your portfolio which you manage in pure spot?
Sound reasonable, though I can't really judge it. It seems like we won't find out if this approach is viable. Hopefully, with some good agency we will get one of the existing chains to a good destination.
I am genuinely interested in your thoughts about scaling with big blocks. My good friend @bbelev shares a lot of your ideas and I willing to understand them with an open mind.
Regarding the sovereignty vs agency, I also kind of agree. I would add I see sovereignty on different levels:
- Sovereignty over savings & transactions;
- Sovereignty over food supply;
- Sovereignty over water;
- Sovereignty over energy.
Some of these one can secure one his own or as part of a wider group or a bigger community (which is way smaller then the state). So I appreciate your cave analogy but I would add there are many layers and nuances in between :)
I choose to be self-sovereign by running my own node. But I get the lack of interest of the average bitcoin user to run a node. It is his right to delegate verification of his transactions. I would argue it is not a good practive,not a good culture, but it is his right.
Regarding the big block scaling proposition, apart from it hindering many individuals from running nodes, I also find it impractical beyond a certain scale for the goal of one global money. There are just too many transactions (and a growing amount for them to be all on the base layer). Also, I don't want to wait 10 minutes to pay for coffee.