i think people who sensationalize a scalabilty problem should reevaluate the facts !
This is nonsense. The only reason you can type such a thing right now is because nobody has been priced out of on-chain transactions yet. As soon as that happens (which is definitely not far away), that's when bitcoin hits a wall due to what I said here:
A settlement layer has to compete with or beat gold as a store of value. Bitcoin cannot accomplish that task so it has to do something else besides being a settlement layer or there is no point!
This is the gorilla in the room. It turns out Roger Ver is wrong because slightly bigger blocks solves nothing. Bitcoin would require a full blown LN capacity or it doesn't really have a value proposition.
There are also alternative scenarios. For me, a possible solution of the scalability problem would be:
- LN for microtransactions - for very low amounts, it seems to offer an acceptable grade of centralization.
- a higher block size than today. I have made a (naive) calculation that 1 TB of blockchain space per year (~20 MB blocks, ~6 per hour like in BTC today) could handle ~325 million transactions per month - could be enough for about 50 to 100 million households if they use LN for microtransactions. That should be achievable in the medium term.
- multiple competing blockchains which are able to inter-operate with a form of atomic cross-chain trading.
This scenario would enable us to use on-chain transactions for all medium sized payments.