Quote from: MeGold666 on July 02, 2024, 07:00:33 PM

My logic is not flawed, your logic involves a lot of praying and I rather have a scalable chain than chain that lives on prayers.

Then please refute my argumentation convincingly instead of using words like "praying" (in this cas I promise to not continue using words like "enlightened" then ... Grin

)

At least the assumption that the main chain will not lose attractivity in relation to L2s if fees lower is difficult to refute, I think.

Quote from: MeGold666 on July 02, 2024, 07:00:33 PM

People always prefer the cheaper option.
No one except purists (minority) care what it does in the background.

Why is Lightning then not much more popular now, and L-BTC and Rootstock stay in niches? My interpretation is easy: the current on-chain cost is still low enough for people not being forced to use these layer2's. People don't do micropayments on Bitcoin (mainchain) since long ago anyway.

If you think that big blocks and a high tail emission (for example, if we continue with 3.125 BTC per block forever) are the solution, then how do you ensure that the following negative consequences don't occur:

1) full node centralization? (see BSV, Solana ...) (and again, this is NOT because of storage but because of relay/validation costs ...)
2) negligible transaction fees income, making miners totally dependant on the tail emissions?
3) exodus of investors attracted by Bitcoin's deflationary nature?

Problem 3 would lead probably to a hefty dump in price. And problem 1 is crucial in my opinion. If we sacrifice censorship resistance then we don't really need Bitcoin anymore. With a highly centralized network, not only censorship becomes easier but also 99.9999% of the users are forced to use SPV clients, and SPV clients can in some cases be attacked.