Next scheduled rescrape ... in 4 days
Version 2
Last scraped
Scraped on 26/08/2025, 13:47:25 UTC
I would say that for most, it's the UX friction, especially for those getting used to CEX-based experience, imo.. Other than that, I think it will become better and better as time goes on + the BTC payments made through Lightning is only going to increase..
The L2 UX is often better than L1 UX and the UX of the CEX platforms. No idea what you are talking about.Bitcoin layer 2s are not bitcoin and even the more let's say promoted solutions like the one programmed by Adam Back are flawed in their design.
There's a centralised point of entry and exit for BTC in and out of this system and the issue remains that this ends up being trust based along with all the problems of centralisation.
How independent could a layer 2 remain if the programmers on the payroll for it were arrested and the company developing it disbanded?
We've seen in Coinbase's later 2 as well as in solana chain transactions were halted for extended periods of time until a fix was issued.
These situations are not pleasant and hint to extensive centralisation in these systems.
The most independent form of scaling for BTC is on-chain. Currently with segwit blocks there can be maybe 7 thousand transactions in a block every 10 minutes? Well, surely it's not fast enough to verify a transaction at this pace for everyday needs and also not enough capacity.
Hardware and network infrastructure had improved since this debate was happening last time, so perhaps it's time to start discussing on-chain scaling again.
None of what you said is correct, terrible FUD consisting only of lies. Bitcoin L2s are most commonly Bitcoin, and they work fantastically for what they are designed to do. There is absolutely no centralization of any kind, neither in the entry or exit mechanism nor relating to behavior. It is entirely independent and they can arrest all the companies that are developing Lightning and nothing would change. Don't confuse private L2s or sidechains with public ones. You need basic education. There's a centralised point of entry and exit for BTC in and out of this system and the issue remains that this ends up being trust based along with all the problems of centralisation.
How independent could a layer 2 remain if the programmers on the payroll for it were arrested and the company developing it disbanded?
We've seen in Coinbase's later 2 as well as in solana chain transactions were halted for extended periods of time until a fix was issued.
These situations are not pleasant and hint to extensive centralisation in these systems.
The most independent form of scaling for BTC is on-chain. Currently with segwit blocks there can be maybe 7 thousand transactions in a block every 10 minutes? Well, surely it's not fast enough to verify a transaction at this pace for everyday needs and also not enough capacity.
Hardware and network infrastructure had improved since this debate was happening last time, so perhaps it's time to start discussing on-chain scaling again.
Those are valid arguments but how are we supposed to upscale it on chain?
There are not valid arguments, stop falling for such weak lies. So if my salary is $500 and I can spend the whole $500 instantly, you're asking me to wasting my time to convert the money into BTC and pay $0.5, which left me $499.5 to spend and I also need to spend <$0.1 for every transactions I made?
Mr. Efficiency lost a total of 5 minutes of his valuable time, oh noo. 
Lightning's UX is great. The main problem is merchant adoption and onboarding. If it is difficult to onboard someone to Bitcoin, it will be even more difficult to do so for Lightning as well. Wherever I have seen Lightning accepted, I have always used it for small payments.
Have you started using BTC for small daily transactions via Layer 2? What’s the biggest hurdle: UX friction, merchant adoption, or trust in stability?
Stability is not relevant in this discussion. Whether you have your Bitcoin in a layer 1 or layer 2 wallet, it is equally affected by price changes. Version 1
Scraped on 26/08/2025, 13:22:25 UTC
I would say that for most, it's the UX friction, especially for those getting used to CEX-based experience, imo.. Other than that, I think it will become better and better as time goes on + the BTC payments made through Lightning is only going to increase..
The L2 UX is often better than L1 UX and the UX of the CEX platforms. No idea what you are talking about.Bitcoin layer 2s are not bitcoin and even the more let's say promoted solutions like the one programmed by Adam Back are flawed in their design.
There's a centralised point of entry and exit for BTC in and out of this system and the issue remains that this ends up being trust based along with all the problems of centralisation.
How independent could a layer 2 remain if the programmers on the payroll for it were arrested and the company developing it disbanded?
We've seen in Coinbase's later 2 as well as in solana chain transactions were halted for extended periods of time until a fix was issued.
These situations are not pleasant and hint to extensive centralisation in these systems.
The most independent form of scaling for BTC is on-chain. Currently with segwit blocks there can be maybe 7 thousand transactions in a block every 10 minutes? Well, surely it's not fast enough to verify a transaction at this pace for everyday needs and also not enough capacity.
Hardware and network infrastructure had improved since this debate was happening last time, so perhaps it's time to start discussing on-chain scaling again.
None of what you said is correct, terrible FUD There's a centralised point of entry and exit for BTC in and out of this system and the issue remains that this ends up being trust based along with all the problems of centralisation.
How independent could a layer 2 remain if the programmers on the payroll for it were arrested and the company developing it disbanded?
We've seen in Coinbase's later 2 as well as in solana chain transactions were halted for extended periods of time until a fix was issued.
These situations are not pleasant and hint to extensive centralisation in these systems.
The most independent form of scaling for BTC is on-chain. Currently with segwit blocks there can be maybe 7 thousand transactions in a block every 10 minutes? Well, surely it's not fast enough to verify a transaction at this pace for everyday needs and also not enough capacity.
Hardware and network infrastructure had improved since this debate was happening last time, so perhaps it's time to start discussing on-chain scaling again.
Those are valid arguments but how are we supposed to upscale it on chain?
There are not valid arguments, stop falling for such weak lies. So if my salary is $500 and I can spend the whole $500 instantly, you're asking me to wasting my time to convert the money into BTC and pay $0.5, which left me $499.5 to spend and I also need to spend <$0.1 for every transactions I made?
Mr. Efficiency lost a total of 5 minutes of his valuable time, oh noo. Original archived Re: Are Bitcoin’s Layer 2 Solutions Finally Enabling Everyday Microtransactions?
Scraped on 26/08/2025, 13:17:04 UTC
I would say that for most, it's the UX friction, especially for those getting used to CEX-based experience, imo.. Other than that, I think it will become better and better as time goes on + the BTC payments made through Lightning is only going to increase..
The L2 UX is often better than L1 UX and the UX of the CEX platforms. No idea what you are talking about.Bitcoin layer 2s are not bitcoin and even the more let's say promoted solutions like the one programmed by Adam Back are flawed in their design.
There's a centralised point of entry and exit for BTC in and out of this system and the issue remains that this ends up being trust based along with all the problems of centralisation.
How independent could a layer 2 remain if the programmers on the payroll for it were arrested and the company developing it disbanded?
We've seen in Coinbase's later 2 as well as in solana chain transactions were halted for extended periods of time until a fix was issued.
These situations are not pleasant and hint to extensive centralisation in these systems.
The most independent form of scaling for BTC is on-chain. Currently with segwit blocks there can be maybe 7 thousand transactions in a block every 10 minutes? Well, surely it's not fast enough to verify a transaction at this pace for everyday needs and also not enough capacity.
Hardware and network infrastructure had improved since this debate was happening last time, so perhaps it's time to start discussing on-chain scaling again.
None of what you said is correct, terrible FUD full of lies. Bitcoin L2s are most commonly Bitcoin, and they work fantastic. There is absolutely no centralization of any kind, neither in the entry or exit mechanism nor relating to behavior. It is entirely independent and they can arrest all the companies that are developing Lightning and nothing would change.There's a centralised point of entry and exit for BTC in and out of this system and the issue remains that this ends up being trust based along with all the problems of centralisation.
How independent could a layer 2 remain if the programmers on the payroll for it were arrested and the company developing it disbanded?
We've seen in Coinbase's later 2 as well as in solana chain transactions were halted for extended periods of time until a fix was issued.
These situations are not pleasant and hint to extensive centralisation in these systems.
The most independent form of scaling for BTC is on-chain. Currently with segwit blocks there can be maybe 7 thousand transactions in a block every 10 minutes? Well, surely it's not fast enough to verify a transaction at this pace for everyday needs and also not enough capacity.
Hardware and network infrastructure had improved since this debate was happening last time, so perhaps it's time to start discussing on-chain scaling again.
Those are valid arguments but how are we supposed to upscale it on chain?
There are not valid arguments, stop falling for such weak lies.