bro wtf are you even talking about i make open source software

https://x.com/BitcoinErrorLog/status/2030921248750928239/

You’re confusing routing with enforcement. Bitcoin isn’t a packet network, it’s a global arbitration system with finite capacity. Layering only works while users can still enforce their claims on L1 within the required time window. When that becomes too expensive, the system shifts from trustless to trusted. Your probabilistic outcomes assume proof of work is obtained already, but layers create new trust games on top of future blockspace, not PoW. The security model degrades under congestion. Because it doesn't scale, by design. Layers force you to trust your cosigner and compromise your prior PoW assurances. The base layer size still determines how many people can retain real sovereignty. Layers force you to trust your cosigner and compromise your prior PoW assurances.

what does that even mean, are you capable of substantive text?

i have a deadline to share my paper on this in May, til then my advice is, well, actually do the math

I cant speak for others, but no, I am arguing that onchain scale ultimately limits active users to the millions, and if you compress too many in a layer, you quickly get cascading issues interacting directly with onchain blockspace limits. 2-week windows become too expensive to enforce, channels become trusted, etc. It's just admitting that Bitcoin has a size. You can increase blockspace, but you can't gain meaningful scale via layering to even 10 million active users in current conditions. Will users tolerate regular blocksize increases so layers can slowly scale at pretty much the same proportion to onchain? Or will they tolerate their channels requiring regulation due to being trusted? Note, I AM a Lightning provider since the beginning.

All layers introduce counterparty risk via shared msig constructions, and then use some form of onchain enforcement to mitigate betrayals. That's why layers dont actually scale Bitcoin, because their assurances require onchain txns.

Layers are just unconfirmed transactions. They do not provide scale, they provide coordination of trust. You're just arguing for bigger blocks in the end, which is fine, but also requires coordination or trust to pull off, and can only do so much. What you're missing about our work is that being trust-compatible enables actual scale, and having a credible exit from that scale is all you need to commoditize central providers. You're just reciting your script while remaining ignorant of the design.

Sorry, I don't have time to dismantle all of your preconceived personal limits and misconceptions about our work. Your posts are hot air. Just propose something specific instead of nihilizing everything. Trust is society, you must design it into any network.

You're still conflating money, payments, settlement, and credit. This is why your replying with weird hot-air "fallacies" and metaphors. Bitcoin does not need to scale (it could never) for every economic interaction on-chain. Layers, altcoins, stablecoins, etc, already concede that. Bitcoin only needs to be censorship-resistant sovereign money with large-enough proof of work. Lightning "scales" payments by reusing liquidity and delaying final settlement ... thanks to trusted unconfirmed transactions, not amazing protocol design. Atomicity scales further by digitizing trust explicitly, so obligations can be routed, netted, and settled incidentally instead of pretending every meaningful economic act must be immediate final settlement. It's a mutual credit system. It coordinates trust where it exists, not as a last resort. An occasional block increase does not solve for global retail, commerce, or finance. It just moves the bottleneck while increasing centralization pressure on validation and propagation. The real fallacy is thinking Bitcoin failed because finance cannot be made fully trustless. Trust is not a bug in finance, nor for massively scalable payments. It is a requirement. Trust is the subject. The gap is whether trust is explicit, contextual, and user-controlled, or, managed by institutions and platforms. The next step is not pretending the base layer or LN should become Visa. The next step is building open payment and credit systems that preserves Bitcoin as the settlement anchor, to the degree its users require, not a crusade for Bitcoin domination.

Good morning, you should be building on Pubky.

show me what you got

i'm just curious whether you actually know anything at all