You guys got me wrong. I´m NOT talking about simply increasing the block size, this would not be work in the long therm. If its not the bandwith who limit this, the disc space will do so definitelly earlyer or later. I also didnt want a discussion between big and small blockers here. Its a fundamental problem a lot of people misunderstand and need to be solved in a rational way, ahead of everyones personal financial interests here!



you absolutelly missed my point. You can´t even use the base layer as you can read in my first post! THIS IS SOMETHING NEED TO BE SOLVED! simply to say this has to be limited, is in the worst case a death for bitcoin at a mass adoption!

and again: to solve the problem isn´t simply increasing a blocksize or anything, its a complex dilemma that needs a lot of research!

think logically!
 

Preface:

I've been thinking about this for a few months now (and please correct me if I'm wrong), but Lightning is absolutely bad for Bitcoin in my eyes.

I'm a person who always thinks far into the future, and doesn't like to discard things after 5 years because they turned out to be shit, so I want to raise my concerns here early to maybe spur one or the other not to rest on half-finished, possibly later useless soluions. Because as we know - innovation must not be slowed down by a "possible solution", we definitely have to continue working on a meaningful scaling for BTC.

Why?

First of all, why do we all love Bitcoin? Because it's brilliant, and totally secure!

Now let's think around the corner a bit. What if Bitcoin is really established in the world? And let us not talk about established as a sort of money / payment solution, but "only" as digital gold. Because the first one would be most worse.
 
Bitcoin is currently able to process around 600,000 transactions daily (this is a roughly rounded number. At a TPS average of 7), the actual number is slightly higher. Since I'm from Germany, I'll take this country as a reference with its nearly 80 million inhabitants.

In 2019, there were about 10.65 million children under the age of 14 living in the Federal Republic of Germany, which means I take them out of financial transactions (although they might also like to have a BTC savings account). Remains round 70 million people, If only 50% of them use bitcoin as a "Save Heaven", which is for me more than logical with a mass-adoption this technology definitely deserves, we are at 35 million people in the small country of Germany alone hold their reserves in Bitcoin. (in the rest of the world there are still 7.7 billion people!!).

It would take the equivalent of 58 days for each of those 35 million people to make a transaction with the mainlayer. If only ONE THIRD of the worldwide humans ever wanted to make a transaction with the mainlayer, this would take 4290 days! As an example, a person who pays into his pension every month could only do so every 4290 days! (earliest!)
 
So far to the problem, this is known to us, and why "we" research things like Lightning.

Unfortunately, we now realize that based on the above figures, not even so-called settlement transactions or individual transactions on my Mainnet wallet would be possible, unless I pay fees that are so high that they are no longer in any relation. EVERYTHING that will ever happen on BTC would only happen on the semi-secure second layer which is still in its infancy after 5 years. (Including all of my savings, which I may have set aside for my retirement, would exist for my lifetime only as LBTC, and possibly be managed by a custodial service).

Where is the advantage to the current system? We trade security for speed and scale (what many criticize about the so-called "altcoins" becomes mandatory for BTC).
Yes, there remains the security of the hard cap that protects us against inflation, but is this worth the insecurity of every individual who may have to lock up their life savings in a smart contract for 50 years because they cannot make a mainnet transaction? In such a case, will the main layer even be able to reliably map the values of LN?

How will the onboarding process look like? If a new person wants to buy BTC, they can't even send the BTC from the exchange to their own wallet because the mempool is always on his limit. Should exchanges also trade LBTC only in the future? In the long term, this will completely eliminate the "good" BTC for LBTC.

I believe that solutions have to scale the main layer at least a little more, we cannot sit back until the supposed hope carrier Lightning is "ready".
What would happen if bitcoin adoption comes in 2021? We would not be ready for it. Neither the Mainlayer, nor LN or Liquid would withstand such an amout of people and their needs.

REMEMBER: this is only the case if we have a truly adopted BTC! (Which most Bitcoiners aiming for ASAP.)

Please don´t give all your hopes only to Second layer solutions.

Let the technical discussions begin.