OP argues that bitcoin is a better SoV because its easier to use as a medium of exchange.
the foolish part is those that want to remove/inhibit/stall its MoE utility to be just a SoV
That sidesteps his point though, doesn't it? Even if you believe that on-chain scaling is superior to off-chain, we should be able to agree that Bitcoin's properties make a superior medium of exchange to gold.
your turning into a flip flopper
you want to one minute say bitcoin is better than gold at MoE... but then say YOU say
"Bitcoin's decentralized design. Decentralization is inefficient and costly"
i fully understand you prefer centralisation, along with your buddies. that has been obvious for near a year of you and your buddies "dev defense" meanders.
but putting your opinions aside about your admiration for centralisation.
going centralisation(middlemen factories) in general removes desirability of bitcoin. people will start thinking its no better than fiat
locking funds up removes self control
locking funds up removes desire for people to want to be full nodes. which reduces security
locking funds up reduces onchain fees as theres less onchain utility makes miners less profitabl thus reduces security
along with many other things which i could continue listing makes btc less desirable and leads to people wanting to exit and use other coins.
all of which make btc have less value
by removing/stalling/ sidestepping its MoV. by letting people play with promissory unconfirmed tx's on another network and requiring vaulting up coins to even use that other network. is not going to gain value of bitcoin.
Actually, it probably will. The more people that buy coins to lock them in LN channels, the more supply that is removed from the market. That should increase prices.
this opinion of yours has flaws, ill explain.
1. out of all the coins not much are actually on exchanges. so the effect you think is not as much as you think
2. if anything. it wil be people on exchanges who will avoid exiting exchanges and instead lock into a channel with an exchange to be able to arbitrage faster. thus there would actually be more 'balance' on exchanges, because LN will benefit day traders more then it would average joe just buying occassional stuff
I don't think LN is ideal, but neither is Bitcoin's decentralized design. Decentralization is inefficient and costly. It's pretty amazing that LN could leverage Bitcoin's security while sidestepping those costs.
LN doesnt leverage bitcoins security, onc you update yourself with the 2018-2019 concepts and code of LN in regards to factories. the users are not even holding bitcoin. they are holding a 12decimal pegged token.
remember LN is a separate network and bitcoin had to change to fit LN's needs. not the other way round
LN has no blockchain. LN has no community audit. LN requires people to be online, LN requires people to sign on your behalf.
LN has none of the bitcoin ethos/features that secure bitcoin.
its like trying to assume bank notes are the same as gold. think about that in respect of the 18th century.. then play it out 200 years later and see the flaw of bank notes and gold
many coins will have the same feature of using these other network mediums.
so with less bitcoin unique-ness and yet costing more for people to actually transact on the actual bitcoin network. people will not want to store value in bitcoin if it becomes cheaper to exit the other network via other coins.
Altcoins that are cheaper to transact with have been available for many years now. If what you're saying were true, everyone would have exited exchanges with altcoins rather than bitcoins. Yet Bitcoin is still #1, in spite of its expensive costs. Why so?
bitcoins PRICE is higher due to the underlying value held up via mining costs. there is hardly any 'speculative' value ontop due to peoples faith and boost due to desirability.
take people off the network. making it costly to use the bitcoin network and all the other reason will reduce the desire to mine it which will make bitcoin not as popular
again take utility away from the MINING network of a blockchain will cause the underlying support of the mining:market dynamic. which will affect its underlying value.
if you think bitcoin would remain top when other coins can do the same thing but without the restrictions applied to bitcoin. people will move to the coins with less restrictions.
remember bitcoin network is only stalled and costly. not due to some technological limit. but an implied limit by humans(devs)
again to quote you. you said:
"Bitcoin's decentralized design. Decentralization is inefficient and costly"
it is developers that put in the restrictions to make it inefficient and costly
