Security or Scalability, do you support Satoshi's choice?

[Sioni]

When Satoshi released Bitcoin, the core priority was security and trustlessness. Every node verifying every transaction was the guarantee that nobody could cheat the system. That’s why Bitcoin is so resilient today, it sacrificed speed for absolute security.

But this choice created the famous dilemma: scalability vs. security. Bitcoin can only process a handful of transactions per second, while Visa handles thousands. Every attempt to scale bigger blocks, sidechains, Lightning, or L2s has sparked great discussion's among bitcoin enthusiast. There has always been diverging opinions, some believe you push too far and you risk weakening decentralization and hence choose to stand with Satoshi while others feel stay too rigid and you limit adoption and disapprove Satoshi's approach.

Some have even said Satoshi knew this tension was inevitable. In fact, Bitcoin’s design may have been less about solving everything at once and more about proving the foundation could never be corrupted. Scalability could always be layered on later.

For me, I think Satoshi was right all along to choose security over speed. I’d rather Bitcoin remain the most secure, incorruptible base layer of money than risk it all trying to compete with Visa’s throughput. The layers can come, the apps can come, but the foundation must stay untouchable. That’s why Bitcoin still stands today.

What do you think, do you support Satoshi's choice or disapprove?

[retaur]

There's not much of a tradeoff, even now when you've got a decent amount to send it makes sense to use the main Bitcoin Blockchain. When you've not got much to send you can use lightning and other chains freely but Bitcoin's still got a decent level of throughput in my opinion even as it is now.

There could one day be a proposal that wins and increases the current block limit from 1MB (4 vMB) but I still think it's doing fine at the moment being that size - and if you don't, there's always lightning with whoever supports it.

[dzungmobile]

Blockchain Trilemma: Decentralization, Scalability, and Security.
Another article on this important Blockchain Trilemma.

If you still want to sacrifice decentralization and security for scalability that provides faster transaction time, you need to read this topic. For safety of your fund as well as irreversible transactions, choose Bitcoin blockchain.

How many Bitcoin confirmations is enough?

There are Bitcoin sidechains but with very cheap transaction fees on Bitcoin blockchain recent months, personally I have no need to use sidechains.
Sidechain Observer - Projects & current state of development.

[₿itcoin]

What do you think, do you support Satoshi's choice or disapprove?

I would 100% support Satoshi's choice, security is more important to me than speed. If the base layer is somehow weakened, everything built on top will become unstable. keep in mind, Bitcoin was built to prevent censorship, attacks, central control, not to beat Visa in TPS from day one.

That said, yeah  we need scalability however it has to be through Lightning, Sidechains, Rollup layers that dont altering the core of Bitcoin but rather inherit the security of Bitcoin. so, long live the foundation, let the apps &  layers fight the speed war, not the base.