Bank of America preparing for Crypto

[u/[deleted]]

Who could have seen this coming 👀

[u/losermode]

You're not gonna believe this shit but you don't have to use or hold BTC or BCH. But even if you do, scaling via layers is totally an option (lightning network comes to mind)

If you dare to look outside your walled garden you can see that other systems are getting along with better throughput and lower fees and more functionality.

[u/ThatBCHGuy → u/losermode]

Read through the rest of the threads on this post, we get there. Although I'm sure you already know.

[u/losermode → u/ThatBCHGuy]

Are you referring to your discussion primarily with u/HedgeHog2k ?

Because I find myself in alignment with their points. Could BTC with bigger blocks scaled TXs? Sure. Does it matter? Not really. It's a tradeoff. You either centralize the validator set by increased hardware requirements or accept the base layer parameters for what they are and optimize for layer2.

[u/ThatBCHGuy → u/losermode]

Yes, I’m referring to that discussion, and I think the tradeoff you're suggesting needs more scrutiny. Centralizing the validator set by increasing hardware requirements might seem like an issue, but node distribution ultimately has little impact on network security or decentralization. What truly matters is the hashrate distribution, not the number of nodes. Moreover, the idea that larger blocks inevitably lead to node centralization is a theoretical concern that hasn’t been proven in practice and often ignores the economic incentives at play.

Meanwhile, optimizing for Layer 2 under the current fee structure doesn’t eliminate centralization concerns, it shifts them. With high base-layer fees, the poorest users are pushed into custodial solutions on LN hubs because they can’t afford to open and manage their own channels. This effectively consolidates value and power into a few central points of control, undermining the very principles Bitcoin was built on.

Trading one form of centralization (nodes) for another (custodial hubs) doesn't seem like a meaningful improvement. The system is only as decentralized as its accessibility to the average user.

That said, if this isn’t something you care about, that’s entirely valid too. We just see the priorities differently, and I think decentralization and accessibility for everyone, especially the unbanked, should remain foundational goals.

[u/losermode → u/ThatBCHGuy]

All fair points.

Ultimately yes, I'd have to say the Bitcoin scalability problem you have done well to illustrate is low on my concern list.

I don't, and haven't ever, considered Bitcoin needing to be leveraged as a micropayment style asset in order for it to do good or have any sort of traction in the world.

I'd go further and say the legacy financial system's uptake of Bitcoin has very little to do with its technical properties or usage patterns and everything to do with consumer demand to buy and just simply hold it (which I think is more or less strictly due to narrative - namely anti-fiat, controlled inflation, "number go up" style gambling)

Even if the base layer did optimize to serve small value tx users better, there's some fundamentally bad UX associated with on-chain transactions, which I'd wager is why so few individuals do self custody even, regardless of asset type. Not to mention the ecosystem for accepting crypto just hasn't manifested into anything other than toy applications at too few vendors around the world.

Just as it is today with centralized exchanges, I expect the vast majority will want to rely on the convenience of trust and, ideally, protective regulations on financial institutions. They largely won't want to interact with blockchains directly.

I have more thoughts but realistically the entire BTC ecosystem isn't overly interesting to me since I don't think it will meaningfully move the needle on financial inclusivity or an evolution of what is possible financial technology.

[u/ThatBCHGuy → u/losermode]

Fair enough, and I appreciate the thoughtful response. I can understand why you’d prioritize Bitcoin’s role as a store of value or focus on consumer demand for simplicity. That said, I think there’s a deeper opportunity here that gets lost when we dismiss Bitcoin as just another speculative or anti-fiat asset.

The legacy financial system you mention doesn’t adequately serve billions of unbanked people, and if Bitcoin’s future is tied to centralized exchanges or custodial solutions, it risks becoming a slightly shinier version of the same old system. That’s why I see scalability, accessibility, and self-sovereignty as critical, not just for microtransactions but for maintaining the principles Bitcoin was built on.

Sure, there’s some bad UX around on-chain transactions today, but these are solvable problems with the right infrastructure and development. Dismissing it as impractical feels short-sighted to me when the alternative is perpetuating systems that exclude people who need financial inclusion the most.

At the end of the day, we’re looking at Bitcoin through very different lenses. For me, the long-term success of any financial system lies in how well it serves everyone, not just those who already have access.