I will not speak for Vlad and I hope he chooses to answer your question, but an educated guess would be he would argue that going towards that solution is the way back to central banks and slavery. That Hal's "scaling solution" here would fundamentally undermine the very zero-to-one innovation that Bitcoin was in the first place: the removal of the need for trust.
I feel like I can steelman this argument fairly well, and it is compelling, but I also think it's kind of black and white.
I have said before that the innovation isn't that we HAVE to use trust minimized solutions, but that we can.
I also think it is also arguable that trust is a valuable thing to be able to have and use when it benefits you. I trust my family members. I trust my church.
But I don't trust Jerome Powell and I don't want to be forced to either.
And there can be compromises. Liquid is a great example. It is a federated membership of signers that makes it very difficult for collusion. But we gained something for the small amount of trust we put in the foundation. We get potential privacy, speed of settlement, and cheapness of transactions.
I am very passionate about this subject and I am hijacking Vlad's note so I'm going to calm down now. LOL.
m0053
npub1qk…x9qas
2025-04-27 16:38:27
in reply to nevent1q…lyl4
Author Public Key
npub1qktjyk0vdqlfss7wztawdnka5phx2p3vlvq50x0z402jk2fjhtnqlx9qasPublished at
2025-04-27 16:38:27Event JSON
{
"id": "5f64cce37f10920c2168a07c5c9dbc0d3eab8af42ad583c0d6a41eb869f83151",
"pubkey": "05972259ec683e9843ce12fae6cedda06e65062cfb014799e2abd52b2932bae6",
"created_at": 1745771907,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"85799399af48e10d1514108f457c232b9769c98ff6b08c5c321a414af0fe6e99",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"9df76fd48547b046078965e5dae33538c623d3620fae3cc06f58bd32878ca740",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"50054d07e2cdf32b1035777bd9cf73992a4ae22f91c14a762efdaa5bf61f4755"
],
[
"p",
"b0fdd7239b2e0993f37c2c230de1d27ce2cf9fc142d43d2b28e4f78a06f0ffd4"
]
],
"content": "I will not speak for Vlad and I hope he chooses to answer your question, but an educated guess would be he would argue that going towards that solution is the way back to central banks and slavery. That Hal's \"scaling solution\" here would fundamentally undermine the very zero-to-one innovation that Bitcoin was in the first place: the removal of the need for trust.\n\nI feel like I can steelman this argument fairly well, and it is compelling, but I also think it's kind of black and white.\n\nI have said before that the innovation isn't that we HAVE to use trust minimized solutions, but that we can.\n\nI also think it is also arguable that trust is a valuable thing to be able to have and use when it benefits you. I trust my family members. I trust my church.\n\nBut I don't trust Jerome Powell and I don't want to be forced to either.\n\nAnd there can be compromises. Liquid is a great example. It is a federated membership of signers that makes it very difficult for collusion. But we gained something for the small amount of trust we put in the foundation. We get potential privacy, speed of settlement, and cheapness of transactions.\n\nI am very passionate about this subject and I am hijacking Vlad's note so I'm going to calm down now. LOL.",
"sig": "635b1241b1e153cf24e5d8c9f9fd9cc522a129dfe2fec30646a21acb3126edf59207400538fe3b54bcc51b65af0336bcb25d41492bdca454a11a6d837607ecc3"
}