> Your prediction for the future that a ledger with the throughput of a 28.8 modem will absorb the world's value is "fact"?
Yes, the base layer network is ideally suited for storing extremely large amounts of wealth, for large amounts of time. No other asset has qualities that come close, they all leak value compared to bitcoin.
Where did you read this and why did you believe it? There is no technical reason this is true of course, for many reasons, including that many of the earliest coins are clones of bitcoin.
Are you copying some talking points or can you explain on a fundamental level why you believe this?
Fundamentally it comes down to perfect scarcity. If you increase supply, the value in your share leaks into the new supply.
As far as clones. Network effect takes care of that. They would have to be substantially better than bitcoin to beat it and that is extremely unlikely to happen as bitcoin is close to perfect.
All the money in the world will end up in bitcoin, even though it has about 4.5 transactions per second and the throughput of a 28.8 modem, because it was made first? How would this make any sort of logistical or technical sense?
You realize that ethereum already surpasses bitcoin in transactions and litecoin and even dogecoin do too right?
Also you still haven't linked where you are getting these ideas. When you believe in predictions of the future with no evidence and no possibility in reality, that's called religion.
Bitcoin refuses to increase their throughput and at the current rate, everyone on earth gets a single transaction every 50 years. What part of this actually makes sense to you?
I realise everything that you say - I learnt that in the first 5% of my journey learning about bitcoin.
First off, the transactions on the main bitcoin network will be the largest transactions in the world.
All the smaller transactions will take place on different bitcoin networks. Lightning is a decentralised example, VISA and Paypal are centralised examples.
You aren't answering my questions, you're just making the same claims over and over without any explanation.
This sounds like you have been soaked in /r/bitcoin propaganda. You realize that subreddit is completely censored so that anyone who goes against the narrative of more throughput or the absurdity of the lightning network gets banned right? Try going there an questioning the common narrative to experiment for yourself then see what happens.
You aren't confronting why anyone would do what you're saying. Why would anyone transfer money onto a network where they have to pay huge amounts of money to move it around? What problem does that solve? It isn't like people can't already move money around much cheaper than a bitcoin transaction.
The lightning network has been promised for over a decade now. No one uses it because you have to make a little cluster of transactions that have no impact on the actual chain until you pay the enormous fees. That's like a little village coming up with their own currency of swapping IOUs with everyone else and not being able to use their money until they pay $12-$37 to convert it something Other people will use. If your IOU is less that the transaction amount, it's frozen. It's an absurd idea that no one wants.
Most of all you aren't confronting why anyone would put themselves through all this when they could either use traditional finance or other cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin is right now useful for and used for only speculation and nothing else. Knowing that why would anyone put their money into unless they were speculating on it?
Yes, the base layer network is ideally suited for storing extremely large amounts of wealth, for large amounts of time. No other asset has qualities that come close, they all leak value compared to bitcoin.